Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532

05/10/2019 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
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
09:04:55 AM Start
09:05:27 AM HB49
10:54:47 AM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                 SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                       May 10, 2019                                                                                             
                         9:04 a.m.                                                                                              
9:04:55 AM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair  von  Imhof  called the  Senate  Finance  Committee                                                                    
meeting to order at 9:04 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                                                                                                             
Senator Bill Wielechowski                                                                                                       
Senator David Wilson                                                                                                            
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Senator   Mia  Costello;   Senator   Shelley  Hughes;   John                                                                    
Skidmore,  Director, Criminal  Division, Department  of Law;                                                                    
Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court System.                                                                              
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
Major  Andrew  Greenstreet,  Deputy Director,  Alaska  State                                                                    
Troopers;   Katheryn   Monfreda,   Director,   Division   of                                                                    
Statewide  Services,  Department  of  Public  Safety;  David                                                                    
Kanaris,  Assistant Chief,  Scientific Crime  Detective Lab,                                                                    
Department of Public Safety.                                                                                                    
CSHB 49(FIN) am                                                                                                                 
          CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE                                                                             
          CSHB 49(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee                                                                       
          for further consideration.                                                                                            
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 49(FIN) am                                                                                              
     "An  Act  relating  to   criminal  law  and  procedure;                                                                    
     relating to  pretrial services; establishing  the crime                                                                    
     of possession  of motor  vehicle theft  tools; relating                                                                    
     to  electronic   monitoring;  relating   to  controlled                                                                    
     substances; relating to  probation and parole; relating                                                                    
     to  sentencing;  amending   the  definitions  of  'most                                                                    
     serious  felony,' 'sex  offense,'  and 'sex  offender';                                                                    
     relating to registration of  sex offenders; relating to                                                                    
     operating under  the influence; relating to  refusal to                                                                    
     submit to  a chemical test;  relating to the  duties of                                                                    
     the  commissioner of  corrections; relating  to testing                                                                    
     of  sexual   assault  examination  kits;   relating  to                                                                    
     reports  of  involuntary   commitment;  amending  Rules                                                                    
     6(r)(6) and  38.2, Alaska Rules of  Criminal Procedure;                                                                    
     and providing for an effective date."                                                                                      
9:05:27 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  von   Imhof  relayed  that  the   committee  would                                                                    
continue  to   consider  HB  49.  Mr.   John  Skidmore  from                                                                    
Department of  Law would  discuss what was  not in  the bill                                                                    
but what was  in related Senate bills on the  same topic [SB                                                                    
32,  SB  33,  SB  34,   and  SB  35].  She  discussed  other                                                                    
testifiers.  The  Department   of  Corrections  (DOC)  would                                                                    
discuss  the  financial implications  of  the  bill and  the                                                                    
fiscal  note  at the  afternoon  meeting  and the  committee                                                                    
would consider the financial implications of the bill.                                                                          
9:08:13 AM                                                                                                                    
JOHN  SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR,  CRIMINAL DIVISION,  DEPARTMENT OF                                                                    
LAW, affirmed that  he had previously discussed  the bill up                                                                    
to Section 96.                                                                                                                  
Mr. Skidmore  wanted to make  a correction to  his testimony                                                                    
from the previous day. He had  referenced the path back to a                                                                    
driver's license in Section 72 and  Section 73 on page 52 of                                                                    
the  bill.  There was  a  difference  in  words in  lines  3                                                                    
through 5. He explained the distinction in the language.                                                                        
Mr. Skidmore addressed a Sectional Analysis (copy on file):                                                                     
     Section 96                                                                                                                 
     Allows a  person's criminal history  report to  be used                                                                    
     at  grand   jury  to  prove  the   existence  of  prior                                                                    
     convictions when  prior convictions  are an  element of                                                                    
     the offense.                                                                                                               
     Section 97-98                                                                                                              
     Requires  the  use  of  contemporaneous  two-way  video                                                                    
     conferencing  at  all  arraignments,  pleas,  and  non-                                                                    
     evidentiary  bail  hearings  in misdemeanor  cases  and                                                                    
     initial  appearances and  non-evidentiary bail  reviews                                                                    
     and  arraignments  in  felony cases.  Also  allows  the                                                                    
     court   to   order   the   defendant   to   appear   by                                                                    
     contemporaneous  two-way  video   conferencing  at  any                                                                    
     other hearing                                                                                                              
     Section 99                                                                                                                 
     Repealer section                                                                                                           
Mr.  Skidmore  explained that  the  section  pertained to  a                                                                    
criminal history  database and changed court  rules to allow                                                                    
a prosecutor  to establish a prior  criminal conviction when                                                                    
the conviction  was an element  of the crime that  was being                                                                    
indicted in  front of the  grand jury. The  section expanded                                                                    
current  law   to  include  other  situations   where  prior                                                                    
convictions needed  to be established.  The section  was the                                                                    
same as in SB 32, the Senate version of the bill.                                                                               
Mr.  Skidmore detailed  that Section  97 and  98. The  court                                                                    
rule changes would make it  easier to use video conferencing                                                                    
at certain pre-trial hearings. The  language was the same as                                                                    
SB  32,   also  in  committee.  He   detailed  the  pretrial                                                                    
enforcement  division   was  not  listed  in   the  repealer                                                                    
section. The  pretrial services officers  would remain  as a                                                                    
separate unit in of DOC.                                                                                                        
9:12:10 AM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore continued to address the sectional analysis:                                                                       
     Section 100                                                                                                                
     Uncodified  law section.  Requires the  commissioner of                                                                    
     corrections to  provide the  report established  in sec                                                                    
     90 by Jan 10, 2020.                                                                                                        
     Section 101                                                                                                                
     Uncodified  law  section.  Requires the  Department  of                                                                    
     Corrections to report to  the legislature on pro-social                                                                    
     Section 102                                                                                                                
     Uncodified  law  section.  Requires  the  Alaska  Court                                                                    
     System  to transmit  information regarding  involuntary                                                                    
     commitments that  have occurred  since October  1, 1981                                                                    
     to the Department of Public Safety.                                                                                        
Mr. Skidmore  noted that  Section 100  and Section  101 both                                                                    
dealt with  a report  requested of  the legislature  by DOC.                                                                    
Section  102  dealt  with involuntary  commitments  and  was                                                                    
