02/27/2001 01:10 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 27, 2001
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Vic Kohring, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 4
"An Act relating to offenses involving operating a motor
vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while under the influence of an
alcoholic beverage or controlled substance; relating to implied
consent to take a chemical test; relating to registration of
motor vehicles; relating to presumptions arising from the amount
of alcohol in a person's breath or blood; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 4(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 39
"An Act relating to registration of motor vehicles, to operating
a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while intoxicated, and
to driving with a cancelled, suspended, or revoked driver's
license; relating to duties of the division of alcoholism and
drug abuse regarding driving-while-intoxicated offenses; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 39(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 4
SHORT TITLE:OMNIBUS DRUNK DRIVING AMENDMENTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0024 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0024 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0024 (H) TRA, JUD, FIN
02/22/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/22/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(TRA)
02/27/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 39
SHORT TITLE:VEHICLE REGISTRATION/DWI/FORFEITURE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOTT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/10/01 0044 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/10/01 0045 (H) TRA, JUD, FIN
02/01/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/01/01 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/01 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/06/01 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
02/06/01 (H) <Bill Postponed>
02/15/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
<Meeting Canceled>
02/22/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/22/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/27/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
BARBARA BRINK, Director
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration
900 West Fifth Avenue Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the Public Defender Agency's
position on HB 4 and answered questions.
MARIE LAVIGNE, Executive Director
Alaska Chapter
National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
4220 Resurrection Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of NASW's support of
issues related to drunk driving and "accessible treatment";
noted that NASW is reviewing provisions in both [HB 4 and HB
39].
CINDY CASHEN, Member
MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving)
211 Fourth Street, Suite 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of MADD and herself on HB
4.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 4.
JANET SEITZ, Staff
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 4.
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator
Office of the Commissioner-Juneau
Department of Corrections
431 North Franklin Street, Suite 293
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the Department of
Corrections on HB 4 and HB 39, and answered questions.
ERNIE TURNER, Director
Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110607
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0607
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 39.
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the department and
answered questions relating to HB 39.
ROGER WORTMAN, Staff
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 39 on behalf of the sponsor.
MARY MARSHBURN, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration
3300 Fairbanks Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 39.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-15, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR VIC KOHRING called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Kohring, Scalzi, Wilson, and
Kapsner. Representatives Ogan, Masek, and Kookesh arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
CHAIR KOHRING stated that there were two bills held over from
the previous meeting. He said that he appreciated being giving
the opportunity to go to the Senate Transportation Committee
meeting in Anchorage the previous week, and that Representative
Masek had chaired the [House Transportation Standing Committee]
meeting in his absence.
HB 4- OMNIBUS DRUNK DRIVING AMENDMENTS
[Contains discussion of HB 172.]
CHAIR KOHRING announced the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 4, "An Act relating to offenses involving operating a
motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while under the influence
of an alcoholic beverage or controlled substance; relating to
implied consent to take a chemical test; relating to
registration of motor vehicles; relating to presumptions arising
from the amount of alcohol in a person's breath or blood; and
providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee, adopted at the previous hearing, was
Version P (22-LS0046\P, Ford, 2/16/01).]
Number 0134
BARBARA BRINK, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration, testified via teleconference:
We have some brief comments to offer. First of all,
we wanted to say thank you to Representative Rokeberg
and his staff, especially Janet Seitz, chief of staff,
that gave us the opportunity to see and comment and
work on drafts of this bill very early on. This
cooperation has helped us gather fiscal information
and be involved in the process from the beginning,
which was extremely helpful.
We [Public Defender Agency] certainly do agree that
driving under the influence or driving while
intoxicated is a serious problem is this state. But
we have a few suggestions about alternative ways to go
about solving that problem. The State of Alaska was
one of the first in the country to enact a felony DUI
[Driving Under the Influence] statute. Traditionally,
we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the
country, including for driving while under the
influence. But, despite all those strong jail
penalties and high fines, we continue, as Section 1 of
this bill recognizes, to have one of the highest rates
of DUI related fatalities.
We feel that an important part of the answer might
rely in effective court-ordered treatment and
supervised probation for these DUI offenders. We
agree with other agencies that because the recidivism
is actually quite low for first-offense DWIs, about
75-80 percent of those folks never come back, we
should concentrate our highly structured treatment and
prevention [efforts] at those repeat offenders. We're
gratified to learn that the legislature is interested
in the new concept of therapeutic court, [and] DWI
[Driving While Intoxicated] court, and have been
cooperating with many members of the legislature in
trying to plan and develop those as well.
I realize that as lawmakers you all have very great
pressure on you to try and do something about this
problem. I would simply urge that we not immediately
go to what we have tried before, which is to increase
the amount of penalties, increase the amount of fines,
and increase the amount of punishment for these
offenses. I think that what we've learned is that it
hasn't been very effective, and the therapeutic court
model is showing success in other states, as we hope
it has success here as well.
Number 0342
All that being said in the way of general remarks, I
do have a couple of specific sections I would like to
bring to your attention. ... The first is Section
33, page 22, [Version P]. This section adds a
mandatory 6-month prison sentence to the already
existing mandatory sentences and requires completion
of the 30-day residential treatment program if
available in that community. Again, we are skeptical
of the effect that increasing the punishment will have
for (indisc.). Residential treatment is also not all
of the answer. There might be cheaper, better
alternatives. There are a lot of outpatient programs
that provide a very good treatment alternative with
high success. So, we're uncertain ... the requirement
of the 30-day residential program should be based on
[a] statutory requirement such as (indisc.) health
professional assessment.
With regard to vehicle forfeiture, and that is
contained in Section 31, page 21, line 7, and Section
46, page 28, line 5, these sections, again, require
the court to forfeit a vehicle on ... a felony DWI,
and it requires the state to seek forfeiture in every
case that's happening, even though the judge does have
to order in all cases. I think property forfeiture
has raised a lot of fiscal issues, especially when you
have family depending upon the needs of transportation
in order to ensure their basic necessities. It
involves taking property rights from other people
including lien holders, and people who have other
property interest in that car. And it can have huge
unintended consequences, including taking away a
family's only means of transportation. (Indisc.)
statutory scheme allowed for forfeiture. It is
discretionary and we actually prefer that it remain
discretionary, so that these individual cases can be
considered and an individual family's needs [can] be
taken into account.
Number 0465
There are many sections that increase the fines and
the life of revocation periods. For example, Section
17 doubles the license reinstatement fee for repeat
DWI offenders. I believe our concern with that
section is that many people who (indisc.) of license
revocation, instead of taking the appropriate steps
and trying to become properly insured and get their
licenses back and become validly licensed and insured
drivers, just sort of (indisc.) their hands and give
in. Last year there were 4,500 driving-without-a
valid-license cases filed in the court. This is a
huge and costly area for the state to continue to
prosecute.
The Municipality of Anchorage has a really interesting
and sort of revolutionary program when it comes to
driving with licenses suspended. They have a
diversion program that provides manpower to actually
help people get through the red tape to figure out
what they need to do to get their license back. Their
goal is getting more licensed and insured drivers on
the road, instead of just arresting and prosecuting
and sending to jail those folks that don't have
licenses. It's been very successful. Statistics by
the municipal prosecutor indicate that many, many more
people are now insured and validly driving.
For the same reason, I think a permanent or ten-year
revocation for a felony DUI, which is contained [in]
Section 31, [pages] 20-21, is not such a great idea.
