Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

01/24/2018 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
+= SB 63 REGULATION OF SMOKING TELECONFERENCED
Moved HCS CSSB 63(JUD) Out of Committee
+= HB 216 TRANSFERS FROM DIVIDEND FUND; CRIMES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                        January 24, 2018                                                                                        
                           1:01 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                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 63(FIN)                                                                                                  
"An  Act  prohibiting  smoking in  certain  places;  relating  to                                                               
education  on  the  smoking prohibition;  and  providing  for  an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 63(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB  63                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF SMOKING                                                                                              
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
02/17/17       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/17/17       (S)       HSS, FIN                                                                                               
03/01/17       (S)       HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/01/17       (S)       Moved SB 63 Out of Committee                                                                           
03/01/17       (S)       MINUTE(HSS)                                                                                            
03/03/17       (S)       HSS RPT  5DP                                                                                           
03/03/17       (S)       DP: WILSON, BEGICH, VON IMHOF, GIESSEL,                                                                
                         MICCICHE                                                                                               
03/13/17       (S)       FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
03/13/17       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/13/17       (S)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
03/20/17       (S)       FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
03/20/17       (S)       Moved CSSB 63(FIN) Out of Committee                                                                    
03/20/17       (S)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
03/21/17       (S)       FIN RPT CS  6DP 1NR    SAME TITLE                                                                      
03/21/17       (S)       DP: HOFFMAN, MACKINNON, BISHOP, VON                                                                    
                         IMHOF, OLSON, MICCICHE                                                                                 
03/21/17       (S)       NR: DUNLEAVY                                                                                           
03/27/17       (S)       TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                     
03/27/17       (S)       VERSION: CSSB 63(FIN)                                                                                  
03/29/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/29/17       (H)       CRA, JUD                                                                                               
04/13/17       (H)       CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124                                                                              
04/13/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/13/17       (H)       MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                            
04/18/17       (H)       CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124                                                                              
04/18/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/18/17       (H)       MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                            
04/25/17       (H)       CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124                                                                              
04/25/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/25/17       (H)       MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                            
04/27/17       (H)       CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124                                                                              
04/27/17       (H)       Moved HCS CSSB 63(CRA) Out of Committee                                                                
04/27/17       (H)       MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                            
04/28/17       (H)       CRA RPT HCS(CRA) 3DP 3NR 1AM                                                                           
04/28/17       (H)       DP: TALERICO, DRUMMOND, PARISH                                                                         
04/28/17       (H)       NR: WESTLAKE, SADDLER, RAUSCHER                                                                        
04/28/17       (H)       AM: FANSLER                                                                                            
01/22/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
01/22/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/22/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
01/24/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
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                                                                           
01/19/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/19/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
01/24/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE                                                                                                                
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  As prime sponsor, offered comment during                                                                 
the hearing on SB 63.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
JOE DARNELL, Investigator IV                                                                                                    
Tobacco Youth Education & Enforcement Program                                                                                   
Division of Behavioral Health (DBH)                                                                                             
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions during the hearing on                                                                 
HCS CSSB 63(CRA).                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHELEY GRIGSBY, Health Program Manager III                                                                                      
Tobacco Prevention and Control Program                                                                                          
Division of Public Health                                                                                                       
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Responded to questions during the hearing                                                                
on HCS CSSB 63(CRA).                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SARA RACE, Director                                                                                                             
Central Office                                                                                                                  
Permanent Fund Dividend Division                                                                                                
Department of Revenue                                                                                                           
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Responded to questions during the hearing                                                                
on HB 216.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
NOAH STAR, Staff                                                                                                                
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins                                                                                          
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Spoke to Amendment 1 to SSHB  216 on behalf                                                             
of Representative Kreiss-Tomkins.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:01:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MATT  CLAMAN called the House  Judiciary Standing Committee                                                             
meeting  to order  at 1:01  p.m.  Representatives Kopp,  Fansler,                                                               
Eastman,  and  Claman   were  present  at  the   call  to  order.                                                               
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins,  LeDoux, and Reinbold  arrived as                                                               
the meeting was in progress.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
                  SB 63-REGULATION OF SMOKING                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:01:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
CS FOR  SENATE BILL NO.  63(FIN), "An Act prohibiting  smoking in                                                               
certain   places;   relating   to  education   on   the   smoking                                                               
prohibition; and providing  for an effective date."   [Before the                                                               
committee was HCS CSSB 63(CRA).]                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:02:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN,  in  response  to   a  query  from  Representative                                                               
Eastman,  reminded the  committee  that public  testimony on  HCS                                                               
CSSB 63(CRA)  had been closed  during the last  scheduled hearing                                                               
on 1/22/18.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:02:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE,  Alaska State Legislature, as  prime sponsor of                                                               
SB 63, referred  to information on veterans' clubs,  which he had                                                               
forwarded to  the committee  following the  1/22/18 hearing.   He                                                               
commented  that  many  grew  up  during a  time  when  there  was                                                               
secondhand smoking  in the  house or  in a  car with  the windows                                                               
closed.  He quoted from a  USA Today article, dated 3/9/14, which                                                             
stated  that  during  the  Korean   and  Vietnam  Wars,  soldiers                                                               
received cigarettes  with their  field rations, and  that changed                                                               
in 1986  when the  Pentagon banned use  of tobacco  and increased                                                               
the  number of  designated  nonsmoking areas.   Senator  Micciche                                                               
said  "things have  changed," and  CSSB 63(FIN)  "brings us  into                                                               
that modern age of protecting those  that choose to not smoke and                                                               
protecting  their   rights  to  breathe  smoke-free   air."    He                                                               
expressed appreciation  for the efforts  of the committee  on the                                                               
proposed legislation.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:04:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  said the committee  would consider  amendments, and                                                               
he  advised that  Legislative Legal  and Research  Services would                                                               
have permission to  make any technical and  conforming changes to                                                               
any amendments adopted by the committee.   He outlined a plan for                                                               
the timing he would allow for addressing amendments.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:05:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  moved to  adopt  Amendment  1, labeled  30-                                                               
LS0024\T.4, Martin, 1/22/18, which read as follows:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, lines 2 - 5:                                                                                                       
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(e)  Notwithstanding (a) and (b) of this                                                                             
     section,  smoking  may  be   permitted  in  a  separate                                                                    
     enclosed  smoking  area  located   in  a  terminal  for                                                                    
     international  passengers  who  are  in  transit  in  a                                                                    
     state-owned  and  state-operated international  airport                                                                    
     and who are restricted by  federal law from leaving the                                                                    
     airport, if the  smoking area is vented  directly to an                                                                    
     outdoor  area that  is  not an  area  where smoking  is                                                                    
     prohibited under (c) of this section."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:05:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:05:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP  drew   attention  to   language  currently                                                               
proposed under SB 63, on page 4, lines 2-4, which read:                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          (e) Notwithstanding (a) and (b) of this section,                                                                      
     an individual may smoke in  a separate enclosed smoking                                                                    
     area  located in  an  airport if  the  smoking area  is                                                                    
     vented directly to an outdoor  area that is not an area                                                                    
     where smoking is prohibited under (c) of this section.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP said  he  is not  aware  any state-owned  or                                                               
public airports  that have separate  enclosed smoking areas.   He                                                               
said  [Amendment  1] would  apply  to  the international  airport                                                               
system  where  passengers  are restricted  by  federal  law  from                                                               
leaving  the  airport  when  they  arrive  in  the  international                                                               
terminal.  Those international terminals  are set up with smoking                                                               
rooms  that have  ventilation  to the  outside  of the  terminal,                                                               
which  he  said  he  thinks   is  appropriate  for  international                                                               
