Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205

03/12/2019 03:30 PM STATE AFFAIRS

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

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= SB 23 APPROP:SUPP. PAYMENTS OF PRIOR YEARS' PFD TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 23(STA) Out of Committee
+= SB 24 PFD SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 24(STA) Out of Committee
+= SB 33 ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-Public Testimony Estimated to Start at 6:00 pm-
<Time Limit May Be Set>
+ Consideration of Governor's Appointees: TELECONFERENCED
Boards TBA
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
            SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                           
                         March 12, 2019                                                                                         
                           3:35 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Senator Mike Shower, Chair                                                                                                      
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair                                                                                                
Senator Lora Reinbold                                                                                                           
Senator Peter Micciche                                                                                                          
Senator Scott Kawasaki                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 23                                                                                                              
"An Act  making special appropriations from  the earnings reserve                                                               
account  for  the  payment  of   permanent  fund  dividends;  and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSSB 23(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 24                                                                                                              
"An Act directing  the Department of Revenue to  pay dividends to                                                               
certain  eligible individuals;  and  providing  for an  effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSSB 24(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 33                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to pretrial  release; relating  to sentencing;                                                               
relating  to  treatment  program   credit  toward  service  of  a                                                               
sentence  of  imprisonment;  relating to  electronic  monitoring;                                                               
amending  Rules   38.2  and  45(d),  Alaska   Rules  of  Criminal                                                               
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB  23                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: APPROP:SUPP. PAYMENTS OF PRIOR YEARS' PFD                                                                          
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
01/16/19       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/16/19       (S)       STA, FIN                                                                                               
02/05/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/05/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/05/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/26/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/26/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/26/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/28/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/28/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/28/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/05/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/05/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/05/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/07/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/07/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/07/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/12/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB  24                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: PFD SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS                                                                                          
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
01/16/19       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/16/19       (S)       STA, FIN                                                                                               
02/05/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/05/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/05/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/26/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/26/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/26/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/28/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/28/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/28/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/05/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/05/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/05/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/07/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/07/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/07/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/12/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB  33                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION                                                                                
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
01/23/19       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/23/19       (S)       STA, JUD, FIN                                                                                          
02/07/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/07/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/07/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/14/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/14/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/14/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/19/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/19/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/19/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/21/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/21/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/21/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/12/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
BRUCE TANGEMAN, Commissioner Designee                                                                                           
Department of Revenue                                                                                                           
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information about the amendments to                                                              
SB 23 and SB 24.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
WILLIAM MILKS, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                       
Civil Division                                                                                                                  
Labor and State Affairs Section                                                                                                 
Department of Law                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the DOL memo articulating the                                                                   
critical facts that led Department of Law to conclude that a                                                                    
court would determine SB 23 constitutional.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT HENDERSON, Deputy Attorney General                                                                                       
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law                                                                                                               
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to SB 33.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel                                                                                                    
Administrative Services                                                                                                         
Office of the Administrative Director                                                                                           
Alaska Court System                                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about SB 33.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
TERRENCE SHANIGAN, Staff                                                                                                        
Senator Mike Shower                                                                                                             
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Discussed merging pretrial services into                                                                 
the probation and parole division during the hearing on SB 33.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
KATIE BOTZ, representing self                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 33.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL VAN LINDEN                                                                                                              
Alaska Therapeutic Court Alumni Group                                                                                           
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 33.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