potentially a  data transfer provision that  would allow the                                                                    
state to be in compliance  with federal law. The information                                                                    
pertained to mental health  commitments, and the information                                                                    
would be  uploaded and  shared to  be available  for firearm                                                                    
purchase information.  The difference between HB  49 and the                                                                    
Senate version was the date of completion.                                                                                      
Mr. Skidmore continued to address the Sectional Analysis:                                                                       
     Section 103                                                                                                                
     Applicability section.                                                                                                     
     Section 104                                                                                                                
     Conditional effect section for court rule change.                                                                          
     Section 105                                                                                                                
     Immediate effective date for section 102.                                                                                  
     Section 106                                                                                                                
     January 1, 2020 effective date for section 92-95.                                                                          
     Section 107                                                                                                                
    July 1, 2019 effective date for all other sections.                                                                         
Co-Chair  von  Imhof  was   curious  about  the  committee's                                                                    
thoughts about  the date change  described by  Mr. Skidmore.                                                                    
She recalled that there had  been testimony that many of the                                                                    
documents  in question  were on  microfiche  and would  take                                                                    
time to process. She asked  what the committee thought about                                                                    
extending  the time  frame by  one year  as proposed  in the                                                                    
Senator Wielechowski  understood that if the  bill only went                                                                    
back  to  2011  versus  1982, all  the  documents  would  be                                                                    
electronic, and the effective date  could be much sooner and                                                                    
there would be a savings of $140,000.                                                                                           
Senator Wilson wanted  to hear from the  Alaska Court System                                                                    
(COURT) about the timeline.                                                                                                     
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that  there would be testimony from                                                                    
COURT. She  asked Mr.  Skidmore to discuss  what was  not in                                                                    
the bill, and what was in the Senate bill.                                                                                      
9:16:12 AM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore thought  there were  some differences  between                                                                    
the  related Senate  bills. He  thought some  of the  Senate                                                                    
bills required some additional  reports from departments. He                                                                    
did not  have positions on  the sections. There  were couple                                                                    
of items that were not addressed  in the HB 49. There was no                                                                    
provision for how  a first time Driving  Under the Influence                                                                    
(DUI) sentence was served. He  thought of the items as minor                                                                    
changes. He thought there could be  a couple of items he had                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore  thought  there was  an  area  of  substantial                                                                    
difference in  the concept of marriage  defense, which could                                                                    
be found  in HB 49  as it came over  from the house  and was                                                                    
found in  SB 35. He  thought there had been  confusion about                                                                    
the concept. He  wanted to clarify how the  law was supposed                                                                    
to work around the marriage defense.                                                                                            
Mr.  Skidmore  stated that  all  sexual  assault and  sexual                                                                    
abuse of  a minor laws  were made  to ensure that  there was                                                                    
consensual  sexual  activity  between people.  The  law  was                                                                    
reflected  in statutes  subsections that  mentioned lack  of                                                                    
consent,  the statutes  that dealt  with sexual  abuse of  a                                                                    
minor  and  was captured  in  statutes  that dealt  with  an                                                                    
imbalance of power.  The idea was captured  in statutes that                                                                    
discussed   concepts  about   people   that  were   mentally                                                                    
incapable,  incapacitated,  or  unaware. All  three  of  the                                                                    
terms were  about a person  not capable of  consent. Current                                                                    
law  stated that  it  was permissible  to  engage in  sexual                                                                    
activity with those  in the three conditions  if the persons                                                                    
were  married. He  offered to  provide further  definitions.                                                                    
The concept was being debated  across the country. The State                                                                    
of Minnesota had recently passed  a bill that eliminated the                                                                    
marriage defense.                                                                                                               
9:20:51 AM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore qualified  that  elimination  of the  marriage                                                                    
defense did not criminalize  sexual activity between spouses                                                                    
when there was consent, regardless  of whether or not one of                                                                    
the spouses was  suffering from a mental  disease or defect.                                                                    
The definition for  "mentally incapable" described suffering                                                                    
from a mental  disease or deft to a degree  that it made the                                                                    
individual   incapable  of   understanding  the   nature  or                                                                    
consequences of their conduct.                                                                                                  
Mr.  Skidmore  stated  he was  quoting  AS  11.41.470.04  He                                                                    
continued  that if  the marriage  defense was  eliminated as                                                                    
proposed in  SB 35, both  parties would have to  consent. So                                                                    
long as both parties' consent,  the activity was legal. When                                                                    
someone   was   not   capable  of   consenting,   in   those                                                                    
circumstances sexual activity was not permissible.                                                                              
Co-Chair von  Imhof asked  if Mr.  Skidmore was  saying that                                                                    
the marriage defense provision was not  in HB 49, but was in                                                                    
the Senate version of the bill.                                                                                                 
Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative.                                                                                       
9:23:11 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Micciche  discussed  the  concept  of  consent.  He                                                                    
discussed the marriage defense and  thought it had just been                                                                    
eliminated  in   India.  He  shared  concerns   about  angry                                                                    
children   reaching  out   against  a   senior  parent.   He                                                                    
referenced  hearing  claims in  testimony.  He  asked how  a                                                                    
senior  parent would  be protected  while behaving  with the                                                                    
expectation of the marriage defense constraints.                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore  reminded that the criminal  justice system had                                                                    
always   been  set   up  to   protect  people   from  unfair                                                                    
accusations.  He asserted  that the  justice system  set out                                                                    
that everyone was presumed  innocent until proved otherwise;                                                                    
and that to  prove otherwise, a crime must  be proven beyond                                                                    
reasonable  doubt.  He  walked  through the  elements  of  a                                                                    
scenario  in  which a  parent  and  a  new spouse  (not  the                                                                    
natural spouse)  were reported for illegal  sexual activity.                                                                    
He  questioned if  it could  be proven  beyond a  reasonable                                                                    
doubt that the  parent that had some sort  of mental disease                                                                    
or  defect  was  rendered  incapable  of  understanding  the                                                                    
nature or consequences at the time of the activity.                                                                             
Mr.   Skidmore   discussed   the   progressive   nature   of                                                                    
Alzheimer's  Disease; the  nature of  which rendered  people                                                                    
lucid  during  certain  times,   and  other  times  not.  He                                                                    
emphasized  that the  law said  that if  someone were  to be                                                                    
prosecuted, it must be shown  beyond a reasonable doubt that                                                                    
