Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532

05/12/2019 01:00 PM 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
01:33:05 PM Start
01:33:51 PM HB49
05:11:31 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Please Note Time --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled: TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 49 CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE TELECONFERENCED
Moved SCS CSHB 49(FIN) AM Out of Committee
                 SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                       May 12, 2019                                                                                             
                         1:33 p.m.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:33:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von  Imhof  called the  Senate  Finance  Committee                                                                    
meeting to order at 1:33 p.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                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
None                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Cathy Giessel;  Senator Jesse  Kiehl; Senator  Lora                                                                    
Reinbold;  Senator   Shelley  Hughes;  Juli   Lucky,  Staff,                                                                    
Senator  Natasha  von  Imhof; Buddy  Whitt,  Staff,  Senator                                                                    
Shelley   Hughes;   Kelly   Howell,   Legislative   Liaison,                                                                    
Department   of   Public   Safety;   Mary   Siroky,   Deputy                                                                    
Commissioner,  Department   of  Transportation   and  Public                                                                    
Facilities;  John  Skidmore,  Director,  Criminal  Division,                                                                    
Department  of  Law;  Sonja Kawasaki,  staff,  Senator  Bill                                                                    
Wielechowski;  Jen  Winkelman,  Director  of  Probation  and                                                                    
Parole, Department of Corrections.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Nancy  Meade, General  Counsel, Alaska  Court System;  James                                                                    
Stinson,   Office   of   Public  Advocacy,   Department   of                                                                    
Administration.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SUMMARY                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CSHB 49(FIN) am                                                                                                                 
          CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          SCS  CSHB 49(FIN)  was REPORTED  out of  committee                                                                    
          with   a  "do   pass"   recommendation  and   with                                                                    
          forthcoming  fiscal notes  from the  Department of                                                                    
          Health  and  Social  Services, the  Department  of                                                                    
          Administration,   the  Department   of  Law,   the                                                                    
          Department  of Public  Safety,  the Court  System,                                                                    
          and  the Department  of Corrections;  and one  new                                                                    
          previously published zero fiscal note: FN 1(DHS).                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof acknowledged members in the gallery.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
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."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:33:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof read from a prepared statement:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     While this  is the  first time  this particular  CS has                                                                    
     been before  our committee, I  want to  acknowledge the                                                                    
     immense amount  of work  that has  gone in  to crafting                                                                    
     this legislation.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Alaskans demand  a response to  rising crime  levels in                                                                    
     our  state, and  much  of our  energy this  legislative                                                                    
     session has been devoted to  addressing issues with our                                                                    
     criminal justice system.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     It  started with  the Governor  introducing a  suite of                                                                    
     four bills to roll back  the negative aspects of SB 91,                                                                    
     including  toughening  our  criminal statutes  as  they                                                                    
     relate to sexual crimes.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     The  Senate has  taken the  governor's bills  through a                                                                    
     careful   and  deliberative   committee  process   that                                                                    
     included over fifty hours of  "on the record" committee                                                                    
     time, over ten hours  of public testimony, and hundreds                                                                    
     of  hours behind  the scenes  by legislators  and staff                                                                    
     working to refine and improve these bills.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     The  Senate  strongly   believes  that  our  four-month                                                                    
     process has  been transparent and deliberative,  and we                                                                    
     are  ready  to  present  a work  product  that  repeals                                                                    
     problematic  aspects of  SB 91,  as well  as toughening                                                                    
     our sex crime laws.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     With  this  in mind,  we  present  today the  Committee                                                                    
     Substitute before you. We believe  it includes the best                                                                    
     aspects  of the  House, the  Senate and  the Governor's                                                                    
     versions of the crime bills.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     We believe  in our process  and we believe this  is the                                                                    
     best way forward  to make Alaskans feel  safer in their                                                                    
     homes and communities.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair   Stedman  MOVED   to   ADOPT  proposed   committee                                                                    
substitute  for  CSHB  49(FIN) am,  Work  Draft  31-GH1029\O                                                                    
(Radford, 5/11/19).                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:36:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JULI  LUCKY, STAFF,  SENATOR NATASHA  VON IMHOF,  noted that                                                                    
the majority  of the changes  to the  bill had been  made in                                                                    
the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  (SJUD).  Staff  from  the                                                                    
committee  would be  available  to speak  in  detail to  the                                                                    
changes.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  informed that  the proposed  Committee Substitute                                                                    
(CS) was  a compilation of  elements from  SB 32, SB  33, SB                                                                    
34, and  SB 35 [legislation  pertaining to  criminal justice                                                                    
reform]. She  clarified that the compilation  was drawn from                                                                    
the  bills as  they were  introduced in  the Senate  Finance                                                                    
Committee, rather  than from the original  bills as proposed                                                                    
by  the governor;  and  would include  changes  made in  the                                                                    
Senate State Affairs Committee (SSTA) and SJUD.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky detailed that there  were some items that were put                                                                    
in the bill in the House  and reworded with the direction of                                                                    
the  Department  of  Law (LAW)  and  the  Legislative  Legal                                                                    
Department. From  SB 32, there  were sections  pertaining to                                                                    
indecent  viewing and  photography, which  were replaced  by                                                                    
the  House  language.  There was  a  "truth  in  sentencing"                                                                    
section  put in  another version  of the  bill that  did not                                                                    
appear  in  the  CS.  There was  compromise  language  being                                                                    
considered, and  the Courts  felt it  would be  difficult to                                                                    
put through the reports as  requested by the SJUD committee.                                                                    
She  detailed   that  the   compromise  language   would  be                                                                    
forthcoming in  an amendment package to  be considered later                                                                    
in the day.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky referenced  a  section  of SB  35.  The bill  had                                                                    
expanded some  mandatory reporting  for child  sexual abuse.                                                                    
The  bill also  included required  additional training,  and                                                                    
there had been concern  about unfunded mandates for schools.                                                                    
The  training  component  had been  removed,  but  mandatory                                                                    
reporting  items had  been included  so  that the  committee                                                                    
could consider how to implement  the training using existing                                                                    
resources without putting an unfunded mandate on schools.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  spoke to additions  to the CS. She  reminded that                                                                    
technical violations  and administrative sanctions  had been                                                                    
repealed  in  other  bill  versions.  In  the  CS  technical                                                                    
violations were repealed,  but administrative sanctions were                                                                    
allowed. She  addressed the  pre-trial risk  assessment tool                                                                    
that  had been  repealed in  previous Senate  bill versions.                                                                    
The  House  had  language  for   allowing  the  tool  to  be                                                                    
considered by  the court,  but there  was concern  about the                                                                    
bill  language.  The CS  made  a  pre-trial risk  assessment                                                                    
available for the court to use at its discretion.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky discussed  additions  to the  bill regarding  the                                                                    
possession  of motor  vehicle theft  tools. The  proposed CS                                                                    
included language regarding the  intent to steal contents of                                                                    
a vehicle  in addition  to the vehicle  itself. There  was a                                                                    
section added  regarding aggregation  of small  theft crimes                                                                    
over time.  She mentioned additional bill  provisions in the                                                                    
CS pertaining  to solicitation or production  of an indecent                                                                    
picture of a minor, and sexual assault examination kits.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:40:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky informed  that there had been  amendments that had                                                                    
been  incorporated  into  the  CS,  while  others  would  be                                                                    
considered  individually  by  the  committee.  There  was  a                                                                    
change  in the  language regarding  terroristic threatening.                                                                    
The  new  language would  not  affect  the original  intent.                                                                    
There   was   an   addition   to   expressly   list   Native                                                                    
organizations as an eligible entity  to run a Village Public                                                                    
Safety  Officer  (VPSO)  program. She  understood  that  the                                                                    
language was a technical fix  which would conform statute to                                                                    
current practice.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky continued  that there  was  a section  in the  CS                                                                    
related  to when  car headlights  would  be required,  which                                                                    
would  annul the  current Department  of Transportation  and                                                                    
Public Facilities (DOT) regulations on the topic.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky noted  that the  CS had  an expansion  to include                                                                    
murder  I,  murder  II,  and manslaughter  in  some  of  the                                                                    
prohibitions   regarding  discretionary   parole,  mandatory                                                                    
parole, and good time. There  was also a requirement for the                                                                    
three crimes that two-thirds of  sentence be served prior to                                                                    
being eligible for discretionary parole.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  explained that  there had been  a section  in all                                                                    
the previous  related bills that  required courts  to report                                                                    
involuntary  commitment data.  She recalled  that there  had                                                                    
been relevant  amendments considered  in the other  body. In                                                                    
the CS, the date chosen  was 2011 forward, which would allow                                                                    
for the work to be done  without cost. The last addition was                                                                    
new  language that  required parole  decisions, orders,  and                                                                    
conditions to be  posted on the internet. The  intent of the                                                                    
section  was  to  allow  victims  to  easily  access  parole                                                                    
information.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof thought  it made sense  to go  through a                                                                    
modified  version  of  a Sectional  Analysis  and  highlight                                                                    
important  bill   sections  that  had  been   identified  in                                                                    
previous committees.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky addressed  Section 1,  which was  intent language                                                                    
that  incorporated  all findings  and  intent  from all  the                                                                    
associated  bills. She  did not  think that  there had  been                                                                    
concern about  the intent language. She  stated that Section                                                                    
2 and  Section 3  were mostly  technical changes  to conform                                                                    
felony murder  statutes. The sections would  add a reference                                                                    
to the items in felony murder statutes.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky stated  that  Section 4  and  Section 5  included                                                                    
language that changed the mental  state by removing the word                                                                    
"know,"  which reduced  the ability  of  offenders to  avoid                                                                    
prosecution by claiming they did  not positively know that a                                                                    
