Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/04/2019 09:00 AM Senate 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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB74 | |
| HB14 | |
| SB35 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 4, 2019
9:06 a.m.
9:06:07 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair von Imhof called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Mike Shower [attending via teleconference]
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel; Senator Mia Costello; Senator Lora
Reinbold; Alexei Painter, Analyst, Legislative Finance
Division; Juli Lucky, Staff, Senator Natasha von Imhof;
Representative John Lincoln, Sponsor; Rose Foley, Staff,
Representative John Lincoln; John Skidmore, Director,
Criminal Division, Department of Law.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Jaenell Manchester, 49th Rising, Fairbanks; Beth Goldstein,
Acting Public Defender, Department of Administration;
Chrissy Vogeley, Community Relations Manager, Office of
Children Services, Department of Health and Social
Services.
SUMMARY
SB 35 CRIMES;SEX CRIMES;SENTENCING; PAROLE
SB 35 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 74 INTERNET FOR SCHOOLS
CSSB 74(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Education and
Early Development.
CSHB 14(FIN)
ASSAULT; SEX OFFENSES; SENT. AGGRAVATOR
CSHB 14(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 74
"An Act relating to funding for Internet services for
school districts."
9:07:01 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof relayed that the committee had heard the
bill on April 24, 2019. Her office had received no
amendments from committee members, however, the Legislative
Finance Division (LFD) had raised several concerns.
9:07:46 AM
ALEXEI PAINTER, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
discussed the changes to the bill. He explained that the
federal disparity test functioned to determine whether the
state could deduct federal impact aid from its share of the
foundation formula for education, which was worth
approximately $80 million to $90 million per year to the
state. He said that the ability to deduct the aid was
contingent on passing the disparity test each year. He
shared that the test compared the highest funded districts
in the state to the lowest funded; the E-rate money from
the federal government was counted in the test, the bill
would greatly increase E-rate funding in certain districts
already at the top of the test list. The qualifying
percentage for funding was 25 percent and passage of the
bill would raise the percentage in those districts to 40
percent causing them to fail the disparity test.
Mr. Painter stated that a possible solution had been
discussed with the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) but was contingent on federal approval.
The department had requested to exclude e-rate funding from
inclusion in the disparity test but had yet to hear a
response from the federal government. In the interest of
time, a conditional effective date had been added to the
bill; the bill would only come into effect if the federal
government approved the request to exclude E-rate from the
federal disparity test.
9:10:19 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for a more definitive explanation.
He understood the general nature of the disparity test but
wanted more detail about the potential funding imbalance.
Mr. Painter detailed that the disparity test was a
comparison for school districts based on the average daily
membership. He furthered that based on state funding, there
would not be a disparity; however local funding could
potentially breach the 23 percent cap and raise the total
disparity above 25 percent. Since E-rate funds fell outside
of the funding cap and was concentrated in few districts,
those districts would rise to the top, beyond 25 percent.
The top school that was the cutoff in 2018 was the Lower
Kuskokwim, which was a district that did not have a local
contribution and would normally not be at the top of the
list, but they receive a disproportioned amount of E-rate
funding. The department projection showed that the district
would rise too high to pass the disparity test. He noted
the other small districts received E-rate money but not to
the scale of some of the districts in Western Alaska.
9:12:42 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof asked about the effective date of the
bill being contingent upon agreement with the federal
government. She asked whether there was a cut off date for
implementation of the bill.
Mr. Painter informed that there was a cutoff date of
January 1, 2020. The date would give districts a chance to
apply for FY 2021.
9:13:34 AM
JULI LUCKY, STAFF, SENATOR NATASHA VON IMHOF, explained
that the changes in the CS would not change the fiscal
note, unless the federal government failed to approve the
states request. She commented that there had been
confusion about the e-rate program at previous meetings.
She clarified that the federal program subsidized internet
service only, and did not provide for infrastructure, all
remaining yearly funds were returned. She shared that
burden was shared between the federal and state
governments; the E-rate was the federal program and the BAG
Program was the state program. The BAG program allowed the
state to help districts that could not reach the minimum
number of megabits specified under current law. The bill
would change the minimum amount form 10 megabits per second
to 25 megabits per second, which would increase the number
of eligible schools. She clarified that the bill would not
put infrastructure in schools. She reiterated that the
money was applied for annually and was given to districts
on a monthly basis to pay for service, any unused money was
returned to the state at the end of the year.
