Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

01/19/2018 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
*+ HB 15 MARRIAGE & SPOUSES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
*+ HB 216 TRANSFERS FROM DIVIDEND FUND; CRIMES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                        January 19, 2018                                                                                        
                           1:02 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Matt Claman, Chair                                                                                               
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair                                                                                         
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins                                                                                          
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Representative David Eastman                                                                                                    
Representative Chuck Kopp                                                                                                       
Representative Lora Reinbold                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)                                                                                     
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 216                                                                                       
"An  Act  relating to  restitution;  relating  to the  office  of                                                               
victims' rights;  relating to transfers  from the  dividend fund;                                                               
creating   the   restorative   justice   account;   relating   to                                                               
appropriations from the restorative  justice account for services                                                               
for  and  payments  to  crime victims,  operating  costs  of  the                                                               
Violent   Crimes  Compensation   Board,  operation   of  domestic                                                               
violence and sexual assault programs,  mental health services and                                                               
substance  abuse  treatment   for  offenders,  and  incarceration                                                               
costs;  relating  to  delinquent  minors; and  providing  for  an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 15                                                                                                               
"An  Act  relating  to marriage,  adoption,  birth  certificates,                                                               
state  custody  of  a  minor,  divorce,  dissolution,  and  legal                                                               
separation; replacing  the terms 'husband' and  'wife' in certain                                                               
statutes  relating   to  loans,  trusts,  spousal   immunity  and                                                               
confidential  marital  communications,   probate  and  nonprobate                                                               
transfers, life and health  insurance, workers' compensation, and                                                               
property ownership; and making conforming amendments."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 216                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: TRANSFERS FROM DIVIDEND FUND; CRIMES                                                                               
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOPP                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
04/07/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
04/07/17       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/16/18       (H)       SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED                                                                          
01/16/18       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/16/18       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/17/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
01/17/18       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
01/19/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB  15                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: MARRIAGE & SPOUSES                                                                                                 
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
01/18/17       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17                                                                                
01/18/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/18/17       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/19/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
ERIC CORDERO GIORGANA, Staff                                                                                                    
Representative Chuck Kopp                                                                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   During  the hearing of  SSHB 216  offered a                                                             
PowerPoint  presentation  titled  "Establishing  the  Restorative                                                               
Justice  Account and  Prioritizing Help  for Victims  of Crimes,"                                                               
together with a sectional analysis.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER DEAN WILLIAMS                                                                                                      
Alaska Department of Corrections                                                                                                
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SSHB 216, answered                                                                 
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
DOUG WOOLIVER, Deputy Administrative Director                                                                                   
Office of the Administrative Director                                                                                           
Alaska Court System (ACS)                                                                                                       
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SSHB 216, answered                                                                 
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
APRIL WILKERSON, Director                                                                                                       
Administrative Services                                                                                                         
Department of Corrections (DOC)                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SSHB 216, answered                                                                 
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
TAYLOR WINSTON, Director                                                                                                        
Office of Victims' Rights                                                                                                       
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SSHB 216, answered                                                                 
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CARMEN LOWRY, Executive Director                                                                                                
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)                                                                 
Douglas, Alaska                                                                                                                 
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing on SSHB 216, offered                                                                  
support for the legislation.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOE SCHLANGER                                                                                                                   
Wasilla, Alaska                                                                                                                 
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SSHB 216, testified.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
EDWARD MARTIN, JR.                                                                                                              
Cooper Landing, Alaska                                                                                                          
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 216, testified.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
DAVID NESS                                                                                                                      
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SSHB 216, testified.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHARLES McKEE                                                                                                                   
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SSHB 216, testified.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
KATE HUDSON, Director                                                                                                           
Violent Crimes Compensation Board                                                                                               
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SSHB 216, offered                                                                  
support for the legislation.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 15, presented the                                                               
legislation as prime sponsor.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
LINDA BRUCE                                                                                                                     
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 15, answered                                                                    
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
TARA RICH, Legal and Policy Director                                                                                            
American Civil Liberties Union, Alaska (ACLU-Alaska)                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 15, offered                                                                     
support for the legislation as a clean-up bill.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
JAMES SQUIRES                                                                                                                   
Rural Deltana, Alaska                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 15, testified.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MIKE COONS                                                                                                                      
Palmer, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 15, testified in                                                                
opposition to the legislation.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
WILLIAM HARRINGTON                                                                                                              
Spenard, Alaska                                                                                                                 
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 15, testified.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
JOE SCHLANGER                                                                                                                   
Wasilla, Alaska                                                                                                                 
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 15, testified in                                                                
opposition to the legislation.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SARAH VANCE                                                                                                                     
Homer, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 15, testified in                                                                
opposition to the legislation.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
ADAM HIKES                                                                                                                      
Homer, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 15, testified in                                                                
opposition to the legislation.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:02:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MATT  CLAMAN called the House  Judiciary Standing Committee                                                             
meeting to order  at 1:02 p.m.   Representatives Claman, Fansler,                                                               
LeDoux, Eastman, Kopp,  and Reinbold were present at  the call to                                                               
order.  Representative Kreiss-Tomkins  arrived as the meeting was                                                               
in progress.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
          HB 216-TRANSFERS FROM DIVIDEND FUND; CRIMES                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:03:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE  FOR HOUSE BILL  NO. 216, "An Act  relating to                                                               
restitution; relating to the office  of victims' rights; relating                                                               
to  transfers from  the dividend  fund; creating  the restorative                                                               
justice account; relating to  appropriations from the restorative                                                               
justice account for  services for and payments  to crime victims,                                                               
operating  costs  of  the   Violent  Crimes  Compensation  Board,                                                               
operation  of  domestic  violence and  sexual  assault  programs,                                                               
mental  health   services  and  substance  abuse   treatment  for                                                               
offenders,  and  incarceration   costs;  relating  to  delinquent                                                               
minors; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:04:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP   described  SSHB   216  as   "crime  victim                                                               
restoration  legislation,"  and an  effort  to  get back  to  the                                                               
original 1988  legislative intent.   He  explained that  in 1988,                                                               
the State of Alaska recognized  that it was "woefully inadequate"                                                               
in its resources  and its ability to help restore  survivors of a                                                               
crime to  a pre-offense condition.   Subsequently,  the Committee                                                               
Substitute for  House Bill 245  [passed in the  Eighteenth Alaska                                                               
State  Legislature]  established  the Criminal  Fund  within  the                                                               
Permanent Fund Division.   It was decided  that ineligible people                                                               
included:  people convicted  of  a felony  during the  qualifying                                                               
year, convicted  of a felony,  or convicted of a  misdemeanor and                                                               
they had a  prior misdemeanor conviction in  the qualifying year.                                                               
Rather than just  pushing the ineligible dividends  back into the                                                               
overall amount, it was decided that  these funds would be used to                                                               
compensate crime victims, he explained.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP  remarked   that   over   the  years,   the                                                               
legislature  drifted from  this  purpose and  instead added  more                                                               
eligible  recipients  to  receive  money  from  this  fund.    He                                                               
referred to  the chart showing  that victim funds have  fallen to                                                               
approximately  1  percent  of  the   entire  amount,  and  inmate                                                               
healthcare is approaching  99 percent of the entire  amount.  The                                                               
argument, he explained,  is not against any program  the state is                                                               
required by law to fund,  he is simply advocating restoring crime                                                               
victims to the level of the  highest priority and purpose of this                                                               
fund.  In  1994, Alaska amended its Constitution of  the State of                                                               
Alaska to  recognize victims'  rights in  Article 1,  Section 24,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section 24. Rights of Crime Victims                                                                                        
     Crime  victims,  as  defined by  law,  shall  have  the                                                                    
     following rights  as provided by  law: the right  to be                                                                    
     reasonably  protected  from  the  accused  through  the                                                                    
     imposition  of   appropriate  bail  or   conditions  of                                                                    
     release  by the  court; the  right to  confer with  the                                                                    
     prosecution;  the right  to  be  treated with  dignity,                                                                    
     respect,  and   fairness  during  all  phases   of  the                                                                    
     criminal  and juvenile  justice process;  the right  to                                                                    
     timely disposition of the case  following the arrest of                                                                    
     the accused; the right to  obtain information about and                                                                    
     be allowed  to be present  at all criminal  or juvenile                                                                    
     proceedings  where  the accused  has  the  right to  be                                                                    
     present;  the right  to be  allowed to  be heard,  upon                                                                    
     request, at  sentencing, before or after  conviction or                                                                    
     juvenile adjudication, and at  any proceeding where the                                                                    
     accused's  release  from  custody  is  considered;  the                                                                    
     right to  restitution from the  accused; and  the right                                                                    
     to be  informed, upon request, of  the accused's escape                                                                    
     or release  from custody before or  after conviction or                                                                    
     juvenile adjudication.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:06:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP   pointed  out  that  within   that  section                                                               
"restitution" was named  as a fundamental right  of crime victims                                                               
and this bill recognizes that  restitution is one of the greatest                                                               
needs  for   the  restoration  of   survivors  of   crime  today.                                                               
Currently, the  Alaska Court System  (ACS) advised that  there is                                                               
approximately   $121  million   in   outstanding  court   ordered                                                               
restitution.   He  noted  that the  sponsor  statement read  "$80                                                               
million," except the  sponsor just received the update  and it is                                                               
about $120  million.  He pointed  out that a couple  of those are                                                               
large  cases,  but  approximately  90 percent  is  split  between                                                               
private individuals/natural  persons and  businesses.   This bill                                                               
simply looks to  restoring crime victims first  before looking at                                                               
funding inmate healthcare.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:08:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ERIC CORDERO  GIORGANA, Staff, Representative Chuck  Kopp, Alaska                                                               
State  Legislature,  offered  a PowerPoint  presentation  titled,                                                               
"Establishing  the Restorative  Justice Account  and Prioritizing                                                               