the person  was incapable of understanding  the consequences                                                                    
at the time  it took place. Secondly, it must  be shown that                                                                    
sexual  activity  occurred. Thirdly,  it  would  have to  be                                                                    
proven beyond a reasonable doubt  that the other spouse knew                                                                    
that the  spouse with  the mental  illness was  incapable of                                                                    
understanding the nature and consequences at the moment.                                                                        
Mr.  Skidmore  stated  that the  basic  cornerstone  of  the                                                                    
justice system (reasonable  doubt, presumption of innocence)                                                                    
were  the  things  that   provided  protection  because  the                                                                    
scenarios he heard simply did not violate the law.                                                                              
9:27:51 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator Micciche  asked if the provision  just iterated that                                                                    
a married  person could  not use marriage  as a  defense for                                                                    
what was already illegal for everyone else.                                                                                     
Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative.                                                                                       
Senator  Wilson  wanted to  break  the  provision down  into                                                                    
simpler terms.  He discussed different scenarios  that might                                                                    
be applicable.                                                                                                                  
Mr.  Skidmore  drew  the   distinction  that  the  provision                                                                    
applied to  finding a spouse  in an  incapacitated condition                                                                    
rather than causing an incapacitated condition.                                                                                 
9:30:11 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator Wielechowski  looked at the definition  of "mentally                                                                    
incapable."  He gleaned  that Mr.  Skidmore  was adding  the                                                                    
term  "at the  time."  He  noted that  the  statute did  not                                                                    
address "at the time."                                                                                                          
Mr.  Skidmore used  the term  "at the  time" to  help people                                                                    
understand what  the law meant.  Without the term,  it would                                                                    
mean  that a  person  diagnosed with  Alzheimer's could  not                                                                    
engage  in   sexual  activity  starting   at  the   time  of                                                                    
diagnosis. He did not believe that was what the law stated.                                                                     
Senator Wielechowski  thought people had concerns  about the                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore had  not seen  a single  case referencing  the                                                                    
concept  as described  by  Senator  Wielechowski. He  stated                                                                    
that in  the law  there was  two concepts  for conduct  of a                                                                    
criminal:  actus reas  (the act  itself) and  mens rea  (the                                                                    
mental element). The actus reas  was not the act itself, but                                                                    
the circumstances  surrounding it. He could  not imagine any                                                                    
court  interpreting the  scenario that  Senator Wielechowski                                                                    
was describing.                                                                                                                 
Senator  Wielechowski  pointed  out that  courts  frequently                                                                    
deemed individuals mentally incapable of standing trial.                                                                        
Mr. Skidmore  pointed out the  incompetence was  a different                                                                    
standard   than  what   applied  in   the  provision   being                                                                    
discussed. He  furthered that if  the courts found  a person                                                                    
mentally   incompetent,  the   person  could   be  restored.                                                                    
Requiring a person  to be mentally competent at  the time of                                                                    
a  trial  was   the  same  concept  being   applied  to  the                                                                    
9:33:50 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator Olson  thought it  was confusing  to the  public and                                                                    
that  there appeared  to  be  an overreach  by  the law.  He                                                                    
shared concerns.                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore   had  heard  of  concerns   relating  to  the                                                                    
provision.  He thought  it was  important to  understand the                                                                    
law    and   interpret    it    differently.   He    thought                                                                    
misrepresentations  by  the  legislature  could  affect  the                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  discussed the idea of  an affirmative defense.                                                                    
The concept trying  to be achieved was  that everyone should                                                                    
be able to  exercise autonomy for when to  grant consent for                                                                    
sexual  activity.  The  marriage  defense  stated  that  for                                                                    
certain  individuals, there  was no  option for  consent. He                                                                    
asserted  that  the provision  tried  to  level the  playing                                                                    
Senator Olson  asked whether  Mr. Skidmore  was in  favor of                                                                    
marriage as an affirmative defense.                                                                                             
Mr. Skidmore was not in  favor of an affirmative defense and                                                                    
did not think it achieved what Senator Olson had described.                                                                     
9:38:17 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Bishop  focused on  the  concept  of consent  while                                                                    
incapacitated.  He discussed  a hypothetical  scenario of  a                                                                    
person diagnosed with Alzheimer's that was incapacitated.                                                                       
Mr. Skidmore was  not an expert on Alzheimer's  and only had                                                                    
anecdotal experience.  He recognized that Alzheimer's  was a                                                                    
progressive  neuro-degenerative   disease  under   which  he                                                                    
doubted it was medically possible  for a doctor to deem that                                                                    
a person  would be lucid  again. He thought  that caretakers                                                                    
and  spouses  would be  able  to  ascertain when  the  other                                                                    
spouse was lucid or not. He defined sexual contact.                                                                             
Senator Bishop  understood the definition of  sexual contact                                                                    
but wanted to have a clear definition of incapacitation.                                                                        
Mr.  Skidmore  reiterated  that  the  provision  dealt  with                                                                    
"suffering from  a mental disease  or defect that  renders a                                                                    
person incapable of understanding."                                                                                             
9:42:04 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  von   Imhof  appreciated  the   conversation.  She                                                                    
understood that the  Senate version of the  bill removed the                                                                    
marriage defense and people would  be treated the same under                                                                    
the  law, regardless  of marital  status.  She believed  the                                                                    
provision  had  been debated  in  the  Senate State  Affairs                                                                    
Committee.  She thought  Mr. Skidmore  had been  very clear.                                                                    
She asked  if the committee  was ready to  move on to  a new                                                                    
Senator  Micciche noticed  that everything  in the  Senate's                                                                    
four  crime  bills  was  a  pragmatic  approach  to  a  real                                                                    
problem.  He  asked  why  Mr.   Skidmore  was  bringing  the                                                                    
marriage defense to the table.                                                                                                  
Mr. Skidmore stated  there had been cases in  which a spouse                                                                    
alleged  assault  by the  other  spouse,  and the  case  was                                                                    
unable to move forward with  prosecution due to the marriage                                                                    
defense.  He   knew  of  cases  provided   directly  to  the                                                                    
Department of  Law (LAW)  and had  also spoken  to advocates                                                                    
from Standing Together Against Rape that had more examples.                                                                     
Senator Micciche  had received  emails from  individuals and                                                                    
from constituents that  had issues with the  problem and had                                                                    
been unable  to prosecute  a crime  because of  the marriage                                                                    
defense. He thought the elimination  of the marriage defense                                                                    
was a pragmatic approach to a real issue.                                                                                       
Senator Bishop heard Mr. Skidmore  say there were some minor                                                                    
differences between the bill and the Senate version.                                                                            
Mr. Skidmore  stated he had listed  several differences that                                                                    
were minor,  and had  not listed  the provision  of marriage                                                                    
defense as minor.                                                                                                               