travelers that  do not have an  option to leave the  airport.  He                                                               
said, "I have  not heard from any airport operator  ... that they                                                               
have  ... an  airport that  they would  like to  build a  smoking                                                               
room.   That would be  contrary to this  amendment.  I  mean, I'd                                                               
certainly like  to hear from them  if they do.   I'm unaware that                                                               
there's a facility  in this state that would ...  take issue with                                                               
this."   He opined  that the  international airport  system needs                                                               
Amendment 1; it  would apply to both the  Anchorage and Fairbanks                                                               
International Airports.   He said  he spoke to the  bill sponsor,                                                               
who supports Amendment 1.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:07:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  whether  federal  law  requires  a                                                               
designated smoking place for international passengers.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:08:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  answered there is  not a requirement.   He said                                                               
he thinks Amendment 1 is  "a fairness amendment" that would offer                                                               
[a place to smoke for] someone who  has been on a flight for many                                                               
hours and cannot leave the airport.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  surmised there  are probably  Alaskans who                                                               
work in international airports, and  she asked, "Why wouldn't you                                                               
be just  as concerned  with those residents  who are  working ...                                                               
there than you would be about anybody else?"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  indicated that  there are places  where smoking                                                               
is allowed  that are  not places  where employees  have to  be to                                                               
serve customers.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the  bill specifically states that                                                               
employees cannot go out to the designated smoking areas.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MICCICHE  responded  that  the bill  states  that  those                                                               
employees are not required to serve those smoking areas.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:11:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER  offered his understanding  that Amendment                                                               
1 would set a more rigid standard.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:12:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  confirmed   the  proposed  amendment  would                                                               
create a more  stringent requirement.  He said it  goes back to a                                                               
previous version  of the proposed legislation  that was requested                                                               
by  the  director  of  the  international  airport  system.    He                                                               
reiterated that  he is not  aware of  anyone from a  municipal or                                                               
state airport  asking for  a smoke room;  however, there  are two                                                               
international airports that are  set up with "directly ventilated                                                               
rooms for international travelers."                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:12:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  asked for  clarification whether  HCS CSSB                                                               
63(STA), without amendment, has "an airport exception."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  explained that  a legislative staff  member had                                                               
suggested the  bill include all  airports, but feedback  from the                                                               
Department  of Transportation  & Public  Facilities (DOT&PF)  and                                                               
municipalities showed that  those airports in the  state that are                                                               
not international airports do not  want to build ventilated smoke                                                               
rooms, because  there already  are places  at those  airports for                                                               
patrons to  go outside  to smoke.   He added,  "And the  one case                                                               
that you  can't go outside  is the one  case where we've  made an                                                               
exception, and that is the international airport in Anchorage."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:14:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  surmised Amendment  1  would  require a  municipal                                                               
airport, such  as the  one in Bethel,  Alaska, to  get permission                                                               
from the legislature  to build a smoke  room; currently municipal                                                               
airports  show  no interest  in  building  smoke rooms  at  their                                                               
airport   facilities.     He  offered   his  understanding   that                                                               
Representative Kopp was nodding in agreement.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:15:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  said a  consistent theme of  the bill  is to                                                               
have  safe public  work spaces  [by requiring  smokers to]  smoke                                                               
outdoors.    He said  [Amendment  1]  "just continues  with  that                                                               
theme."                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:15:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if the objection was maintained.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER answered no.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   announced  there  being  no   further  objection,                                                               
Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:15:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  moved to  adopt  Amendment  2, labeled  30-                                                               
LS0024\T.5, Martin, 1/22/18, which read as follows:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 20 - 21:                                                                                                     
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
               "(ii)  is separated from the other business                                                                      
         or building in a manner that does not allow e-                                                                         
      cigarette vapor or aerosol to travel into the other                                                                       
     business or building;"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:15:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP directed  attention to  language on  page 3,                                                               
lines 20-21, which read:                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
            (ii) has a ventilation system vented to                                                                             
     an area where smoking is not prohibited:                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  said installing  ventilation systems  can be                                                               
expensive.   The  proposed amendment  recognizes  that there  are                                                               
well-established  businesses that  have  good relationships  with                                                               
their  neighbors.    It  would  replace  the  ventilation  system                                                               
language with "is  separated from the other  business or building                                                               
in a manner  that does not allow e-cigarette vapor  or aerosol to                                                               
travel into  the other business  or building".   He said  this is                                                               
consistent  with  a  "complaint-driven"  theme.   He  added,  "If                                                               
people are fine  with you there, this doesn't say  that you would                                                               
have to  completely redo  your ventilation  system; it  just says                                                               
that ... you're not allowing the  vapor or aerosol to travel into                                                               
the  other business  or  building, but  without  putting ...  the                                                               
positive requirement of also doing the ventilation system."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP pointed  to language on page  2, lines 23-25,                                                               
which  states that  an individual  would not  be prohibited  from                                                               
smoking  in "a  private residence  that  is in  a building  where                                                               
another residence provides  paid child care or  care for adults".                                                               
He  said he  thinks [Amendment  2] would  make the  proposed bill                                                               
"internally consistent"  while giving  e-cig stores  more liberty                                                               
in how they are allowed to establish their businesses.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:18:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if the objection was maintained.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER answered no.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:18:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked  if there was further objection  to the motion                                                               
to adopt Amendment 2.  There being none, it was so ordered.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:18:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  requested  the   committee  hear  from  a                                                               
representative from the Department  of Health and Social Services                                                               
regarding  the   department's  fiscal   note  [included   in  the                                                               
committee packet].  She directed  attention to the second line of                                                               
the  second  paragraph of  the  fiscal  analysis, which  read  as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Ideally,  the  Division   of  Behavioral  Health  would                                                                    
     consider this as a form  of "passive enforcement" which                                                                    
     could  be performed  in addition  to  the other  duties                                                                    
     assigned to the Tobacco Investigators.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  opined  the  statement is  not  one  that                                                               
"bodes really well  for a fiscal note."  She  asked if the fiscal                                                               
note was  based on "hopes and  dreams" or, as she  said she would                                                               
expect, "cold, hard reality."                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:21:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee  took an  at-ease from  1:21 p.m.  to 1:23  p.m. to                                                               
address a technical problem.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:23:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOE  DARNELL,   Investigator  IV,   Tobacco  Youth   Education  &                                                               
Enforcement  Program,   Division  of  Behavioral   Health  (DBH),                                                               
Department of  Health and Social Services  (DHSS), explained that                                                               
the DBH  is using  a passive enforcement  matrix that  it adopted                                                               
from the Municipality  of Anchorage, which has  had the ordinance                                                               
in place  since 2007.   He  said the division  does not  see [the                                                               
fiscal note] as  "we're hoping."  He relayed that  in the last 10                                                               
years  the Municipality  of Anchorage  has written  two citations                                                               
relating  to  its  smoke-free  ordinance and  has  had  only  200                                                               
complaints.  He said the  division considers that the fiscal note                                                               
will be zero, in terms of enforcement.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:24:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX drew  attention to  language in  the third                                                               
paragraph of the fiscal note analysis, which read:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     If the intent  is that the type of sign  provided is an                                                                    
     electronic  downloadable copy  of  a  sample sign,  the                                                                    
     cost  would  be minimal  regardless  of  the number  of                                                                    
     signs requested.   However, if  the intent is  for more                                                                    
     durable   manufactured   or   printed   signage,   then                                                                    
     additional resources would be needed.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   LEDOUX  asked,   "Intent  is   created  by   the                                                               
legislature, is it not?"                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. DARNELL answered that's correct.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, "So, what does the bill require?"                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. DARNELL  answered that the  bill requires that  signage needs                                                               