DON HABEGER, Community Coordinator                                                                                              
Juneau Re-entry Coalition                                                                                                       
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:  During the  hearing  on  SB 33,  asked  the                                                             
committee to  be mindful to  provide appropriate  exit strategies                                                               
for  those  who  want  to   return  to  their  community  and  be                                                               
participating members.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
ERIK REED, representing self                                                                                                    
Wasilla, Alaska                                                                                                                 
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 33 and                                                                 
ultimately voiced support.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SAMANTHA LIGHT, representing self                                                                                               
MatSu, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that SB 33 has good parts.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
KARA NELSON, representing self                                                                                                  
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that she was testifying in opposition                                                              
to SB 33.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT DORTON, representing self                                                                                                
Fairbanks, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated opposition to SB 33.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SCOTT OGAN, representing self                                                                                                   
Seldovia, Alaska                                                                                                                
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for SB 33.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:35:39 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  MIKE  SHOWER  called the  Senate  State  Affairs  Standing                                                             
Committee meeting  to order at 3:35  p.m. Present at the  call to                                                               
order were  Senators Micciche,  Reinbold, Coghill,  Kawasaki, and                                                               
Chair Shower.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
        SB  23-APPROP:SUPP. PAYMENTS OF PRIOR YEARS' PFD                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:36:24 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  announced the consideration  of SENATE BILL  NO. 23                                                               
"An Act  making special appropriations from  the earnings reserve                                                               
account  for  the  payment  of   permanent  fund  dividends;  and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
He recapped  that the bill was  introduced at the request  of the                                                               
governor; it was  last heard on 3/7/19; and  public testimony was                                                               
heard  and closed.  He said  written testimony  will be  accepted                                                               
until 6:00 pm this evening.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER solicited a motion to adopt Amendment 1.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:36:47 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL  moved to  adopt  Amendment  1, work  order  31-                                                               
GS1014\A.7 dated 3/9/19.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 1                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE              BY SENATOR SHOWER                                                                       
     TO:  SB 23                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 13:                                                                                                           
          Delete "$1,328"                                                                                                       
          Insert "$1,388"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:37:06 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI objected for discussion purposes.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:37:23 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:37:49 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  reconvened the  meeting. He  asked Mr.  Tangeman to                                                               
speak  to Amendment  1,  which the  Department  of Revenue  (DOR)                                                               
requested.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:38:10 PM                                                                                                                    
BRUCE  TANGEMAN, Commissioner  Designee,  Department of  Revenue,                                                               
Anchorage, explained that  Amendment 1 is technical  to correct a                                                               
miscalculation on  the amount  of the  2018 dividend.  The amount                                                               
$1,328 is replaced with $1,388.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that the  legislature puts placeholders in                                                               
the budget for  the PFD because the exact amount  of the dividend                                                               
is unknown  until the  applicants have  been certified.  He asked                                                               
what factors will cause this payment to change.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE  TANGEMAN explained that DOR  estimated the                                                               
number of  applicants that will  be eligible for the  payment and                                                               
they acknowledge that  may change. However, the  dollar amount of                                                               
the payment will remain the same.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:39:47 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI removed his objection.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER  asked  if  there was  any  further  discussion  of                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD  asked how  it  happened  that the  number  was                                                               
miscalculated.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE  TANGEMAN replied it was  nothing more than                                                               
a simple miscalculation in the spreadsheet.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD asked  what the  total unstructured  draw would                                                               
be, should the bill pass with the amendment.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER  DESIGNEE TANGEMAN  replied it  would be  between $4                                                               
million and  $5 million,  depending on the  number of  people who                                                               
receive the dividend.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER found no further discussion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:40:45 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:41:33 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting  and asked Mr. Tangeman if he                                                               
had something to add.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN clarified  that DOR estimated that                                                               
about  530,000  people  would qualify  for  the  repayment.  That                                                               
number multiplied by  $1,388 is in the $40 million  range, not $4                                                               
million to $5 million.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:42:04 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER found no further discussion or objection and                                                                       
Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:42:21 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI moved Amendment 2, [work order 31-GS1014\A.4                                                                   
dated 3/8/19].                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 2                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
    OFFERED IN THE SENATE               BY SENATOR KAWASAKI                                                                     
          TO:  SB 23                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 5, following "of":                                                                                            
          Insert "a supplemental permanent fund dividend                                                                        
     of"                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 6:                                                                                                            
