01/31/2017 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB71 | |
| HB7 | |
| HB31 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 31, 2017
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Gary Knopp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 71
"An Act relating to compensation, merit increases, and pay
increments for certain public officials, officers, and employees
not covered by collective bargaining agreements; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 7
"An Act relating to the exhibition of marked ballots."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 31
"An Act requiring the Department of Public Safety to develop a
tracking system and collection and processing protocol for
sexual assault examination kits; requiring law enforcement
agencies to send sexual assault examination kits for testing
within 18 months after collection; requiring an inventory and
reports on untested sexual assault examination kits; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 71
SHORT TITLE: NO ST. EMPLOYEE PAY INCREASE FOR 2 YRS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/20/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/17 (H) STA, FIN
01/31/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 7
SHORT TITLE: DISPLAY OF PHOTOS OF MARKED BALLOT
SPONSOR(s): KREISS-TOMKINS
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) STA, CRA
01/31/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 31
SHORT TITLE: SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS
SPONSOR(s): TARR
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) STA, FIN
01/31/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SHELDON FISHER, Commissioner
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 71 on behalf of the House
Rules Standing Committee, sponsor, by request of the governor.
BILL MILLS, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 71.
ALICIA NORTON, Intern
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 7 on behalf of Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor.
REID MAGDANZ, Staff
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 7 on behalf of
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 31, as prime sponsor.
CAPTAIN DAN LOWDEN, Deputy Commander
Division of Alaska State Troopers (AST)
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31 and answered
questions.
CRYSTAL GODBY
Community United for Safety and Protection (CUSP)
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31.
DR. CARMEN LOWRY, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31.
KEELEY OLSON, Executive Director
Stand Together Against Rape (STAR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:03:59 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Representatives Tuck, Wool, Birch, Johnson, Knopp, and Kreiss-
Tomkins were present at the call to order. Representative
LeDoux arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 71-NO ST. EMPLOYEE PAY INCREASE FOR 2 YRS
3:05:24 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 71, "An Act relating to compensation,
merit increases, and pay increments for certain public
officials, officers, and employees not covered by collective
bargaining agreements; and providing for an effective date."
3:06:30 PM
SHELDON FISHER, Commissioner, Department of Administration
(DOA), presented HB 71 on behalf of the House Rules Standing
Committee, sponsor, by request of the governor. Mr. Fisher used
a PowerPoint presentation, titled "Salary Freeze for Nonunion
Employees," for his presentation. He referred to Slide 1,
titled "What Does the Bill do?" and relayed that the governor's
budget included a pay freeze for employees not covered by
collective bargaining agreements. He noted that the governor
also requested the Department of Administration (DOA) to
negotiate similar language [as in HB 71] with each of the
bargaining units, as agreements come up for negotiation. He
maintained HB 71 was introduced to respond to the state's fiscal
challenges. He stated that the governor expressed that it was
appropriate to freeze the automatic employee salary increases
for a period of time, considering he has asked citizens of the
state to accept a reduced permanent fund distribution. The
proposed legislation freezes the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA)
for the nonunion employee group, and he added that no COLAs have
been given in the current administration. The proposed
legislation also freezes merit increase pay increments and any
bonuses. He stated that HB 71 would reduce the governor's
salary by one-third. He explained that the governor could gift
a portion of his salary back to the state treasury but would
have to pay taxes on the full salary. Through HB 71, the
governor would avoid paying taxes on the amount he returns to
the treasury.
3:08:51 PM
MR. FISHER, in response to Representative Wool's request for
clarification, reiterated that the governor would receive a
reduced salary and would only pay taxes on the reduced amount.
He said that absent HB 71, the governor would be forced to
receive and pay taxes on the full amount, then return some
portion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the "net" would be the same.
MR. FISHER responded, "The net could be orchestrated to be the
same," but the governor wished to reduce his salary by a third,
and if he wants his take-home pay to be the same, it would have
to be "something less than a third," and he doesn't feel he
should be paying the federal government taxes on some amount of
money that he is not receiving.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked, "What is the governor's salary?"