9:16:18 AM
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SB 74, Work Draft 31-LS0600\K (Caouette,
5/1/19). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to report CSSB 74(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 74(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Education and Early Development.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 14(FIN)
"An Act relating to assault in the first degree;
relating to harassment; relating to sex offenses;
relating to the definition of 'dangerous instrument';
providing for an aggravating factor at sentencing for
strangulation that results in unconsciousness;
relating to the duties of the prosecuting attorney;
and relating to victim notifications."
9:17:40 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that the committee had heard the
senate finance version of the bill on March 11, 2019, at
which time public testimony was taken. She said that like
SB 12, HB 14 sought to close a loophole in the states
criminal statutes that had allowed an assailant to go free
when he should have served time. The law, when read
literally, was unable to be applied to the egregious
situation.
9:18:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LINCOLN, SPONSOR, stated that the bill
would address issues with the current law that had come to
light in 2018 when a man strangled a woman to the point of
unconsciousness and then sexually assaulted her. The bill
would define the strangulation or suffocation to the point
of unconsciousness as first degree assault and would add
the behavior to the list of aggravators for sentencing in
other crimes. Additionally, the bill would expand the
statutory definition of sexual contact to include forcing
someone to come into contact with ejaculate and would
expand victim notification laws so that all victims would
be notified versus only felony sex crimes.
9:20:11 AM
ROSE FOLEY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LINCOLN, discussed
the differences between the current versions of SB 12 and
HB 14. HB 14 used the term ejaculate while SB 12 referred
to fluid as semen. SB 12 investigated sentencing through
sentence enhancement, while HB 14 created an aggravator for
strangulation. She said that credit for time served under
electronic monitoring was eliminated under SB 12 but was
not mentioned in HB 14. She concluded the HB 14 first
provided notification to all victims of sex crimes and
allowed the court to reschedule a plea hearing to allow the
court to comply with notification requirements.
9:21:13 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof recalled that Senator Olson had brought
up a concern in a previous meeting that pertained to
whether victim notification requirements regarding plea
agreement struck a balance between ensuring that victims
were included, without putting additional pressure on them
to participate against their wishes.
Ms. Foley directed attention to Page 9, line 13 of the
bill, which specified that there was no requirement for the
victim, or their legal guardian, to provide a response to a
prosecuting attorney regarding a plea agreement. If a
victim did not wish to be part of the legal proceedings,
there was no requirement that they participate or provide a
response. The Alaska Network Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault had requested stronger victim notification
language, the sponsor had worked with that agency as well
as the courts to craft that language. Department of Law had
raised concerns with earlier language in the bill requiring
the prosecuting attorney to state in court what
notification attempts had been made with victims. The
concern had been that this would provide information with
the defense, if the victim could not be located, that could
be detrimental to the victim's case during the early stages
of a plea agreement.
9:22:55 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof asked Senator Micciche to comment on
victim notification component.
Senator Micciche said that the language in the CS was
identical to his original bill. He stressed that there were
no expectations that the victim would be required to do
anything. However, he reminded the committee that Judge
Michael Corey, who ruled in the Schneider case that birthed
the legislation, had testified that requiring the victim to
testify could had resulted in a stronger sentence for the
perpetrator. He supported the current language in the CS.
9:24:41 AM
Senator Micciche noted that the sponsor had been remarkable
to work with.
9:25:40 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof invited John Skidmore from the
Department of Law to the table for questions.
9:27:02 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether Department of Law had a
position on the bill.
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, explained that LAW supported the bill. The legislation
contained some concepts originally found in the governors
suite of proposed crime bills.
9:27:38 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked Mr. Skidmore to describe the
difference between a special circumstance in sentencing and
an aggravator.
Mr. Skidmore explained that a special circumstance in
sentencing, which was specifically listed in statute,
controlled the presumptive range that a court would impose.
An aggravator was a legal tool that allowed a judge to
increase a sentence above the presumptive range if the
court deemed appropriate.
