Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
05/14/2021 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 | |
| HB172 | |
| HB183 | |
| SB122 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 14, 2021
1:41 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Liz Snyder, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Christopher Kurka
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Eastman
Representative Sarah Vance
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 172
"An Act relating to admission to and detention at a subacute
mental health facility; establishing a definition for 'subacute
mental health facility'; establishing a definition for 'crisis
residential center'; relating to the definitions for 'crisis
stabilization center'; relating to the administration of
psychotropic medication in a crisis situation; relating to
licensed facilities; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 183
"An Act renaming the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission the
Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission; relating to
the membership of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis
Commission; relating to the powers and duties of the Alaska
Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission; extending the
termination date of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis
Commission; relating to the duties of the Judicial Council;
providing for an effective date by amending the effective date
of secs. 41 and 73, ch. 1, 4SSLA 2017; and providing for an
effective date by repealing the effective date of sec. 74, ch.
1, 4SSLA 2017."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 122
"An Act relating to the definition of 'victim.'"
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 172
SHORT TITLE: MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES & MEDS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
04/12/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/12/21 (H) JUD, HSS, FIN
05/14/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 183
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA ANALYSIS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): CLAMAN
04/21/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/21 (H) JUD, STA, FIN
05/14/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: SB 122
SHORT TITLE: VICTIM DEFINITION
SPONSOR(s): REINBOLD
04/07/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/07/21 (S) JUD
04/14/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/14/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/14/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/19/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/21/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/21/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/21/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/23/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/23/21 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/26/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/26/21 (S) Moved SB 122 Out of Committee
04/26/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/28/21 (S) JUD RPT 5DP
04/28/21 (S) DP: HOLLAND, MYERS, HUGHES, SHOWER,
KIEHL
05/05/21 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/05/21 (S) VERSION: SB 122
05/06/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/06/21 (H) JUD
05/10/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/10/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/12/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/12/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/12/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/14/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
STEVE WILLIAMS, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented during the hearing on HB 172;
Presented during hearing on HB 183.
HEATHER CARPENTER, Health Care Policy Advisor
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented during the hearing on HB 172.
STEVE PEARCE, Agent
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 172.
MARK REGAN, Legal Director
Disability Law Center of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 172.
LISA GENTEMANN
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 172.
RENEE RAFFERTY, Regional Director of Behavioral Health
Providence Health Services
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 172.
LIZZIE KUBITZ, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 183 on behalf of prime
sponsor.
KAREN BUCHKOSKI, Audit Manager
Legislative Audit Division
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 183.
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 183.
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 122 as prime sponsor.
ANDREW DUNMIRE
Legislative Counsel
Legislative Legal & Research Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
122.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General
Central Office
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
122.
SHAUN SEHL, Victims Advocate Attorney
Alaska Office of Victims' Rights
Anchorage Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
122.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:41:50 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:41 p.m. Representatives Claman, Kreiss-
Tomkins, Drummond, and Snyder were present at the call to order.
Representative Kurka arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 172-MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES & MEDS
1:42:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 172, "An Act relating to admission to and
detention at a subacute mental health facility; establishing a
definition for 'subacute mental health facility'; establishing a
definition for 'crisis residential center'; relating to the
definitions for 'crisis stabilization center'; relating to the
administration of psychotropic medication in a crisis situation;
relating to licensed facilities; and providing for an effective
date."
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that there was a proposed committee
substitute and explained the changes that would occur should the
committee substitute be adopted. He said that the first change
would be to create separate sections for crisis stabilization
centers, crisis residential centers, and evaluation facilities
to clarify the purpose and use of each facility. The next
change would be a clarification that the process for involuntary
commitment starts over for readmission into a crisis residential
center or a crisis stabilization center. He said that the next
change would be to establish a definition of "health officer"
which refers to a non- law enforcement officer who may be
involved in the process. He stated the next change would be a
standard for the court to determine ex-parte applications for
involuntary admission crisis residential center and would clean
up the definitions section of the bill. Next it would amend the
criminal procedure provisions in Title 12 to include crisis
residential centers and would amend the domestic violence
provision in Title 18 to include crisis residential centers.
1:44:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) 32-GH1730\I, Dunmire, 5/14/21, as a working
document. There being no objection, Version I was before the
committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the bill had been presented by the
governor's office and that he had been working with the
department on the development of the committee substitute that
was now before the committee.
1:45:16 PM
STEVE WILLIAMS, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority, shared with the committee an anecdote from an
Alaska State Trooper during his law enforcement experience in
responding to an individual experiencing a mental health crisis.
