Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/05/2013 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB24 | |
| HB52 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| HB 52 | |||
| HB 24 | |||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 5, 2013
9:12 a.m.
9:12:04 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:12 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman; Rex Shattuck, Staff,
Representative Mark Neuman; Michael Paschall, Staff,
Representative Eric Feige; Dan DeBartolo, Division
Director, Permanent Fund Division, Department of Natural
Resources.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Joshua Decker, ACLU of Alaska, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
CSHB 24 (JUD) SELF DEFENSE
CSHB 24 (JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with four
previously published zero fiscal notes: FN1(ADM),
FN2(ADM), FN3(LAW), and FN4(DPS).
HB 52 PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCE
HB 52 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 24(JUD)
"An Act relating to self-defense in any place where a
person has a right to be."
9:14:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, introduced HB 24 and explained
that it addressed concerns from Alaskans related to self-
defense. The bill allowed people the right to use deadly
force to protect themselves or their family members. He
pointed out language on page 2, line 3 stating "in any
other place where a person has a right to be." He expressed
concern with the statute's statement that a person had the
duty to retreat in a self-defense situation. The statute's
justification clauses would not be altered. He mentioned
past discussion regarding gang violence, alcohol abuse,
sexual assaults. The bill's purpose was to add the language
"any place where you have the right to be." He pointed out
that the House Judiciary Committee added the word "other"
following a discussion that a person already had the right
to self-defense if in a home, residence or place of
business. He mentioned a letter sent from the Attorney
General regarding the bill and his opinion that the rights
of Alaskans should not be put before the rights of the
courts.
9:17:59 AM
Senator Dunleavy stated that the bill was self-explanatory.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that a lot of time was spent with the
bill in the judiciary committee. He understood that the
bill was introduced last year and wondered where the bill
died. Representative Neuman replied that the bill died in
the Senate Finance Committee.
9:18:42 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the judiciary committee's concerns
had been addressed. Representative Neuman responded that
the judiciary committee reviewed the legislation
extensively and passed the bill.
9:18:57 AM
Senator Olson noted that Connecticut passed multiple laws
on gun control following a school shooting. He wondered how
Alaska could justify an opposite course. Representative
Neuman responded that the issue was one of self-defense and
Alaskans supported the concept. He noted that Alaska laws
currently allowed the use of deadly force to protect in the
event of an incident. The difference presented in the
legislation is the opportunity to protect oneself prior to
an incident.
9:20:19 AM
Senator Olson understood that the law allowed one to use
deadly force when in the home. He interpreted that HB 24
allowed the use of deadly force outside of the home.
Representative Neuman answered in the affirmative, HB 24
allowed the same rights anywhere a person had a right to be
in Alaska. He repeated that the justification clauses would
remain unchanged.
9:20:53 AM
Senator Olson stated a great difference between being in
one's home versus elsewhere. He inquired how one might
justify the use of deadly force outside of the home.
Representative Neuman responded that he justified the right
for Alaskans to protect themselves. He mentioned court
cases where defense attorneys claimed that the criminals
were innocent because the victimized Alaskan did not do
everything possible to retreat. The rights that Alaskans
had to protect themselves in their homes ought to extend to
areas outside of the home.
9:22:31 AM
Senator Dunleavy noted that the issue addressed self-
defense rather than guns. He provided a hypothetical
scenario and noted that self-defense might include using a
gun, knife or even a rock.
9:23:09 AM
Co-Chair Kelly inquired about the letter from the Attorney
General.
9:23:22 AM
REX SHATTUCK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, clarified
that the Attorney General's letter mentioned by
Representative Neuman was drafted for last session's
version of the bill, HB 80.
9:23:42 AM
Senator Hoffman inquired how it would be interpreted if a
person protecting themselves was breaking another law with
a concealed weapon. Representative Neuman replied that the
current Alaska laws did not require a person to have a
concealed weapons permit. He added that the justification
clause addressed the issue.
9:24:46 AM
Senator Bishop assumed that the Attorney General's opinion
was still good today. Representative Neuman responded that
the only difference between HB 80 and HB 24 was the
addition of the word "other" by the judiciary committee.
9:25:32 AM
JOSHUA DECKER, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) OF
ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference) testified against HB
24. He explained that the bill did not address the self-
defense doctrine. Alaskans always had the right to use
deadly force when threatened with imminent injury. He
explained that HB 24 lowered the duty to retreat. If the
bill was enacted, then where ever an Alaskan had a legal
right to be would not require retreat prior to using deadly
force. He stated that written testimony was provided to
committee members listing multiple examples where retreat
was possible, but would not be required under HB 24. He
stated ACLU's position that the bill would not increase
safety for Alaskans.