It's useful to give people a light at the end of the
tunnel, and (indisc.) from driving from (indisc.)
just doesn't seem to be working.
The fines are increased in Section 31, page 20, line
17. That raises the mandatory minimum fine from
$5,000 to $10,000 for a felony DUI. Once again, I
would simply urge the committee to give the discretion
to the court to take into account all of the
individual circumstances of that person. These people
who are facing these crimes probably also have a whole
[host] of other problems stemming from their addiction
or abuse of alcohol. They probably owe restitution,
child support, treatment costs, and food, clothing,
necessities (indisc.) of the family. The judge now has
the discretion to go (indisc.) but I think it would be
a mistake to require a mandatory minimum of $10,000
for every individual.
Number 0615
On Section 18, I just have a couple of questions, and
I apologize because it might be that I'm not familiar
with the bill. Certainly, I understand wanting to
create the crime of knowingly allowing an unlicensed
DUI offender to drive. But the minimum fine, which is
$1,000, can create a real hardship, and I don't really
understand requiring that person to attend an alcohol
program. It doesn't necessarily follow that that
person needs alcohol treatment. So while I understand
the thought process behind the law, it seems like the
sanctions need to be a little fine-tuned.
Finally, probably one of our largest areas of
disagreement is Section 37, which is something to
overturn the Sosa [v. State] case. Mr. Sosa was
arrested in Bethel for DUI. It turns out that the
breath-testing machine in Bethel wasn't functioning at
the time. (Indisc.) under the law, he had given
implied consent, by driving, to give a sample of his
breath. There was no means for the state or the
police to get the sample of his breath. So, they
instead asked him for a sample of his blood, and Mr.
Sosa declined, because he did not want to give up any
of his blood. The police got a search warrant, and
the supreme court of Alaska said the search warrant
isn't valid because the legislature (indisc.) were
by you could only get a search warrant to take a
[blood test under] two circumstance: one, if they're
unconscious, or two, if there's been a serious injury
or fatality. None of those circumstances existed in
Mr. Sosa's case. Mr. Sosa actually refused to give a
sample, even though there was a valid search warrant.
So, it wasn't that any evidence in his case (indisc.).
Number 0753
But they then charged him with a felony crime of
tapering with evidence for refusing to submit to the
search warrant. The supreme court said, "You
shouldn't be required to submit to a search warrant
which was invalid to begin with, and so we're not
going to convict him on the felony crime on that
account." I understand that the legislature is
reconsidering that policy and changing the implied
consent standard (indisc.) search warrant available to
the police. I also urge the legislature to rethink
that policy carefully. The reason the search warrant
is limited to those situations is because forcibly
removing blood from a person against their will is [a]
very (indisc.) process. In those cases where there
appears to be serious injury or those cases where the
person is charged unconscious, you don't have any
danger or confrontation where the situation is
deteriorating even further. I think that the current
legislative structure has adequate means to punish
somebody who doesn't get a breath test. Frankly, the
solution to the Sosa case is to make sure that these
breath machines in every place [are] in good working
order so that people can give the samples that are
required of them without such an intrusive (indisc.)
as a search warrant and a needle in their arm.
Number 0831
The "look-back" provision is a tough call. Changing
this so that more people are again being charged with
felonies, spend more time in jail, and have harsher
penalties, it's an expensive proposition. I think ...
perhaps the legislature could find better ways to
spend the money in terms of treatment and prevention.
I have to tell you that really harsh sentences are
already being handed down. Under the (indisc.),
oftentimes people will also get probation revocation
time, and aggravating factors. So, I think perhaps
there is a misperception that people are not getting
(indisc.) sentences at this time, and they truly are.
Number 0878
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the look-back provisions have
double jeopardy problems.
MS. BRINK replied that she did not think so. She believes that
the current five-year look-back provision has been challenged in
the court on this issue. But findings did not constitute double
jeopardy.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked for assurance that the look-back
provision has been challenged on the double-jeopardy issue.
MS. BRINK said yes; anytime one increases the possibility of a
greater punishment or offense level based on past conduct, there
will be challenges.
Number 0922
MS. BRINK further testified:
The only [other] section that caused me some concern
... is Section 30, page 20, line 8-9 [Version P]. If
I understand it, that section requires that jail time
would no longer be able to be served at a residential
treatment center or a hospital treatment center.
I'm somewhat confused by that, because I think that
there's a lot of push to try to address the alcohol
addiction problem with treatment, and actually
(indisc.) to go to treatment. I think that any
measure that would discourage people from doing that
would have a bad backlash for the people in the
program, isolating people in jail. Even if you try to
provide treatment in jail, once they're done serving
their sentence, these people are simply relieved and a
large part of treatment involves getting people ready
to cope with life on the outside when it's maybe not
so easy to resist....
The criminal justice assessment commission just set
three years with the aid of the federal branch to
studying the use of residential treatment centers and
alternative incarceration and came up with exactly the
opposite conclusion of Section 30. That assessment
commission really thought that we should be maximizing
our use of alternative sanctions, particularly with
treatment. These treatment measures [are] more often
cheaper than hard jail beds and have a better success
rate than simply warehousing somebody.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I've taken
a lot of your time. But this is a big issue and a
complicated bill and I appreciate getting the
opportunity to speak.
CHAIR KOHRING suggested that Ms. Brink summarize her testimony
and provide it to him so he could distribute it to the committee
members, for review.
MS. BRINK replied that she would do that.
Number 1071
CHAIR KOHRING referred to Ms. Brink's concern in regard to the
30-day residential alcoholism program. He thanked her for
looking at the "bottom line" to figure out how to make this work
with the least amount of money possible. Several committee
members have shared their concern that the fiscal impact is
going to be fairly substantial, he said, which has "raised some
red flags."
CHAIR KOHRING asked Ms. Brink to stay online until her fiscal
note was discussed.
CHAIR KOHRING commented to Mary Marshburn, Director, Division of
Motor Vehicles (DMV), that he would like her to stay online to
discuss the DMV's fiscal note. He pointed out that the House
Transportation Standing Committee does not have any details on
the fiscal note [from the DMV]; it is only a number without
associated details.
Number 1204
MARIE LAVIGNE, Alaska Chapter, National Association of Social
Workers (NASW), stated that she was not present to testify on
the bill, "other than to express the support of our members, our
social workers across Alaska, who are very concerned about
issues related to drunk driving and adequate and accessible
treatment."
CHAIR KOHRING asked if she essentially supported the legislation
as written.
MS. LAVIGNE replied that NASW is continuing to review the
provisions in both bills [HB 4 and HB 39].
Number 1232
CINDY CASHEN, Member, MADD, said she was speaking on behalf
of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and as a victim of a
drunk driving crash. She said:
I was not intending to speak on House Bill 4, but
after listening to Mrs. Brink's comments, I feel the
burning desire to do so. As a victim and as a person
who has studied MADD's past history with looking at
how they view what works with the drunk driver, I can
say that yes, treatment does work with drunk driving
but it's only part of the puzzle. There does need to
be other components involved, and House Bill 4 does
have those.
MADD endorses House Bill 4. It does have some
reservations in one section, where an offender who has
Blood Alcohol Content of between .08-.10 can lose the
jail term if under strict probation. But that is the
only concern MADD has. Otherwise, MADD endorses HB 4.