He stated that upon responding, the trooper had been required to
evaluate the situation to determine whether a mental health
crisis existed, and further consider potential impacts to public
safety. He explained that the trooper was required to place the
individual in handcuffs and place him/her in the back of the
patrol car, even though the individual had not committed any
crime. He further explained that when the trooper arrived at
the local hospital seeking emergency mental health care, he was
informed that the emergency room was full, and the individual
would not be accepted for care. He shared that the trooper
placed the individual back in the patrol vehicle and drove his
entire shift seeking care for the individual and was unable to
attend to other law enforcement duties. He stated that HB 172
would establish lower levels of care in which law enforcement or
other first responders would have the ability to take an
individual [who has committed no crime] to seek the care
required.
1:49:03 PM
HEATHER CARPENTER, Health Care Policy Advisor, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services, referred
to the presentation entitled, "HB 172 Additional Document -
Introduction Presentation to HJUD Committee 5.14.2021.pdf,"
[included in the committee packet] and drew attention to slide
2, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Currently, Alaskans in crisis are primarily served by
law enforcement, emergency rooms, and other
restrictive environments
? Behavioral health crisis response is outside the
primary scope of training for law enforcement, and
reduces focus on crime prevention
? Limited Designated Evaluation & Treatment (DET)
capacity in four communities: Juneau (BRH), Fairbanks
(FMH), Mat-Su (MSRH), Anchorage (API)
? Emergency rooms are not designed for and can be
overstimulating to someone in an acute psychiatric
crisis
MS. CARPENTER explained that the four community DET facilities
each have a limited number of beds available for voluntary or
involuntary care for a patient, consisting of 12 beds in Juneau,
20 beds in Fairbanks, 16 beds at MSRH, and additional beds at
the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API.) she explained that if
someone is not located in one of those communities there exists
a need to transport him/her to one, which often requires air
travel. She stated that emergency rooms are busy and are not a
therapeutic environment for an individual experiencing a
behavioral health crisis, and they would await proper care until
a time at which they could be transported to a DET.
MS. CARPENTER drew attention to the infographic at the bottom of
slide 2 and explained that the approach for treatment for a
physical health crisis was incompatible with that which is
necessary for treatment of a behavioral health crisis.
1:51:06 PM
MR. WILLIAMS referred to the presentation entitled, "HB 172
Additional Document - Introduction Presentation to HJUD
Committee 5.14.2021.pdf," [included in the committee packet] and
drew attention to slide 3, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
HB172 will:
? Effectuate a "No Wrong Door" approach to
stabilization services
? Enhance options for law enforcement and first
responders to efficiently connect Alaskans in crisis
to the appropriate level of crisis care
? Support more services designed to stabilize
individuals who are experiencing a mental health
crisis
? 23-hour crisis stabilization centers
? Short-term crisis residential centers
MR. WLLIAMS drew attention to the infographic at the bottom of
slide 3 and explained that it depicted a more appropriate
approach to a behavioral health emergency. He added that, in
addition to the 23-hour crisis stabilization center, the short-
term residential stabilization center as defined in HB 172 would
provide 120 hours, or 5 days of service. He added that
individuals who are seeking care on a non-voluntary basis are a
small percentage of those seeking care; however, the facilities
would need to have the ability to accept either voluntary or
involuntary patients.
1:53:24 PM
MS. Carpenter drew attention to slide 4 that provided background
information on the conception of HB 172, entitled, "Building
Blocks of Psychiatric Crisis System Reform," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
? SB74 Medicaid Reform (2016)
Improve Access, quality, outcomes, and contain costs
? 1115 Behavioral Health Waiver
Targets resources and services to "super utilizers"
Provides flexibility in community behavioral health
services and supports
Creates new crisis service types that promote
interventions in the appropriate settings and at the
appropriate levels
? System must be intentionally designed and promote a
"no wrong door" philosophy
MS. CARPENTER added that the 1115 waiver would provide more
treatment options, closer to a patient's home, and drive down
costs by diverting patients from costly inpatient hospital care
to the lower levels of care [that would be created should HB 172
pass] in all 9 regions served. She explained that appropriately
trained mental health professionals would select appropriate
levels of care to prevent a behavioral health crisis from
escalating.
1:56:28 PM
MR. WILLIAMS referred to slide 5, entitled, "GOAL: Design and
implement a behavioral health crisis response system analogous
to the physical health system," and explained the infographic
depicted differences between physical and behavioral health
crises. He said that the system proposed by HB 172 is based on
the "Crisis Now" framework, which was in use in other states
such as Arizona and Georgia and had the endorsement of
organizations including the Substance Abuse Mental Health
Services Administration, the National Association of State
Mental Health Program Directors, National Alliance on Mental
Illness (NAMI), and the National Action Alliance on Suicide
Prevention.
[HB 172 was set aside and brought back before the committee
following a recess to a call of the chair.]