MR. FISHER answered he believed it to be $150,000 per year.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if HB 71 would affect future
governors.
MR. FISHER responded that HB 71 would sunset in two years;
therefore, it would not last beyond the governor's term of
office.
MR. FISHER continued his presentation with Slide 2, titled "Who
Does the Bill Include?" He said HB 71 would include employees
not covered by a collective bargaining agreements in the
executive branch, and employees of boards, commissions, and
authorities. He added that it would include employees in the
legislative branch, employees at the University of Alaska not
covered by collective bargaining agreements, the governor,
lieutenant governor, department heads, and legislators. He
stated that it would not include the court system, citing the
separation of powers as the reason.
MR. FISHER turned to Slide 3, titled "Why is the Bill Needed?"
and offered that merit pay and pay increments are included in
statute; therefore, DOA does not have the flexibility to
implement the freezes absent legislation. He said, as well,
that these freezes were part of the governor's budget package
and are intended to address the [fiscal] shortfalls the state is
facing.
MR. FISHER concluded with Slide 4, titled "Estimated Savings,"
and said that HB 71 would affect approximately 5,000 state
employees, or 23 percent of the workforce, and over the two-year
period save about $4.2 million.
3:12:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why including the courts was a
separation of powers issue, but including the legislature was
not.
MR. FISHER explained that HB 71, if enacted, would be a law that
was adopted by the legislature and signed by the governor;
therefore, both the legislative and executive branches would
have accepted the legislation. Since the court system is
outside this process, he said, the legal view is that it would
be an impermissible intrusion into their operations to include
them in the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Mr. Fisher if he was saying that the
legislature has no say in employee compensation for the court
system.
MR. FISHER said that since the legislature is the appropriating
body, appropriating the court system's budget is subject to its
discretion. He said he believed that under the separation of
powers, there are limitations on the extent to which the
legislature and governor can collectively work together to
manage or dictate salaries in the court system.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, "If you chose not to freeze the
merit increases, would there be anything that would keep you
from simply changing the range[s] of people?" She cited that
the legislature capped the salary of legislative staff to a
range 22, with a few exceptions, in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska
State Legislature, 2015-2016.
3:16:09 PM
BILL MILLS, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL),
said that by statute, the State of Alaska does have a salary
cap, and the ranges are determined by the salary schedule that
is established by the legislature. The administration
determines what jobs fit into what ranges through classification
analyses. He said, "Just saying we want to save money and we'll
change a range, I'm not really sure if that's something that the
executive could do." He reiterated that a statute does
establish the salary ranges.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, "So nobody who's ever been ... at a
range 23 has ever gone to a range 22 or a range 21?"
MR. FISHER responded he is sure that has happened, but offered
his understanding that what Mr. Mills is saying is that in cases
where it has happened, it is consistent with the merit
principles, such as, the job function changed. He stated what
he believed to be the real question: "Could there be a
wholesale direction to reduce salaries or cap and would that be
consistent with the merit principle established in the
constitution?" He added, "That would be the analysis that we'd
have to think more seriously about."
3:19:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated he had a serious level of discomfort
with HB 71. He opined there were serious inequalities: House
staff at ranges 23 and 24 have been moved down to range 22;
Senate staff ranges have not been lowered; and some departments
have negotiated wages with no step and COLA increases. He asked
if the 5,000 employees that would be affected by HB 71 include
those across the university system and all departments.
MR. FISHER responded yes, the 5,000 employees that would be
affected are in the executive branch, the legislature, the other
corporations, and the university, but the court system would not
be included.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP identified other inequalities: teachers,
represented by bargaining units, would continue to receive COLA
and merit increases, but under HB 71, university teachers would
not. He offered, "This is not a bad concept, but the problem is
it's not shared equally ...." He mentioned that the
administration has discussed negotiating freezes in future
collective bargaining agreements, but he opined that there are
no guarantees. He asked if the House could enact that there
would be no negotiated merit or COLA increases in the collective
bargaining agreements for two years.