Help for  Victims of Crimes."   He  turned to slides  1-2, titled                                                               
"Legislative  Intent"  and  reiterated  that the  intent  of  the                                                               
legislation  is  to  restore  crime   victims  to  a  pre-offense                                                               
condition.  The  Criminal Fund and its mechanism  was created 30-                                                               
years ago,  this legislation does  not involve that  fund because                                                               
the  sponsor  is simply  restating  the  fact that  the  original                                                               
intent  was to  assist victims.   This  legislation is  necessary                                                               
because  Alaska is  in  first  place when  it  comes to  domestic                                                               
violence, sexual assault,  and child abuse.   Recent reports from                                                               
the  Alaska's Council  on Domestic  Violence  and Sexual  Assault                                                               
shows that 59  percent of adult women in  Alaska have experienced                                                               
domestic violence or sexual violence  within their lifetime.  The                                                               
most  recent report  from the  Violent Crimes  Compensation Board                                                               
shows  that  the  majority  of claims  for  compensation  are  as                                                               
follows:   child  abuse, sexual  assault, and  domestic violence.                                                               
According to the chair of  the Violent Crimes Compensation Board,                                                               
most  of the  child abuse  cases  actually involve  some sort  of                                                               
sexual assault.   The Violent Crimes  Compensation Board reported                                                               
that  compensation claims  continue to  increase yearly,  and the                                                               
outstanding balance  of restitution orders is  over $129 million,                                                               
and  of  that  amount,  it  is  estimated  that  $40  million  is                                                               
outstanding  for  natural persons.    He  stressed that  numerous                                                               
people must wait "many, many,  many" years before actually seeing                                                               
any type of assistance.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:10:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIORGANA  turned to slide  3, titled "Criminal Fund  Use Over                                                               
the Years," wherein the slide  depicts FY2008 through FY2016.  He                                                               
said that  "the top line"  is how the fund  has been used  to pay                                                               
for  inmate  healthcare  through the  Department  of  Corrections                                                               
(DOC), and the  green line reflects the amount of  money that has                                                               
gone to assist victims.   For several years, the entities changed                                                               
as  to who  is allowed  to  receive money  and for  what type  of                                                               
services.  Initially, he offered,  the intent was for the Violent                                                               
Crimes  Compensation Board  to assist  people with  compensation.                                                               
Over  the  years,  other  entities were  added  as  follows:  the                                                               
Department of Corrections (DOC)  for treatment - which eventually                                                               
changed from  treatment to costs of  incarceration and probation;                                                               
the  Department of  Public Safety  (DPS); the  Alaska Council  on                                                               
Domestic  Violence and  Sexual Assault;  the  Office of  Victims'                                                               
Rights when the office was  established; and grants to non-profit                                                               
agencies that  help crime  victims which  could be  given through                                                               
any  state agency  and  in  this case,  it  would  be the  Alaska                                                               
Council on Domestic  Violence and Sexual Assault.   He pointed to                                                               
the dramatic  drop after  FY2011, and advised  that in  2010, the                                                               
legislature  decided  it would  use  general  funds to  fund  the                                                               
Office of  Victims' Rights and  the Council on  Domestic Violence                                                               
and Sexual  Assault because the fund  did not allow for  any sort                                                               
of stream  prediction that it could  count on for money.   It was                                                               
decided that because the fund  changes from year-to-year, it made                                                               
more  sense to  use general  funds for  these agencies,  thereby,                                                               
completely  changing   the  emphasis   from  victims   to  inmate                                                               
healthcare.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:12:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GIORGANA turned  to slide  4, title,  "Compensation Claims,"                                                               
and   offered  that   during  the   period  2000   through  2016,                                                               
compensation claims  have steadily been  on the rise,  noting the                                                               
two  big spikes  in 2011-2012  with  the largest  spike in  2015.                                                               
Generally, he said, since the  year 2000 compensation claims have                                                               
been increasing  and the majority  of claims are made  by victims                                                               
who are suffering from child  abuse, sexual assault, and domestic                                                               
violence.   He reiterated that  just those three  categories make                                                               
up  the majority  of the  claims received  by the  Violent Crimes                                                               
Compensation Board.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:13:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIORGANA turned  to slide 5, titled  "Restitution Orders" and                                                               
noted  that  the orders  are  "pretty  much split  half-and-half"                                                               
between  people and  businesses.   He described  that a  business                                                               
could include  a large corporation  or a sole  proprietor working                                                               
from home,  and the State  of Alaska,  "of course," is  also owed                                                               
money.    The  bill  prioritizes  that  natural  persons  receive                                                               
assistance and  it includes  compensation.   The majority  of the                                                               
restitution owed to a natural person  is $1,000 or less, with the                                                               
average restitution  order being  anywhere between $500  to $700.                                                               
Therefore,  he   remarked,  even  a  $100,000   appropriation  to                                                               
restitution  can  help many  people  because  that is  where  the                                                               
majority of folks fall.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:14:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIORGANA turned to slides  6-7, titled "Highlights of Current                                                               
Law/Changes Under HB 216," and  reiterated that the Criminal Fund                                                               
was established  in which [permanent  fund] dividends  that would                                                               
otherwise be paid to ineligible  offenders, could be used to fund                                                               
the   Violent  Crimes   Compensation   Board.     Currently,   he                                                               
reiterated, many entities are allowed  to use some of those funds                                                               
for the purposes previously mentioned.   This legislation creates                                                               
a mechanism in  which the Permanent Fund Division  will set aside                                                               
a  determinant amount  "that  is done  pretty  much every  single                                                               
year.    The  bill  authorizes  the  legislature  to  appropriate                                                               
restitution payments to the agencies  that are allowed to receive                                                               
the payments,  and if  restitution payments  are received  by the                                                               
state  to re-appropriate  that money  into  a new  account.   The                                                               
account  that  SSHB   216  proposes  to  create   is  called  the                                                               
"Restorative Justice  Account, which  is not  a new  bank account                                                               
because  it  is  simply  an account  within  the  Permanent  Fund                                                               
Division  for  its  accounting  and  bookkeeping  purposes.    He                                                               
described  it as  "a basket  to be  able to  hold the  funds that                                                               
would be appropriated."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:16:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIORGANA  advised that  SSHB 216 prioritizes  the use  of the                                                               
funds because  currently there  is a list  of agencies  and uses,                                                               
but no  actual set of  priorities.  Therefore, he  explained, the                                                               
intent  is  to say,  "Victims  come  first," and  allow  directed                                                               
appropriation  to state  agencies and/or  non-profits to  provide                                                               
services  to   victims.     Currently,  the   difference  between                                                               
compensation and  restitution is that compensation  can help with                                                               
immediate assistance, known  as "a bridge in front."   He pointed                                                               
out that restitution  cannot be ordered by the  court until there                                                               
is  an actual  conviction;  therefore,  a lot  of  time can  pass                                                               
between  the   crime  that  was   committed  and   a  conviction.                                                               
Therefore,  compensation  funds   are  essentially  in  assisting                                                               
victims  between the  crime and  the conviction.   All  50 states                                                               
assist  victims with  compensation  of some  sort through  direct                                                               
appropriations  or creating  boards or  agencies.   He reiterated                                                               
that restitution takes  places only after an order  by the court,                                                               
and  in  Alaska  all  victims   who  qualify  for  an  order  are                                                               
automatically  entered to  receive assistance  from the  State of                                                               
Alaska.  The  Department of Law and the Alaska  Court System will                                                               
notify  victims  that  they  have   30-days  to  "opt  out"  from                                                               
receiving  that assistance.    He speculated  that  the reason  a                                                               
victim may  opt-out could  be as follows:  the victims  no longer                                                               
want to deal  with the issue because it was  too traumatizing for                                                               
them; they need  more than 30-days to make  an informed decision;                                                               
or because they  want to hire a private company  to deal with the                                                               
restitution on their own.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:18:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIORGANA  advised that  SSHB 216  extends the  opt-out period                                                               
from 30-days to 90-days and  adds restitution as another venue to                                                               
help victims.   Currently, the funds are only allowed  to be used                                                               
for grants  and compensation.   Although,  he explained,  to some                                                               
degree the funds  are already being used  for restitution because                                                               
"if  compensation  is   given  to  a  victim  at   the  time  the                                                               
restitution  order is  made,  the restitution  order  is for  the                                                               
Violent Crimes Compensation  Board."  Therefore, if  a payment is                                                               
made to the  State of Alaska by the offender,  "that is basically                                                               
what  they  are  doing,"  and   importantly,  he  mentioned,  the                                                               
offenders are not  off the hook as they are  still liable for the                                                               
money  they were  ordered to  pay in  restitution.   He explained                                                               
that  that  is  exactly  what is  done  with  compensation,  "the                                                               
liability shifts  as to who  they owe  the money to"  directly to                                                               
the victim  or in this case  the State of Alaska.   He reiterated                                                               
that HB  216 is "not re-creating  the will, we are  already doing                                                               
this through the Violent Crimes Compensation Board."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:20:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIORGANA  related that the  Office of Victims' Rights  is the                                                               
most obvious  entity to help  victims with restitution,  and this                                                               
legislation  enables  that  office  to  assist  with  restitution                                                               
payments to victims.  He pointed  out that the Office of Victims'                                                               
Rights  is already  authorized  to receive  those  funds for  its                                                               
operating   costs,  "it   just  hasn't   happened  since   2010."                                                               
Therefore,  this bill  allows the  Office of  Victims' Rights  to                                                               
continue  receiving  those  funds,  in  addition  to  creating  a                                                               
mechanism within  its office to  assist victims  with restitution                                                               
payments and  work with  the Alaska  Court System,  the Permanent                                                               
Fund  Division, and  all of  the agencies  assisting victims,  to                                                               
coordinate and be a "one stop  shop" when it comes to restitution                                                               
issues.  He  noted that the Alaska Court System  will continue to                                                               
accept restitution  payments.   He pointed  out that  for several                                                               
years, the Department  of Law (DOL) previously  had a restitution                                                               
collections  section that  was de-funded  during the  last fiscal                                                               
year.  Although,  that collections section did  not receive money                                                               
from  this fund  because it  simply garnished  money and  assets.                                                               
The purpose for  the restitution in the bill is  for those people                                                               
who had already exhausted all  of the different avenues available                                                               
to them and had not received any results.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:22:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIORGANA advised  that he had worked closely with  all of the                                                               
agencies involved, and the Office  of Victims' Rights had advised                                                               
that there are  victims who have been waiting more  than 10 years                                                               
to receive their  restitution which, he pointed  out, is actually                                                               
their  constitutional  right.   He  added  that compensation  and                                                               
restitution  is offered  by all  50  states, but  every state  is                                                               
different and challenged  to help victims and  some states create                                                               
a collections  agency, some states direct  appropriations to help                                                               
victims, and some states add  fines to traffic violations to help                                                               
victims, there is  not just one solution to fix  this issue.  The                                                               
intent  of HB  216 is  that "victims  come first,"  together with                                                               
restoration of the  original legislative intent of  the 1988 law,                                                               
he reiterated.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:23:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GIORGANA referred  to the  handout in  the committee  packet                                                               
that  was not  included in  the  slideshow and  advised that  the                                                               
handout depicts  not just the  amount of  money that has  gone to                                                               
crime victims  versus inmate  healthcare, but  it also  shows the                                                               
percentages.  The  most recent data showed  that approximately 94                                                               
percent  of the  fund went  into  inmate healthcare,  and a  tiny                                                               
portion was used to assist victims, he said.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:25:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIORGANA  advised that  the originally filed  HB 216  did not                                                               
include a  hearing, and this  presentation had been  exclusive to                                                               
the Sponsor Substitute for HB  216.  Mr. Giorgana then paraphrase                                                               
the sectional analysis as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Section 1 - AS 12.55.045(m)                                                                                                
     Section 1 establishes that the  Alaska Court System can                                                                    
     accept  restitution  payments  or  prepayments  at  any                                                                    