to be posted.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   asked  about  signage  that   is  posted                                                               
outdoors.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. DARNELL  noted that [signage]  falls under the  [Division] of                                                               
Public   Health.      Notwithstanding  that,   he   offered   his                                                               
understanding  that there  is a  zero fiscal  note for  the state                                                               
because Americans  for Nonsmokers' Rights (ANR)  will be donating                                                               
the money to purchase those signs.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  questioned whether  ANR would  be donating                                                               
those signs for eternity.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:26:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHELEY GRIGSBY,  Health Program  Manager III,  Tobacco Prevention                                                               
and  Control Program,  Division of  Public Health,  Department of                                                               
Health  and Social  Services (DHSS),  responded that  there is  a                                                               
sponsor to purchase the signs initially.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX questioned  how  the state  could come  up                                                               
with a  zero fiscal note based  on a verbal promise  from someone                                                               
to give a  donation.  She said,  "I guess I kind of  find this as                                                               
... maybe a way to avoid giving a bill a fiscal note."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:27:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. GRIGSBY said  there is no contract in  place; currently there                                                               
is  a sponsor  who would  donate  the signs.   In  response to  a                                                               
follow-up  question, she  said the  program  currently has  signs                                                               
[that could  be used] by  someone who  wants to replace  signs in                                                               
the future.   She added  that there would  be no plan  to replace                                                               
the signs every year.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:28:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  noted that the  zero fiscal note  goes to                                                               
2024,  and he  surmised  that  signs would  have  to be  replaced                                                               
before that time.  He asked  how much the donor has allocated for                                                               
the signs and how close  that matches the department's estimation                                                               
of the cost of signage.   He said signage will be needed anywhere                                                               
smoking is prohibited, and that includes  on a marine vessel.  He                                                               
stated, "I'm  quite certain the printing  of a piece of  paper is                                                               
not going to last very long on the outside of a boat."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. GRIGSBY said  she would have to investigate  further in order                                                               
to offer a response.  She then deferred to Senator Micciche.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE relayed that the  funding would cover a one-time                                                               
replacement.   He explained that  the money is solely  for DOT&PF                                                               
signage; additional  signs required  under CSSB 63(FIN)  would be                                                               
covered by a grant.   He said the few [signs]  that would have to                                                               
be replaced would  be covered "the way they're  covered today and                                                               
the way they've always been  covered since there's been a signage                                                               
requirement, and that is through  the tobacco cessation program."                                                               
He reiterated  his points  in response  to a  follow-up question.                                                               
He added  that there  would be no  additional burden  [caused by]                                                               
the proposed legislation.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, "If  there's more signs, isn't that                                                               
going to be more cost?"                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MICCICHE  answered,  "I  imagine I  could  calculate  an                                                               
incremental difference in  how that [cost would]  be covered, and                                                               
I would imagine that that increase probably exists."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:32:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  offered an example  wherein the grant pays  for 100                                                               
signs to be replaced, and if  a sign or two needs replacing every                                                               
few years, "they'll  replace it"; however, there are  "a bunch of                                                               
other signs" that  get replaced by DOT&PF as part  of its regular                                                               
program.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:33:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  questioned  how  there could  be  a  zero                                                               
fiscal note when there will be an incremental cost.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  suggested people can  view things in  a variety                                                               
of ways or  look at the facts,  and the fact in  this instance is                                                               
that there is a tobacco  cessation program originally funded by a                                                               
settlement  with  tobacco  companies   that  is  trying  to  help                                                               
Alaskans  not use  tobacco.   He said,  "They have  a portion  of                                                               
their  funding that  would help  replace signs  at no  additional                                                               
cost to the  state.  That's the fact.   That's the reason there's                                                               
not a  Department of Health  and Social Services fiscal  note for                                                               
the  replacement  of  signs;  that's the  reason  there's  not  a                                                               
Department of  Transportation [&  Public Facilities]  fiscal note                                                               
for the  replacement of signs.   I cannot think of  any other way                                                               
to answer that."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  maintained that  money currently  used for                                                               
one thing then used for something else is still a cost.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:35:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  imparted that the Tobacco  Cessation Fund is                                                               
always used  for the same thing  - not for different  things.  He                                                               
said  he spoke  to  the  commissioner of  DOT&PF  and found  that                                                               
because the signs  for which the department actually  needs to do                                                               
a  hard fabrication  are being  paid for  upfront by  the Tobacco                                                               
Cessation Fund,  and because most  of the  signs can be  put into                                                               
"all-weather devices," the cost of  minimal.  He said metal signs                                                               
last for decades.   The cost of replacing a sign  now and then is                                                               
"so  incremental" that  there is  no sign  replacement fund  that                                                               
requires the dedication of a set amount.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  noted that  it is common  for municipalities                                                               
to partner with industry on many  types of projects to cover what                                                               
a government entity  would otherwise be doing, and  he said those                                                               
kinds of programs  tend to last longer than when  they are driven                                                               
solely by the government.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  said  she  agreed with  the  comment  but                                                               
wondered why  there would not  be a  fiscal note to  reflect, for                                                               
example,  that  private  industry  will   bear  the  cost.    She                                                               
explained that the problem is the total lack of a fiscal note.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:37:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX returned to  the aforementioned fiscal note                                                               
analysis, to  a sentence  in the third  paragraph, which  read as                                                               
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Current  grantees and  contractors  will refocus  their                                                                    
     efforts   to  the   implementation   related  to   this                                                                    
     statewide smoking prohibition,  possibly at the expense                                                                    
     of current educational efforts.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  what educational  efforts  may  be                                                               
affected.    She  further  inquired   whether  someone  from  the                                                               
department could state  for the record that  the department would                                                               
not be  coming back  to the legislature  [asking for  more money]                                                               
next year because  there is not enough money  for the educational                                                               
efforts.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  GRIGSBY responded  that the  Tobacco Prevention  and Control                                                               
Program  currently  has  a network  of  community  grantees  that                                                               
provide  education statewide;  therefore, "we  wouldn't need  any                                                               
additional resources for that."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:39:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked,  "Then why does the  fiscal note say                                                               
that the  implementation may  come, possibly,  at the  expense of                                                               
current educational efforts?"                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  GRIGSBY answered,  "We're already  doing  the education,  so                                                               
there would  be no need to  do additional or take  from ... those                                                               
resources; they would continue doing what they are doing."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  asked for  the reason behind  the sentence                                                               
she had just quoted in the fiscal analysis.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. GRIGSBY stated, "So, they  would be refocusing their message,                                                               
when  they're doing  education, to  address the  passing of  this                                                               
smoke-free workplace bill."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  proffered that  in  other  words Ms.  Grigsby  was                                                               
saying  that  "they're  going  to be  focusing  on  this  message                                                               
instead of the message they're currently focusing on."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. GRIGSBY answered that is correct.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:40:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  said she is  still waiting for  someone to                                                               
tell her no one would "come  back with a supplemental" to pay for                                                               
"the message that's now being redirected."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that it  does not appear anyone is prepared                                                               
to answer that question.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:40:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  proffered that  DHSS has a  $3.2 billion                                                               
budget and  a $92 million  supplemental [budget];  therefore, she                                                               
said she  does not think this  issue is even on  the department's                                                               
radar, because  the amount  is too miniscule.   She  relayed that                                                               
she  used to  place signs  along trails  and bear  corridors, and                                                               
DOT&PF  would give  her  their  old signs.    She indicated  that                                                               
dealing with signage is already  part of the infrastructure.  She                                                               
added that perhaps the effects of  the signage will be a decrease                                                               
in smoking,  which, in turn,  will result in a  huge cost-savings                                                               
to the state.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:42:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  indicated that DOT&PF has  been candid in                                                               
regard  to   signs  being  a  potential   distraction  and  being                                                               
expensive  to replace,  and  he said  he would  like  to know  if                                                               