victim was incapacitated.  The section was not  in the House                                                                    
bill versions and had been added by the SJUD.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:45:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BUDDY WHITT,  STAFF, SENATOR  SHELLEY HUGHES,  affirmed that                                                                    
Section 4 and Section 5 of  the CS amended sexual assault in                                                                    
the second  and third degree; and  removed the consideration                                                                    
of   whether   an   offender  knew   that   a   victim   was                                                                    
incapacitated.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Whitt noted that there were  10 sections from SB 35 that                                                                    
were in the CS and were  not in the original version of bill                                                                    
as  it came  to the  committee. He  mentioned the  repeal of                                                                    
previous   criminal   justice  reform   legislation.   After                                                                    
reviewing crime  data presentations and other  factors, SJUD                                                                    
had considered  strengthening laws that pertained  to sexual                                                                    
crimes against  children and adults.  It was pointed  out to                                                                    
him by  a colleague that if  Alaska was a country  in and of                                                                    
itself,  the  number  of forcible  rapes  per  capita  would                                                                    
relegate the  state to the  second highest rate  by country.                                                                    
He noted that SJUD had  considered public testimony and many                                                                    
other factors  in developing enhanced  sentencing structures                                                                    
and increases in classification in the bill.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:48:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky spoke to Section 6  and Section 7 of the CS, which                                                                    
addressed the  marriage defense.  The repeal section  in the                                                                    
bill was  Section 142. There  were conforming  changes made.                                                                    
She  drew attention  to  Section 7  of the  CS,  in which  a                                                                    
marriage defense  would exist for  those crimes that  had to                                                                    
do with the  relationship of one person to  another if there                                                                    
was a position of authority or custody.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky addressed  Section 8  and  Section 9  of the  CS,                                                                    
which  were added  by SJUD  to allow  a higher  sentence for                                                                    
sexual abuse of  a minor in the third degree  with more than                                                                    
a  6-year  age difference.  She  continued  that Section  10                                                                    
through Section 12 expanded the  definition of enticement of                                                                    
a   minor.  Section   13  increased   crimes  for   unlawful                                                                    
exploitation  of  a  minor  and raised  the  crimes  by  one                                                                    
degree.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Whitt   discussed  unlawful  exploitation   of  minors,                                                                    
including production  of child  pornography. The  classes of                                                                    
the crime were raised in the CS.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:52:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky addressed  Section 14 of the CS,  which dealt with                                                                    
indecent exposure  and public masturbation. The  section was                                                                    
identical to Section 12 of SB 35.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Whitt stated  that the section was in  the original bill                                                                    
and made the crime of masturbation  in front of a minor less                                                                    
than 16  years of age to  be indecent exposure in  the first                                                                    
degree.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky stated  that the  next few  sections of  the bill                                                                    
addressed  minor property  crimes. She  recalled that  SB 91                                                                    
had  changed the  felony threshold  and  added an  automatic                                                                    
inflation  adjustment. She  noted that  HB 49  took out  the                                                                    
automatic inflation adjustment to  allow the community to be                                                                    
involved when  the levels were  bumped up rather  than being                                                                    
automatically  done through  statute. She  pointed out  that                                                                    
the changes made in the  other body were included; including                                                                    
the addition of identification documents.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky looked  at Section 22 on page 12.  She pointed out                                                                    
that the  felony threshold had  been reduced  for fraudulent                                                                    
use  of an  access  device or  identification document.  The                                                                    
change had been made in the other body.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:55:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  discussed property crime  changes in  Section 25.                                                                    
The section came from the  other body and pertained to motor                                                                    
vehicle theft tools. The  automatic adjustment for inflation                                                                    
was removed.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  looked at Section 32  of the CS, which  had to do                                                                    
with aggregation of small amounts.  There were no changes to                                                                    
the language that passed from the other body.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  considered Section  37,  which  had to  do  with                                                                    
violations of  conditions of release.  The language  was the                                                                    
same  as what  was in  SB 32  but had  not been  included in                                                                    
House bills.  She spoke  to Section  39, which  pertained to                                                                    
disorderly  conduct   and  was  included  in   the  original                                                                    
governor's bills. She discussed  Section 40, which pertained                                                                    
to the showing of indecent photographs and harassment.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  discussed Sections  41  through  45 of  the  CS,                                                                    
relating to  the viewing of indecent  photographs. She added                                                                    
that  the bill  sponsors had  worked with  LAW and  assorted                                                                    
stakeholders and the bill language  that came from the other                                                                    
body was adopted. Section 46  was an addition from the other                                                                    
body  pertaining   to  solicitation  or  production   of  an                                                                    
indecent picture  of a  minor. She stated  that most  of the                                                                    
changes were fairly similar until Section 50.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:59:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  reviewed Section  47  of  the proposed  CS.  She                                                                    
discussed the  charge of  misconduct involving  a controlled                                                                    
substance. She  pointed out that  while the section  and the                                                                    
following  section  were  fairly   similar,  the  House  had                                                                    
proposed to  allow for the  first two charges  of possession                                                                    
of a controlled  substance to count as  a misdemeanor, while                                                                    
the  third charge  would  be a  felony.  She believed  there                                                                    
would  be a  forthcoming  amendment to  discuss the  broader                                                                    
topic.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  spoke to Section 50.  She noted that much  of the                                                                    
"misconduct involving a controlled  substance" crimes had to                                                                    
be  renumbered  and  reorganized within  sections,  but  the                                                                    
largest policy call was the  treatment of a first possession                                                                    
charge.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  looked at Section  55. She explained that  in the                                                                    
governor's  proposed  bill,  a  person  would  be  taken  to                                                                    
arraignment  within 24  hours  of  arrest absent  compelling                                                                    
circumstances. The  Senate bill  and House bill  changed the                                                                    
language to allow 48 hours  after any arrest. There had been                                                                    
concern about the topic in committee.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  discussed Section 56,  and language that  was not                                                                    
repealed.  She mentioned  the addition  of a  pre-trial risk                                                                    
assessment as an optional tool.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:03:39 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:08:15 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof expressed appreciation  for the  work of                                                                    
Ms. Lucky and Mr. Whitt.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Whitt relayed that Section  57 through Section 59 of the                                                                    
CS  were  exactly the  same  as  had  passed the  House.  He                                                                    
offered to highlight  sections of the bill that  were not in                                                                    
the previous versions of the  bill, as the previous versions                                                                    
had been vetted.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Senator Micciche  stated that the  bill had adopted  much of                                                                    
the  House language.  He thought  that it  was important  to                                                                    
identify parts of the bills that were the same.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von  Imhof  asked  Mr.  Whitt  and  Ms.  Lucky  to                                                                    
identify sections of the CS that  were the same as the House                                                                    
bills.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Whitt  advanced to Section  60 of the bill.  The section                                                                    
directed that a person detained  could not be released until                                                                    
there had  been a chemical  test and the detainee  was under                                                                    
the legal  limit of  being intoxicated.  The word  "may" had                                                                    
been changed to "shall."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky pointed  out that lines 27 and 28  showed that the                                                                    
court may consider a pre-trial risk assessment as a factor.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Whitt  considered Section 61  and Section 62 of  the CS,                                                                    
which were  identical to the bill  as it was brought  to the                                                                    
committee. Section 63 was a new section.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky noted that the sections were added by SJUD.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Whitt stated  that Section  63 was  changed in  SJUD so                                                                    
that  in  cases  of  a  sex  offense  or  offense  involving                                                                    
domestic violence, the  court would make a  presumption of a                                                                    
no contact  order between the  person being charged  and the                                                                    
victim. Section  64 was  identical to the  House bill  as it                                                                    
came across from the other body.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:12:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky noted  that Section  65 was  identical to  SB 33,                                                                    
Section  11. The  sections had  to do  with when  electronic                                                                    
monitoring was  allowed. She furthered  that Section  66 was                                                                    
identical to SB  33 Section 12. Section 67  was identical to                                                                    
SB 33 Section 13. The  change pertained to notification of a                                                                    
prosecuting  attorney   when  a  person  left   a  treatment                                                                    
program.  There were  provisions in  the bill  that required                                                                    
the prosecuting attorney to notify the victim.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky stated  that Section  68 was  identical to  SB 33                                                                    
Section 14. Section 69 was identical  to SB 34 Section 2 and                                                                    
removed caps for technical violations.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Senator Micciche  discussed the removal of  pre-trial credit                                                                    
for electronic  monitoring. He asked  if there  was anything                                                                    
in the CS that conflicted with prior changes in SB 14.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky stated  that there had been  changes to electronic                                                                    
monitoring. She had  asked the bill drafters  to ensure that                                                                    
there was not  a conflict within the bill.  She would follow                                                                    
up  with greater  detail at  a  later time  to confirm.  She                                                                    
thought the committee could consider  taking sections out of                                                                    
the bill that pertained to electronic monitoring.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski understood that  there was an agreement                                                                    
between   the  bodies   regarding  HB   14  and   electronic                                                                    
monitoring issues.  He continued that Section  65 to Section                                                                    
68 were agreed to as part of the deal in HB 14.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  stated that the  matter had been a  difficulty in                                                                    
drafting.  It was  the intent  to leave  out the  electronic                                                                    
monitoring changes  as it had  been addressed in HB  14. She                                                                    
stated that  a conceptual amendment would  be forthcoming to                                                                    
remove the sections from the proposed CS.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:16:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky stated that Section  69, pertaining to lifting the                                                                    
cap  on  technical violations,  had  been  identical in  all                                                                    
associated legislation. Section 70,  changing the periods of                                                                    
probation,   was   identical   in  all   versions   of   the                                                                    
legislation. The intent of Section  71 had remained constant                                                                    