9:28:38 AM
Senator Wielechowski referenced page 8, section 6 of the
bill, which pertained to a recording when asking victims or
victims guardians whether they agreed with a proposed plea
agreement. He wondered whether this could force victims to
be questioned by a defendant.
Mr. Skidmore answered "no." The bill language stated that
the prosecuting attorney shall make a reasonable effort to
confer with the victim, to explain the proposed plea
agreement and then ask whether they agree with the
agreement. He stated that the same prosecutor, or the
prosecutor at the time of sentencing, would indicate
whether the victim had been spoken to and whether they
agreed. He stressed that the victim would not be required
to go to court, to be subject to cross examination, and no
details of the conversation would be divulged.
9:30:35 AM
Senator Wielechowski thought that there would be a defense
attorney that would want to hear directly from the victim
whether they agreed with the plea agreement. He worried
that this section of the bill would be challenged in court.
Mr. Skidmore appreciated the question. In his experience
and that of other prosecutors dealing with victim's rights
provisions, he had not seen defense attorneys have success
in demanding that a victim be put on the stand.
9:31:50 AM
Senator Wilson asked whether the section would allow the
victims agreement with a plea deal in a criminal case, or
non-agreement, to be used in a civil case.
Mr. Skidmore noted that he did not practice civil law. He
did not believe that agreement or disagreement would have
any bearing on a civil case. He knew that a conviction
could have influence on a civil case if the civil case was
based on the conduct of the defendant. He was not sure
whether the agreement would have any bearing on the
sentence in a civil case.
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that there was a public defender
available to answer questions.
9:34:01 AM
Senator Wilson wondered what would happen if victims
recanted or changed their statements or agreement with the
plea agreement in the criminal case.
Mr. Skidmore thought the subsection of the bill would not
have an effect on the scenario that Senator Wilson was
describing. He furthered that the plea agreement dealt with
the sentence that was imposed and not whether the victim
agreed on the matter of charges being brought in the first
place.
9:35:26 AM
Senator Wilson pondered that a defense attorney for a
perpetrator could probe the victims reason for not
agreeing to a plea bargain, which could then be used
against them in civil proceedings.
Mr. Skidmore reiterated that he was not an expert or
practitioner of civil law.
9:36:12 AM
Senator Micciche shared that there was a similar provision
in law concerning victims agreeing with plea agreements.
There had been a case of sexual abuse of a minor in Healy,
Alaska; in which the parents had not agreed to the plea
agreement.
Mr. Skidmore relayed that LAW had policies under which
attorneys communicated with victims about plea agreements
before they were entered into, and certainly before
sentencing hearings. He said that the bill simply
formalized actions that the department already did.
9:38:06 AM
Senator Wielechowski agreed with Senator Wilson. He said
that in the case of a violent sexual assault, if the victim
decided not to testify, making the case harder to prove and
increasing the chances of a plea bargain, and if the
sentence were pled down significantly and the victim agreed
to the plea change, it would absolutely be used in a civil
case.
Senator Wielechowski asked to what lengths the department
was required to go to attempt contact with the victim.
Mr. Skidmore referenced Page 8, lines 9-11, which said that
the attorney shall make reasonable efforts. This meant
that the department would use the information in existing
files. He said that there were other steps that were taken
to try to locate victims, rarely was law enforcement sent
to track down a victim.
9:40:22 AM
Senator Micciche asked Mr. Skidmore to describe how the
same sentencing for an egregious crime could be reached by
either using an aggregator or using enhanced sentencing.
Mr. Skidmore detailed that the bill added the subsection
that discussed a person knowingly causing a person to
become unconscious by means of a dangerous instrument. He
said that the increase the conduct of a dangerous
instrument to a Class A felony, could increase sentencing
ranges. He stated that under current law the sentencing
range for strangulation, which was a Class B felony, was 0-
2 years. He noted that the change would up it to 3-6 years,
and 4-7 years and 5-8 years were being considered. There
was a concept of putting strangulation into a special
circumstance, which had potential to increase the range for
a Class B felony strangulation from 0-2 years to 1-3 years.