MR. FISHER said DOA negotiates about one-third of the collective
bargaining agreements each year. He said that any change takes
a number of years to be adopted across the spectrum of
bargaining units. He opined, "It's important to start somewhere
and ... it's not unreasonable to start with our uncovered
employees, as the governor has proposed." He stated his belief
that the legislature could dictate, by statute, prohibiting DOA
from negotiating increases. He added that DOA brings all of the
collective bargaining agreements to the legislature for its
approval.
3:23:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL queried why fiscal year 2019 (FY 19) savings
were less than those of FY 18 [as shown on Slide 4.]
MR. FISHER said the reason was that pay increments are awarded
every year but merit increments every other year.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL requested clarification that HB 71 would
result in a freeze and not range reductions, as mentioned by
Representative LeDoux.
MR. FISHER responded yes, under HB 71, there would be a freeze
of their salaries.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if other groups of state employees
have been subject to a salary freeze since the current fiscal
crisis began.
MR. FISHER answered no, this is the first salary freeze that DOA
has introduced.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the group of employees referred to
in HB 71 was the only group not subject to collective
bargaining. He also asked if other state employees, such as
teachers and university professors, are under collective
bargaining agreements; therefore, imposing a salary freeze on
them would be harder.
MR. FISHER said yes, the majority of state employees are subject
to collective bargaining; therefore, DOA has been instructed by
the governor to negotiate a comparable freeze as collective
bargaining agreements are up for re-negotiation.
3:26:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said that if 5,000 employees represent 23
percent of the total employment population, then the total
employee population would be about 21,700. He went on to say
that if a salary freeze for 23 percent of employees would yield
$4.2 million in savings, then a freeze applied to all employees
would save an amount approaching $20 million. He urged DOA to
negotiate a salary freeze for all of the labor contracts. He
asked if the eleven collective bargaining agreements have all
been negotiated, or if they are coming up for negotiation.
MR. FISHER answered that DOA is currently in negotiations with
the Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA), the three Alaska
Marine Highway bargaining units, the Alaska Vocational Technical
Center Teachers' Association (AVTECTA), and the Teacher
Education Association of Mt. Edgecumbe (TEAME). He said there
will be more agreements negotiated next year.
3:27:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how the court system's wages and
benefits are determined.
MR. FISHER responded that the court system adopts its own rules
and policies for wages and benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if the rules and policies were set by
regulation.
MR. FISHER said he didn't know and would provide the committee
with information as to whether it is through a handbook or a
formal regulatory process.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK cited Article XII, Section 6, of the Alaska
State Constitution and read, "The legislature shall establish a
system under which the merit principle will govern the
employment of persons by the State." He stated, "The question I
have is the definition of merit." He offered that if employees
are not under a collective bargaining agreement, then merit
means a salary could "go up or go down." He asked, "How is it
that you wouldn't be able to do that already based on the
constitution?"
MR. FISHER stated his understanding that the question was:
"Could we freeze people at a particular level?" He brought up
an example of a highly skilled doctor whose range 29 salary is
frozen at a range 20, which is comparable to someone with much
less education and skill. He said the question implied by the
clause Representative Tuck read is: "Are we being consistent
with the merit principle if we treat those two people at a range
20 and don't acknowledge the additional education, skill, and
capabilities of that doctor, in this example?" Mr. Fisher
relayed that he is not denying that DOA could do what
Representative Tuck suggested but reiterated Mr. Mills's point
regarding a more sophisticated analysis to determine if the
merit principle is being followed.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered that the legislature would have to
look to case law definition on merit principle. He acknowledged
the separation between the legislative branch and the executive
branch. He asked since the legislature oversees the budget for
all three branches, why under the merit system general provision
court system employees would be excluded, when the constitution
says "will govern the employment of persons by the State."
