Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
04/07/2016 01:00 PM House 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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB347 | |
| HB205 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 347 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 2016
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Kurt Olson (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 347
"An Act relating to the limitation period to commence a false
claims action; relating to recovery for false claims for state
or municipal funds; and amending Rules 4, 24, and 46, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 205
"An Act relating to conditions of release; relating to community
work service; relating to credit toward a sentence of
imprisonment for certain persons under electronic monitoring;
relating to the restoration under certain circumstances of an
administratively revoked driver's license, privilege to drive,
or privilege to obtain a license; allowing a reduction of
penalties for offenders successfully completing court- ordered
treatment programs for persons convicted of driving under the
influence; relating to termination of a revocation of a driver's
license; relating to restoration of a driver's license; relating
to credits toward a sentence of imprisonment, to good time
deductions, and to providing for earned good time deductions for
prisoners; relating to early termination of probation and
reduction of probation for good conduct; relating to the rights
of crime victims; relating to the disqualification of persons
convicted of certain felony drug offenses from participation in
the food stamp and temporary assistance programs; relating to
probation; relating to mitigating factors; relating to treatment
programs for prisoners; relating to the duties of the
commissioner of corrections; amending Rule 32, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 347
SHORT TITLE: RECOVERY OF FALSE CLAIMS FOR STATE FUNDS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
02/24/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/16 (H) JUD, FIN
04/07/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 205
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT
04/17/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/17/15 (H) JUD, FIN
03/11/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/11/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/12/16 (H) JUD AT 2:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/12/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/14/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/16/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/16/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/18/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/18/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/21/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/21/16 (H) JUD AT 5:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/22/16 (H) JUD AT 5:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/22/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/23/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/23/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/23/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/23/16 (H) -- Continued from 3/22/16 --
03/28/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/28/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/30/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/30/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/31/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/31/16 (H) -- Will be continued from 3/30/16 --
04/04/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/04/16 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/04/16 (H) JUD AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/04/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/05/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/05/16 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/05/16 (H) JUD AT 5:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/05/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/06/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/06/16 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
04/07/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REID MAGDANZ, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 347 on behalf of Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins.
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Section Statewide Supervisor,
Human Services
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 347, answered
questions.
DAVID BOYLE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 347, offered
testimony.
STEVEN MERRILL
Alaska Policy Forum
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITIION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 347, offered
testimony.
RAY KREIG
Alaska Policy Forum
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITIION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 347, offered
testimony.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 347, offered
testimony and answered questions.
GRACE ABBOTT, Staff
Representative Charisse Millett
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, discussed
various amendments.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, discussed
various amendments and answered questions.
GREG RAZO, Chair
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, answered
questions.
LAURA BROOKS, Health Care Administrator
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, answered
questions.
TRACEY WOLLENBERG, Deputy Director
Appellate Division
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, answered
questions.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, offered
testimony and answered questions.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, answered
questions.
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner Designee
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, answered
questions.
SUSANNE DiPETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:54 PM
CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Representatives Claman,
Kreiss-Tomkins, Keller, and LeDoux were present at the call to
order. Representatives Foster and Lynn arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 347-RECOVERY OF FALSE CLAIMS FOR STATE FUNDS
1:34:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 347, "An Act relating to the limitation period to
commence a false claims action; relating to recovery for false
claims for state or municipal funds; and amending Rules 4, 24,
and 46, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
1:35:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS explained that the qui tam bill or
the Alaska False Claims Act is an anti-waste, fraud, and abuse
piece of legislation that has been adopted on the federal level
by approximately 29 states around the nation. He advised that
it is fairly well vetted and modeled after other states,
specifically the State of New York, and is substantially similar
to language in the Medicaid Reform bill, currently in the other
body. While there are a few cosmetic differentiations, he
offered, it is effectively the same idea except this is
inclusive to all subject matter, whereas the Medicaid Reform
bill is specific to only Medicaid. He deferred to his staff for
a greater analysis.
1:36:27 PM
REID MAGDANZ, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, reiterated that the False Claims Act
is based off of false claims acts enforced at the federal level
and approximately 29 other states in the union. The central
components include: defining false claims (Sec. 2 of HB 347);
the attorney general is charged with investigating false claims
cases; and the portion of the bill that is perhaps most
noteworthy relates to the ability of a private plaintiff, the
qui tam plaintiff, to bring a case alleging false claims in
situations where the attorney general does not bring a case due
to limited resources or because the attorney general is unaware.
House Bill 347 spells out the process for the private plaintiff
to bring a case, wherein they would file a [complaint] with the
court under seal and at the same time serve the attorney
general, whereby the attorney general has 60-days to review that
case and investigate the claims made. At the end of the 60-day
period or an extension, the attorney general can either pursue
the case or allow a municipality to pursue the case if the claim
is against a municipality. Although, he explained, if the
attorney general declines to pursue the case, the private party
who originally identified the fraud can pursue the action to
conclusion. He offered that no matter which course is chosen,
the private plaintiff is entitled to receive a portion of the
money recovered if the case is won, and the exact percentage
varies based upon how much information and how large of a role
the private plaintiff played. The federal law has resulted in
over $30 billion worth of recovery to the federal government in
cases originally brought by a private plaintiff. He noted that
this [bill] provides a powerful tool against fraud by allowing
individual people the ability to bring cases when they identify
fraud, and it provides a financial incentive to do so.
1:40:01 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX opined there is a federal qui tam statute but that
statute specifically excludes tax matters. She asked whether
this bill includes tax division issues, and further asked him to
explain what this bill does where the federal statute decided
not to, and whether the qui tam statutes in other states include
taxes.
MR. MAGDANZ referred to Sec. 2(b) [page 2, line 25], which read:
(b) This section applies to claims, records, or
statements made under AS 43 if
MR. MAGDANZ advised that HB 347 does apply to tax cases, and it
only applies to claims, records, or statements made under AS 43,
Alaska's tax title, if the net income or sales of the person
against whom the action is brought is equal to or exceeds $1
million or the damages sought exceed $350,000. He continued
that the bill includes tax matters because the state law the
sponsor modeled it after also includes tax matter.
1:41:27 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether Mr. Magdanz said that there must
be a claim in excess of $1 million.
MR. MAGDANZ opined that it is not a claim in excess of $1
million, the net income or sales of the person against whom the
false claims action is being brought must exceed $1 million a
year. Therefore, it cannot be used to bring a claim against
small businesses or individuals with small tax burdens.
1:42:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked, in addition to the tax question,
whether there are other ways wherein the Alaska False Claims Act
would differ from the federal False Claims Act in terms of the
kinds of claims that can be brought.
MR. MAGDANZ offered that he has not performed an exhaustive
side-by-side analysis of the two acts, but their definitions of
false claims are relatively similar and he would provide the
information.
1:43:07 PM
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Section Statewide Supervisor, Department of Law, available to
answer questions.
MS. KRALY, in response to Chair LeDoux, responded that she does
not do any work with respect to taxes.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked in what situations there might be a valid
case for tax fraud that the attorney general's office would
decide not to pursue a case.
MS. KRALY requested clarification and asked whether the question
was that Chair LeDoux would like to understand under what
circumstances the attorney general may decline to pursue an
action where the monetary thresholds had been met.
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed, and she clarified where the monetary
circumstances have been met and under what circumstances the
attorney general would decline to pursue a case.
MS. KRALY responded that she can answer that question generally,
and will return with more specifics. She explained that the way
false claims acts are designed is that the attorney general will
be served with a copy of the complaint that has been filed in
court under seal, and would have 60-days to evaluate the merits
of the allegations within that complaint. At which time the
attorney general has to make a decision either to: proceed with
the case on their own accord; defer to the qui tam plaintiff, in
this instance; or move the court to dismiss the claim because
even though the monetary thresholds had been met there would be
circumstances as set forth in the statutes. She remarked that
she is not as familiar with this statute as with the statute for
Medicaid fraud cases. There are specific limitations as to
certain claims not considered to be a false claim even if it may
arise to be a false claim in general or it may appear to be a
false claim, such as information that is within the public's
sphere. For example, she said, an investigative news story
advises that "Organization X has been doing these bad acts" and
then someone files a case and states that "This is a false
claim." That scenario would not be considered a false claim
under the statute, so that claim could not be pursued even
though the monetary thresholds had been met. In the event an
ongoing investigation had taken place for some other civil or
criminal action related to that allegation, the Department of
Law would be limited from pursuing those. She related that
there are specific provisions within HB 347, and within false
claims acts in general that limit and preclude the prosecution
of a false claim under very certain circumstances in statute.
She offered a scenario where the Department of Law determined
there wasn't sufficient evidence to support the claim and meet
the burden of taking it to trial, the Department of Law could
then move to settle or dismiss the case.
1:46:39 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that in the event the Department of Law
(DOL) decides not to pursue the case they could determine
whether it is a frivolous case or not and dismiss it themselves.
MS. KRALY responded generally yes, and advised that she has
reviewed several versions of the general false claim act and all
have the provision where the Department of Law (DOL) or in this
case because municipalities were involved, the governmental
agency would be able to evaluate that claim and determine
whether or not to move to dismiss the court. She opined that it
is not an automatic dismissal because they would have to
petition the court to dismiss the claim. In those
circumstances, she advised, the qui tam plaintiff would be able
to be present in the court and make an argument or evidentiary
offer to the court to say, "No, this claim should not be
dismissed and I should be allowed to go forward." It is not an
automatic dismissal, she reiterated, it is a process of
requesting the court to consider dismissal with the plaintiff
being able to argue otherwise.
1:48:01 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that she wants to be certain the
committee does not pass something that allows qui tam plaintiffs
to, perhaps, unjustly harass.
MS. KRALY responded that that is a very good point and it has
been raised in both bodies in dealing with the Medicaid reform
bill. Due to the 60-day investigation by the attorney general's
office and the ability of the attorney general to move for
dismissal and/or to settle a case, those protections are such
that they will limit what has been characterized as frivolous or
harassing litigation by individuals. There are built-in
protections under these statutes for the Department of Law to
come in and perform a robust evaluation of the allegations and
the evidence that supports those allegations, she remarked.
Within that 60-day period of investigation the Department of Law
has the ability to subpoena for records and conduct discovery.
There is a provision in the statute that allows the Department
of Law a continuation of 30-days to be certain of a complete
investigation to assure that the claim does have merit, or that
it should be dismissed, or settled.
1:49:32 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the Department of Law is supportive
of this bill.
MS. KRALY responded that the Department of Law has no position
on this bill.
1:49:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the attorney general's notice
of the [complaint], and offered a circumstance where the
attorney general knows little or nothing about the claim and
decides it is a good claim. The attorney general then takes
over the claim and the qui tam plaintiff is out of the picture
as it is the state's lawsuit. He asked whether that is what
happens when the state decides to accept the claim.
MS. KRALY said in a sense yes, but the qui tam plaintiff is
still able to participate, possibly not given party status but
they are involved and if there is a settlement they have the
ability to participate and object to a settlement. She pointed
out that she has not studied this bill in detail, but the other
false claims acts read as such and they participate but the
litigation would be directed by the Department of Law.
1:50:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered a second scenario in that after
being notified of the claim, the state moves to dismiss it. He
asked whether the determination is based on the merits based on
the facts, or a legal determination assuming the facts are as
the qui tam plaintiff says they are, it is still not a
recognizable claim under the False Claims Act so it should get
dismissed.
MS. KRALY opined that it could be done either way, and further
opined that there is kind of a merits based analysis but there
is also a substantive review that is required by the Department
of Law (DOL) that would then determine whether or not there was
sufficient evidence. For example, she offered, the complaint
comes in and alleges a situation within the public sphere and as
a matter of law, it is not a false claim and DOL would move to
dismiss, which is easy to decide. In the event there is not an
easy answer, which would go through the four or five provisions
in this bill and other bills like it, which reads these do not
constitute false claims; therefore, they can't proceed. At that
point, a more substantive review of the allegation would be
required through discovery and an investigation to determine the
merits of the allegations, she explained.
1:52:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked how this bill gives the state or a
potential false claims plaintiff something they don't already
have by using the federal act.
MS. KRALY pointed out that the quick answer is that it allows a
false claims for state administered programs and, she opined
that the federal act would not allow pursuing a false claim for
a state funded program. She offered the example of Medicaid
programs and said there are a number of federal false claims
dealing with pharmaceuticals that the state participates in, but
those are a broader based issue and also have a federal
component to it. She opined that this would give the qui tam
plaintiff the ability to identify and pursue a false claim based
upon state funded activities under state statutes and
regulations.
1:53:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the state's current budget
situation and asked the department's capacity to get involved in
the false claims actions on a state level.
MS. KRALY referred to the fiscal note attached to the Medicaid
reform bill (SB 74), and noted that the department asked for
some resources to pursue that. She said it is a matter of how
it would be calculated out and that it may require additional
resources by the Department of Law, but she is not familiar with
how the department will calculate those out.
1:54:47 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked who the Alaska False Claims Act might be used
against and noted that Medicaid has a federal component;
therefore, couldn't an action be brought under the federal law.
She asked for an example.
MS. KRALY deferred to the sponsor or his staff.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to his staff.
1:55:45 PM
MR. MAGDANZ said the definition of false claims in Sec. 2 of the
act applies to basically anyone asking the state for money or
resources or receiving money or resources from the state. He
offered that he has not performed a precise legal analysis to
know exactly which cases might fall under it or might not.
Basically, he noted, anyone who had a contract with the state
could be subject to a false claims action if they were
defrauding the state. For example, he said, IT procurement
cases.
1:56:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Mr. Magdanz was
familiar with false claims brought in other states and
jurisdictions that settled, and the subject matter.
1:56:55 PM
MR. MAGDANZ answered that he copied a short list from the
"Taxpayers Against Fraud" website and many of the cases have to
do with medical claims or pharmaceuticals. He then offered
examples of different cases, such as, oil on public lands, the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
...
1:57:34 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned why that would have been brought under a
state statute.
MR. MAGDANZ responded that these are examples of claims brought
under federal statute.
1:57:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to [Sec. 37.10.110], beginning
page 1, line 11 through to page 2, line 24, and said he found
the language confusing and was advised that this language came
from the federal act. He pointed to [Sec. 37.10.110(a)(4)] on
page 2, lines 9-11, which read:
(4) possess or control public property or
money used or to be used by the state or a
municipality and knowingly deliver or cause to be
delivered less property than the amount for which the
person receives a certificate or receipt;
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that Alaska is the only state where
all of the natural resources of the state are public property.
He pointed this out, not because he sees it as a large problem,
but rather because it is simply importing language without a
careful analysis of all of the language in every single
subsection.
Representative Keller referred to [Sec. 37.10.110(a)(6)] on page
2, lines 15-16, which read:
(6) knowingly buy or receive as a pledge of
an obligation or debt public property from a person
who may not lawfully sell or pledge the property.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to [Sec. 37.10.110(a)(8)] on page
2, lines 15-16, which read:
(8) fail to disclose a false claim to
the state or a municipality within a reasonable time
after discovery of the false claim if the person is a
beneficiary of an inadvertant submission of a false
claim to an employee, officer, or agent of the state
or a municipality or to a contractor, grantee, or
other recipient of state or municipal funds.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER described subsections (4), (6), and (8) as
confusing because it is difficult to imagine a case where this
might be applied. He asked whether this language had been
carefully considered, whether this language is common to
Alaska's laws, and whether the committee is doing things it may
regret.
2:00:01 PM
MR. MAGDANZ acknowledged that this language was largely drawn
from other examples in templet legislation, and that
Representative Keller made good points.
CHAIR LEDOUX said she is not moving HB 347 today and opened
public testimony.