1:57:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recessed the meeting of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee to a call of the chair.
3:37:09 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting back to order.
HB 172-MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES & MEDS
3:37:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
a return to HOUSE BILL NO. 172, "An Act relating to admission to
and detention at a subacute mental health facility; establishing
a definition for 'subacute mental health facility'; establishing
a definition for 'crisis residential center'; relating to the
definitions for 'crisis stabilization center'; relating to the
administration of psychotropic medication in a crisis situation;
relating to licensed facilities; and providing for an effective
date."
3:37:36 PM
MR. WILLIAMS referred to the presentation entitled, "HB 172
Additional Document - Introduction Presentation to HJUD
Committee 5.14.2021.pdf," [included in the committee packet] and
drew attention to slide 6, which depicted the stakeholder
engagement. He explained that some of the stakeholders may be
or become providers of care, and others may exist as a safety
net within communities to prevent escalations to needs in crisis
care and provide aftercare.
3:40:04 PM
MS. CARPENTER referred to slide 7, entitled, "Enhanced
Psychiatric Crisis Continuum of Care" and explained that the
bracketed services illustrate the existing gap in available
care. She provided an example from Bartlett Regional Hospital
(BRH), which provides Crisis Now approach to its system to aid
in achieving its goal of providing the most appropriate service
at the most appropriate time with the most appropriate setting
to its patients. She stated that BRH serves all Southeast
Alaska and has elected to expand its services to cover multiple
levels of care needed. She stated that 33 percent of patients
who are assessed for a mental health crisis are admitted for
care, and it provides lower levels of care for those not
admitted. She stated that, having only 12 beds available, it
must make choices to serve patients in an inpatient setting when
a Crisis Now approach may be more appropriate.
MR. WILLIAMS referred to slide 8, entitled, "Crisis
Stabilization Center (23 hour)," and explained that it is one of
the components of the new system of care as proposed in HB 172.
He shared the content of the slide, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Provides prompt, medically monitored crisis
observation and psychiatric stabilization services
? No wrong door - walk-in, referral, and first
responder drop off
? Staffed 24/7, 365 with a multi-disciplinary team
? High engagement/Recovery oriented (Peer Support)
? Immediate assessment and stabilization to avoid
higher levels of care where possible
? Safe and secure
? Coordination with community-based services
MR. WILLIAMS added that the environment would be designed to be
recovery-oriented and would include medical and behavioral
health professionals as well as people with lived experience as
part of the staffing.
3:44:39 PM
MR. WILLIAMS referred next to slide 9, entitled, "Short-Term
Crisis Residential Stabilization Center," and explained that it
is the next component level of the new system of care as
proposed in HB 172. He shared the content of the slide, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
A 24/7 medically monitored, short-term, crisis
residential program that provides psychiatric
stabilization
? Safe and secure serves voluntary and involuntary
placements
? High engagement/Recovery oriented (Peer Support)
? Multi-disciplinary treatment team
? Short-term with 16 or fewer beds
? Stabilize and restore avoid need for inpatient
hospitalization where possible
Coordination with community-based services
MR. WILLIAMS explained that this next level of care would be
appropriate for patients who were not able to achieve
stabilization at the Crisis Stabilization Center (23-hour) as
determined by staff at that facility.
3:45:52 PM
MR. WILLIAMS drew attention to slide 10, entitled, "Enhanced
crisis response would reduce the number of people entering the
most restrictive levels of care," on which an infographic
depicted outcomes discovered by experiences collected from care
providers in other states, and the data reflected had been
collected in the State of Georgia and had been interpolated from
over 1.5 million calls to its crisis care line. He explained
that for every 100 calls received by the crisis care line, 90
were resolved over the telephone, and of the 10 instances of a
crisis mobile team dispatched, 7 of those did not result in
transport. He explained that of the three crisis interventions
that required transport, only one instance occurred in which
care for more than 23 hours had been required. He added that
the City of Phoenix, Arizona had reported similar outcomes.
MS. CARPENTER drew attention to slide 11, entitled, "Alaska
Statute Title 47," and explained that Title 47 is the statute
which addresses involuntary commitment. She explained that HB
172 would update this statute. She stated that stakeholders had
collaborated and made observations of successful programs in
other locations to inform the drafting of HB 172. She noted
that a settlement had been reached between the State of Alaska
and the Disability Law Center in September 2020, a part of which
was an agreement to advocate for statutory changes that would
permit involuntary holds and 72-hour evaluations for patients at
a less restrictive setting. She added that the settlement with
the Disability Law Center had culminated in the draft HB 172 and
committee substitute before the committee for its consideration.