It was also possible to adjust the presumptive range for
Class B felonies. He relayed that the aggravator in the
bill said that if you strangled someone into
unconsciousness it could serve and an aggravator, which
could only be used if it was not an element of the offense.
He explained that the aggravator could not be used on top
of the crime of assault, instead the aggravator would have
to be used in another type of crime. He related that the
two different tools allowed prosecutors to make tactical
decisions about the best method to get to the right
sentence.
9:43:43 AM
Senator Micciche thought the simple answer for the public
was that using either method would result in an appropriate
sentence to punish the crime.
Mr. Skidmore stated that without question the Class A
felony available in the bill would increase the sentencing
range for strangulation. He said that if the strangulation
not been charged as an assault, but used as an aggravator,
it would have made a dramatic difference in the sentencing.
9:45:45 AM
Senator Wielechowski referenced Page 2, line 4 of the bill
and Page 1, line 13, respectively:
(4) that person recklessly causes serious physical injury
to another by repeated assaults using a dangerous
instrument,
(3) the person knowingly engages in conduct that results in
serious physical injury
Senator Wielechowski asked whether there was a difference
between knowingly causes and knowingly engages in
conduct.
Mr. Skidmore answered in the negative.
9:47:02 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that the committee would not move
the bill. She acknowledged that Senator Wilson and Senator
Wielechowski had concerns and asserted that the bill was a
priority for the entire legislature. She said that the
committee would continue to work with the bill sponsor.
9:48:03 AM
JAENELL MANCHESTER, 49TH RISING, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She asserted
that survivors of sexual violence were encouraged to
support but that the legal system was notoriously
unfriendly to survivors. She cited a story from a woman
named Jessica, who had recounted that when she reported
being raped, police had told her that the defense would
tear her down in court. When asked if she could handle
that, she responded that she could not, and declined to
press charges. She said that including all sex offenses in
the victim notification statute, and stipulating that a
court could reschedule a plea agreement hearing if the
victim notification requirement was unfulfilled, would
ensure that the legal system was more survivor friendly,
while ensuring the defendants right to a fair trial. She
added that the bill would help survivors feel safe and
protect survivors by elevating the severity of
strangulation. She shared that strangulation was a serious
and deadly form of abuse that was often underestimated. She
relayed that victims of strangulation were likely to suffer
long-term physical and mental repercussions and were 7
times more likely to be killed by their partners. She
believed that recognizing the severity of strangulation in
statute would help remove perpetrators from society and
provide additional tools to survivors and advocates to keep
survivors safe. She supported the amendment to end the
practice of granting credit towards a sentence of
imprisonment for time spent under electronic monitoring.
She thought that passing the amendment would increase
accountability and send the signal that sexual violence was
taken seriously by the legislature and the courts. She
concluded that nonconsensual contact with semen was a form
of sexual violence and should be recognized as much by the
legislation.
9:50:31 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether the Public Defender
Agency had concerns with the bill.
BETH GOLDSTEIN, ACTING PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), stated that the office
had a concern with Section 4, which amended AS
11.81.900(b)(60). She believed that the wording did not
require the sex act to be committed in the presence of the
victim. She worried that by separating the sex act from the
contact the language my capture contact that the
legislature does not intend to punish. She understood the
need to close the loophole in statute but felt the language
could be clearer.
9:52:13 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether there were any other
concerns.
Ms. Goldstein replied in the negative.
9:52:46 AM
AT EASE
9:54:34 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair von Imhof relayed that the committee would set the
bill aside to allow the sponsors of HB 14 and SB 12 to
continue to work with all involved parties on changes to
the bill. The committee would take the bill back up on the
following Monday.
CSHB 14(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 35
"An Act eliminating marriage as a defense to certain
crimes of sexual assault; relating to enticement of a
minor; relating to harassment in the first degree;
relating to harassment in the second degree; relating
to indecent viewing or production of a picture;
relating to the definition of 'sexual contact';
relating to assault in the second degree; relating to
sentencing; relating to prior convictions; relating to
the definition of 'most serious felony'; relating to
the definition of 'sexual felony'; relating to the
duty of a sex offender or child kidnapper to register;
relating to eligibility for discretionary parole; and
providing for an effective date."