CHAIR KOHRING asked for clarification on the provision she was
discussing.
MS. CASHEN replied that the provision is the diversion program,
which is the only portion that MADD has concerns about. She
said:
I guess I'm looking at it as not only a member of
MADD, but also a victim. We realize that the look-
back extension and vehicle forfeiture, ... they're
going to cost money, but we are so far behind compared
to not only the rest of the United States but other
countries. It's embarrassing and it's frustrating and
it's maddening because what constantly goes through my
head is if these had been in effect, would my father
still be alive? I can't help but think there's a good
chance he would be. If there had been a look-back
beyond five years, if there had been a vehicle
forfeiture the first or second time, the person who
killed my father would that of made a difference? If
the treatment centers had been funded appropriately
and in such a manner that the person wasn't put on a
waiting list and then dropped. All of these might of
made an effect. Now, I don't have the answer to
these, I realize that. I'll never know. But I'm one
victim, and I'm one person looking at these and I'll
always have questions. There are thousands of victims
in Alaska. There are thousands of members of Mothers
Against Drunk Driving and we are watching this bill
and we don't want to see these parts taken out. We
want something done. It's time for justice to happen.
That's all I have to say. Thank you for your time.
Number 1453
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor of HB 4, introduced Janet Seitz, one of his staff who
has been working on this bill for many months. He pointed out
that Ms. Seitz served on the Municipality of Anchorage DUI Task
Force along with Denise Henderson, staff to Representative Pete
Kott. His office's interest in this bill comes in large part
due to Ms. Seitz's participation and the fact that her family
was very directly affected by an [DWI] accident which occurred
last summer. He said, "All of us know somebody that's been
involved in a tragedy that relates to driving and alcohol at one
time in our life, without question."
Number 1507
CHAIR KOHRING suggested that the House Transportation Standing
Committee review the fiscal notes.
Number 1532
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that due to his background
with the House Finance Committee, Chair Kohring is very
concerned about some of the costs. He said it was imperative
that the House Transportation Standing Committee recognizes that
the aggravator section of the bill has a gross cost of
approximately $29 million. This provision mandates that the
court add an additional six month sentence for anybody who has
been apprehended and has a .16 BAC. Right now, the [fiscal]
notes total approximately $35 million. The "mid-effect" of this
is to take $27-28 million dollars off, which would reduce the
working fiscal notes to $8.5 million. In short, there is one
provision in this bill that creates the vast majority of the
cost.
CHAIR KOHRING asked what fiscal note this would be.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that it runs through all of the
fiscal notes. He said that he asked the departments to try to
break down their fiscal notes into different provisions within
the bill. He stated that a quick analysis of the fiscal notes
indicates that the aggravator provision is the "primary
culprit."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that, for example, $24.3 million
of the Department of Correction's $29.3 million fiscal note is
due to the aggravator provision. For the attorney general's
office it is $800,000; for the Alaska Court System, $339,000;
and the Public Defender's Agency, $617,000. So, the aggravator
section of the bill is a substantial driver of these costs. He
said that he did not believe the legislature is willing to pay
this price right now. However, as this bill moves through the
process, he will be looking at trying to "finesse" the
aggravator with more discretion. He will do this by taking the
majority of fiscal elements out and trying to reinsert some
"aggravator intention" back in. In short, he will approach this
particular issue from a different angle.
Number 1688
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked for more information regarding the
six-month sentence, including if it is an option for the
Department of Corrections.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for clarification on whether he
was talking about Section 33, page 22.
Number 1711
JANET SEITZ, staff to Representative Rokeberg, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the aggravator provision requires
that if a person has a BAC of .16 or more, the court has to add
an additional six months of imprisonment to any sentence already
mandated, plus the 30-day residential treatment alcohol program.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if the six-month sentence alone adds
up to $24 million.
Number 1735
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG corrected himself by saying that the
cost is actually closer to $27 million, when all the departments
"chime in on it." If the aggravator and longer-sentence
provision are going to be in the bill, there will be more jury
trials and activity because people will be trying to avoid that
incarceration more. This will increase costs. He also
mentioned that the public defenders are going to spend more
money. The courts claim that this provision will require an
additional district judge. He said that he is withholding any
criticism for these agencies in terms of the fiscal notes, since
they are not finished. However, he said that it seems that the
agencies "overreached just a little bit" [in the fiscal notes].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG went on to say that the Department of
Correction's fiscal note is based on basic per-diem rates and
then it consists of the element "between (indisc.) soft beds and
the hard beds." He said that putting people in jail is a very
expensive proposition, but it was a strong recommendation of the
Municipality of Anchorage DUI Task Force. The cost is not going
to be acceptable [to the legislature].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to his testimony the week
before, in which he indicated that this bill is in conjunction
with another bill [HB 172] that would contain the wellness court
element. The wellness court legislation will have costs in the
$1.5-million to $3.5-million range. He said that when the whole
package [HB 4 and HB 172] is added together, it comes to about a
$10-million package, excluding the aggravator provision. If the
House Transportation Standing Committee wants to do a fiscally
responsible thing, and wants to repeal that section now, that
would be fine. However, he said that he would pass the message
to people that are interested in that provision that the House
Judiciary Standing Committee will look at reinstituting
aggravators on a cost-effective basis.
Number 1845
CHAIR KOHRING asked what section he was referring to.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said page 22, lines 20-29, Section 33,
subsection (q) [of Version P].
CHAIR KOHRING remarked that if this provision were eliminated,
the [high fiscal note] that Representative Rokeberg discussed
would be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that this particular provision
is "clouding the note right now." He said that his challenge
was to "dwindle this down" as the bill makes progress, and then
"you'd be making extra contribution." He said he is not giving
up on the aggravator component of the bill. For example, "we"
are thinking of ways to deal with this provision that would have
little fiscal impact, such as community service, but would have
an impact on the offender (who had a high BAC).
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that there was some
criticism from this "break on the lack of treatment" and concern
about "no jail time and the treatment center" (in Section 30).
He referred to testimony from the last meeting in which people
testified that there are offenders who are "gaming the system."
To avoid jail time, these DWI offenders go to treatment centers,
and receive "good time counts" due to a court decision. This
provision is intended to ensure that these offenders are
incarcerated for a (indisc.) period of time as well as mandating
that they do their treatment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that this provision also mandates
that long-term prisoners participate in alcohol and
rehabilitation programs. Currently, these programs are
discretionary. Many prisoners [convicted of DWI] do not avail
themselves of treatment programs. Therefore, they don't have
any treatment elements when they are released from the prison
system. He reiterated that this bill mandates treatment for
[DWI] offenders who have a history, which is a part of the large
cost to the Department of Corrections.
Number 1998
CHAIR KOHRING mentioned that two amendments have been brought
before the House Transportation Standing Committee, one by
Representative Kapsner.
CHAIR KOHRING referred to page 19, lines 6 and 7, which states:
"The cost of treatment required to be paid to the state under
this subsection may not exceed $2,000." He said this provision
makes it more difficult for the state to collect what it
potentially could from a DWI offender. He said he thought it
would be more prudent to "raise that money or even make it open-
ended." He said:
We can have the potential to recover as much in the
way of compensation to the state from the perpetrator
of the crime, either through "garnishment of wages" or
selling assets or things of that nature. So there's
that one concern.