3:51:05 PM
MR. WILLIAMS referred to slide 12 of the presentation, entitled,
"Current Flow for Involuntary Commitment," and recalled his
earlier testimony regarding the Alaska State Trooper who had
spent more than 8 hours in attempting to seek care for an
individual. He explained that, should the committee substitute
be adopted and HB 172 pass, the process of transfer from law
enforcement to the crisis stabilization center could be reduced
to take no more than 10 minutes, as evidenced by data provided
from the State of Georgia and the City of Phoenix.
MR. WILLIAMS referred to slide 13 of the presentation, entitled,
Proposed Statutory Changes," and slide 14, entitled, "Flow for
Involuntary Commitment with Statutory Changes," which depicts
the anticipated flow for involuntary commitment under HB 172 as
different than currently exists, as depicted on the previous
slide.
3:55:13 PM
MS. CARPENTER drew attention to slide 15, entitled, "Key
Takeaways," and summarized it as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
HB172 Does:
? Provide law enforcement with additional tools to
protect public safety
? Expand the number of facilities that can conduct a
72-hour evaluation
? Add a new, less restrictive level of care
? Facilitate a faster and more appropriate response to
a crisis, expand the types of first responders that
can transport an individual in crisis to an
appropriate crisis facility
? Create a "no wrong door" approach to providing
medical care to a person in
psychiatric crisis
HB172 Does Not:
? Interfere with an officer's authority or ability to
make an arrest
? Change who has the current statutory authority to
administer crisis medication
? Change current statutory authority for who can order
an involuntary commitment
? Reduce the individual rights of the adult or
juvenile in crisis; the parents' rights of care for
their child; or existing due process rights of the
individual in crisis
3:58:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether a peace officer would be
allowed to take an individual in crisis to either a
stabilization center or a residential center or whether there
would exist a sequential order of priority that the officer
would be obligated to follow.
MS. CARPENTER answered that a community might not have all the
services that would be permitted under HB 172 and that the bill
had been conceived to serve all communities in Alaska.
MR. WILLIAMS added that Alaska is unique in its [diverse]
communities and that HB 172 would provide a framework for
communities to operate within the suite of services that they
may have and had been developed in conjunction with community
feedback.
4:01:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 172.
4:02:31 PM
STEVE PEARCE, Agent, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, stated
his organization's concerns with HB 172 including that it would
double the period of involuntary confinement prior to judicial
action and recommended that it be changed to allow for earlier
judicial representation. He stated that a stated goal of the
bill was to achieve recovery and he questioned whether patients
[as stakeholders] had provided any feedback and that recovery
could indicate psychiatric compliance and not [necessarily] an
improvement in health. He stated that forced medication may
occur immediately upon confinement and that patients may have
other health factors that may contribute to problems with
compliance or resistance to ongoing treatment. He referred to a
letter that was provided [included in the committee packet].
4:05:18 PM
MARK REGAN, Legal Director, Disability Law Center of Alaska,
referred to written testimony that had been submitted to the
committee and noted that it had been drafted in response to the
underlying bill and had not taken into consideration the
committee substitute before the committee. He summarized from
the letter [included in the committee packet.] He suggested
that the committee substitute before the committee would not
provide an individual with attorney representation when a
judicial order for an individual to be involuntarily held
occurs. He noted that the different systems for civil
commitment for medium term, 30-days or more for evaluation
should provide for short-term treatment as a stated goal. He
asked that the language in the proposed bill and committee
substitute be carefully reviewed to ensure that an individual is
not subject to multiple 3-day holds in a crisis residential
center.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the right to counsel for involuntary
commitment is explicitly stated in current statute.
MR. REGAN answered that a peace officer would typically bring an
individual to a residential facility, or they would be admitted
to an emergency room and that individuals were often turned away
for treatment. He stated that, the way the bill is drafted,
individuals would have more direct access to evaluation and
treatment. He suggested that individuals may be required to
wait up to 8 days for treatment.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the committee would continue to consult
with the Disability Law Center of Alaska for its input on HB
172.
4:11:42 PM
LISA GENTEMANN testified in opposition to HB 172. She stated
her concern that the passage of HB 172 could result in legal
harm to Alaskans. She stated that patient consent and human
dignity should be considered.
4:13:13 PM
RENEE RAFFERTY, Regional Director of Behavioral Health,
Providence Health Services, testified in support of HB 172. She
stated that HB 172 would expand the crisis care continuum and
would provide a framework from the perspective of the provider.
She stated that jails and emergency rooms may be harmed because
the facilities are not equipped with medication and facilities
for care and evaluation and are subject to high costs. She
encouraged additional consideration and improvement on the
language contained in the bill.
4:15:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN ascertained that there was no one else who wished
to testify, closed public testimony, and announced that HB 172
was held over.