     time. Language  that is explicitly stated  in Section 2                                                                    
     regarding the Alaska Department of Law is removed.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Section 2 - AS 12.55.051(f)                                                                                                
     Section 2  includes the process  that the  Alaska Court                                                                    
     System will use to  share information about restitution                                                                    
     orders  with  other  state   agencies.  It  amends  the                                                                    
     current statute to allow the  Office of Victims' Rights                                                                    
     to receive and share  information with the Alaska Court                                                                    
     System  consistent with  all the  rules  of privacy  as                                                                    
     required by law.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This section  also amends the  notification requirement                                                                    
     for victims by the Alaska  Department of Law to include                                                                    
     information on receiving assistance  from the Office of                                                                    
     Victims'  Rights and  information on  how to  apply for                                                                    
     that assistance.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:26:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIORGANA pointed out that the legislation does not create a                                                                 
dedicated fund or appropriation, it simply creates priority as                                                                  
its intent.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section 3 - AS 12.55.051(g)                                                                                                
     Section 3  requires a notification from  the Department                                                                    
     of Law to victims about  their right to assistance with                                                                    
     collecting  restitution  payments  and  it  amends  the                                                                    
     period  from   30  to  90   days,  from  the   time  of                                                                    
     notification, for  a victim  to opt-out  from receiving                                                                    
     automatic  assistance. This  section allows  victims to                                                                    
     stop receiving assistance at any time in the future.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Section 4 - AS 24.65                                                                                                       
     Section  4 enables  the Office  of  Victims' Rights  to                                                                    
     assist  victims with  restitution payments,  subject to                                                                    
     appropriation,  from  the Restorative  Justice  Account                                                                    
     based   on   priority:   a  natural   person,   private                                                                    
     businesses, and state and local governments.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     It  authorizes   the  Office  of  Victims'   Rights  to                                                                    
     establish  a  process  to assist  victims  through  the                                                                    
     Restorative  Justice Account  and  caps  the amount  of                                                                    
     funds that a victim can receive.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Section 5 - AS 43.23.028                                                                                                   
     Section 5  delineates the duties  of the  Department of                                                                    
     Revenue  to administrate  the  permanent fund  dividend                                                                    
     payments,  regulations,  timelines, and  deadlines  and                                                                    
     allows cooperation  with other  state agencies  and law                                                                    
     enforcement. It  requires the department to  pay annual                                                                    
     dividends   from   the   dividend  fund   to   eligible                                                                    
     recipients.  The  Department  of  Corrections  and  the                                                                    
     Department   of   Public   Safety  will   provide   the                                                                    
     Department  of  Revenue  with  a  list  of  individuals                                                                    
     ineligible for a dividend to  transfer these funds into                                                                    
     the Restorative Justice Account.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This  section  clarifies  the  legislative  intent  and                                                                    
     lists  which entities  can receive  appropriations from                                                                    
     the  Restorative  Justice  Account. It  also  clarifies                                                                    
     language about public disclosures.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Section 6 - AS 43.23.048                                                                                                   
     Section 6  establishes the Restorative  Justice Account                                                                    
     as a  separate account in  the dividend fund.  It tasks                                                                    
     the  Commissioner  of  Revenue to  transfer  an  amount                                                                    
     equal   to  the   yearly  calculation   of  individuals                                                                    
     ineligible to  receive a  permanent fund  dividend made                                                                    
     by the  Commissioner of  the Department  of Corrections                                                                    
     and the Commissioner of Public Safety.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     This section  allows the legislature to  prioritize use                                                                    
     of the  funds through  appropriations with  services to                                                                    
     victims as the highest priority.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The section further clarifies  that a defendant ordered                                                                    
     to  pay  restitution  is   still  liable  for  payments                                                                    
     regardless of  whether a victim receives  help from the                                                                    
     Restorative  Justice   Account.  The   Legislature  may                                                                    
     appropriate   restitution   payments  back   into   the                                                                    
     Restorative Justice Account.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     The section clarifies  that the bill does  not create a                                                                    
     dedicated fund.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Section 7 - AS 43.23.055                                                                                                   
     Section  7  defines  the  process  and  duties  of  the                                                                    
     Department  of   Revenue  regarding   the  calculation,                                                                    
     eligibility,   and  distribution   of  permanent   fund                                                                    
     dividends. The  bill adds  language for  the department                                                                    
     to establish regulations pertaining to the Restorative                                                                     
     Justice Account created in Section 6.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section 8 - AS 47.12.160(f)                                                                                                
     Section  8  authorizes  the  Court  System  to  receive                                                                    
     payments  and pre-payments  from a  minor or  a minor's                                                                    
     parent  at any  time.  This  section removes  redundant                                                                    
     language.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section 9 - AS 47.12.170(c)                                                                                                
     Section  9  authorizes  the   Alaska  Court  System  to                                                                    
     forward copies  of restitution orders to  the Office of                                                                    
     Victims' Rights and the Department  of Health of Social                                                                    
     Services.  It  instructs  the   DHSS  to  inform  crime                                                                    
     victims that they may qualify  for services through the                                                                    
     Office of Victims' Rights.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section  9 also  requires  that information  considered                                                                    
     confidential by law, remains confidential.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section 10 47.12.170(d)                                                                                                    
     Section  10 clarifies  that the  opt-out  period for  a                                                                    
     victim is extended  from 30 to 90 days from  the day of                                                                    
     notification  and instructs  the  Department of  Health                                                                    
     and Social  Services to notify victims  of their rights                                                                    
     to assistance.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Section 11                                                                                                                 
     Section 11 establishes an effective date.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:31:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIORGANA  summarized SSHB  216, as  follows: it  restores the                                                               
legislative intent  of the Criminal  Fund established  years ago;                                                               
it adds  restitution as an allowed  use of the funds  through the                                                               
Office of  Victims' Rights;  it expands  the opt-out  period from                                                               
30-days to  90-days for victims to  receive automatic assistance;                                                               
and it  continues to support  costs of  incarceration, probation,                                                               
and treatment.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:31:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to  adopt Sponsor Statement for SSHB                                                               
216,  Version  30-LS0572\T,  Martin,  11/16/17,  as  the  working                                                               
document.   There  being no  objection, SSHB  216 was  before the                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:32:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[CHAIR   CLAMAN  and   Representative   Reinbold  discussed   the                                                               
committee's procedures.]                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:33:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  commented that it is  outlandish that 94                                                               
percent  of the  restitution goes  toward inmate  healthcare when                                                               
the  money that  was supposed  to  go to  restitution is  instead                                                               
going to  inmate healthcare.   While  she understands,  she said,                                                               
that this is a "feel good bill" ...                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  reminded Representative Reinbold that  this was the                                                               
time for questions and not for comments.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:34:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  related her belief  that one of  the sales                                                               
pitches  on Medicaid  expansion was  that it  would cover  inmate                                                               
healthcare,  and she  asked  why  any money  would  go to  inmate                                                               
healthcare.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GIORGANA reiterated  that the  number of  allowable entities                                                               
has expanded  over the years,  and the Department  of Corrections                                                               
was added  to that list in  order to utilize some  of those funds                                                               
for treatment of  offenders.  Eventually, he  noted, that changed                                                               
to  include   reimbursement  for   costs  of   incarceration  and                                                               
probation, which  then began to include  inmate healthcare costs.                                                               
He noted  that everyone  is aware that  the healthcare  costs for                                                               
inmates   has    continued   to   increase    dramatically,   but                                                               
Representative  LeDoux  is  correct in  that  Medicaid  expansion                                                               
resulted in  a small decrease  in costs.   He referred  to Senate                                                               
Bill  74  [passed in  the  Twenty-Ninth  Alaska Legislature]  and                                                               
advised  that it  allowed  for  telemedicine to  be  used by  the                                                               
Department of Corrections (DOC) and  acknowledged that he was not                                                               
aware  of its  status, but  it was  estimated to  reduce some  of                                                               
those costs.   He  deferred to Commissioner  Dean Williams  as to                                                               
why this fund was used for most inmate healthcare.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:36:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER  DEAN WILLIAMS,  Alaska  Department of  Corrections,                                                               
remarked  that  he  was  not prepared  to  offer  specifics,  but                                                               
Medicaid expansion definitely decreased  costs for the Department                                                               
of Corrections  (DOC).   For example, he  advised, an  inmate who                                                               
stays  longer  than 24-hours  in  a  hospital  due to  a  serious                                                               
injury,  a  serious accident,  or  a  serious medical  condition,                                                               
qualifies for Medicaid  payments for which the DOC  no longer had                                                               
to  pay.    He  acknowledged  that  there  not  a  lot  of  those                                                               
particular  type of  cases, but  when they  happen they  are very                                                               
expensive.  The DOC's medical  director tracks how much money had                                                               
been saved  since Medicaid  expansion.   Although, and  without a                                                               
doubt, he remarked,  it has definitely saved the  State of Alaska                                                               
money.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:37:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  asked why  the state  would pay  any money                                                               
into  inmate  healthcare  costs   when  the  state  has  Medicaid                                                               
expansion.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS explained that  there are costs not covered                                                               
by Medicaid and  the DOC is responsible for the  care and custody                                                               
of inmates, which  includes Alaska's expensive medical  care.  He                                                               
said that  while he  understands the question,  the DOC  is still                                                               
responsible for an  inmate's medical care that is  not covered by                                                               
Medicaid.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:38:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what would not be ...                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN interjected  a scenario  wherein a  prisoner had  a                                                               
cold and  was housed in  the Anchorage Correctional  Center, that                                                               
type  of care  is  not covered  by Medicaid.    Although, if  the                                                               
inmate was  being treated in  a hospital  due to the  severity of                                                               
their injuries, that is when Medicaid starts paying.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER  WILLIAMS clarified  that  those [Medicaid  payments                                                               
begin]  after 24-hours  [of being  admitted to  a hospital].   He                                                               
pointed out  that many prisoners  enter prison with a  whole host                                                               
of medical  issues of which the  DOC is responsible.   He advised                                                               
that  the DOC  runs  "mini-clinics" in  most  of its  facilities,                                                               
which includes: medical  providers, doctors, nurse practitioners,                                                               
physician  assistants,  and  nurses.   The  DOC  has  infirmities                                                               
wherein its  only job  is to care  for those  people incarcerated                                                               
into  its prison  system that  have  serious medical  conditions.                                                               
That care,  he offered,  is a  whole driving  piece in  the DOC's                                                               
costs as  a department because  it is  obligated to care  for its                                                               
inmates, he advised.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:39:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  whether   these  people  would  be                                                               
covered by  Medicaid if they were  not in prison and  simply went                                                               
to a clinic.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER  WILLIAMS  noted   that  Representative  LeDoux  was                                                               
moving outside of his expertise  quickly, but that certain people                                                               
qualify  for Medicaid,  and there  are "all  kinds of  conditions                                                               
about  what they  apply for."    He acknowledged  that there  are                                                               
people walking around on the street who are Medicaid eligible.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX interjected  that if  those people  needed                                                               
antibiotics,  their  antibiotics  would   be  paid  by  Medicaid.                                                               
Therefore,  why would  the antibiotics  not be  paid by  Medicaid                                                               
when given to an incarcerated inmate.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER  WILLIAMS explained  that Medicaid  eligibility does                                                               