DOT&PF  would  be  "involved  in  this  process"  and  what  that                                                               
involvement might be.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN noted  there  was  no one  present  from DOT&PF  to                                                               
answer that question.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:44:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  indicated he  had learned  during another                                                               
committee's  bill hearing  process that  money designated  to the                                                               
[smoking  cessation]  effort could  not  be  cut, because  it  is                                                               
important to get  smoking cessation materials to the  public.  He                                                               
expressed concern  as to where  the money  will come from  in the                                                               
future.   He added, "I also  wanted to ask if  the department has                                                               
considered that given  that their intention with  this program is                                                               
to reduce  smoking, ... that  reduction in smoking is  also going                                                               
to  reduce  the amount  of  funds  available  for each  of  these                                                               
efforts, education-wise  and signage-wise  and so-forth,  and has                                                               
that been factored into ... this zero fiscal note?"                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRIGSBY  answered that the grant-related  message is directed                                                               
to statewide smoke-free law  rather than community-level efforts,                                                               
and the signs  would be absorbed by already existing  funds.  She                                                               
said  the department  is prepared  to adjust  the program  should                                                               
funds  be reduced  in the  future.   In response  to a  follow-up                                                               
question, she said there are no  plans to ask the legislature for                                                               
additional funds to replace the signs.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:46:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about  enforcement, for example, if a                                                               
complaint is filed.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:47:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  DARNELL   answered  that  for  rural   Alaska,  following  a                                                               
complaint  the state  would send  a  letter to  the violator;  if                                                               
another complaint  was submitted, a letter  with stronger wording                                                               
would be  sent; after a third  or fourth complaint, a  trooper or                                                               
Village Public  Safety Officer (VPSO)  would check  the situation                                                               
out  as part  of  normal  duties.   In  response  to a  follow-up                                                               
question, he said he could not  answer whether a village could go                                                               
a year without  someone stopping by to check on  a situation, but                                                               
he does know  that troopers do their best  in protecting citizens                                                               
and the VPSO programs.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  observed that  no one  is able  to specify                                                               
how  much this  will  cost,  and she  stated  that  it is  almost                                                               
impossible to  have regulation  or law that  costs nothing.   She                                                               
suggested it would  be more appropriate to  have an indeterminate                                                               
fiscal note.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:51:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX moved  that the  House Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee add an indeterminate fiscal note.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:51:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  reiterated that  the result  of reducing                                                               
smoking could be that the  state saves money; therefore, she said                                                               
she does  not think it  is fair for  the legislature to  tell the                                                               
department  to create  an indeterminate  fiscal  note when  there                                                               
could be a credit.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:52:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   LEDOUX  responded   that  the   reason  for   an                                                               
indeterminate fiscal note  is when there is an  uncertainty as to                                                               
[the fiscal outcome of legislation].                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  offered   his  understanding  that  "the                                                               
department  is  all  but  saying  that it  really  should  be  an                                                               
indeterminant  fiscal  note,"  and  he indicated  he  thinks  the                                                               
committee would err in not requesting one.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:52:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 1:52 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:53:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN said  there is  a  motion before  the committee  to                                                               
request an indeterminant fiscal note.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER maintained his objection to the motion.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:54:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX restated her  concern about the uncertainty                                                               
of the cost that could be  incurred under CSSB 63(FIN).  She said                                                               
there  has  been  pressure  to   push  the  proposed  legislation                                                               
through, and  it is easier  to do that  with a zero  fiscal note.                                                               
She  said she  has never  seen a  fiscal note  that "talks  about                                                               
ideals and intent."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:55:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER said  that while  he sees  Representative                                                               
LeDoux's point, he thinks the  House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                               
should  put   its  faith  in   the  departments  and   leave  the                                                               
questioning of fiscal  notes to the House Finance  Committee.  He                                                               
concluded that he  does not see anything that  would preclude him                                                               
from  trusting  in  the  vetting done  by  the  departments  that                                                               
resulted in the fiscal notes before the committee.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:56:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said it is  the job of the legislature, as                                                               
a  separate branch  of  government, to  question  what the  other                                                               
branch of government puts forward.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:57:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he thinks  the answer was clearly stated                                                               
that  [since]  the Municipality  of  Anchorage  "rolled out  this                                                               
legislation  in 2004,"  covering half  the population  of Alaska,                                                               
there have been  three violations, which he said  does not impose                                                               
an administrative burden.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:58:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS stated  opposition to  the motion,                                                               
although he said  he is sympathetic to notion  that "fiscal notes                                                               
can  be massaged  one direction  or the  other to  ... arrest  or                                                               
accelerate passage  of certain pieces  of legislation."   He said                                                               
he  thinks  there are  reasonable  arguments  that the  committee                                                               
should not  be "meddling with this  fiscal note," and he  said he                                                               
would like to  keep the executive branch "honest and  on its toes                                                               
going forward."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:59:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX countered that she  thinks it is the job of                                                               
the  legislature  to  question  fiscal   notes.    She  said  the                                                               
committee  does not  know whether  the proposed  legislation will                                                               
cost the state money or save  the state money, and she reiterated                                                               
that is the  reason for requesting an  indeterminate fiscal note.                                                               
She  opined   that  it  is   offensive  that  there  is   not  an                                                               
indeterminate  fiscal  note  in  this case  that  is  so  clearly                                                               
indeterminate.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:00:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.  Representatives  LeDoux and Eastman                                                               
voted in favor  of attaching an indeterminate fiscal  note to HCS                                                               
CSSB  63(CRA),  [as  amended].   Representatives  Kreiss-Tomkins,                                                               
Fansler,   Reinbold,  Kopp,   and   Claman   voted  against   it.                                                               
Therefore, the motion failed by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:01:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said  he has learned that all  is not well                                                               
when the  truth is not  black and white  and cannot stand  on its                                                               
own.   He  said HCS  CSSB  63(CRA), [as  amended], includes  good                                                               
intentions,  which he  supports, but  it is  also, in  part, less                                                               
than candid.   He said not only is the  fiscal note process being                                                               
massaged, but  "volunteer" is being  used to mean  "employee" and                                                               
"employer"  is  being   used  to  mean  someone   who  accepts  a                                                               
volunteer's help.   He gave an  example of an elderly  person who                                                               
has  a business,  smokes, has  no employees,  but has  a relative                                                               
come help him lift boxes  every so often.  Representative Eastman                                                               
said  HCS  CSSB  63(CRA),  [as   amended],  maintains  that  that                                                               
relative helping out  the elderly business owner  is an employee;                                                               
therefore, signs  must be put  up and the elderly  gentleman must                                                               
not smoke  in his establishment "even  though he's at no  risk of                                                               
doing anything harmful  to anyone other than  himself through his                                                               
choice of  smoking."  He  said if the legislature  cannot account                                                               
for such a  scenario, then it has not done  its due diligence and                                                               
is putting forward good intentions rather than good legislation.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:04:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   REINBOLD  said   her   take   on  the   proposed                                                               
legislation is  that it  has to do  with secondhand  smoke, which                                                               
means that  somebody else  is present when  a person  is smoking.                                                               
She said HCS  CSSB 63(CRA), [as amended], does  not infringe upon                                                               
a person's  right to smoke; it  simply outlines where it  is okay                                                               
to smoke.   She said it would apply to  places of employment, not                                                               
to people's  homes.  She said  many people have had  to deal with                                                               
secondhand smoke.   She  said she would  support moving  HCS CSSB                                                               
63(CRA), [as amended], out of committee.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:05:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  concurred with Representative Reinbold.   He                                                               
said  it amazes  him how  seriously deaths  by alcohol  and plane                                                               
crashes  are viewed  when so  many more  people die  from tobacco                                                               
use.   He said  he thinks  HCS CSSB 63(CRA)  [as amended]  has "a                                                               
light  footprint  considering  the  enormous  public  health  and                                                               
Medicaid  cost that  we pay."   Smoke  inhalation is  one of  the                                                               
number one  drivers of Medicaid  costs.   He said there  are many                                                               
examples where regulations have been  put in place to protect the                                                               
