Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532

05/04/2019 09:00 AM FINANCE

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled: TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 74(FIN) Out of Committee
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
                 SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                        May 4, 2019                                                                                             
                         9:06 a.m.                                                                                              
9:06:07 AM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair  von  Imhof  called the  Senate  Finance  Committee                                                                    
meeting to order at 9:06 a.m.                                                                                                   
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Co-Chair                                                                                             
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair                                                                                                  
Senator Click Bishop                                                                                                            
Senator Lyman Hoffman                                                                                                           
Senator Peter Micciche                                                                                                          
Senator Donny Olson                                                                                                             
Senator Mike Shower [attending via teleconference]                                                                              
Senator Bill Wielechowski                                                                                                       
Senator David Wilson                                                                                                            
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Senator Cathy  Giessel; Senator  Mia Costello;  Senator Lora                                                                    
Reinbold;  Alexei  Painter,   Analyst,  Legislative  Finance                                                                    
Division;  Juli Lucky,  Staff,  Senator  Natasha von  Imhof;                                                                    
Representative  John Lincoln,  Sponsor;  Rose Foley,  Staff,                                                                    
Representative  John   Lincoln;  John   Skidmore,  Director,                                                                    
Criminal Division, Department of Law.                                                                                           
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
Jaenell Manchester, 49th  Rising, Fairbanks; Beth Goldstein,                                                                    
Acting  Public   Defender,  Department   of  Administration;                                                                    
Chrissy  Vogeley,  Community  Relations Manager,  Office  of                                                                    
Children   Services,  Department   of   Health  and   Social                                                                    
SB 35     CRIMES;SEX CRIMES;SENTENCING; PAROLE                                                                                  
          SB 35 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                     
SB 74     INTERNET FOR SCHOOLS                                                                                                  
          CSSB 74(FIN) was REPORTED out  of committee with a                                                                    
          "do pass"  recommendation and with one  new fiscal                                                                    
          impact note  from the Department of  Education and                                                                    
          Early Development.                                                                                                    
CSHB 14(FIN)                                                                                                                    
          ASSAULT; SEX OFFENSES; SENT. AGGRAVATOR                                                                               
          CSHB 14(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for                                                                      
          further consideration.                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 74                                                                                                            
     "An Act relating to funding for Internet services for                                                                      
     school districts."                                                                                                         
9:07:01 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair von Imhof relayed that  the committee had heard the                                                                    
bill  on  April  24,  2019.   Her  office  had  received  no                                                                    
amendments from committee  members, however, the Legislative                                                                    
Finance Division (LFD) had raised several concerns.                                                                             
9:07:46 AM                                                                                                                    
ALEXEI  PAINTER,  ANALYST,   LEGISLATIVE  FINANCE  DIVISION,                                                                    
discussed the  changes to  the bill.  He explained  that the                                                                    
federal disparity  test functioned to determine  whether the                                                                    
state could deduct federal impact  aid from its share of the                                                                    
foundation   formula   for   education,  which   was   worth                                                                    
approximately $80  million to  $90 million  per year  to the                                                                    
state.  He said  that  the  ability to  deduct  the aid  was                                                                    
contingent  on  passing the  disparity  test  each year.  He                                                                    
shared that  the test compared the  highest funded districts                                                                    
in the  state to the lowest  funded; the  E-rate  money from                                                                    
the federal  government was  counted in  the test,  the bill                                                                    
would greatly  increase E-rate funding in  certain districts                                                                    
already  at  the  top  of  the  test  list.  The  qualifying                                                                    
percentage for  funding was  25 percent  and passage  of the                                                                    
bill would  raise the  percentage in  those districts  to 40                                                                    
percent causing them to fail the disparity test.                                                                                
Mr.  Painter  stated  that  a  possible  solution  had  been                                                                    
discussed  with  the  Department   of  Education  and  Early                                                                    
Development (DEED)  but was contingent on  federal approval.                                                                    
The department had requested to  exclude e-rate funding from                                                                    
inclusion  in the  disparity  test  but had  yet  to hear  a                                                                    
response  from the  federal government.  In the  interest of                                                                    
time, a  conditional effective  date had  been added  to the                                                                    
bill; the  bill would only  come into effect if  the federal                                                                    
government approved  the request to exclude  E-rate from the                                                                    
federal disparity test.                                                                                                         
9:10:19 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stedman  asked for  a more  definitive explanation.                                                                    
He understood the  general nature of the  disparity test but                                                                    
wanted more detail about the potential funding imbalance.                                                                       
Mr.  Painter   detailed  that  the  disparity   test  was  a                                                                    
comparison for  school districts based on  the average daily                                                                    
membership. He furthered that based  on state funding, there                                                                    
would  not  be  a  disparity; however  local  funding  could                                                                    
potentially breach  the 23 percent  cap and raise  the total                                                                    
disparity above 25 percent. Since  E-rate funds fell outside                                                                    
of the  funding cap and  was concentrated in  few districts,                                                                    
those districts  would rise to  the top, beyond  25 percent.                                                                    
The top  school that was  the cutoff  in 2018 was  the Lower                                                                    
Kuskokwim, which  was a district  that did not have  a local                                                                    
contribution and  would normally  not be at  the top  of the                                                                    
list, but  they receive  a disproportioned amount  of E-rate                                                                    
funding. The department projection  showed that the district                                                                    
would rise  too high  to pass the  disparity test.  He noted                                                                    
the other small  districts received E-rate money  but not to                                                                    
the scale of some of the districts in Western Alaska.                                                                           
9:12:42 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair von  Imhof asked  about the  effective date  of the                                                                    
bill  being  contingent  upon  agreement  with  the  federal                                                                    
government. She asked  whether there was a cut  off date for                                                                    
implementation of the bill.                                                                                                     
Mr.  Painter  informed  that  there was  a  cutoff  date  of                                                                    
January 1, 2020.  The date would give districts  a chance to                                                                    
apply for FY 2021.                                                                                                              
9:13:34 AM                                                                                                                    
JULI  LUCKY, STAFF,  SENATOR  NATASHA  VON IMHOF,  explained                                                                    
that  the changes  in the  CS  would not  change the  fiscal                                                                    
note, unless  the federal government  failed to  approve the                                                                    
states   request.   She  commented   that  there   had  been                                                                    