9:55:20 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof relayed that the committee intended to
hear an overview of the bill. Public testimony would be
scheduled for another meeting.
9:56:49 AM
Mr. Skidmore stated that SB 35 was defined to deal with sex
offenses in the state. The bill was a broad // Some of the
provisions had been removed // The bill
Mr. Skidmore reminded that the state had the dubious
position of leading
9:58:06 AM
Mr. Skidmore addressed a Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Summary: This legislation makes sexual abuse of a
minor in the third degree a sexual felony if there is
a six year age difference between the perpetrator and
the victim. It also clarifies how to count prior
felonies when determining the appropriate sentencing
range when sentencing a person for a sexual felony and
requires out-of-state sex offenders to register in
Alaska when they are present in the state. The bill
makes indecent viewing or production of a picture of a
person under the age of 16 and indecent production of
an image of an adult a registerable sex offense. The
bill creates the new crimes of enticement of a minor,
repeatedly sending images of genitalia, and eliminates
marriage as a defense to most acts of sexual assault.
Section 1 Legislative Intent and Findings Expresses
intent to overturn Williams v. State, 418 P.3d 870
(Alaska App. 2018) in regards to counting prior
felonies when sentencing a person for a sexual felony
and State, Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 425 P.
3d 115 (Alaska 2018) in regards to out-of-state sex
offenders registering as a sex offender when they are
present in Alaska. Also expresses legislative intent
for the Department of Public Safety to make additional
resources available to expand investigations of online
exploitation of children.
Section 2-3 Changes the mental state for sexual
assault in the second degree (penetration; class B
felony) and sexual assault in the third degree (sexual
contact; class C felony) from "knowing" to "reckless"
when the victim is mentally incapable, incapacitated,
or unaware that the sexual act is being committed.
10:01:41 AM
Mr. Skidmore continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Section 4-5 Eliminates marriage as a defense to sexual
assault in all cases except when both parties consent
and it is the nature of the relationship that is
criminalized (i.e. probation officer/probationer,
peace officer/person in custody, Division of Juvenile
Justice Officer/person 18 or 19 and under the
jurisdiction of the Division of Juvenile Justice).
Mr. Skidmore added that the marriage defense was most
problematic in situations where one spouse was mentally
incapable, meaning that they were unable to understand the
nature and consequences of their conduct.
Section 6-7 Clarifies the applicable sentencing
provisions for sexual abuse of a minor in the third
degree (class C felony) when there is at least a six
year age difference between the offender and the
victim. The crime will be sentenced as a sexual felony
under AS 12.55.125(i) if there is a six year age
difference between the offender and victim.
10:05:10 AM
Mr. Skidmore continued to address and discuss the Sectional
Analysis:
Section 8-10 Removes the word "online" from the crime
of "online enticement" criminalizing any enticement of
a minor regardless of whether the enticement occurs
"online."
Section 11 Makes unlawful exploitation of a minor an
unclassified felony if the person has been previously
convicted of unlawful exploitation of a minor or if
the victim is under 13 years of age.
10:09:02 AM
Mr. Skidmore continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Section 12 Amends the crime of indecent exposure in
the first degree to include masturbation in the
presence of either an adult or child. If the
masturbation occurs in the presence of an adult the
offense will be a class C felony. If it occurs in
front of a person under 16 years of age it will be a
class B felony.
Section 13 Adds repeatedly sending unwanted images of
genitalia to the crime of harassment in the second
degree.
Section 14 Separates "production" from "viewing" in
the crime of indecent viewing or production of a
picture.
Section 15 Conforming amendment. Changes the word
"photography" to "production of pictures."
Section 16 Conforming amendment. Changes the word
"photography" to "production of pictures."
Section 17 Classification section. Makes production of
a picture of a minor a class B felony (which will be
sentenced as a sexual felony). Viewing of a minor is a
class C felony (which will be sentenced as a sexual
felony). Production of a picture of an adult is also a
class C sexual felony. Viewing of a picture of an
adult is a class A misdemeanor.
Section 18 Clarifies that the crime of indecent
viewing or production of a picture does not apply to
activities that would reasonably be construed as
normal caretaker responsibilities or a recognized form
of medical treatment.