9:27:25 AM
Senator Olson noted that anyone with a knife could kill as
fast as a gun and inquired why a person would not wish to
be ready to shoot when threatened with a knife. Mr. Decker
agreed and stated that the law allowed a person faced with
that threat to use deadly force. The difference with HB 24
was that a person could shoot a person holding a knife who
was standing one block away. With that distance, a person
could safely retreat.
9:28:29 AM
Senator Olson noted that if he was threatened with a knife,
his thoughts were not on retreating, but were on protecting
his family if the offender was a "stone's throw" away. Mr.
Decker replied that if an offender were a stone's throw
away, then current law would allow a person to use deadly
force to protect themselves. He stated that his letter
cited an example in Houston Texas where a similar law
increased gun play. He referenced the letters of support in
the packet.
9:30:27 AM
Senator Olson interjected that he had a different opinion.
He did not wish for a person to incur large legal bills
because they were threatened.
9:31:00 AM
Co-Chair Kelly recalled an article about police training
and stated that a person with a knife who was 20 feet away
would be able to kill someone before he was able to draw a
gun. He derived from the article that the zone around a
person that required protection was larger than expected.
He disagreed with opinions expressed by ACLU attorneys.
9:32:09 AM
Senator Dunleavy opined that there was an assumption in Mr.
Decker's statement that everyone was fit enough to run
away. He noted that a handicapped person would not be able
to outrun an attacker. An elderly person might also have
difficulty retreating.
9:33:38 AM
Representative Neuman stated that in the cases that Mr.
Decker was referring, it would not have been legal to use
deadly force because of Alaska's justification clauses. He
added that line 6 and 7 of the bill ensured that a person
must believe that the use of deadly force was necessary.
9:35:02 AM
Mr. Shattuck stated that the bill addressed self-defense.
In each case, the Attorney General would be obligated to
review the case and a jury would determine whether self-
defense was utilized in accordance with the law.
9:36:12 AM
Representative Neuman recalled that Commissioner Masters
from Department of Public Safety testified that the bill
would not change the department's investigation process. He
added that testimony from Department of Law stated that the
process would remain the same regarding prosecution.
9:37:26 AM
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony. He observed that
the bill had a zero fiscal note and wondered why the bill
came to finance. He trusted the judiciary committee and he
supported the bill.
9:38:06 AM
AT EASE
9:38:51 AM
RECONVENED
9:38:54 AM
Senator Olson inquired what would happen if a person shot
someone on their porch after receiving a complaint about
loud noise. He queried how the bill would deal with that
situation. Representative Neuman replied that the neighbor
who approached the porch with the complaint would be
considered an initial aggressor under the justification
clauses. If the person listening to the loud music felt
threatened, then he would be able to protect himself under
current Alaska law.
9:40:22 AM
Co-Chair Kelly understood that the current statute defined
the person complaining about the music as the aggressor.
9:40:30 AM
Senator Bishop noted that he did not oppose the bill, but
that he respected the comments of those who did. He noted
that it was big decision to take a person's life and that
he would do anything personally to retreat rather than
taking someone's life. He disagreed that gun play would
increase or be encouraged as a result of the bill.
9:42:14 AM
Senator Dunleavy clarified that the bill was not a gun
bill. The bill simply allowed Alaskans to feel safe
protecting themselves against aggressors, no matter where
they were.
9:43:01 AM
Senator Olson queried a hypothetical question about hunters
trespassing on someone's property and the property owner
shooting the hunters. He inquired how the bill would deal
with that scenario. Representative Neuman responded that
the bill would still be prosecuting in the same way. He
observed that under the hunting scenario, the property
owner would not be reasonable in thinking that his life was
in danger.
9:45:19 AM
Senator Olson noted that in this particular situation, one
boy was killed and the other was paralyzed. He inquired if
the bill would protect the shooter. Representative Neuman
responded no because the shooter could not prove that he
thought his life was in danger.
9:46:00 AM
Co-Chair Kelly stated that the bill was a "collapsed"
version of the statutes. The statutes did not allow the
aggressor to shoot a person that was trying to get away.
9:46:45 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT CSHB 24 (JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
9:47:08 AM
HB 24 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with four previously published zero
fiscal notes: FN1(ADM), FN2(ADM), FN3(LAW), and FN4(DPS).
9:47:10 AM
AT EASE
9:51:43 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 52 am
"An Act relating to allowable absences from the state
for purposes of eligibility for permanent fund
dividends; and providing for an effective date."