2:01:04 PM
DAVID BOYLE said he is testifying on his own behalf and that he
is a member of the Alaska Policy Forum. He explained that the
Alaska False Claims Act has a deterring effect on preventing
fraud, such as Medicaid fraud. More importantly, he noted, it
rewards public employees and protects them from reprisal
actions, it rewards everyday Alaskans to be active in daily
governmental functions, and there are 29 states including
Washington D.C., with false claims acts. He then listed various
cases within the federal program, which included: the McKesson
Corporation (Pharmacy) was found guilty of $151 million for
sales in Medicaid fraud; the Walter Investment Management
Corporation submitted $30 million in false claims to the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
they later received $5.5 million in reward incentives; and
recently 12 Detroit public school principals, an assistant
superintendent, and the vendor were charged by the FBI in an
illegal bribery and kick-back scheme - fraudulent invoices for
supplies totaling over $900 thousand. In 2009, the Alaska
Policy Forum recommended to the Anchorage School District that
they "Formulate, invest, and implement a fraud waste and abuse
policy to ensure most efficient operations. The focus on fraud
and abuse should be: 1. procurement and contracting and the
potential theft of district property. This requires that
stringent equipment control policies be established and
followed. The comprehensive fraud and abuse policy should also
include full whistleblower protection and incentives for the
identification of fraud waste -and abuse." Unfortunately, he
said, the Anchorage School District did not agree because it
would be too difficult to implement and the incentivization of
the program would not be fair. He asked that the committee pass
HB 347 out of committee because "we need to squeeze every penny
out of the Alaska budget due to our fiscal crisis."
2:03:51 PM
STEVEN MERRILL said he is testifying on behalf of the Alaska
Policy Forum, is an Anchorage attorney, "and a long-time freedom
fighter." Mr. Merrill offered testimony as follows:
My statement here for you today is entitled, Gangsters
Beware, and I want to start with an old Scottish
proverb: 'Thieves operate in the dark, yet are visible
in many ways people can see.'
Every year paperwork con artists, from mega billion
dollar corporations to family run fraud shacks rip off
American government to the tune of untold billions of
dollars. Few perpetrators are ever caught. The ones
that are caught typically are discovered and exposed
by those working in some way with the fraudster.
Maybe someone who becomes outraged at the crime being
committed. But that kind of event might usually be
the end for justice, just silent, disgusted what was
happening. That is unless the potential whistleblower
manages to use the only effective means that has ever
been in the United States for exposing fraud against
the public treasury. That is called the False Claims
Act. It's time Alaska joined 29 other states in
trying to do something about the tens of millions of
dollars in state government, right here in our state,
is conned into giving to flim-flam men every year.
Alaska needs its own false claims act, as proposed
here by Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, it also needs a
whistleblower protection act, and an Alaska fraud hot-
line so people can be aware of these laws, both
government contractors, government employees, and
management of government contractors, so everyone
knows what the law is and how they can contact a
confidential source. The fraud hot-line could offer
confidentiality that is kept outside the direct state
record keeping, which is quite often very important to
a whistleblower. I helped the Alaska Policy Forum
this year draft a false claims act for Alaska that is
drawn from a number of state laws across the county.
So -- that is the case also with this bill proposed by
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, primarily drawn, I'm
told, from the New York statute. The major difference
between the two is that the New York law caps
whistleblower compensation at a 25 percent share of
the total recovery. And it also, more importantly and
to me oddly, sets a minimum amount in controversy that
is quite high, $350 thousand dollar limit.
2:06:54 PM
Now most states, and most -- and the federal
government have a higher cap and no floor. Typically
the cap is 30-35 percent. The difference between
these approaches can be critical to whether a case is
going to be accepted or not. One that may not have an
exceptionally large recovery to be had. A false claim
could be for vast millions of dollars or for rip offs
that do not even reach $100 thousand dollars. Why
should lesser fees face no consequences -- no possible
consequences? The solution we propose is to delete
the cap in this bill and to use brackets like tax
brackets for determining the (indisc.) share of the
recovery. A higher proportion of the first dollar
recovered and a lesser proportion as the size of the
recovery rises. Ladies and gentlemen, this proposed
new law, before the committee, would finally greatly
endanger the hosts of parasites who are routinely
stealing the public funds of Alaska. This year let's
make the first serious effort ever in Alaska to combat
fraud, waste and abuse of public funds. Thank you.
2:08:14 PM
MR. MERRILL, in response to Chair LeDoux, agreed to forward a
copy of the qui tam bill formulated by the Alaska Policy Forum.
CHAIR LEDOUX said the committee would like to compare their bill
with the current HB 347 to determine how to make it into a
better bill.
MR. MERRILL advised that the Alaska Public Forum bill recommends
a hot-line law and a whistleblower protection act which, he
opined, are necessary components of this.
2:09:22 PM
RAY KREIG, Alaska Policy Forum, said he is probably testifying
both on behalf of the Alaska Policy Forum and himself. He
offered testimony as follows:
And I just wanted to say, in listening to the earlier
questions, including Madam Chair your own questions of
'Why do we need this if there is a federal statute?'
Just to give you a little bit of history, the Policy
Forum was looking into the excesses of the new crime
lab on Tudor Road while it was being proposed. And I
got involved with that investigation and our first
attention at the Policy Forum to the problem with
Alaska not having fraud, waste, and abuse statutes
came from our interviewing a former crime lab
director, Chris Beheim. He strongly felt that our
state procedures and statutes were lacking in this
area. And the ongoing outcome of the investigations
surrounding the crime lab was this whitepaper that Mr.
Beheim was a co-author of, that came out and was
distributed to the legislature several months ago. We
didn't know about this hearing today, we had no idea
it was coming up. Mr. Beheim undoubtedly would have
testified, but he's just unavailable right now as this
is going on. So, I am not nearly the expert on the
statute, obviously, as Mr. Merrill but I thought the
committee should know that the retired crime lab
director Beheim was the original origin of this and
strongly is in favor of passing this legislation and
the other accompanying whistleblower legislation
that's in the Policy Forum whitepaper. Thank you very
much.
CHAIR LEDOUX held public testimony open.
2:12:31 PM
MS. KRALY clarified for the record the issue of the federal
False Claims Act in Medicaid and explained there is a reason to
have a state false claims act even when Medicaid is involved.
She further explained that if the state had an approved and
federally certified Alaska False Claims Act, the State of Alaska
would receive a ten percentage point swing for Alaska from the
federal government for monies recovered under its state false
claims act, a 55/45 percent axle. She expressed that the record
should be clear that the fact that the federal act would allow
the state to pursue Medicaid claims under that federal act, the
state act has a direct benefit to the State of Alaska.
2:13:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that there are fraud occasions now
and asked whether any federal monies are currently available for
that which the state has pursued.
MS. KRALY responded that the state has participated in multiple
class actions related to Medicaid and Medicaid fraud through the
Consumer Protection Section, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the
Department of Law (DOL).
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether there is federal money that
helps the state in those fraud investigations now.
MS. KRALY answered that if the action is prosecuted or dealt
with through the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit there is federal
funding that pays for the attorneys and investigators that work
on those cases and they provide an "administrative match" and
they are funded at 75 percent federal dollars to 25 percent
state dollars.
2:15:00 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS), said the
record should be clear that the Alaska Court System is still
looking at the impact HB 347 may have on the court system. She
noted that the Department of Law (DOL) provided an indeterminate
fiscal note on the grounds that they are unclear as to how many
cases this might generate. There is some expectation that the
cases it does generate will be mostly by self-represented
parties. She offered that this is a policy call and should the
legislature pass the bill, the court system will be able to
implement it. She advised that she spoke to the staff of the
sponsor regarding the unusual procedures in the bill, and that
perhaps it isn't quite as stylized to what is typically done in
Alaska as it could be. It is unclear how a complaint will be
filed with the court in-camera and then remain under seal for
60-days because currently there are no procedures set up,
although, she noted, the court system could develop a procedure
if it becomes law. She suggested that it could be more
efficient and effective that the complaints are delivered
directly to the attorney general's office without having the
court more or less be the babysitter for those complaints for
60-days until the attorney general decides what to do. She
noted it is something her office will work out and she looks
forward to continuing to work with the sponsor's office.
2:16:40 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked why Ms. Meade thought that most of the
complaints will be brought by pro per plaintiffs.
MS. MEADE opined that if the complaints or claims have merit,
the attorney general's office would be inclined to take the case
and pursue the case. With regard to oil companies, she opined,
the Department of Revenue routinely audits and the attorney
general's office pursues the audit on every single tax return
the oil companies file. She referred to Medicaid and said it
appears that if the attorney general was told there was a
problem with a doctor falsely making Medicaid claims against the
state, the attorney general would pursue it. It is true that
this is for those cases that the attorney general opts not to
pursue either because it doesn't think there is enough evidence
to win, or alternatively, it doesn't have the resources to
pursue every single case. She offered that some of these will
be brought by self-represented people whether there is a lot of
basis for them, or maybe not.
2:18:08 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the incentive piece and asked whether
Ms. Meade believes this would bring out employees of companies
who see something legitimately wrong in their companies. Yet,
without the bill the employees might ask themselves whether they
really want to step forward. Although, if they see there is a
monetary reward to it they might take that chance, and if it's
legitimate they will find an attorney.
MS. MEADE agreed, and said that the intent of the bill is to
help people who witness legitimate fraud recover the funds for
the state and receive a reward. She related that, particularly
in this state, there are a high number of self-represented
litigants and under this bill self-represented people could
pursue claims that the attorney general's office determines are
not pursuable. Again, she said, this is the committee's policy
call and those are some of the questions she has as she
determines how this bill will affect the court system.
2:19:34 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked why the claims would be filed in-camera.
MS. MEADE responded that that is exactly her question. The bill
reads that the complaint shall be filed with the court in-camera
and remain under seal with the court holding it for 60-days,
which is not the typical procedure for a complaint. She
expressed that she was unsure what the judge would be looking
for in the in-camera review to decide whether the next step
should be taken or not. Again, she related, those are
procedural issues that could perhaps be worked out with the
sponsor and possibly a different procedure could be developed.
2:20:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted there is the potential of pro per
claims being brought, but isn't another one of the likely
consequences of having a false claims act in the state is that
there will be some group of law firms that become specialists in
bringing these claims because that is his impression on a
national level.
MS. MEADE expressed that she would be speculating and does not
know the consequences of false claims acts in other states.
2:21:25 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Representative Kreiss-Tomkins whether he can
advise the committee as to why the bill reads filing in-camera.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to Ms. Kraly or Mr.
Magdanz, and opined that the preview is to be certified by the
federal government as a false claims act on the state level in
order to receive enhanced recovery for Medicaid fraud. He asked
the witnesses whether this language is different from what is in
the Medicaid reform bill in the Senate.
2:22:18 PM
MS. KRALY referred to the in-camera and under seal requirement
in this bill and opined that there is an under seal provision
language in SB 74, but she needed to confirm. She explained
that the Office of the Inspector General has guidelines for
purposes of certifying a Medicaid False Claims Act and that
language is required to be a state act in order to receive
certification, especially as to it being under seal. The
purpose of the in-camera provision is to allow the Department of
Law to investigate the merits of the claim without the person
who committed the alleged false claims being served with the
complaint which, she noted, goes back to the question of
protecting against frivolous complaints. Normally, a complaint
is filed, the defendant is served, and answers happen. Whereas,
in this bill, the complaint is filed in-camera, under seal, and
is confidential; therefore, the Department of Law has the
ability to properly investigate the claim to determine the
merits of the claim and to avoid the frivolous lawsuits or
inappropriate prosecution of the claim before it is determined
necessary to proceed. It is a procedural safeguard, she
described, to avoid individuals who may be alleged to have
committed frauds or false claims from having to defend something
before it is actually proven that it's a meritorious claim. She
reiterated that it is a procedural safeguard built into all of
the false claims she reviewed while working on the other bill,
and then she reviewed this bill this past week.
2:24:18 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether it would be just the opposite by
allowing someone to be investigated without their knowledge of
an investigation. She said she does not see it as something
that is going to safeguard the interests of the defendant, but
rather something that allows a person to file a suit against
another person and investigate that suit without them being
aware of it. She added that it is not necessarily a bad thing,
but the reasoning.
MS. KRALY agreed that there is truth to Chair LeDoux's statement
and some accuracy to what Ms. Kraly said as well. She opined
that in order to investigate the claim, the Department of Law
has the ability to conduct discovery and seek subpoenas. Absent
an open court file, she said she was not sure how it happens
under the construction of the False Claims Act. It would be
necessary to have a court case number and a case to proceed in
order to get a subpoena and do those sorts of things. She
opined that it is a procedural safeguard and she could look into
it further, but generally those are the protections that are out
there to alleviate some of those issues. Further, she related,
it is a requirement for federal certification in false claims
for Medicaid purposes.
2:25:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether the in-camera requirement
was to protect health records.
MS. KRALY answered that there could be other confidential
proprietary tax information. When filed under seal, there is
limited access of information not allowed to be shared elsewhere
under an administrative rule to court personnel, she said. It
would protect not just health information but potentially other
business information that would be proprietary in nature.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked the number of qui tam cases in
Alaska she is aware of.
MS. KRALY answered that she is not familiar with whether there
are active cases currently, but she could provide information to
the committee regarding the number of cases the state has
participated in on the federal level and information regarding
recoveries.
2:26:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the 60-day period and
commented that it has been part of federal law since it was
enacted, just after the Civil War, and he opined that it relates
to all of the things being discussed and not being able to
investigate the claim before the evidence goes away. He
surmised there are the issues of how the government gets its
investigation together, and how the investigation is performed
before the party finds out they are being investigated. He said
he thought that it may have to do with whistleblower protections
in that if someone comes forward and the government elects to
take on the lawsuit, the complaining party has more protections
than they might if they were going solo.
MS. KRALY noted those were excellent points.
2:28:44 PM
MS. MEADE said that, although, the language may be required by
federal law, Alaska has definite definitions for what is "under
seal" and what is "confidential." She explained that documents
filed "under seal" are available solely to the judge, whereas,
documents filed "confidential" are available to the judge, the
judge's assistant, and court employees for case processing
purposes. Ms. Meade reiterated that she would like to work with
the sponsor regarding possible language that documents can be
filed confidentially, which is different than under seal. She
noted that she continues to wonder what filing with the court
in-camera means, and they will work on that.
[HB 347 was held over.]
HB 205-CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID
2:30:02 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 205, "An Act relating to conditions of release;
relating to community work service; relating to credit toward a
sentence of imprisonment for certain persons under electronic
monitoring; relating to the restoration under certain
circumstances of an administratively revoked driver's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license; allowing a
reduction of penalties for offenders successfully completing
court- ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of
driving under the influence; relating to termination of a
revocation of a driver's license; relating to restoration of a
driver's license; relating to credits toward a sentence of
imprisonment, to good time deductions, and to providing for
earned good time deductions for prisoners; relating to early
termination of probation and reduction of probation for good
conduct; relating to the rights of crime victims; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of certain felony drug
offenses from participation in the food stamp and temporary
assistance programs; relating to probation; relating to
mitigating factors; relating to treatment programs for
prisoners; relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; amending Rule 32, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the House Judiciary Standing Committee was CSHB 205,
labeled 29-LS0896\H, adopted 3/14/16.]
[Due to their length, some amendments discussed or adopted
during the meeting of HB 205 are found at the end of the minutes
for HB 205. Shorter amendments are included within the main
text.]
CHAIR LEDOUX said the committee will hear amendments to HB 205,
and advised that the committee will begin with [pending]
conceptual language for Amendment 9 [from the 4/6/16 meeting].
2:30:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised the committee that Representative Millett
provided revised language for Conceptual Amendment 9, and
Representative Millett had decided to withdraw her motion to
adopt Conceptual Amendment 9.
2:30:56 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:30 to 2:33 p.m.
2:33:11 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 9[A].
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for purposes of discussion and
clarified that the amendment is labeled Version H.26, but there
is red print and suggested naming it "Amendment 9A."
CHAIR LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 9A. [Amendment 9A is
provided at the end of the minutes for HB 205.]
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for purposes of discussion.
2:33:58 PM
GRACE ABBOTT, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett, Alaska
State Legislature, offered to recap the prior hearing's
discussion of Amendment 9, and turned to [Sec. 62. AS
12.55.027(f)(3), page 1, beginning line 11]. She said
subsection (3) of the amendment requires notification of the
court or probation officer of violations of conditions of bail,
release, or probation in the event someone violated those while
in their treatment program. The prior discussion, she
explained, was that, perhaps, that language would inhibit
operations of the treatment program and potentially limit its
effectiveness. She advised language was then brought to the
sponsor such that the treatment program should alert the
pretrial services office or probation officers if the person is
discharged from the program for noncompliance. She said
[Amendment 9A] solves two problems, one that the information
need not lay with the court as it would be more effective and
swifter for the pretrial services office or probation officer to
know that a person has been discharged. Thereby, she explained,
allowing them to serve in a capacity of enforcing their terms
and possibly remanding the person. It would allow an effective
definition of what is necessary to alert the pretrial services
office or probation officer, she further explained.