public,  including the  seat belt  requirement and  driving under                                                               
the  influence (DUI)  fines.   He reiterated  that he  thinks HCS                                                               
CSSB 63(CRA), [as amended], does not go too far.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:06:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined  that to pretend that a  bill can be                                                               
enforced and mean anything without any costs is to live in make-                                                                
believe land.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:07:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER stated  support of  HCS CSSB  63(CRA) [as                                                               
amended]  as a  good and  important step  toward ensuring  public                                                               
health, and  he said  he hopes  an effect will  be to  drive down                                                               
healthcare costs to the state.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:08:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER  moved to  report  HCS  CSSB 63(CRA),  as                                                               
amended,  out of  committee with  individual recommendations  and                                                               
the accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:08:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Kopp,  Kreiss-                                                               
Tomkins,  Fansler,  Reinbold,  and   Claman  voted  in  favor  of                                                               
reporting HCS  CSSB 63(CRA),  as amended,  out of  committee with                                                               
individual  recommendations and  the  accompanying fiscal  notes.                                                               
Representatives LeDoux and Eastman  voted against it.  Therefore,                                                               
HCS  CSSB  63(JUD)  was  reported  out  of  the  House  Judiciary                                                               
Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:09:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 2:09 p.m. to 2:18 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:18:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
          HB 216-TRANSFERS FROM DIVIDEND FUND; CRIMES                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final 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."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  noted that two  additional fiscal notes  were added                                                               
to the committee packet that day.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:19:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN directed  attention  to a  letter in  the                                                               
committee  packet, dated  12/18/17, from  Sara Race,  Director of                                                               
the  Permanent  Fund  Dividend  Division  of  the  Department  of                                                               
Revenue, to Pat Pitney, Director  of the Office of Management and                                                               
Budget.   He  said the  letter spells  out what  amount of  money                                                               
would  become  part of  the  fund  proposed  under  HB 216.    He                                                               
indicated he would like  clarification regarding the calculations                                                               
in the letter.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:20:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SARA  RACE, Director,  Central  Office,  Permanent Fund  Dividend                                                               
Division,    Department    of    Revenue    (DOR),    recommended                                                               
Representative  Eastman look  at a  calculation breakdown  in the                                                               
committee   packet  [titled   "FY  19   PFD  Fund   Appropriation                                                               
Calculation for  Departments of Corrections and  Public Safety"].                                                               
She said the division bases  the amount available for calculation                                                               
on  the dividend  available  two  years ago.    She said  [4,588]                                                               
individuals  [from the  Department of  Corrections (DOC)  and 665                                                               
from the  Department of  Public Safety (DPS)]  who applied  for a                                                               
dividend in  2017 were later identified  as [incarcerated] felons                                                               
or misdemeanants  or [sentenced  felons].   She related  that the                                                               
division can  determine eligibility  on those  cases as  it would                                                               
for  any other  application  it receives  and  identify how  many                                                               
would otherwise have  been eligible [had they not  been denied as                                                               
a  felon  or  misdemeanant].    That  calculation  results  in  a                                                               
percentage  shown on  the breakdown.   She  pointed out  a couple                                                               
minor  adjustments  that are  made  to  result in  [an  estimated                                                               
number  of otherwise  eligible applicants],  and  that number  is                                                               
multiplied  by the  dividend amount  to come  up with  the [total                                                               
appropriation].                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  pointed out the amount  of [11,429, under                                                               
the   category  of   estimated  number   of  otherwise   eligible                                                               
applicants],  and   he  asked  how  the   division  accounts  for                                                               
individuals  whose PFD  is  already "going  toward  some kind  of                                                               
restitution."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RACE   answered  that  when  the   division  is  determining                                                               
eligibility a  garnishment has not  yet been applied.   Those who                                                               
filed   could   have   had   garnishments   attached   to   their                                                               
applications, but they  would have been denied  because they were                                                               
a felon or misdemeanant.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked Ms.  Race if she  has any  idea how                                                               
many of the [11,429] might fall  into the category of those whose                                                               
PFDs  are "already  not  going  to them"  but  instead are  being                                                               
directed toward  restitution for  crimes victims,  child support,                                                               
for example.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE answered that the division  would not have the number of                                                               
individuals  that  fall  into  that   category  "for  the  entire                                                               
population";  however, the  division  would have  "a pretty  good                                                               
idea of how many that would  be of the 4,500 individuals that did                                                               
apply  for  a  dividend."    The division  could  look  at  those                                                               
applications to  determine whether there were  "garnishments that                                                               
would have otherwise  been applied if they had been  paid and not                                                               
denied."  In response to a  follow-up question, she said she does                                                               
not have that number available right now.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:23:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for  confirmation that the state is                                                               
"taking  permanent fund  dividends  from  ineligible people  that                                                               
normally would  not, because of  a conviction, ... be  allowed to                                                               
receive the dividend."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE confirmed that is correct.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  said basically the state  is taking that                                                               
money and  redistributing it, and  in [2017] 94 percent  "went to                                                               
the offender[s]  themselves to  pay for  their healthcare  in the                                                               
last  year according  to the  last  testimony or  helping pay,  I                                                               
think it was  6 percent, to restitution."   She inquired whether,                                                               
if the  state did not do  that, the money from  ineligible people                                                               
would  go  back  into  the  corpus  or  earnings  reserve  or  be                                                               
distributed among other Alaskans.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE answered as follows:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     The calculation is part of  statute now, and the amount                                                                    
     available that  is calculated  through this  process is                                                                    
     available  for appropriation.   So,  past that  point I                                                                    
     really  can't speak  to how  it is  broken into  the 94                                                                    
      percent that you speak to that's going to Department                                                                      
     of Corrections.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE indicated that if  statute changed regarding individuals                                                               
that fall into  this category, then the money would  go back into                                                               
the dividend fund  and then become available  for the calculation                                                               
process for individuals that are receiving a dividend.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:26:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  asked whether  DOC is an  eligible recipient                                                               
of the fund.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RACE answered,  "They are  one of  the individuals  that are                                                               
listed in the priority order available for appropriation."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP clarified  there  are five  or six  eligible                                                               
recipients  and,  as  Representative Reinbold  pointed  out,  one                                                               
recipient is  "pretty much consuming all  the fund."  He  said it                                                               
is  the criminal  fund, and  he said  he thinks  the question  is                                                               
whether  that  money, if  not  going  to  an inmate  fund,  would                                                               
"rotate back out  of the criminal fund" or "stay  in the criminal                                                               
fund itself."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE  replied that the  money available to the  criminal fund                                                               
is appropriated  directly from  the dividend  fund.   She offered                                                               
her understand  that if no  part of  this was listed  in statute,                                                               
then that money would be available to pay dividends.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  summarized that "these  eligible recipients"                                                               
are paid  out of  the criminal  fund through  a formula  that the                                                               
Office of Management and Budget applies.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE answered as follows:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     The money  that we calculate  here is what we  refer to                                                                    
     OMB  through  the  [memorandum], and  from  that  point                                                                    
     forward, if it wasn't appropriated,  ... I'm not sure I                                                                    
     could answer that question.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP referred  to the  1980 law  that established                                                               
the  crime victim  compensation  fund, and  indicated that  under                                                               
SSHB 216, the  amount of the dividends that  would otherwise have                                                               
been  paid  to  those  who  are not  eligible  because  of  their                                                               
criminal  convictions would  be  appropriated  annually from  the                                                               
dividend  fund  to  the  crime  victim  compensation  fund.    He                                                               
referred to  [Representative Reinbold's]  question as  to whether                                                               
those dividends would  go somewhere else if not to  the fund, and                                                               
he said  he is not  aware that that  has ever happened  but would                                                               
like to know if it has.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE  responded that  she is  not aware  that [that  has ever                                                               
happened].                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  concluded, "So,  it's  available  to go  to                                                               
eligible  recipients as  far as  you know  rather than  being re-                                                               
appropriated for other purposes."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE answered that's correct.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:29:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented  that he would like  to know how                                                               