9:51:43 AM
MICHAEL PASCHALL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ERIC FEIGE, stated
that the bill was introduced as an outfall of a provision
in the allowable absences pertaining to the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD). The provision created a situation where
members of congress and their staff were allowed to keep
their PFD on an allowable absence for longer than ten
years. He mentioned that military members were sometimes
denied their PFD because of the 10-year rule. The
individuals working in Washington DC and those in the
military were representing the state while serving their
country.
Mr. Paschall commented that the bill removed the 10-year
rule from statute, which opened the eligibility to
approximately 100 people. He mentioned that the existing
regulations used by the division were sometimes bypassed
with a justifiable excuse, but when in statute, the
division was bound. The bill created a provision allowing
an individual to be absent for less than five years with
documentation of an allowable absence. Examples of
allowable absences were accredited educational institution,
military, staff or staff of congress and Peace Corps.
During the period of time the individual must return to the
state for a consecutive 72 hours every two years. Following
the fifth year, a person must prove they were in the state
for 30 cumulative days over the previous five years and
provide proof of residency for purposes of a PFD.
9:56:41 AM
Mr. Paschall shared that there was an outline of criteria
in the bill used to evaluate the intent to return. The
criteria included a measurement of the length of time away
from the state versus the length of time that the
individual was present in the state along with the
frequency and duration of voluntary return trips to the
state during the past five years. Always in the preceding
five years, the individual must be in the state for a
cumulative of 30 days. He added the criteria of owning a
home in Alaska, payment of resident taxes, registration of
a vehicle, voter registration and history, driver's
license, business license or professional license and
receipt of benefits under a claim of residency in the state
or other jurisdiction. The hope was for an objective
scoring system based upon the length of absence to help
make the determination. The final criterion was the
priority given by the individual to the state on an
employment assignment preference list. He provided an
example in military service when a member requested a
location for service.
10:00:24 AM
Mr. Paschall explained the zero fiscal note. He shared that
the allotment of the dividend was based upon the
performance of the fund. The dividend amount was calculated
as a total number based upon the fund's performance. The
number of eligible individuals did not have impact on the
how much the state dispersed as part of the PFD. The
division would not alter their staff because the same
investigative staff would continue to inspect applications.
10:01:50 AM
Co-Chair Meyer opined that more division time would be
spent in the investigation process. He remarked that
multiple exceptions could result in a significant financial
impact to the PFD and further changes would continue to
add-up. He agreed that the military personnel were valuable
and should be held harmless.
10:02:22 AM
Senator Bishop surmised that the division must develop the
objective scoring system. Mr. Paschall replied that
guidelines within the division provided the opportunity to
develop new regulations to implement the legislature's
requests. The opportunity was available to create a more
objective scoring system than the one currently in place.
He provided an example of an applicant and noted that an
individual who had lived in Alaska during their youth would
score higher than an individual who had lived in Alaska for
a brief time.
10:04:15 AM
Senator Bishop asked if section 2 identified the scoring
system needs. Mr. Paschall deferred the question to the
division director. He knew that many discussions regarding
the scoring system had occurred, but he was unsure about
the amount of time that the division spent on the process.
10:04:51 AM
Senator Olson stressed that he had great respect for
military service. He wondered how to ensure that the
exceptions would not take time or resources from the state.
Mr. Paschall explained that there was no change in the
definition of an "allowable absence." The justification
would be mandatory for those who were not returning to the
state after the five years. The provision changed in the
legislation addressed the tenth year. The current
guidelines would be tightened up after the sixth year with
the legislation.
10:07:30 AM
Senator Olson stressed that the division would spend
additional time investigating the applications and
allowable absences. He questioned the zero fiscal note. Mr.
Paschall deferred the question to the division director.
10:08:41 AM
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
10:08:53 AM
DAN DEBARTOLO, DIVISION DIRECTOR, PERMANENT FUND DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES testified that both the ten
and the five year rules were in place. He stated that the
average technician spent an average of eight to ten hours
on the discussed cases. If the ten-year rule was eliminated
the technicians no longer had that responsibility. He noted
that the five year rule was in regulation with "soft"
language. The division opined that moving the regulation
into statute provided a more powerful statement. If a
person did not return to the state for a cumulative of 30
days over the five years, the action demonstrated that they
did not intend to return.
10:11:30 AM
Senator Olson expressed satisfaction with the answer.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that there was a proposed amendment.