2:35:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection. There being no
objection, Amendment 9A was adopted.
2:36:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 10, Version 29-
LS0896\H.69, Gardner, 4/6/16, as follows: [Amendment 10 is
provided at the end of the minutes for HB 205.]
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
2:36:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that a sponsor statement for
Amendment 10 was provided to the committee. He explained that
for a quarter of a century the question of time served in
treatment was initially defined in Nygren v. State of Alaska,
[658 P.2d 141 (1983)], and that the definition worked quite
well. Over time there was an effort by the legislature to try
to write Nygren into statutes and then discovered that they
created a more restrictive definition under Nygren.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Representative Claman to explain Nygren to
the public.
2:37:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that Nygren is a lawsuit that
provided that a person who went into alcohol or drug treatment
before they went to trial and before they were convicted, they
would receive credit for their time in the treatment program
that would count toward their time in jail. The general theory
was that someone with an alcohol or drug problem, which is much
of the focus of HB 205, would receive treatment and they would
be less likely to reoffend if they had the treatment.
Therefore, rather than have someone in jail and not receiving
treatment, this was a means to encourage people to go into in-
patient treatment settings that were fairly restrictive on their
behavior while they were in treatment. In the event the person
completed their treatment and later pled guilty to the charge,
the judge would give them credit for that time. Basically, he
explained, legislative efforts to write a statute that was the
same thing as what the court determined in Nygren turned out to
make it harder for people to receive credit for time served in
treatment than they were getting under the Nygren case.
Subsequent to discussions last year with Deputy Attorney General
Rick Svobodny, this amendment is an effort to bring in a means
more like the Nygren situation, wherein the courts have more
discretion in determining what is an appropriate treatment
program. He noted it still has fairly strict guidelines and
follows the court system tradition, but also recognizes the
changing times with electronic monitoring and advances in
treatment programs. He described it as a means to give the
courts discretion on credit for time in a treatment program
which, he commented, is the spirit of the criminal justice
reform.
2:39:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded to Chair LeDoux that he was not
aware of anyone that would like to testify on Amendment 10.
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that several commissioners from the Alaska
Criminal Justice Reform Commission are in the audience and asked
whether they would like to offer testimony.
2:40:34 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), said he is the
state's public defender and is also a commissioner on the Alaska
Criminal Justice Reform Commission. He expressed concerns
regarding Amendment 10 and the potential unintended consequences
that may result. He pointed out that the Nygren opinion set
forth a body of case law and resulting decisions by trial court
judges that resulted in arbitrary application of the case law.
Therefore, some individuals would receive credit for the program
and another individual in the same program, following the same
conditions, would not receive credit from a different judge due
to the loose standards applicable under the law. Subsequently,
a more narrow definition was passed by the legislature and it
substantially restricted the availability of credit for programs
and participation. Subsequent to the McKinley v State of
Alaska, Case No. 2357 (AK Ct. App., May. 4, 2012) decision,
which evaluated that piece of legislation, it was changed again
to open it up a little bit more. Consequently, it was a strict,
formulaic application of this concept that reduced the disparity
between applications amongst judges. He said that Amendment 9
takes that a little bit further by opening up the definition of
"treatment program" to not only be substance abuse treatment or
mental health treatment, but anything that may address
criminogenic needs. Although not defined, he said it does
appear to open up that definition while maintaining the
structure. One of his concerns, and what the committee must
weigh, is the narrowness that exists in the bill and how that
will promote uniform application, and uniform predictability of
people getting credit, and then something that is a little bit
more open that might result in disparities in application,
although, a greater opportunity to receive credit, he opined.
2:42:55 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that as a member of the Alaska Criminal
Justice Reform Commission he would oppose the amendment, but as
a public defender he might like it.
MR. STEINER responded that in either position he is not opposing
or promoting the legislation. He indicated he was pointing out
his concerns and to make certain the committee understands what
the potential consequences are and weigh the value of the
expansion versus the potential disparity in the application that
might occur. He pointed out that the goal is appropriate to
weigh the expansion, but he is not taking a position on it.
2:43:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that some of the challenges in
Anchorage, specifically, both with the statute and with the
Nygren line of cases before the statute was amended, is that
Judge A would approve a particular program for credit, and Judge
B would not approve that program for credit, and that it was
frustrating for defense attorneys and prosecutors. He asked
whether that was a fair description of the situation.
MR. STEINER answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that some of the efforts were made
to try to get the judges all ruling in the same manner.
MR. STEINER asked whether Representative Claman was discussing
the legislation that occurred, or just defense efforts to
litigate the issues.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN clarified that he was discussing the
legislation.
2:44:54 PM
MR. STEINER opined that the subsequent legislation was billed as
a codification of a decision that came later, but it turned out
to be significantly more restrictive on the Nygren line of
cases. It severely restricted its use, he said. A few years
ago, he related, the legislature recognized that and opened it
back up to be more in line with the Nygren line of cases.
Although, he commented, it is still more restrictive than the
Nygren line of cases, but what was an advantage to what happened
was that there was less disparity. He extended that within the
current Amendment 9, the amendment opens it up a bit further
without creating disparity because the structure exists. He
explained it is the structure of requirements that currently
exists that judges are comfortable with the legislative intent
that they grant credit if a person fits the certain parameters.
Wherein, that didn't exist with Nygren in that it wasn't clear
that the credit should be granted, and there wasn't legislative
intent pre-legislation, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised, in terms of the current amended
statute, it provides less grounds for receiving credit for
treatment than existed under the Nygren line of cases.
MR. STEINER agreed.
2:46:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN commented that if the goal was to improve
opportunities for people to receive credit for treatment, and
the committee is trying to expand those opportunities, this
amendment helps do that.
MR. STEINER responded correct, and he added that the amendment
would allow people to argue for credit in more situations than
exist under the current statutory scheme.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised, ultimately, it would be up to
the judge's discretion, but there would also be the history of
others that had received credit for different programs.
MR. STEINER answered that the histories would exist, but he
anticipated that the disparities would increase over time.
2:47:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the disparity between
different judges and asked whether the issue of programs being
approved with one judge doing one thing and another judge doing
something else, and ask where it has primarily been an issue in
Anchorage and not other parts of the state.
MR. STEINER responded that he could not answer that question but
he could try to find out.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said, sitting here today and discussing
the disparity about the application of the Nygren credit, he
asked whether that's only been an issue in Anchorage and not
elsewhere.
MR. STEINER opined that he couldn't say for sure, but it was
primarily in Anchorage. There are more criminal judges in
Anchorage and that is where the disparities occurred, whereas,
in smaller jurisdictions there may only be one judge so it
wouldn't occur, he said.
2:48:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether he agreed that one of the
advantages of the approach proposed in Amendment 10 would give
judges in rural Alaska more flexibility to determine treatment
programs that may work well in rural areas. Whereas, strictly
following things that may work in Anchorage might cause a
disparate influence in trying to get people into successful
treatment living in rural Alaska, he asked.
MR. STEINER agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that Amendment 10 is a good thing
for defendants in rural settings.
MR. STEINER opined that it would provide more latitude.
2:49:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER hesitated because he did not want to be in
the position of speaking for a judge, but he recalled that the
two judges on the commission favored the narrower approach. He
noted that he could not recall anything specific and asked
whether Mr. Steiner could recall.
MR. STEINER responded that he could not recall the discussion on
Nygren, or whether or not disparity was an issue they
particularly grappled with.
2:50:55 PM
GREG RAZO, Chair, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission, referred
to Amendment 10, and said it was not an issue that came before
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. He remarked that all of
the recommendations from the commission went through a rigorous
process of data gathering, policy research, and are evidence
based.
MR. RAZO noted that as the committee reviews and possibly moves
the amendments forward, to consider whether that amendment would
withstand the test of determining what the criminal law is in
Alaska, and whether there was enough evidence to support the
change.
2:52:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER agreed, and he said he has been
uncomfortable also, but the committee has the issue of receiving
the evidence within the timeframe of the session, and requested
his assistance.
MR. RAZO said the commission is certainly not finished with its
work under its original charter under Senate Bill 64. Under the
current proposals before the legislature, there is an ability to
extend the duties and length of time the commission works which,
he commented, is an important oversight function should the
crime bill pass. For all of the good ideas presented to the
House of Representatives and the Senate, the commission has the
ability to perform research with the technical assistance
necessary. In moving forward, the commission has the benefit of
the "Results First Initiative," and the data gathering that has
been significantly improved over the period of time the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission has been working. In the event the
House Judiciary Standing Committee has issues with a proposed
amendment, he suggested tasking it to the commission to take
under consideration. The commission will then provide the
committee with a policy recommendation based upon evidence,
research, and study, he said.
2:53:31 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX extended that the commission can provide a
recommendation, but there are certain things the commission did
not provide recommendations on because there wasn't necessarily
a consensus.
MR. RAZO responded, at the end of the report there were items
that would provide for additional savings and additional public
safety considerations. He explained they were not consensus
recommendations but rather majority recommendations and were
presented simply for an informational purposes. The policy
recommendations were consensus and unanimous, he said.
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that the commission would probably like
this bill passed with the exact recommendations that came out of
the commission. Although, political reality indicates that it
isn't going to happen exactly like that because legislators like
to put their hands on things, she commented.
MR. RAZO related that all of the commissioners worked incredibly
hard, based upon their education and experience on the
recommendations, and the commission does not comment on the
pending legislation, it simply explains the process and its
recommendations.
2:55:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the commission's
recommendations try to give judges more flexibility in dealing
with substance and alcohol abuse issues particularly with regard
to non-violent offenders, and whether Amendment 10 is consistent
with those approaches.
2:55:58 PM
MR. RAZO said he does not necessarily agree there was a
significant focus on increased judicial discretion, in that
their goal was to offer uniformity in how criminal justice is
applied across the State of Alaska. The commission reviewed
research that showed the origins of the presumptive sentencing
law, for example, and whether there were disparities that
resulted post-presumptive sentencing and before pre-presumptive
sentencing. Issues such as, determining whether the court, with
discretion, would have such significant disparities there is the
potential for racial bias, for example. He explained those are
factors the commission reviewed, and that the recommendations
show that a uniformity in approach that is fair, just, and based
upon strong evidence, is the best public policy.
MR. RAZO, in response to Representative Claman's second question
of whether Amendment 10 is consistent with the goals of the
commission, stated that since the commission didn't take a
position on this he would speak from experience and as an
individual. He said that generally the ability to give
appropriate good time credit for legitimate treatment programs
is very important, and it is actually an incentive for someone
facing their drug and alcohol problem to immediately deal with
that. He opined it is consistent, and further opined that the
risk based approach identifies those things immediately with a
pre-trial screening substance abuse process that upon
examination identifies a problem, and they are assigned to that
problem. In the event the person completes the corrective
program related to that assignment successfully, they should
receive credit for that. Whether this bill actually says that
or not, he does not have an opinion. He referred to the
previous Amendment 9[A] which deals specifically with treatment,
this amendment seems to take out the word treatment and broadens
...
2:58:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN interjected that the amendments must be
viewed in combination because "Amendment 10 recognizes that
Amendment 9 would be part."
MR. RAZO said that that was the best answer he had for
Representative Claman.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether any other commissioners had thoughts
on this amendment, hearing no response she suggested Amendment
10 be set aside.
CHAIR LEDOUX set Amendment 10 aside.
3:00:06 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 11, Version 29-
LS0896\H.23, Martin/Gardner, 3/28/16, as follows:
Page 82, line 13, following "plan":
Insert "receives a positive recommendation from
the supervisor of the prisoner's treatment program"
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for purposes of discussion.
3:00:41 PM
MS. ABBOTT explained that Amendment 11 addresses a concern
discussed in committee regarding the recommendation for sex
offenders. In the event sex offenders undergo treatment, while
incarcerated, that the completion of the treatment be a trigger
for them to receive good time, which is usually one-third off of
their sentence. Amendment 11 offers that upon completing that
treatment, before the good time would be applied they would also
need a positive recommendation from the supervisor of the
prisoner's treatment program. Members of the committee have
expressed concern with the manner in which the successful
completion of treatment was evaluated, and whether it was a
participation grade wherein an inmate had undergone all of the
steps of treatment, yet, performed as substandard participants.
She continued, no one would know better than the supervisor of
the treatment program whether or not progress was made, other
than the offender. She said Amendment 11 aims to allow that
additional mechanism and allow the supervisor to offer human
input as to whether or not progress was made and whether this
person should be eligible for good time.
CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected as he would like to hear from Mr.
Steiner.
3:02:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered to make a conceptual amendment
within the technical language and suggested that the word "and"
be inserted before the word "receives" for it to read properly.
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to [Sec. 136. AS 33.20.010, page 82, lines
12-13], which read:
(d) ... until the prisoner completes the
treatment requirements in the prisoner's case plan.
CHAIR LEDOUX then included the language from Amendment 11, [line
13] and the conceptual amendment, which would read:
and receives a positive recommendation from the
supervisor of the prisoner's treatment program.
CHAIR LEDOUX suggested listening to Mr. Steiner's testimony
first.
3:03:33 PM
MR. STEINER offered concern regarding the idea of completion and
receiving good time credit because the carrot was automatically
when the person had completed their treatment plan, and this
would inject some discretion into that process. He noted that
it would undermine its effectiveness and because it would rest
on a [supervisor] approving a person, they would essentially be
approving them for release. He continued that the weight of
that decision on one single person would undermine its actual
application because there would be few people willing to take
that responsibility rather than writing a structure where it is
automatic.
3:04:31 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed concern about the person that just showed
up so all of the boxes could be checked, but the person really
didn't have their heart into it, so to speak.
MR. STEINER responded that the data revealed that completion of
treatment had a positive effect, and the commission did not
evaluate any sort of discretionary weight as to whether or not
someone's heart was in it. He said he understands the concern
but when the commission looked at it, it was simply that
completion of treatment results in reductions in recidivism. He
pointed out that Amendment 11 injects a discretionary decision
and the commission did not review whether or not discretionary
decisions were accurate. He related that what is at stake here
is whether or not the decision is even accurate in the first
place, and whether someone is willing to take the responsibility
for making the discretionary decision that the person is
essentially treated and ready to go out into the community.
3:05:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that he shares Chair LeDoux's
concern in that if all someone has to do is check the box it
leaves no room for someone working in the treatment program to
say the inmate is faking it. He remarked that the risks are
just as high when all the boxes have been checked but [the
supervisor] thinks this person is just as [likely] to reoffend
as they were before starting the program.
MR. STEINER noted he could not specifically respond to how that
is evaluated in the program, that the individual running these
programs may be able to advise whether or not someone
successfully completes their active participation and whether or
not it is substantial, is factored in.
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that she receives a medal for participation
when running a race that she didn't win. Simply because a
person is in a treatment program does not mean they have
successfully completed the treatment program and, she pointed
out, the statute currently reads that until the prisoner
completes the treatment requirements within the prisoner's case
plan -- it doesn't even read "successfully" completes.
MR. STEINER answered that the Department of Corrections (DOC)
requested the word "successfully" be removed because it didn't
want to label individuals treated. He reiterated that the
commission reviewed the question of completion of the program
and how that related to reductions in recidivism.
3:07:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked the length of the treatment program
and whether there are there different treatment programs for
different types of sex offences.
MR. STEINER responded that he is not the authority on the
treatment programs, but knows that in-custody treatment programs
exist in two locations. He said he does not know how they
accommodate different convictions for different people and he is
not sure how they are distinguished.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to the program, and asked whether
the discussion is regarding weeks, months, or years, or whether
there is such a thing as a typical offense.
MR. STEINER reiterated that he does not know the answer to that
question, and opined that it is a lengthy program and DOC would
be able to answer that question.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he would like to know the answer as to
the length of treatment programs, and he noted that because the
variety of sex offenses are so broad that surely there would be
different types of programs.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that her staff was in the process of
contacting Laura Brooks.
3:09:27 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:09 to 3:016 p.m.
3:16:45 PM
LAURA BROOKS, Health Care Administrator, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Corrections (DOC), advised she was
available.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked the length of the treatment programs,
whether there are different treatment programs for different sex
offenses, and whether the treatment programs match the sex
offense.