in the Senate  bills. The point of the section  was to allow                                                                    
a  probation   officer  to  recommend  to   the  court  when                                                                    
probation  could be  terminated,  and a  defendant could  be                                                                    
discharged.  She  reminded  that   current  law  required  a                                                                    
recommendation when  certain conditions were met.  There had                                                                    
been re-wording of language, but  the intent was the same as                                                                    
SB 32 Section 3.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  spoke to  Section  72,  which provided  class  A                                                                    
felony sentences. The  section was the same  as the previous                                                                    
Senate bill.  She noted that  the sentences were  reduced by                                                                    
approximately one year as the  bill came over from the other                                                                    
body. She continued  that Section 73, pertaining  to class B                                                                    
felonies, was  also reduced by  approximately one  year. She                                                                    
noted  that  class  C  felony changes  in  Section  74  were                                                                    
consistent  between the  House  and Senate  versions of  the                                                                    
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Whitt   reported  that  Section  75   added  conforming                                                                    
sentencing   guidelines   for   the   crimes   of   unlawful                                                                    
exploitation  of  a  minor,  indecent  exposure,  and  other                                                                    
offenses.  The  section  also  had  an  enhanced  sentencing                                                                    
structure  for  those  that hosted  or  created  multi-party                                                                    
sharing or  distribution of  child pornography.  The section                                                                    
was  changed  in SJUD  and  had  not  been included  in  the                                                                    
version of HB 49 as it came to the committee.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky stated  she had  been  alerted that  there was  a                                                                    
problem  with the  sentencing  in the  section  on page  48,                                                                    
lines 7  through 11. There  would be a  conceptual amendment                                                                    
to address the issue. The point  of the section was to allow                                                                    
for higher  sentences however  due to  the placement  of the                                                                    
language, corrective language was needed.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky noted that Section  76 of the CS, which prohibited                                                                    
the lessening of mandatory probation  for sex offenders, was                                                                    
identical in all the associated bills.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:20:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  spoke to Section  77, which  was the same  in all                                                                    
versions of  the bill.  Section 78  had to  do with  Class A                                                                    
misdemeanors. The CS remained  consistent in making a 90-day                                                                    
sentence. The language being removed  had a tiered approach,                                                                    
as  did the  House bill;  however  the Senate  bill had  all                                                                    
Class B misdemeanors at 90 days.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  addressed  Section   79,  which  had  clarifying                                                                    
language for  felonies that counted as  prior conviction for                                                                    
the  sentencing of  sex offenses.  The intent  was the  same                                                                    
throughout all  the bills. Section 80  removed "online" from                                                                    
"online   enticement,"  and   the   change  was   consistent                                                                    
throughout all the associated bills.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  noted that Section  81 was a technical  change to                                                                    
make sure  sentencing matched what  was previously  put into                                                                    
law. Section 82 and Section 83 were items added by SJUD.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Whitt  addressed Section 82, pertaining  to notification                                                                    
of  a  victim  when  a   perpetrator  was  released  from  a                                                                    
treatment  program  for  non-compliance.  Section  83,  also                                                                    
added  in  SJUD, required  DOC  to  expand notification  and                                                                    
resources for victims of a sex crime or domestic violence.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  looked  to  Section 84  and  Section  87,  which                                                                    
pertained  to out  of state  sex  offenders registering  in-                                                                    
state. The  language had  been perfected  in the  House, and                                                                    
most of  the language was  identical in all versions  of the                                                                    
bill.   The  only   changes  to   the   sections  solved   a                                                                    
constitutional issue.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  noted  that  there  were  technical  changes  in                                                                    
Section 88, which conformed to  the 24-hour deadline time to                                                                    
arraignment. Previous bills envisioned  48 hours, and the CS                                                                    
envisioned a 24-hour period from arrest to arraignment.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  discussed new  concepts in the  CS in  Section 89                                                                    
through  Section 92,  which  added  Native organizations  as                                                                    
eligible entities to provide the VPSO program.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:24:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Micciche  assumed there would be  more discussion on                                                                    
the  technical change  relating to  VPSOs. He  did not  know                                                                    
much about the subject.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof suggested a  conversation at  present or                                                                    
during   the  amendment   portion   of   the  meeting.   She                                                                    
acknowledged that  the many  moving parts  of the  bill were                                                                    
put in the  CS, and others would be  presented as amendments                                                                    
in order  to facilitate conversation. She  suggested to make                                                                    
a note of the topic and  include it as part of the amendment                                                                    
conversation.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  affirmed that  Section  93  and Section  94  was                                                                    
similar in  all bill versions.  There would be  an amendment                                                                    
needed to change the sections back to the Senate version.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  discussed  Section  95  and  Section  96,  which                                                                    
allowed DOC  to have discretion  over a first  conviction of                                                                    
Driving  Under  the  Influence   (DUI).  There  had  been  a                                                                    
difference  between the  House  and Senate  versions of  the                                                                    
provision. Sections 97 and 98  dealt with reinstatement of a                                                                    
driver's  license  after  10  years.  There  had  been  some                                                                    
differences  in language  between the  House and  Senate. It                                                                    
was the  intent of the CS  to adopt the Senate  version, and                                                                    
there would be a forthcoming amendment to do so.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:27:44 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:28:27 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky continued discussing Section  97 and Section 98 of                                                                    
the CS. She  clarified that there were  two different crimes                                                                    
that  were  generally  given  the   same  penalty:  DUI  and                                                                    
Refusing  a  Chemical Test.  The  sections  had always  gone                                                                    
together. The language would need to be amended.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof asked about Section 99 of the CS.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  stated  that  Section   99  was  a  new  section                                                                    
pertaining to  the failure to  use headlights.  The language                                                                    
was previously in  DOT regulation and was  annulled later in                                                                    
the  CS.  She  explained  that it  would  be  considered  an                                                                    
infraction  when a  person did  not use  headlights one-half                                                                    
hour  after sunset  or one-half  hour before  sunrise or  if                                                                    
there  was insufficient  light or  clear visibility  to 1000                                                                    
feet.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  addressed  Section  100.  The  Senate  bill  had                                                                    
removed  pre-trial enforcement  duties  to  DOC. There  were                                                                    
changes   in  the   bill  that   referenced  the   pre-trial                                                                    
enforcement division.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky spoke  to Section 101, which was  also a departure                                                                    
from House  language. She thought Senator  Micciche knew the                                                                    
details of the language change.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Whitt stated  that Section 101 and Section  102 had been                                                                    
added to SB  34. Section 101 pertained  to earned compliance                                                                    
credits for probationers.  The section was not  in the House                                                                    
bill  as it  came to  the committee.  Section 102  precluded                                                                    
certain  persons   from  participating  due  to   crimes  of                                                                    
unclassified  felonies,  a  sex   offense,  a  felony  crime                                                                    
against a person, or a crime involving domestic violence.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:33:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  pointed out that  Sections 102 and 103  were also                                                                    
related  to repealing  the  pre-trial enforcement  division.                                                                    
There was  also a section  that allowed the  commissioner of                                                                    
DOC to  procure and  enter into  agreements or  contracts on                                                                    
electronic monitoring. The sections  were in previous Senate                                                                    
bills as the bills came into committee.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  detailed that Section  105 of the CS  was similar                                                                    
to  SB 33  Section 21.  She  pointed out  that new  language                                                                    
requested by  the Legislative  Legal Department  stated that                                                                    
it  was  the  duty  of  a probation  officer  to  conduct  a                                                                    
pretrial  risk  assessment.  She  understood  the  duty  was                                                                    
current practice and was being codified in the law.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Senator Micciche wanted to clarify  that Section 101 and 102                                                                    
did not change intent. The  end result accounting for earned                                                                    
compliance credits was the same.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky noted  that Section 106 and Section  107 were new.                                                                    
The  section  prohibited  mandatory  parole  for  murder  I,                                                                    
murder II,  and manslaughter;  and had  been an  addition to                                                                    
the bill by the Senate Finance Committee.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  explained  that Section  108  clarified  that  a                                                                    
prisoner would  have to submit  an application in  order get                                                                    
parole. The section  was in the bill  originally proposed by                                                                    
the governor.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  continued  that  Section   109  of  the  CS  was                                                                    
identical to  SB 34 Section  10. The version that  came from                                                                    
the  house   had  some  additional  language;   the  section                                                                    
proposed in the CS was  from the Senate language and related                                                                    
to  who  was  eligible  for  discretionary  parole  and  the                                                                    
minimum time served to be eligible.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky pointed  out that  Section  110 had  a change  to                                                                    
accommodate  murder I  and murder  II. The  section required                                                                    
that two-thirds of an active  term of imprisonment be served                                                                    
before  a person  could get  discretionary  parole. The  new                                                                    
language applied to higher offenses.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:36:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky addressed  Section  111 of  the  CS, relating  to                                                                    
eliminating a  presumption of  release, which  was identical                                                                    
in  all  three  versions  of   the  bill.  Section  112  was                                                                    
identical in  all versions of  the bill  and had to  do with                                                                    
applications for discretionary parole.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky stated that Section  113 and 114 also pertained to                                                                    
a  prisoner's  application  for  parole  and  what  must  be                                                                    
included.  Section 115  was a  new section  relating to  the                                                                    
confidentiality  of parole  board decisions.  She understood                                                                    
that  the  amendment was  sought  in  order for  victims  to                                                                    
better understand parole decisions.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  spoke to Section  116, which was identical  to SB                                                                    
33  Section 22,  and  had to  do with  the  movement of  the                                                                    
pretrial enforcement division. Section  117 was identical to                                                                    
SB  34  Section  16  and   dealt  with  a  parole  officer's                                                                    
recommendation for early discharge for a parolee.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  noted that  Section 118  and Section  119 removed                                                                    