confusion  about the  e-rate program  at previous  meetings.                                                                    
She clarified  that the federal program  subsidized internet                                                                    
service only,  and did not  provide for  infrastructure, all                                                                    
remaining  yearly  funds  were  returned.  She  shared  that                                                                    
burden   was   shared   between  the   federal   and   state                                                                    
governments; the E-rate was the  federal program and the BAG                                                                    
Program was the  state program. The BAG  program allowed the                                                                    
state to  help districts  that could  not reach  the minimum                                                                    
number  of megabits  specified under  current law.  The bill                                                                    
would change the minimum amount  form 10 megabits per second                                                                    
to 25 megabits  per second, which would  increase the number                                                                    
of eligible schools.  She clarified that the  bill would not                                                                    
put  infrastructure  in  schools. She  reiterated  that  the                                                                    
money was  applied for annually  and was given  to districts                                                                    
on a monthly basis to pay  for service, any unused money was                                                                    
returned to the state at the end of the year.                                                                                   
9:16:18 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair   Stedman  MOVED   to   ADOPT  proposed   committee                                                                    
substitute  for SB  74,  Work  Draft 31-LS0600\K  (Caouette,                                                                    
5/1/19). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                           
Co-Chair  Stedman  MOVED  to  report  CSSB  74(FIN)  out  of                                                                    
Committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal  note. There being NO  OBJECTION, it was                                                                    
so ordered.                                                                                                                     
CSSB 74(FIN) was REPORTED out  of committee with a "do pass"                                                                    
recommendation and with one new  fiscal impact note from the                                                                    
Department of Education and Early Development.                                                                                  
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 14(FIN)                                                                                                 
     "An  Act  relating  to assault  in  the  first  degree;                                                                    
     relating  to  harassment;  relating  to  sex  offenses;                                                                    
     relating to  the definition of  'dangerous instrument';                                                                    
     providing for  an aggravating factor at  sentencing for                                                                    
     strangulation   that    results   in   unconsciousness;                                                                    
     relating to the duties of the prosecuting attorney;                                                                        
     and relating to victim notifications."                                                                                     
9:17:40 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair von Imhof  stated that the committee  had heard the                                                                    
senate finance  version of  the bill on  March 11,  2019, at                                                                    
which time  public testimony was  taken. She said  that like                                                                    
SB  12, HB  14 sought  to close  a loophole  in the  states                                                                     
criminal statutes that  had allowed an assailant  to go free                                                                    
when  he  should  have  served  time.  The  law,  when  read                                                                    
literally,  was  unable  to  be  applied  to  the  egregious                                                                    
9:18:57 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN  LINCOLN, SPONSOR, stated that  the bill                                                                    
would address issues  with the current law that  had come to                                                                    
light in 2018  when a man strangled a woman  to the point of                                                                    
unconsciousness and  then sexually  assaulted her.  The bill                                                                    
would define  the strangulation or suffocation  to the point                                                                    
of  unconsciousness as  first degree  assault and  would add                                                                    
the behavior  to the list  of aggravators for  sentencing in                                                                    
other  crimes.  Additionally,  the  bill  would  expand  the                                                                    
statutory definition of  sexual  contact  to include forcing                                                                    
someone  to  come  into contact  with  ejaculate  and  would                                                                    
expand victim  notification laws  so that all  victims would                                                                    
be notified versus only felony sex crimes.                                                                                      
9:20:11 AM                                                                                                                    
ROSE  FOLEY, STAFF,  REPRESENTATIVE JOHN  LINCOLN, discussed                                                                    
the differences  between the current  versions of SB  12 and                                                                    
HB 14. HB 14 used the  term  ejaculate  while SB 12 referred                                                                    
to fluid  as  semen.  SB 12  investigated sentencing through                                                                    
sentence enhancement, while HB  14 created an aggravator for                                                                    
strangulation. She  said that credit  for time  served under                                                                    
electronic  monitoring was  eliminated under  SB 12  but was                                                                    
not  mentioned in  HB  14.  She concluded  the  HB 14  first                                                                    
provided  notification  to all  victims  of  sex crimes  and                                                                    
allowed the court to reschedule  a plea hearing to allow the                                                                    
court to comply with notification requirements.                                                                                 
9:21:13 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair von  Imhof recalled that Senator  Olson had brought                                                                    
up  a  concern  in  a previous  meeting  that  pertained  to                                                                    
whether  victim  notification  requirements  regarding  plea                                                                    
agreement  struck a  balance between  ensuring that  victims                                                                    
were included,  without putting additional pressure  on them                                                                    
to participate against their wishes.                                                                                            
Ms.  Foley directed  attention to  Page  9, line  13 of  the                                                                    
bill, which specified that there  was no requirement for the                                                                    
victim, or their legal guardian,  to provide a response to a                                                                    
prosecuting  attorney  regarding  a  plea  agreement.  If  a                                                                    
victim did  not wish  to be part  of the  legal proceedings,                                                                    
there was no requirement that  they participate or provide a                                                                    
response. The  Alaska Network  Domestic Violence  and Sexual                                                                    
Assault   had   requested   stronger   victim   notification                                                                    
language, the  sponsor had worked  with that agency  as well                                                                    
as the courts to craft  that language. Department of Law had                                                                    
raised concerns with earlier language  in the bill requiring                                                                    
the   prosecuting   attorney   to  state   in   court   what                                                                    
notification  attempts  had  been  made  with  victims.  The                                                                    
concern had  been that this  would provide  information with                                                                    
the defense, if the victim  could not be located, that could                                                                    
be detrimental to the victim's  case during the early stages                                                                    
of a plea agreement.                                                                                                            
9:22:55 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  von Imhof  asked Senator  Micciche  to comment  on                                                                    
victim notification component.                                                                                                  
Senator  Micciche  said that  the  language  in the  CS  was                                                                    
identical to his original bill.  He stressed that there were                                                                    
no  expectations that  the victim  would be  required to  do                                                                    
anything.  However, he  reminded  the  committee that  Judge                                                                    
Michael Corey, who ruled in  the Schneider case that birthed                                                                    
the legislation, had testified  that requiring the victim to                                                                    
testify could  had resulted in  a stronger sentence  for the                                                                    
perpetrator. He supported the current language in the CS.                                                                       
9:24:41 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator Micciche noted that the  sponsor had been remarkable                                                                    
to work with.                                                                                                                   
9:25:40 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair   von  Imhof   invited  John   Skidmore  from   the                                                                    
Department of Law to the table for questions.                                                                                   