          Delete "and who are eligible to receive a 2019                                                                        
     permanent fund dividend,"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 9, following "of":                                                                                            
          Insert "a supplemental permanent fund dividend                                                                        
     of"                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, lines 10 - 11:                                                                                                     
          Delete "and who are eligible to receive a 2020                                                                        
     permanent fund dividend,"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 13, following "of":                                                                                           
          Insert "a supplemental permanent fund dividend                                                                        
     of"                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 14, through page 2, line 1:                                                                                   
          Delete "and who are eligible to receive a 2021                                                                        
     permanent fund dividend,"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, following line 18:                                                                                                 
     Insert new subsections to read:                                                                                            
          "(h)  An amount equal to $1,061 for each                                                                              
     individual  who  was  ineligible   to  receive  a  2016                                                                    
     permanent  fund   dividend  under   AS 43.23.005(d)  is                                                                    
     appropriated   from   the  earnings   reserve   account                                                                    
     (AS 37.13.145)  to  the   restorative  justice  account                                                                    
     (AS 43.23.048).                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
          (i)  An amount equal to $1,289 for each                                                                               
     individual  who  was  ineligible   to  receive  a  2017                                                                    
     permanent  fund   dividend  under   AS 43.23.005(d)  is                                                                    
     appropriated   from   the  earnings   reserve   account                                                                    
     (AS 37.13.145)  to  the   restorative  justice  account                                                                    
     (AS 43.23.048).                                                                                                            
          (j)  An amount equal to $1,328 for each                                                                               
     individual  who  was  ineligible   to  receive  a  2018                                                                    
     permanent  fund   dividend  under   AS 43.23.005(d)  is                                                                    
     appropriated   from   the  earnings   reserve   account                                                                    
     (AS 37.13.145)  to  the   restorative  justice  account                                                                    
     (AS 43.23.048)."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
          Page 2, line 21:                                                                                                      
          Delete "include certain payments"                                                                                     
          Insert "make certain payments to individuals who                                                                      
     were eligible"                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          Page 2, lines 22 - 23:                                                                                                
          Delete "to be made to eligible individuals with                                                                       
     2019, 2020, and 2021 permanent fund dividend payments"                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KAWASAKI said  he distributed  a  memo from  Legislative                                                               
Legal Services that discusses  the legality and constitutionality                                                               
of SB 23. He noted that the  packets also contain a memo from the                                                               
Civil  Division  of the  Department  of  Law that  discusses  the                                                               
reasons  they   view  the   bill  constitutional.   According  to                                                               
legislative legal,  there are two  solutions that would  cure the                                                               
suspected infirmity.  One solution  is to issue  the supplemental                                                               
payment  to all  individuals that  received a  dividend in  2016,                                                               
2017,  or 2018.  The  alternative is  to  issue the  supplemental                                                               
payment to  all individuals  that receive  the dividend  in 2019,                                                               
2020, or  2021, regardless of  their residency in 2019,  2020, or                                                               
2021.  He noted  that both  SB  23 and  SB  24 would  need to  be                                                               
changed.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
He acknowledged  that the two  memos are in conflict  and offered                                                               
his  view  that  as  currently   written,  the  bill  won't  pass                                                               
constitutional muster. Should  the bill become law,  his worry is                                                               
that just one person could  object to the rational and jeopardize                                                               
future PFD payouts. He asked to hear from the commissioner.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:44:55 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN stated  that the Alaska Department                                                               
of Law believes the bill  is constitutional. He acknowledged that                                                               
Legislative  Legal Services  came to  a different  conclusion. He                                                               
opined that  Amendment 2  strays from  the governor's  intent and                                                               
greatly over  complicates the bill.  The larger  concerns include                                                               
that DOR would  be tasked with locating all  the individuals that                                                               
received the dividend in 2016 but  no longer live in Alaska. "Are                                                               
we going to then have to  track these people down to every corner                                                               
of  the globe  in  order  for them  to  get  their dividend?"  He                                                               
pointed  out  that the  PFD  application  asks the  applicant  to                                                               
certify that  on the date of  application they are and  intend to                                                               
remain an  Alaska resident indefinitely. He  acknowledged that is                                                               
intent language and explained that  the bill uses the approach it                                                               
does because the  individual signs that they are  still an Alaska                                                               
resident.  This  is a  less  complicated  approach that  is  more                                                               
streamlined and easier  to implement, he said. He  added that DOR                                                               
estimates that  over a three-year span  about 100,000 individuals                                                               
that received a  dividend no longer reside in  Alaska, have died,                                                               
or no  longer qualify  for some reason.  Should the  amendment be                                                               
adopted, it would increase the  cost of the back payments between                                                               
$150 million and $160 million.  He reiterated that implementation                                                               
would be onerous for the department.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:47:41 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI  questioned why DOR  wouldn't use the  2016 list                                                               
of  applicants, that  includes their  addresses,  to process  the                                                               