Senator  Bishop  asked  if  HB   49  was  workable  for  the                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore stated  there were several components  in HB 49                                                                    
that the administration had significant concerns about.                                                                         
Senator  Bishop  asked for  clarification  as  to the  minor                                                                    
differences and significant concerns.                                                                                           
Mr. Skidmore  clarified that when  he referred to  minor, he                                                                    
referred  to things  that were  not in  the bill.  He stated                                                                    
that when  he referenced significant issues,  he was talking                                                                    
about  concepts in  the bill  that were  different from  the                                                                    
Senate concepts.  He used the  example of caps  on technical                                                                    
violations, which was different in  the two bills and he did                                                                    
not consider the issue to  be minor. He listed discretionary                                                                    
parole eligibility  as an  issue that  was different  in the                                                                    
two bills.                                                                                                                      
9:46:40 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator Wielechowski  had spoken  with members of  the House                                                                    
and had  gleaned that the  administration had agreed  to the                                                                    
language  in  the  bill, including  the  caps  on  technical                                                                    
violations and the marriage defense language.                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore was not involved  in any sort of discussions as                                                                    
described  by Senator  Wielechowski. He  could speak  to the                                                                    
differences  in  the  law and  where  the  differences  were                                                                    
significant to LAW.                                                                                                             
Senator Wielechowski  asked who to  talk to that  would know                                                                    
what  the   administration  supported.  He  had   been  told                                                                    
directly  that the  provisions were  specifically agreed  to                                                                    
and supported by the administration.                                                                                            
Mr.    Skidmore   stated    that   there    were   political                                                                    
considerations for the legislature  to look at. He suggested                                                                    
that members talk to the person that made the statements.                                                                       
Co-Chair von  Imhof noted that  the committee had  asked Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore to  talk about what was  not included in HB  49 and                                                                    
other  provisions  in  the  related  bills.  She  asked  Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore   to  discuss   any  additional   significant  bill                                                                    
provisions that  were contained in the  Senate bill versions                                                                    
and not in HB 49.                                                                                                               
Mr. Skidmore  could not recall any  additional provisions to                                                                    
discuss. He  was certain there  were other  differences, but                                                                    
nothing he would describe as significant.                                                                                       
Senator   Micciche   asked  about   differences   concerning                                                                    
violating conditions of release.                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore  affirmed  that  there  was  a  difference  on                                                                    
violation  of  conditions  of release.  The  Senate  version                                                                    
changed back  to pre-SB 91  law. The Senate version  set the                                                                    
period  at 90  days.  In the  House  version, the  violation                                                                    
remained  a  class  B  misdemeanor  for  all  offenses.  The                                                                    
difference was in the maximum sentencing.                                                                                       
9:50:12 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator Micciche asked about truth in sentencing.                                                                               
Mr. Skidmore  relayed that the  truth in sentencing  was not                                                                    
originally found  in any  of the  governor's bills,  but had                                                                    
been  added to  SB  33 in  the  Senate Judiciary  Committee.                                                                    
There were no provisions related to the subject in HB 49.                                                                       
Senator Wielechowski  asked if the  administration supported                                                                    
the proposed  truth in sentencing  language that was  in the                                                                    
Senate version of the bill.                                                                                                     
Mr. Skidmore stated that the  administration had not taken a                                                                    
position on the matter.                                                                                                         
Senator  Wielechowski asked  if HB  49 effectively  repealed                                                                    
and replaced the negative aspects of SB 91.                                                                                     
Mr. Skidmore  had testified in  the House  Finance Committee                                                                    
that  HB  49 (at  the  time)  had effectively  repealed  and                                                                    
replaced  the negative  aspects  of SB  91.  There had  been                                                                    
changes made  to the bill  on the  floor, and he  was unsure                                                                    
that he could make the same statement at present.                                                                               
Senator  Wielechowski asked  which  provisions Mr.  Skidmore                                                                    
could recommend changing in order  to effectively repeal and                                                                    
replace all the negative aspects of SB 91.                                                                                      
Mr.  Skidmore  stated  that  the   two  concepts  that  were                                                                    
different (after changing  on the House floor)  were caps on                                                                    
technical   violations   and   discretionary   parole;   and                                                                    
returning the provisions  to pre-SB 91 status  would, in his                                                                    
opinion, repeal and replace the negative aspects of SB 91.                                                                      
Senator Micciche asked  if Mr. Skidmore supported  the HB 49                                                                    
sentencing  changes, or  if  he preferred  what  was in  the                                                                    
governor's bill.                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore stated  that  the  presumptive sentencing  for                                                                    
felonies did not revert to  pre-SB 91 status; however, in HB                                                                    
49 adjusted  the sentencing ranges  upward for both A  and B                                                                    
misdemeanors.  He thought  the  change effectively  repealed                                                                    
and  replaced what  was  in  SB 91.  He  thought the  change                                                                    
provided an effective tool for LAW to use.                                                                                      
Senator Wielechowski mentioned that  the governor was paying                                                                    
for  Facebook  advertisements  that   claimed  that  he  had                                                                    
proposed  legislation that  would repeal  SB 91  and replace                                                                    
the bill  with common-sense  crime laws  that would  help to                                                                    
make Alaska  the safest  state in the  country. He  asked if                                                                    
Alaska would be the safest state  in the country if the bill                                                                    
was  passed  with  the  proposed changes  to  the  caps  and                                                                    
discretionary parole.                                                                                                           
Mr. Skidmore thought  that if the changes  he described were                                                                    
made,  it would  provide  tools  for the  state  to try  and                                                                    
combat the crime problem and bring down crime rates.                                                                            
Senator Wielechowski  asked if there was  anything else that                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  could recommend  in order  to make  Alaska the                                                                    
safest state in the country.                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore had no other recommendations at present.                                                                           
9:54:25 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Micciche   did  not  want  to   contradict  Senator                                                                    
Wielechowski, but thought it was  unfair to ask Mr. Skidmore                                                                    
how he would  determine how to make Alaska  the safest state                                                                    
in the  country. He understood  the question but  thought it                                                                    
was fairer to ask if  the legislation returned the pieces of                                                                    
legislation  originally proposed  by the  administration. He                                                                    
asked  Mr.  Skidmore  if  the bill  returned  the  tools  to                                                                    
adequately prosecute and hold  people accountable to the way                                                                    
crimes  as  they were  traditionally  viewed  as opposed  to                                                                    
under the enacted SB 91.                                                                                                        
Mr. Skidmore as for clarification on the question.                                                                              