MS. BROOKS responded that different programs are different
lengths. The program in the Lemon Creek Correctional Center is
for the state's highest risk offenders and it is anywhere from
24-36 months, although, it may be shorter if they move through
their treatment plan more quickly, which is rare or it may be
extended if they are not making progress in treatment. A
program in the Palmer Correctional Center is 18-24 months
because the program is tailored to the more moderate risk
offenders, and there is a program for women at Hiland Mountain
Correctional Center that is 18-24 months. The programs work to
identify specific needs based upon a number of things and their
offense is one of the critical factors in determining a
treatment plan. She advised that in each of DOC's programs,
every participant has an individualized treatment plan developed
and it absolutely takes into account the type of offense,
whether it is a sexual assault of an adult, sexual abuse of a
minor, the circumstances around the crime, the level of violence
involved in the crime, and a host of different issues are
analyzed in order for the treatment provider to tailor the
treatment plan to that individual's criminogenic needs and
specific sex offender offense.
3:19:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) in special education and asked whether it is more
or less that type of program wherein they analyze the offense
and tailor the program to that offense so it is individualized
and not five individuals in the same room with the same program.
MS. BROOKS answered that Representative Lynn was correct in that
it is very similar to an IEP and it is not a static treatment
plan. She offered that as the individuals move through
treatment, if a problem comes up such as showing aggression
toward the treatment provider, their treatment goals may be
adjusted and certainly some of their homework assignments and
change the focus in treatment to address those issues. The
treatment plan, although developed at the beginning of the
program, is fluid throughout the treatment to make sure that as
the offender's behavior changes, as their thinking patterns
change for better or for worse, that treatment plan adjusts with
them.
3:20:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to the AA treatment program wherein
the first thing a person does is state they are an alcoholic,
and he asked whether it works in that manner for this program.
For example, state they are a sex offender, and acknowledge they
have a problem. He further asked whether they even know they
have a problem.
MS. BROOKS noted that is a common question when it comes to sex
offenders and she expressed that, generally, to accept someone
into DOC's program they cannot deny that they committed the
crime and must acknowledge what they did because that then opens
the door for them to be more amenable to treatment, potentially.
Often, she said, it has been noted that once they come into
treatment they still have a huge amount of denial with ability
to rationalize most of the behaviors around those crimes. She
continued that a sex offender has a sophisticated denial system
and manner of manipulating people of which they attempt to use
on their treatment providers the moment they walk in the door.
A 12-step program, such as AA or NA, doesn't come close to
touching the amount of pathology seen in sex offenders, which is
why their treatment is long, intensive, and specifically
structured to the individual, she explained.
3:22:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the proposed amendment that
discusses receiving a positive recommendation from the
supervisor of a sex offender treatment program, and opined the
department has concerns. He asked the reason for the concerns,
and further asked whether an inmate receives a positive
recommendations when the program is completed.
MS. BROOKS opined that the concern for a treatment provider may
be that even though sex offenders can be considered "program
complete" there may be some reluctance to give a positive
recommendation due to the severe pathology associated with this
population. She explained that when an inmate is program
complete they have gone through all of the requirements
necessary to complete the program, reached their goals, turned
in their homework, said what is needed to be said, and passed
their polygraph. She opined that treatment providers may be
concerned about liability and whether to say anything more than
"this person is treatment complete" because they cannot say the
person is cured. The providers will be willing to say the
person has completed the necessary steps in treatment but, she
warned the committee that it must be careful when asking them
for a positive recommendation because that may certainly mean
very different things to different people.
3:24:56 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected concern because if a treatment provider
does not have enough trust in their own treatment plan that they
are willing to say an offender has successfully completed the
plan, it sounds somewhat problematic.
MS. BROOKS answered that the treatment provider would absolutely
say the offender successfully completed everything in treatment.
She explained that she was responding from her own previous
private practice and that she would not be willing to give a
positive recommendation for a sex offender. Although, she said,
she would say that this person had successfully completed all
the steps of treatment.
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that, in that case the offender is just
receiving the participation medal which doesn't mean anything.
MS. BROOKS asked Chair LeDoux to repeat herself.
CHAIR LEDOUX mentioned that Ms. Brooks was not online at the
time Chair LeDoux offered the scenario of being a runner and
receiving a medal at the end of the race. Except, she related,
the medal didn't mean she was a good and successful runner, it
just meant that she paid her money and received her medal.
Therefore, she said, if the offender's treatment provider isn't
even able to say they are giving the person a positive
recommendation, "I've got some real problems there."
3:27:00 PM
MS. BROOKS stated that she does not disagree with Chair LeDoux
and there are treatment providers who are willing to say this
person "successfully completed treatment," but offered concern
that some providers wouldn't feel comfortable doing that.
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected, "Then they'd better get their
treatment programs in order if they are not feeling comfortable
doing that." She equated it to a teacher saying they are going
to pass the student, but the teacher wouldn't say the student
successfully completed the course work.
MS. BROOKS explained, treatment providers may be willing to say
the person is better "but to put themselves out there and say
this person is no longer going to reoffend, I don't know that
they all would be willing to say that."
CHAIR LEDOUX stressed that if the treatment provider is not
willing to say it, she doesn't think the offender should be
released.
3:28:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to her statement that while
providing sex offender treatment in private practice she would
not have wanted to be in a place of saying someone was cured,
and he noted that currently she is a public employee of the
Department of Corrections (DOC). He pointed out that all the
committee is discussing is "positive" and it doesn't mean there
is any guarantee that the person will never offend again. He
asked whether, in the state context, she would be willing to say
that this is a positive recommendation on a person completing
the treatment.
3:29:38 PM
MS. BROOKS clarified that she was referring to all of DOC's
treatment providers which include a number of practitioners
within the community. She pointed out that these providers are
providing sex offender treatment under contract, that [DOC] is a
piece of their practice, and that they are cautious about what
they are willing to say.
3:30:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that he thinks about One Flew Over
the Cuckoo's Nest when listening to Mr. Steiner's concern that
everything is put upon one person who can say yea or nay, and
not all supervisors of treatment programs are going to be
created equal or trained equal and have equal access to the risk
assessment tools. He described it as part of the horrendous job
as the head of the Department of Corrections, and opined that
the testimony is sincere and it rings a chime with him.
MS. ABBOTT pointed out that this language is specific and
purposeful in not saying cured, and the amendment is not asking
that a treatment provider say the reoffender will not reoffend.
She noted that the amendment injects some of that discretion
that exists in treatment. She continued that there are
individual cases, education plans, and individual aspects of
each person's case and that the positive recommendation could be
that they have made progress and were an active participant. In
her mind, she offered, that would be deemed as a positive
recommendation and would not require someone to put their career
or liability at stake and say this person will never reoffend.
This is not a difference between someone being released and
someone never seeing the light of day. She pointed out that it
is simply an award of good time credit. Therefore, an offender,
under this situation, who was unable to complete treatment would
still potentially be eligible for release, but they would not be
eligible for the one-third good time credit. In the event the
offender was unable to receive the positive recommendation it
would allow for more time for supervision and more time for
corrective action to be taken, she said.
3:34:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN [referred to the previous discussion
regarding the addition of the word "and" before the word
"receives", on page 82, line 13] and moved the adoption of
Amendment 1 to Amendment 11. There being no objection,
Amendment 1 to Amendment 11 was adopted.
3:34:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER maintained his objection to Amendment 11,
as amended.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Foster, Claman,
Kreiss-Tomkins, and LeDoux voted in favor of Amendment 11, as
amended. Representatives Keller and Lynn voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 11, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 4-
2.
3:35:35 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:35 to 3:36 p.m.
3:36:56 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 12, Version 29-
LS0896\H.67, Martin/Gardner, 4/1/16, which read: [Amendment 12
is provided at the end of the minutes for HB 205.]
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for purposes of discussion.
3:37:05 PM
MS. ABBOTT explained that Amendment 12 seeks to allow the
pretrial services office, and its officers, to require that an
offender awaiting trial could be required to participate in the
24/7 program, which is a corrective program for alcohol and
substance abuse related offenses. The amendment also allows the
Board of Parole to require, as a condition of parole, that they
participate in the 24/7 program, she said.
3:38:30 PM
MR. STEINER related his concern as it applies to the pretrial
services officer because it would allow that pretrial service
officer to decide whether or not someone enters the program
under the statute. Typically, the scheme would be recommended
to the court. He explained that on bail those things are
handled by the court and the amendment would take the discretion
away from the court and hand it entirely to the pretrial
services officer. This amendment does the same for parole but
it is typical for the Board of Parole to have that authority.
He suggested that if the committee prefers to maintain
discretion with the court and not pretrial services to change
"require" to "recommend to the court."
MR. STEINER, in response to Chair LeDoux, [referred to page 1,
line 4], suggested that after subsection (4) delete the word
"require" and substitute with the words "recommend to the
court."
MS. ABBOTT opined that Mr. Steiner's recommendation meets with
the intent of the amendment.
3:40:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to
Amendment 12, as follows: [page 1], line 4, immediately after
the subsection number "(4)" delete the word "require" and insert
"recommend to the court."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for clarification as to whether it
should be "recommend" or "recommend to the court."
MS. ABBOTT stated it is "recommend."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER restated his motion to adopt [Conceptual]
Amendment 1 to Amendment 12 as follows: [page 1] line 4,
immediately after the number subsection "(4)" delete the word
"require" and insert the word "recommend." There being no
objection, [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 12 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection to Amendment 12.
There being no objection, Amendment 12, as amended, was adopted.
3:41:57 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 13, Version 29-
LS0896\H.68, Gardner, 4/1/16, as follows:
Page 96, following line 21:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 152. AS 47.38.020(d) is repealed and
reenacted to read:
(d) The department may, in accordance with AS
36.30, procure and enter into agreements or contracts
to establish and implement the program and testing
required under (a) - (c) of this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 102, line 15:
Delete "secs. 152 - 154"
Insert "secs. 153 - 155"
Page 102, line 16:
Delete "152 - 154"
Insert "153 - 155"
Page 103, line 6:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 103, line 8:
Delete "sec. 156(a)"
Insert "sec. 157(a)"
Page 103, line 11:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b)"
Page 103, line 14:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b)"
Page 103, line 17:
Delete "sec. 156(c)"
Insert "sec. 157(c)"
Page 103, line 20:
Delete "sec. 156(d)"
Insert "sec. 157(d)"
Page 103, line 23:
Delete "sec. 156(e)"
Insert "sec. 157(e)"
Page 103, line 26:
Delete "sec. 156(f)"
Insert "sec. 157(f)"
Page 103, line 30:
Delete "143 - 151, and 155"
Insert "143 - 152, and 156"
Page 104, line 2:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 104, line 4:
Delete "152 - 154, and 156(f)"
Insert "153 - 155, and 157(f)"
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for purposes of discussion.
3:42:16 PM
MS. ABBOTT explained that the intent of Amendment 13 is to
insert the procurement process into the Alaska Alcohol Safety
Action Program (ASAP) and the 24/7 program, and require that
procurement for any of those programs be part of the process
before entering into contracts.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection. There being no
objection, Amendment 13 was adopted.
3:42:56 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 14, Version 29-
LS0896\H.54, Martin/Gardner, 3/31/16, as follows:
Page 98, following line 12:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 157. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
REPORT OF THE ALASKA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
REGARDING RESTITUTION. The Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission established in AS 44.19.641 shall submit to
the governor and the legislature not later than
December 1, 2016, a report regarding the
implementation of a financial recovery and victim's
restitution program. The Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission shall deliver the report to the senate
secretary and the chief clerk of the house of
representatives and notify the legislature that the
report is available. The Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission shall make recommendations for statutory
changes to improve the payment and collection of
victim's restitution. The report must include
recommendations regarding restitution for crimes
against a person and for property crimes against
businesses and members of the public."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for purposes of discussion.
3:43:09 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX explained that Amendment 14 tasks the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission to provide a report and
recommendations on the complex issue of restitution programs.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection. There being no
objection, Amendment 14 was adopted.
3:44:05 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 15, Version 29-
LS0896\H.62, Gardner, 4/1/16, as follows:
Page 98, following line 12:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 157. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
REPORT ON OFFENSES OF DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED,
REFUSAL OF A CHEMICAL TEST, AND DRIVING WITHOUT A
VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE. The Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission, established in AS 44.19.641, shall submit
to the governor and to the legislature, not later than
December 1, 2016, a report regarding the effectiveness
of the penalties, fines, and reformative and
rehabilitative measures under state law for the
offenses of driving while intoxicated, refusal to
submit to a chemical test, and driving without a valid
driver's license. The Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission shall deliver the report to the senate
secretary and the chief clerk of the house of
representatives and notify the legislature that the
report is available. The Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission shall include in the report an opinion on
whether the penalties, fines, and reformative and
rehabilitative measures under state law for the
offenses of driving while under the influence, refusal
to submit to a chemical test, and driving without a
valid driver's license reduce recidivism, promote
rehabilitation and protect the public. The Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission shall propose statutory
changes for those offenses to reduce recidivism,
promote rehabilitation, and protect the public."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for discussion.
3:44:22 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX explained that Amendment 15 tasks the Alaska
Criminal Justice Reform Commission to provide a report and
recommendation on the complex issues of administratively revoked
licenses, and driving while intoxicated and refusal of a
chemical test. She said [the intent] is making sure people have
access to licenses. A problem has been that a person's license
is administratively revoked without a conviction.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection. There being no
objection, Amendment 15 is adopted.
3:45:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 16, Version 29-
LS0896\H.16, Martin/Gardner, 3/25/16, as follows: [Amendment 16
is provided at the end of the minutes for HB 205.]
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
3:45:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that the Office of Victims' Rights
requested Amendment 16, and that this version was been submitted
in [the other body]. The intent is to be certain the victim,
for their safety, has the right to know when the offender has
moved from one facility to another facility. It also ensures
that the victim's information is updated with the Department of
Corrections and Victim Information Notification Everyday (VINE),
he explained.
CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection. There being no objection,
Amendment 16 was adopted.
3:46:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 17, Version 29-
LS0896\H.18, Martin/Gardner, 3/25/16, as follows:
Page 41, lines 12 - 15:
Delete "the court shall, if feasible, send a copy
of the motion to the Department of Corrections
sufficiently in advance of any scheduled hearing to
enable the Department of Corrections to notify the
victim of that crime. If"
Insert "and"
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
3:47:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN explained that Amendment 17 ensures that the
Department of Corrections is advised of hearings and, thereby,
notifies the victim of the movement of a prisoner from one
facility to another facility.
CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection. There being no objection,
Amendment 17 was adopted.
3:47:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 18, Version 29-
LS0896\H.17, Martin/Gardner, 3/25/16, as follows: [Amendment 18
is provided at the end of the minutes for HB 205.]
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
3:47:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN explained that Amendment 18 allows that a
case granted a suspended entry of judgment is listed on
CourtView.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled that last year the committee
reviewed a fairly complicated bill regarding what was, and was
not, on CourtView, with important policy related discussions.
He further recalled that the committee went through the bill,
with the court, in a fair amount of detail and approved certain
things taken off CourtView due to the potential for misuse.
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed that the committee did discuss CourtView
issues where people had not been convicted, whereas with a
suspended imposition of judgment someone has actually been
convicted of something even though the judgment has been
suspended.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that suspended entry of judgment
would not have a conviction because part of the newly proposed
statute regarding suspended entry of judgment "is they actually
would not enter a plea under the suspended imposition of
judgment section under the current statute they actually have to
plead guilty before they get -- they don't impose sentence even
though they plead guilty under this suspended entry of judgment,
they actually are not pleading guilty they are just being sent
off on a program and if they do well they are never convicted."
3:49:41 PM
MR. STEINER clarified that, currently, the suspended imposition
of sentence is where a person pleads, is found guilty, and it is
entered. Subsequently, in the event the person successfully
completes their probation, they have completed their suspended
imposition of sentence, and the person won't be sentenced or
receive a jail sentence. Although, through case law, the person
is considered convicted and at that point it is on CourtView.
He said he does not know what changes the Alaska Court System
has made with respect to that. He stressed that the real
problem is when a person has to answer the question on an
employment application, they have to admit they were convicted
because they were, in fact, convicted.