repayment in 2019.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN  replied it's not as  easy as that                                                               
because  many of  the 600,000  plus applicants  may have  changed                                                               
bank accounts,  moved within the  state, moved out of  Alaska, or                                                               
died. It would be an onerous undertaking.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:49:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  SHOWER  commented  that  the  committee  can  argue  about                                                               
complications   but   there's  not   much   choice   if  it's   a                                                               
constitutional  issue.   He  asked  Mr.  Milks   to  provide  the                                                               
Department of Law's view of the bill.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:49:45 PM                                                                                                                    
WILLIAM  MILKS,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Civil  Division,                                                               
Department of  Law, stated that  at the committee's  request, DOL                                                               
submitted a  memo articulating  the critical  facts that  led the                                                               
department  to  conclude  that  a court  would  determine  SB  23                                                               
constitutional. He  said he respects  the opinion  of Legislative                                                               
Legal Services on  this matter and understands  that the analysis                                                               
is   based  on   general   case  law   about  general   residency                                                               
requirements.  Nevertheless,  it  is   the  Department  of  Law's                                                               
opinion  that the  legislature has  the means  to accomplish  the                                                               
limited objective of SB 23. That  is to provide PFD back payments                                                               
for a  specific group  of Alaska  residents. He  highlighted that                                                               
the Permanent  Fund Dividend Program  is uniquely  different than                                                               
any other  benefit program that  states have enacted, that  SB 23                                                               
is not a  long-term change to the PFD program,  and that the bill                                                               
is addressed to specific facts.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS  explained that the  rational basis review is  the most                                                               
common review  of any legislature's enactments.  The U.S. Supreme                                                               
Court has  said that for  this analysis  it looks at  whether the                                                               
legislature had  any reasonably conceivable  state of  facts that                                                               
could provide  a rational basis  for the classification.  In this                                                               
case  the   classification  is  between  two   groups  of  Alaska                                                               
residents; those who qualified for a  PFD in the past but did not                                                               
receive the  statutory payment and  those who didn't  qualify for                                                               
that  past payment.  The Department  of Law  believes there  is a                                                               
rational basis to address that set of facts.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Furthermore,  the  Alaska  Supreme  Court has  talked  about  the                                                               
concern  that  the  PFD program  is  susceptible  to  individuals                                                               
establishing  minimal  and  temporary  ties  to  Alaska  to  take                                                               
advantage of the  state's benefit program because  the benefit is                                                               
portable. That, too, leads DOL  to the rational basis review when                                                               
the legislature  tries to impose safeguards.  The legislature has                                                               
the ability to address the issue, he said.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:54:04 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI  said he very  recently received  the Department                                                               
of  Law's memo,  but  it doesn't  seem to  address  the issue  of                                                               
somebody  who is  a resident  now  versus somebody  who had  been                                                               
entitled to the PFD but hadn't gotten it.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS replied the memo  addresses this bill that provides for                                                               
two residency  requirements. Somebody who is  eligible to receive                                                               
the dividend  this year who  received the reduced PFD  payment in                                                               
2016  would  be  eligible  to   receive  the  back  payment.  The                                                               
Department  of  Law believes  that  is  a rational  approach  the                                                               
legislature could take.  It is not similar  to legislation that's                                                               
been  challenged  and reviewed  by  the  U.S. Supreme  Court  for                                                               
having   an  excessive   residency  requirement   to  receive   a                                                               
particular benefit such as welfare.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI  asked if he  believes this could  be challenged                                                               
by  an  Alaska  resident  who qualified  and  received  the  2016                                                               
dividend but isn't eligible to apply in 2019.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS  replied an  individual certainly  could bring  a legal                                                               
challenge, but he believes it would be unsuccessful.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:58:19 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER asked  what would happen to the payback  if the bill                                                               
passed and somebody filed a legal challenge.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS responded  that a legal challenge would  probably be an                                                               
effort to get an injunction to stop the back payment.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  commented that could  put the  supplemental payment                                                               
in limbo for some time.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS clarified that the  judicial branch can review all laws                                                               
the legislature passes.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:59:19 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL asked  for help  understanding the  criteria the                                                               
court will use to analyze each of the legal opinions.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS said  the courts generally do not  want to second-guess                                                               
the elected branches  of government, but the  typical standard is                                                               
whether there  is a  set of facts  that could  rationally support                                                               
the legislature making the distinction.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
If a bill passed that  made a distinction between residents based                                                               
on age,  race, gender,  or sex,  it would  be reviewed  under the                                                               
highest standard of  review, which is strict  scrutiny. The court                                                               
would be  looking for compelling  governmental reasons  to accept                                                               
the  distinction on  those criteria.  Residency requirements  are                                                               
usually analyzed on  a rational basis, but it could  go to strict                                                               
scrutiny, he said.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
A few years  ago the Alaska Supreme Court talked  about the right                                                               
to travel when it upheld  residency requirements for the PFD. The                                                               