Senator Micciche  had not  found the  administration's crime                                                                    
bills  to be  overly punitive.  He asked  if Mr.  Skidmore's                                                                    
preference that the bill passed  with provisions in HB 49 or                                                                    
other  bills as  proposed by  the governor.  He asked  which                                                                    
would  be a  more effective  way  to deal  with the  state's                                                                    
crime problem.                                                                                                                  
Mr. Skidmore  stated that  the governor's  original proposed                                                                    
bills  were the  proposals the  administration thought  made                                                                    
sense.   He  acknowledged   the   legislative  process.   He                                                                    
emphasized  that the  legislature  and the  governor had  to                                                                    
make the decisions. He thought  he had tried to identify the                                                                    
areas  of legislative  provisions to  work with  and respect                                                                    
the legislative process.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair von Imhof emphasized that  the legislative body was                                                                    
independent  from the  executive branch.  She thought  there                                                                    
were  items from  previous bills  that  the committee  might                                                                    
want to  add to  HB 49 because  members felt  the provisions                                                                    
were   important.  She   mentioned  various   provisions  of                                                                    
interest including sexual abuse  of a minor, sexual assault,                                                                    
indecent  exposure, unlawful  exploitation of  a minor,  and                                                                    
distribution  of child  pornography. She  did not  think the                                                                    
legislature needed  permission from  the governor to  put in                                                                    
provisions it wanted.                                                                                                           
9:58:59 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Shower discussed  the bill  process. He  thought it                                                                    
was  important not  to rush  the process.  He discussed  the                                                                    
stakeholders  and  associated   testimony  as  an  aggregate                                                                    
opinion. He questioned whether the  committee wanted to pass                                                                    
legislation that was "good enough"  rather than the best. He                                                                    
thought  the administration  was  informing the  body as  to                                                                    
what tools were  needed to address the crime  problem in the                                                                    
state.  He  thought  the bill  being  considered  was  still                                                                    
missing  parts.  He questioned  whether  the  law had  given                                                                    
enough  tools to  the appropriate  agencies to  get the  job                                                                    
Senator Shower continued his remarks.  He was concerned that                                                                    
the  legislature   was  compromising  the  bill.   He  urged                                                                    
patience.  He thought  there  had  been consistent  feedback                                                                    
from agencies that they needed certain tools.                                                                                   
Co-Chair von  Imhof thanked Senator  Shower for his  work on                                                                    
the bills.                                                                                                                      
10:02:19 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair von  Imhof drew  attention to  FN 6,  OMB Component                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  noted that  there had  been a  previous fiscal                                                                    
note  for SB  32, and  it should  be the  same as  FN 6.  He                                                                    
informed that  the note being considered  was erroneous, and                                                                    
the committee  should be considering OMB  Component 4881. He                                                                    
clarified  that the  fiscal note  that should  be considered                                                                    
addressed the  additional resources needed to  prosecute the                                                                    
change  in   drug  crimes.  The   note  also   included  the                                                                    
recriminalization of driving with a license suspended.                                                                          
Co-Chair von  Imhof knew that  the committee would  be doing                                                                    
more work  on the bill  and thought  there was a  chance the                                                                    
fiscal notes would change.                                                                                                      
10:05:09 AM                                                                                                                   
MAJOR  ANDREW  GREENSTREET,  DEPUTY DIRECTOR,  ALASKA  STATE                                                                    
TROOPERS  (via teleconference),  expressed excitement  about                                                                    
the bill, which  would give law enforcement the  tools to be                                                                    
more effective  in responding. Additionally, he  thought the                                                                    
bill would  give the tools  to assist victims of  crimes and                                                                    
restore  the  public's  faith  in  the  justice  system.  He                                                                    
thought often  troopers and  other law  enforcement officers                                                                    
worked with  individuals during a challenging  time when the                                                                    
officer's response was important to the victims.                                                                                
Major  Greenstreet  noted  that  HB  49  addressed  property                                                                    
crimes,  which had  risen 23  percent in  the previous  five                                                                    
years.  He  reported  getting  on  overwhelming  sense  that                                                                    
businesses that were being  victimized were reporting thefts                                                                    
as frequently because  of the perception that  there was "no                                                                    
teeth"  in  the  criminal  justice system  and  the  limited                                                                    
number of resources available to investigate the crimes.                                                                        
Major Greenstreet continued his  remarks. He thought the new                                                                    
tools  pertaining  to motor  vehicle  theft  would give  law                                                                    
enforcement  additional options  to  address  the crime  and                                                                    
prevent further crime. He  thought oftentimes vehicle thefts                                                                    
were  part  of  drug  culture.  He  addressed  the  stronger                                                                    
penalties for drug  crimes in the bill. He  thought the bill                                                                    
helped with the ability to  address drug crimes at different                                                                    
levels.   He   approved   of   significant   penalties   for                                                                    
Major  Greenstreet addressed  the videoconferencing  allowed                                                                    
for  in the  bill. He  thought there  was an  officer safety                                                                    
component   and   thought  videoconferencing   would   allow                                                                    
troopers to be more effective.                                                                                                  
10:09:49 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator Micciche referenced changes  in Soldotna. He thought                                                                    
that HB  49 was a significant  backward move from SB  32 and                                                                    
SB  35,  which  had  been  passed  through  the  Senate.  He                                                                    
discussed  drug  houses in  his  district  which had  turned                                                                    
communities into a "zombie  wasteland" where residents lived                                                                    
in fear daily.  He asked if Major  Greenstreet supported the                                                                    
return of  the caps,  reductions in violating  conditions of                                                                    
release, and lower  sentencing contained in the  bill; or if                                                                    
his  preference was  to return  to pre-SB  91 levels  in the                                                                    
three areas.                                                                                                                    
Major  Greenstreet  clarified  that  he  preferred  stronger                                                                    
sentencing, and  preferred the original  language pertaining                                                                    
to violations  of conditions of  parole, and removal  of the                                                                    
cap. He was  a second-generation Alaskan and  was a lifelong                                                                    
Alaskan. He had  worked in law enforcement for  25 years and                                                                    
had  worked in  narcotics  investigation.  He was  concerned                                                                    
about the  drug culture in  the state. He wanted  to support                                                                    
the strongest  legislation to curb  the drug problem  in the                                                                    
Senator   Micciche  thanked   Major   Greenstreet  for   his                                                                    
10:13:00 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator  Wielechowski  acknowledged  the importance  of  the                                                                    
issue. He asked  if there was anything  Major Greenstreet to                                                                    
put  in the  bill to  make Alaska  the safest  state in  the                                                                    
Major   Greenstreet   supported   Mr.   Skidmore's   remarks                                                                    
pertaining to  the marriage  defense proposal.  He supported                                                                    
the original bill and returning law to pre-SB 91 levels.                                                                        