references to  a technical violation. She  recalled that the                                                                    
administrative  sanctions  were  allowed in  the  originally                                                                    
Senate bill.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:39:46 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:40:25 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Whitt  spoke to Section 120  and Section 121 of  the CS,                                                                    
which  pertained   to  compliance  credits  for   parole.  A                                                                    
deduction  would come  from the  compliance credit.  Section                                                                    
121  would  establish those  that  were  ineligible for  the                                                                    
credits.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky noted  that Section 120 was very similar  to SB 34                                                                    
Section 19;  but for the  addition of the  language relating                                                                    
to murder I, murder II, and manslaughter.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:42:03 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:42:42 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Whitt informed  that Section 123 stated  that a prisoner                                                                    
could not  be awarded a  good-time deduction for  time spent                                                                    
in  a   treatment  program,  private  residence,   or  under                                                                    
electronic monitoring.  The language  was identical  to that                                                                    
in SB 34 Section 21.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky stated that Section  124 put new crimes enacted by                                                                    
the bill  into the definition of  illegal activity involving                                                                    
a controlled substance. There  were technical corrections in                                                                    
the section, but  it was otherwise identical to  what was in                                                                    
SB 32.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:43:38 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:50:03 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Whitt  drew attention  to Section 125  of the  CS, which                                                                    
related  to  the  DOC's  quarterly   report  to  the  Alaska                                                                    
Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) working group.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky pointed out a technical  change on page 78 line 25                                                                    
and line 26.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Whitt stated  that  Section 126  and  Section 127  went                                                                    
together, which had  to do with tracking  and compilation of                                                                    
data  on sex  offense  complaints and  felony sex  offenses.                                                                    
Section  126 stipulated  that the  data be  included on  the                                                                    
ACJC annual report.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky  added that  the  provisions  were added  in  the                                                                    
Senate.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Whitt informed  that Section 128 added  a new subsection                                                                    
instructing the Department of Law  to gather various data on                                                                    
sex offenses. The section was not  included in HB 49 when it                                                                    
came to the  committee. Section 129 through  Section 132 all                                                                    
related  to the  sexual assault  examination kits  bill, and                                                                    
was  exactly  the  same  as  the bill  as  it  came  to  the                                                                    
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky confirmed  that the sections were  the same. There                                                                    
would be one conceptual amendment  that was requested by LAW                                                                    
to re-word a sentence pertaining to anonymous reports.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky stated that Section  133 was a technical change to                                                                    
address the renumbering of controlled substance crimes.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Whitt  stated that Section  134 through Section  136 all                                                                    
dealt with  the "duty  to report" laws  in the  state. Under                                                                    
the sections, there would be  a requirement to report to law                                                                    
enforcement harm done to against child.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky recalled  concerns  about  unfunded mandates  and                                                                    
stated  that the  training component  had been  removed from                                                                    
the bill.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  noted that Section  137 added a reference  to the                                                                    
"sex offense"  definition. Section  138 through  Section 141                                                                    
were all direct court rule amendments.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Whitt noted that Section 142 was the repealer section.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  noted that  Section 143 was  an annulment  of DOT                                                                    
regulations. Section 144 was added in  SB 33 as it came from                                                                    
SJUD,   and   instructed   DOC    to   report   on   certain                                                                    
rehabilitative services and their impact.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky  stated that Section  145 pertained to  the report                                                                    
of the Superior Court  regarding involuntary commitment. The                                                                    
section  had  been changed  to  only  reflect orders  issued                                                                    
after January 1,  2011; which were electronic  and would not                                                                    
require additional personnel to transfer.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:55:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky addressed Section 146,  which was an applicability                                                                    
section. There would be  some technical amendments requested                                                                    
by LAW.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Whitt  addressed  Section  147,  which  was  transition                                                                    
language as pre-trial services  officers were transferred to                                                                    
probation officers. Section 148  was transition language for                                                                    
the LAW, the attorney general,  and the Department of Public                                                                    
Safety (DPS) to  be able to work together  on regulations in                                                                    
order to implement the reporting  mechanisms that were added                                                                    
to the bill. Section 149 had  to do with indecent viewing or                                                                    
photography.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Lucky pointed out that  Section 150 was the statement of                                                                    
the conditional effect  of Section 138 and  Section 141. She                                                                    
listed court rule changes. The  next sections were effective                                                                    
date sections.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Whitt added  that the  effective date  of September  1,                                                                    
2020  in Section  153 related  to the  sections of  the bill                                                                    
pertaining to  duty to report.  The change was made  to give                                                                    
more time to enable training  before the start of the school                                                                    
year.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Lucky noted  that there  was a  typographical error  on                                                                    
page  5  that  was  addressed  in  the  technical  amendment                                                                    
packet.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that  the committee would consider                                                                    
questions from  members. There  were several  people present                                                                    
to answer questions pertaining  to specific departments. She                                                                    
hoped the  committee would adopt  the CS, and  then consider                                                                    
amendments that were already drafted.  There would be an at-                                                                    
ease to consider the amendments.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Senator Bishop wanted to hear from DPS.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:59:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Bishop  asked if  DPS had  the tools  to do  what it                                                                    
needed and make arrests on small property crimes.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
KELLY  HOWELL,  LEGISLATIVE  LIAISON, DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC                                                                    
SAFETY,  stated   that  the   Alaska  State   Troopers  were                                                                    
diligently  working  to  recruit and  retain  troopers.  She                                                                    
continued that  there were 18  recruits at the  academy. She                                                                    
recognized  that understaffing  did  create workload  issues                                                                    
for the  troopers. She  noted that  there was  a significant                                                                    
amount  of overtime  involved in  being able  to respond  to                                                                    
calls  for service  across the  state. She  hoped that  once                                                                    
recruits were  in the field  that the department  would have                                                                    
the  tools to  respond to  the crimes  mentioned by  Senator                                                                    
Bishop.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Senator Hoffman referenced page 65,  Section 99 of the bill,                                                                    
which pertained  to the use  of headlights. He asked  if the                                                                    
section applied to boats.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Howell  thought  that  the  language  applied  only  to                                                                    
vehicles travelling on roadways.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Senator   Micciche  asked   if   the  department   supported                                                                    
returning possession  of certain  drugs to a  felony charge.                                                                    
He asked about  drug crimes and related  property crimes. He                                                                    
asked if  the department  supported the changes  proposed in                                                                    
the CS  and if the bill  provided the tools to  intervene in                                                                    
drug houses around the state.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Howell  thought the troopers  had communicated  that the                                                                    
CS  would provide  enhanced and  stronger  tools to  address                                                                    
drug  houses and  other problems.  The department  supported                                                                    
the increased penalties for drug crimes.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Olson  referenced  Section 99  which  pertained  to                                                                    
headlights. He  asked if  the section  was a  deviation from                                                                    
statute.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Howell thought  that most of the  language was identical                                                                    
to  regulation  already  in  place.  The  section  that  was                                                                    
annulled  in regulation  and was  not included  in the  bill                                                                    
section  required  that  headlights be  illuminated  in  any                                                                    
section of roadway with signs indicated headlights be on.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Olson  asked  if  the   section  applied  to  four-                                                                    
wheelers.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Howell deferred to LAW.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator Olson  wondered why the  section would not  apply to                                                                    
four-wheelers.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:03:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARY    SIROKY,   DEPUTY    COMMISSIONER,   DEPARTMENT    OF                                                                    
TRANSPORTATION  AND  PUBLIC  FACILITIES,  addressed  Senator                                                                    
Olson's question  and stated that  the section  only applied                                                                    
to  four-wheelers on  major highways  where headlight  rules                                                                    
were posted.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Olson asked about the road between Teller and Nome.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Siroky  affirmed that  it was possible  to drive  on the                                                                    
road between Teller and Nome without headlights.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof WITHDREW her  objection. There  being NO                                                                    
further  OBJECTION, it  was  so ordered.  The  SCS for  CSHB                                                                    
49(FIN) was adopted.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:05:04 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:19:21 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that  there were several amendments                                                                    
to be  considered. Several of the  amendments were technical                                                                    
in nature, and  others were new concepts  brought forward by                                                                    
committee  members. She  detailed  that  Senator Shower  was                                                                    
working on  a technical amendment  and would be  joining the                                                                    
committee shortly.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file).                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof OBJECTED  for discussion.  She explained                                                                    
that the  amendment was a  technical change  brought forward                                                                    
by LAW  in order to  make conforming changes  throughout the                                                                    
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR,  CRIMINAL DIVISION,  DEPARTMENT OF                                                                    
LAW, spoke to Amendment 1.  He explained that the conceptual                                                                    
amendment would  add language  to ensure  that the  crime of                                                                    
harassment in the  second degree did not  overlap with other                                                                    
crimes.   The  amendment   also  addressed   pre-trial  risk                                                                    
assessment. There  was cleanup  language to ensure  the true                                                                    
discretion  of a  probation  officer in  terms  of making  a                                                                    
recommendation   for   early   termination.   He   described                                                                    
technical changes contained in Amendment 1.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:23:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore continued  to address  Amendment  1. He  spoke                                                                    
about  two  sections  that   dealt  with  applicability.  He                                                                    
referenced earned compliance credits  and caps for technical                                                                    
violations.  The   effective  date   was  adjusted   in  the                                                                    