9:27:02 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator Wielechowski  asked whether Department of  Law had a                                                                    
position on the bill.                                                                                                           
JOHN  SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR,  CRIMINAL DIVISION,  DEPARTMENT OF                                                                    
LAW, explained that LAW supported  the bill. The legislation                                                                    
contained some  concepts originally found in  the governors                                                                     
suite of proposed crime bills.                                                                                                  
9:27:38 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Wielechowski asked  Mr.  Skidmore  to describe  the                                                                    
difference between a special  circumstance in sentencing and                                                                    
an aggravator.                                                                                                                  
Mr.  Skidmore  explained  that  a  special  circumstance  in                                                                    
sentencing,  which  was   specifically  listed  in  statute,                                                                    
controlled the presumptive range  that a court would impose.                                                                    
An  aggravator was  a legal  tool  that allowed  a judge  to                                                                    
increase  a  sentence above  the  presumptive  range if  the                                                                    
court deemed appropriate.                                                                                                       
9:28:38 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Wielechowski referenced  page 8,  section 6  of the                                                                    
bill, which pertained to a  recording when asking victims or                                                                    
victims  guardians whether they  agreed with a proposed plea                                                                    
agreement. He  wondered whether this could  force victims to                                                                    
be questioned by a defendant.                                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore  answered "no." The  bill language  stated that                                                                    
the prosecuting  attorney shall make a  reasonable effort to                                                                    
confer  with  the  victim,  to  explain  the  proposed  plea                                                                    
agreement  and   then  ask  whether  they   agree  with  the                                                                    
agreement.  He  stated  that the  same  prosecutor,  or  the                                                                    
prosecutor  at  the  time   of  sentencing,  would  indicate                                                                    
whether  the victim  had  been spoken  to  and whether  they                                                                    
agreed. He  stressed that the  victim would not  be required                                                                    
to go to  court, to be subject to cross  examination, and no                                                                    
details of the conversation would be divulged.                                                                                  
9:30:35 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator Wielechowski  thought that there would  be a defense                                                                    
attorney that  would want to  hear directly from  the victim                                                                    
whether  they agreed  with the  plea  agreement. He  worried                                                                    
that this section of the bill would be challenged in court.                                                                     
Mr.  Skidmore appreciated  the question.  In his  experience                                                                    
and that  of other prosecutors dealing  with victim's rights                                                                    
provisions, he  had not seen defense  attorneys have success                                                                    
in demanding that a victim be put on the stand.                                                                                 
9:31:50 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Wilson asked  whether the  section would  allow the                                                                    
victims  agreement with  a plea deal in a  criminal case, or                                                                    
non-agreement, to be used in a civil case.                                                                                      
Mr. Skidmore  noted that he  did not practice civil  law. He                                                                    
did not  believe that agreement  or disagreement  would have                                                                    
any  bearing on  a civil  case.  He knew  that a  conviction                                                                    
could have influence  on a civil case if the  civil case was                                                                    
based  on the  conduct of  the  defendant. He  was not  sure                                                                    
whether  the  agreement  would   have  any  bearing  on  the                                                                    
sentence in a civil case.                                                                                                       
Co-Chair von  Imhof noted that  there was a  public defender                                                                    
available to answer questions.                                                                                                  
9:34:01 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Wilson  wondered  what   would  happen  if  victims                                                                    
recanted or  changed their statements or  agreement with the                                                                    
plea agreement in the criminal case.                                                                                            
Mr. Skidmore  thought the subsection  of the bill  would not                                                                    
have  an effect  on  the scenario  that  Senator Wilson  was                                                                    
describing. He furthered that the  plea agreement dealt with                                                                    
the sentence  that was  imposed and  not whether  the victim                                                                    
agreed on the  matter of charges being brought  in the first                                                                    
9:35:26 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Wilson  pondered  that a  defense  attorney  for  a                                                                    
perpetrator  could   probe  the  victims   reason   for  not                                                                    
agreeing  to  a  plea  bargain, which  could  then  be  used                                                                    
against them in civil proceedings.                                                                                              
Mr.  Skidmore  reiterated  that  he was  not  an  expert  or                                                                    
practitioner of civil law.                                                                                                      
9:36:12 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator Micciche  shared that there was  a similar provision                                                                    
in  law concerning  victims agreeing  with plea  agreements.                                                                    
There had been  a case of sexual abuse of  a minor in Healy,                                                                    
Alaska;  in which  the parents  had not  agreed to  the plea                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore  relayed that  LAW  had  policies under  which                                                                    
attorneys  communicated with  victims about  plea agreements                                                                    
before  they   were  entered  into,  and   certainly  before                                                                    
sentencing   hearings.  He   said  that   the  bill   simply                                                                    
formalized actions that the department already did.                                                                             
9:38:06 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Wielechowski agreed  with Senator  Wilson. He  said                                                                    
that in the case of a  violent sexual assault, if the victim                                                                    
decided not to testify, making  the case harder to prove and                                                                    
increasing  the  chances  of  a plea  bargain,  and  if  the                                                                    
sentence were pled down significantly  and the victim agreed                                                                    
to the plea  change, it would absolutely be used  in a civil                                                                    
Senator Wielechowski  asked to  what lengths  the department                                                                    
was required to go to attempt contact with the victim.                                                                          
Mr. Skidmore referenced Page 8,  lines 9-11, which said that                                                                    
the  attorney  shall  make reasonable  efforts.  This  meant                                                                    
that the  department would use  the information  in existing                                                                    
files. He said  that there were other steps  that were taken                                                                    
to try  to locate victims,  rarely was law  enforcement sent                                                                    
to track down a victim.                                                                                                         
9:40:22 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Micciche asked  Mr. Skidmore  to  describe how  the                                                                    
same sentencing for  an egregious crime could  be reached by                                                                    
either using an aggregator or using enhanced sentencing.                                                                        
Mr.  Skidmore detailed  that the  bill added  the subsection                                                                    
that  discussed  a  person knowingly  causing  a  person  to                                                                    
become unconscious by  means of a dangerous  instrument.  He                                                                    
said  that   the  increase  the   conduct  of   a  dangerous                                                                    
instrument to  a Class A  felony, could  increase sentencing                                                                    
ranges.  He stated  that under  current  law the  sentencing                                                                    
range for strangulation, which was  a Class B felony, was 0-                                                                    
2 years. He noted that the  change would up it to 3-6 years,                                                                    
and 4-7  years and  5-8 years  were being  considered. There                                                                    
was  a  concept  of  putting strangulation  into  a  special                                                                    