Senator    Bishop    associated   himself    with    Senator                                                                    
Wielechowski's  remarks.  He referenced  Senator  Micciche's                                                                    
remarks about Soldotna. He asked  if Major Greenstreet could                                                                    
address the problems mentioned by  Senator Micciche could be                                                                    
solved if  SB 32, SB  33, SB 34, and  SB 35 were  enacted in                                                                    
Major Greenstreet  thought that  the bills  were a  start in                                                                    
the  right direction.  He discussed  the  importance of  the                                                                    
state's  High   Intensity  Drug  Trafficking   Area  (HIDTA)                                                                    
designation. He  asserted that the  state needed  good solid                                                                    
legislation for the HIDTA funds to be effective.                                                                                
10:15:35 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator Shower  discussed drug activity in  the Mat-Su area.                                                                    
He reiterated his question of  whether "good enough" was ok.                                                                    
He  asked if  Major  Greenstreet would  prefer the  complete                                                                    
package of Senate crime bills, or  if HB 49 was good enough.                                                                    
He agreed that  that simply returning to pre-SB  91 laws was                                                                    
not sufficient. He acknowledged  that putting people in jail                                                                    
was not  going to solve  the state's drug problem,  and that                                                                    
other solutions were necessary.                                                                                                 
Major  Greenstreet  discussed  the   drug  activity  in  the                                                                    
Hatcher's  Pass area.  He wanted  law enforcement  to be  as                                                                    
effective as possible in the  area. He did not like settling                                                                    
for  an  "ok"  solution  and  wanted  to  support  the  best                                                                    
legislation  possible.  He  liked  the  direction  that  the                                                                    
legislation was going. He hoped  that the bill could be done                                                                    
Co-Chair von  Imhof wanted to  address the fiscal  notes for                                                                    
rape kits.                                                                                                                      
10:18:25 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator  Wielechowski asked  if Alaska  the safest  state in                                                                    
the country before the passage of SB 91.                                                                                        
Major  Greenstreet affirmed  that Alaska  was certainly  not                                                                    
the safest state in the country before SB 91 was passed.                                                                        
Senator   Wielechowski  referenced   Alaska's  poor   safety                                                                    
statistics and asked how it  was possible to make Alaska the                                                                    
safest state in the nation by going back to pre-SB 91 laws.                                                                     
Major Greenstreet  did not know  how returning to  pre-SB 91                                                                    
status  would make  the state  the safest,  but thought  the                                                                    
proposed  changes  were  better  than the  current  law.  He                                                                    
thought the  proposed legislation  was a  step in  the right                                                                    
10:20:08 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair von  Imhof asked about  a new fiscal note  from the                                                                    
Department of  Public Safety (DPS),  OMB Component  527. She                                                                    
asked for the sexual assault kits to be addressed.                                                                              
~KATHERYN   MONFREDA,   DIRECTOR,  DIVISION   OF   STATEWIDE                                                                    
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF  PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference),                                                                    
stated  that the  crime lab  was under  her management.  She                                                                    
detailed  that the  fiscal note  requested two  positions to                                                                    
meet  the  obligation  of  getting  the  backlog  of  sexual                                                                    
assault kits processed within one year.                                                                                         
Co-Chair  von Imhof  asked about  the new  provision in  the                                                                    
bill regarding the sexual assault kits.                                                                                         
10:21:46 AM                                                                                                                   
DAVID KANARIS,  ASSISTANT CHIEF, SCIENTIFIC  CRIME DETECTIVE                                                                    
LAB,  DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  SAFETY  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
confirmed  that the  fiscal  note  requested two  additional                                                                    
positions.  He stated  that there  had been  an increase  in                                                                    
cases in  the lab,  specifically more sexual  assault cases.                                                                    
On average  in 2018  there was 28  sexual assault  cases per                                                                    
month,  which  had  risen  to  36  per  month.  Due  to  the                                                                    
provisions in the  bill, the lab expected  an additional 120                                                                    
cases. He estimated that each  position could work around 70                                                                    
to  80  cases per  month.  The  fiscal note  also  reuqested                                                                    
$158,000 to outsource a number of cases.                                                                                        
Mr.  Kanaris  continued  to  discuss  the  fiscal  note.  He                                                                    
discussed   the   huge   commitment   necessary   to   train                                                                    
individuals  to  process  cases to  the  Federal  Bureau  of                                                                    
Investigation  standards  and   lab  quality  standards.  He                                                                    
stated the outsourcing would be for six months.                                                                                 
Senator Bishop  expressed concern  about part of  the fiscal                                                                    
note analysis:                                                                                                                  
     "However,  if  the  crime  lab   continues  to  see  an                                                                    
     increase in DNA case submissions  as it has this fiscal                                                                    
     year,  prioritization  of  sexual  assault  cases  will                                                                    
     continue to  increase over other DNA  requests (such as                                                                    
     property crimes) increasing  the backlog and turnaround                                                                    
     time of nonpriority cases."                                                                                                
Senator  Bishop wondered  if the  department needed  another                                                                    
position so  that resources  would not  need to  be diverted                                                                    
from lower priority requests such as property crimes.                                                                           
Mr. Kanaris  stated that the  intent of the language  was to                                                                    
inform  the legislature  what  could  potentially happen  if                                                                    
there were  no additional  positions funded. He  stated that                                                                    
the two requested positions were  the minimum needed to stay                                                                    
current with the increased caseload.                                                                                            
10:25:45 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair  von Imhof  noted that  the fiscal  note referenced                                                                    
the  outsourcing for  testing  of sexual  assault kits.  She                                                                    
thought  it  was possible  to  consider  outsourcing in  the                                                                    
future in order to keep up with all the lab requests.                                                                           
Senator Wilson expressed concern  that the previous year the                                                                    
capital budget  had appropriated  around $2 million  for the                                                                    
storage and testing  of sexual assault kits.  He thought the                                                                    
funding  could   run  out  if  additional   funds  were  not                                                                    
appropriated. He  wondered if the  state wanted  to continue                                                                    
to fund the testing of the kits on a statewide basis.                                                                           
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if  the expenses on the fiscal note                                                                    
showed  the  state's  responsibility. She  asked  about  the                                                                    
responsibility  of  the  municipalities  and  boroughs.  She                                                                    
asked  if  Senator Wilson  was  suggesting  that all  sexual                                                                    
assault  kits be  sent to  the state  to be  processed in  a                                                                    
central location.                                                                                                               
Senator Wilson thought the language  of the bill stated that                                                                    
the  kits went  to the  state  or an  outside processor.  He                                                                    
understood  that  the  $2  million  previously  appropriated                                                                    
would  run out  and wondered  if the  previous appropriation                                                                    
was going to  be factored into the fiscal note,  or if there                                                                    
would be an additional funding request.                                                                                         