CHAIR KOHRING specified that another area of concern is the
issue of insurance. He said that insurance companies will
sometimes pay for the cost of care, treatment, and putting
people through programs. But it appears that the way it's
worded [in the bill], there would be a restriction under which
an insurance company could provide more money than what the
provision here would allow. He asked Representative Rokeberg to
address these concerns.
Number 2074
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Chair Kohring's second
question [the issue of insurance]. He said the recoupment of
cost of insurance and all treatment levels from a private agency
or to someone who is incarcerated in prison is possible. At all
levels of the system, "we" can avail ourselves of recoupment of
those costs, when they are covered with insurance. "The level
of diligence is a question mark," he said. He went on to say
that he is aware that the corrections system works to get those
"recoupments." (A majority of offenders, especially first-time
offenders, have some type of private insurance that would cover
some costs. This is due to a mandate in the bill that states
that the individuals pay for the costs, and if they have
insurance, they will "recover" from that. However, he said:
[The] chronic individual that ends up before a court
system seemingly doesn't have that private insurance
ability. So, the state does have to pick up that tab.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG deferred to Ms. Seitz to answer Chair
Kohring's question regarding "not to exceed $2,000."
Number 2142
MS. SEITZ referred to Section 30 [Version P], which states that
under current law, the prisoner has to pay $1,000 of the
imprisonment cost. This bill doubles the cost to $2,000, which
was matched with the treatment costs. So, the prisoner would
have to pay up to $2,000 in treatment costs and up to $2,000 in
imprisonment costs. The feeling was that the prisoners should
pay something. However, a lot of these individuals, especially
repeat offenders, may not be able to pay this amount, even
though "we" selected a figure "we" thought was reasonable.
CHAIR KOHRING remarked that he was going to bring this issue of
the funding source forward: "Should the state [pay] the 'lion's
share' of this [through] the general fund?" He said that after
going over the fiscal notes, this appears to be the case. Even
$10 million is a "pretty good chunk of money." He went on to
say that he couldn't speak for this committee, but he said:
Within our caucus, we watch that bottom line, and if
there's any way that we can front legislation
extremely minimally and not tap into the permanent
fund in a large way, that would be very preferential.
Number 2198
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that there is no indication of
program receipts, fines or recoupment costs in the fiscal notes.
He said that some element has been put in there, but there is no
income for the substantially increased fines in the bill, and
other elements of payment by the individuals. But, he thinks
this is a gap because "we" are going to be generating some
revenue. He said, "A lot of these people are judgment-proof but
not all of them."
Number 2222
CHAIR KOHRING stated that it would serve a "twofold purpose" if
that provision (in regard to the $2,000 issue) was deleted.
This would strike fear in DWI offenders that if they commit
these crimes, they are going to be "subject to garnishment of
wages or seizure of assets or their car being sold, ... and that
would be a source of revenue." He said:
It would be an incentive issue, and it would also be
the issue of raising some additional monies to help
offset tapping into the permanent fund to pay for a
program of this nature. I don't know if that's
realistic. It's just a thought that I had been
entertaining in my mind for a long time. I don't know
how much money you can literally extract out of people
out there.
CHAIR KOHRING went on to say that it is possible that many DWI
offenders have low incomes. However, the best scenario would be
for offenders to pay the cost of their own incarceration and
treatment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that this is clearly in the
bill.
CHAIR KOHRING said, "But you have your limits here too that
concern me."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that all of these measures
apply to the general fund, not the permanent fund.
Number 2275
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if it was legal to have an offender
pay for his or her own incarceration.
MS. SEITZ replied that this is current law and it is being done
now.
CHAIR KOHRING referred to his experience of being on the House
Finance Committee where he was part of the effort to employ "our
$250 million budget cutting package." He stated:
There was a lot of sacrifice, a lot went through that
process. And I'm in fact "gun shy" when it comes to
looking at bills that are big-ticket items that have
big fiscal notes. I just want to be very thorough in
our analysis and make sure that we have a high comfort
level in passing something out of committee that has a
high fiscal note. In light of all the hard work that
we went through in trying to achieve our spending
reductions over those first few years that you and I
were in the office, and [Representative] Ogan, I
remember those days so vividly and they weigh heavy on
my mind. So that is a concern, the fact that we pass
legislation that results in substantial spending, in
light of the fact that we're trying to watch the
bottom line.
Number 2340
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON expressed her concern for the family of a
DWI offender, if the offender had to pay for his or her own
imprisonment. She wondered how the family would obtain the
funds. She stated that the family of the drunk driver is also a
victim due to feelings of embarrassment and heartbreak. They
will also suffer financially if the offender is responsible for
paying for his or her imprisonment. She referred to a provision
in the bill that dealt with co-ownership of a vehicle, and
mentioned this might be taken away if "that was the only way."
She asked how "this is picked up and taken care [of] so that the
family of the perpetrator isn't held hostage under this."
Number 2396
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that this is a point of
consideration. However, Alaska is a victims' right state, so
the first people looked at are the victims of a criminal action.
That's the problem. This bill is intending to affect the
habitual drunk drivers who are "killing people on the streets."
Confiscation [of vehicles] and high fines will provide some
financial burden to that perpetrator's family. He said that if
public policy is that people should pay for what they are doing
to the rest of society, then "I can offer you nothing more than
they're [families of DWI offenders] going to have to suffer by
their association." This is the "entire structure" of the bill.
He went on to say that he sees Representative Wilson's comments
as saying "we shouldn't be doing this if we're worried about the
perpetrator's family." He then wondered if the fines should be
lowered. He said that this is a dilemma. It is possible that
some people, due to incarceration, may lose the "breadwinner's
livelihood and income stream and [wind up] lining up [on] our
safety-net welfare rolls," but people are not getting the point
of this.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that this issue "was just a
concern" that she had.
Number 2468
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Representative Rokeberg if he had
considered the "revenue generating" associated with this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that since our constitution
requires a "single subject rule," this could not be included
here. But there is discussion concerning this in a Senate bill
and other legislation.
TAPE 01-15 SIDE B
[The first 40 seconds of Side B are indiscernible due to tape
malfunctioning.]
Number 2471
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that it's the same subject, so he
doesn't think there is a ban on putting that [in the bill].
Number 2450
CHAIR KOHRING pointed out that the committee members received a
fiscal note summary handout. He then referred to the line item
in this fiscal note having to do with full-and part-time
positions that call for hiring between 40-42 people over six
years of implementing this bill. He wondered if these numbers
would be reduced if the provision in Section 33 was omitted from
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that from the Department of Law's
fiscal note and his estimate, deleting the aggravator section
would result in a net $8.5 million.
CHAIR KOHRING asked what kind of impact this would have on the
number of employment positions needed to implement this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he did not know; he had not gone
through the bills in detail yet.
CHAIR KOHRING mentioned most of the fiscal notes are new to the
House Transportation Standing Committee. He remarked that a
concern of his was keeping the number of state employees to an
"absolute minimum."
Number 2366
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI referred to the figures ($28 million) that
were cited [from the fiscal notes]. He asked if the new hires
were included in this.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there are some, but that he did not
know the exact number; the majority of that is actually
corrections/prison time. He stated that this would include a
district court judge and personnel in other departments.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI remarked that a lot of this could be
attributed to the aggravator.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "Not all, but most."
Number 2234
CHAIR KOHRING commented that the Department of Public Safety's
fiscal note seemed a "little on the lenient side," for hiring
only one additional state trooper, for having legislation of
this magnitude.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that there is no income from
their forfeiture program either.