not  qualify for  those people  sitting inside  the prisons,  "it                                                               
just doesn't ...  but that is just the fact  of the regulations."                                                               
Beyond that  statement, he advised that  he would not be  able to                                                               
help Representative LeDoux.  He  then reiterated that unless very                                                               
specific  exceptions  apply,  the  DOC  is  responsible  for  all                                                               
medical costs for  all inmates living within  the prison's walls.                                                               
The  exceptions  to  being  Medicaid  eligible  are  as  follows:                                                               
admitted to a  hospital beyond 24-hours or living  in other half-                                                               
way house living places.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:41:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   asked  whether  that  was   per  federal                                                               
regulations.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS  opined that  those are  not rules  the DOC                                                               
sets, Medicaid sets those rules.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the  DOC has a fiscal note on                                                               
SSHB 216.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS  opined that Office of  Management & Budget                                                               
(OMB) prepared the fiscal note on this piece of legislation.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN advised  Representative LeDoux  that the  committee                                                               
had  just received  the fiscal  note and;  therefore, it  was not                                                               
included in the committee packets.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:42:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER asked  for  clarification  that when  the                                                               
discussion  is about  victims, the  bill  does not  differentiate                                                               
between human victims, corporate victims, or state victims.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIORGANA  advised that, by  definition a crime victim  is any                                                               
of those  entities.  He  referred to SSHB 216,  [AS 24.65.105(b),                                                               
page 3, lines 7-12], and advised  that that provision is the only                                                               
place a  natural person,  a business, or  a government  entity is                                                               
mentioned.  He  added that AS 24.65.105(b) deals  with the Office                                                               
of  Victims'   Rights'  (OVR)  ability   to  assist   victims  by                                                               
prioritizing  who  it   will  help  first,  "when   they  do  the                                                               
regulations and  when they establish  a process."   The sponsor's                                                               
office  found  that  in  other  states,  the  individual  persons                                                               
receive assistance  first and before  a business  or governments.                                                               
But, otherwise,  he reiterated,  a crime victim  is any  of those                                                               
entities  and the  bill does  not change  that definition  in any                                                               
manner.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  added   that  Sec.  4  of   SSHB  216,  [AS                                                               
24.65.105(b),  page  3,  lines  7-12)  states  the  priority  for                                                               
natural  persons,   private  businesses,  and  state   and  local                                                               
governments.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:43:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER  described that  when looking at  what the                                                               
state has  collected as a  whole/total, it  is all over  the map.                                                               
He  noted  that  $23  million  was  collected  in  FY2016,  which                                                               
appeared to be  the highest amount the state  ever collected, and                                                               
that in  the prior  year, the  state collected  $11 million.   He                                                               
asked  whether it  was "random  dumb luck"  depending on  who the                                                               
criminal was  and whether  they could afford  to pay,  or whether                                                               
there were systemic issues, such  that the state was understaffed                                                               
on  the collection  piece, or  that  there is  now a  streamlined                                                               
collection system.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GIORGANA responded  that  the Department  of  Law (DOL)  had                                                               
advised  that  as funds  were  being  limited in  it  collections                                                               
section, it  was unable  to collect more  money than  in previous                                                               
years.  He  reiterated that the collections  section was defunded                                                               
last  year, and  the  Alaska Court  System took  on  the role  of                                                               
accepting  payments   and  assisting   victims.     Although,  he                                                               
commented, it was  not a fully funded service and  over the years                                                               
the only  type of restitution  the section collected for  was the                                                               
actual garnishment  of assets or  a lien for certain  monies, and                                                               
not anything  from the fund or  other sources.  He  then deferred                                                               
to  Doug Wooliver,  Alaska Court  System, to  respond to  whether                                                               
there  was a  systemic  reason for  the  variation in  collection                                                               
amounts.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:46:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DOUG  WOOLIVER, Deputy  Administrative  Director,  Office of  the                                                               
Administrative Director, Alaska Court  System (ACS), advised that                                                               
the Alaska  Court System (ACS) does  not take a position  on SSHB                                                               
21,  commenting  that he  did  not  believe  the ACS  would  have                                                               
difficulty working with  this bill.  He related that  he does not                                                               
know why  those collection figures  sometimes vary  from year-to-                                                               
year, but  he suspected that  part of that  issue is the  size of                                                               
the permanent fund  dividend which is one of the  main sources of                                                               
collection revenue  for restitution.  Perhaps,  he speculated, it                                                               
was  the "luck  of  the draw,"  in that  almost  one-half of  the                                                               
restitution payments are voluntary payments.   He advised that he                                                               
was  not aware  of a  systemic reason  to explain  the variations                                                               
from year-to-year.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:47:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   FANSLER  asked   whether  the   amount  of   the                                                               
restitution was  random, depending  upon whatever  convictions or                                                               
guilty pleas  the judges decided.   Or, he asked,  whether Alaska                                                               
is  seeing a  correlation with  the state's  lack of  funding for                                                               
"things where  we've seen a lot  of cases going down,  the number                                                               
of  cases you  can prosecute  go down,"  and whether  there is  a                                                               
correlation  in  those  numbers   with  the  restitution  amounts                                                               
ordered.  After reviewing the  committee packet, he noted that it                                                               
also appears to be all over the place, up and down.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS answered  that he had not looked  at all of                                                               
the  numbers  to  determine  whether   there  was  some  sort  of                                                               
correlation  between  the number  of  crimes  prosecuted and  the                                                               
total   amount  of   restitution  ordered   in  judgments.     He                                                               
acknowledged  that  it varies  a  lot  from year-to-year  and  he                                                               
referred to  the "notes to  a lot of  these," and that  the award                                                               
for $17 million skews the  entire statistical system.  He pointed                                                               
out that one  single individual certainly can  create an enormous                                                               
amount  of damage  in that  the  restitution awards  could go  up                                                               
significantly in one year.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:48:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER asked  the  bill sponsor  whether he  had                                                               
reviewed any  of the  other states'  methodologies that  may have                                                               
more efficient collection rates on restoration.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP answered  that, for  instance, the  State of                                                             
Vermont adds  restoration to its traffic  sur charge/criminal sur                                                               
charge.   Currently, in Alaska the  charge is: $100 on  a felony;                                                               
$50 on a  misdemeanor; and $10-$50 on a traffic  ticket and those                                                               
funds go toward the Alaska  Police Standards Council for training                                                               
and possibly other purposes.   Some states simply keep ratcheting                                                               
up that sur charge and then  fund different things from that.  He                                                               
related  that Alaska  is  similar  to other  states  by having  a                                                               
special fund  in place  wherein the states  actually make  a two-                                                               
fold  method for  restoring victims.   For  example, he  offered,                                                               
through compensation, which  is an immediate "bridge  in fund" to                                                               
get people immediately  back on their feet, and  for those people                                                               
who  may  have been  waiting  for  years  for restitution.    For                                                               
instance, he  explained, a  DUI victim had  waited 7-8  years for                                                               
restitution for their serious injuries,  except the offender fled                                                               
the state and the victim was  never compensated.  In working with                                                               
the DOL collections  section there was finally a way  to get some                                                               
funds  to that  victim.   This  bill makes  it  possible to  help                                                               
people with  long outstanding restitution issues  and immediately                                                               
bridge  the   compensation  funds  through  the   Violent  Crimes                                                               
Compensation Board.  Commonly, he  advised, states operate in the                                                               
same manner similar to Alaska, via  a sur charge or through other                                                               
direct legislative appropriations.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Commission Williams  to provide a written memo                                                               
describing  when Medicaid  pays and  when  the state  is "on  the                                                               
hook."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:51:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   REINBOLD  asked   whether,  under   Commissioner                                                               
Williams' direction in  2016, 94 percent of  the restitution fund                                                               
went to inmate healthcare.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS  clarified that "none  of this is  under my                                                               
direction," and  opined that  this is  statutorily mandated.   He                                                               
further clarified that  the DOC has no involvement  in the manner                                                               
in which this  money is divided because he has  no control of the                                                               
money that goes into that fund or how it is prioritized.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:52:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD asked  for clarification  as to  whether                                                               
Commissioner  Williams said  that the  statute read  "restitution                                                               
has to go to the criminals' healthcare."                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS clarified that  it is prioritized under the                                                               
current  statutory  scheme  regarding  levels  of  priority,  how                                                               
decisions  are made,  and how  this  money is  allocated to  this                                                               
particular fund that "ends up  paying for inmate healthcare."  He                                                               
related  that  if  he  was   incorrect,  he  would  appreciate  a                                                               
correction.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GIORGANA  clarified  that   the  current  statute  does  not                                                               
prioritize, it  is within the  budgeting process which  is within                                                               
the governor's  budget and the legislature's  budget to determine                                                               
how much money  goes to which of the entities  allowed to receive                                                               
those funds.   In response  to a previous question,  he explained                                                               
that  "in   2016,  from  the   total  fund,  the   Department  of                                                               
Corrections  (DOC) was  appropriated  from  the legislative  body                                                               
$22,340,000,  and  the  Violent  Crimes  Compensation  Board  was                                                               
appropriated $1,510,000."   He pointed  out that the  only source                                                               
of  state money  the Violent  Crimes Compensation  Board received                                                               
from the  state was from this  fund and it also  receives federal                                                               
grants, but "it  is mainly from this fund."   Therefore, there is                                                               
no priority,  it simply  became a  priority during  the budgeting                                                               
process, he explained.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP, in  response  to Representative  Reinbold's                                                               
question, answered  that there  is a  lack of  prioritization and                                                               
this  bill restores  victims to  a pre-offense  condition as  the                                                               
highest  priority.     Currently,  he  offered,   the  Office  of                                                               
Management and Budget (OMB) would  review the healthcare needs of                                                               
the corrections  system.   He offered that  it would  say, "Well,                                                               
this is an authorized purpose so  we'll, you know, we're going to                                                               
put 94 percent of this fund  to inmate healthcare."  This process                                                               
is  at  an  administrative  level,  and  this  legislation  would                                                               
statutorily prioritize,  and require  that these  provisions must                                                               
be reviewed first, he reiterated.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:54:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   REINBOLD   asked    who   prioritized   criminal                                                               
healthcare over restitution for victims.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP further  explained  the  budget process  and                                                               
advised  that when  the departments  put their  budgets together,                                                               
the budget  goes through OMB  wherein the determination  is made,                                                               
and  the state  has this  Criminal  Fund which  is an  authorized                                                               
purpose.    The budget  would  then  go  to the  legislature  for                                                               
approval.    Therefore,  between  what   is  coming  out  of  the                                                               
governor's  budget  and  what is  before  the  legislative  body,                                                               
"these amounts are approved.  He  noted that some of it, possibly                                                               
not directly with the full  understanding of the legislature, "We                                                               
may  look at  more total  numbers than  how it  breaks down  than                                                               
we're seeing here."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   REINBOLD  commented   that   victims  see   that                                                               
restitution is  paid toward criminals'  healthcare and it  is not                                                               
paid to  the people who  were brutalized, and these  victims will                                                               
have trouble  with that.   She opined  that the DOC  received $22                                                               
million and  asked, who in  the DOC prioritizes that  $22 million                                                               
because  victims'  needs  must  be  prioritized  including  their                                                               
healthcare  needs.    She   related  that  Commissioner  Williams                                                               
advised the committee today that there  was a cost savings to the                                                               
state,  and  yet,  he  had previously  advised  that  costs  were                                                               
shifting to the Department of  Health and Social Services (DHSS).                                                               
She asked  whether there was  a cost  savings and if  so, roughly                                                               