Mr. Kanaris  understood that  the capital  appropriation the                                                                    
previous year was to have  all the historical kits processed                                                                    
in the state.  The project had been started and  the lab had                                                                    
sent  about 600  of  the kits  out to  be  processed out  of                                                                    
state. The project  would continue on for  the following two                                                                    
years. The  fiscal note  attached to  the bill  was forward-                                                                    
looking and was  to fund the processing  of forthcoming kits                                                                    
and to  keep the processing  within the 12-month  time limit                                                                    
as proposed by the bill.                                                                                                        
Senator  Wilson  understood  that  there  was  no  cost  for                                                                    
municipalities. He  asked if the  state was  responsible for                                                                    
paying for all sexual assault exam kits statewide.                                                                              
Mr. Kanaris  affirmed that the  state crime lab  did process                                                                    
all sexual assault kits for the  state and was the only full                                                                    
service crime lab in the state.                                                                                                 
10:30:00 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator Micciche  understood that there had  been inadequate                                                                    
funding and inadequate expectations  for processing that had                                                                    
created a  backlog. He thought Mr.  Kanaris had communicated                                                                    
that  the appropriation  had satisfied  the funding  for the                                                                    
backlog  and  the  fiscal  note  would  likely  satisfy  the                                                                    
funding going forward in accordance with the legislation.                                                                       
Mr.   Kanaris  agreed.   He  clarified   that  the   capital                                                                    
appropriation was  not to  address a  lack of  past funding.                                                                    
Rather,  the  backlog  of kits  were  cases  not  previously                                                                    
submitted to the lab.                                                                                                           
Senator  Micciche  was  supportive of  adequate  funding  to                                                                    
process   the  sexual   assault  kits.   He  discussed   the                                                                    
importance of testing of sexual assault kits.                                                                                   
Mr. Kanaris stated  that the original fiscal note  for SB 20                                                                    
had requested four positions with  the intent of working the                                                                    
backlog of cases within six  months' time. He expected to be                                                                    
able to manage  processing kits in twelve  months' time with                                                                    
two additional positions.                                                                                                       
Senator  Wilson  asked if  Mr.  Kanaris  was requesting  two                                                                    
positions, but it was best to have four.                                                                                        
Mr. Kanaris expected to meet  the 12-month timeline with two                                                                    
positions.  He  stated that  if  the  legislature wanted  to                                                                    
reduce the  timeline to less  than 12 months, the  lab would                                                                    
need more positions.                                                                                                            
10:33:42 AM                                                                                                                   
NANCY MEADE,  GENERAL COUNSEL,  ALASKA COURT  SYSTEM, stated                                                                    
that COURT did  not have a policy position  on many sections                                                                    
of  the bill.  The court  system  was impacted  by the  bail                                                                    
provisions  and pre-trial  sections. She  referenced Section                                                                    
50, which was  the statute that informed judges  how to make                                                                    
arraignment decisions.  The provision  was largely  a return                                                                    
to  former law  and did  away  with how  the pre-trial  risk                                                                    
assessment score drove the decision  of the judge. She had a                                                                    
couple of suggestions to solve tension in some wordings.                                                                        
Ms. Meade looked at page  31, which covered bail conditions.                                                                    
She  considered page  31,  line 27  through  line 29,  which                                                                    
would  change  what  happened   to  the  pre-trial  services                                                                    
officer. The bill  stated that the court may  order a person                                                                    
to submit  to supervision by  an officer, which  may include                                                                    
the use  of electronic monitoring.  She took issue  with the                                                                    
clause  "if  determined  necessary by  the  commissioner  of                                                                    
DOC". She stated  that current law dictated that  it was the                                                                    
court  that   determined  if  a   person  should   be  under                                                                    
electronic  monitoring. She  did not  know if  the provision                                                                    
was  intended or  if there  had been  a drafting  error. She                                                                    
noted  that on  line 24,  it stated  the court  may order  a                                                                    
person to  submit to electronic monitoring.  A prior version                                                                    
said "by a  private company," which had  been eliminated but                                                                    
she still  saw tension between subsection  17 and subsection                                                                    
19 and suggested the "if clause" be eliminated for clarity.                                                                     
10:36:58 AM                                                                                                                   
Ms. Meade  drew attention to  lines 25  and 26 of  the bill,                                                                    
which she thought  was wholly unnecessary and  could lead to                                                                    
problems. She pointed  out that the timing  of the provision                                                                    
was  wrong  and  explained  the logic.  She  suggested  that                                                                    
subsection 18 be eliminated.                                                                                                    
Ms. Meade  addressed page  32, line  23; which  pertained to                                                                    
court considerations  at release. There had  been discussion                                                                    
in  the other  body as  to whether  subsection 12  (the pre-                                                                    
trial risk  assessment) had to be  considered. She suggested                                                                    
minor language  changes to remove  obstacles from  the court                                                                    
continuing if the pre-trial services  office did not get the                                                                    
assessment to the court system.                                                                                                 
Senator Wilson  asked if the  court would still  have access                                                                    
to the information if the line was deleted.                                                                                     
Ms. Meade  noted that  the section was  a list  of "shalls,"                                                                    
and if the  wording was changed to "may"  the language would                                                                    
have to be moved to  a different section. She explained that                                                                    
the language was  changed on the grounds  that people wanted                                                                    
to continue  to have the  judge consider the  pre-trial risk                                                                    
assessment.  She clarified  that a  judge was  not bound  to                                                                    
follow anything in  the report. She added that  the bill did                                                                    
have the effect of removing  the assessment score from being                                                                    
the  driver  of  the  court's decision-making;  but  it  did                                                                    
stipulate that the court must look at it.                                                                                       
10:40:13 AM                                                                                                                   
Ms. Meade  drew attention to  page 33  line 19 of  the bill.                                                                    
The  provision stated  that the  courts bail  schedule (used                                                                    
for minor  misdemeanors) had to  have a  condition providing                                                                    
that  the  jail  shall  test the  person  for  intoxication.                                                                    
Former law  said the  jail "may detain"  a person  until the                                                                    
person was  below a .08  on the intoxication test.  The bill                                                                    
changed  the language  to read  "shall detail"  and made  it                                                                    
incumbent upon DOC to test  every person and hold the person                                                                    
until the test was below  .08. She wanted to bring attention                                                                    
to a potential change in current practice.                                                                                      
Senator  Bishop  referenced  a situation  in  Fairbanks  and                                                                    
asked  how  the potential  language  may  have affected  the                                                                    
Ms. Meade clarified  that she did not have  a suggestion but                                                                    
wanted to  point out that the  bill made a change  from "can                                                                    
hold them" to "have to hold them."                                                                                              