CHAIR KOHRING reiterated his concern of enforcement in this
bill. He said:
We could pass a fancy bill with all the whistles and
bells that addresses everybody's concern. But it's
one thing to have it in law. It's another thing to
actually enforce that law. Do you feel that what is
being suggested by the department is sufficient in
terms of enforcement of this legislation?
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that the departments wouldn't
"short shoot" themselves on the fiscal notes. He then asked
Representative Kohring if he was specifically referring to
troopers.
CHAIR KOHRING asked if "we" have the resources to adequately
enforce this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that the fiscal notes reflect
what the department believes are adequate sources. However,
[the legislature] hasn't analyzed them in detail. He said that
the department tends to be "less than conservative" when making
its estimates. But some "value engineering" on these fiscal
notes needs to take place so costs can be lowered more. He went
on to say, "There are certain elements of the bill that may have
to be discarded or modified to accomplish that very goal, and I
maintain and recognize your concerns about the cost."
CHAIR KOHRING asked if there was a representative from the
Department of Corrections present.
Number 2244
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Corrections, said that she has been working on the
fiscal note for months.
CHAIR KOHRING asked Ms. Brower's opinion on whether what's being
proposed is sufficient for enforcing this legislation.
Number 2215
MS. BROWER commented that this is a complex bill and she is not
finished analyzing all of the parts to formulate the most
accurate fiscal representation. She reiterated Representative
Rokeberg's comments that the majority of the fiscal notes would
be from the aggravator provision, which is "just simple math
with days of incarceration and cost." She said that she took
into consideration whether or not the cost of care would propose
a burden on the department in terms of additional staff. She
did not include any positions [in the cost of care]. However,
it [aggravator provision] still may require more [positions],
but the cost would stay the same.
MS. BROWER noted that the House Transportation Standing
Committee received the fiscal notes recently. She said that if
that item [aggravator provision] were taken out, the main cost
of the fiscal note would be treatment, which is an important
cost to the department. She went on to say:
Our department, as well as the substance abuse
treatment community, recognizes that if we have any
hope of deterring people or rehabilitating people, we
can't just incarcerate them. We have to treat them
while they are incarcerated, so that they have a
better chance of not re-offending once they get out.
MS. BROWER remarked that the department's fiscal note is based
on their belief that there would be 240 convicted felons in the
first year. Estimates that 50 percent would require intensive
outpatient treatment and 50 percent would require residential
treatment are based on information received from various
substance-abuse agencies, based on what they thought would be
appropriate for people who have reached the felony offender
level. These costs are based on what is currently provided in
the facilities.
MS. BROWER informed the House Transportation Standing Committee
that the Department of Corrections has been working on "trying
to provide some treatment for those who will avail themselves
while in incarcerated." With additional funding, "we" would
replicate some of that for these targeted felons.
Number 2066
MS. BROWER pointed out the Wildwood Therapeutic Community
residential program, which opened in October at the Wildwood
Correctional Center, is one of the things that has been done
recently. This 6-to-12 month program has 42 beds and targets
chronic substance abusers. It has been very successful, and
"we're very excited about the kind of results that people are
experiencing with this population." She stated that this
program is isolated. She said:
These people are removed from the rest of the
population so that there's no mixing. There's [a]
focus on treatment all the time. This is for people
who are nearing the end of their sentence, so that
when they are released, they won't have to go back
into the general population. They can either be
released to a halfway house or the community.
MS. BROWER remarked that 42 beds are not sufficient for the 240
offenders [that the department believes will be convicted in the
first year]. So, additional resources would be needed. She
reiterated Ms. Brink's earlier comments that "we do appreciate
that Representative Rokeberg has worked with us long and hard
over this bill." She said "we" have tried to make a "good-faith
effort" in terms of what this is going to cost. However,
"anytime you do something of this magnitude and is this
important, it's not going to be inexpensive."
MS. BROWER emphasized that this is a complex fiscal note, a
"work in progress."
Number 1983
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how the permanent fund dividend
would apply to offenders, including those who only serve six
months.
MS. BROWER explained that if someone is a felon or has a third
misdemeanor, he or she does not receive a dividend for the year
that person was incarcerated. The Department of Law deals with
the treatment and cost of confinement in terms of collection.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for clarification on whether the
Department of Corrections gets that money or if it goes into the
general fund.
Ms. BROWER replied that "we" do get some [money] in terms of
program receipts. She mentioned the Receipts Supported Service,
which is money the department receives for cost of care. This
falls under the receipt services category.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there were any ways to incarcerate
people for less money such as establishing tent camps at Point
MacKenzie [Farm Program] or Palmer Correctional Center. He
said, "I know we're doing that to some extent now, ...
especially for misdemeanor crimes. Is there still a backlog of
misdemeanor DWI waiting to get in?"
MS. BROWER said she does not believe there is a backlog. She
stated that a bill passed a few years ago that required first-
and second-time DWI offenders, who are the bulk of misdemeanor
offenders, to serve their time at a halfway house. She named
electronic monitoring and level five (home confinement) as other
creative methods that are used on occasion. She said:
Those areas are being expanded to the best of our
ability. We are limited by risk factors. We still
have to be very careful in terms of assessing people's
risk to the community and the safety of them being in
the community.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what the cost of the halfway house per
day is.
MS. BROWER said $64 is the average.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there was currently something at
Palmer Correctional Center similar to tent camps.
MS. BROWER stated that tents are used in the summertime, when
the weather is more amenable to it, to assist with overcrowding.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there was a "per-day cost of
keeping somebody in one of those tents."
MS. BROWER said, "No, as far as I know it's all factored in to
the cost of ... confinement."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked:
We have a pretty big area in Point MacKenzie, that's
currently a farm with a correctional facility out
there. And Palmer has a fair amount of space around;
[there is] very little fenced in.
But I wonder if [there are] ways of possibly
incorporating into the bill some cheaper way to take
care of some [DWI offenders]. ... Frankly, I wouldn't
care if it was in the wintertime; ... you put a heater
in the tent and it will be warm. It might not be
comfortable, but for me, personally, comfort isn't
necessarily the reason people go to prison. I'd just
like to maybe explore some ideas to try to make the
food a little worse than certain airlines which is
(indisc.) getting harder to do, and look for ways to
reduce the cost of these folks [DWI offenders].
MS. BROWER stated that she appreciated Representative Ogan's
concerns and efforts. She mentioned that "we" are in the
process of "hopefully determinating" the Cleary lawsuit, which
deals with conditions of confinement. So, there are some people
who object to some of the conditions that might be imposed.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that [Cleary] was a settlement,
and at the time, the administration "rolled over."
CHAIR KOHRING said he concurred with Representative Ogan's
remarks. His only recommendation is that, "We put them all in
Palmer and keep them out of Wasilla."
CHAIR KOHRING addressed Representative Kookesh's request from
the last meeting. He had asked for information from the
sponsor, which is in the committee packet. The information
addresses the issue of forfeiture and how it is addressed in the
codes for the City [and Borough] of Juneau, the City of
Fairbanks Code, the Municipality of Anchorage Code, [and in
other states].
Number 1655
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI referred to page 28, Section 46 [of
Version P], and asked why the change was made to delete "may"
and insert "shall".