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore  explained that other  portions of  Amendment 1                                                                    
addressed  parole. Earned  compliance credits  and technical                                                                    
caps for parole were addressed.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof WITHDREW her  objection. There  being NO                                                                    
OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:26:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von Imhof  MOVED  to ADOPT  Amendment  2 (copy  on                                                                    
file).                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof spoke to  the amendment,  which included                                                                    
compromise language  pertaining to truth in  sentencing. She                                                                    
explained that the  courts had approved the  change, and the                                                                    
amendment would add a new subsection.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stedman WITHDREW  his OBJECTTION.  There being  NO                                                                    
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wilson spoke to the  amendment. He detailed that the                                                                    
amendment  would set  a  limit  for the  number  of DUI's  a                                                                    
person  could  receive.  He  asserted  that  the  state  had                                                                    
serious alcohol-related  issues. He understood the  need for                                                                    
rehabilitation  so   individuals  could  learn   from  their                                                                    
mistakes,  but he  thought there  should be  a limit  on the                                                                    
number  of  offenses  before  the   state  put  a  permanent                                                                    
consequence  in place.  He  discussed  consequences for  sex                                                                    
offenders. He  discussed current  law and  the ability  of a                                                                    
person to regain  a driver's license after 10  years with no                                                                    
offense. He  stated that  the amendment would  put a  cap on                                                                    
the  number of  offenses  before a  person  lost a  driver's                                                                    
license permanently.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Senator Olson  asked if the  amendment was supported  by LAW                                                                    
or DPS.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wilson  had not asked  the departments if  there was                                                                    
support for the amendment.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore considered  Amendment  3. He  thought it  made                                                                    
logical sense.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von  Imhof asked  if  the  amendment would  be  in                                                                    
conflict  with   a  provision  that  allowed   a  person  to                                                                    
potentially get a  license back after ten  years without re-                                                                    
offense. Under  the amendment, if  a person had six  DUIs, a                                                                    
driver's license would be revoked permanently.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von Imhof  reiterated her  question about  whether                                                                    
the amendment would be in conflict with existing law.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore   wanted  a  few   moments  to   consider  the                                                                    
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:30:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Howell spoke to Amendment 3.  She stated the DPS had not                                                                    
seen  the  amendment  and  did  not  have  a  position.  The                                                                    
department would defer to the judgement of LAW.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Senator Hoffman  asked if the  amendment would apply  to out                                                                    
of state DUI offenses for  individuals that moved to Alaska.                                                                    
He  asked  if  the  count  of  offenses  would  start  after                                                                    
enactment of the new law if passed.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Wilson believed  that the  count would  start after                                                                    
bill passage.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Micciche  asked  if three  offenses  constituted  a                                                                    
felony DUI.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore affirmed  that three  DUI  charges within  ten                                                                    
years would  constitute a felony.  He asked about line  2 of                                                                    
the amendment, which referenced line "v."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if  after the sixth DUI the license                                                                    
would be  revoked. She asked  if a person  could potentially                                                                    
retain a license after ten years of no offenses.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wilson answered in the  negative. He felt that there                                                                    
should be  a limit set after  which a person would  never be                                                                    
allowed to drive again.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:34:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof  asked which of the  lower committees was                                                                    
considering the  issue of driving  under the  influence. She                                                                    
reminded  of the  lengthy discussions  that had  taken place                                                                    
pertaining to the bill matter,  while the amendment was on a                                                                    
new subject.  She was  not suggesting  that Amendment  3 was                                                                    
not  sound,  but she  wanted  to  ensure the  amendment  was                                                                    
properly vetted.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Micciche thought  the amendment  was less  than two                                                                    
felony DUIs. He  reminded that it was possible to  get a DUI                                                                    
charge  for driving  a lawn  mower  in your  front yard.  He                                                                    
thought  the amendment  was  counter to  the  spirit of  the                                                                    
bill. He emphasized that he  was not condoning any operation                                                                    
of a vehicle  under the influence. He  opposed the amendment                                                                    
but would  consider supporting an amendment  if it pertained                                                                    
to a person after three felony DUIs.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Senator   Shower   understood   the  thinking   behind   the                                                                    
amendment. He  thought more  work needed to  be done  on the                                                                    
concept  of rehabilitation  within criminal  justice reform.                                                                    
He  acknowledged the  difficulty of  persons trying  to live                                                                    
life without  access to a  driver's license and  thought the                                                                    
amendment might be setting people up to fail.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:38:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Micciche stated  that if the maker  of the amendment                                                                    
would consider  a conceptual amendment of  three felony DUIs                                                                    
rather than 5 DUI offenses.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von Imhof  thought it  was difficult  to speculate                                                                    
the intent of  a group of people that could  or could not be                                                                    
rehabilitated  over the  course  of ten  years. She  thought                                                                    
that members had  issues with the amendment. She  asked if a                                                                    
person lost  a driver's  license after  a certain  number of                                                                    
DUI offenses.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore  stated  that  in a  DUI  prosecution  at  the                                                                    
misdemeanor level,  a license  was revoked  for a  period of                                                                    
days.  The first  offense  revoked a  license  90 days,  and                                                                    
after a second  DUI a license was revoked  for longer. After                                                                    
a  felony DUI,  the current  law currently  stated a  person                                                                    
would permanently lose a driver's  license. In Section 96 of                                                                    
the bill,  there was a  path back  for a person  after being                                                                    
convicted of  a felony DUI  and not having a  conviction for                                                                    
ten years.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore  apologized for  misspeaking earlier.  He noted                                                                    
that  subsection  "v"  was  in  the  amendment  itself.  The                                                                    
amendment would indicate  a person was not  eligible to have                                                                    
a license restored after a  period of ten years if convicted                                                                    
of  five  or more  DUI  offenses.  Whether  or not  the  DUI                                                                    
offenses  were felonies  was dependent  upon  the amount  of                                                                    
time  between offenses,  and the  amendment did  not address                                                                    
the matter.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore stated  that the  amendment  did not  conflict                                                                    
with Section 96.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:42:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Wilson questioned  whether  a  person was  reformed                                                                    
after being imprisoned  for five years for a  felony DUI. He                                                                    
mentioned  experience  with  an  agency that  had  many  DUI                                                                    
offenders, and thought many people  managed to not be caught                                                                    
for offenses.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof did not  think anyone was suggesting that                                                                    
DUIs were  not a  serious issue  in the  state. She  did not                                                                    
particularly  understand current  laws sufficiently  to vote                                                                    
on the amendment. She thought  if the concept was brought up                                                                    
later  in  committee  the topic  could  be  considered  more                                                                    
fully.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wilson  noted that  laws were  being amended  and he                                                                    
was  not  comfortable  with  allowing a  person  to  have  a                                                                    
driver's  license  reinstated   after  having  an  unlimited                                                                    
number of DUI offenses.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Senator Micciche was  willing to work on the  topic over the                                                                    
interim. He  thought the amendment  brought up  an important                                                                    
point but  did not  evaluate different consequences  such as                                                                    
off-road  vehicle or  lawnmower.  He would  not support  the                                                                    
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Olson, Wielechowski                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
OPPOSED:  Shower,   Bishop,  Hoffman,   Micciche,  VonImhof,                                                                    
Stedman                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION FAILED (3/6).                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:46:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Bishop MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Bishop  spoke  to  the  amendment,  which  inserted                                                                    
language  that directed  the DOC  commissioner to  work with                                                                    
DEED and  DOL to help strengthen  the rehabilitation section                                                                    
of the bill.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof WITHDREW her  objection. There  being NO                                                                    
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Senator Bishop MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator Bishop  spoke to the  amendment, which  pertained to                                                                    
the commissioner of  DOC. There had been no  timeline on the                                                                    
regulation   package,  and   stakeholders  had   agreed  the                                                                    
regulation  package would  need  to be  written and  adopted                                                                    
within 15 months after the effective date.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Senator Shower asked if DOC was consulted.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Senator Bishop answered in the affirmative.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof WITHDREW her  objection. There  being NO                                                                    
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 12.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von   Imhof  explained  that  LAW   had  requested                                                                    
additional technical changes.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:48:53 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:49:30 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof informed that  Senator Shower  wanted to                                                                    
hear from LAW on the amendment.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore  asked for  a motion to  delete line  1 through                                                                    
line 3 of them amendment.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Wielechowski  asked  for   an  explanation  of  Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore's proposal. He wondered  if the change would affect                                                                    
the bill in a substantive way.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore explained that the  lines referred to the crime                                                                    
of  sharing images  of genitalia.  The change  would correct                                                                    
the statutory reference. The change would provide clarity.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Wilson MOVED  to ADOPT  a  conceptual amendment  to                                                                    
Amendment 12. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
There  being  NO  further  OBJECTION,  it  was  so  ordered.                                                                    
Amendment 12 passed as AMENDED.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von  Imhof  explained  that  the  amendment  would                                                                    
correct   presumptive  terms   for  distribution   of  child                                                                    
pornography,  ensuring that  repeat  offenses would  receive                                                                    
higher sentence  ranges. The  amendment was  brought forward                                                                    
by LAW.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof WITHDREW her  OBJECTION. There  being NO                                                                    
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:52:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 15.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof OBJECTED  for discussion.  She explained                                                                    
that the intent of the  amendment was a technical correction                                                                    
related  to  administrative  sanctions.  The  amendment  was                                                                    