HB 183-CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA ANALYSIS COMMISSION
4:16:07 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 183, "An Act renaming the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission;
relating to the membership of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data
Analysis Commission; relating to the powers and duties of the
Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission; extending the
termination date of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis
Commission; relating to the duties of the Judicial Council;
providing for an effective date by amending the effective date
of secs. 41 and 73, ch. 1, 4SSLA 2017; and providing for an
effective date by repealing the effective date of sec. 74, ch.
1, 4SSLA 2017."
4:16:47 PM
LIZZIE KUBITZ, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of prime sponsor, presented HB 183. She
told the committee that the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
would be scheduled to sunset beginning June 30, 2021, and
conclude its affairs by June 30, 2022. She stated that, in
accordance with the recommendation offered by the auditor,
rather than extend the commission in its current form, HB 183
would retain the commission's data collection and analysis
functions. She stated that HB 183 would rename the commission
to the Alaska Criminal Justice and Data Analysis Commission,
would modify the membership of the commission, and would amend
and restate the powers and duties of the commission, and would
extend the termination date of the newly formed Alaska Criminal
Justice and Data Analysis Commission to June 30, 2029.
MS. KUBITZ offered the sectional analysis [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1
AS 22.20.210. Staff and support for criminal justice
commission.
Amends AS 22.20.210 to add "data analysis" to the name
of the commission.
Section 2
AS 22.20.220. Prison inmate characteristics
information.
Amends AS 22.20.210(a) to remove the termination date
for collection of data collection by the
Department of Corrections utilized by the Alaska
Judicial Council for purposes of the
commission's work.
Section 3
AS 44.19.641. Creation of commission.
Amends AS 44.19.641 to add "data analysis" to the name
of the commission.
Section 4
AS 44.19.642. Membership; staff.
Amends AS 44.19.642(a) to make changes to the
membership of the commission.
These changes include:
? Ensure representation of rural Alaska on the
commission;
? Make the Deputy Attorney General for the Criminal
Division of the Department of Law
or their designee a voting member (rather than the
Attorney General);
? Allow the public defender's designee to act as a
voting member in place of the public
defender;
? Place two peace officer representatives on the
commission (rather than one municipal law
enforcement representative)one representing a rural
community off the road system
and one representing an urban communityappointed by
the Alaska Chiefs of Police;
? Provide for the victims' rights advocate on the
commission to be appointed by the Alaska
Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault;
? Make the Commissioner of the Department of Health
and Social Services a voting
member; and
? Create a new member seat for a formerly incarcerated
person who has completed his or
her sentence.
Section 5
AS 44.19.645. Powers and duties of the commission.
Amends AS 44.19.645 to remove the duties of the former
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
to be replaced by the new duties of the Alaska
Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission.
These new duties include:
? Data analysis, research, and reporting on all
aspects of Alaska's criminal justice
system, including state laws, public safety,
rehabilitation, crime and incarceration
rates, the needs of victims, and other factors set
forth in the Alaska Constitution;
? Receiving data related to the criminal justice
system from the Alaska Department
of Corrections, Department of Public Safety,
Department of Law, and the Alaska
Court System;
? Identifying areas for improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of the criminal
justice system;
? Recommending expenditures from the Recidivism
Reduction Fund;
? Making other recommendations and providing analysis
if requested by the
Legislature, the Executive, or the Judiciary; and
? Issuing an annual report.
4:20:39 PM
MS. KUBITZ continued with the presentation of the sectional
analysis:
Section 6
AS 44.19.646. Methodology.
Amends AS 44.19.646 to remove the duty of the
commission to make recommendations, and adds the duty
of conducting research and adopting a research agenda
and priorities based on art. I, secs. 7, 12, and 24,
Constitution of the State of Alaska (which relate to
due process, criminal administration, and the rights
of crime victims), and other issues of pressing
concern to the criminal justice system.
Section 7
AS 44.19.647. Annual report and recommendations.
Amends AS 44.19.647(a) to remove the reporting
responsibilities of the former Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission to be replaced by the new duties of the
Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission. The
commission's reporting responsibilities are related to
the duties of the commission listed in Section 5.
Section 8
AS 44.19.647. Annual report and recommendations.
Amends AS 44.19.647(b) to remove the reporting
responsibilities of the former Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission to be replaced by the new duties of the
Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission.
Section 9
AS 44.19.649. Definition.
Amends AS 44.19.649 to update the definitions of
"commission," "recidivism," and "technical violation."
Section 10
AS 44.66.010. Expiration of state boards and
commissions.
Amends AS 44.66.010(a)(12) to add "data analysis" to
the name of the commission.
Section 11
AS 47.38.100. Recidivism reduction program.
Amends AS 47.38.100(b) to add "data analysis" to the
name of the commission.
Section 12
Amends Section 35, ch. 83, SLA 2014 to repeal Sec. 35.