MR. STEINER explained that the suspended entry of judgment was
created through the commission's process and that, although, a
person does actually plead guilty, the judgment is never
entered; therefore, the person is never formally found guilty.
He explained that the person then completes the terms of the
agreement made with the state, and then the judgment is never
entered at all. Technically, he said, the person was not
convicted and the person can answer "No" to the employment
application question of whether they have been convicted of a
crime because the admission was never entered. The idea being
that the commission would create what was intended with the
original suspended imposition of sentence, which through case
law became something else. He suggested the question the
committee should weigh with regard to this issue, will leaving
it on CourtView impact the intended effect of the suspended
entry of judgment, which is to allow someone to say they have
never been convicted.
3:51:41 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether it is anticipated those files will be
sealed.
MR. STEINER responded that he could not recall the specific
conclusion the commission recommended, but it was discussed that
the file would be available in the court system so anyone
performing a search would find it, but not simply be on
CourtView. He offered that it would have to be something a
person must know existed and go to the courthouse to find, or it
could be considered confidential where court system employees
have access but the public would not have access. He said he
was unsure whether the commission specifically resolved that
issue.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked what sorts of crimes would allow for a
suspended imposition of judgment.
MR. STEINER answered that he could not recall whether there were
any restrictions to it at all and that Tracey Wollenberg, Deputy
Public Defender may be able to answer that question but it is
essentially an agreement with the state and the defendant as to
whether or not to pursue this resolution.
3:53:11 PM
TRACEY WOLLENBERG, Deputy Director, Appellate Division, Central
Office, Public Defender Agency (PDA), Department of
Administration (DOA), said there are exclusions for eligibility
for a suspended entry of judgment and they are listed in
subsection (f) of the suspended entry of judgment section in the
bill.
3:53:46 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:53 to 3:54 p.m.
3:54:08 PM
MS. WOLLENBERG referred to Sec. 67, [AS 12.55.078(f)], page 39,
lines 4-5, which read:
(f) The court may not suspend imposing or
entering the judgment and defer prosecution under this
section of a person who
MS. WOLLENBERG advised that the language then lists several
subsections of exclusions which include certain assaults, sex
assaults, use of a firearm in the commission of the offense,
convicted of a crime involving domestic violence, and other
exceptions.
3:54:51 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that crimes of violence are exempt from
this.
MS. WOLLENBERG advised that certain crimes of violence are
exempt from this.
MS. WOLLENBERG, in response to Chair LeDoux, answered that
sexual assaults and sexual abuse of a minor are excluded.
Although, she advised, she is working off of her memory from
knowledge of the numeric statutes and asked for a few moments to
review the statutes.
CHAIR LEDOUX set Amendment 18 aside.
3:56:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 19, Version 29-
LS0896\H.66, Martin/Gardner, 4/1/16, as follows: [Amendment 19
is provided at the end of the minutes for HB 205.]
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
3:56:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN advised that Amendment 19 moves the property
felony theft threshold up to $1,000, and further advised he
worked on the amendment with Representative Claman and the
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) people. He
pointed out that a few years ago the property felony threshold
was at $500, it then moved up to $750, and under this bill it is
at $2,000. There were problems with that figure and, he
related, there was a meeting of the minds in moving it from the
current $750 to $1,000, which would affect some of the issues of
concern and still keep it within reasonable limits.
3:57:23 PM
MR. RAZO commented, with regard to the recommendation of the
felony theft threshold, the commission spent a lot of time
reviewing this particular recommendation because it was aware
that two years ago there were substantial comments from local
business people when it moved from $500 to $750. The commission
also took into consideration the substantial amount of evidence
which showed that there was no correlation between the top value
felony theft threshold and an increase on crime. The commission
looked at 26 other states that chose to raise its felony theft
threshold to $2,000, and in those states the number of property
crimes went down. That information allowed the commission to be
comfortable in saying that if Alaska raised its felony theft
threshold to $2,000, that a substantial body of evidence showed
that it would not increase the public safety impact on the
business community even though that appears counterintuitive.
The commission also reviewed the period when the felony theft
threshold was $500, and when accounting for the increase in what
$500 was when it passed in 1978, that $500 would be $1,800
today. Therefore, especially with a property crime involving
value, the commission wanted to set a value that was realistic,
would have no impact on the amount of property crime, and was
consistent with what the majority of states were doing. He
explained there was a substantial amount of evidence that $2,000
is the correct number.
3:59:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether there was a PEW Charitable
Trust estimate of the difference between what it would save the
state for the difference between $1,000 and $2,000.
MR. RAZO stated he could not recall and stressed that out of all
of the recommendations this one is substantial.
4:00:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN commented that Representative Lynn's
initial amendment would have taken out the indexing for
inflation provisions that are part of the bill. Under the House
bill, every fifth year the legislature would look at inflation
and it would automatically increase every time inflation
suggested the legislature should increase; therefore, the
legislature wouldn't have to come back and hold hearings to
raise the amount and, he opined, that is an important part of
the amendment being offered.
4:01:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked Representative Claman whether
anything was done with the fine.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered yes, and he advised that
Amendment 24 raises the misdemeanor fine level from $10,000 to
$25,000.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER quiered whether Representative Claman's
theory is that the increase in the fine will act as a deterrent.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded yes.
4:01:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER stated he is siding with the Alaska
Criminal Judicial Commission on this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER repeated, for Representative Lynn's
benefit, that he supports the amount the Alaska Criminal
Judicial Commission recommended and he does not support the
amendment.
CHAIR LEDOUX set Amendment 19 aside.
4:02:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 20, Version 29-
LS0896\H.65, Martin/Gardner, 4/1/16, as follows:
Page 66, line 19:
Delete "55"
Insert "70"
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
4:03:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered that Amendment 20 changes the age of
geriatric eligibility for discretionary parole for sex offenders
from 55 years of age to 70 years of age.
4:03:47 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:03 to 4:04 p.m.
4:04:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN acknowledged that the commission performed
research and he would like to know the results of that research.
MR. RAZO apologized because he should have said "elder parole"
rather than "geriatric parole" in that it sets the whole
consideration on a bad note. The commission reviewed the data
again to determine what the data revealed about this particular
class of the prison population. He related, this is the fastest
growing segment of the Alaska prison population, prisoners age
51 and older have more than doubled in the last 10-years, and
they cost the state millions of dollars, especially in medical
care. Studies performed nationally, including studies through
the Alaska Judicial Council, show that these offenders are at
the bottom of those likely to reoffend. When the commission
recommended creating this elder parole valve it wanted to make
sure that elder offenders, who no longer pose a threat to
communities and having already spent a decade behind bars, are
offered the opportunity to present their case to the Board of
Parole. He said the Board of Parole hears the case, considers
all of the evidence, considers the victims, and it makes the
decision on who gets paroled. The commission's recommendation
simply presents the opportunity to that elder class of offenders
and, he pointed out, this amendment will so limit the
effectiveness of the commission's recommendation as to simply
make it useless, and that is how it should be considered in
light of the commission's original recommendations, he remarked.
4:07:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the statistics and data, and
asked where it showed a significant drop off in reoffending as
an age matter, and drop off in recidivism.
MR. RAZO responded that from the data the commission received
from PEW Charitable Trust it was as early as age 45 when people
aged out of the re-offense categories.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned why the commission picked age
55 if the data indicated people 45 years of age.
4:08:38 PM
MR. RAZO explained that when the commission offered these
recommendations, it reviewed the data, went through a consensus
based approach, and 55 was the consensus based approach in light
of all of the evidence. He stated that the commission wanted to
present to the legislature something the people from public
safety across the board, the judges, and all, would agree was a
useful number to pick. He commented that it was not a dart
board approach, but rather the PEW Charitable Trust evidence was
taken into consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the PEW Charitable Trust
evidence said the state could start this group at 45, and the
commission determined that 45 would not pass the straight faced
test, and that 55 is reasonable given the fact that the drop off
is at 45.
MR. RAZO said, "You could say that I suppose, that's not
(indisc.)."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that turning 55 does not guarantee
someone gets out on parole because they have to go before the
Board of Parole, make their case, and some will be released and
some will not.
MR. RAZO said in Alaska, people that are parole eligible are not
taking advantage of applying for parole because it is a complex
process. The commission tried to make the consideration of
parole easier for incarcerated people if they are doing all the
right things or if there are extenuating circumstances in the
elder situation. He opined that the elder situation is the
extenuating circumstance in that if someone is sick it is
unlikely they will reoffend, and it is at least something the
Parole Board can consider because currently it cannot consider
it, he explained.
4:10:41 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX stated she is not removing her objection to
Amendment 20.
4:11:50 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Lynn voted in favor
of Amendment 20. Representatives Claman, Kreiss-Tomkins,
Foster, Keller, and LeDoux voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 20 failed by a vote of 1-5.
4:12:40 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX returned the committee to discussion of Amendment
18.
4:12:54 PM
MS. WOLLENBERG offered clarification [with regard to Amendment
18] that what is primarily covered within the exclusions from
the suspended entry of judgment statute are violent offenses.
There are five categories of exclusions and these categories are
taken directly from the existing suspended imposition of
sentence statutes and carried over into the new proposal of
suspended entry of judgment. The first category of offenses are
violent offenses, anything from first and second degree murder,
assaults in the first, second, and third degree, stalking in the
first and second degree, kidnapping, human trafficking and sex
trafficking, distribution and possession of child pornography,
sex assaults, sexual abuse of a minor, robbery, extortion,
coercion, those types of offenses. She referred to the lowest
level of offenses against a person, and assault four and that
reckless endangerment are not included in that group of
exclusions as they are covered on page 39, line 16, subsection
(4), which read:
(4) is convicted of a violation of AS
11.41.230 - 11.41.250 or a felony ...
MS. WOLLENBERG said that if a person is convicted of assault
four or reckless endangerment and have one or more prior
convictions for a misdemeanor violation or a felony, they are
excluded, although the person is not automatically excluded if
they have the lowest level of assault or reckless endangerment.
She reiterated there are other exclusions such as, using a
firearm in the commission of the offense, convicted of a crime
involving domestic violence, and previously granted a suspension
of judgment, unless the court enters written findings by clear
and convincing evidence that the person's prospects for
rehabilitation are high, and that suspending judgment adequately
protects the victim of the offense. She opined that the bottom
line is that a lot of what is primarily covered by the statute
would be property offenses, drug offenses, and non-violent
offenses.
4:15:27 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System (ACS) advised
that [Amendment 18] clarifies for the Alaska Court System and
builds off of last year's House Bill 15 recently signed into
law, requiring the court system to remove from CourtView any
criminal case that ends in an acquittal or a dismissal of all
charges. She advised that [Amendment 18, AS 22.35.030(b)] Sec.
83, being added to the bill would state that the Alaska Court
System will publish, will not take off of CourtView, those cases
that are processed under the suspended entry of judgment
provision that Ms. Wollenburg explained. The reason for the
amendment, she offered, is that the suspended entry of judgment
cases do end up with the case being dismissed against the person
"so perhaps the plain meaning of the statute that you just
passed would be that the court system needs to remove those from
CourtView because they are a criminal case that ends in a
dismissal." The difference, she noted, is that with the
suspended entry of judgment, the person must be found guilty, or
plead guilty to even get into that realm. Therefore, it may not
exactly comport with what the committee intended when it passed
House Bill 15 because that was based upon the fact that a
person, having been acquitted or their charges dismissed, was
not guilty, and that subsection (b) would clarify that those
would be kept on CourtView. She stated, "To be clear the court
doesn't have a position as to whether they shall or shall not
publish them on CourtView," as that is the committee's policy
call. Although the court system does request clarity as to the
legislature's intent, she said.
4:17:41 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that if the committee does not want them
on CourtView, the court system is requesting another amendment
to clarify that the committee does not want them on CourtView.
Whereas, Representative's Lynn's amendment is clarifying it so
that they are on CourtView, she pointed out.
MS. MEADE clarified that the Alaska Court System does seek
clarity and did not request that this amendment say "they shall
be published on CourtView." She pointed out that the other
body's bill added this wording, and either way is fine with the
court system. She then reiterated that an amendment directing
the court system "shall or shall not" would be helpful."
4:18:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that there are suspended
impositions of sentence, which is current law, and this
amendment adds another option of suspended entry of judgment.
He asked the procedure of suspended imposition of sentence on
CourtView currently.
MS. MEADE responded that suspended imposition of sentence (SIS)
will remain in the law because this bill does not remove that
option, it adds a second option. Those do remain on CourtView,
and they are not dismissed at the end of the case, she said.
4:19:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN concluded that this amendment essentially
treats a suspended entry of judgment the same as a "suspended
imposition of judgment" as to what is listed on CourtView.
MS. MEADE responded in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN verified that it is not necessary to
"change the language on this at all to have that happen."
MS. MEADE answered that that is what this amendment would do.
4:19:51 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX stressed that if the committee does not want these
people on CourtView, just as the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission does not want them on CourtView, then the committee
would vote down [Amendment 18], and the court system would still
like clarifying language regarding the intention of the
committee.
MS. MEADE agreed, and said that the court system would be just
as happy with adding the word "not." She reiterated that the
court system only requests clarity. She opined that the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission did not specifically make a
recommendation as to whether these would, or would not, be on
CourtView.
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to Amendment 18, line 4, and asked whether
adding the word "not" after "shall" would do the trick for the
court system.
MS. MEADE said yes, either way.
4:20:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the [other body], in its
proposed bill, said to put it on CourtView or not put it on
CourtView.
MS. MEADE offered that the wording in SB 91 is as follows: "it
shall be on CourtView." She explained that the wording of this
amendment mirrors what currently appears in SB 91.
CHAIR LEDOUX commented, "We do things our own way."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN agreed, and he noted it is helpful to know
what they are doing on the other side of the building.
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed.
4:21:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER extended that the commission spent many
hours on this issue and, he acknowledged, he was won over
because he values the suspended entry of judgment for the
purpose of making it easier for people to reenter society and
rehabilitate, and also give the court the option of keeping this
off of CourtView. He advised he would be voting against
Amendment 18, and believes there value by including the
suspended entry of judgment process into the state's criminal
system.
MS. MEADE referred to adding, or not adding, the word "not," and
reiterated that the court system does not have an opinion either
way, it wants to be told rather than leaving it to sometimes put
it on and sometimes not put it on.
4:23:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised, for purposes of clarity, if the
committee does not support Amendment 18 as written, the court
system's request would be that the committee move to amend
Amendment 18 to add the word "not."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER interjected that the court system does not
care, it just wants clarity.
CHAIR LEDOUX stressed that the Alaska Court System wants it to
read either the language in Amendment 18, or [the word] "not" in
it.
4:24:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 18 to add the word "not" after the word "shall," page
1, line 4 of Amendment 18.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected, and asked why the committee
doesn't vote on Amendment 18 and if it passes to offer another
amendment.
CHAIR LEDOUX explained that it would come to the same result
either way and [Conceptual] Amendment 1 is a valid amendment to
Amendment 18.
4:26:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Claman, Kreiss-
Tomkins, Keller, and LeDoux voted in favor of [Conceptual]
Amendment 1 to Amendment 18. Representative Lynn voted against
it. Therefore, [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 18 was
adopted by a vote of 4-1.
4:26:07 PM
MS. MEADE explained that just adding the word "not" does not do
the trick because when reading the entire sentence "shall
publish with a notation indicating an SEJ and notwithstanding
(a)."
4:26:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN [withdrew] Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 18.
4:27:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 18 on page 1, line 4, to further refine as needed to
insert the word "not" after the word "shall;" and on page 1,
lines 6-7, delete the words "with a notation indicating a
suspended entry of judgment." The conceptual motion to include
such further and technical and other corrections that are
consistent with the intent of the amendment, he said.
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that the intent of the amendment is
that the court system does not publish suspended entries of
judgment on their web site.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected.
4:28:22 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Claman, Kreiss-
Tomkins, Keller, and LeDoux voted in favor of Conceptual
Amendment 2 to Amendment 18. Representative Lynn voted against
it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 18 was
adopted by a vote of 4-1.
4:28:55 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection to Amendment 18, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected to Amendment 18, as amended.
4:29:17 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Keller, Claman,
Kreiss-Tomkins, and LeDoux voted in favor of Amendment 18, as
amended. Representative Lynn voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 18, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 4-1.