10:13:44 AM
Mr. Skidmore continued to address and discuss the Sectional
Analysis:
Section 19 Adds a definition of "semen" to statute.
Mr. Skidmore pointed out that the crime lab used a broader
definition than just a fluid that had sperm in it; the
medical definition of semen used by the crime lab would be
added to statute.
Section 20 Codifies a presumption that the court shall
order the offender not to have contact with the victim
as a condition of probation for cases involving sex
offenses or crimes of domestic violence unless the
court finds that contact between the victim and
offender is necessary.
Section 21 Conforms the sentencing statutes for sex
offenses to the change made to unlawful exploitation
of a minor in section 11, indecent exposure in section
12, sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree in
sections 6-7, and indecent viewing or production in
section 17. Also creates an enhanced sentencing
structure for distribution of child pornography if the
offender hosted, created, or helped host or create a
mechanism for multi-party sharing or distribution of
child pornography. This section also creates a new
sentencing range for a first conviction of
distribution of child pornography of 4-12 years.
Mr. Skidmore clarified that many of the provisions written
into the bill were the result of work done in lower
committees and had not been in the governors original
bill.
10:17:31 AM
Section 22 Clarifies that any prior felony counts for
the purposes of determining the presumptive sentencing
range for a person being sentenced for a sexual
felony.
Mr. Skidmore said that the clarifying language would ensure
that sex offenders would be appropriately sentenced when
they had prior felony convictions that happened to not be
sex felony convictions.
Section 23 Conforming amendment: new crime of
enticement of a minor clarified in the definition of
"most serious felony."
Section 24 Adds sexual abuse of a minor in the third
degree when there is a six year age difference between
the perpetrator and the victim, indecent viewing or
production of an image of a minor, indecent production
of a picture of an adult, and the new crime of
enticement of a minor to the definition of "sexual
felony."
Mr. Skidmore said that the definition would impact the use
of a sex offense as a presumptive sentence enhancement, in
discussions about pre-trial credit, and in probation.
Section 25 Requires the Department of Corrections to
notify the victim of a sex offense or a crime
involving domestic violence of the option to request a
protective order and provide contact information for
victim resources.
10:19:30 AM
Mr. Skidmore continued to discuss the sectional analysis:
Section 26-29 Requires a person required to register
as a sex offender or child kidnapper in another
jurisdiction to register in Alaska when that person is
present in the state. Also adds indecent viewing or
production of a picture of a minor or indecent
production of a picture of an adult to the list of
registerable sex offenses.
10:20:32 AM
Co-Chair Stedman understood that sexual offenders that came
to Alaska from other states had to register or they would
be in violation.
Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stedman asked what was required by current law. He
referenced an individual living in his district that had
been found to be a registered sex offender from another
state. He believed that the provision would alleviate
similar problems.
Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stedman supported the bill provision.
10:22:22 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof asked whether it was necessary to make a
change to the bill to speak to Co-Chair Stedmans concern.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the bill accomplished what he
believed to be a solution.
10:22:51 AM
Senator Bishop referenced Section 32 and asked whether the
bill sought to develop a database from scratch based on the
word "develop."
Mr. Skidmore stated that the concept had been added in
another committee, and asked LAW and DPS to report on
locations where sex offenses were occurring around the
state. He said that the information was already available
in various databases; a program would need to be written to
extract the information from the databases, which would be
provided in a detailed report to the legislature.
10:24:51 AM
Senator Wilson considered the sex offender registry. He
found it fascinating the process of registering from state
to state was not a common requirement.
Mr. Skidmore said that DPS received 8 to 10 calls per week
from individuals inquiring whether they would be required
to register as a sex offender if they moved to the state.
He said that there was not a single, national registry for
sec offenders, rather registry occurred on a state by state
basis. Each state set their own laws about who was required
to register. He shared that there were three different
approaches to the issue: individuals were required to
register in one state if they were registered in another
(found in this legislation); registration would be required
if the facts of the offense in one state would qualify you
in another; finally, registration would be based on a
comparison of the elements of the crime from state to state
(current practice in Alaska).
10:28:01 AM
Senator Wilson thought that the current practice of the
state attracted sex offenders to the state.
Mr. Skidmore lamented that this was one of the consequences
of the current law.