AS 22.20.210 on June 30, 2029.
Section 13
Repeals AS 44.19.642(b).
Section 14
Repeals Sections 74 and 76, ch. 1, 4SSLA 2017.
Section 15
Uncodified law - applicability
A person who is a member of the former Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission on the day before the effective
date of this Act continues to serve on the Alaska
Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission until the
expiration of the member's term. When making new
appointments or designations, makes Section 15 of the
Act conditional on the guidelines established under AS
44.19.642(a), which relates to membership of the
commission.
Section 16
Amends effective date provisions of Section 41, ch.1,
4SSLA 2017 to take effect on July 1, 2029.
Section 17
Amends effective date provisions of Section 73, ch.1,
4SSLA 2017 to take effect on June 30, 2029.
Section 18
Repeals Section 82, ch. 1, 4SSLA 2017.
4:23:22 PM
KAREN BUCHKOSKI, Audit Manager, Legislative Audit Division,
Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee that the
Division of Legislative Audit had conducted a sunset audit on
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission dated June, 2020 and drew
attention to the audit report, entitled, "HB 183 Additional
Document - A Sunset Review of the Office of the Governor, Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission 6.12.2020.2020," [included in the
committee packet] and directed attention to the background
information section of the report, which begins on page 5, from
which she read [original punctuation provided]:
The Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (commission)
was established in 2014 when Senate Bill 64 was signed
into law.
SB 64 was the result of a bipartisan effort to reduce
the high costs of corrections and reduce prison
populations and recidivism through evidence-based
reforms. The commission was given a three-year term,
ending June 2017. She added that State leaders tasked
the commission with developing evidence-based
recommendations aimed at safely controlling prison and
jail growth and recalibrating the correctional
investment to ensure the State achieved the best
possible public safety return on State dollars. She
added that, additionally, due to declining State
operating budgets, legislative leaders requested the
commission forward policy options that would avert
future prison growth and reduce the prison population
between 15 and 25 percent.
Over a seven-month period, the commission analyzed the
State's criminal justice system, including a
comprehensive review of sentencing, corrections, and
community supervision data. Based on commission
analysis, and directive from legislative leadership,
the commission developed 21 evidence-based policy
recommendations, known as the December 2015 Justice
Reinvestment Report. The report also included six
recommendations for legislative consideration.
According to the report, the recommendations protected
public safety, held offenders accountable, and reduced
the State's average daily prison population by 21
percent, netting estimated savings of $424 million
over 10 years.
Many of the recommendations in the commission's
December 2015 Justice Reinvestment Report became the
basis for criminal justice laws enacted in Senate Bill
91, signed into law July 2016. Senate Bill 91 extended
the commission's term until June 2021, significantly
expanded the commission's duties, and directed the
commission to oversee the implementation of criminal
justice reform and reinvestment.
Many of the reforms contained in Senate Bill 91 were
blamed for an increase in crime. Within a year of
Senate Bill 91's effective date, a separate bill was
passed to make minor adjustments to Senate Bill 91 and
another bill was passed five months later that
substantially altered SB 91. The next year, a third
bill made more substantive changes. In 2019, many of
Senate Bill 91's provisions were fully repealed
through House Bill 49. Criminal justice legislation
from 2014 through 2019 is outlined in Exhibit 2.
MS. BUCHKOSKI then drew attention to page 7 of the audit report,
from which she read [original punctuation provided]:
Overall, the audit concluded the commission met its
statutory responsibilities by analyzing the effects of
sentencing laws and criminal justice practices on the
criminal justice system, and recommending
improvements. Additionally, the commission conducted
specific studies and reported results, as required by
law.
The commission was effective as an advisory agency
from 2015 through 2017 and its recommendations served
as the basis for comprehensive criminal justice reform
passed in 2016 (Senate Bill 91).
Further, its recommendations helped policy makers
amend Senate Bill 91. However, beginning in 2018,
criminal justice policy decisions were not rooted in
commission recommendations and the commission's
effectiveness waned.
As of April 2020, the commission does not routinely
recommend improvements; however, it does continue to
analyze criminal justice data and evaluate the impact
of commission recommendations and other changes on the
criminal justice system. As required by statutes,
several agencies submit data to the commission. The
data is reviewed by commission staff, commission
members, and/or other agencies under an agreement with
the commission.
In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(12), the commission
is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2021. We do not
recommend extending the commission's termination date.
Rather than extend the commission in its current form,
the need for and expectations of a criminal justice
advisory commission should be reevaluated. Although we
recommend sunsetting the commission, we do not
recommend terminating its data collection and analysis
functions.
Objective evidence regarding the effectiveness of the
criminal justice system and laws governing the system
are critical to future policy decisions. Legislation
will be required to maintain the commission's data
collection and analysis functions if the commission
sunsets.