brought forward by LAW.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof WITHDREW her  objection. There  being NO                                                                    
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski  noted that  he discussed the  topic of                                                                    
the  amendment  with LAW.  He  recalled  that in  2007,  the                                                                    
legislature  passed a  bill that  allowed municipalities  in                                                                    
the state the ability to  impound a person's vehicle if they                                                                    
had  over  $1,000  in   outstanding  moving  violations.  He                                                                    
recounted that he  had a constituent that  had been severely                                                                    
injured by  a driver that  had numerous unpaid  tickets. The                                                                    
municipality  of  Anchorage posted  a  list  of people  with                                                                    
unpaid  citations and  the amount  that was  owed. He  noted                                                                    
that  the number  one person  on the  list had  78 citations                                                                    
with $9,473 in outstanding fines.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski  continued to  discuss Amendment  6. He                                                                    
detailed  that   there  were  thousands  of   citations  and                                                                    
thousands of dollars in outstanding  fines. The total amount                                                                    
of  fines  in Anchorage  (counting  people  owing more  than                                                                    
$1,000) was $6.1 million. The rest  of the state had a total                                                                    
of  $16.3  million  in  outstanding  moving  violations.  He                                                                    
stated that the amendment would  allow the Division of Motor                                                                    
Vehicles (DMV)  to revoke a  license after a person  did not                                                                    
pay over  $1,000 in unpaid  fines for moving  violations. He                                                                    
noted that there  was a payment plan  available. He believed                                                                    
the  amendment  was  supported  by  LAW.  He  had  sent  the                                                                    
amendment to DMV,  and it had supported  the cancellation of                                                                    
licenses.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof WITHDREW her  objection. There  being NO                                                                    
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:56:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski  explained that under current  law, the                                                                    
first-time  and  second-time  offense  for  drug  possession                                                                    
required no jail time. The  third offense had jail time. The                                                                    
previous version  of the  bill made  the first  two offenses                                                                    
class A misdemeanors,  with jail time. The CS  had the first                                                                    
offense as a felony, which  he thought was harsh. He thought                                                                    
the amendment  was an  attempt to find  a middle  ground. He                                                                    
thought a  first offense  charged as  a felony  could create                                                                    
problems  with  housing,   employment,  and  possibly  child                                                                    
custody.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von  Imhof  asked  if  the  amendment  provided  a                                                                    
misdemeanor  for  the  first offense,  but  with  jail  time                                                                    
potential of zero to 365 days in jail.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski clarified that  the first offense would                                                                    
be a  class A misdemeanor  punishable by  up to 365  days in                                                                    
jail. The second offense would be a class C felony.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:59:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Micciche  referenced  the  serious  issue  of  drug                                                                    
abuse, addition,  and drug trafficking.  He asked  about the                                                                    
probability of  LAW giving some  jail time to have  a person                                                                    
take a  first offense seriously.  He asked how  Mr. Skidmore                                                                    
felt about the change proposed in Amendment 7.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore  stated that current  law stated that  a person                                                                    
convicted  of possession  was always  a misdemeanor  and the                                                                    
first two times  had zero jail time associated  with it. The                                                                    
proposed amendment would require  that a first-time offender                                                                    
face  up to  a  year in  jail, and  at  a second  conviction                                                                    
(within ten  years) that  it would  constitute a  felony. He                                                                    
thought the  amendment proposed a significant  change in law                                                                    
and was more aggressive that what  was in the bill that came                                                                    
from  the House.  He  thought the  one year  in  jail was  a                                                                    
substantial  tool  to  work with.  The  department  was  not                                                                    
opposed to the concept.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Micciche wanted  to ask  DPS if  it would  arrest a                                                                    
person for  possession of heroin  or methamphetamine  if the                                                                    
first  charge was  a  misdemeanor. He  wanted  to know  that                                                                    
troopers would arrest  and prosecute a person  for the first                                                                    
offense.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Howell   affirmed  that   troopers  would   arrest  for                                                                    
misdemeanor possession.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Hoffman believed,  given Mr.  Skidmore's testimony,                                                                    
that  the amendment  made sense.  He thought  a disincentive                                                                    
would still exist. He thought  that the state would still be                                                                    
viewed as tough on crime, and he supported the amendment.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Senator Olson  thought it  had been  pointed out  by Senator                                                                    
Micciche that people  would or would not  be prosecuted, and                                                                    
troopers would not necessarily be  aware of how many times a                                                                    
person had been charged. He  had many close friends in rural                                                                    
Alaska that had been convicted of  a felony. He spoke to the                                                                    
many burdens that  came with being a felon. He  was in favor                                                                    
of the amendment.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:03:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Bishop  supported  the amendment.  He  thought  the                                                                    
possibility  of  zero  to  365   days  in  jail  was  a  big                                                                    
disincentive. He  looked forward  to the following  year and                                                                    
consideration  of  rehabilitation  services  that  would  be                                                                    
examined in a forthcoming bill.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Shower  associated  himself with  Senator  Bishop's                                                                    
comments. He  suggested that it  would be possible  to enact                                                                    
harsher penalties in the future  if needed. He mentioned the                                                                    
huge  problem  of  drugs  in   the  state.  He  thought  the                                                                    
amendment  was a  step in  the right  direction. He  did not                                                                    
think  the amendment  took tools  from  law enforcement.  He                                                                    
supported  the amendment.  He thought  the  amendment was  a                                                                    
good compromise.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof WITHDREW her  objection. There  being NO                                                                    
OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 7 was adopted.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:05:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 8.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski  stated that  the amendment  dealt with                                                                    
the issue of bail. He cited  that 40 to 45 percent of people                                                                    
in prison  were pre-trial  and had not  been convicted  of a                                                                    
crime.  He acknowledged  that some  were there  because some                                                                    
individuals  would be  offered  no bail  and  were a  severe                                                                    
danger to society. He discussed  a huge percentage of people                                                                    
were  in jail  due  to not  being able  to  afford bail.  He                                                                    
discussed  the   disparity  between  individuals   with  and                                                                    
without   financial  resources.   The  amendment   tried  to                                                                    
mitigate  the situation.  He  acknowledged  that there  were                                                                    
persons  that were  a danger  to  society, at  which time  a                                                                    
judge would set a high bail or no bail.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski  explained the  amendment would  give a                                                                    
judge the ability to reevaluate  the conditions of bail. The                                                                    
amendment  was an  attempt to  deal with  inequality in  the                                                                    
legal system.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof thought  Senator Wielechowski proposed to                                                                    
allow a  judge to  look at  bail again  to decide  whether a                                                                    
change was needed.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski answered in  the affirmative. He stated                                                                    
that a person  (after making a good faith  effort) could ask                                                                    
a judge for reconsideration.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:08:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Micciche  thought  the  amendment  was  a  creative                                                                    
approach.  He   reminded  that  the   bail  issue   was  not                                                                    
necessarily  only  applicable  to disadvantaged  people.  He                                                                    
thought  some  individuals   sometimes  exhausted  resources                                                                    
through  addiction  behavior.  He thought  judges  generally                                                                    
took  individuals'  ability to  pay  when  setting bail.  He                                                                    
mentioned  repeat   offenders.  He   did  not   support  the                                                                    
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Senator Bishop asked about line  10 and line 11 of Amendment                                                                    
8; and  wondered if  the amendment  only addressed  one time                                                                    
when  a   person  could  request  reconsideration   of  bail                                                                    
conditions.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Wielechowski affirmed  that the  amendment proposed                                                                    
to  give a  person one  more time  to convince  a judge.  He                                                                    
explained that the amendment would give judges discretion.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Senator Olson  discussed the potential for  harmful exposure                                                                    
to  bad elements  while a  personal was  held in  prison. He                                                                    
acknowledged that  a judge had  the opportunity  to consider                                                                    
different  bail  conditions  rather than  waiving  bail.  He                                                                    
supported the  amendment on the  grounds that it  would keep                                                                    
people out of jail while awaiting trial.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:12:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Hoffman  thought the amendment addressed  a one-time                                                                    
chance  to reevaluate  bail conditions  after  a good  faith                                                                    
effort. He  thought there  was a  serious problem  with jail                                                                    
overcrowding. He supported the amendment.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Senator Shower asked to hear an opinion from LAW.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Senator Olson asked if the courts were available as well.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore  addressed  Amendment 8.  He  thought  Senator                                                                    
Wielechowski  had  done  a  good  job  explaining  that  the                                                                    
amendment.  The  way  the  bill  was  drafted,  it  modified                                                                    
current law to  allow the inability to pay  and having shown                                                                    
good effort as a basis  for new information for a subsequent                                                                    
bail hearing  one time. He  stated that  LAW did not  have a                                                                    
position  on  the  amendment  and  would  leave  it  to  the                                                                    
discretion of the committee.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Micciche  asked  to   clarify  that  the  amendment                                                                    
allowed  for reevaluation  of bail  conditions for  one time                                                                    
per  charge.   He  thought  some  individuals   were  repeat                                                                    
offenders.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore affirmed  that the  amendment would  allow for                                                                    
one time  per case, regardless  of how many charges  were in                                                                    
the case. He thought Senator  Micciche was pointing out that                                                                    
individuals would  pick up a  second case, and  the proposed                                                                    
change would apply to the second case as well.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:15:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
NANCY  MEADE,  GENERAL  COUNSEL, ALASKA  COURT  SYSTEM  (via                                                                    
teleconference), stated  that the Court System  did not have                                                                    
a position on the amendment.  She agreed with Mr. Skidmore's                                                                    
description of the effect of the amendment.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Wilson asked  how  many  potential additional  bail                                                                    
hearings would be added to the court system.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Meade stated  that there  had been  slight increase  in                                                                    
bail hearings as  a result of SB 91 (where  the inability to                                                                    
pay  did  result in  giving  a  person  a  right to  a  bail                                                                    