how  much  of  a  savings  because the  Medicaid  budget  is  now                                                               
approximately  $3.3 billion,  "so where  is there  actually state                                                               
savings when our budget is approaching $11 billion right now?"                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER  WILLIAMS  remarked that  he  could  not recall  the                                                               
context of what  he had previously said, and he  would have to go                                                               
back and listen to his  testimony.  Although, he stated, Medicaid                                                               
expansion has helped  the DOC "absolutely save money  in terms of                                                               
shifting"  because  Medicaid  is  now  covering  certain  medical                                                               
expenses the state  would otherwise have had to  pay had Medicaid                                                               
expansion not been in play.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:57:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD surmised  that it  saves the  DOC money,                                                               
but  it is  cost  shifting  to Department  of  Health and  Social                                                               
Services (DHSS), and possibly to  the federal government.  All of                                                               
which is  taxpayer money, so she  could not see the  cost savings                                                               
in the big picture.   She asked whether Commissioner Williams had                                                               
an  idea as  to the  total amount  of restitution  that has  been                                                               
collected from the offenders.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER  WILLIAMS  responded that  he  was  not prepared  to                                                               
answer that question right now in any sort of detail.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN ruled  that the Department of  Corrections (DOC) can                                                               
answer questions  as to how  much money  is ordered and  how much                                                               
money is collected.   The question as to what  has been collected                                                               
in  restitution is  not actually  a question  the DOC  would ever                                                               
have  any  information  because  that  would  come  from  another                                                               
department.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS answered in the affirmative.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:58:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD   commented  that  "Because  a   lot  of                                                               
programs ... there  are prison programs that do have  work -- you                                                               
know, and  sometimes that work  is paid restitution."   She asked                                                               
whether those  types of  programs are  available for  the inmates                                                               
housed in the  state's institutions.  She reiterated  that $500 -                                                               
$700 was the  average court ordered restitution,  and some people                                                               
have waited 10  years.  The bill referred  to capping restitution                                                               
at $10,000 and  asked for clarification.  In the  event the court                                                               
orders  are only  $500 to  $700  and the  bill is  capping it  at                                                               
$10,000 ...                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN interjected  that Representative  Reinbold did  not                                                               
ask a  question that  the DOC could  possibly answer  because her                                                               
questions are  around restitution orders.   He reminded  her that                                                               
as she  was previously advised,  the DOC  is not involved  in the                                                               
process of collecting or managing restitution.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP, in  response  to how  much restitution  had                                                               
been  ordered and  recovered, referred  to  the document  titled,                                                               
"Restitution   Data  -   Including  both   State  and   Municipal                                                               
prosecutions" and  pointed out  that the  court system  is broken                                                               
down  by  year,  the  total  amount  it  ordered,  and  what  was                                                               
ultimately collected.   He pointed to the years where  it went up                                                               
to 47  - 50  percent, noting  that in  some years  it was  only 9                                                               
percent,  and while  he  did  not know  why  the  state was  more                                                               
effective  in some  years than  in other  years, the  amounts are                                                               
clear.    Possibly,  it  depended   upon  the  crimes  that  were                                                               
committed, he speculated,  and that within some  years there were                                                               
millions  of dollars.   The  chart was  probably produced  by the                                                               
court system, he offered.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:01:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP referred  to the  $10,000 cap  and explained                                                               
that a  major event could  happen to  a private company  and that                                                               
event could wipe out all  of the available restitution funds when                                                               
restoring  50-60 victims.    He  opined that  94  percent of  all                                                               
restitution orders  fall below the  $10,000 amount  and explained                                                               
that  the $10,000  amount is  not  a lifetime  cap, it  is a  per                                                               
restitution order.  In the event  bad things happened to a person                                                               
more than  once, that person  would still  be allowed up  to that                                                               
$10,000 cap  again.   He explained that  the cap  offers guidance                                                               
and provides a ceiling under  which nearly all restitutions would                                                               
fall.  Therefore,  the fund would not be completely  wiped out by                                                               
a single  event, or possibly  two or three events,  he explained,                                                               
and the committee could discuss that size of that cap.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:02:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  said that, in her  opinion, this appears                                                               
to trivialize crime because "you  can't take someone back after a                                                               
rape, after  an assault,  after a murder,  and trivialize  it for                                                               
$10,000, or $500 to $700, when --  you know, in the 94 percent or                                                               
whatever  is going  to  the criminal's  healthcare."   She  asked                                                               
whether Representative  Kopp believes  this trivializes  and adds                                                               
salt to  injury, and whether it  is an insult to  think money can                                                               
do that.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  pointed out  that the  entire point  of SSHB                                                               
216  is  to do  everything  Alaska  can  do  to restore  as  many                                                               
survivors of crimes  as possible to a pre-offense  condition on a                                                               
financial basis.   Representative  Reinbold spoke to  losses that                                                               
can  never  be  restored  from   any  event,  and  this  bill  is                                                               
compensation  for   the  costs  incurred  that   are  financially                                                               
tangible.    Clearly,  there are  non-financial  costs  that  are                                                               
irreparable  for victims  of crime,  and he  pointed out  that he                                                               
worked  in that  field  for 25  years "and  know  it better  than                                                               
anybody  here."   Representative  Kopp  expressed  that he  takes                                                               
strong exception  to Representative Reinbold's comment  that SSHB                                                               
216 trivializes  victims.  He  stressed that this  legislation is                                                               
an aggressive effort  to help restore to thousands  of victims of                                                               
crimes  that have  lost financially  and get  at improving  their                                                               
losses.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:04:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   FANSLER   referred   to  the   document   titled                                                               
"Restitution   Data  -   Including  both   State  and   Municipal                                                               
prosecutions,  as of  12/31/17"  and noted  that the  restitution                                                               
amounts ordered  for 2017 were $5  million.  He then  referred to                                                               
the  chart  Representative Kopp  had  provided  to the  committee                                                               
during  his  presentation and  noted  that  "we're talking  about                                                               
giving  out"   $23  million  total,   which  is  more   than  the                                                               
restitution.   He related  that the numbers  "we are  giving out"                                                               
are massive: $11 million; $60  million; $21 million; $20 million;                                                               
$11  million; $17  million;  $15 million;  $11  million; and  $23                                                               
million.  Yet, he commented,  the numbers ordered for restitution                                                               
are significantly under that, except  for 2004, and asked "What's                                                               
the story?"                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  clarified that  the  amount  coming in  "to                                                               
this"  is based  on a  formula  of the  persons the  DOC and  the                                                               
Department  of  Public  Safety  (DPS)  determine  are  ineligible                                                               
during a  qualifying year to  receive a permanent  fund dividend.                                                               
That  number  is  then  forwarded  to  the  commissioner  of  the                                                               
Department of  Revenue (DOR), who  then says, "Okay, we  have 113                                                               
individuals  who are  ineligible to  receive that  dividend," and                                                               
that amount would  then go into the  Restorative Justice Account.                                                               
He  explained that  it is  completely  separate from  restitution                                                               
orders, which  are actual costs  incurred by victims  that judges                                                               
determine  is the  amount  owed.   He  explained  that this  bill                                                               
establishes the fund from which "these will be paid."                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:06:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  Commissioner Williams  whether this                                                               
bill, if  passed, would cost  the department  $11,493,000.40 over                                                               
each year.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS opined that she  was mostly correct in that                                                               
this  changes from  year-to-year, but  his director  could answer                                                               
that question  more directly.   He further  opined that  it would                                                               
cause  a  reduction of  what  is  currently in  the  department's                                                               
budget of that amount.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  surmised that this fiscal  note "shows the                                                               
same thing for up until 2024."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS  deferred to  April Wilkerson,  Director of                                                               
Administrative Services.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:08:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP clarified  that there is nothing  in the bill                                                               
establishing a dollar  amount or a percentage, it  simply says to                                                               
look at  this victim for  restitution first.  He  reiterated that                                                               
even a  $100,000 appropriation to  victims first would  mean that                                                               
hundreds of  victims were restored.   He related that  "You can't                                                               
look at  it and say,  'Well, it's going  to go down  this much,'"                                                               
because  as  the  director  of  the  Office  of  Victims'  Rights                                                               
advised,  it  will  aggressively  try  to  locate,  contact,  and                                                               
establish health assist.  Although,  it would be finite number of                                                               
victims each  year that the  office would  be set up  to actually                                                               
help.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that under  the bill, although it creates a                                                               
prioritization, it is not a  mandatory prioritization because the                                                               
legislature could  still look  at $10 million.   For  example, he                                                               
offered, the  legislature could decide to  appropriate $1 million                                                               
to the victims of crime, and $9  million to the DOC.  Wherein, he                                                               
pointed  out, the  legislature could  simply say  that it  took a                                                               
look at  it, considered the  competing interests, and it  did its                                                               
best to prioritize  funds to the victims.   The legislature would                                                               
not be required to only give the funds to the victims, he said.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP related  that  Chair  Claman was  absolutely                                                               
correct, wherein the allowable purposes  are all stayed, but this                                                               
bill prioritizes them and asks  the legislature to look at victim                                                               
restoration first.   There  is the  victim restoration,  and then                                                               
the Office of Victims' Rights  (OVR) determines how many are "set                                                               
up to  set."   Obviously, the legislature  would not  provide $20                                                               
million  when possibly  there were  only 20  victims to  restore.                                                               
That is why, he related, he  could not see anything other than an                                                               
indeterminate note  coming from  the DOC  because when  asking to                                                               
restore crime  victims first, it  is not  ready to go  with 1,000                                                               
victims and write a check.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  asked whether  there was  an indeterminate                                                               
note, or an actual fiscal note.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:09:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
APRIL  WILKERSON, Director,  Administrative Services,  Department                                                               
of Corrections (DOC),  explained that the DOC's  fiscal note does                                                               
reflect  the  full  amount  that is  currently  allocated.    She                                                               
offered that it  does reflect a full fund  change and paraphrased                                                               
the   analysis  as   follows:  "If   their  fund   currently  was                                                               
insufficient  to   meet  our  authorization  that   is  currently                                                               
allocated to meet healthcare costs,  that we would need that fund                                                               
replaced."    Therefore,  she  offered, while  it  does  have  an                                                               
overall  appearance of  a full  fund  source change  over to  the                                                               
general fund,  it would  depend fully  upon the  amount available                                                               
out of that fund.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:10:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented  that she supports SSHB  216 as a                                                               
co-sponsor, but she  has found it perplexing because  on one hand                                                               
it says,  "they really don't need  to do anything, all  they need                                                               
to  do is  consider it."   Except  she pointed  out, if  they are                                                               
actually going  to do something  about it, it actually  will cost                                                               
somebody something.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  answered  that   he  worked  together  with                                                               
Legislative Legal and Research Services  on this bill, and one of                                                               
the  issue the  sponsor was  trying to  avoid was  "the dedicated                                                               
funds  prohibition."   After reviewing  a  percentage amount  for                                                               
"each of these,"  the sponsor was told that he  could not do that                                                               
although he could prioritize and say,  "You must look at the need                                                               
here first, and then this, and  then this."  Once a dollar amount                                                               
or percentage  amount is  applied, he  offered, "you  just bumped                                                               
over the constitutional line."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:11:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  noted that it was  confusing because there                                                               
is a finite pot of money,  and currently this finite pot of money                                                               
is mostly  going to the DOC,  and then something is  taken out of                                                               