Senator Wielechowski  asked if  the provision  would require                                                                    
DOC  to test  every single  person  who was  arrested for  a                                                                    
Ms.  Meade  saw that  line  19  specified that  DOC  "shall"                                                                    
conduct a  chemical test of  a person "who  is intoxicated."                                                                    
She  supposed   it  would  be  within   the  discretion  and                                                                    
judgement  of   the  correctional  office  or   facility  to                                                                    
determine   whether   the    individual   fell   under   the                                                                    
Senator Hoffman asked how many  individuals would fall under                                                                    
the provision,  and how many  individuals had  been released                                                                    
under the "may" clause.                                                                                                         
Ms. Meade did not have the information.                                                                                         
Senator  Hoffman thought  it was  important to  consider how                                                                    
many people  would be affected  by the change from  "may" to                                                                    
"shall."  He  thought that  in  the  Bethel area  there  was                                                                    
overcrowded conditions in detention facilities.                                                                                 
10:44:05 AM                                                                                                                   
Ms.  Meade had  thoughts about  page 37  of the  bill, which                                                                    
discussed  technical violations  of  probation. She  thought                                                                    
there was probably an inadvertent  drafting error. There was                                                                    
no  longer a  definition for  technical petitions  to revoke                                                                    
probation and other subsections in the provision.                                                                               
Co-Chair von Imhof asked Ms.  Meade if she was familiar with                                                                    
the  provision in  the  Senate's version  of  the bill.  She                                                                    
wondered if Ms. Meade was  happier with the Senate's version                                                                    
pertaining to the technical violation of the caps.                                                                              
Ms. Meade  thought that the  provision had been  repealed in                                                                    
the  Senate   version.  All  the  technical   violations  as                                                                    
discussed by  Mr. Skidmore  had been  considered problematic                                                                    
by LAW  and it wanted to  get rid of the  statute. The court                                                                    
did not have a position.                                                                                                        
Ms. Meade addressed the end of  the bill, and did not have a                                                                    
position  on  testing kits,  or  probation  and parole.  The                                                                    
court rule amendments  began in Section 96.  She thought Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore  had testified  that the  section would  be helpful                                                                    
for prosecutors  in grand  juries. She  had no  knowledge of                                                                    
the subject as  grand juries were run  by district attorneys                                                                    
without  a  judge.  She  stated  that  the  amendment  would                                                                    
typically go  through a court  rules committee  to establish                                                                    
recommendations for the  supreme court as to  whether it was                                                                    
an  appropriate procedure.  She noted  that the  legislature                                                                    
had the authority to do so with a two-thirds majority vote.                                                                     
10:47:18 AM                                                                                                                   
Ms. Meade  addressed Section  97 and  Section 98,  which had                                                                    
rule  amendments that  typically went  through the  criminal                                                                    
rules committee for consideration  by the supreme court. The                                                                    
supreme court  had a lot  of interest  in videoconferencing,                                                                    
specifically in  the rules being  addressed. She  had worked                                                                    
with  LAW to  offer wording  that might  be more  in keeping                                                                    
with the supreme  court's intent. She stated  that COURT did                                                                    
spearhead all the use of  videoconferencing in the state for                                                                    
proceedings that took place between  jails and the court and                                                                    
would continue to do so.                                                                                                        
Ms.  Meade  addressed  Section 102,  which  pertained  to  a                                                                    
report  regarding involuntary  commitments. The  section did                                                                    
require   COURT  to   provide  to   DPS  information   about                                                                    
individuals  who were  mentally  committed  since 1981.  The                                                                    
section provided time  to do so, as Ms.  Meade had requested                                                                    
in previous  testimony. She noted  that the  provision would                                                                    
create a  substantial amount of  work since  the information                                                                    
was  largely   on  microfiche.  The  information   would  be                                                                    
provided  to DPS  to put  in a  database so  the individuals                                                                    
would be disqualified from gun ownership.                                                                                       
Senator Micciche  asked about Ms. Meade's  preference if the                                                                    
effective date was split between  readily available data and                                                                    
microfiche data.                                                                                                                
Ms. Meade  stated that a  different version of the  bill had                                                                    
an effective date  of January 1, 2011; which did  not have a                                                                    
fiscal impact because  the cases would be on  Court View and                                                                    
the staff  would be able  to absorb the extra  work. Between                                                                    
2002 and  2011, courts  were being  phased into  Court View.                                                                    
She discussed  the amount of  work relative to how  far back                                                                    
in time the records went.                                                                                                       
Senator  Micciche asked  for information  on  the impact  of                                                                    
different effective dates.                                                                                                      
Co-Chair von  Imhof wanted to  know the necessity  of having                                                                    
records from 2010  and prior. She asked how  data going back                                                                    
to 1982 would enhance a case.                                                                                                   
Ms.  Meade   clarified  that  COURT   had  not   sought  the                                                                    
provision;  but DPS  wanted the  information  going back  to                                                                    
1981  and had  asked for  the information  in the  past. The                                                                    
information  had been  required starting  in 2014  and COURT                                                                    
had  provided   it.  Without  authority,  COURT   would  not                                                                    
disclose the confidential documents.                                                                                            
10:51:55 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair von  Imhof stated that  the committee  would resume                                                                    
in the afternoon to hear further testimony.                                                                                     
Co-Chair von Imhof  wanted to address FN 18  from the Alaska                                                                    
Court System, OMB Component 768.  The note was published May                                                                    
8, 2019  for $1,276,000.  She asked if  the fiscal  note was                                                                    
Ms. Meade  answered in the  affirmative. She noted  that LAW                                                                    
was  seeking   five  new  attorneys   and  four   new  staff                                                                    
positions. The department  had also added a  request for two                                                                    
temporary  judges  to cover  all  the  new anticipated  drug                                                                    
cases.  The  judges would  travel  the  state to  cover  the                                                                    
increased  workload  and  would need  two  travelling  court                                                                    
clerks.  The  other part  of  the  fiscal note  covered  two                                                                    
clerical positions  to open the additional  felony cases and                                                                    
upload  information to  Court View.  The  cost of  complying                                                                    
with the  report on mental  commitments would be  hiring two                                                                    
(range 14A) employees to look at old files.                                                                                     
Co-Chair von Imhof discussed the agenda for the afternoon.                                                                      
CSHB 49(FIN) am was HEARD  and HELD in committee for further                                                                    
10:54:47 AM                                                                                                                   
The meeting was adjourned at 10:54 a.m.                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 49 SB 33 Spreadsheet - HB 49 am House - Comparison.pdf SFIN 5/10/2019 9:00:00 AM
HB 49
SB 33
HB 49 SB 32 Spreadsheet - HB 49 am House Comparison.pdf SFIN 5/10/2019 9:00:00 AM
HB 49
SB 32
HB 49 am House- Classification and Sentencing Sectional.pdf SFIN 5/10/2019 9:00:00 AM
HB 49
HB 49 SB 34 Spreadsheet -HB 49 am House - Comparison.pdf SFIN 5/10/2019 9:00:00 AM
HB 49
SB 34