hearing), but  not so many  as that was difficult  to absorb                                                                    
and accommodate.  She thought the  passage of  the amendment                                                                    
would likely  have the  effect of allowing  a few  more bail                                                                    
hearings, and  she did  not anticipate  more than  the court                                                                    
system could absorb.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von Imhof  thought it  seemed  like the  amendment                                                                    
would not  going to  necessarily require  a judge  to change                                                                    
bail, but rather to hear it again and decide.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof WITHDREW her objection.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Senator Micciche OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski asked if  a public defender could speak                                                                    
to the amendment.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:17:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JAMES  STINSON, OFFICE  OF  PUBLIC  ADVOCACY, DEPARTMENT  OF                                                                    
ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference),  stated that the Office                                                                    
of Public  Advocacy would support the  amendment. He thought                                                                    
the  amendment was  a reasonable  balance and  would provide                                                                    
for individuals making a good faith effort.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator Micciche MAINTAINED his  OBJECTION. A roll call vote                                                                    
was taken on the motion.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Wilson,  Olson,   Wielechowski,  Bishop,  Hoffman,                                                                    
Shower, Steadman, von Imhof                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
OPPOSED: Micciche                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION PASSED (8/1). Amendment 8 was ADOPTED.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski made a motion  to WITHDRAW Amendment 9.                                                                    
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 10.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski  spoke to the amendment.  He noted that                                                                    
the amendment  was a bit  technical and related  to marriage                                                                    
as a defense against certain  crimes. He noted that the bill                                                                    
being considered  rightfully did  away with the  defense for                                                                    
most encounters. He thought it  was inadvertent, but cited a                                                                    
provision relating  to engaging  in sexual relations  with a                                                                    
person that was in custody of DOC.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Wielechowski explained  that the  way the  bill was                                                                    
written, it was  possible to use marriage as  a defense; and                                                                    
there  was a  total of  six different  where marriage  could                                                                    
still be used as a defense,  and the amendment would add the                                                                    
requirement  of consent.  The amendment  also addressed  the                                                                    
issue where a  spouse that had Alzheimer's  could consent if                                                                    
lucid. He thought  it was a sensitive issue.  He thought the                                                                    
amendment was  a better solution  than what was in  the bill                                                                    
and was a nuanced change.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:21:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SONJA KAWASAKI, STAFF,  SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, discussed                                                                    
the  intent   of  Amendment  10.  She   explained  that  the                                                                    
amendment  attempted   to  address  concerns   expressed  by                                                                    
members  relating to  sexual contact  with persons  who were                                                                    
mentally  capable  (generally  unacceptable that  should  be                                                                    
prohibited);  and whether  there should  be two  exceptions.                                                                    
The  amendment provided  an affirmative  defense in  which a                                                                    
spouse could  prove that the  other person was lucid  at the                                                                    
time of the contact.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von  Imhof  asked  about   the  ability  to  prove                                                                    
lucidity.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Kawasaki stated that on page  3, lines 7 through 12; the                                                                    
amendment  provided  a  mechanism that  was  an  affirmative                                                                    
defense. Normally,  a prosecutor would have  to disprove the                                                                    
elements  of the  defense; which  the amendment  shifted the                                                                    
burden of proof  to the person charged.  By preponderance of                                                                    
the evidence,  the defendant  would have  to prove  that the                                                                    
elements  of   the  defense  existed.  She   explained  that                                                                    
preponderance  of the  evidence was  typically the  probable                                                                    
truth  based  on the  evidence  presented  and was  a  lower                                                                    
circumstance than reasonable doubt.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:24:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von   Imhof  asked  for  an   explanation  of  the                                                                    
amendment in layman's terms. She  asked what the bill did in                                                                    
its current form, and what the amendment tried to fix.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Kawasaki stated  that  in four  places  in the  state's                                                                    
criminal  code,  a  person  could   be  charged  for  sexual                                                                    
penetration  or  sexual content  if  a  victim was  mentally                                                                    
incapable,  incapacitated,  or  unaware  when  the  act  was                                                                    
committed. The bill  current would not allow  any defense to                                                                    
any of the  three circumstances. She thought  there had been                                                                    
concerns about  the term "mentally incapable"  as defined in                                                                    
law, could  mean that  a person  suffering from  dementia or                                                                    
Alzheimer's,  in  which  case  there  could  be  periods  of                                                                    
lucidity  and possible  consent. The  amendment would  allow                                                                    
for a spouse to be able  to prove that there was clarity and                                                                    
judgement  and  consent  during   the  time  of  the  sexual                                                                    
contact.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:26:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Olson asked  Senator  Wielechowski  to explain  the                                                                    
remedy that  the amendment proposed. He  was concerned about                                                                    
the possibility of a family dispute.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Wielechowski  had  heard  that  the  situation  was                                                                    
becoming a  more common  occurrence. He  discussed scenarios                                                                    
related  to the  subject.  The  way the  CS  was written,  a                                                                    
prosecutor  would  have  to   prove  mental  incapacity.  He                                                                    
thought there  had been different  legal opinions as  to how                                                                    
the remedy was interpreted. The  amendment gave a spouse the                                                                    
ability to  assert that  the other spouse  was lucid  at the                                                                    
time of  the event  in question  and provide  an affirmative                                                                    
defense.  There was  also a  jury instruction  regarding the                                                                    
affirmative defense.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski  asserted that the amendment  strove to                                                                    
protect  both  spouses.  The public  defender's  office  had                                                                    
supported the concept. He relayed  that LAW had no objection                                                                    
to the  proposal. He noted  that the amendment  required for                                                                    
consent in the five instances of marital defense.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:30:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von Imhof  asked how  Co-Chair von  Imhof pictured                                                                    
one spouse proving  lucidity of the other  spouse at another                                                                    
time.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski suggested  that circumstantial evidence                                                                    
such as testimony  of neighbors and others  could go towards                                                                    
proof of lucidity.  He explained that total  deletion of the                                                                    
marriage defense would make it  harder to have such evidence                                                                    
admissible.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman  asked to  hear from LAW.  He asked  if the                                                                    
department would support the amendment.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore  stated  that  the department  was  not  in  a                                                                    
position to support the amendment  but did not object to it.                                                                    
He  explained  the  concept  of   allowing  marriage  as  an                                                                    
affirmative  defense.  He  reminded that  the  question  was                                                                    
whether or  not a  person was capable  of consenting  at the                                                                    
time of the sexual activity.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman  did not feel  that the testimony  gave him                                                                    
guidance.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore  stated that LAW  had provided a letter  to the                                                                    
committee that analyzed its position  on the way the law was                                                                    
drafted  (copy  on  file).  Some   had  disagreed  with  the                                                                    
department's assessment.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:35:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Shower asked  if the marriage defense  (if there was                                                                    
a  case  of  spousal  rape) would  still  be  eliminated  as                                                                    
proposed in the bill if the amendment was to pass.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore explained  that if  the  amendment passed  the                                                                    
affirmative  defense  would  apply  to  when  a  victim  was                                                                    
mentally incapable and  under the care of  the defendant and                                                                    
was  limited to  spouses.  He continued  that the  amendment                                                                    
differentiated  by adding  language  about  consent. He  had                                                                    
indicated  consistently  that  it was  most  important  that                                                                    
there was consent between both parties.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore  thought the amendment  did not do harm  to the                                                                    
elimination of  the marriage  defense as  the administration                                                                    
had advocated.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:38:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Olson asserted that  the legislature was responsible                                                                    
for policymaking.  He asked  about Mr.  Skidmore's reference                                                                    
to individuals  in his family that  had experienced dementia                                                                    
or   Alzheimer's,  and   the  advice   he   had  given   his                                                                    
grandfather.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore clarified  that  he had  testified  on May  1,                                                                    
2019; and his  remarks pertained to his  grandmother who had                                                                    
suffered  from Alzheimer's,  and after  which time  that she                                                                    
was  no  longer  lucid.  He  emphasized  the  importance  of                                                                    
choosing words carefully.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Senator Olson  apologized if  he misspoke.  He asked  if Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore would agree if the amendment cleared up the issue.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore  reiterated that the amendment  would allow for                                                                    
someone  to  argue  in  the  affirmative  that  someone  had                                                                    
consented. His  previous testimony and the  memo in analysis                                                                    
of the  law said that  those elements were required  to show                                                                    
under the defense already.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Senator Micciche  asked Mr. Skidmore's opinion  was that the                                                                    
amendment did not hurt either way.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore did  not believe  the  amendment softened  the                                                                    
elimination  of the  marriage defense,  and  thought it  was                                                                    
another way of describing the  very concept that he had been                                                                    
testifying to from the beginning.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Micciche asked  if there  was something  on page  2                                                                    
Section 7 that was changed under the amendment.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:42:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski addressed  Senator Micciche's question.                                                                    
He thought the  amendment strengthened the bill  and made it                                                                    
so  there had  to  be  consent for  the  act  for which  the                                                                    
defendant was charged.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore relayed  that AS 11.41.432 currently  made it a                                                                    
defense when a person was  married. The amendment on Section                                                                    
7, page  2, lines  14-22 would  add back  in the  concept of                                                                    
consent  in  the circumstance  considered  in  the bill.  He                                                                    
asserted that  the law would  say that one could  not engage                                                                    
in  the  conduct  when  employed or  the  person  was  under                                                                    
supervision;  but  marriage would  be  a  defense under  the                                                                    
circumstances. He considered  that the particular provisions                                                                    
were  not  addressing   incapacitation,  being  unaware,  or                                                                    
mentally incapable.  He thought  consent was already  in the                                                                    