circumstance, which had potential  to increase the range for                                                                    
a Class B felony strangulation  from 0-2 years to 1-3 years.                                                                    
It was  also possible  to adjust  the presumptive  range for                                                                    
Class  B felonies.  He relayed  that the  aggravator in  the                                                                    
bill   said    that   if   you   strangled    someone   into                                                                    
unconsciousness  it could  serve  and  an aggravator,  which                                                                    
could only be used if it  was not an element of the offense.                                                                    
He explained  that the aggravator  could not be used  on top                                                                    
of the crime  of assault, instead the  aggravator would have                                                                    
to be  used in another  type of  crime. He related  that the                                                                    
two  different tools  allowed prosecutors  to make  tactical                                                                    
decisions  about  the  best  method  to  get  to  the  right                                                                    
9:43:43 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator Micciche  thought the simple  answer for  the public                                                                    
was that using either method  would result in an appropriate                                                                    
sentence to punish the crime.                                                                                                   
Mr.  Skidmore  stated  that without  question  the  Class  A                                                                    
felony available  in the bill would  increase the sentencing                                                                    
range for  strangulation. He said that  if the strangulation                                                                    
not been charged  as an assault, but used  as an aggravator,                                                                    
it would have made a dramatic difference in the sentencing.                                                                     
9:45:45 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator Wielechowski referenced  Page 2, line 4  of the bill                                                                    
and Page 1, line 13, respectively:                                                                                              
(4) that  person recklessly  causes serious  physical injury                                                                    
to   another  by   repeated  assaults   using  a   dangerous                                                                    
(3) the person knowingly engages  in conduct that results in                                                                    
serious physical injury                                                                                                         
Senator Wielechowski  asked whether  there was  a difference                                                                    
between   knowingly   causes   and   knowingly   engages  in                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore answered in the negative.                                                                                          
9:47:02 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that  the committee would not move                                                                    
the bill.  She acknowledged that Senator  Wilson and Senator                                                                    
Wielechowski had concerns  and asserted that the  bill was a                                                                    
priority  for  the entire  legislature.  She  said that  the                                                                    
committee would continue to work with the bill sponsor.                                                                         
9:48:03 AM                                                                                                                    
JAENELL    MANCHESTER,   49TH    RISING,   FAIRBANKS    (via                                                                    
teleconference), spoke in support  of the bill. She asserted                                                                    
that  survivors  of  sexual   violence  were  encouraged  to                                                                    
support   but  that   the  legal   system  was   notoriously                                                                    
unfriendly  to survivors.  She cited  a story  from a  woman                                                                    
named  Jessica, who  had recounted  that  when she  reported                                                                    
being  raped, police  had told  her that  the defense  would                                                                    
 tear her  down  in  court. When asked  if she  could handle                                                                    
that,  she responded  that she  could not,  and declined  to                                                                    
press charges. She  said that including all  sex offenses in                                                                    
the  victim notification  statute,  and  stipulating that  a                                                                    
court  could  reschedule a  plea  agreement  hearing if  the                                                                    
victim  notification  requirement   was  unfulfilled,  would                                                                    
ensure  that the  legal system  was more  survivor friendly,                                                                    
while ensuring  the defendants  right to  a fair  trial. She                                                                    
added  that the  bill  would help  survivors  feel safe  and                                                                    
protect   survivors    by   elevating   the    severity   of                                                                    
strangulation. She  shared that strangulation was  a serious                                                                    
and deadly form of abuse  that was often underestimated. She                                                                    
relayed that victims of strangulation  were likely to suffer                                                                    
long-term  physical  and  mental repercussions  and  were  7                                                                    
times  more  likely to  be  killed  by their  partners.  She                                                                    
believed that  recognizing the severity of  strangulation in                                                                    
statute  would help  remove  perpetrators  from society  and                                                                    
provide additional tools to survivors  and advocates to keep                                                                    
survivors  safe.  She supported  the  amendment  to end  the                                                                    
practice   of  granting   credit  towards   a  sentence   of                                                                    
imprisonment  for time  spent  under electronic  monitoring.                                                                    
She  thought  that  passing  the  amendment  would  increase                                                                    
accountability and send the signal  that sexual violence was                                                                    
taken  seriously  by the  legislature  and  the courts.  She                                                                    
concluded that  nonconsensual contact with semen  was a form                                                                    
of sexual violence  and should be recognized as  much by the                                                                    
9:50:31 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Wielechowski  asked  whether  the  Public  Defender                                                                    
Agency had concerns with the bill.                                                                                              
BETH  GOLDSTEIN,  ACTING   PUBLIC  DEFENDER,  DEPARTMENT  OF                                                                    
ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference),  stated that the office                                                                    
had   a   concern  with   Section   4,   which  amended   AS                                                                    
11.81.900(b)(60).  She believed  that  the  wording did  not                                                                    
require the sex  act to be committed in the  presence of the                                                                    
victim. She worried that by  separating the sex act from the                                                                    
contact   the  language   my   capture   contact  that   the                                                                    
legislature does  not intend to  punish. She  understood the                                                                    
need to close the loophole  in statute but felt the language                                                                    
could be clearer.                                                                                                               
9:52:13 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Wielechowski asked  whether  there  were any  other                                                                    
Ms. Goldstein replied in the negative.                                                                                          
9:52:46 AM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
9:54:34 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair von Imhof relayed that  the committee would set the                                                                    
bill  aside to  allow the  sponsors of  HB 14  and SB  12 to                                                                    
continue to  work with  all involved  parties on  changes to                                                                    
the bill. The  committee would take the bill back  up on the                                                                    
following Monday.                                                                                                               
CSHB 14(FIN)  was HEARD  and HELD  in committee  for further                                                                    
SENATE BILL NO. 35                                                                                                            
     "An Act  eliminating marriage as  a defense  to certain                                                                    
     crimes of  sexual assault; relating to  enticement of a                                                                    
     minor;  relating to  harassment  in  the first  degree;                                                                    
     relating to  harassment in the second  degree; relating                                                                    
     to  indecent  viewing  or   production  of  a  picture;                                                                    
     relating  to   the  definition  of   'sexual  contact';                                                                    
     relating to  assault in the second  degree; relating to                                                                    
     sentencing; relating to  prior convictions; relating to                                                                    
     the definition  of 'most  serious felony';  relating to                                                                    
     the  definition of  'sexual  felony';  relating to  the                                                                    
     duty of a sex offender  or child kidnapper to register;                                                                    
     relating to  eligibility for discretionary  parole; and                                                                    
     providing for an effective date."                                                                                          