many  of 4,500  incarcerated persons  "already ...  did not  have                                                               
access  to the  PFD  because it  had already  been  taken by  the                                                               
courts to ...  go to someone who  deserved it more."   He said he                                                               
suspects a number of Alaskans deserve  to see those funds, and he                                                               
is hesitant  to "maintain  the system"  wherein "the  state takes                                                               
those funds."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:30:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  emphasized  that  when a  felon  or  repeat                                                               
misdemeanant is ineligible  to receive a dividend  "that money is                                                               
not  going  to  anything  else  but  victim  compensation."    He                                                               
continued as follows:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     So, they would  have an excellent argument  to go right                                                                    
     to [the Office of Victims'  Rights] (OVR), who is going                                                                    
     to  be taking  care of  restitutions, the  crime victim                                                                    
     compensation fund, or  eligible nonprofit organizations                                                                    
     that  provide grants  for crime  victims and  show them                                                                    
     their order.   And this bill  prioritizes victims first                                                                    
     out  of  this fund,  which  right  now they're  victims                                                                    
     last.   So,  if  we're truly  concerned about  victims,                                                                    
     you're  right,  there  may be  a  small  percentage  of                                                                    
     people who  were on a  payment plan - that  dividend is                                                                    
     not lost,  it is going directly  to victim restoration,                                                                    
     but it's not like it's going to ... something else.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  clarified  that  SSHB  216  would  bring  a                                                               
significantly   greater  quantity   of   resource  to   restoring                                                               
survivors of crime than anything under current law.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:31:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN said  the decision  made several  years ago  to put                                                               
dividend money for  which people are not eligible into  a fund is                                                               
not a  decision up  for discussion.   The focus  today is  how to                                                               
prioritize the money that has been set aside.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN said he would  entertain amendments to SSHB 216, and                                                               
he  noted  that  Legislative  Legal  and  Research  Services  has                                                               
permission to  make any technical  and conforming changes  to the                                                               
bill based on any amendments adopted.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:33:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS moved  to  adopt  Amendment 1,  to                                                               
SSHB 216,  labeled 30-LS0572\T.1, Martin, 1/18/18,  which read as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, lines 8 - 11:                                                                                                      
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
               "(3)  nonprofit organizations to provide                                                                         
       grants for services for crime victims and domestic                                                                       
     violence and sexual assault programs;                                                                                      
            (4)  nonprofit organizations to provide                                                                             
     grants for mental health services and substance abuse                                                                      
     treatment for offenders; and"                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  deferred to his staff  to speak to                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:33:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
NOAH STAR, Staff,  Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska                                                               
State Legislature, spoke to Amendment 1  to SSHB 216 on behalf of                                                               
Representative  Kreiss-Tomkins.     He  explained   the  proposed                                                               
amendment  would  switch  the  order  of  the  third  and  fourth                                                               
priorities listed  under SSHB  216 such  that "crime  victims and                                                               
domestic violence  and sexual assault  programs" would  be listed                                                               
before "mental health services and  substance abuse treatment for                                                               
offenders".                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:34:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD emphasized her support for Amendment 1.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:35:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked the bill sponsor why the two                                                                       
organizations were listed the way they are listed in SSHB 216.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:35:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that both recipients are important.                                                                
He stated support for Amendment 1.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:36:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER removed his objection to the motion to                                                                   
adopt Amendment 1.  There being no further objection, Amendment                                                                 
1 was adopted.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:36:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 2, to SSHB 216,                                                                
labeled 30-LS0572\T.2, Martin, 1/22/18, which read as follows:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 6, following "costs;":                                                                                      
          Insert    "relating    to    contributions    from                                                                  
     dividends;"                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8, following line 5:                                                                                                  
          Insert new bill sections to read:                                                                                     
        "* Sec. 8. AS 43.23.062(a) is amended to read:                                                                      
          (a)  Notwithstanding AS 43.23.069, the Department                                                                     
     of   Revenue  shall   prepare  the   electronic  Alaska                                                                    
     permanent  fund   dividend  application  to   allow  an                                                                    
     applicant  who  files  electronically  to  direct  that                                                                    
     money  be  subtracted  from the  dividend  payment  and                                                                    
     contributed  to  the  crime  victim  compensation  fund                                                                
     (AS 18.67.162),  the  peace   officer  and  firefighter                                                                
     survivors'   fund,  or   [TO]  one   or  more   of  the                                                                
     educational  organizations,  community foundations,  or                                                                    
     charitable   organizations    that   appear    on   the                                                                    
     contribution  list  contained  in  the  application.  A                                                                    
     contribution  to the  crime  victim compensation  fund,                                                                
     the peace  officer and  firefighter survivors'  fund or                                                                    
     to  an organization  may  be $25,  $50,  $75, $100,  or                                                                    
     more, in increments  of $50, up to the  total amount of                                                                    
     the  permanent  fund  dividend that  the  applicant  is                                                                    
     entitled   to  receive.   If   the   total  amount   of                                                                    
     contributions  elected  by  an  applicant  exceeds  the                                                                    
     amount  of   the  permanent  fund  dividend   that  the                                                                    
     applicant is  entitled to receive,  contributions shall                                                                    
     be deducted from the dividend  in the order of priority                                                                    
     elected by  the applicant on the  application until the                                                                    
     entire  amount of  the dividend  that the  applicant is                                                                    
     entitled to receive is  allocated for contribution. The                                                                    
     electronic  dividend  application   form  must  include                                                                    
     notice  that seven  percent  of  the money  contributed                                                                    
     will  be  used  for administrative  costs  incurred  in                                                                    
     implementing this section, and  money from the dividend                                                                    
     fund will not be used for that purpose.                                                                                    
        * Sec. 9. AS 43.23.062(b) is amended to read:                                                                         
          (b)  The department shall list each educational                                                                       
     organization,   community  foundation,   or  charitable                                                                    
     organization  eligible  under  (c)   and  (d)  of  this                                                                    
     section, each university campus  that applies under (l)                                                                    
     of this  section, the  crime victim  compensation fund,                                                                
     and the  peace officer and firefighter  survivors' fund                                                                    
     on   the  contribution   list.  The   department  shall                                                                    
     maintain  an electronic  database for  the contribution                                                                    
     list that is accessible to  the public and that permits                                                                    
     searches  by  organization  or  fund  name,  geographic                                                                    
     location,  and type.  The  department  shall provide  a                                                                    
     statement of  the contributions  made by  an individual                                                                    
     that  is suitable  for federal  income tax  purposes to                                                                    
     each individual  who elects to contribute  under (a) of                                                                    
     this section.                                                                                                              
        * Sec. 10. AS 43.23.062(m) is amended to read:                                                                        
          (m)  In addition to the application fee in (f) of                                                                     
     this   section,  the   department   shall  withhold   a                                                                    
     coordination  fee from  each organization,  foundation,                                                                    
     or university campus  that receives contributions under                                                                    
     this  section  in  the immediately  preceding  dividend                                                                    
     year.  The   coordination  fee  for   an  organization,                                                                    
     foundation,   or   university  campus   that   receives                                                                    
     contributions  under   this  section  shall   be  seven                                                                    
     percent of the amount  of contributions reported by the                                                                    
     department   under  (j)   of  this   section  for   the                                                                    
     organization, foundation, or  university campus for the                                                                    
     immediately preceding  dividend year.  The coordination                                                                    
     fee   shall   be   separately   accounted   for   under                                                                    
     AS 37.05.142  and  shall  be accounted  for  separately                                                                    
     from the  application fee collected  under (f)  of this                                                                    
     section. The  annual estimated  balance in  the account                                                                    
     maintained  under  AS 37.05.142 for  coordination  fees                                                                    
     collected  under this  subsection  may be  appropriated                                                                    
     for   costs   of   administering  this   section.   The                                                                    