court contrasted  cases that used  strict scrutiny and  said even                                                               
the U.S. Supreme  Court recognized that the  legislature is given                                                               
much greater leeway  when a state is providing  a highly portable                                                               
benefit. The permanent fund  dividend was specifically discussed.                                                               
Zobel is the  only case Alaska has about the  PFD program and the                                                               
U.S.  Supreme Court  applied rational  basis  standard review  in                                                               
that case, not strict scrutiny.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS summarized  that the Department of Law looked  at SB 23                                                               
as  a unique  bill  that deals  with a  unique  program and  they                                                               
believe the courts will conclude  that the legislative branch has                                                               
the ability to address these unique set of facts.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:05:23 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL said  he asked  because  he wanted  to hear  the                                                               
Department of Law talk about the tests.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:06:50 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE said he approaches  this from both the practical                                                               
and  legal  perspectives.  Practically, he  opposes  Amendment  2                                                               
because  the  PFD  was  designed  for  Alaska  residents  and  it                                                               
provides a  payment to  people who are  no longer  residents. The                                                               
original dividend  program required  longevity and  commitment to                                                               
stay  in Alaska.  The  Zobel  case did  away  with the  longevity                                                               
requirement  for the  dividend, but  applicants must  still check                                                               
the  box  on  their  application indicating  their  intention  to                                                               
remain in Alaska.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
He said  that from  the legal perspective  he believes  Harris v.                                                               
Hahn is  a fair  comparison on  the rational  basis. At  issue in                                                               
that  case  were  the  residency  requirements  for  veterans  to                                                               
qualify for tuition benefits  while attending public universities                                                               
- they  either enlisted in Texas  or were a resident  of Texas at                                                               
the  time  of  enlistment.   Senator  Micciche  summarized,  "The                                                               
rational  basis   that  found  it  constitutional   was  for  its                                                               
residency  at enlistment  requirement." He  said he  believes the                                                               
residency at  the time of  payment of the  dividend to be  a fair                                                               
comparison.  "I can't  think of  a  more rational  basis for  the                                                               
consideration  of   the  administration   and  I   support  their                                                               
approach." he said.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:08:50 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI  asked what  would happen to  the PFD  payout if                                                               
somebody   challenged  the   payout   and  the   law  was   found                                                               
unconstitutional.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS said  if the state lost a challenge  at the trial court                                                               
level, it  would review  the case with  the attorney  general and                                                               
decide whether or not to file an appeal.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI clarified  that he was asking  what would happen                                                               
to the  PFD payout  if all  appeals are  exhausted and  the court                                                               
agrees with the  legislative legal memo and deems  the entire law                                                               
unconstitutional.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS said the payout wouldn't  be paid if the court ruled it                                                               
unconstitutional.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KAWASAKI  suggested a  different  approach  to cure  the                                                               
infirmity in  the proposed  law would be  to have  people reapply                                                               
for the 2016 additional payment.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:12:00 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER  DESIGNEE TANGEMAN  explained that  if people  apply                                                               
for the 2016 additional payment though  the 2019 dividend it is a                                                               
simple exercise to marry the two lists.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI  said he didn't  intend to push Amendments  2 or                                                               
3,  but his  concern is  that if  the PFD  is a  benefit owed  to                                                               
Alaskans, then  the addition payments  should be paid to  all the                                                               
people who received [the 2016,  2017, and 2018] dividends whether                                                               
they're still in  the state or not. He said  people have left the                                                               
state for  a lot of reasons.  There's been a down  market economy                                                               
and someone  in a trade union,  for example, could be  working in                                                               
Seattle  because they  couldn't find  a  job in  the state.  They                                                               
would be denied the ability to  have the back payment even though                                                               
the  governor and  many legislators  believe  that person  should                                                               
have  had the  full PFD  the whole  time. He  said that's  why he                                                               
introduced  the  amendments, but  he'll  review  the legal  memos                                                               
further.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:14:05 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KAWASAKI   withdraw  Amendment  2  and   did  not  offer                                                               
Amendment 3.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:14:49 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  said the amended  bill is before the  committee for                                                               
discussion. Finding none, he solicited a motion.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:15:08 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report  SB 23, work order 31-GS1014\A as                                                               
amended,   from   committee  with   individual   recommendations,                                                               
attached fiscal  note(s), and any technical  changes necessary to                                                               
conform Amendment 1.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  found no  objection and  CSSB 23(STA)  was reported                                                               
from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
                 SB  24-PFD SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:16:14 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  announced the consideration  of SENATE BILL  NO. 24                                                               
"An Act directing  the Department of Revenue to  pay dividends to                                                               
certain  eligible individuals;  and  providing  for an  effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
He  said  the bill  was  last  heard  March  7, 2019  and  public                                                               
testimony has  been heard and  closed. Written testimony  will be                                                               
accepted  until 6:00  pm this  evening, assuming  the bill  moves                                                               
from committee.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
He noted the proposed amendment.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:16:56 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL moved to adopt  Amendment 1, [31-GS1013\A.6 dated                                                               