10:28:26 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked if a person was a sex offender
in another state, and the person's conduct was not a crime
in Alaska, would they be required to register in the state.
Mr. Skidmore replied that the individual would be required
to register.
Senator Wielechowski understood that the Supreme Court had
determined that sex offender registry was a form of
punishment. He asked if it was likely that the court would
uphold the proposed bill.
Mr. Skidmore was not certain that the court had determined
whether registering was a form of punishment. He believed
that the court would uphold the law. He added that Alaska
was not the first state to be making the change.
10:29:28 AM
Senator Micciche summarized his understanding of the
discussion thus far. He believed that the bill closed a
loophole in the area of registration. He recommended that
people read Section 12. He discussed the importance of
tracking the movements of sex offenders.
10:31:44 AM
Senator Shower mentioned that there were many archaic
elements in the state's sex crime laws that needed to be
updated. He supported the legislation.
10:33:10 AM
CHRISSY VOGELEY, COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER, OFFICE OF
CHILDREN SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
(via teleconference), she spoke to the changes in the bill
that affected mandatory reporters; how they reported and
the amount of training that was expected. She stated that,
currently, the Office of Childrens Services (OCS)
mandatory reporters training was utilized by OCS workers
and community partners, healthcare professionals, childcare
providers, and other mandatory reporters in other
departments. She understood that the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) used a different
training for mandatory reporters, which linked to the DHSS
training. She cited Section 33 of the bill, which would
require mandatory reporters to report child maltreatment
that was the result of a suspected sex offense to OCS and
the nearest law enforcement agency. She said that, right
now, mandatory reporters were required to report to OCS
only. The change would require an update to the mandatory
reporter training and outreach to reporters to inform them
of the change. She said that because the consequence of not
reporting would result in a misdemeanor, outreach was vital
to ensure that mandatory reporters were educated of the new
law. She spoke to Section 36 of the bill, which required
annual reporter training, and stressed that some outreach
would be needed to inform mandatory reporters of the new
training requirements. She spoke to the analysis in the
fiscal note:
The bill would require modifications to the
departments mandatory reporter training due to both
the new statutory definition of a sexual offense, as
well as the new requirement in which mandatory
reporters would need to report to both the department
and the nearest law enforcement agency when there is
suspected child maltreatment involving a sexual
offense. The training resides in the Department of
Health and Social Services website. The Office of
Childrens Services would be involved in
modifications. The cost to update the training module
and ensure readiness for an increase in annual traffic
would be $3.6.
Mandatory reporters of suspected sexual offenses to
children would require notification of the broadened
communication methods of child enticement and
exploitation, the requirement to report child
maltreatment that involves sexual offense to both the
department and the nearest law enforcement agency, and
be advised that their training must occur annually.
The department estimates that television and radio
advertising as well as printed materials would be
necessary for effective outreach to statewide
mandatory reporters. The estimate for outreach is
$62.0 and the estimate for printed materials is $6.9
for FY2020. In subsequent years, the department
estimates that the cost for outreach can decrease to
$21.0 for FY2021, FY2022, FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025.
Due to the annual training component, it is necessary
to achieve ongoing outreach efforts to ensure that
mandatory reporters have full knowledge of the new
requirements. The Office of Childrens Services
estimates that the ongoing outreach would require one
month of messaging.
The Office of Childrens Services contracts with the
departments commissioners office public information
team to manage and promote the mandatory reporting
module through a reimbursable services agreement. The
Office of Childrens Services anticipates the total
cost in FY2020 would be $73.3. The total cost in
FY2021, FY2022, FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025 would be
$21.0.
10:37:20 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof said that the new fiscal note was being
copied for the committee for distribution.
10:37:48 AM
AT EASE
10:44:13 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair von Imhof addressed a new fiscal impact note from
Department of Health and Social Services, OMB Component
1628. She reiterated the fiscal analysis.
10:45:29 AM
Senator Bishop commented that Section 36 of the bill
required school districts to provide mandatory training. He
thought the legislature should support the implementation
of the bill within school districts by providing proper
funding to support the mandate.
Co-Chair von Imhof agreed. She noted that invited
testifiers were online to answer committee questions.