MS. BUCHKOSKI drew attention to the single recommendation,
should the commission be extended, page 15 of the audit report,
from which she read [original punctuation provided]:
We recommend the Alaska Judicial Council's3 executive
director improve procedures to ensure meetings are
properly publicly noticed and documented.
4:29:05 PM
MR. WILLIAMS stated that the current Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission had met during the prior summer and discussed the
future of the commission, considering the impending sunset date,
and options for the data collection and analysis. He stated
that the commission formed a Task Force consisting of members
from the Alaska Native Justice Center, the Department of Law,
The Office of the Public Defender, Department of Corrections,
and the AMHTA, and it had prepared recommendations for the
legislature. He referred to the committee packet item entitled,
"HB 183 Supporting Document - Criminal Justice Taskforce
Recommendation 12.3.2020.pdf."
MR. WILLIAMS stated that effective criminal justice systems
cannot be based on solely data reported, and that an entity
should exist representing the criminal justice system, including
the public, to analyze the data and provide recommendations on
policy development to avoid unintended consequences. He stated
that the commission had been evaluated and the recommendations
were offered to the committee for including additional
stakeholder groups to include victims' advocacy groups and
representation of those who had been incarcerated.
MR. WILLIAMS shared with the committee that, with consideration
of the Attorney General representation on the proposed new
commission, the state's most senior prosecutor is the Assistant
Attorney General of the Criminal Division and would have
experience in litigation within the criminal justice system. He
stated that the task force's recommendation had been reviewed
and endorsed by the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission.
4:36:58 PM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
testified during the hearing on HB 183. She explained that the
Alaska Judicial Council is staff to the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission. She noted that the research function of the
commission would be the main component in the proposed
commission. She stated that a constitutional obligation of the
Alaska Judicial Council is to perform studies to improve the
administration of justice and it had conducted research for over
40 years. She stated that the Alaska Justice Information Center
has a research and findings mission and had offered many useful
reports. She stated that the Alaska Judicial Council and the
Alaska Justice Information Center were independent of each other
and of the court system and had collaborated on research
projects and shared complimentary skills and abilities and areas
of expertise, and she characterized the collaboration as "better
than the sum of its parts." She noted that the Alaska Judicial
Council is a state agency and the Alaska Justice Information
Center consisted of members in academia.
4:40:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 183. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he
closed public testimony and stated that HB 183 was held over.
SB 122-VICTIM DEFINITION
4:41:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 122, "An Act relating to the definition of
'victim.'"
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that Legislative Legal & Research services
has permission to make any technical or conforming changes to
the bill.
4:42:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved Amendment 1, labeled 32-LS0422\B.1
Dunmire 5/13/21, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "adult"
Insert "[ADULT]"
CHAIR CLAMAN objected.
4:42:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER stated that the proposed amendment
pertained to page 2, on line 1 and, without the adoption of the
proposed amendment, the term "adult" in the bill could allow for
an instance where a parent is a victim and is not deceased but
becomes incapacitated and a minor child would not be allowed to
engage the process in the same way in an instance where a parent
would become deceased.
4:44:41 PM
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, answered that
the proposed amendment appeared to be a sensible one and would
create consistency between the language appearing on page 2, on
line 1. She suggested that the original bill may have contained
a drafting error but that the intention had been that an adult
child would be eligible for victims' benefits. She noted that
"adult child" was included intentionally and was based on the
scenario that she had described in previous testimony.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Senator Reinbold to confirm that she did not
support the proposed amendment, which she confirmed that she did
not.
4:47:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA suggested that on page 2, on lines 1 and 2,
there exist other potential victims that could be further
defined. He referred to the underlying statute and suggested
that family members of victims are also victims. He asked he
rationale for not including both adult and minor children in the
definition.
4:49:47 PM
ANDREW DUNMIRE, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal &
Research Services, answered that the determination to adopt the
amendment would be one of legislative policy. He explained that
should the amendment be adopted, and a scenario existed in which
the victim of the crime was incapacitated but still able to
testify, it could be interpreted that a minor child would be
able to testify instead of the victim.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether the definition of a victim
was an individual who may wish to engage in litigation.
MR. DUNMIRE answered that the statute was a procedural statute
used in criminal litigation and pertains to who shall be allowed
to testify at a bail hearing or a sentencing hearing and does
not apply to civil litigation. He further explained that, in
the case that an offender escapes custody, the Department of
Corrections has a statutory obligation to notify the victims of
the crime and the definition contained in the statute would
determine who should be notified.
4:51:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked that, in the case that the proposed
law was interpreted that a minor child would be able to testify
instead of the victim, would the proposed amendment prohibit a
minor from being allowed to testify on an incapacitated victim's
behalf.