the DOC, thereby, actually costing real money.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:09:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.   WILKERSON  advised   that  if   there  is   not  sufficient                                                               
authorization  left  in  that  fund to  meet  the  DOC's  current                                                               
allocation  of $11,493,000.40,  it  would need  a different  fund                                                               
source to supplant the difference.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:12:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  noted that her  next question was  for the                                                               
Office of Victims' Services.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIORGANA suggested  that the committee keep in  mind that the                                                               
PFD balances vary  from year-to-year, and the DOC  has always had                                                               
to adjust because the money  available from the fund changes from                                                               
year-to-year.   In some years, the  DOC would have to  request an                                                               
appropriation  from  the  general  fund,  which  is  the  current                                                               
practice, he explained.  This  legislation does not put an actual                                                               
dollar  amount  to  any  agency,  the  bill  actually  creates  a                                                               
priority  with the  highest  priority being  the  funding of  the                                                               
Violent Crimes Compensation Board.   He offered that this was the                                                               
original intent  of the  creation of this  fund, followed  by the                                                               
Office of  Victims' Rights, followed  by grants to  programs that                                                               
assist  victims of  domestic violence  sexual  assault, and  then                                                               
followed for reimbursement of  incarceration costs and probation.                                                               
He reiterated  that SSHB 216 does  not take away the  allowed use                                                               
of the fund, it just simply prioritizes the use of the fund.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:14:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  referred  to  the fiscal  note  from  the                                                               
Office of Victims'  Rights (OVR) and opined that  this bill would                                                               
actually give  OVR the opportunity  to have more money  to assist                                                               
victims.   Except, she said,  there is  a fiscal note,  and asked                                                               
why  a bill  giving the  OVR money  would actually  cost the  OVR                                                               
money.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:15:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TAYLOR WINSTON,  Director, Office  of Victims'  Rights, responded                                                               
that  as the  bill is  laid out,  the Office  of Victims'  Rights                                                               
would not actually  handle the money because it  would be looking                                                               
at  victims   who  come  to   them  with  a   restitution  order.                                                               
Subsequently, it would  direct the permanent fund  to pay victims                                                               
from the Restorative Justice  account (audio difficulties), money                                                               
they had  not been able  to otherwise collect on  the restitution                                                               
order.  She  clarified that the OVR will not  receive those funds                                                               
itself,  but rather  the bill  allows for  appropriations at  the                                                               
legislative and  gubernatorial level  by choosing to  provide the                                                               
OVR with money  to help support its duties  of administering this                                                               
restitution and Restorative Justice Account for victims.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   noted  audio  difficulty  during   Ms.  Winston's                                                               
testimony.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:16:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. WINSTON  advised that  the fiscal  note before  the committee                                                               
accounts  for a  one-time,  one-year,  non-permanent position  so                                                               
that the  OVR can  have a  person dedicated to  data entry.   The                                                               
thought being that  when the OVR takes on this  activity, it will                                                               
need  to process  those outstanding  restitution orders  from the                                                               
Alaska  Court  System  (ACS).   There  are  approximately  20,000                                                               
unpaid restitution orders.   Therefore, the OVR  needs to account                                                               
for those and  establish a file for those  unpaid restitutions so                                                               
when the victims  come into the OVR, it has  that information and                                                               
is set  up.   She commented that  it will take  a while  to input                                                               
20,000 restitution  orders and the funding  being requested would                                                               
be  dedicated solely  for that  data  entry of  setting up  court                                                               
files.  Then,  of course, there are the  benefits associated with                                                               
their salaries, parking,  and case management costs.   The Office                                                               
of Victims'  Rights (OCR)  has a case  management system  that is                                                               
quite  capable of  having  a  new room,  "for  lack  of a  better                                                               
phrase," within  it configured to specifically  handle the duties                                                               
associated   with   helping    victims   with   the   restitution                                                               
fulfillment.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:18:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked  that since the ACS has  all of these                                                               
things online,  why it could not  simply be imported, such  as an                                                               
excel  spreadsheet, rather  than  the OVR  actually entering  the                                                               
data from each order.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. WINSTON  answered that  when the  restitution orders  are not                                                               
available online, the current practice  is that victims go to the                                                               
OVR  at various  times,  and  the OVR  would  have  to have  that                                                               
document.  She commented that "they  may not even have all of the                                                               
information" the  OVR needs to  process it through  and determine                                                               
from  the  court system  whether  payments  had been  made,  what                                                               
payments were  made, the  fine, and their  information.   The OVR                                                               
would have  to set up  a tracking  system within its  office, she                                                               
said.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:20:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  referred to SSHB  216, page 5,  lines 30-                                                               
31, Restorative  Justice Account, and  asked what monies  go into                                                               
that account.  Based upon the  language, he opined that the words                                                               
"if  they had  been  eligible" are  particularly  important.   He                                                               
opined that  an individual would  have to have first  applied and                                                               
then  been  eligible  before  AS  43.23.005  would  be  operative                                                               
because  that provision  makes  the person  ineligible  due to  a                                                               
conviction                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP explained  that eligibility  to receive  the                                                               
permanent fund dividend  in this context is not  based on whether                                                               
or not  the person applied.   Instead, it  is that the  person is                                                               
ineligible because they were convicted  of a felony, incarcerated                                                               
on a felony,  incarcerated on a misdemeanor with  a prior felony,                                                               
or  a  misdemeanor with  (indisc.).    Those are  the  definitive                                                               
qualifiers for ineligibility, he offered.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN clarified  that  the ineligible  person  who is  to                                                               
receive  the dividend  would apply,  and that  dividend would  go                                                               
into the Restorative Justice Fund.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered in the affirmative.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:22:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that  whether the person had been                                                               
eligible does not apply to actually applying for the dividend.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP  said   that  Representative   Eastman  was                                                               
correct.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:22:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  referred  to the  statute  dealing  with                                                               
eligibility  itself, which  specifically states  that the  people                                                               
being  discussed here  are those  convicted of  a felony  or were                                                               
incarcerated as a result of  conviction in this state, which does                                                               
not include certain situations.   For example, a husband and wife                                                               
vacation in Hawaii  and receive a conviction in  Hawaii and since                                                               
the conviction  was not in  Alaska, they would still  receive the                                                               
permanent  fund dividend  and the  victim would  not be  eligible                                                               
under  this  bill.   He  advised  that  he  was reading  from  AS                                                               
43.23.005, permanent fund dividend eligibility.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  noted that  Representative Eastman  raised a                                                               
distinction in the law which  is also seen when considering prior                                                               
criminal history.   The  same distinction is  seen there  in that                                                               
when determining  eligibility or  priors, it is  more distinctive                                                               
to have  time bars  and the  law applying  to "within  the state"                                                               
because it is  easier to determine.  He said  that in some states                                                               
a  misdemeanor would  not be  a misdemeanor  in Alaska  and noted                                                               
that the  reason it is "in  this state" is because  "we all know"                                                               
what a misdemeanor  or felony is in  this state.  It  is the same                                                               
reason when considering priors that  the state is careful to say,                                                               
"either in the  state or convicted of a  crime with substantially                                                               
similar  offense definitions  and  penalties as  what this  state                                                               
has."   Therefore, the  distinction remains the  same in  here of                                                               
keeping  that within  the state  and he  acknowledged that  it is                                                               
possible  a  person could  have  been  convicted  of a  crime  in                                                               
another state, but the reason the  bill is drafted in this manner                                                               
is to be consistent with how  the law carries out in the criminal                                                               
law, he explained.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:25:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 216.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:25:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CARMEN  LOWRY, Executive  Director,  Alaska  Network on  Domestic                                                               
Violence and  Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), explained  that the Alaska                                                               
Network on  Domestic Violence  and Sexual  Assault (ANDVSA)  is a                                                               
coalition of 24  programs across the state, and  it supports SSHB                                                               
216 for  its support for victims  and survivors.  She  noted that                                                               
ANDVSA reserves  its full endorsement  pending an  amendment that                                                               
will come  forward clarifying  the prioritization  of recipients.                                                               
She referred  to SSHB 216, page  6, lines 8-11, and  advised that                                                               
the    anticipated   amendment    will   prioritize    non-profit                                                               
organizations to  provide grants  for services for  crime victims                                                               
and domestic violence and sexual  assault programs, over the non-                                                               
profit  organizations,  to  provide   grants  for  mental  health                                                               
services and substance abuse treatments for offenders.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:27:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOE SCHLANGER paraphrased from the  State of Alaska Constitution,                                                               
Article 1  Section 24.   He then  referred to testimony  from the                                                               
DOC and  "the others"  saying that  Alaska is  8 years  behind on                                                               
some of the  victims and asked why that happens  and requested an                                                               
answer  from  the Department  of  Corrections.   He  opined  that                                                               
criminals are  receiving help before  the actual  victims receive                                                               
assistance, noting that  he has spoken with a  number of victims.                                                               
He offered his support for this bill  and he would like to see it                                                               
passed.,                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN thanked  Mr. Schlanger  for his  comments                                                               
and echoed his request for information from the DOC.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:29:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
EDWARD   MARTIN,   JR.,   (audio  difficulties   throughout   his                                                               
testimony)   noted  that   he  would   like  his   representative                                                               
overseeing this bill  because it affects the permanent  fund.  As                                                               
to the  testimony regarding the  original intent  and priorities,                                                               
and basically the discussion is  about this money and "where it's                                                               
gonna go  to the victims."   There is a  fiscal note for  a cost,                                                               
and  the  revenue  from  which  this  fiscal  note  may  draw  or                                                               
otherwise distribute funds.  As a  young man educated on how laws                                                               
are created, he commented that  the law should be compact, except                                                               
there  are  12 different  issues  for  which the  legislature  is                                                               
creating this new law, or  changing the law, and offered concern.                                                               
It was his  understanding, during the testimony  that the general                                                               
fund (audio  difficulties) the collection from  criminals and the                                                               
permanent fund are  all of the revenue for which  someone makes a                                                               
decision as  to where that  money goes.   His only  concern about                                                               
the  permanent  fund,  "all  of   the  first  three,  absent  the                                                               
permanent fund itself and the  use of those funds," are regarding                                                               
the eligibility and  ineligibility issues.  He noted  that as far                                                               
as he  is concerned, when it  boils down to who  is eligible, the                                                               
permanent fund should go to those eligible recipients.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:32:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DAVID   NESS  (audio   difficulties  throughout   his  testimony)                                                               
referred  to  the  three  adults  who  were  murdered  by  Winona                                                               
Fletcher,  a  14-year old,  at  Russian  Jack, and  advised  that                                                               
Janice Linhart  started Victims for  Justice, and victims  are at                                                               
issue here.   He  pointed out that  the three-elderly  people are                                                               
still deceased,  Winona is still  incarcerated and gave  birth to                                                               
two children while  incarcerated, and the state  paid her medical                                                               
costs  for  those  children  because   she  still  receives  free                                                               
healthcare.   This legislation corrects  the problem  wherein the                                                               
money is  being used  for the wrong  purpose because  the purpose                                                               
should be for  victims in order to make those  people whole.  The                                                               
other person is incarcerated and does  not have to be made whole.                                                               
In honor  of Janice Linhart and  her sister, and the  people that                                                               
support Victims for Justice and  assisted in getting the original                                                               
victims' law  passed, he then  asked the committee to  please fix                                                               
[the process].  He stressed  that the committee allow the victims                                                               
who are owed restitution to  receive money from the criminals who                                                               