10:46:46 AM
Ms. Vogeley mentioned the mandatory reporting training that
would be required would be used by many of the mandatory
reporters in the state, hence the need for a statewide
outreach campaign.
Co-Chair von Imhof suggested Ms. Vogeley confer with DEED
to see whether OCS training materials could be used by
school districts.
Ms. Vogeley stated that DEED had its own training that it
provided to districts. She assured the committee that
conversations between the two departments were ongoing.
10:47:46 AM
BETH GOLDSTEIN, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), was most concerned
with Section 2 and Section 3: the elimination of the
marriage defense. The concern was that the change would
capture couples where one spouse was in the other spouse's
care. She explained that dementia was not a static
condition under which lucidity could change hourly or from
week to week. She asserted that during the periods of
lucidity, consensual sexual contact could occur. She
detailed that there were many situations where family
dynamics could result in false accusations. She added that
the increased penalties in the bill would lead to more
litigation in cases, which would increase spending.
10:50:51 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof tried to re-articulate Ms. Goldstein's
points. She thought that by eliminating the entire section,
actual cases of marital rape slip through the cracks. She
asked if Ms. Goldstein had a suggestion in order to protect
the subset of situations that she had described.
Ms. Goldstein thought the matter could be addressed.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked whether Senator Shower had
encountered the issue in other committees.
Senator Shower answered in the affirmative, although he
recalled there had not been much time spent on the manner.
He recalled that LAW had not felt that the change would not
affect the subset significantly.
10:53:29 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof thought it was important to note that
the matter had been discussed in another committee. She
noted that the bill contained an incredible amount of
important legislation and the hope was to pass it within
this legislative session. She though that if the issue
could not be agreed upon in a timely manner, it could be
revisited next year, but it should not hold up the entire
piece of legislation.
10:54:21 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether there was concern about
the provision that required sex offender registration for
offenders from other states.
Ms. Goldstein stated that the agency had concern with
automatic registration. She stated that there were states
that had criminalized things that Alaska had not, and that
those individuals would be subject to registering as sex
offenders even though they ultimately would not have to
register under Alaska law. She pointed out that offender
registration could have an impact on housing options and
procuring employment. She said that the crime that they
were convicted of in the other state might not be something
that Alaska had criminalized.
Senator Wielechowski understood that in 13 states public
urination was registrable as a sex offense. He asked
whether this was true in Alaska.
Ms. Goldstein replied in the negative.
Senator Wielechowski listed that consensual sex between
teenagers was a registerable offense in Georgia. He asked
whether this was the case in Alaska.
Ms. Goldstein replied no.
Senator Wielechowski listed that in Colorado, a 13-year-old
who repeatedly hugged a 14-year-old might be required to
register as a sex offender for life. He wondered whether
the same was true in Alaska.
Ms. Goldstein did not believe so.
10:56:22 AM
Senator Micciche thought the discussion was interesting and
wanted to see a list of the crimes that should not be
included as part of a sex offense registry. He did not
think there was a national effort that unreasonably require
an individual to register as a sex offender. He worried
that offenders could be shopping around for states with
more lenient registration requirements.
10:58:19 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that her office would work with
the Public Defender Agency and work with LAW to decide on
how to proceed with the bill.
10:58:39 AM
Senator Wilson reiterated his support for the legislation
as written.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought there was room for further
discussion. She stated that the bill was comprehensive and
was a legislative priority. She wanted the committee to
explore the concepts and concerns that were raised.
10:59:27 AM
Senator Micciche supported the way the bill was currently
written.
10:59:59 AM
SB 35 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair von Imhof discussed housekeeping.
ADJOURNMENT
11:00:53 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 74 Work Draft Version K.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 74 |
| HB014 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 14 |
| HB014 Letters of Support.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 14 |
| HB014 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 14 |
| SB 35 - Sex Offenses Sectional.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB 35 - Ver. A to E Changes.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 35 |
| SB 35 - PSEA Letter of Support.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 35 |
| SB 35 Highlights.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 35 |
| SB 35 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB 74 Map - Broadband and Satellite Networks.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 74 |
| SB 35 DHSS NEW 041919.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 35 |