Number 1634
MS. SEITZ explained:
Under current law, it's "may," and if the state
charges, they sometimes do vehicle forfeitures and
sometimes don't. The municipal code ... in the
Municipality of Anchorage, it's a "shall". So, if
you're a second-time misdemeanor in Anchorage or in
some other city that has a vehicle forfeiture statute,
your car is forfeited. The municipal prosecutor
brought to the attention of the DUI Task Force and
others that it was kind of an interesting situation.
If you are a second-time misdemeanor in Anchorage, ...
you're forfeiting your car. But if you are a third-
time felon, you might not.
MS. SEITZ stated that this change was a [DUI] Task Force
recommendation that Representative Rokeberg agreed with.
"Shall" was put into the bill to force offenders to forfeit
their cars in order to "separate the habitual offender from the
vehicle that causes the problem." The word "shall" makes
vehicle forfeiture mandatory for the second offense, whether the
person is charged under a municipal ordinance that has a
forfeiture clause or under state law.
CHAIR KOHRING called an at-ease at 2:17 p.m.
TAPE 01-16 SIDE A
Number 0040
CHAIR KOHRING called the meeting back to order at 2:19 p.m.
Number 0044
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if there was a representative from
the Department of Health & Social Services. She then asked
[Robert Buttcane, Division of Juvenile Justice, and Ernie
Turner, Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse] if currently DWI
offenders are offered less time if they go through a treatment
center, and if they have an option of just serving time and not
receiving treatment. She remarked that this bill requires that
[treatment] be a mandatory referral and that she was curious
about what the current conditions are.
[Mr. Buttcane deferred to the Department of Law.]
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to page 9, Section 16, line 27, of
Version P, which says, "submit proof to the court or the
department that the person has met the alcoholism screening,
evaluation, referral, and program requirements of the Department
of Health and Social Services". She asked Mr. Turner if he was
going to have "anything to do with the program or the
requirements that they have to meet."
Number 0247
ERNIE TURNER, Director, Central Office, Division of Alcoholism &
Drug Abuse, Department of Health & Social Services, explained
that terms of probation are monitored through the ASAP program.
These terms are reported back to court: whether the offender
completed the terms, and if so, whether if it was through the
Alcohol Information School or treatment. In response to
Representative Masek's question regarding "serving time and not
serving time," he stated his understanding that all people have
choices, and can choose to go to prison rather than to
treatment.
Mr. TURNER went on to say that treatment is an option for
offenders if they choose. He reiterated Representative
Rokeberg's comments that there are a lot of offenders who do
look at treatment as an "easy time or a way of scamming and
getting by with something." He said going to treatment for 30
days is "no magic answer," if a 30-day treatment is imposed, but
the person needs 60 or 120 days a year. He said that ought to
be looked at.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to page 18, Section 29, line 28
[Version P], and read: "The Department of Health and Social
Services shall, by regulation, establish standards for
clinically appropriate treatment required under this
subsection." She asked what those standards would be under this
bill.
Number 0380
MR. TURNER commented that the division was audited by the
legislature a couple of years ago. He said that the division
does not have "per se" standards, but has standards that were
developed in 1974, which are used by reference. He explained
that he read Section [29] of the bill to mean that "we" would
have to establish our own clinical and program standards (which
includes clinical standards). "We" have been working on this
due to the legislative audit.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated that she had questions for the
Department of Law. She referred to earlier comments by the
sponsor and testifiers, and agreed that this is a very
complicated and thick bill. She said that she is overwhelmed
with what has been presented today. She asked Dean Guaneli,
Department of Law, the percentages of offenders who go through
the two options [prison and treatment].
Number 0563
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, said he
did not know. He commented that the administration's goal has
been to focus on identifying the needs of offenders and figuring
out the extent of their problems, to develop a treatment program
to meet those needs. He said:
Some people [offenders] are going to be really just a
social drinker who drank too much one night and who
really doesn't have a problem. There are others who
are going to have a deep-seated and long-standing
problem, and they're going to require much more in the
way of treatment.
MR. GUANELI reiterated the administration's goals of clearly
assessing a person's problems and setting up a mechanism in
which the person is encouraged or perhaps coerced to get
treatment. He said:
Exactly how that's going to occur, I think as
[Department of] Health and Social Services
representatives testified, still remains to be
determined. I think the department has got to set up
standards for programs that don't really exist now.
Our goal is to provide a better treatment regimen and
better treatment system than exists now.
Our goal has never been to necessarily ... increase
the amount of incarceration, but simply to identify
offenders ... at an early point of time, [raising the
BAC to] .08 being one of the ways to do that, and
identifying people who have deep-seated problems, and
then encouraging them to get appropriate treatment.
The way that's done usually is, the court says, for
example, with a first-time drunk driving, 72 hours is
the required mandatory minimum of punishment (3 days
in jail). But the court will usually say "Your
sentence is 30 days in jail, but I'm going to suspend
27 of those days on the condition of X, Y and Z." And
X, Y, Z is that you go to some sort of alcohol
treatment. So you are going to serve your three days
in jail. But then you're going to be required, after
that, to get assessed by the Department of Health and
Social Services, figure out what the extent of your
problem is, and based on that assessment, based on the
recommendations of the experts, you're going to be
required to go into the program that they point you
towards.
And that can be something as simple as getting
education in the effects of alcohol and what it does
to people, if you have [a] very minimal problem, or it
could be as extensive as going into an inpatient
treatment program where basically you live in a
treatment program 24 hours day and you undergo
treatment for as long as it takes. ... Once you've
been pointed to that particular type of treatment that
you need, based on your particular situation, ... the
court is going to require that you complete that and
successfully complete it. ... If you don't complete
it, then you're subject to be put in jail for a longer
period of time. That's the way it is designed to
work.
Number 0780
I think how well it works depends on ... the adequacy
of the funding of some of the Department of Health and
Social Services programs that are designed to provide
that treatment. And that's something that we need to
see as this bill moves forward, whether the funding is
going to be forthcoming. That's certainly the
administration's goal, ... to provide that mechanism
to clearly assess what the person's needs are and to
point them in the right direction and to provide some
funding to do all that.
Number 0828
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to page 18, [lines 8-10], Section
28, Version P of the bill, and read, "every provider of
treatment programs to which persons are ordered ... shall supply
the judge, prosecutor, and an agency involved in the defendant's
treatment...." She asked Mr. Guaneli to discuss this section.
MR. GUANELI explained that the sponsor and administration have
worked on this provision. He said that it is "simply a way of
guaranteeing that in order to make the best assessment of a
person's need, you really have to have access to all the past
information" on the person. Due to some programs'
confidentiality requirements, at times information will not be
released. For example, if someone has been through a 28-day
inpatient day-treatment program at a private clinic in
Anchorage, information may not be released to someone who treats
the offender later on. In short, there is a gap in information
that's available.
MR. GUANELI stated that this provision is designed to make the
information available as long as federal law and regulation do
not prohibit it. But he said:
To the extent that it's allowed under federal law, all
of the past information is available and, again, it's
to provide the best assessment of that person's past
behavior [and] past experiences in the program, so we
can point that person to the best program available.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if this is "absolutely necessary to
do," and if it has been a problem in the past.
Number 0955
MR. GUANELI replied that the experts say it has been a problem.
Some of the treatment providers complain that they don't have a
"full picture of the person's past, and so I rely on the experts
to say it has been a problem."