9:55:20 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair von Imhof relayed that the committee intended to                                                                       
hear an overview of the bill. Public testimony would be                                                                         
scheduled for another meeting.                                                                                                  
9:56:49 AM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore stated that SB 35 was defined to deal with sex                                                                     
offenses in the state. The bill was a broad // Some of the                                                                      
provisions had been removed // The bill                                                                                         
Mr. Skidmore reminded that the state had the dubious                                                                            
position of leading                                                                                                             
9:58:06 AM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore addressed a Sectional Analysis (copy on file):                                                                     
     Summary:  This  legislation  makes sexual  abuse  of  a                                                                  
     minor in the  third degree a sexual felony  if there is                                                                  
     a six  year age difference between  the perpetrator and                                                                  
     the  victim.  It  also clarifies  how  to  count  prior                                                                  
     felonies  when determining  the appropriate  sentencing                                                                  
     range when sentencing a person  for a sexual felony and                                                                  
     requires  out-of-state  sex  offenders to  register  in                                                                  
     Alaska when  they are  present in  the state.  The bill                                                                  
     makes indecent viewing or production  of a picture of a                                                                  
     person under the  age of 16 and  indecent production of                                                                  
     an image  of an adult  a registerable sex  offense. The                                                                  
     bill creates the  new crimes of enticement  of a minor,                                                                  
     repeatedly sending images  of genitalia, and eliminates                                                                  
     marriage as a defense to most acts of sexual assault.                                                                    
     Section  1 Legislative  Intent  and Findings  Expresses                                                                  
     intent  to overturn  Williams v.  State,  418 P.3d  870                                                                    
     (Alaska  App.  2018)  in   regards  to  counting  prior                                                                    
     felonies when  sentencing a person for  a sexual felony                                                                    
     and State, Department  of Public Safety v.  Doe, 425 P.                                                                    
     3d  115 (Alaska  2018) in  regards to  out-of-state sex                                                                    
     offenders registering  as a sex offender  when they are                                                                    
     present  in Alaska.  Also expresses  legislative intent                                                                    
     for the Department of Public  Safety to make additional                                                                    
     resources available to  expand investigations of online                                                                    
     exploitation of children.                                                                                                  
     Section  2-3  Changes  the   mental  state  for  sexual                                                                  
     assault  in the  second  degree  (penetration; class  B                                                                    
     felony) and sexual assault in  the third degree (sexual                                                                    
     contact; class  C felony) from "knowing"  to "reckless"                                                                    
     when the  victim is mentally  incapable, incapacitated,                                                                    
    or unaware that the sexual act is being committed.                                                                          
10:01:41 AM                                                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore continued to address the Sectional Analysis:                                                                       
     Section 4-5 Eliminates marriage  as a defense to sexual                                                                  
     assault in  all cases except when  both parties consent                                                                    
     and  it  is the  nature  of  the relationship  that  is                                                                    
     criminalized   (i.e.   probation   officer/probationer,                                                                    
     peace officer/person  in custody, Division  of Juvenile                                                                    
     Justice  Officer/person   18  or   19  and   under  the                                                                    
    jurisdiction of the Division of Juvenile Justice).                                                                          
Mr.  Skidmore  added  that the  marriage  defense  was  most                                                                    
problematic  in situations  where  one  spouse was  mentally                                                                    
incapable, meaning  that they were unable  to understand the                                                                    
nature and consequences of their conduct.                                                                                       
     Section   6-7  Clarifies   the  applicable   sentencing                                                                  
     provisions for  sexual abuse  of a  minor in  the third                                                                    
     degree (class  C felony) when  there is at least  a six                                                                    
     year  age  difference  between  the  offender  and  the                                                                    
     victim. The crime will be  sentenced as a sexual felony                                                                    
     under  AS  12.55.125(i) if  there  is  a six  year  age                                                                    
     difference between the offender and victim.                                                                                
10:05:10 AM                                                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore continued to address and discuss the Sectional                                                                     
     Section 8-10  Removes the word "online"  from the crime                                                                  
     of "online enticement"  criminalizing any enticement of                                                                    
     a  minor regardless  of whether  the enticement  occurs                                                                    
     Section 11  Makes unlawful exploitation  of a  minor an                                                                  
     unclassified felony  if the person has  been previously                                                                    
     convicted  of unlawful  exploitation of  a minor  or if                                                                    
     the victim is under 13 years of age.                                                                                       
10:09:02 AM                                                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore continued to address the Sectional Analysis:                                                                       
     Section  12 Amends  the crime  of indecent  exposure in                                                                  
     the  first  degree  to   include  masturbation  in  the                                                                    
     presence  of   either  an  adult   or  child.   If  the                                                                    
     masturbation  occurs in  the presence  of an  adult the                                                                    
     offense  will be  a class  C  felony. If  it occurs  in                                                                    
     front of  a person under 16  years of age it  will be a                                                                    
     class B felony.                                                                                                            
     Section 13  Adds repeatedly sending unwanted  images of                                                                  
     genitalia  to the  crime of  harassment  in the  second                                                                    
     Section  14 Separates  "production"  from "viewing"  in                                                                  
     the  crime  of  indecent  viewing or  production  of  a                                                                    
     Section  15  Conforming  amendment.  Changes  the  word                                                                  
     "photography" to "production of pictures."                                                                                 
     Section  16  Conforming  amendment.  Changes  the  word                                                                  
     "photography" to "production of pictures."                                                                                 
     Section 17 Classification  section. Makes production of                                                                  
     a picture  of a minor a  class B felony (which  will be                                                                    
     sentenced as a sexual felony).  Viewing of a minor is a                                                                    
     class C  felony (which  will be  sentenced as  a sexual                                                                    
     felony). Production of a picture  of an adult is also a                                                                    
     class  C sexual  felony.  Viewing of  a  picture of  an                                                                    
     adult is a class A misdemeanor.                                                                                            
     Section  18  Clarifies  that   the  crime  of  indecent                                                                  
     viewing or  production of a  picture does not  apply to                                                                    
     activities  that  would   reasonably  be  construed  as                                                                    
     normal caretaker responsibilities  or a recognized form                                                                    
     of medical treatment.                                                                                                      
10:13:44 AM                                                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore continued to address and discuss the Sectional                                                                     
    Section 19 Adds a definition of "semen" to statute.                                                                       
Mr. Skidmore pointed  out that the crime lab  used a broader                                                                    
definition  than just  a fluid  that  had sperm  in it;  the                                                                    
medical definition of  semen used by the crime  lab would be                                                                    