3/9/19].                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 1                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE              BY SENATOR SHOWER                                                                       
     TO:  SB 23                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 9:                                                                                                            
          Delete "$1,328"                                                                                                       
          Insert "$1,388"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:17:07 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI objected for discussion purposes.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER said this amendment  makes the same technical change                                                               
as Amendment 1 for SB 23.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:17:27 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI removed his objection.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:17:34 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  SHOWER  found  no  further  discussion  or  objection  and                                                               
Amendment 1 was adopted. He solicited a motion.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:17:52 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report  SB 24, work order 31-GS1013\A as                                                               
amended,   from   committee  with   individual   recommendations,                                                               
attached fiscal  note(s) and any  technical changes  necessary to                                                               
conform Amendment 1.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER found  no objection and CSSB 24(STA)  moved from the                                                               
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:18:26 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
           SB  33-ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:22:04 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   SHOWER  reconvened   the   meeting   and  announced   the                                                               
consideration of SENATE BILL NO.  33 "An Act relating to pretrial                                                               
release; relating  to sentencing;  relating to  treatment program                                                               
credit toward service of a  sentence of imprisonment; relating to                                                               
electronic  monitoring; amending  Rules  38.2  and 45(d),  Alaska                                                               
Rules  of  Criminal Procedure;  and  providing  for an  effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:22:40 PM                                                                                                                    
ROBERT  HENDERSON, Deputy  Attorney  General, Criminal  Division,                                                               
Department of Law, Juneau, introduced himself.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  directed attention  to the  language in  Section 2,                                                               
page 2,  line 8 and  questioned why the arrest  provision doesn't                                                               
apply   to  peace   officers  generally.   He   also  asked   for                                                               
clarification  of  the difference  in  the  definition for  peace                                                               
officer versus police officer.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  said, regarding the  first question, it  would add                                                               
clarity to  include VPSOs and  VPOs certified under Title  18. In                                                               
practice, the  troopers are generally  involved when  arrests are                                                               
made by VPSOs  or VPOs and will be the  public entity responsible                                                               
for  getting  the person  to  court  within 24  hours.  Municipal                                                               
police officers provide  the service in the  communities that the                                                               
troopers do  not service.  The answer to  the second  question is                                                               
much  more  complicated, he  said.  In  part it's  because  peace                                                               
officer is defined in at least two places in the law.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:27:09 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE asked  if people  arrested by  park rangers  or                                                               
citizen's  arrest  are  handed  off  to either  a  trooper  or  a                                                               
municipal police officer for the official arrest.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON responded that AS  12.25 talks about peace officers                                                               
and [AS 12.25.150] is the  only place that limits the requirement                                                               
to municipal  police officers. If  that reference was  changed to                                                               
"peace  officer,"  any  public servant  authorized  to  make  the                                                               
arrest would be  obligated to bring the person  to the magistrate                                                               
within  24  hours.  Practically, municipal  police  officers  and                                                               
troopers  are  the entities  with  the  means and  mechanisms  to                                                               
ensure the person appears before  the municipal officer. He noted                                                               
that  VPSOs and  VPOs are  certified peace  officers but  may not                                                               
have the means or mechanism  to ensure that person is transported                                                               
and appears before a judicial officer within 24 or 48 hours.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  asked how an  arraignment would be  impacted if                                                               
the certified  peace officer was  weathered in and  couldn't meet                                                               
the deadline for the arraignment.  He asked if language should be                                                               
added  to  accommodate  that  scenario  and  not  jeopardize  the                                                               
arrest.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  said he'd like  public safety to discuss  how they                                                               
would manage that type of scenario.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER noted that VPSOs don't have the same powers.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:30:27 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL recalled that the  discussion on the timeline was                                                               
how to  accommodate the right of  people arrested to go  before a                                                               
magistrate without unnecessary  delay. The idea was  also to have                                                               
someone explain to the magistrate  or judge the reason the person                                                               
was  arrested. He  said  he wants  to  include pretrial  services                                                               
without delay  and have  the 48  hour limit  as the  backdrop. He                                                               
said he'd  like to hear why  the administration chose to  put the                                                               
48  hour requirement  first instead  of last  and eliminated  the                                                               
extenuating circumstances language.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:32:19 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON  said the collective  reference to 48  hours refers                                                               
to  the  constitutional  obligation   to  ensure  that  a  person                                                               
arrested  is brought  to court  within a  reasonable time.  Under                                                               
U.S. Supreme  Court case law,  states are entitled to  define the                                                               
boundaries  of reasonable  time. The  bill sets  48 hours  as the                                                               
maximum  time.  He  said  he  has  reason  to  believe  that  law                                                               
enforcement  will make  a reasonable  effort to  ensure that  the                                                               
arrestee  appears  before  a  judge  or  magistrate  as  soon  as                                                               
possible. Changing  the maximum limit  to 48 hours  provides more                                                               