4:30:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 21, Version 29-
LS0896\H.4, Martin/Gardner, 3/22/16, as follows:
Page 84, line 20:
Delete "and"
Page 84, line 23, following "contractors":
Insert "; and
(11) assist a prisoner in obtaining a valid
state identification card or driver's license if the
prisoner does not have a valid state identification
card or driver's license before the prisoner's
release; the department shall pay the application fee
for the identification card or driver's license"
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
4:30:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN explained that the amendment ensures that
prisoners receive their proper identification prior to release
from the facility, and the fee "shall" be waived. The idea is,
he related, to facilitate reentry of released individuals to
obtain a job and take care of themselves because they will have
proper identification.
CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection. There being no objection,
Amendment 21 was adopted.
4:31:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 22, Version 29-
LS0896\H.44, Martin/Gardner, 3/30/16, as follows:
Page 60, line 14:
Delete "and"
Page 60, line 18, following "probation":
Insert "; and
(8) for each probationer who owes
restitution and who is under the supervision of the
officer, create a restitution payment schedule based
on the probationer's income and ability to pay if the
court has not already set a restitution payment
schedule"
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
4:31:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that Amendment 22 has to do with
restitution obligations and the desire to have people make good
faith efforts to pay that restitution. This amendment ensures
that anyone owing restitution, if they do not already have a
restitution payment schedule set by the court, that the
probation officers will make sure there is a restitution payment
schedule set up, and the person is required to follow the
restitution schedule.
CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection. There being no objection,
Amendment 22 was adopted.
4:32:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 23, Version 29-
LS0896\H.9, Gardner, 3/24/16, as follows:
Page 46, line 25, through page 47, line 13:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 78. AS 12.55.125(e) is amended to read:
(e) Except as provided in (i) of this section, a
defendant convicted of a class C felony may be
sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of not
more than five years, and shall be sentenced to a
definite term within the following presumptive ranges,
subject to adjustment as provided in AS 12.55.155 -
12.55.175:
(1) if the offense is a first felony
conviction and does not involve circumstances
described in (4) of this subsection, probation, with a
suspended term of imprisonment of zero to 18 months
[TWO YEARS; A DEFENDANT SENTENCED UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH
MAY, IF THE COURT FINDS IT APPROPRIATE, BE GRANTED A
SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE UNDER AS 12.55.085,]
and the court may, as a condition of probation under
AS 12.55.086, require the defendant to serve an active
term of imprisonment of not more than 90 days [WITHIN
THE RANGE SPECIFIED IN THIS PARAGRAPH];
(2) if the offense is a second felony
conviction, one to three [TWO TO FOUR] years;
(3) if the offense is a third felony
conviction, two [THREE] to five years;
(4) if the offense is a first felony
conviction, and the defendant violated AS
08.54.720(a)(15), one to two years."
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
4:32:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered this amendment because the
recommended presumptive term for class C felonies under the bill
would actually make it so that the presumptive sentence was
always probation for a first-time felony offender. He said he
is aware of the history that sometimes courts found it
appropriate to require a person to spend a limited period time
in jail to show them that this is not a place they want to come
back to. He explained the purpose is to not require that amount
of jail time, but to give judges the option for a limited period
of time. He asked that the commission provide input in moving
forward.
4:33:18 PM
MR. RAZO explained that the commission looked closely at the
research regarding the efficacy of prison and found that
particularly for first-time low-level felony offenders, prison
is not the best option. In fact, he stated, the research showed
that housing these first-time low-level offenders alongside
hardened criminal felons made them more likely to commit crimes.
From a public safety point of view, housing these people who go
to jail for the first time did not achieve the effect that
"Representative Claman suggested the court wanted to show that
it was a shock jail sentence." In fact, he stressed, in many
cases it was shocking enough for these people to lose their
jobs, their homes, and weaken their family ties. In this case,
the consequence of having a prison sentence was completely
counterproductive and, he reiterated this was not intuitive to
the commission. The evidence was clear that sentencing the
first-time low-level offender alongside hardened criminals makes
them criminals, he said.
4:34:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the commission specifically
looked at this concept that case law talks about anywhere from
30 days to 90 days to serve as part of a primarily probation
sentence. He reiterated as to whether the commission reviewed
that particular sentencing as a tool to improve results.
MR. RAZO replied absolutely, although, he said it was reviewed
in the context of people on probation and violating a probation
condition. The commission reviewed the Probation Accountability
and Certain Enforcement (PACE) program which, he described is an
effective immediate consequence for someone violating probation.
He explained that these people made a mistake in judgment for
the first-time and are low-level offenders. He then related
conversations with people from the villages who advised that
their son went to prison and came back as a harder man.
Thereby, the revolving door started wherein a person learns more
and more about how to be a better criminal. He offered that the
commission does understand the value of shock jail time in the
context of probation violation, and that is where it is found in
the commission's recommendation.
4:36:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said that in the typical felony sentencing
with aggravators and mitigators, if there is an aggravating
factor present the court can then go outside the presumptive
range. For example, he offered, on a first offender that might
have one aggravator present under the bill, the court [may
impose] a probation sentence. Although, if there was one
aggravating factor present the court would have flexibility, if
it thought appropriate, to impose a short period of
incarceration. He asked how often it occurs in an actual felony
prosecution in which there are no aggravating factors present.
MR. RAZO deferred to someone in the practice of felony law, and
noted that the commission did not consider the question.
4:37:32 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law
(DOL), said he is available for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked Mr. Skidmore whether he had heard
the question relating to the presence of aggravating factors in
felony prosecutions.
MR. SKIDMORE advised that he does not have statistics regarding
how frequently it occurs. However, he said, Representative
Claman's assessment of the ramifications are correct in that if
an aggravator was found, the court would have the ability to
exceed the presumptive sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked that without the actual statistics
and as director of the criminal division, whether Mr. Skidmore
could offer a rough sense -- whether it is a rare case that
doesn't have an aggravating factor. Representative Claman
related he knows with the Department of Law, if there is a
factor present it always files it even if the court may not give
any weight to it.
MR. SKIDMORE argued that the division does not always file an
aggravating factor when it believes the factor exists because
the vast majority of cases are resolved through plea
negotiations, and the plea negotiations often have that set
sentence. He remarked it does file an aggravator after the
completion of a trial in all circumstances if it believes it
existed. He noted he could not hazard to guess the number of
times there are cases in which the division has taken a case to
trial and there was no aggravating factor, although, he said it
is frequent.
4:39:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the data the
commission reviewed regarding low-level first-time offenders
incarcerated and the efficacy of shock incarceration noting that
at a certain point there is a criminogenic effect wherein the
person would be more likely to become a criminal and a more
hardened criminal. He opined that the intent of the amendment
is a sense of justice in wanting to see someone in jail for
committing a serious crime, and the second intent is shock
incarceration. He asked whether there is a period of time where
that criminogenic effect starts to become clear, whether it is
one month or two weeks. Also, he asked whether there is any
data or evidence that speaks to the psychological shock of
someone in prison for the first time, and when that shock starts
to erode.
4:41:21 PM
MR. STEINER responded that the data indicated that increased
recidivism occurred after 24-hours. For example, he expressed,
a low-risk person who spent 24-hours in jail was more likely to
commit crimes in the future than someone who spent no time in
jail. The commission did not specifically look at the
psychological effect of shock jail, but rather looked at the
data as jail recidivism. The discussion here is about 90-days
for someone's first felony, and someone the state may consider
"highly able to rehabilitate themselves." He stressed that they
are looking at a suspended imposition of sentence, and 90-days
for most people is enough to take away everything they have,
such as home, job, and their children. He described it as a
significant amount of jail time and the shock would likely have
that effect. The data being that 24-hours increased recidivism,
it is the basis of the commission's recommendation - which
first-time individuals would be looking at probation. He
remarked, under the statute, if an aggravator applies, that jail
time could be imposed so there is some latitude even for the
first felony conviction.
4:42:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted that his next question was
directed to Public Defender Steiner and not Alaska Criminal
Judicial Commission Commissioner Steiner. He asked, within his
experience with a person that goes to jail for the first time,
what he has seen, and how long the psychological impact stays
with the person before they habituate and acculturate.
MR. STEINER advised the question is of a complexity that he
could not answer because every individual client is different
and the impact is different. The dramatic impact of jail was
clear to the commission and, as Mr. Razo discussed, the shock
value of jail worked well in a probation setting. In fact, he
said, it is very short periods of time where even that works.
For instance, Alaska has the PACE system where someone commits a
probation violation and they spend one to four days in jail.
Whereas, the Hawaii model, this was based upon, has come to
learn that not even an entire day is necessary to have that
effect. For example, he offered, a person is arrested in the
morning and sits in a jail cell until evening, that has just as
much effect as the person spending the night. He explained it
is the momentary disruption, anything beyond the momentary
disruption, from the data, loses its value and actually
increases recidivism and reduces public safety. As to the
psychological effect, he said he could not answer that question.
He offered that there is some sense, anecdotally from clients,
that once a person goes in, they are in, and there is a sense of
giving up - they've already gone in. He expressed that that
issue was certainly in his mind as he considered these policies.
4:45:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he would like to ask the same
question of Commissioner Dean Williams given his background, and
that he appreciated Mr. Steiner's disciplined evidentiary
response and was certain that is what the data indicated.
4:46:10 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:46 to 4:47 p.m.
4:47:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the psychological
impact and longevity of someone's first shock incarceration
wherein someone ends up in jail, and he asked Commissioner
Williams how long that psychological affect is seen in the
person before they start to habituate and acculturate, or the
range he has seen in his career.
4:48:24 PM
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner Designee, Department of Corrections,
responded that the school of thought regarding a shock
incarceration is one that his colleagues in the Department of
Corrections (DOC) have been using under the PACE program. He
noted there was a similar strategy in some juvenile areas about
getting kids on a very short term basis to, sort of, make an
impression. The difference of the quick incarceration under the
PACE program is high-risk individuals, and quick incarceration
is always limited by the fact the state does not want low-risk
people in jail reoffending again. Therefore, he pointed out,
who it applies to is almost as important as how it is being
applied when reviewing the criminal intervention strategy of
these kinds of programs. He noted that whether it works or not
depends upon who it is used on, and what the stated purpose is.
He referred to the PACE program, and said the goal of those
high-risk offenders is to make sure that DOC watches what is
going on and gets them in for minor violations. That goal is
contra-indicated towards low-risk individuals. He added that
the value of using that must be appropriately applied or it
causes more damage than good.
4:50:33 PM
SUSANNE DiPETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council
advised that the Alaska Judicial Council staffs the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the commission specifically
looked at the narrow area of shock incarceration or of shock
probation which is 30-day to 90-day sentences.
MS. DiPETRO replied that as Commissioner Razo previously
explained, staff never researched the specific idea of shock
incarceration of which Alaska has had in its jurisprudence for
some time.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN suggested that rather than moving forward
on this amendment, the committee ask the commission to
specifically look at shock incarceration as to whether it works
or does not work given Alaska's history and the people given
that sentence.
MS. DiPETRO agreed, and she said it may be a good thing for the
commission to review. In response to Representative Claman,
answered that in speaking as staff they would be happy to
provide that information to the commission.
4:52:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his motion on Amendment 23 with
the assurance the commission will review this question over the
course of the next year. He offered that the prosecution has a
lot of authority in a trial setting to add aggravators that
would give the judge the authority to impose shock
incarceration.
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out to Representative Claman that the
committee has used amendments to ask the Alaska Criminal
Judicial Commission to specifically study various issues, and
suggested that he prepare language prior to the committee
meeting tomorrow.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered that a memorandum may be better
served because more information can be included in a memorandum
than an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN agreed, and he said he is happy to work
with Representative Keller who serves on the commission.
[HB 205 was held over.]
4:53:43 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that Mr. Doug Gardner, Legislative Legal and
Research Services asked that Chair LeDoux put on the record that
"Legal can make informing and technical changes when we order an
amended bill."
AMENDMENTS
The following amendments to HB 205 were either discussed or
adopted during the hearing. [Shorter amendments are provided
within the main text only.]
AMENDMENT 9A [Conceptual]
Page 1, line 2, following "sentencing;":
Insert "relating to treatment program credit for
time spent toward service of a sentence of
imprisonment;"
Page 36, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 62. AS 12.55.027 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(f) To qualify as a treatment program under this
section, a program must
(1) be intended to address criminogenic
traits or behaviors;
(2) provide measures of progress or
completion; and
(3) require notification to the court or
probation officer of violations of conditions of bail
release or probation."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 97, line 29:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 67"
Page 98, line 1:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 67"
Page 98, line 2:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 68"
Page 98, line 5:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 82"
Page 98, line 8:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 100"
Page 99, following line 10:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(26) AS 12.55.027(f), enacted by sec. 62
of this Act;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 99, line 11:
Delete "sec. 86"
Insert "sec. 87"
Page 99, line 12:
Delete "sec. 87"
Insert "sec. 88"
Page 99, line 13:
Delete "sec. 93"
Insert "sec. 94"
Page 99, line 14:
Delete "sec. 94"
Insert "sec. 95"
Page 99, line 15:
Delete "sec. 95"
Insert "sec. 96"
Page 99, line 16:
Delete "sec. 148"
Insert "sec. 149"
Page 99, line 31:
Delete "sec. 76"
Insert "sec. 77"
Page 100, line 1:
Delete "sec. 77"
Insert "sec. 78"
Page 100, line 2:
Delete "sec. 78"
Insert "sec. 79"
Page 100, line 3:
Delete "sec. 79"
Insert "sec. 80"
Page 100, line 4:
Delete "sec. 80"
Insert "sec. 81"
Page 100, line 5:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 82"
Page 100, line 6:
Delete "sec. 134"
Insert "sec. 135"
Page 100, line 7:
Delete "sec. 135"
Insert "sec. 136"
Page 100, line 12:
Delete "sec. 75"
Insert "sec. 76"
Page 100, line 13:
Delete "sec. 89"
Insert "sec. 90"
Page 100, line 14:
Delete "sec. 92"
Insert "sec. 93"
Page 100, line 15:
Delete "sec. 102"
Insert "sec. 103"
Page 100, line 16:
Delete "sec. 104"
Insert "sec. 105"
Page 100, line 17:
Delete "sec. 136"
Insert "sec. 137"
Page 100, line 24:
Delete "sec. 64"
Insert "sec. 65"
Page 100, line 25:
Delete "sec. 65"
Insert "sec. 66"
Page 100, line 26:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 67"
Page 100, line 27:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 68"
Page 100, line 29:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 68"
Page 101, line 1:
Delete "sec. 62"
Insert "sec. 63"
Page 101, line 2:
Delete "sec. 69"
Insert "sec. 70"
Page 101, line 5:
Delete "sec. 68"
Insert "sec. 69"
Page 101, line 6:
Delete "sec. 70"
Insert "sec. 71"
Page 101, line 7:
Delete "sec. 71"
Insert "sec. 72"
Page 101, line 8:
Delete "sec. 72"
Insert "sec. 73"
Page 101, line 9:
Delete "sec. 74"
Insert "sec. 75"
Page 101, line 10:
Delete "sec. 96"
Insert "sec. 97"
Page 101, line 11:
Delete "sec. 97"
Insert "sec. 98"
Page 101, line 15:
Delete "sec. 83"
Insert "sec. 84"
Page 101, line 16:
Delete "sec. 84"
Insert "sec. 85"
Page 101, line 17:
Delete "sec. 85"
Insert "sec. 86"
Page 101, line 18:
Delete "sec. 91"
Insert "sec. 92"
Page 101, line 21:
Delete "sec. 100"
Insert "sec. 101"
Page 101, line 22:
Delete "sec. 101"
Insert "sec. 102"
Page 101, line 23:
Delete "sec. 103"
Insert "sec. 104"
Page 101, line 24:
Delete "sec. 105"
Insert "sec. 106"
Page 101, line 25:
Delete "sec. 107"
Insert "sec. 108"
Page 101, line 26:
Delete "sec. 108"
Insert "sec. 109"
Page 101, line 27:
Delete "sec. 109"
Insert "sec. 110"
Page 101, line 28:
Delete "sec. 115"
Insert "sec. 116"
Page 101, line 29:
Delete "sec. 116"
Insert "sec. 117"
Page 101, line 30:
Delete "sec. 117"
Insert "sec. 118"
Page 101, line 31:
Delete "sec. 118"
Insert "sec. 119"
Page 102, line 1:
Delete "sec. 119"
Insert "sec. 120"
Page 102, line 2:
Delete "sec. 120"
Insert "sec. 121"
Page 102, line 3:
Delete "sec. 121"
Insert "sec. 122"
Page 102, line 4:
Delete "sec. 122"
Insert "sec. 123"
Page 102, line 5:
Delete "sec. 123"
Insert "sec. 124"
Page 102, line 6:
Delete "sec. 124"
Insert "sec. 125"
Page 102, line 7:
Delete "sec. 125"
Insert "sec. 126"
Page 102, line 8:
Delete "sec. 126"
Insert "sec. 127"
Page 102, line 9:
Delete "sec. 127"
Insert "sec. 128"
Page 102, line 10:
Delete "sec. 128"
Insert "sec. 129"
Page 102, line 11:
Delete "sec. 129"
Insert "sec. 130"
Page 102, line 12:
Delete "sec. 130"
Insert "sec. 131"
Page 102, line 13:
Delete "sec. 131"
Insert "sec. 132"
Page 102, line 14:
Delete "sec. 132"
Insert "sec. 133"
Page 102, line 15:
Delete "secs. 152 - 154"
Insert "secs. 153 - 155"
Page 102, line 16:
Delete "152 - 154"
Insert "153 - 155"
Page 102, line 31:
Delete "sec. 63"
Insert "sec. 64"
Page 103, line 1:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 100"
Page 103, line 2:
Delete "sec. 142"
Insert "sec. 143"
Page 103, line 6:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 103, line 8:
Delete "sec. 156(a)"
Insert "sec. 157(a)"
Page 103, line 11:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b)"
Page 103, line 14:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b)"
Page 103, line 17:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 67"
Delete "sec. 156(c)"
Insert "sec. 157(c)"
Page 103, line 20:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 68"
Delete "sec. 156(d)"
Insert "sec. 157(d)"
Page 103, line 23:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 82"
Delete "sec. 156(e)"
Insert "sec. 157(e)"
Page 103, line 26:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 100"
Delete "sec. 156(f)"
Insert "sec. 157(f)"
Page 103, lines 29 - 30:
Delete "65, 67, 69, 73, 76 - 88, 91, 93 - 95,
134, 135, 143 - 151, and 155"
Insert "63, 66, 68, 70, 74, 77 - 89, 92, 94 - 96,
135, 136, 144 - 152, and 156"
Page 103, line 31, through page 104, line 1:
Delete "66, 68, 70 - 72, 74, 75, 89, 90, 92, 96 -
98, 100 - 133, and 136 - 140"
Insert "67, 69, 71 - 73, 75, 76, 90, 91, 93, 97 -
99, 101 - 134, and 137 - 141"
Page 104, line 2:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 104, line 4:
Delete "63, 99, 142, 152 - 154, and 156(f)"
Insert "64, 100, 143, 153 - 155, and 157(f)"
AMENDMENT 10 [29-LS0896\H.69, Gardner, 4/6/16]
Page 36, lines 1 - 14:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 61. AS 12.55.025(k) is amended to read:
(k) If a defendant intends to claim credit under
AS 12.55.027 toward a sentence of imprisonment for
time spent in a [TREATMENT] program as a condition of
bail in connection with an offense for which the
defendant is being sentenced, the defendant shall file
notice with the court and the prosecutor 10 days
before the sentencing hearing. The notice shall
include the number of days the defendant is claiming.