MR. FISHER gave an example to explain the basic principle of
separation of powers as it related to the court. He asked the
committee to imagine a scenario where the legislature did not
like the opinions that were being issued by the Alaska Supreme
Court and concluded that Alaska Supreme Court justices should be
paid a dollar per year. He said even though the legislature has
appropriated ample money to the court system, the court system
still needs to have flexibility to manage its own affairs in
order to remain independent of the legislative and executive
branches. He added that the court system has aggressively
managed costs, including reduced salary and hours.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK conceded that a similar situation has
occurred between the executive and legislative branches, wherein
the legislature, not liking a governor's appointment, tried to
"zero out" the appointee's position control number (PCN). He
wondered aloud how the separation can be made between the
judicial and legislative branches but not between the executive
and legislative branches.
3:34:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what portions of HB 71, in regard
to salary freezes and salary reduction, are already under the
governor's control.
MR. FISHER answered that the governor cannot institute a salary
freeze without proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the governor could accomplish
what is proposed in HB 71 internally, because the merit pay can
go "up or down."
MR. FISHER responded that the merit pay is a defined amount
based on employee performance, and there is no discretion as
currently structured.
3:36:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Mr. Fisher's example about the
Alaska Supreme Court justices and expressed her belief that
judges' salaries are constitutionally guaranteed for the time of
their service.
MR. FISHER repeated the basic principle of separation of powers,
as it relates to HB 71. If passed, HB 71 would be adopted by the
legislature and signed by the executive branch; therefore,
application of HB 71 to those two branches of government is
appropriate and doesn't offend the separation of powers
principle in the constitution. He added that to extend the
statute to include the court system would be viewed as
troublesome, because the court system is not part of the
legislative process and has no way to protect itself.
[HB 71 was held over.]
HB 7-DISPLAY OF PHOTOS OF MARKED BALLOT
3:38:14 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 7, "An Act relating to the exhibition of
marked ballots."
3:39:08 PM
ALICIA NORTON, Intern, Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 7 on behalf of Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor. She stated that "ballot selfies"
are currently illegal in the state of Alaska. She explained
that "ballot selfie" refers to a picture taken of oneself within
the voting booth. She said that the goal of HB 7 is to make
ballot selfies legal. She relayed that ballot selfies could be
an expression of support - for a candidate, a cause, or voting
in general. She said that Alaska's law is not currently
rigorously enforced; therefore, there would not be a dramatic
change to the status quo. She related that bans on ballot
selfies have already been ruled unconstitutional in several
other states, and passage of HB 7 would allow Alaska to follow
the trend across the U.S. She said that the Division of
Elections (DOE) raised concerns regarding the prohibition of
electioneering, and staff is currently working with Legislative
Legal and Research Services to create language to address those
concerns. She mentioned that an amendment will be forthcoming.
3:41:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked Ms. Norton if she has identified any
concerted opposition to HB 7.
MS. NORTON mentioned that one person has expressed concern with
vote buying and asked if ballot selfies would be considered
advertising under the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
regulations. Ms. Norton said she was looking into that
possibility.
3:41:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if it is currently against the law to
take a picture of yourself with the ballot or just the ballot
alone. He asked if a ballot selfie was a picture of yourself
with the ballot.
MS. NORTON responded that a ballot selfie is a photo of yourself
with your ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if it was stated in statute that it is
illegal to take a picture of yourself with your ballot.
MS. NORTON responded that statute does not state that you can't
take a ballot selfie but states you are not allowed to show your
ballot to another person.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if it is against the law to show a
picture of his completed ballot, without his face in the
picture, to someone else.
MS. NORTON responded yes, but it would be legal if HB 7 becomes
law.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if anyone has been prosecuted in
Alaska for the crime of showing his/her ballot to another
person.
MS. NORTON answered that she wasn't completely sure, but has no
knowledge of anyone being prosecuted for that crime.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if Ms. Norton knew if anyone had
been prosecuted in another state.
MS. NORTON responded that a Colorado women was prosecuted for a
ballot selfie. The woman filed a suit claiming her right to
free speech was violated.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about the outcome of the suit.