have their  permanent fund dividends  reduced before any  of that                                                               
money  is  spent  on  inmate's  healthcare  costs.    He  further                                                               
stressed that  it makes absolutely no  sense and it is  a tragedy                                                               
because it victimizes the victims a second time.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:34:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHARLES  McKEE  (audio  difficulties  throughout  his  testimony)                                                               
pointed out that  both are victims of the  compromise and release                                                               
Alaskans  have been  subjected  to, by  being  subjugated by  the                                                               
public corporation called the State  of Alaska.  He said, "You've                                                               
taken  over  our  account  which resides  in  a  social  security                                                               
system"  and  being classified  as  missing  because "we've  been                                                               
disappeared,   and  our   account   has  been   tapped  by   this                                                               
organizational  structure."    He   said  that  he  notified  the                                                               
Taxpayers Advocate  Service Office (audio difficulties)  and then                                                               
paraphrased  the message  he sent  to  the House  Ways and  Means                                                               
Committee.  (Audio difficulties.)                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:37:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KATE  HUDSON,   Director,  Violent  Crimes   Compensation  Board,                                                               
offered support  for SSHB 216, and  noted that the bill  does not                                                               
impact  the Violent  Crimes Compensation  Board because  it would                                                               
not gain any  more money, or lose any money.   The Violent Crimes                                                               
Compensation  Board submitted  a  zero-fiscal note,  and it  does                                                               
support  the intent  of trying  to  do something  about the  huge                                                               
amounts  of  outstanding  restitution.    While  this  board  can                                                               
provide some  immediate relief,  it cannot  do it  in all  of its                                                               
cases.    Whereby,  she explained,  there  are  situations  where                                                               
someone  may not  qualify for  compensation  through the  Violent                                                               
Crimes  Compensation Board's  program  and  still may  ultimately                                                               
receive  a restitution  award, those  things are  distinct.   She                                                               
asked that  the committee  bear that  distinction in  mind moving                                                               
forward.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:38:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   REINBOLD  asked   whether  the   Violent  Crimes                                                               
Compensation  Board is  a state  agency,  how it  is funded,  and                                                               
whether it is a non-profit.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. HUDSON advised that the  Violent Crimes Compensation Board is                                                               
a state agency.   The Violent Crimes  Compensation Board receives                                                               
an award of $1.5 million from  the Criminal Fund, and it receives                                                               
an annual  federal grant which  varies from  year-to-year because                                                               
it  depends upon  how much  state money  was spent  in the  prior                                                               
federal fiscal year.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:38:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  noted her  "shock"  at  the $1  million                                                               
figure and asked who makes that decision.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. HUDSON  responded that,  as was said  earlier, it  is through                                                               
the  budgeting  process wherein  it  submits  its budget  request                                                               
which is based  on what was spent in the  prior year.  Therefore,                                                               
it  is an  administrative  procedure whereby  the Violent  Crimes                                                               
Compensation Board advises what it  expects to need, and then the                                                               
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes the award.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:39:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  asked whether  Ms. Hudson is  allowed to                                                               
comment as  to her thoughts of  the 94 percent spent  on criminal                                                               
healthcare when she knows a lot of the victims need healthcare.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. HUDSON related  that she did not believe it  was her place to                                                               
comment on  how the  budgeting process  works.   In terms  of the                                                               
Violent  Crimes Compensation  Board's budget,  if it  had demands                                                               
from claimants  that were $3  million and  it was unable  to meet                                                               
that,  then  certainly,  that  would   be  adjusted  through  the                                                               
budgeting process.   As it turns  out, she offered, for  the past                                                               
few  years it  has basically  received enough  money to  meet the                                                               
requests the  board awards.   She remarked  that in the  last few                                                               
years,  the board  has  not run  out of  money  to meet  victims'                                                               
needs,  possibly because  not  enough victims  are  aware of  the                                                               
board so not  enough people are applying  for compensation, "that                                                               
is likely the case."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:40:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN noted  that in  January  2018, under  the laws  the                                                               
legislature recently  passed, parole  and probation  officers are                                                               
required  to  establish with  the  offenders  a restitution  plan                                                               
which  requires  the  offenders to  successfully  accomplish  the                                                               
restitution plan  in order to  qualify for good time  or complete                                                               
their time of supervision.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN,  after  ascertaining  no one  wished  to  testify,                                                               
closed public hearing on SSHB 216.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:41:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked that when  the DOC comes back for the                                                               
next hearing of  SSHB 216, to explain how a  woman managed to get                                                               
pregnant  twice  in  an all-female  prison,  whether  anyone  was                                                               
tested  for  DNA to  determine  whether  the father,  a  possible                                                               
prison employee, should  have been responsible for  some of those                                                               
medical costs.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
[SSHB 216 was held over.]                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                   HB  15-MARRIAGE & SPOUSES                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:42:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 15, "An  Act relating to marriage, adoption, birth                                                               
certificates,  state custody  of a  minor, divorce,  dissolution,                                                               
and legal  separation; replacing  the terms 'husband'  and 'wife'                                                               
in certain  statutes relating to loans,  trusts, spousal immunity                                                               
and confidential  marital communications, probate  and nonprobate                                                               
transfers, life and health  insurance, workers' compensation, and                                                               
property ownership; and making conforming amendments."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:43:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,  Alaska State Legislature, advised                                                               
that he  had filed a similar  bill, if not an  identical bill, in                                                               
the  Twenty-Ninth  Alaska State  Legislature,  and  the bill  was                                                               
designed to respond  to the decision under  Obergefell v. Hodges,                                                             
576  U.S.  ___  (2015).     Under  Obergefell,  he  offered,  the                                                             
decisions  read  that  marriage  is a  fundamental  right  to  be                                                               
enjoyed by  all persons and  with whomever  they choose.   At the                                                               
time  of the  decisio  and due  to the  outfall  of the  decision                                                               
itself,  he   believed  that  Alaska's  statutes   would  require                                                               
updating and this  bill almost "smacks" of that  sort of feature.                                                               
He explained that  the index of "our blue  statutes" was reviewed                                                               
for all circumstances  wherein the term "spouse"  or "husband and                                                               
wife"  was used  to determine  what  parts of  the code  required                                                               
updating.   This bill is  mostly administrative in  that respect,                                                               
and it is  not designed to generate new  (audio difficulties) for                                                               
people in  a same sex  coupled relationship.   It is  designed to                                                               
reflect the reality  of the common law from several  cases out of                                                               
the Alaska Supreme Court within the last decade of decisions.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Wherein,  rights   were  extended  to   people  in  a   same  sex                                                               
relationship who could  not be married, and in  fact, rights were                                                               
extended because  they could not be  married and there had  to be                                                               
some  sort of  equity for  that fact.   He  referred to  Hamby v.                                                             
Parnell, 56  F.Supp.3d 1056 (2014),  and advised that it  was one                                                             
of  many  of the  forerunners  to  the Obergefell  decision,  and                                                             
offered that Hamby  was heard in a state  federal district court.                                                             
That  decision  was written  by  former  President George  Bush's                                                               
appointee to  the District Court  of Burgess; and  the Obergefell                                                             
decision  was   written  by  former  President   Ronald  Reagan's                                                               
appointee  to the  Supreme Court,  Justice Anthony  Kennedy.   He                                                               
described  that  these  two judges  are  conservative  judges  by                                                               
nature,  and   they  wrote   these  decisions.     Representative                                                               
Josephson paraphrased  a portion of the  Justice Kennedy decision                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     There  are   many  aspects   of  the   marital  status,                                                                    
     including  taxation, inheritance  and property  rights,                                                                    
     rules  of intestate  succession, spousal  privilege and                                                                    
     the   law  of   evidence,   hospital  access,   medical                                                                    
     decision-making authority, adoption  rights, the rights                                                                    
     and   benefits   of    survivors,   birth   and   death                                                                    
     certificates, professional  ethics rules,  campaign and                                                                    
     finance  restrictions, workers'  compensation benefits,                                                                    
     health  insurance,   and  child  custody   support  and                                                                    
     visitation rules.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:47:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  advised that  one  can  see that  when                                                               
allowing anyone  to marry the person  they love, then there  is a                                                               
natural order  of things, which  means statutes could be  in need                                                               
of  clean-up.   This  bill,  he opined,  will  help trial  courts                                                               
because it will  help dispense with arguments which  are bound to                                                               
not succeed because one could read  the literal word of a statute                                                               
and forget that  the common law left some of  the statutes in its                                                               
tracks.   There are  a couple  of amendments,  one proposed  by a                                                               
member of the  committee; and another amendment,  proposed by the                                                               
sponsor, that is relative to Section  19.  He opined "The one the                                                               
committee identified  was Section  6."   Representative Josephson                                                               
then  deferred to  Linda Bruce,  Legislative  Legal and  Research                                                               
Services  as to  whether this  bill  is mostly  a clean-up  bill,                                                               
gender-neutral  language legislation,  a  road map,  ministerial,                                                               
administrative, and  designed so that  the code reflects  the new                                                               
law.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:50:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   CLAMAN  asked   Ms.  Bruce   whether   she  agreed   with                                                               
Representative Josephson's characterization of  the bill as being                                                               
more of a ministerial clean-up bill,  and not a bill that changes                                                               
the status of the law.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:50:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LINDA  BRUCE, Legislative  Legal  and  Research Services,  Alaska                                                               
State  Legislature,  responded  that  she does  agree  with  that                                                               
statement  because  it  is  generally   a  simple  clean-up  bill                                                               
changing  the language  to  be gender-neutral  when  it comes  to                                                               
marriage.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:51:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 15.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:51:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TARA RICH,  Legal and Policy  Director, American  Civil Liberties                                                               
Union,  Alaska (ACLU-Alaska),  advised  that  the American  Civil                                                               
Liberties Union,  Alaska (ACLU-Alaska) supports  this legislation                                                               
as a  clean-up bill following  several court decisions  that made                                                               
clear that  marriage is available  for any couple.   The American                                                               
Civil Liberties  Union, Alaska  (ACLU-Alaska) also  believes that                                                               
it is  important to change  the language  in the statute  to make                                                               
clear that  the laws are written  for everyone.  She  pointed out                                                               
that the ACLU-Alaska had a case  last year where an issue such as                                                               
this came up within a Child  in Need of Aid (CINA) termination of                                                               
parental rights  case.  In  this instance, a same-sex  couple was                                                               
married  with  children  by  that   marriage,  and  there  was  a                                                               
termination  hearing as  to one  parent.   Except, the  Office of                                                               
Childrens' Services  (OCS) did not  feel the need to  include the                                                               
spouse  of that  individual  in that  hearing.   The  ACLU-Alaska                                                               
filed an amicus brief, a friend  of the court brief, in that case                                                               
and actually  succeeded in  getting them to  agree to  remand the                                                               
decision down  to the lower court  and have a hearing  as to both                                                               
parents.   As much as  this is  an administrative and  a clean-up                                                               
bill, she related  that she also thinks it is  necessary to avoid                                                               
ambiguity.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD noted  that the  ACLU claims  to protect                                                               
the constitutional rights of all  Alaskans.  She opined that some                                                               
people do not  believe this is a clean-up bill,  but rather it is                                                               
"dirtying a bill"  and a lot of people want  to be "grandfathered                                                               
in" because  they believe  their right to  call their  husband, a                                                               
husband in  statute, and  the right  to call a  wife, a  wife, is                                                               
being  violated.   She asked  whether  the power  belongs to  the                                                               
people.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RICH  responded  that  the  ACLU  represents  constitutional                                                               
issues  and thus  far  it  has had  clear  holdings  on what  the                                                               
constitution  says  and  what  it requires  for  marriage.    She                                                               
commented  that  Representative  Reinbold  was  correct  in  that                                                               