Number 0988
CHAIR KOHRING remarked that he has discretion to hold the bill
over, if he chooses to do so. If he made a recommendation, it
would be to not move the bill out of committee. However, he
said he wanted to hear the sentiments from the remaining
committee members. He explained that part of the reason he
called an at-ease was to discuss this matter with the sponsor
and let him know there was some concern from him and one or two
other members. However, if the consensus [of the committee] is
to move the bill, "I would certainly entertain it."
CHAIR KOHRING specified his concerns. First, he said, the
committee needs more information in regard to the DMV fiscal
note, in particular. Second, since the fiscal notes are
"relatively new" to the committee, he is not sure if members
have had a chance to review them in depth. A third concern is
the complexity of the bill. He stated that his next concern is
modifying the fiscal notes to reflect suggested changes, such as
dealing with the aggravator section that Representative Rokeberg
brought to the committee's attention. He mentioned the issue of
"up cost," the substantial nature of the fiscal note, and the
$33 million cost. He said he would like to see the fiscal note
be "much less" than the proposed $40 million.
Number 1068
CHAIR KOHRING suggested that the sponsor refine the bill to a
committee substitute or amendments, so that the committee could
revisit the bill in early March. However, he wanted to hear the
remaining committee members' thoughts.
Number 1104
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI concurred with these remarks. He stated
that many changes have been brought forth, especially with the
fiscal note. He noted that the sponsor's suggestion to amend
the "large aggravator portion of the bill" would "help move
things along." He said, "Being responsible, I'd rather do it
[changes to the bill] here, I'd rather know what we're passing
out." He then said, that if there were a big impetus to move
the bill from committee, he could support that too, although he
couldn't personally recommend it.
Number 1134
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH remarked that he had no problem holding
this bill over, especially since there are a couple of
amendments. He said he wanted Representative Kapsner to have
the opportunity to present her amendment, and holding this bill
over will enable her to do so.
CHAIR KOHRING asked Representative Rokeberg to address the House
Transportation Standing Committee's concerns and possibly give
them a compelling reason for moving the bill at this point.
Number 1154
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that this is a complex bill, but
holding it over in committee is not going to make it any
simpler. He said this bill needs work, and the proper committee
for this work is the House Judiciary Standing Committee, which
he chairs. Two of the House Transportation Standing Committee
members, Representative Kookesh and Representative Ogan, are on
that committee as well. He said he had calendared this bill for
the next House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting (the next
day), pending referral. His intention was to take testimony on
the bill, break the bill down, and have public work sessions
within the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he knows that Chair
Kohring has been a long-time member of the House Finance
Committee. However, "this is a committee system here, and the
fiscal notes are the jurisdiction of the finance committee, not
the transportation committee."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked the House Transportation Standing
Committee to adopt the "very simple" amendments that are before
them, before moving the bill. He stated that the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting room is not adequate
to accommodate all the people who want to be present for the
bill's hearing. He said that due to the break that is coming
up, he couldn't prepare a committee substitute other than
adopting the amendments that are currently before the committee.
If the bill is not moved out of the House Transportation
Standing Committee, the bill will be delayed for about ten days.
He went on to say that this bill is the "number one priority
bill of this whole entire legislature." He said:
Unless you want to establish a working subcommittee to
bring all these people in here, I don't recommend
that, when it properly should go through the committee
process and be heard and be tuned up for its final
form by the judiciary committee, where it properly
belongs. That's the jurisdiction of this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that the bill's referral to
the House Transportation Standing Committee was to deal with DMV
and other transportation issues, and to enable committee members
to become familiar with the legislation and make their
contributions to it, without (indisc.) about it. He reiterated
his request for the committee to adopt the amendments and move
the bill forward, since "we are running out of time in this
session."
Number 1316
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which
read: [original punctuation provided]
Add new section to bill as follows:
*Sec. ___. AS 28.40.100(a) is amended by
adding a new subsection to read:
(26) "controlled substance" includes a "hazardous
volatile material or substances", as defined in
AS 47.37.270(1), that has been knowingly
smelled or inhaled.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER stated that this amendment is a
friendly amendment. She said that it is very simple: it
adds inhalants [as] a controlled substance in Section 26 of
the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH commented that this change just entails
adding another definition, under this particular section of law.
Number 1417
CHAIR KOHRING announced that there being no objection, Amendment
1 was adopted.
Number 1430
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which
read:[original punctuation provided]
Page 2, line 9: After "facilities"
INSERT: ;
(7) habitual offenders do most of
the harm
Number 1442
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that this change indicates
that the "emphasis of the legislature is to get at the habitual
drunk drivers ... [because] habitual offenders do most of the
harm."
CHAIR KOHRING asked if there were any objections to Amendment 2.
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1468
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI remarked that after listening to the
sponsor's argument about working on this bill in a different
committee, perhaps the House Judiciary Standing Committee would
be a better place to make some of the changes to the bill. He
said that he still concurs with Chair Kohring's thoughts on
finance, and he would like to pass the bill with a more
definitive fiscal note. So, if the House Transportation
Standing Committee passes the bill, he would prefer it to be
passed out with personal recommendations. He said that he could
not support it [the fiscal part] right now, but he is in favor
of working on the bill in a timely manner, and therefore, he
would be in support of moving the bill out of the House
Transportation Standing Committee today.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER stated that the House Transportation
Standing Committee has addressed many of the transportation
issues in this bill. She said that she is amenable to moving
the bill out with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said he had no objections to moving the
bill out of committee.
CHAIR KOHRING remarked that he wanted to address the issue of
cost.
Number 1526
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 22, lines 20-29. He
said that deleting this section could become conceptual
Amendment 3.
Number 1540
CHAIR KOHRING made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment
(Amendment 3), which deletes subsection (q), lines 20-29,
Section 33, page 22 [Version P].
CHAIR KOHRING reiterated that this amendment would enable "us to
break down that fiscal note substantially."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that this change would decrease
the fiscal note by approximately $27 million.
CHAIR KOHRING asked him to reiterate the impact of taking this
section out.
Number 1568
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that currently [in Version P],
the aggravator provision adds a six-month minimum sentence to
someone who has a [.16] BAC. This results in a $24 million
[Department of] Corrections fiscal note. However, he reiterated
that he is not "giving up on the aggravator [portion], but we
have to find a more cost-effective way of doing it."
CHAIR KOHRING expressed his concern that the House
Transportation Standing Committee doesn't take out this
provision only for the House Judiciary Standing Committee to put
it back in with the full fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG assured Chair Kohring that there would
not be another $27 million put back into the bill.
CHAIR KOHRING asked for clarification that Representative
Rokeberg's estimation is that the net effect of this amendment
is going to be a fiscal note that is going from "roughly $33
million to approximately ... "
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said:
$8.5 million. I think there's some more room in that,
too ... We need to massage it, fine-tune the
legislation to make some adjustments, ... keeping in
mind the intent of the bill as well as the cost.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked if there were other committee
referrals beside House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the House Finance Committee.
Number 1647
CHAIR KOHRING declared that he had objections to this
legislation. He said that he is likely to give a recommendation
of "do not pass." He stated that he respects the work that is
being done but he still has concerns about the bill. He said:
I don't want to necessarily slow down the process and
impede what the task force and what you
[Representative Rokeberg] are trying to accomplish
here. I know a lot of these provisions are very
important to address the issue of drunk driving,
because we have a very serious problem. ... There's a
lot of people that put a lot of good, hard work into
this thing, and I think there are good provisions in
this bill that will be beneficial.