The defendant must prove by a preponderance of
evidence that the requirements of AS 12.55.027 are met
before credit may be awarded. Except as provided in
(l) of this section, except for good cause, a court
may not consider a request for credit made under this
subsection more than 90 days after the sentencing
hearing.
* Sec. 62. AS 12.55.025(l) is amended to read:
(l) If a defendant intends to claim credit under
AS 12.55.027 toward a sentence of imprisonment for
time spent in a [TREATMENT] program as a condition of
bail while pending appeal, the defendant shall file
notice with the court and the prosecutor not later
than 90 days after return of the case to the trial
court following appeal. The notice shall include the
number of days the defendant is claiming. The
defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence
that the requirements of AS 12.55.027 are met before
credit may be awarded. Except for good cause, the
court may not consider a request for credit made under
this subsection after the deadline.
* Sec. 63. AS 12.55.027(a) is amended to read:
(a) A court may grant a defendant credit toward
a sentence of imprisonment for time spent in a
[TREATMENT] program that furthers the reformation and
rehabilitation of the defendant if the court finds
that the program places a substantial restriction on
the defendant's freedom of movement and behavior and
is consistent with [OR UNDER ELECTRONIC MONITORING
ONLY AS PROVIDED IN] this section.
* Sec. 64. AS 12.55.027(b) is amended to read:
(b) A court may only grant credit under this
section [A DEFENDANT ONE DAY OF CREDIT TOWARD A
SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR EACH FULL DAY THE
DEFENDANT RESIDED IN THE FACILITY OF A TREATMENT
PROGRAM AND OBSERVED THE RULES OF THE TREATMENT
PROGRAM AND THE FACILITY IF]
(1) in the amount of one day of credit
toward a sentence of imprisonment for each full day
the defendant spent in a reformation and
rehabilitation program; and [THE COURT FINDS THAT THE
TREATMENT PROGRAM MEETS THE STANDARDS DESCRIBED IN (c)
OF THIS SECTION;]
(2) if the court ordered [BEFORE] the
defendant [ENTERED THE TREATMENT PROGRAM, THE COURT
ORDERED THE DEFENDANT] to [RESIDE IN THE FACILITY OF
THE TREATMENT PROGRAM AND] participate in and comply
with the conditions of the reformation and
rehabilitation [THE TREATMENT] program before the
defendant entered the program [AS A CONDITION OF BAIL
RELEASE OR A CONDITION OF PROBATION; AND
(3) THE COURT HAS RECEIVED A WRITTEN REPORT
FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE PROGRAM THAT
(A) STATES THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS
PARTICIPATED IN THE TREATMENT PLAN PRESCRIBED FOR THE
DEFENDANT AND HAS COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE PLAN; AND
(B) SETS OUT THE NUMBER OF FULL DAYS THE
DEFENDANT RESIDED IN THE FACILITY OF THE TREATMENT
PROGRAM AND OBSERVED THE RULES OF THE TREATMENT
PROGRAM AND FACILITY].
* Sec. 65. AS 12.55.027(c) is repealed and
reenacted to read:
(c) In granting credit toward a sentence of
imprisonment for time spent in a reformation and
rehabilitation program, a court shall consider the
following factors:
(1) the restrictions on the defendant's
freedom of movement and behavior;
(2) the circumstances under which the
defendant was enrolled in the program;
(3) the residency requirements of the
program;
(4) the physical custody and supervision of
the defendant at the program;
(5) the circumstances under which the
defendant is permitted to leave the program's
facility;
(6) the rules of the program and the
requirement that the defendant obey the orders of
persons who have immediate custody or control over the
defendant;
(7) the sanctions on the defendant for
violating the program's rules or orders;
(8) whether the defendant is subject to
arrest for leaving the program's facility without
permission;
(9) the use of an electronic monitoring
device;
(10) whether the program provides substance
abuse treatment;
(11) the use of other technology that
monitors or restricts the defendant's movement and
behavior;
(12) other factors that support the court's
finding that the program places a substantial
restriction on the defendant's freedom of movement and
behavior;
(13) other factors that support the court's
finding that the program furthers the reformation and
rehabilitation of the defendant."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 99, line 30:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) AS 12.55.025(k), as amended by sec. 61
of this Act;
(2) AS 12.55.025(l), as amended by sec. 62
of this Act;
(3) AS 12.55.027(a), as amended by sec. 63
of this Act;
(4) AS 12.55.027(b), as amended by sec. 64
of this Act;
(5) AS 12.55.027(c), as repealed and
reenacted by sec. 65 of this Act;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 97, line 29:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 70"
Page 98, line 1:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 70"
Page 98, line 2:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 71"
Page 98, line 5:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 85"
Page 98, line 8:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 103"
Page 99, line 11:
Delete "sec. 86"
Insert "sec. 90"
Page 99, line 12:
Delete "sec. 87"
Insert "sec. 91"
Page 99, line 13:
Delete "sec. 93"
Insert "sec. 97"
Page 99, line 14:
Delete "sec. 94"
Insert "sec. 98"
Page 99, line 15:
Delete "sec. 95"
Insert "sec. 99"
Page 99, line 16:
Delete "sec. 148"
Insert "sec. 152"
Page 99, line 31:
Delete "sec. 76"
Insert "sec. 80"
Page 100, line 1:
Delete "sec. 77"
Insert "sec. 81"
Page 100, line 2:
Delete "sec. 78"
Insert "sec. 82"
Page 100, line 3:
Delete "sec. 79"
Insert "sec. 83"
Page 100, line 4:
Delete "sec. 80"
Insert "sec. 84"
Page 100, line 5:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 85"
Page 100, line 6:
Delete "sec. 134"
Insert "sec. 138"
Page 100, line 7:
Delete "sec. 135"
Insert "sec. 139"
Page 100, line 12:
Delete "sec. 75"
Insert "sec. 79"
Page 100, line 13:
Delete "sec. 89"
Insert "sec. 93"
Page 100, line 14:
Delete "sec. 92"
Insert "sec. 96"
Page 100, line 15:
Delete "sec. 102"
Insert "sec. 106"
Page 100, line 16:
Delete "sec. 104"
Insert "sec. 108"
Page 100, line 17:
Delete "sec. 136"
Insert "sec. 140"
Page 100, line 24:
Delete "sec. 64"
Insert "sec. 68"
Page 100, line 25:
Delete "sec. 65"
Insert "sec. 69"
Page 100, line 26:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 70"
Page 100, line 27:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 71"
Page 100, line 29:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 71"
Page 101, line 1:
Delete "sec. 62"
Insert "sec. 66"
Page 101, line 2:
Delete "sec. 69"
Insert "sec. 73"
Page 101, line 5:
Delete "sec. 68"
Insert "sec. 72"
Page 101, line 6:
Delete "sec. 70"
Insert "sec. 74"
Page 101, line 7:
Delete "sec. 71"
Insert "sec. 75"
Page 101, line 8:
Delete "sec. 72"
Insert "sec. 76"
Page 101, line 9:
Delete "sec. 74"
Insert "sec. 78"
Page 101, line 10:
Delete "sec. 96"
Insert "sec. 100"
Page 101, line 11:
Delete "sec. 97"
Insert "sec. 101"
Page 101, line 15:
Delete "sec. 83"
Insert "sec. 87"
Page 101, line 16:
Delete "sec. 84"
Insert "sec. 88"
Page 101, line 17:
Delete "sec. 85"
Insert "sec. 89"
Page 101, line 18:
Delete "sec. 91"
Insert "sec. 95"
Page 101, line 21:
Delete "sec. 100"
Insert "sec. 104"
Page 101, line 22:
Delete "sec. 101"
Insert "sec. 105"
Page 101, line 23:
Delete "sec. 103"
Insert "sec. 107"
Page 101, line 24:
Delete "sec. 105"
Insert "sec. 109"
Page 101, line 25:
Delete "sec. 107"
Insert "sec. 111"
Page 101, line 26:
Delete "sec. 108"
Insert "sec. 112"
Page 101, line 27:
Delete "sec. 109"
Insert "sec. 113"
Page 101, line 28:
Delete "sec. 115"
Insert "sec. 119"
Page 101, line 29:
Delete "sec. 116"
Insert "sec. 120"
Page 101, line 30:
Delete "sec. 117"
Insert "sec. 121"
Page 101, line 31:
Delete "sec. 118"
Insert "sec. 122"
Page 102, line 1:
Delete "sec. 119"
Insert "sec. 123"
Page 102, line 2:
Delete "sec. 120"
Insert "sec. 124"
Page 102, line 3:
Delete "sec. 121"
Insert "sec. 125"
Page 102, line 4:
Delete "sec. 122"
Insert "sec. 126"
Page 102, line 5:
Delete "sec. 123"
Insert "sec. 127"
Page 102, line 6:
Delete "sec. 124"
Insert "sec. 128"
Page 102, line 7:
Delete "sec. 125"
Insert "sec. 129"
Page 102, line 8:
Delete "sec. 126"
Insert "sec. 130"
Page 102, line 9:
Delete "sec. 127"
Insert "sec. 131"
Page 102, line 10:
Delete "sec. 128"
Insert "sec. 132"
Page 102, line 11:
Delete "sec. 129"
Insert "sec. 133"
Page 102, line 12:
Delete "sec. 130"
Insert "sec. 134"
Page 102, line 13:
Delete "sec. 131"
Insert "sec. 135"
Page 102, line 14:
Delete "sec. 132"
Insert "sec. 136"
Page 102, line 15:
Delete "secs. 152 - 154"
Insert "secs. 156 - 158"
Page 102, line 16:
Delete "152 - 154"
Insert "156 - 158"
Page 102, line 31:
Delete "sec. 63"
Insert "sec. 67"
Page 103, line 1:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 103"
Page 103, line 2:
Delete "sec. 142"
Insert "sec. 146"
Page 103, line 6:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 156"
Page 103, line 8:
Delete "sec. 156(a)"
Insert "sec. 160(a)"
Page 103, line 11:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 160(b)"
Page 103, line 14:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 160(b)"
Page 103, line 17:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 70"
Delete "sec. 156(c)"
Insert "sec. 160(c)"
Page 103, line 20:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 71"
Delete "sec. 156(d)"
Insert "sec. 160(d)"
Page 103, line 23:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 85"
Delete "sec. 156(e)"
Insert "sec. 160(e)"
Page 103, line 26:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 103"
Delete "sec. 156(f)"
Insert "sec. 160(f)"
Page 103, lines 29 - 30:
Delete "62, 65, 67, 69, 73, 76 - 88, 91, 93 - 95,
134, 135, 143 - 151, and 155"
Insert "66, 69, 71, 73, 77, 80 - 92, 95, 97 - 99,
138, 139, 147 - 155, and 159"
Page 103, line 31, through page 104, line 1:
Delete "66, 68, 70 - 72, 74, 75, 89, 90, 92, 96 -
98, 100 - 133, and 136 - 140"
Insert "70, 72, 74 - 76, 78, 79, 93, 94, 96, 100
- 102, 104 - 137, and 140 - 144"
Page 104, line 2:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 156"
Page 104, line 4:
Delete "63, 99, 142, 152 - 154, and 156(f)"
Insert "67, 103, 146, 156 - 158, and 160(f)"
AMENDMENT 12 [29-LS0896\H.67, Martin/Gardner, 4/12/16]
Page 63, line 26:
Delete "; and"
Insert ";
(4) require that a defendant charged with
an offense involving the use of alcohol or controlled
substances comply with a program established under AS
47.38.020; and"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
Page 76, line 11:
Delete "probation"
Insert "parole [PROBATION]"
Page 76, following line 17:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 122. AS 33.16.150 is amended by adding a
new subsection to read:
(h) In addition to other conditions of parole
imposed under this section, for a prisoner serving a
sentence for an offense involving the use of alcohol
or controlled substances, the board may impose, as a
condition of special medical, administrative,
discretionary, or mandatory parole, a requirement that
the prisoner comply with a program established under
AS 33.16.060(c) or AS 47.38.020. The board may require
a prisoner serving a period of parole and complying
with a program established under AS 33.16.060(c) or AS
47.38.020 to pay all or a portion of the costs
associated with the program."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 99, line 16:
Delete "sec. 148"
Insert "sec. 149"
Page 100, line 6:
Delete "sec. 134"
Insert "sec. 135"
Page 100, line 7:
Delete "sec. 135"
Insert "sec. 136"
Page 100, line 17:
Delete "sec. 136"
Insert "sec. 137"
Page 102, following line 3:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(15) AS 33.16.150(h), enacted by sec. 122
of this Act;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 102, line 4:
Delete "sec. 122"
Insert "sec. 123"
Page 102, line 5:
Delete "sec. 123"
Insert "sec. 124"
Page 102, line 6:
Delete "sec. 124"
Insert "sec. 125"
Page 102, line 7:
Delete "sec. 125"
Insert "sec. 126"
Page 102, line 8:
Delete "sec. 126"
Insert "sec. 127"
Page 102, line 9:
Delete "sec. 127"
Insert "sec. 128"
Page 102, line 10:
Delete "sec. 128"
Insert "sec. 129"
Page 102, line 11:
Delete "sec. 129"
Insert "sec. 130"
Page 102, line 12:
Delete "sec. 130"
Insert "sec. 131"
Page 102, line 13:
Delete "sec. 131"
Insert "sec. 132"
Page 102, line 14:
Delete "sec. 132"
Insert "sec. 133"
Page 102, line 15:
Delete "secs. 152 - 154"
Insert "secs. 153 - 155"
Page 102, line 16:
Delete "152 - 154"
Insert "153 - 155"
Page 103, line 2:
Delete "sec. 142"
Insert "sec. 143"
Page 103, line 6:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 103, line 8:
Delete "sec. 156(a)"
Insert "sec. 157(a)"
Page 103, line 11:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b)"
Page 103, line 14:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b)"
Page 103, line 17:
Delete "sec. 156(c)"
Insert "sec. 157(c)"
Page 103, line 20:
Delete "sec. 156(d)"
Insert "sec. 157(d)"
Page 103, line 23:
Delete "sec. 156(e)"
Insert "sec. 157(e)"
Page 103, line 26:
Delete "sec. 156(f)"
Insert "sec. 157(f)"
Page 103, lines 29 - 30:
Delete "134, 135, 143 - 151, and 155"
Insert "135, 136, 144 - 152, and 157"
Page 103, line 31, through page 104, line 1:
Delete "100 - 133, and 136 - 140"
Insert "100 - 134, and 137 - 141"
Page 104, line 2:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 104, line 4:
Delete "142, 152 - 154, and 156(f)"
Insert "143, 153 - 155, and 157(f)"
AMENDMENT 16 [29-LS0896\H.16, Martin/Gardner, 3/25/16]
Page 34, following line 21:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 59. AS 12.55.011 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) At the time of sentencing, the court shall
provide the victim with a form that