MS. NORTON said the ruling was in the woman's favor. It was
determined to be an infringement of her freedom of speech.
3:44:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that the ban of ballot selfies is
currently an electioneering prohibition. He asked if the
original intent of the ban was related to the prohibition on
campaigning and campaign materials within a 200-foot zone of a
polling location.
MS. NORTON responded yes.
3:46:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that a ballot selfie could be used
as proof of a vote in the case of vote buying. He asked if
walking around with a picture of your ballot on your phone would
be an electioneering violation or an expression of free speech.
MS. NORTON answered that an amendment will be introduced that
would prevent people from taking photos of their ballots and
presenting them within the polling place or within 200 feet of
the polling place.
3:48:54 PM
REID MAGDANZ, Staff, Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, prime
sponsor of HB 7, said that the Alaska Division of Elections
suggested that HB 7, as written, allowed for the possibility of
the ballot selfie being shared within the polling place. He
reiterated that the forthcoming amendment would clarify that
showing the ballot selfie within 200 feet of a polling place
would still be prohibited.
3:49:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how someone within the polling place
with a cell phone could be prevented from seeing a ballot selfie
of someone outside the polling place.
MR. MAGDANZ said that it is certainly a possibility, as are
other possibilities, such as seeing a Facebook post while in the
polling place. He mentioned that the drafters of HB 7
considered those possibilities to be in line with protecting
free speech. He added that if the committee has concerns, HB 7
could be amended accordingly.
3:50:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if it is illegal to display one's
completed ballot while walking across the polling place to the
ballot box.
MR. MAGDANZ confirmed that is illegal and would remain illegal
under HB 7.
[HB 7 was held over.]
HB 31-SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS
3:51:33 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 31, "An Act requiring the Department of
Public Safety to develop a tracking system and collection and
processing protocol for sexual assault examination kits;
requiring law enforcement agencies to send sexual assault
examination kits for testing within 18 months after collection;
requiring an inventory and reports on untested sexual assault
examination kits; and providing for an effective date."
3:52:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 31, as prime sponsor. She testified that just a few weeks
ago, serial rapist Clifford Lee was sentenced to 90 years for
four rapes and one attempted rape, occurring in 2014. She said
Mr. Lee had a long history of systematically targeting and
raping disadvantaged women. She added that the deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA) testing of a rape kit tied Mr. Lee to additional
unsolved rapes occurring in 2001 and 2005. She stated that for
16 years Mr. Lee, a dangerous criminal, had been in "our
community" possibly harming other victims. She referred
committee members to an article about Mr. Lee in the bill
packet.
MS. TARR pointed out, "This is just the most recent story that
brutally reminds us of Alaska's epidemic of sexual assault. It
reminds us of our responsibility to victims to diligently
collect and process evidence to bring violators to justice and
remove perpetrators from our communities." She stated that
Alaska currently has a backlog of 3,600 untested rape kits. She
claimed it is an enormous disrespect to the victims who have
endured the trauma of sexual assault and have taken the effort
to be tested, only to have the evidence be disregarded. She
offered that she respects the right of victims to choose not to
press charges to avoid additional trauma, but claimed that the
intent of HB 31 is to give victims the right to press charges
and have the DNA from the rape kits entered into a [tracking
system] database to use for solving other crimes. She declared
that Alaska communities remain at risk if rapists, who could
have been identified by the DNA evidence, escape justice.