flexibility when there are extenuating circumstances.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  said his office  researched precedents for  both 24                                                               
and  48 hours  and  the  U.S. Supreme  Court  held  in County  of                                                               
Riverside v.  McLaughlin that suspects must  generally be brought                                                               
before a court  within 48 hours of arrest. He  noted the footnote                                                               
about court  rule 5 on  page 15 regarding  the 24 hour  rule with                                                               
the intention for 48 hours.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD  said she's talked to  a lot of people  and many                                                               
think 72  hours is  better than  48 hours  because of  courts not                                                               
being open  over the  weekend or  court staff  being unavailable,                                                               
and it could  reduce the fiscal impact. She advised  that she has                                                               
an amendment drafted for 72 hours.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
4:34:59 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE questioned whether running  over 48 hours for an                                                               
initial hearing would be an issue.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  COGHILL  asked  if  there has  been  a  problem  getting                                                               
arrestees before a judge in 24 hours.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  said he can't  think of a  case where there  was a                                                               
dismissal as  a result of not  meeting the 24 hour  timeframe but                                                               
that's because  the rule was  set and  that became the  norm. The                                                               
bill returns to pre-2016 law to provide flexibility.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD said she'd like to hear from the court.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:36:41 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel,  Administrative Services, Office of                                                               
the  Administrative  Director,  Alaska Court  System,  Anchorage,                                                               
said the statute has gone back  and forth between 24 hours and 48                                                               
hours, but with very few  exceptions all defendants are arraigned                                                               
within  24 hours.  There is  a judicial  officer on  call at  all                                                               
times on weekends. The only  times people have not been arraigned                                                               
within 24  hours were  the rare  situations where  the prosecutor                                                               
asked for more time to gather  information for a bail hearing for                                                               
certain  felonies.  A more  common  reason  for not  meeting  the                                                               
timeline is because the person was  not in a medical condition to                                                               
appear  in court.  Intoxication is  an example  when cases  could                                                               
extend to  48 hours. She said  the court has not  experienced any                                                               
problem with either 24  or 48 hours. Even if the  rule was 48 the                                                               
arraignment  would   occur  within  24  hours   in  almost  every                                                               
situation, she said.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER  asked  if  the proposed  change  to  provide  more                                                               
flexibility would be helpful for the court.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE replied  the court hasn't had a problem  with either 24                                                               
or 48 hours.  Responding to the chair's summary,  she agreed that                                                               
the change isn't needed based on current information.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:38:29 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD  said  she'd  like  to  reduce  costs  whenever                                                               
possible and that  might include not requiring court  staff to be                                                               
on call  on weekends  and holidays.  She added,  "I've definitely                                                               
heard a different opinion than what you just brought forth."                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE said  she can't  identify any  cost that  is added  by                                                               
having judges on call on the  weekend because a judge must always                                                               
be  on call  for not  only this  but also  things like  emergency                                                               
domestic violence (DV)  petitions or child in need  of aid (CINA)                                                               
issues  or  search warrants.  "So  I  can't identify  any  fiscal                                                               
impact from the timeframe," she said.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD  expressed surprise  that there's no  added cost                                                               
for work done on weekends.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  confirmed that judges  and other staff don't  get paid                                                               
extra to  work on weekends. She  added that she cannot  speak for                                                               
the agencies.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  clarified that there  will be a fiscal  impact for                                                               
the Department of  Law. The attorneys are salaried  so their cost                                                               
is fixed but support staff is not a fixed cost.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  requested the  data that  shows what  the increased                                                               
cost might be if the timeline is increased.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said he'd try to get the information.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:41:14 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  asked  if  the  committee  should  change  the                                                               
definition of peace officers in this section.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said he'd like to  talk to the Department of Public                                                               
Safety (DPS) before he gives a formal answer.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE said  he was willing to wait for  the answer. He                                                               
then asked  if a process exists  today to apply for  an extension                                                               
beyond 24 hours.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON answered yes. He  noted the corresponding change in                                                               
Section 3 of the bill. He  advised the committee should also keep                                                               
in mind  that the  change to  48 hours  would be  consistent with                                                               
Court Rule 5, which allows 48 hours.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MICCICHE  observed  that  unless  somebody  is  arrested                                                               
between 5:00 pm on Friday and  6:00 am on Saturday, it seems that                                                               
a 48 hour timeframe negates the need for weekend services.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE said  she understands the point but  it's standard that                                                               
people call  right away  because of  the constitutional  right of                                                               
people to be seen without  unnecessary delay. She also reiterated                                                               
that the  court already has a  judicial officer on call  for many                                                               
purposes.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MICCICHE  clarified  that   the  question  was  for  Mr.                                                               
Henderson who said the Department of  Law would have to staff for                                                               
weekend calls.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  responded that 48  hours would alleviate  the need                                                               
to staff  for Saturday  unless there  is an  arraignment, because                                                               