10:12:10 AM
AT EASE
10:13:47 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Fairclough stated that she had reviewed the
Alaska State Statutes. She related that the amendment
proposed another exemption by inserting "or a United States
national team for an Olympic sport." She pointed out that
exemption 15 in AS 43.23.08 stated that "because of
training or competing as a member of the United States
Olympic team," which covered her concerns. Mr. Debartolo
responded that that the division's interpretation was that
the individual was a selected Olympic team member, but not
one selected for the national team.
10:15:38 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough observed that the department had
inappropriately interpreted the intent of the legislature.
She proposed review of her amendment.
10:16:02 AM
Co-Chair Kelly requested an explanation of the department's
interpretation. Mr. DeBartolo replied that the division's
interpretation of the legislation was that a "member of the
United States Olympic team" had been selected for the team
and was on the team while the games were in play. The
division did not consider a person who was part of the
United States National team a member of the Olympic team.
10:17:02 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wished to investigate the matter
further. She understood the division's distinction, but
wondered if the amendment would be considered "friendly" by
the sponsor.
10:17:34 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the sponsor agreed with the
amendment. Mr. Paschall replied in the affirmative.
10:17:45 AM
Senator Hoffman cited section 2, "an individual may rebut
this presumption by providing clear and convincing evidence
to the department." He pointed out line 29 number 4,
"additional items that can be used for rebuttal." He called
into question registration of a vehicle, voting history,
and driver's license. He asked if a person who could prove
that they had a registered vehicle outside of the state or
was registered to vote or licensed to drive outside of the
state would be ineligible for the PFD under the proposed
legislation. Mr. Debartolo noted that taking steps to
register to vote outside of the state was typically
considered a "severing action," which could affect one's
eligibility determination. College students were encouraged
to vote absentee for that purpose.
10:19:56 AM
Senator Hoffman inquired what circumstances would allow
someone to get a dividend when they had a registered
vehicle or voter registration or driver's license from
another state. Mr. Debartolo replied that there were few
circumstances where a person could receive a dividend under
the stated circumstances.
10:20:46 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired when the state might expect
to hit a tipping point. She observed 17 different
exceptions to the original residency requirements and
Alaskan's were losing money in their dividends as a result.
Mr. Paschall replied that many different options were
available. The sponsor chose to address only the issue of
treating individuals differently at ten years. The state
Supreme Court stated that economic protection under the
equal protection clause placed the change at the least
scrutiny. He did not feel that the state was close to a
tipping point. While he did not object to the amendment, it
did add another opening that fell outside of the bill's
intentions.
10:23:39 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough stated that she would like to hear
from the legislative legal department. She wondered where
the hurdle was for those who would not testify and who
expand in their generosity to share with others being
disenfranchised by access to that resource. She wondered if
a higher hurdle for access to the PFD would be a wise
decision.
10:25:05 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that Vice-Chair Fairclough brought up
a good point and that permanent fund had been around since
1981 with 17 exceptions made. He opined that the military
personnel were important as members of Congress and their
staff, but felt that Vice-Chair Fairclough's concerns
warranted attention.
10:26:07 AM
Senator Hoffman related a hypothetical scenario. He
inquired if a minor could reapply for a dividend in cases
where a parent neglected to submit their application. He
noted that minors were at the mercy of their parents
regarding filing for a PFD. Mr. DeBartolo responded that a
provision existed for a child that did not receive a
dividend. Filing for prior dividends could occur between
their 18th and 20th birthday. Eligibility was then reviewed
by the division staff.
10:28:39 AM
Co-Chair Meyer appreciated the questions brought forth by
the committee.
Senator Hoffman inquired how many minors fell into the
category described. Mr. DeBartolo offered to provide the
data to Senator Hoffman.
10:29:42 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if the example that Senator
Hoffman had defined was in regulation or statute. Mr.
DeBartolo responded that the provision for an 18 year old
to reapply for their missed dividends was in statute.
10:30:47 AM
HB 52 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:31:04 AM
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 52 28-LS0170A PFD Allowable Absences.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Amended Sectional Analysis 28-LS0170AA.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Comparison 28-LS0170AA to 28-LS0170A.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 PFD Allowable Absences Presentation.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 PFD Select Regulations.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 PFD Select Statutes.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Sponsor Statement PFD Allowable Absence.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Support Letter Ross.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52am 28-LS0170AA PFD Allowable Absences.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 24 Additional Statutes AS 11 81 340 & 350 3rd Party & Property.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 24 |
| HB 24 Related Statues on deadly and nondeadly force.docx |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 24 |
| HB 24 Sponsor Statement.docx |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 24 |