(1) provides information on
(A) whom the victim should contact if the victim has
questions about the sentence or release of the
offender;
(B) the potential for release of the offender on
furlough, probation, or parole or for good time
credit; and
(2) allows the victim to update the victim's contact
information with the court, the Victim Information and
Notification Everyday service, and with the Department
of Corrections."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 77, line 4:
Delete "and"
Page 77, line 24, following "sanction":
Insert "; and
(10) within 30 days after sentencing of an offender,
provide the victim of a crime information on the
earliest dates the offender could be released on
furlough, probation, or parole, including deductions
or reductions for good time or other good conduct
incentives and the process for release, including
contact information for the decision-making bodies"
Page 97, line 29:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 67"
Page 98, line 1:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 67"
Page 98, line 2:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 68"
Page 98, line 5:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 82"
Page 98, line 8:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 100"
Page 99, line 11:
Delete "86"
Insert "87"
Page 99, line 12:
Delete "sec. 87"
Insert "sec. 88"
Page 99, line 13:
Delete "sec. 93"
Insert "sec. 94"
Page 99, line 14:
Delete "sec. 94"
Insert "sec. 95"
Page 99, line 15:
Delete "sec. 95"
Insert "sec. 96"
Page 99, line 16:
Delete "sec. 148"
Insert "sec. 149"
Page 99, line 30:
Delete "sec. 61"
Insert "sec. 62"
Page 99, line 31:
Delete "sec. 76"
Insert "sec. 77"
Page 100, line 1:
Delete "sec. 77"
Insert "sec. 78"
Page 100, line 2:
Delete "sec. 78"
Insert "sec. 79"
Page 100, line 3:
Delete "sec. 79"
Insert "sec. 80"
Page 100, line 4:
Delete "sec. 80"
Insert "sec. 81"
Page 100, line 5:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 82"
Page 100, line 6:
Delete "sec. 134"
Insert "sec. 135"
Page 100, line 7:
Delete "sec. 135"
Insert "sec. 136"
Page 100, line 10:
Delete "sec. 59"
Insert "sec. 60"
Page 100, line 11:
Delete "sec. 60"
Insert "sec. 61"
Page 100, line 12:
Delete "sec. 75"
Insert "sec. 76"
Page 100, line 13:
Delete "sec. 89"
Insert "sec. 90"
Page 100, line 14:
Delete "sec. 92"
Insert "sec. 93"
Page 100, line 15:
Delete "sec. 102"
Insert "sec. 103"
Page 100, line 16:
Delete "sec. 104"
Insert "sec. 105"
Page 100, line 17:
Delete "sec. 136"
Insert "sec. 137"
Page 100, line 24:
Delete "sec. 64"
Insert "sec. 65"
Page 100, line 25:
Delete "sec. 65"
Insert "sec. 66"
Page 100, line 26:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 67"
Page 100, line 27:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 68"
Page 100, line 29:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 68"
Page 101, line 1:
Delete "sec. 62"
Insert "sec. 63"
Page 101, line 2:
Delete "sec. 69"
Insert "sec. 70"
Page 101, line 5:
Delete "sec. 68"
Insert "sec. 69"
Page 101, line 6:
Delete "sec. 70"
Insert "sec. 71"
Page 101, line 7:
Delete "sec. 71"
Insert "sec. 72"
Page 101, line 8:
Delete "sec. 72"
Insert "sec. 73"
Page 101, line 9:
Delete "sec. 74"
Insert "sec. 75"
Page 101, line 10:
Delete "sec. 96"
Insert "sec. 97"
Page 101, line 11:
Delete "sec. 97"
Insert "sec. 98"
Page 101, line 15:
Delete "sec. 83"
Insert "sec. 84"
Page 101, line 16:
Delete "sec. 84"
Insert "sec. 85"
Page 101, line 17:
Delete "sec. 85"
Insert "sec. 86"
Page 101, line 18:
Delete "sec. 91"
Insert "sec. 92"
Page 101, line 21:
Delete "sec. 100"
Insert "sec. 101"
Page 101, line 22:
Delete "sec. 101"
Insert "sec. 102"
Page 101, line 23:
Delete "sec. 103"
Insert "sec. 104"
Page 101, line 24:
Delete "sec. 105"
Insert "sec. 106"
Page 101, line 25:
Delete "sec. 107"
Insert "sec. 108"
Page 101, line 26:
Delete "sec. 108"
Insert "sec. 109"
Page 101, line 27:
Delete "sec. 109"
Insert "sec. 110"
Page 101, line 28:
Delete "sec. 115"
Insert "sec. 116"
Page 101, line 29:
Delete "sec. 116"
Insert "sec. 117"
Page 101, line 30:
Delete "sec. 117"
Insert "sec. 118"
Page 101, line 31:
Delete "sec. 118"
Insert "sec. 119"
Page 102, line 1:
Delete "sec. 119"
Insert "sec. 120"
Page 102, line 2:
Delete "sec. 120"
Insert "sec. 121"
Page 102, line 3:
Delete "sec. 121"
Insert "sec. 122"
Page 102, line 4:
Delete "sec. 122"
Insert "sec. 123"
Page 102, line 5:
Delete "sec. 123"
Insert "sec. 124"
Page 102, line 6:
Delete "sec. 124"
Insert "sec. 125"
Page 102, line 7:
Delete "sec. 125"
Insert "sec. 126"
Page 102, line 8:
Delete "sec. 126"
Insert "sec. 127"
Page 102, line 9:
Delete "sec. 127"
Insert "sec. 128"
Page 102, line 10:
Delete "sec. 128"
Insert "sec. 129"
Page 102, line 11:
Delete "sec. 129"
Insert "sec. 130"
Page 102, line 12:
Delete "sec. 130"
Insert "sec. 131"
Page 102, line 13:
Delete "sec. 131"
Insert "sec. 132"
Page 102, line 14:
Delete "sec. 132"
Insert "sec. 133"
Page 102, line 15:
Delete "secs. 152 - 154"
Insert "secs. 153 - 155"
Page 102, line 16:
Delete "152 - 154"
Insert "153 - 155"
Page 102, line 31:
Delete "sec. 63"
Insert "sec. 64"
Page 103, line 1:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 100"
Page 103, line 2:
Delete "sec. 142"
Insert "sec. 143"
Page 103, line 6:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 103, line 8:
Delete "sec. 156(a)"
Insert "sec. 157(a)"
Page 103, line 11:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b)"
Page 103, line 14:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b) "
Page 103, line 17:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 67"
Delete "sec. 156(c)"
Insert "sec. 157(c)"
Page 103, line 20:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 68"
Delete "sec. 156(d)"
Insert "sec. 157(d)"
Page 103, line 23:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 82"
Delete "sec. 156(e)"
Insert "sec. 157(e)"
Page 103, line 26:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 100"
Delete "sec. 156(f)"
Insert "sec. 157(f)"
Page 103, lines 29 - 30:
Delete "61, 62, 65, 67, 69, 73, 76 - 88, 91, 93 - 95,
134, 135, 143 - 151, and 155"
Insert "62, 63, 66, 68, 70, 74, 77 - 89, 92, 94 - 96,
135, 136, 144 - 152, and 156"
Page 103, line 31, through page 104, line 1:
Delete "Sections 58 - 60, 66, 68, 70 - 72, 74, 75, 89,
90, 92, 96 - 98, 100 - 133, and 136 - 140"
Insert "Sections 58, 60, 61, 67, 69, 71 - 73, 75, 76,
90, 91, 93, 97 - 99, 101 - 134, 137 - 141"
Page 104, line 2:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 104, line 4:
Delete "63, 99, 142, 152 - 154, and 156(f)"
Insert "64, 100, 143, 153 - 155, and 157(f)"
AMENDMENT 18 [29-LS0896\H.17, Martin/Gardner, 3/25/16]
Page 50, following line 22:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 83. AS 22.35.030 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the
Alaska Court System shall publish the court record of
a person who is granted a suspended entry of judgment
under AS 12.55.078 on a publicly available website
with a notation indicating a suspended entry of
judgment."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 98, line 8:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 100"
Page 99, line 11:
Delete "sec. 86"
Insert "sec. 87"
Page 99, line 12:
Delete "sec. 87"
Insert "sec. 88"
Page 99, line 13:
Delete "sec. 93"
Insert "sec. 94"
Page 99, line 14:
Delete "sec. 94"
Insert "sec. 95"
Page 99, line 15:
Delete "sec. 95"
Insert "sec. 96"
Page 99, line 16:
Delete "sec. 148"
Insert "sec. 149"
Page 100, line 6:
Delete "sec. 134"
Insert "sec. 135"
Page 100, line 7:
Delete "sec. 135"
Insert "sec. 136"
Page 100, line 13:
Delete "sec. 89"
Insert "sec. 90"
Page 100, line 14:
Delete "sec. 92"
Insert "sec. 93"
Page 100, line 15:
Delete "sec. 102"
Insert "sec. 103"
Page 100, line 16:
Delete "sec. 104"
Insert "sec. 105"
Page 100, line 17:
Delete "sec. 136"
Insert "sec. 137"
Page 101, line 10:
Delete "sec. 96"
Insert "sec. 97"
Page 101, line 11:
Delete "sec. 97"
Insert "sec. 98"
Page 101, line 15:
Delete "sec. 83"
Insert "sec. 84"
Page 101, line 16:
Delete "sec. 84"
Insert "sec. 85"
Page 101, line 17:
Delete "sec. 85"
Insert "sec. 86"
Page 101, line 18:
Delete "sec. 91"
Insert "sec. 92"
Page 101, line 21:
Delete "sec. 100"
Insert "sec. 101"
Page 101, line 22:
Delete "sec. 101"
Insert "sec. 102"
Page 101, line 23:
Delete "sec. 103"
Insert "sec. 104"
Page 101, line 24:
Delete "sec. 105"
Insert "sec. 106"
Page 101, line 25:
Delete "sec. 107"
Insert "sec. 108"
Page 101, line 26:
Delete "sec. 108"
Insert "sec. 109"
Page 101, line 27:
Delete "sec. 109"
Insert "sec. 110"
Page 101, line 28:
Delete "sec. 115"
Insert "sec. 116"
Page 101, line 29:
Delete "sec. 116"
Insert "sec. 117"
Page 101, line 30:
Delete "sec. 117"
Insert "sec. 118"
Page 101, line 31:
Delete "sec. 118"
Insert "sec. 119"
Page 102, line 1:
Delete "sec. 119"
Insert "sec. 120"
Page 102, line 2:
Delete "sec. 120"
Insert "sec. 121"
Page 102, line 3:
Delete "sec. 121"
Insert "sec. 122"
Page 102, line 4:
Delete "sec. 122"
Insert "sec. 123"
Page 102, line 5:
Delete "sec. 123"
Insert "sec. 124"
Page 102, line 6:
Delete "sec. 124"
Insert "sec. 125"
Page 102, line 7:
Delete "sec. 125"
Insert "sec. 126"
Page 102, line 8:
Delete "sec. 126"
Insert "sec. 127"
Page 102, line 9:
Delete "sec. 127"
Insert "sec. 128"
Page 102, line 10:
Delete "sec. 128"
Insert "sec. 129"
Page 102, line 11:
Delete "sec. 129"
Insert "sec. 130"
Page 102, line 12:
Delete "sec. 130"
Insert "sec. 131"
Page 102, line 13:
Delete "sec. 131"
Insert "sec. 132"
Page 102, line 14:
Delete "sec. 132"
Insert "sec. 133"
Page 102, line 15:
Delete "secs. 152 - 154"
Insert "secs. 153 - 155"
Page 102, line 16:
Delete "152 - 154"
Insert "153 - 155"
Page 103, line 1:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 100"
Page 103, line 2:
Delete "sec. 142"
Insert "sec. 143"
Page 103, line 6:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 103, line 8:
Delete "sec. 156(a)"
Insert "sec. 157(a)"
Page 103, line 11:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b)"
Page 103, line 14:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b) "
Page 103, line 17:
Delete "sec. 156(c)"
Insert "sec. 157(c)"
Page 103, line 20:
Delete "sec. 156(d)"
Insert "sec. 157(d)"
Page 103, line 23:
Delete "sec. 156(e)"
Insert "sec. 157(e)"
Page 103, line 26:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 100"
Delete "sec. 156(f)"
Insert "sec. 157(f)"
Page 103, lines 29 - 30:
Delete "76 - 88, 91, 93 - 95, 134, 135, 143 -
151, and 155"
Insert "77 - 82, 84 - 89, 92, 94 - 96, 135, 136,
144 - 152, and 156"
Page 103, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 161. Section 83 of this Act takes effect
October 1, 2016."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 103, line 31, through page 104, line 1:
Delete "89, 90, 92, 96 - 98, 100 - 133, and 136 -
140"
Insert "90, 91, 93, 97 - 99, 101 - 134, and 137 -
141"
Page 104, line 2:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 104, line 4:
Delete "99, 142, 152 - 154, and 156(f)"
Insert "100, 143, 153 - 155, and 157(f)"
AMENDMENT 19 [29-LSSS0896\H.66, Martin/Gardner, 4/1/16]
Page 3, line 28:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 4, line 5:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 4, line 21:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 5, line 5:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 5, line 7:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 5, line 18:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 5, line 30:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 6, line 2:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 6, line 10:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 6, line 13:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 6, line 21:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 6, line 24:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 7, line 2:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 7, line 5:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 7, line 28:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 8, line 1:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 9, line 1:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 9, line 18:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 10, line 14:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 10, line 18:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000
Page 10, line 24:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000
Page 10, line 26:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000
Page 10, line 30:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000
Page 11, line 3:
Delete "$2,000"
Insert "$1,000
4:54:16 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:54 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 347 - Supporting Documents - Article Alaska Policy Forum 02-10-2016.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 347 |
| HB 347 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 347 |
| HB 347 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 347 |
| HB 347 - Version A.PDF |
HJUD 4/7/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 347 |
| HB 347 - Fiscal Notes -LAW-CIV-04-01-16.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 347 |
| Amendment 9 - Conceptual Language.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| Amendment 10 - Supporting Document.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| Amendment 30.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 - Amendments 1-30.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 347 - Supporting Documents - Alaska Policy Forum Report.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 347 |
| HB 205 - Support Document - Letter Newt Gingrich 03.31.16.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 - Support Document - Letter Violent Crimes Compensation Board 04.07.16.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 205 |