added to statute.                                                                                                               
     Section 20 Codifies a presumption  that the court shall                                                                  
     order the offender not to  have contact with the victim                                                                    
     as  a condition  of probation  for cases  involving sex                                                                    
     offenses  or crimes  of  domestic  violence unless  the                                                                    
     court  finds  that  contact   between  the  victim  and                                                                    
     offender is necessary.                                                                                                     
     Section  21 Conforms  the sentencing  statutes for  sex                                                                  
     offenses to  the change  made to  unlawful exploitation                                                                    
     of a minor in section  11, indecent exposure in section                                                                    
     12,  sexual abuse  of a  minor in  the third  degree in                                                                    
     sections  6-7, and  indecent viewing  or production  in                                                                    
     section  17.   Also  creates  an   enhanced  sentencing                                                                    
     structure for distribution of  child pornography if the                                                                    
     offender hosted,  created, or  helped host or  create a                                                                    
     mechanism  for multi-party  sharing or  distribution of                                                                    
     child  pornography. This  section  also  creates a  new                                                                    
     sentencing   range   for    a   first   conviction   of                                                                    
     distribution of child pornography of 4-12 years.                                                                           
Mr. Skidmore  clarified that many of  the provisions written                                                                    
into  the  bill  were  the  result of  work  done  in  lower                                                                    
committees  and  had not  been  in  the governors   original                                                                    
10:17:31 AM                                                                                                                   
     Section 22  Clarifies that any prior  felony counts for                                                                  
     the purposes of  determining the presumptive sentencing                                                                    
     range  for  a  person  being  sentenced  for  a  sexual                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore said that the  clarifying language would ensure                                                                    
that  sex offenders  would be  appropriately sentenced  when                                                                    
they had  prior felony convictions  that happened to  not be                                                                    
sex felony convictions.                                                                                                         
     Section   23  Conforming   amendment:   new  crime   of                                                                  
     enticement of  a minor clarified  in the  definition of                                                                    
     "most serious felony."                                                                                                     
     Section 24  Adds sexual abuse  of a minor in  the third                                                                  
     degree when there is a  six year age difference between                                                                    
     the  perpetrator and  the victim,  indecent viewing  or                                                                    
     production of an image of  a minor, indecent production                                                                    
     of  a  picture  of  an  adult, and  the  new  crime  of                                                                    
     enticement  of a  minor to  the  definition of  "sexual                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore said  that the definition would  impact the use                                                                    
of a sex  offense as a presumptive  sentence enhancement, in                                                                    
discussions about pre-trial credit, and in probation.                                                                           
     Section 25  Requires the  Department of  Corrections to                                                                  
     notify  the  victim  of  a   sex  offense  or  a  crime                                                                    
     involving domestic violence of  the option to request a                                                                    
     protective  order and  provide contact  information for                                                                    
     victim resources.                                                                                                          
10:19:30 AM                                                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore continued to discuss the sectional analysis:                                                                       
     Section 26-29  Requires a  person required  to register                                                                  
     as  a  sex  offender  or  child  kidnapper  in  another                                                                    
     jurisdiction to register in Alaska  when that person is                                                                    
     present  in the  state. Also  adds indecent  viewing or                                                                    
     production  of  a  picture  of   a  minor  or  indecent                                                                    
     production  of a  picture of  an adult  to the  list of                                                                    
     registerable sex offenses.                                                                                                 
10:20:32 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair Stedman understood that  sexual offenders that came                                                                    
to Alaska  from other states  had to register or  they would                                                                    
be in violation.                                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative.                                                                                       
Co-Chair Stedman asked what was  required by current law. He                                                                    
referenced  an individual  living in  his district  that had                                                                    
been  found to  be a  registered sex  offender from  another                                                                    
state.  He  believed  that  the  provision  would  alleviate                                                                    
similar problems.                                                                                                               
Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative.                                                                                       
Co-Chair Stedman supported the bill provision.                                                                                  
10:22:22 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair von Imhof asked whether  it was necessary to make a                                                                    
change to the bill to speak to Co-Chair Stedmans concern.                                                                       
Co-Chair  Stedman  thought  the bill  accomplished  what  he                                                                    
believed to be a solution.                                                                                                      
10:22:51 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator Bishop  referenced Section 32 and  asked whether the                                                                    
bill sought to develop a  database from scratch based on the                                                                    
word "develop."                                                                                                                 
Mr.  Skidmore stated  that  the concept  had  been added  in                                                                    
another  committee,  and asked  LAW  and  DPS to  report  on                                                                    
locations  where  sex  offenses were  occurring  around  the                                                                    
state. He  said that  the information was  already available                                                                    
in various databases; a program  would need to be written to                                                                    
extract the  information from the databases,  which would be                                                                    
provided in a detailed report to the legislature.                                                                               
10:24:51 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator  Wilson considered  the  sex  offender registry.  He                                                                    
found it  fascinating the process of  registering from state                                                                    
to state was not a common requirement.                                                                                          
Mr. Skidmore said  that DPS received 8 to 10  calls per week                                                                    
from individuals  inquiring whether  they would  be required                                                                    
to register  as a sex offender  if they moved to  the state.                                                                    
He said that  there was not a single,  national registry for                                                                    
sec offenders, rather registry occurred  on a state by state                                                                    
basis. Each state set their  own laws about who was required                                                                    
to  register.  He shared  that  there  were three  different                                                                    
approaches  to  the  issue:  individuals  were  required  to                                                                    
register in  one state  if they  were registered  in another                                                                    
(found in this legislation);  registration would be required                                                                    
if the facts  of the offense in one state  would qualify you                                                                    
in  another;  finally,  registration  would be  based  on  a                                                                    
comparison of the elements of  the crime from state to state                                                                    
(current practice in Alaska).                                                                                                   
10:28:01 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator  Wilson thought  that the  current  practice of  the                                                                    
state attracted sex offenders to the state.                                                                                     
Mr. Skidmore lamented that this  was one of the consequences                                                                    
of the current law.                                                                                                             
10:28:26 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator Wielechowski  asked if a  person was a  sex offender                                                                    