marriage be available for everyone.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:54:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD advised  that her  question was  whether                                                               
the  power belongs  to the  people,  and she  said, "I'll  answer                                                               
that, I believe yes, the power belongs to the people."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN interrupted and advised  that this is an opportunity                                                               
to  ask questions  and not  to  argue with  the person  providing                                                               
public testimony.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:54:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  asked   whether  the  constitution  had                                                               
changed,  "or just  your interpretation  or  some random  judge's                                                               
interpretation."  She then asked for  a yes or no response to her                                                               
question as  to whether the  Constitution of the State  of Alaska                                                               
read that a marriage is between a woman and a man.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. RICH  explained that the  constitution is interpreted  by the                                                               
highest   court   in  land   and   she   stressed  that   it   is                                                               
extraordinarily dangerous to  be referring to it  as "some random                                                               
judge."   The ACLU goes by  what the constitution says,  and what                                                               
the highest court has interpreted  (audio difficulties) to expand                                                               
people's rights and their liberties.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  advised Representative  Reinbold that she  has been                                                               
in this committee  and other committees long enough  to know that                                                               
the members wait and try not to talk over each other.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  said,  "If  you look  at  the  Founding                                                               
Father's papers, the  courts are the weakest branch  and they are                                                               
actually supposed to  interpret and just do an  opinion, but they                                                               
don't write  the statute."   The constitution is the  supreme law                                                               
of  the land,  and the  constitution in  Alaska, by  the peoples'                                                               
initiative says  that it is between  a man and a  woman, and some                                                               
people do not support judicial activism.   She noted that many of                                                               
her constituents and  others in Alaska, do not  believe it should                                                               
have  gone  through  judicial action,  but  actually  through  an                                                               
initiative  by the  people, or  by statute,  or a  constitutional                                                               
change.  She asked whether Ms. Rich agreed with her statement.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  ruled that  he  would  not  allow this  debate  to                                                               
continue.   The committee  members have all  sworn to  uphold the                                                               
Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  Constitution  of                                                               
Alaska,  he  pointed  out.   While  Representative  Reinbold  was                                                               
certainly  entitled  to have  a  different  view other  than  the                                                               
courts,  but  eight  people  would  like  to  testify  in  public                                                               
testimony and he will give them the chance.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:56:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER declared  a point of order.   He expressed                                                               
that he  wanted to put on  the record that members  should not be                                                               
disparaging other branches of government  as to which one is more                                                               
powerful than the other.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  ruled that Representative  Fansler's point                                                               
was well taken, and he continued public testimony.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:57:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JAMES  SQUIRES  (audio  difficulties  throughout  his  testimony)                                                               
advised  that  he  is  a  constituent  of  Representative  George                                                               
Rauscher, and  that as legislators,  each member took an  oath to                                                               
uphold  and  defend  the  constitution.     He  referred  to  the                                                               
Constitution of  the Alaska,  Article 1,  Section 2,  and Section                                                               
25, which read as follows:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section 2. Source of Government.                                                                                           
     All  political power  is inherent  in  the people.  All                                                                    
     government originates with the  people, is founded upon                                                                    
     their will only, and is  instituted solely for the good                                                                    
     of the people as a whole.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section 25. Marriage.                                                                                                      
      To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage                                                                       
     may exist only between one man and one woman.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. SQUIRES commented that this  amendment to the Constitution of                                                               
the State of  Alaska (audio difficulties).  He  commented that HB                                                               
15  (audio  difficulties)  this amendment,  (audio  difficulties)                                                               
duty   bound   to   (audio    difficulties).      The   strongest                                                               
responsibility  is Article  1,  Section  (audio difficulties)  to                                                               
Alaskans.   The House of  Representatives is the closest  body to                                                               
the  people   with  elections  held   every  two   years,  (audio                                                               
difficulties).   He commented that  some may feel  conflicted and                                                               
cite supreme court judicial references  that are "a long way from                                                               
Article  1, Section  2,"  and it  is the  Alaskans  that put  the                                                               
legislators in office.   The Fifth Amendment  of the Constitution                                                               
of the United States stands  on (audio difficulties) side to push                                                               
back against  federal overreach, which  is exactly what  the will                                                               
of the people                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:06:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MIKE COONS  advised that he took  an oath to the  Constitution of                                                               
the United States  as a United States Airman and  upheld his oath                                                               
throughout  his  service to  this  nation  and opined  that  many                                                               
legislators and politician have never  believed in that oath.  He                                                               
related that he  opposes HB 15 because Alaska  does not recognize                                                               
same sex  marriage, "I  understand (audio  difficulties) strongly                                                               
oppose the  Ninth Circuit  ruling disallowing  our constitutional                                                               
amendment  that  marriage is  between  one  man and  one  woman."                                                               
Sadly,  he offered,  Alaska's  governor at  the  time refused  to                                                               
(audio  difficulties) the  people of  Alaska by  not taking  that                                                               
ruling  to the  United States  Supreme  Court.   This bill  gives                                                               
legitimacy  to  same-sex  marriage, thus  undermining  any  court                                                               
appeal in the future and yet  the voters have shown that marriage                                                               
is  sex sacred  and are  oppose to  that which  is not  sacred in                                                               
God's  eyes.    This  forum  of public  testimony  in  the  House                                                               
Judiciary  Standing Committee  offers him  protection from  those                                                               
individuals who have  and will try to deny his  rights and views.                                                               
Yet, he said, he will not  deny those individuals the right to be                                                               
wrong.  He then called on  all of the conservative members of the                                                               
House of Representatives to oppose this bill.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:08:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
WILLIAM HARRINGTON (audio  difficulties throughout his testimony)                                                               
described   the   bill   as   an   interesting   subject   (audio                                                               
difficulties)   where   two  men,   who   were   not  in   (audio                                                               
difficulties)  relationship got  married for  tax purposes.   The                                                               
idea (audio difficulties) wanted to  make sure that the other one                                                               
got his  estate, and marriage  was the most  (audio difficulties)                                                               
lie to  make that happen.   He opined that that  is an indication                                                               
of how far society has  gone, and (audio difficulties) people who                                                               
are   in   an  intimate   relationship   get   the  same   (audio                                                               
difficulties) can get married and  (audio difficulties).  He said                                                               
that  the  right  of  the  individual  can  take  control  (audio                                                               
difficulties) for tax  purposes by all legal  means is everyone's                                                               
right.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:09:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOE  SCHLANGER advised  that he  opposes HB  15, and  paraphrased                                                               
Genesis  2:24,  as follows:  "Therefore  a  man shall  leave  his                                                               
father  and mother  and be  joined to  his wife  and they  should                                                               
become  one  flesh."    He  offered his  belief  that  HB  15  is                                                               
unconstitutional  according  to  Article  1, Section  25  of  the                                                               
Constitution of the State of Alaska, as follows:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section 25. Marriage                                                                                                       
      To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage                                                                       
     may exist only between one man and one woman.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SCHLANGER  argued   that  HB  15  attempts   to  change  the                                                               
constitution, and  that the  committee will not  stand up  to the                                                               
"ACLU  who has  presented this.   This  is exactly  who presented                                                               
this, and I  oppose that."  He argued that  "you guys" are trying                                                               
the  change our  traditional  ways of  being  a Christian,  while                                                               
constantly being  called a bigot  because "we speak  out against"                                                               
this sort  of bill.   He asked the committee  to vote no  on this                                                               
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:11:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SARAH  VANCE said  that while  this bill  proposes to  expand the                                                               
rights of person identifying as  the LGBTQ community, she pointed                                                               
out  that this  only  represents about  2.5  percent of  Alaska's                                                               
population.   She asked  what happened  to representing  the 97.5                                                               
percent of  heterosexuals who value  the current  gender specific                                                               
identity  relating   to  marriage.     Passing  this   bill,  she                                                               
commented, will  take away her  right to be legally  titled "wife                                                               
and mother"  and promoting gender neutrality  limits her identity                                                               
to be "no  more than a spouse  or a person."  She  noted that she                                                               
considers it to be an honor  and a privilege to be legally titled                                                               
"a wife and  a mother, which is something I  aspired to more than                                                               
anything else  in my life."   She referred to  birth certificates                                                               
and said that  by gender neutralizing the role of  the father, it                                                               
perpetuates  confusion to  the biological  role and  the ultimate                                                               
identity  of a  child.   This legislation  further continues  the                                                               
agenda  of eliminating  gender roles  and creates  doubt in  "our                                                               
identity" as a man and a woman.   She offered that this bill does                                                               
not  represents the  priorities of  Alaskans, and  she asked  the                                                               
committee to vote no on HB 15.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:12:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADAM  HIKES advised  that he  soon will  be married  to the  most                                                               
beautiful woman  in the world,  and this  legislation "absolutely                                                               
breaks  my heart"  in  that  it would  redefine  marriage as  two                                                               
people, instead  of one  man and  one woman.   He  described that                                                               
that  takes away  his position  as  a husband  and a  prospective                                                               
father, and  ask what he should  tell his children, "I  am just a                                                               
spouse?"  In taking this  away, it is dissolving marriage wherein                                                               
it is an  honor and privilege to  be called a husband  or a wife.                                                               
He noted  that this honor and  privilege is not to  be taken away                                                               
by a  small minority  of people  who do  not represent  the whole                                                               
population.  He  advised that it is being pushed  by the ACLU and                                                               
it does  not have the  interests of  everyone in mind  because it                                                               
has a particular agenda it has  been pushing up and down the West                                                               
Coast.  Alaska does  not need to do things in  the same manner as                                                               
the states  of Oregon, California,  or Washington.   He commented                                                               
for the  3 percent of the  population to dictate what  life looks                                                               
like to  the rest of  the 97 percent,  "that is fascism,  that is                                                               
not okay with me."                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:14:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN left public testimony open on HB 15.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:15:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[CHAIR   CLAMAN  and   Representative   Reinbold  discussed   her                                                               
opportunity  to  respond  to Representative  Fansler's  point  of                                                               
order.]                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
[HB 15 was held over.]                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:16:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:16 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB216 Sponsor Substitute ver T 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 ver U 1.19.18.PDF HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Sponsor Statement 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Sectional Analysis 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-Difference Between Restitution and Compensation 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-HB245 from 1988 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-FY18 Felons Memo 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-FY17 Felons Memo 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-FY16 Felons Memo 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-FY15 Felons Memo 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-FY14 Felons Memo 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-Victim Restitution Reform in Other States Research 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-LRS Report from 2013 Research 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-Restitution Statistics from ACS 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-Victim Restitution Funds Update Research 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-Criminal Fund Use Over the Years With Percentages 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Support Document-Letter from VCCB 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 PowerPoint Presentation 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Fiscal Note DHSS-BHTRG 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Fiscal Note LEG-OVR 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Fiscal Note DOC-PHC 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Fiscal Note Draft ACS 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB015 ver A 1.19.18.PDF HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB015 Sponsor Statement 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB015 Sectional Analysis 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB015 Supporting Document-Hamby v. Parnell 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB015 Supporting Document-Obergefell v. Hodges 1.19.18.PDF HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB015 Supporting Document-Alaskans Together For Equality Letter.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB015 Fiscal Note DHSS-BVS 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB015 Supporting Document-ACLU Letter.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB015 Public Comment-Supporting 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB015 Public Comment-Opposing 1.19.18.pdf HJUD 1/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 15