CHAIR KOHRING noted that he discussed his concerns earlier. But
he said, "I won't block the movement of the bill out of
committee, but I will still voice my objections to the
legislation in this kind of format."
Number 1699
CHAIR KOHRING asked if there were any objections to conceptual
Amendment 3. There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 1725
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI made a motion to move CSHB 4 [version 22-
LS0046\P, Ford, 2/16/01], as amended, from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There
being no objection, CSHB 4(TRA) moved from the House
Transportation Standing Committee.
HB 39-VEHICLE REGISTRATION/DWI/FORFEITURE
CHAIR KOHRING announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 39, "An Act relating to registration of motor
vehicles, to operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft
while intoxicated, and to driving with a cancelled, suspended,
or revoked driver's license; relating to duties of the division
of alcoholism and drug abuse regarding driving-while-intoxicated
offenses; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee, adopted at the previous hearing, was
Version F, (22-LS0201\F,Ford,2/2/01).]
Number 1761
ROGER WORTMAN, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor. He
explained that due to peculiar insurance issues as they relate
to the registration of vehicles within the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV), the sponsor requests that HB 39 pass through the
House Transportation Standing Committee and be referred to the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
CHAIR KOHRING asked if the version before the committee is the
same one presented to the House Transportation Standing
Committee a few weeks ago. He referred to it as the [watered
down] version. He also asked what the bottom-line cost of the
bill is.
MR. WORTMAN stated that the House Transportation Standing
Committee aide prepared a summary (dated 2/14/01) on the fiscal
notes for the committee substitute. He asked if this was in the
committee members' packets. He said that since he is the
"caretaker" of the bill, who sees that the bill is passed
through the various committees, he has not studied the fiscal
notes specifically. Therefore, today he could not speak
"intelligently" on the fiscal notes.
Number 1897
CHAIR KOHRING remarked that it looks like the bottom-line cost
of this bill is about "half a million, about 1,000 [in] FY 02,
down to 531 five years out." He said that he was not in the
position to explain this either. He mentioned that it would
have been helpful if the sponsor [Representative Kott] were
here.
MR. WORTMAN commented that the fiscal note is not the issue
here. He reiterated that there are peculiar insurance issues
that need to be referred to the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee. He mentioned that after this was resolved,
the bill could be re-referred back to the House Transportation
Standing Committee. At this time, this is the sponsor's intent.
He reiterated that he was not prepared to discuss the breakdown
of the fiscal note.
CHAIR KOHRING remarked that it gives him "a source of great
discomfort" to have a fiscal note that cannot be explained. He
suggested that the department representatives who prepared the
fiscal notes and are impacted by this could address the notes.
However, this might take time, and "we are already seven minutes
before the conclusion of this meeting."
Number 1972
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Corrections, explained that the Department of
Corrections submitted a fiscal note [on Version F] for a total
of $286.2 [thousand] a year. This amount is for supplementing
current contracts for institutional substance-abuse treatment
programs. The department's current contracts, for funding of
treatment programs, have not been supplemented since 1993.
Therefore, [the department] has lost some valuable assets,
because the contracts cannot be maintained at the current level.
MS. BROWER stated that actually, this increment was in the
governor's budget. She said that if the fiscal note were
submitted now, it would have probably been a zero fiscal note.
However, "we" have been instructed to show our costs even though
it was in the governor's budget. Due to the provision in
Version F that allows people to "receive treatment while
incarcerated at their discretion," the department wanted to be
able to maintain the current level of treatment. The $286.l2
[thousand] amount would provide that.
CHAIR KOHRING pointed out that the other fiscal note is from the
DMV.
Number 2077
MARY MARSHBURN, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration, said that the current system
within the State of Alaska is self-certification of insurance,
which means, "Before you register a vehicle, you need to
certify." This [Version F] proposes changing that system so
that individuals would have to provide physical proof of
insurance, by showing a policy or insurance card. This would
affect the ways DMV registers vehicles. Currently, vehicles can
be registered through partners, over the Internet, by telephone,
by mail, and in [person at the] office. The costs envisioned in
the fiscal note include the fact that the Internet and telephone
transactions would most likely have to be discontinued, and in
return, these transactions would come into "our "office.
MS. MARSHBURN explained that an additional level of staffing is
required for these 30,000 transactions. Time for in-office
transactions would increase because people will need to bring in
proof [of insurance]. Dealers and I/M [emission inspection]
vendors would be required to view the proof of insurance before
they complete a sale or before one could get an I/M [emission]
inspection done in Anchorage or Fairbanks, where the bulk of
transactions are. She went on to say:
If dealers chose to discontinue their partnership with
"us" because it presents them with delay or inability
to complete transactions, then these transactions
again revert to DMV. I think the guts of this issue,
for DMV, is that offering proof of insurance really
does nothing, ... in our view, ... to decrease the
uninsured drivers.
MS. MARSHBURN referred to testimony that she gave last week
regarding her car insurance. She reiterated that she has
insurance through USAA. Her insurance card, which she keeps in
the glove compartment of her car, states that she is covered
through 12/31/01. However, she said her premium is only paid
through the end of March. So, even though the intent of the
provision is admirable, it adds additional work and "takes us
back in venues, at a significant cost."
Number 2205
CHAIR KOHRING asked if the committee cared to give him any
direction, and if the consensus was to hold the bill over. He
said that based on Ms. Marshburn's testimony, it appears that
there are substantial costs [with this bill]. He added, "We may
not be achieving our goal here. It's not really going to have
the impact that it intended, and that could be a wrong analysis
.... "
Number 2269
MR. WORTMAN reiterated the sponsor's request to move this bill
to the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee because that
committee deals with other insurance issues. The sponsor's
intent within the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee,
of which he is a member, is to discuss the possibility of
dealing with insurance companies to "brunt a portion of this
cost" down from the DMV.
CHAIR KOHRING replied that he would "hate to act in haste
especially when we're dealing with over a half-million dollars."
He recognized Representative Kott's intent and said, "It would
be a good enhancement to what Representative Rokeberg did."
However, he still has concerns about the expenditure. He said,
"I don't want to look like a committee that's spending money
like a bunch of drunken sailors. We just got through passing a
bill that has a price tag of 8 million bucks on it."
MR. WORTMAN reiterated that the sponsor's intent was to "grapple
this thing" in the committee [House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee] and lower the fiscal note. He believes that once
this bill is "grappled" with and the insurance companies come
"online," the fiscal note will be lowered, if "they would empty
it and, indeed, absorb some costs of this tracking that Ms.
Marshburn is talking about."
CHAIR KOHRING asked what the will of the committee was.
Number 2298
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that he does not have a problem with
passing this bill out with personal recommendations. At this
point, he can't support either of the bills [HB 4 and HB 39].
However, the focus of the House Transportation Standing
Committee is transportation issues. He said that with the
"other bill," the fiscal note should probably be addressed in
other committees. As long as our recommendations show that, his
comfort level is satisfied with an [individual] recommendation
of "do not pass."
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said, "I don't think we can do anything
more on this bill; I'd like to move it out."
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated that this bill has been scheduled a
few times, and that it should go to the next committee.
Number 2344
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move CSHB 39 [Version 22-
LS0201\F, Ford, 2/2/01], from the committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no
objections, CSHB 39(TRA) moved from the House Transportation
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|