     department  may not  withhold  a  coordination fee  for                                                                    
     contributions to the crime victim compensation fund or                                                                 
     the peace officer and firefighter survivors' fund."                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:36:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  prefaced her explanation of  Amendment 2                                                               
by  relating that  a lot  of people  are not  giving as  much [in                                                               
donations]  as  they  used  to  give.    She  said  the  proposed                                                               
amendment would allow  eligible recipients of the  PFD the option                                                               
of donating  their PFD  monies to  the crime  victim compensation                                                               
fund through an existing method called ["Click, Pick, Give"].                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  stated his  support  of  Amendment 2.    He                                                               
added,  "The   Restorative  Justice  Account,  which   holds  the                                                               
appropriation, it's ...  number one priority is  the crime victim                                                               
compensation fund, which  Representative Reinbold has identified;                                                               
so, this would just move it  into the top priority voluntarily by                                                               
people on the ... Pick, Click, and Give-type of thing, I guess."                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:38:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER said  he likes Amendment 2  but wonders if                                                               
the  Permanent  Fund  Dividend Division  may  be  concerned  that                                                               
adding  too  many recipient  choices  on  Pick, Click,  Give  may                                                               
"dampen the giving spirit."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:38:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RACE  responded that  the  division  has not  done  specific                                                               
studies on the issue, but  she offered her understanding that the                                                               
Alaska Community  Foundation, which houses the  Pick, Click, Give                                                               
program,  would have  data.    She said  there  are search  tools                                                               
available to  help individuals narrow  the search  for charitable                                                               
organizations on Pick, Click, Give.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:39:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  asked  for confirmation  that  there  are  service                                                               
charges associated with  the Pick, Click, Give  program such that                                                               
100 percent of a donation does not go to the donor's choice(s).                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE confirmed  that 7 percent of a donation  is collected in                                                               
administrative fees to cover the running of the program.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked if the same  7 percent would be  taken out if                                                               
someone  chose the  crime victim  compensation  fund under  Pick,                                                               
Click,  Give, even  though it  is a  state funded  program rather                                                               
than a nonprofit organization.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RACE  answered  that  the peace  officer  and  fire  fighter                                                               
survivors'  fund is  excluded from  the 7  percent administrative                                                               
fee and so, too, would be the crime victim compensation fund.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:40:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered his  understanding that one of the                                                               
reasons  for  the   administrative  cost  is  that   there  is  a                                                               
verification  process involved.    He echoed  Ms. Race's  comment                                                               
that the crime victim compensation fund would be exempt.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:41:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER removed  his objection  to the  motion to                                                               
adopt Amendment 2.   There being no  further objection, Amendment                                                               
2 was adopted.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:41:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP moved  to adopt  Amendment 3,  to SSHB  216,                                                               
labeled 30-LS0572\T.5, Martin, 1/22/18, which read as follows:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 23, following "Law":                                                                                          
          Insert "If the Department of Law receives a                                                                       
      response to the notice before the 90-day period, the                                                                  
         Department of Law may begin collection on the                                                                      
     restitution."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 9, line 9, following "Law":                                                                                           
          Insert "If the Department of Law receives a                                                                       
      response to the notice before the 90-day period, the                                                                  
         Department of Law may begin collection on the                                                                      
     restitution."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:41:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP spoke  to Amendment  3.   He  said it  would                                                               
clarify that once the Department  of Law receives notice from the                                                               
crime victim, the department  may immediately begin "aggressively                                                               
providing assistance."  The  clarification would, under Amendment                                                               
3, be applied to two sections of SSHB 216.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:42:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER asked  if "this"  would hamper  a person,                                                               
who  at  first decided  not  to  ask  for restitution  but  later                                                               
decides he/she wants restitution.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Once an  order is  given, the  Department of  Law gives                                                                    
     notice  to the  eligible  recipient that  they have  90                                                                    
     days to  elect to  collect the restitution  without the                                                                    
     assistance of the Department of Law.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP directed  attention to  language on  page 2,                                                               
line 23, of SSHB 216, which read:                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     A  recipient may  inform  the Department  of  Law at  a                                                                    
     later time  of the recipient's election  to collect the                                                                    
     restitution  without the  assistance of  the Department                                                                    
     of Law                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  said there is  no time [constraint]  on that                                                               
provision, so a person could decide  a year later he/she does not                                                               
want help.  He said he  does not know if Representative Fansler's                                                               
question was  in terms  of a year  later someone  deciding he/she                                                               
does want help.   He said he thinks it makes sense  in the law to                                                               
have some time limitation.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN directed  attention  to the  answer  to the  issue,                                                               
which is  in Section  3, on  page 2, lines  26-29, which  read as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     A  recipient  who has  elected  under  this section  to                                                                    
     collect  restitution  without  the  assistance  of  the                                                                    
     Department of  Law may not  later request  the services                                                                    
     of that department to collect the restitution.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:44:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP pointed out that that is current law.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER  indicated  that  is the  answer  he  was                                                               
seeking.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:44:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  said he thinks everyone  is assuming that                                                               
the  proposed phrase  "receives a  response to  the notice"  - as                                                           
read in  Amendment 3 - means  a person wants to  "move forward on                                                               
this."  He  questioned whether the committee  should specify what                                                               
type of response.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP said  the  context of  the  sentence in  its                                                               
entirety - "If  the Department of Law receives a  response to the                                                           
notice before the 90-day period,  the Department of Law may begin                                                           
collection  on  the  restitution"   -  is  obvious,  because  the                                                           
department would not  begin collection on the  restitution if the                                                               
person had said he/she did not want it.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  asked  if  there is  any  intent  for  a                                                               
minimum waiting period.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  answered that the  key word in  the sentence                                                               
is "before", which  allows the process to start  immediately - as                                                           
soon as the department is notified.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:46:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER withdrew  his objection  to Amendment  3.                                                               
There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:46:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP moved  to adopt  Amendment 4,  to SSHB  216,                                                               
labeled 30-LS0572\T.6, Martin, 1/22/18, which read as follows:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 7 - 9:                                                                                                       
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(b)  The office of victims' rights shall make                                                                        
        restitution payments to eligible victims in the                                                                         
     following priority order:"                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:46:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that language  on page 3, lines 7-8, of                                                               
SSHB  216,  read:   "If  an  order  of restitution  provides  for                                                               
payment  to more  than one  crime victim".   Representative  Kopp                                                               
said that  sounds like a  restitution order for  multiple people.                                                               
Amendment 4  would highlight the  priority order,  which reflects                                                               
current practice.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how OVR  would be instructed to deal                                                               
with instances where there is more  than one crime victim if that                                                               
language is changed under Amendment 4.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that  under the current system, once                                                               
a  case is  adjudicated and  it is  time to  issue a  restitution                                                               
order,  the court  would notify  OVR of  the restitution  orders,                                                               
which  would enable  the office  to connect  with the  victims to                                                               
offer assistance  in getting victims'  orders paid and  work with                                                               
the Permanent Fund  Dividend Division.  He  added, "This actually                                                               
empowers OVR  in a  way they  have not  been empowered  before to                                                               
represent victims in getting them restitution."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP said  if  Representative Eastman's  question                                                               
pertains to  multiple victims  on a  single incident,  then those                                                               
individuals  are  distinct  victims and  would  receive  distinct                                                               
restitution orders.  The priority [as  shown on page 3, lines 10-                                                               
12, of SSHB 216], would remain as follows:                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
                    (1) a natural person;                                                                                       
                    (2) private businesses;                                                                                     
                    (3) state and local governments.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN offered  a situation  in which  there are                                                               