law because  sexual penetration without  consent (regardless                                                                    
of  employment)  was unlawful  and  marital  status did  not                                                                    
apply.  He  understood  what the  amendment  was  trying  to                                                                    
accomplish but did not think it was necessary.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:45:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski  asked for  a brief statement  from the                                                                    
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA).                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Stinson  stated that OPA supported  the marriage defense                                                                    
provision  as an  affirmative defense  -  he understood  Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore's  point,  but  thought  the  amendment  would  put                                                                    
people  at  ease  in  a  very  particular  circumstance.  He                                                                    
thought largely  everyone was in  agreement over  repeal the                                                                    
marriage  defense as  it currently  existed. He  thought the                                                                    
amendment seemed like a reasonable accommodation.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof WITHDREW her  objection. There  being NO                                                                    
further  OBJECTION,  it was  so  ordered.  Amendment 10  was                                                                    
ADOPTED.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:47:20 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:48:26 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that  the committee would consider                                                                    
three additional amendments and would  also make a motion to                                                                    
rescind Amendment 2.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 11.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski  spoke to  the amendment.  He explained                                                                    
that the amendment was  on page 74 line 13 and  was in a new                                                                    
section.  The  new  section would  require  that  decisions,                                                                    
orders,  and  conditions  of  the   parole  board  were  not                                                                    
confidential  and would  be posted.  The amendment  proposed                                                                    
that   confidential  medical   information   would  not   be                                                                    
provided.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof understood  that Senator Wielechowski was                                                                    
stating that the non-inclusion  of information would conform                                                                    
to  Health  Insurance  Portability  and  Accountability  Act                                                                    
(HIPAA) laws.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Micciche  was  curious  if  the  amendment  sponsor                                                                    
believed that  if substance  abuse treatment  was part  of a                                                                    
sentence, if it should be redacted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski thought it  was possible that treatment                                                                    
information was HIPAA-related. He  stated that the amendment                                                                    
was conceptual and was open to  re-writing it if there was a                                                                    
better way.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Micciche  preferred  that the  amendment  specified                                                                    
"HIPAA-related" information,  not to include  treatment that                                                                    
was part of a sentence.  He agreed that personal medical and                                                                    
mental-health information should not be published.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
4:52:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Wilson  stated  that   medical  and  mental  health                                                                    
information  fell  under  HIPAA regulations,  but  substance                                                                    
abuse fell  under another regulation,  which was  similar to                                                                    
HIPAA but more stringent.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof thought Senator Wilson  was stating that                                                                    
substance abuse treatment  information was already protected                                                                    
as confidential by state or federal law.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Wilson affirmed  that the  information was  already                                                                    
protected.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof gleaned that the  amendment was accurate                                                                    
as written.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Micciche  assumed  that substance  abuse  treatment                                                                    
information was different than information  on the length of                                                                    
treatment. He  noted that some sentences  required a certain                                                                    
amount  of  treatment,  and   thought  the  information  was                                                                    
important for victims.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von  Imhof  asked  Senator  Wielechowski  (if  the                                                                    
amendment was  passed) to work  with LAW and OPA  to include                                                                    
specifically   what  information   was  protected   and  not                                                                    
protected, including substance abuse treatment.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski agreed.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof WITHDREW her  objection. There  being NO                                                                    
further  OBJECTION,  it was  so  ordered.  Amendment 11  was                                                                    
ADOPTED.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:54:54 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:55:53 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 16.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof explained  that the  technical amendment                                                                    
was  an  attempt to  make  additional  technical changes  as                                                                    
requested  by  LAW  to   remove  repealers  associated  with                                                                    
administrative sanctions.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof WITHDREW her  OBJECTION. There  being NO                                                                    
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that  after passing Amendment 2, it                                                                    
had come  to the  committee's attention that  DOC had  to be                                                                    
removed from the amendment.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to RESCIND  the committee's action on                                                                    
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:57:43 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:58:04 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof WITHDREW her  objection. There  being NO                                                                    
further  OBJECTION,  it  was  so  ordered.  The  committee's                                                                    
action on Amendment 2 was rescinded.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman  MOVED to ADOPT  a conceptual  Amendment to                                                                    
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof OBJECTED  for discussion.  She explained                                                                    
that the intent  of the conceptual Amendment  to Amendment 2                                                                    
was to remove the reference to DOC.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von  Imhof WITHDREW her  objection. There  being NO                                                                    
further  OBJECTION,  it  was   so  ordered.  The  conceptual                                                                    
Amendment to Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:59:24 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:59:40 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stedman MOVED  to ADOPT  Amendment  2 as  amended.                                                                    
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 14.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Wielechowski spoke  to  the  amendment. He  thought                                                                    
there  might need  to be  conforming  changes. He  explained                                                                    
that  the amendment  dealt with  probation  and parole,  and                                                                    
technical  violations.  Technical violations  could  include                                                                    
things  like   showing  up  late   for  a  meeting   with  a                                                                    
probation/parole   officer   or    consuming   alcohol.   He                                                                    
emphasized   that   the    amendment   addressed   technical                                                                    
violations rather than  a new crime. He  reported that there                                                                    
had  been 21,000  technical violations  in the  previous two                                                                    
years.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski continued to  speak to Amendment 14. He                                                                    
noted  that  the Senate  had  created  a provision  to  give                                                                    
probation/parole  officers the  ability to  handle technical                                                                    
violations with  administrative sanctions.  He spoke  to the                                                                    
idea    of   immediate    ramifications    and   giving    a                                                                    
probation/parole  officer the  ability  to impose  immediate                                                                    
ramifications.  The version  of the  bill that  came to  the                                                                    
committee asserted that  if administrative sanctions weren't                                                                    
working, it  was possible to go  to a judge and  there would                                                                    
be tiered penalties.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wielechowski continued to  speak to Amendment 14. He                                                                    
explained  that the  CS would  allow a  judge discretion  to                                                                    
impose any penalty  at all. The amendment would  allow for a                                                                    
judge to  impose a penalty of  zero to three days  the first                                                                    
time. The  hope was that  the penalty  would be enough  of a                                                                    
deterrent that  the penalty would  not impact a job  and not                                                                    
throw a  person back  into a negative  cycle. He  noted that                                                                    
LAW did  not support the  amendment and wanted the  judge to                                                                    
have  the ability  to impose  as  much time  as desired.  He                                                                    
thought it was  a mistake in policy and thought  up to three                                                                    
days was  a significant punishment, after  which there would                                                                    
be greater penalties.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if  the issue was addressed in SSTA                                                                    
or SJUD.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Senator Shower  answered in the  affirmative. He  thought it                                                                    
might  be  useful  to  have   someone  from  the  department                                                                    
testify.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
5:05:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JEN WINKELMAN, DIRECTOR OF  PROBATION AND PAROLE, DEPARTMENT                                                                    
OF  CORRECTIONS, stated  that  DOC  probation officers  used                                                                    
administrative sanctions  for swift and  effective responses                                                                    
to  violations. She  continued that  by the  time the  issue                                                                    
came before the court, there  had already been sanctions and                                                                    
the court could determine the amount  of time to impose as a                                                                    
sanction. The  department was in  support of the CS  the way                                                                    
it was written without the amendment.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  von   Imhof  asked  about  the   function  of  the                                                                    
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Winkelman   explained  that   the  amendment   put  the                                                                    
technical caps back in at a  different level than was in the                                                                    
House version of the bill.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Olson asked  about scenarios  under which  a person                                                                    
had a technical violation and could lose a job.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Winkelman supposed  there could be a  situation where an                                                                    
individual  could lose  a job,  but such  cases were  taking                                                                    
before  a   judge,  who  could  consider   the  totality  of                                                                    
circumstances.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair von Imhof MAINTAINED her objection.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator   Micciche  clarified   that  DOC   had  tools   for                                                                    
administrative sanctions before moving  to a higher level of                                                                    
penalty.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Winkelman answered in the affirmative.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Olson, Wielechowski                                                                                                   
OPPOSED:  Bishop,  Hoffman,  Micciche, Shower,  Wilson,  von                                                                    
Imhof, Stedman                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION FAILED (2/7).                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
5:09:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman  MOVED to  report SCS  CSHB 49(FIN)  out of                                                                    
Committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying   fiscal   notes.   There  being   NO   further                                                                    
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SCS CSHB  49(FIN) was REPORTED  out of committee with  a "do                                                                    
pass" recommendation and with  forthcoming fiscal notes from                                                                    
the   Department  of   Health  and   Social  Services,   the                                                                    
Department  of Administration,  the Department  of Law,  the                                                                    
Department  of  Public Safety,  the  Court  System, and  the                                                                    
Department of Corrections; and one new previously published                                                                     
zero fiscal note: FN 1(DHS).                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
5:11:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The meeting was adjourned at 5:11 p.m.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 49 Marriage Defense Memo.pdf SFIN 5/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 49
HB 49 Work Draft Version O (002).pdf SFIN 5/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 49
Copy of HB049-DHSS-FP-5-12-2019 (002).pdf SFIN 5/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 49
HB 49 Amendment 14 Wielechowski.pdf SFIN 5/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 49
HB 49 Amendment 2b Conceptual von Imhof.pdf SFIN 5/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 49
HB 49 Amendment 15 von Imhof.pdf SFIN 5/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 49
HB 49 Amendment 16 von Imhof.pdf SFIN 5/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 49
HB 49 Amendment Packet 1-5.pdf SFIN 5/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 49
HB 49 Amendment Packet 6-13.pdf SFIN 5/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 49