MS. TARR stated that Alaska consistently ranks among the highest
in the nation for rates of rape and sexual assault. She
offered, "We must do everything we can to turn around this
epidemic." She said that in 2015, she was proud to sponsor
House Bill 117, regarding Alaska's backlog of sexual assault
examination kits. She stated she applauds Governor Bill Walker
and his staff who, at that time, "took on this issue" and
successfully procured a $1.1 million federal Department of
Justice (DOJ) grant to inventory and process the backlogged
kits. She offered that HB 31 would establish a new system to
avoid a backlog, as currently exists. She said that the
proposed legislation would establish a uniform protocol for
processing rape kits, which will assist Alaska's 200-plus law
enforcement agencies to consistently collect and process the
sensitive evidence in a timely manner. She mentioned that the
new system would require the rape kits be sent for testing no
later than 18 months after the sexual assault examination. She
added that HB 31 would require the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) to report on the number of untested rape kits, in order to
avoid a large backlog. She offered that the approach outlined
in HB 31 is part of a national effort. It has been shown in
states across the country that obtaining the DNA evidence
catches dangerous criminals and makes communities safer. She
concluded that in an effort to give victims justice, HB 31
should be passed.
MS. TARR referred to a packet of letters in support of HB 31,
which came from individual Alaskans across the state, the Alaska
Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), and
other women's organizations familiar with the impact of sexual
assault and associated trauma.
MS. TARR said that HB 31 would create a standard protocol for
processing rape kits, and a database for tracking them. She
referred to the fiscal note, which includes a link to a
description of the sexual assault kit tracking and inventory
management system. The fiscal note shows a cost of about
$100,000 for the tracking system. She added that additional
staff would be needed to meet the requirements of HB 31. She
stressed, "Even in lean budget times, these are dollars very
well spent." She conceded that many sexual assaults are
committed by an individual the victim knows, but as in the case
of Mr. Lee, women were attacked and brutalized in the traumatic
rape by a stranger. She noted how difficult it must be for an
individual to overcome such an event. She said, "People's lives
often fall apart and people commit suicide - they end their life
from that kind of trauma." She admitted that $260,000 is
difficult to consider in the current budget crises but offered,
"If we can save any one victim, I think, its dollars well
spent."
3:57:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked why there is such a large backlog and
how old the [unprocessed] rape kits are.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered two reasons for the backlog. She
said rape kits are sent out to law enforcement organizations but
are not tracked; therefore, it is difficult to know if they have
been "lost along the way." She said that another reason rape
kits have not been tested is that many sexual assault cases
involve a known perpetrator. She went on to say that even
though the DNA evidence may not be relevant in these cases, the
perpetrator may have been involved in other crimes. She offered
that including the DNA evidence in the database could link the
perpetrator to another crime.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that some of the untested kits "go
back years." She conceded that an individual might request that
the kit not be tested. She noted the suffering some victims
experience after such a traumatic event and said that some just
choose to "move on." She said that facing the set of events
involved with pressing charges - the multi-year court case,
follow-up testing, testifying in court - might seem
insurmountable for some victims. She concluded that with the
passage of HB 31, "we can protect that victim and give them the
space and path forward, while also using the DNA evidence for
its intended purpose."
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed his support for HB 31 and
mentioned his constituent, Bonnie Craig, involved in a case that
was "cold" for years, which was ultimately solved through the
DNA of someone "half a continent away." He expressed his hope
that the backlog was not continuing to accrue, and welcomed
comments from DPS on that matter.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that the current backlog [for
unprocessed rape kits in Alaska] is 3,600. She went on to say
such a backlog is not uncommon among states and a national
effort emerged to respond to the issue. She started working on
this issue in 2015, after receiving information from a national
organization, called End the Backlog. She said that at the
time, Alaska did not have good information on the number of
backlogged rape kits. She said that at the same time, DOJ
recognized this issue as a critical public safety need and
developed a grant program to help states process their backlogs.
She said the first step in applying for funding was completing
an audit to define the extent of the backlog problem and, thus,
the need for grant funds. She relayed that a bill was
initiated; Governor Walker carried the initiative forward and
worked with law enforcement agencies to complete the audit; and
DPS was able to submit the grant application and receive the
$1.1 million grant. She said the grant should help DPS get
through the existing backlog of 3,600 rape kits, and HB 31 would
set time parameters for the ongoing processing of rape kits.