MR. DUNMIRE answered that is a policy decision and not
necessarily problematic in the way that had been described.
4:53:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked the Department of Law to answer how the
Department of Law or Department of Corrections would meet its
victim notification of escape or parole in current practice and
what would change if the amendment was adopted.
4:54:25 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office,
Criminal Division, Department of Law, answered that the current
practice of notification is as inclusive as possible on the part
of the Department of Law. She stated that the statute would not
prohibit notification but that a guardian may be required to be
involved in the notification. She predicted no change to the
practice of notification should Amendment 1 be adopted.
4:55:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA expressed his confusion that there exist
two different lists regarding who can speak on behalf of an
incapacitated victim and asked why the two lists should differ.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that legal theory is that minors are not
legally considered competent to speak on his/her own behalf
despite his/her actual ability to do so. He asked Mr. Dunmire
whether the definition in subsection (b) was because of that
theory.
MR. DUNMIRE shared that his experience during practicing
criminal law for over 10 years had involved many minor children
offering testimony. He suggested that judges would have concern
that a child would be capable of telling a truth from a lie and
that minor children are often deemed capable of testifying in
court.
4:58:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA offered to clarify his question to extend
to subsection (b) and (c) in which there exist individuals
qualified to speak on behalf of the direct victim of a crime and
who had become incapacitated and unable to speak on his/her own
behalf, and asked why it was proposed that there be two separate
lists for one victim who was unable to testify due to his/her
death and another in the case that he/she was unable to testify
due to incapacitation.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER suggested that the amendment be revisited
to ensure the intent to include equal representation for victims
who are unable to testify.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that discussions had taken place in the
other body and the conceptual intention of the proposed
amendment had been discussed and it had been decided to maintain
the narrow focus of the change to existing statute due to the
case of a deceased parent's two teenage daughters not being
allowed to testify on behalf of their mother.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked the invited representative from the Office of
Victims' Rights to opine on whether to delete the word "adult"
as proposed in Amendment 1.
5:02:25 PM
SHAUN SEHL, Victims Advocate Attorney, Alaska Office of Victims'
Rights, answered that her office had not experienced the courts
misinterpreting subsection 19(b) and it would permit a parent of
a live child who is not incapacitated or incompetent to advocate
for his/her minor child. She provided an example in which a
victim may be a minor and have experienced sexual assault and a
parent could advocate for his/her child.
5:04:38 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:04 to 5:11 p.m.
5:11:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked the what reasons exist to have two
lists of associations to the victim of a crime to be eligible to
advocate for the victim.
MS. SEHL answered that there exist situations in which a minor
may not wish or are not able to testify on his/her own behalf,
and in the case that they are still living, there should be a
provision to allow for an adult to advocate on his/her behalf.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA stated that subsection (b) did not pertain
only to minor victims, and he asked whether the lists in (b) and
(c) could be combined.
MS. SEHL answered that it would be her preference to see
proposed language to fully examine upon which to offer an
opinion.
5:16:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there exist any
known concerns or pitfalls that could be examined pertaining to
the effect of adopting Amendment 1.
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that an alternative to the proposed
amendment could be considered and offered to the committee
timely.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER withdrew Amendment 1.
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that SB 122 would be held over.
5:19:36 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was recessed at
5:19 p.m. to Saturday, May 15, 2021, at 1 p.m. [The committee
never reconvened because the meeting was canceled.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 122 v. B 4.7.2021.PDF |
HJUD 5/10/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 Sponsor Statement v. B.pdf |
HJUD 5/10/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SJUD 4/21/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 Sectional Analysis v. B.pdf |
HJUD 5/10/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SJUD 4/21/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 4.9.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/10/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 v. B Amendment #1 HJUD 5.14.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| HB 183 v. B 4.21.2021.PDF |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Sponsor Statement v. B 5.14.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Sectional Analysis v. B 5.14.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Supporting Document - Criminal Justice Taskforce Recommendation 12.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Additional Document - A Sunset Review of the Office of the Governor, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission 6.12.2020.2020 |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Fiscal Note DHSS-BHA 5.7.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Fiscal Note JUD-AJC 5.13.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 172 Work Draft Committee Substitute v. I 5.14.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Transmittal Letter 4.9.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Additional Document - Introduction Presentation to HJUD Committee 5.14.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Supporting Document - Letters Received by 5.14.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Opposing and Amend Letters and Testimony Received by 5.14.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Fiscal Note DPS-AST 4.7.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Fiscal Note DHSS-DET 3.30.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Fiscal Note DHSS-MS 3.30.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 4.28.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| SB 122 v. B Amendment #1 HJUD Legal Memo 5.14.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 122 |