two  crimes and  a victim  from  each one,  and he  asked if  the                                                               
Office  of Victims'  Rights would  prioritize  the first  natural                                                               
person and get PFD funds to him/her  but not be able to get funds                                                               
to the other person whose chronological order is second.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP  replied   that  Representative   Eastman's                                                               
question is answered on [page 3], lines 13-15, which read:                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
          (c) The office of victims' rights shall adopt                                                                         
     regulations  under AS  44.62 (Administrative  Procedure                                                                    
     Act)   to  establish   a   process   for  payments   of                                                                    
     restitution  balances  from   the  restorative  justice                                                                    
     account established in AS 43.23.048.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  stated, "It's  very difficult in  statute to                                                               
get  down  into  the  weeds  of  what  needs  to  happen  on  the                                                               
regulation  level."    Regulation   cannot  violate  statute  and                                                               
carries out  the will of  statutes, he  said.  He  concluded, "We                                                               
are putting  into the  law the vehicle  from which  regulation is                                                               
enabled,  which   will  answer  those  thornier   questions,  and                                                               
certainly there  is public comment  periods and things  like that                                                               
for us to comment on."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:50:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER removed  his objection  to the  motion to                                                               
adopt Amendment 4.   There being no  further objection, Amendment                                                               
4 was adopted.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:50:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved  to adopt Amendment 5,  to SSHB 216,                                                               
labeled 30-LS0572\T.3, Martin, 1/23/18, which read as follows:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, line 31:                                                                                                           
          Delete "if they had been eligible"                                                                                    
          Insert "[IF THEY HAD BEEN ELIGIBLE]"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 7:                                                                                                            
          Delete "if they had been eligible"                                                                                    
          Insert "[IF THEY HAD BEEN ELIGIBLE]"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, lines 30 - 31:                                                                                                     
          Delete "if they had been eligible"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:51:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke  to Amendment 5.   He explained that                                                               
by  removing  the   words  "if  they  had   been  eligible",  the                                                               
assumption  would  be  that those  individuals  would  have  been                                                               
eligible,  which  is the  process  he  said the  department  uses                                                               
currently wherein if someone is  incarcerated and convicted, then                                                               
the  assumption  is that  he/she  would  have been  eligible  but                                                               
because of the  conviction/incarceration he/she is not.   He said                                                               
that is what triggers the money to restorative justice account.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP responded  that  Representative Eastman  had                                                               
identified a  legislative drafting  style.  He  suggested reading                                                               
the  first part  of  [paragraph (6)],  on page  4,  line 29,  and                                                               
adjoining it with the final words  on line 31, such that it read:                                                               
"the total  amount that would have  been paid" "if they  had been                                                               
eligible".   He said  this language  has been  in statute  for 30                                                               
years   and   has  worked   for   the   Department  of   Revenue.                                                               
Representative  Kopp  again  suggested compacting  the  words  in                                                               
[subsection (b)],  on page  5, lines  4 and 7,  to read:   "total                                                               
amount that  would have been  paid" "if they had  been eligible".                                                               
He  said  deleting  "if  they had  been  eligible"  just  changes                                                               
drafting style;  it's a different  way of saying the  same thing.                                                               
He indicated  that adopting Amendment 5  could complicate things,                                                               
because the  committee would  be "messing with  a section  of law                                                               
that's worked well for a long time."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:53:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  indicated that she would  have supported                                                               
the  proposed amendment  "if we  weren't collecting  from anybody                                                               
ineligible."   However,  she opined  that deleting  "if they  had                                                               
been eligible"  is undermining, because  "who are we to  stop ...                                                               
if they'd never been eligible in  the first place?"  She said she                                                               
would oppose Amendment 5.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:54:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER said  he gathers that Amendment  5 is just                                                               
wordsmithing.    He  asked if  it  was  Representative  Eastman's                                                               
thought to delete the words as  a way of making the language more                                                               
concise.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN indicated that  Amendment 5 is directed to                                                               
someone  who is  not  privy  to the  way  the  language has  been                                                               
interpreted by  the department.   He said the assumption  is that                                                               
"we're only dealing  with individuals who are  eligible and then,                                                               
because of  their conviction or incarceration,  they are rendered                                                               
ineligible."    He  said  there   are  many  requirements  to  be                                                               
eligible;  one  of  them  is  that  a  person  must  apply.    He                                                               
continued:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     But  that's not  the way  that ...  the department  has                                                                    
     interpreted  it.   They have  interpreted it  as though                                                                    
     those  words  were  not,  in   fact,  there.    They've                                                                    
     interpreted it as though if  you are incarcerated or if                                                                    
     you  have received  a conviction,  ... you're  still in                                                                    
     Alaska,  you've ...  accomplished your  eligibility and                                                                    
     so  forth,   and  so  we'll   just  ...   presume  that                                                                    
     eligibility.   And so, ... what  I've suggested through                                                                    
     this  amendment   is  that  instead  of   obliging  the                                                                    
     department to sort of  make that interpretive decision,                                                                    
     make it more clear in the  language that we are not, in                                                                    
     fact, requiring anyone to apply,  so that then they can                                                                    
     be found  ineligible by virtue  of their  conviction or                                                                    
     incarceration.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:56:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP suggested there may  be some confusion in the                                                               
matter.  He offered clarification as follows:                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     You  are  presumed  in  the law  to  not  be  eligible,                                                                    
     period,  even if  you  have applied.    ... It  doesn't                                                                    
     matter; ... that is now  an ineligible dividend, and it                                                                    
     goes into this crime [victim] compensation fund.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:56:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  offered a scenario in  which someone comes                                                               
to Alaska, commits a  crime on day one in the  state, and ends up                                                               
in jail.  She said the person  would not only be ineligible for a                                                               
PFD  because of  being  incarcerated, but  he/she  would also  be                                                               
ineligible   [for   not   having  met   the   minimum   residency                                                               
requirement].   She asked  if that person's  money would  go into                                                               
[the crime victim compensation fund].                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the answer  is no because the person was                                                               
already not  eligible [before  he/she committed  the crime].   He                                                               
said [SSHB 216] addresses AS  43.23.005(d), which pertains to the                                                               
criminal aspects  regarding disqualification.  He  said there are                                                               
other  [subsections], including  one that  addresses a  residency                                                               
requirement.   The proposed legislation  focuses on a  person who                                                               
is otherwise eligible but for subsection (d) of the statute.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:59:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  questioned  how  a  person  who  is  not                                                               
eligible [for a PFD] would "impact this situation."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE pointed back to  the aforementioned calculation page and                                                               
continued as follows:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Because we do have 4,500  individuals that do apply for                                                                    
     the dividend, we are able  to walk through the standard                                                                    
     eligibility  process, which  would  then  speak to  any                                                                    
     other eligibility  requirements that  those individuals                                                                    
     did not meet,  which is why a percentage  is applied to                                                                    
     the total number of individuals  that are reported from                                                                    
     DPS and Public Safety rather than 100 percent.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:00:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  announced that Amendment  5 would be  left pending.                                                               
He noted  that Representative Eastman  had supplied  a memorandum                                                               
addressing the issue,  and he said he would distribute  it to the                                                               
committee  in  future.    He  noted the  last  paragraph  of  the                                                               
memorandum written by Hillary Martin  advises caution in amending                                                               
a statute  that has  existed for years  and has  been interpreted                                                               
one way.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
[SSHB 216 was held over.]                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:02:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB063 Supporting Document-National VFW Notice 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 63
SB063 Public Comment-Supporting 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 63
SB063 Public Comment-Opposing & Amend 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 63
SB063 Amendments #1-2.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 63
HB216 Additional Document-FY19 Felons Calculation 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-FY19 Felons Calculation revised 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-Old DOC Fiscal Note SB104-DOC-OC-01-21-14 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
SB 104
HB216 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Fiscal Note DOA-VCCB 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Fiscal Note DOR-PFD 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Updated Fiscal Note DOR-PFD 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 DOC Medicaid Coverage Memo 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Amendments #1-5.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216