4:03:13 PM
CAPTAIN DAN LOWDEN, Deputy Commander, Division of Alaska State
Troopers (AST), Department of Public Safety (DPS), reiterated
the various reasons for the backlog of rape kits: victims
choose not to press charges; the perpetrator is known; and cases
are "pled out" before kits are tested. He offered his belief
that no rape kits went untested due to disinterest. He said
when the rape kits were administered, they were often thought of
as for an individual case. He offered that with cases such as
the one Representative Tarr cited, DPS is realizing there are
serial perpetrators who are missed if kits go untested. He said
DPS supports HB 31. He stated, "We believe that by testing more
kits, we will catch more people."
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked about opposition to HB 31. He also
asked if for cases involving known perpetrators, rape kit
testing is considered unnecessary.
CAPTAIN LOWDEN answered that there are rules for how long rape
kits are retained. He said he suspects that cost may have been
a factor in cases, for example, when the perpetrator was
convicted before the rape kit was processed. He opined that the
thought processes [for processing rape kits] have now changed in
recognition that the information could help in other cases.
4:07:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to a phrase in HB 31, on page 2,
line 1, which read: "18 months after collection." He asked,
"Why 18 months ...?" He also asked if there is a timeframe for
getting the results of the test back.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that after consulting with
prosecutors, she chose a timeframe that would fit within the
timeframe needed to gather enough evidence to bring a case to
trial. She would support a shorter timeframe, but offered that
this timeframe fits the fiscal note appropriation. She added
that HB 31 calls for hiring a fulltime staff person, which she
suspects would allow DPS to process rape kits in house. She
stated her understanding that currently some rape kits are
processed in state, but kits processed with federal grant money
would be sent out of state for processing.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said he is interested in the current
schedule for processing rape kits. He said that processing
3,600 kits would take nine and a half years, at a process rate
of one kit per day. He asked if DPS is processing a rape kit
every day and if it has a 10-year backlog.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said that the federal grant funds will be
critical to the effort of processing the backlog, and many more
kits will be processed much faster than one per day. She
pointed out that the effective date of HB 31 would be January 1,
2018, which would give DPS time to work through the backlog
before that effective date. She expressed her hope that there
would be a seamless transition from completing the work of
processing the backlog to meeting the requirement of HB 31, if
passed.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP rephrased his question to ask what the
3,600 kit backlog represents in processing time, that is, the
rate of processing kits.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS requested the representatives from DPS to
provide that information.
4:12:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the letter from the Tennessee
Coalition to End Domestic & Sexual Violence, in the committee
packet, which cites the processing of a backlog of 12,000
untested rape kits. It also mentioned a law requiring kits to
be tested in 60 days, or for the person who did not want to
press charges, put into a hold for three years. He asked if
currently all rape kits in Alaska are tested in state or out of
state.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied a combination of both, and added
that [place of testing] is determined by the complexities of the
evidence collected and the specific analysis capabilities in the
DPS laboratory versus more sophisticated analysis Outside. In
response to Representative Knopp's question, she said, "If
you've got the money to pay for it, there are scientists who can
process this evidence." She said that once the capacity exists,
the processing can be done faster. She offered that the backlog
would be processed in a shorter time frame than that described
by Representative Knopp.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for the cost of processing a rape kit.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 2 of the fiscal note, which
cites a cost of about $1,500 per kit. She stated that would be
the standard cost. She reminded the committee that the cost of
processing the backlog is not included in the fiscal note, since
that would be covered by the federal grant. She offered that HB
31 would improve the training and overall processing of rape
kits.
4:15:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if the high cost is due to legal
issues, such as chain of custody.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered yes, and referred to the fiscal
note, page 2, third paragraph, which states the tracking system
would cost about $96,000.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL pointed out that 3,000 backlog kits that
cost $1,500 each to process amounts to considerable expense -
$4.5 million - and reiterated that the fiscal note did not
address that issue, which is a separate financing need.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR agreed.
4:16:44 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 31.