in another state,  and the person's conduct was  not a crime                                                                    
in Alaska, would they be required to register in the state.                                                                     
Mr. Skidmore  replied that the individual  would be required                                                                    
to register.                                                                                                                    
Senator Wielechowski  understood that the Supreme  Court had                                                                    
determined  that  sex  offender   registry  was  a  form  of                                                                    
punishment. He asked  if it was likely that  the court would                                                                    
uphold the proposed bill.                                                                                                       
Mr. Skidmore was  not certain that the  court had determined                                                                    
whether registering  was a form  of punishment.  He believed                                                                    
that the  court would uphold  the law. He added  that Alaska                                                                    
was not the first state to be making the change.                                                                                
10:29:28 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator  Micciche   summarized  his  understanding   of  the                                                                    
discussion  thus far.  He believed  that the  bill closed  a                                                                    
loophole in  the area of  registration. He  recommended that                                                                    
people  read  Section 12.  He  discussed  the importance  of                                                                    
tracking the movements of sex offenders.                                                                                        
10:31:44 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator  Shower  mentioned  that  there  were  many  archaic                                                                    
elements in  the state's  sex crime laws  that needed  to be                                                                    
updated. He supported the legislation.                                                                                          
10:33:10 AM                                                                                                                   
CHRISSY  VOGELEY,  COMMUNITY  RELATIONS MANAGER,  OFFICE  OF                                                                    
CHILDREN SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF  HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES                                                                    
(via teleconference), she  spoke to the changes  in the bill                                                                    
that  affected mandatory  reporters; how  they reported  and                                                                    
the amount of  training that was expected.  She stated that,                                                                    
currently,   the  Office   of   Childrens   Services   (OCS)                                                                    
mandatory  reporters training  was utilized  by OCS  workers                                                                    
and community partners,  healthcare professionals, childcare                                                                    
providers,   and   other   mandatory  reporters   in   other                                                                    
departments.   She  understood   that   the  Department   of                                                                    
Education  and Early  Development  (DEED)  used a  different                                                                    
training for  mandatory reporters, which linked  to the DHSS                                                                    
training.  She cited  Section 33  of the  bill, which  would                                                                    
require  mandatory reporters  to  report child  maltreatment                                                                    
that was  the result of a  suspected sex offense to  OCS and                                                                    
the  nearest law  enforcement agency.  She said  that, right                                                                    
now,  mandatory reporters  were  required to  report to  OCS                                                                    
only. The  change would require  an update to  the mandatory                                                                    
reporter training  and outreach to reporters  to inform them                                                                    
of the change. She said  that because the consequence of not                                                                    
reporting would result in a  misdemeanor, outreach was vital                                                                    
to ensure that mandatory reporters  were educated of the new                                                                    
law. She  spoke to  Section 36 of  the bill,  which required                                                                    
annual reporter  training, and  stressed that  some outreach                                                                    
would be  needed to  inform mandatory  reporters of  the new                                                                    
training  requirements. She  spoke  to the  analysis in  the                                                                    
fiscal note:                                                                                                                    
     The   bill   would   require   modifications   to   the                                                                    
     departments   mandatory reporter  training due  to both                                                                    
     the new  statutory definition of  a sexual  offense, as                                                                    
     well  as   the  new  requirement  in   which  mandatory                                                                    
     reporters would  need to report to  both the department                                                                    
     and the  nearest law enforcement  agency when  there is                                                                    
     suspected   child  maltreatment   involving  a   sexual                                                                    
     offense.  The training  resides  in  the Department  of                                                                    
     Health  and  Social  Services website.  The  Office  of                                                                    
     Childrens     Services    would    be    involved    in                                                                    
     modifications. The  cost to update the  training module                                                                    
     and ensure readiness for an  increase in annual traffic                                                                    
     would be $3.6.                                                                                                             
     Mandatory  reporters of  suspected  sexual offenses  to                                                                    
     children  would require  notification of  the broadened                                                                    
     communication   methods   of   child   enticement   and                                                                    
     exploitation,   the   requirement   to   report   child                                                                    
     maltreatment that  involves sexual offense to  both the                                                                    
     department and the nearest  law enforcement agency, and                                                                    
     be  advised that  their training  must occur  annually.                                                                    
     The  department  estimates  that television  and  radio                                                                    
     advertising  as  well  as printed  materials  would  be                                                                    
     necessary   for   effective   outreach   to   statewide                                                                    
     mandatory  reporters.  The  estimate  for  outreach  is                                                                    
     $62.0 and  the estimate  for printed materials  is $6.9                                                                    
     for  FY2020.   In  subsequent  years,   the  department                                                                    
     estimates that  the cost for  outreach can  decrease to                                                                    
     $21.0 for  FY2021, FY2022, FY2023, FY2024,  and FY2025.                                                                    
     Due to  the annual training component,  it is necessary                                                                    
     to  achieve ongoing  outreach  efforts  to ensure  that                                                                    
     mandatory  reporters have  full  knowledge  of the  new                                                                    
     requirements.   The  Office   of  Childrens    Services                                                                    
     estimates that  the ongoing outreach would  require one                                                                    
     month of messaging.                                                                                                        
     The Office  of Childrens   Services contracts  with the                                                                    
     departments   commissioners  office  public information                                                                    
     team  to manage  and  promote  the mandatory  reporting                                                                    
     module through  a reimbursable services  agreement. The                                                                    
     Office  of Childrens   Services  anticipates the  total                                                                    
     cost  in  FY2020 would  be  $73.3.  The total  cost  in                                                                    
     FY2021,  FY2022, FY2023,  FY2024, and  FY2025 would  be                                                                    
10:37:20 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair von Imhof  said that the new fiscal  note was being                                                                    
copied for the committee for distribution.                                                                                      
10:37:48 AM                                                                                                                   
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
10:44:13 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair von Imhof  addressed a new fiscal  impact note from                                                                    
Department  of Health  and  Social  Services, OMB  Component                                                                    
1628. She reiterated the fiscal analysis.                                                                                       
10:45:29 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator  Bishop  commented  that  Section  36  of  the  bill                                                                    
required school districts to  provide mandatory training. He                                                                    
thought  the legislature  should support  the implementation                                                                    
of  the bill  within  school districts  by providing  proper                                                                    
funding to support the mandate.                                                                                                 
Co-Chair   von  Imhof   agreed.  She   noted  that   invited                                                                    