4:16:57 PM
CRYSTAL GODBY, Community United for Safety and Protection
(CUSP), explained that the Community United for Safety and
Protection (CUSP) is a group of current and former sex workers,
sex trafficking victims, and allies. She said CUSP is working
to protect everyone in Alaska's sex industry. She paraphrased
from the following written testimony [original punctuation
provided]:
We would like to extend out full support for this
important House Bill. Perpetrators must know that
they are going to suffer consequences for their
heinous crimes because rape kits are no longer going
to be hidden away as the lowest priorities.
Alaska will never stop being the rape capital of the
United States as long as we don't even have rape kits
prioritized to process and then match results with
state and national data bases to hold accountable
those responsible in a timely manner. In 2014,
Detroit identified 188 serial rapists by processing
just 1,600 rape kits out of their much larger backlog.
In December of 2016, Community United for Safety and
Protection had Hays Research firm in Anchorage conduct
a survey of 904 Alaskan voters' priorities.
Processing Alaska's backlog of rape kits was a close
second priority to investigating cases of murdered and
missing sex workers, with 36% listing it as their
first priority and 37% listing it as their second
priority ....
Clearly, Alaskans take this issue seriously and are in
agreement with the passing of HB 31.
4:18:52 PM
CARMEN LOWRY, Ph.D., Executive Director, Alaska Network on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), stated that
ANDVSA represents 18 member programs across the state, most of
which provide shelter and emergency services to victims and
survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. She noted
the six affiliate members, who are also part of the large ANDVSA
network. She said that ANDVSA fully supports HB 31. She
asserted that HB 31 raises the accountability of law
enforcement, sexual assault response teams (SART), and
taxpayers.
DR. LOWRY cited three reasons for ANDVSA support of HB 31. She
claimed that as SART members perform examinations and collect
data and evidence for prosecution, there must be a system for
tracking rape kits, to understand the backlog problem. She said
the second reason is "efficiency"; how to become more efficient
and where to focus resources. She stated the third reason is
"effectiveness"; enactment of HB 31 would lead to better
prosecution. She said her final point addressed balancing the
state's need to track rape examination kits with victims' rights
to choose whether or not to prosecute. She said HB 31 would
promote respect for the process of gathering evidence, which is
intensive, intimate, and invasive, and ensure that victims are
respected. She said, "The message is when we do this kind of
evidence gathering through a rape examination kit, something
will come from it."
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH noted the challenges of smaller communities
in regard to gathering evidence after an assault charge, and he
asked about custody of the rape kit.
DR. LOWRY said she didn't know but would provide that
information to the committee.
4:26:07 PM
KEELEY OLSON, Executive Director, Stand Together Against Rape
(STAR), testified in support of HB 31 on behalf of STAR. She
claimed that the proposed legislation represents the best
standard practice recognized nationwide. She said that after an
audit of the current backlog, it is critical to determine a
consistent process for all law enforcement agencies across the
state. She said that HB 31 would answer all the important
questions raised by the committee members. She mentioned that
there are many jurisdictions throughout the state that have an
alternative reporting mechanism, called non-investigative
reports. She said that in these cases, the victim undergoes a
forensic examination, and the evidence is saved in case the
victim chooses to proceed with a law enforcement investigation.
She offered that these rape kits are collected by the examiner
with an advocate present, but no law enforcement personnel is
notified. She said a victim of sexual assault may come forward
at any time to file an anonymous report and request to have
his/her case opened up for full investigation. She stated the
importance of not coercing victims to participate in the
criminal legal process against their will.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if for some rape kits, victims may
choose not to submit them to law enforcement, and the kits are
put into a holding place.
MS. OLSON responded yes. She said the reason for that is to
provide options to victims who are hesitant to "come forward" or
intimidated by the process but recognize the need for evidence
to be collected in a timely manner to reserve the right to open
those cases to investigation. She added alternative reporting
has resulted in "some very successful prosecutions" as a result.
She mentioned this mechanism is a provision of the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) [of 1994].
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he will leave public testimony open on
HB 31.
[HB 31 was held over.]
4:32:30 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:32
p.m.