testifiers were online to answer committee questions.                                                                           
10:46:46 AM                                                                                                                   
Ms. Vogeley mentioned the  mandatory reporting training that                                                                    
would be  required would  be used by  many of  the mandatory                                                                    
reporters  in the  state,  hence the  need  for a  statewide                                                                    
outreach campaign.                                                                                                              
Co-Chair von  Imhof suggested Ms.  Vogeley confer  with DEED                                                                    
to  see whether  OCS  training materials  could  be used  by                                                                    
school districts.                                                                                                               
Ms. Vogeley  stated that DEED  had its own training  that it                                                                    
provided  to  districts.  She  assured  the  committee  that                                                                    
conversations between the two departments were ongoing.                                                                         
10:47:46 AM                                                                                                                   
BETH  GOLDSTEIN,  PUBLIC   DEFENDER  AGENCY,  DEPARTMENT  OF                                                                    
ADMINISTRATION  (via  teleconference),  was  most  concerned                                                                    
with  Section  2  and  Section 3:  the  elimination  of  the                                                                    
marriage  defense. The  concern  was that  the change  would                                                                    
capture couples where  one spouse was in  the other spouse's                                                                    
care.  She   explained  that  dementia  was   not  a  static                                                                    
condition under  which lucidity could change  hourly or from                                                                    
week  to  week. She  asserted  that  during the  periods  of                                                                    
lucidity,  consensual   sexual  contact  could   occur.  She                                                                    
detailed  that  there  were  many  situations  where  family                                                                    
dynamics could  result in false accusations.  She added that                                                                    
the  increased penalties  in  the bill  would  lead to  more                                                                    
litigation in cases, which would increase spending.                                                                             
10:50:51 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair von  Imhof tried  to re-articulate  Ms. Goldstein's                                                                    
points. She thought that by  eliminating the entire section,                                                                    
actual cases  of marital rape  slip through the  cracks. She                                                                    
asked if Ms. Goldstein had  a suggestion in order to protect                                                                    
the subset of situations that she had described.                                                                                
Ms. Goldstein thought the matter could be addressed.                                                                            
Co-Chair  von   Imhof  asked  whether  Senator   Shower  had                                                                    
encountered the issue in other committees.                                                                                      
Senator  Shower answered  in  the  affirmative, although  he                                                                    
recalled there had  not been much time spent  on the manner.                                                                    
He recalled that LAW had not  felt that the change would not                                                                    
affect the subset significantly.                                                                                                
10:53:29 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair von  Imhof thought  it was  important to  note that                                                                    
the  matter had  been  discussed in  another committee.  She                                                                    
noted  that  the  bill contained  an  incredible  amount  of                                                                    
important legislation  and the  hope was  to pass  it within                                                                    
this  legislative  session. She  though  that  if the  issue                                                                    
could not  be agreed upon  in a  timely manner, it  could be                                                                    
revisited next  year, but it  should not hold up  the entire                                                                    
piece of legislation.                                                                                                           
10:54:21 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator Wielechowski  asked whether there was  concern about                                                                    
the provision  that required  sex offender  registration for                                                                    
offenders from other states.                                                                                                    
Ms.  Goldstein  stated  that the  agency  had  concern  with                                                                    
automatic registration.  She stated  that there  were states                                                                    
that had criminalized  things that Alaska had  not, and that                                                                    
those  individuals would  be subject  to registering  as sex                                                                    
offenders  even though  they ultimately  would  not have  to                                                                    
register under  Alaska law.   She pointed out  that offender                                                                    
registration  could have  an impact  on housing  options and                                                                    
procuring  employment. She  said  that the  crime that  they                                                                    
were convicted of in the  other state might not be something                                                                    
that Alaska had criminalized.                                                                                                   
Senator  Wielechowski understood  that in  13 states  public                                                                    
urination  was  registrable  as  a  sex  offense.  He  asked                                                                    
whether this was true in Alaska.                                                                                                
Ms. Goldstein replied in the negative.                                                                                          
Senator  Wielechowski  listed  that consensual  sex  between                                                                    
teenagers was  a registerable offense  in Georgia.  He asked                                                                    
whether this was the case in Alaska.                                                                                            
Ms. Goldstein replied no.                                                                                                       
Senator Wielechowski listed that  in Colorado, a 13-year-old                                                                    
who  repeatedly hugged  a 14-year-old  might be  required to                                                                    
register as  a sex  offender for  life. He  wondered whether                                                                    
the same was true in Alaska.                                                                                                    
Ms. Goldstein did not believe so.                                                                                               
10:56:22 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator Micciche thought the  discussion was interesting and                                                                    
wanted  to see  a  list of  the crimes  that  should not  be                                                                    
included  as part  of a  sex  offense registry.  He did  not                                                                    
think there was a  national effort that unreasonably require                                                                    
an  individual to  register as  a sex  offender. He  worried                                                                    
that offenders  could be  shopping  around  for  states with                                                                    
more lenient registration requirements.                                                                                         
10:58:19 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair von  Imhof stated that  her office would  work with                                                                    
the Public  Defender Agency and  work with LAW to  decide on                                                                    
how to proceed with the bill.                                                                                                   
10:58:39 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator Wilson  reiterated his  support for  the legislation                                                                    
as written.                                                                                                                     
Co-Chair  von  Imhof  thought there  was  room  for  further                                                                    
discussion. She  stated that the bill  was comprehensive and                                                                    
was  a legislative  priority. She  wanted  the committee  to                                                                    
explore the concepts and concerns that were raised.                                                                             
10:59:27 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator Micciche  supported the  way the bill  was currently                                                                    
10:59:59 AM                                                                                                                   
SB  35  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
Co-Chair von Imhof discussed housekeeping.                                                                                      
11:00:53 AM                                                                                                                   
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 74 Work Draft Version K.pdf SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM
SB 74
HB014 Sponsor Statement.pdf SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM
HB 14
HB014 Letters of Support.pdf SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM
HB 14
HB014 Sectional Analysis.pdf SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM
HB 14
SB 35 - Sex Offenses Sectional.pdf SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 35
SB 35 - Ver. A to E Changes.pdf SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM
SB 35
SB 35 - PSEA Letter of Support.pdf SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM
SB 35
SB 35 Highlights.pdf SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM
SB 35
SB 35 Transmittal Letter.pdf SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 35
SB 74 Map - Broadband and Satellite Networks.pdf SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM
SB 74
SB 35 DHSS NEW 041919.pdf SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM
SB 35