the prosecution is always present when arraignments occur.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:43:31 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL advised that he had  a comment on Section 2 and a                                                               
question  about  intent  in  Section 1.  He  explained  that  the                                                               
bookends  for the  24 hour  timeframe were  to provide  swift and                                                               
certain  action and  to recognize  that  there are  good and  bad                                                               
actors and that  some governments are overzealous  and others are                                                               
lazy.  All these  things have  to  be considered  in context,  he                                                               
said. "We  were trying  to get  somebody in front  of a  judge so                                                               
that  they have  to  answer,  but they  also  have  the right  to                                                               
answer."                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
He asked Ms.  Meade to comment on the intent  language in Section                                                               
1 and  discuss what the  court is  doing now to  video conference                                                               
pretrial hearings.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
4:45:06 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  MEADE  responded  that  she  has  been  discussing  possible                                                               
language modifications  in Section  1 and the  corresponding rule                                                               
changes  relating to  video conferencing  with the  Department of                                                               
Law  and they  are considering  those suggestions.  She said  she                                                               
raised her  eyebrows a little  when she read the  intent language                                                               
because there is already a  lot of video conferencing between the                                                               
court system  and jails. The  courts are 100  percent responsible                                                               
for that happening,  she said, and 100 percent of  the savings is                                                               
attributed  to  the  Department   of  Public  Safety  (DPS).  She                                                               
acknowledged that  the legislative  intent language does  no harm                                                               
because the court will continue  to work on finding efficiencies.                                                               
She listed  the advantages of  video conferencing  including that                                                               
it is safer  not transporting prisoners and not  having them move                                                               
around in  the courthouse,  it's better for  DOC because  they no                                                               
longer have  to search people when  they leave and return  to the                                                               
facility, and it's  better for DPS fiscally. The  court system is                                                               
dedicated to  video conferencing and  the Supreme Court  has made                                                               
it a priority  for [information services] staff to  work on this.                                                               
She cited  an example at  the Anvil Mountain  Correctional Center                                                               
to demonstrate that the court  system purchases and maintains the                                                               
video conferencing  equipment in  the jails throughout  the state                                                               
and will continue  to do so. She noted that  the executive branch                                                               
shares in the cost of the equipment but not the staff time.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
She described  the legislative intent language  as acceptable but                                                               
not required.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  COGHILL  opined that  everyone  should  work to  further                                                               
video conferencing  not just  the court system.  He asked  if the                                                               
language  in the  court rule  change has  to work  in conjunction                                                               
with the intent language.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE responded  that she has been talking  to the Department                                                               
of Law about  modifications in all three court  rule changes. She                                                               
related  that  she  suggested changing  the  intent  language  in                                                               
Section 1 to say that the  Court System, the Department of Public                                                               
Safety, and  the Department  of Corrections  continue to  work on                                                               
increasing the  use of  video conferencing.  The language  in the                                                               
other court rules is modified a little to allow more discretion.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
She  talked  about  the  work  the  Supreme  Court  has  done  to                                                               
carefully craft the  video conferencing rule. She  said the court                                                               
system carefully considered the changes  proposed in the bill and                                                               
suggested  modifications  to  reflect   what  the  Supreme  Court                                                               
believes ought to happen with video conferencing.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR COGHILL  expressed interest  in looking at  the suggested                                                               
changes.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:49:21 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  MEADE  added that  the  Court  System is  reexamining  their                                                               
fiscal  note  in   light  of  this  being  a   priority  for  the                                                               
administration and the legislature, and  they may ask for funding                                                               
for the positions and equipment to continue to do this work.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KAWASAKI asked  if somebody  who is  arraigned by  video                                                               
conference has counsel present.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  offered  her  understanding that  there  may  not  be                                                               
defense counsel present for arraignments  in Fairbanks. She added                                                               
that whether counsel is present  and has the ability to privately                                                               
consult with their  client is one of the  big problems associated                                                               
with  video conferencing.  To  be  approved, there  has  to be  a                                                               
privately   accessible  phoneline   and   a   room  for   private                                                               
conversations  at DOC.  This has  been  identified as  a need  in                                                               
Fairbanks and she didn't know if that had changed.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI  asked how a  public defender  would communicate                                                               
with  a  defendant  who  is arraigned  by  video  conference.  He                                                               
questioned  whether they  are being  deprived of  their right  to                                                               
have counsel present in this circumstance.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE said she'll look  into where and when the communication                                                               
happens. She  reiterated that providing  a means for  the defense                                                               
to  talk  to  their  client   is  a  sticking  point  with  video                                                               
conferencing,  and  it's  particularly  important  in  subsequent                                                               
hearings. That's  the reason  video conferencing  isn't available                                                               
in every jail.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:52:08 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD  expressed  concern  about  victims,  that  the                                                               
courts allow  so many  pretrial delays, that  so many  people are                                                               
released, and  that tens of  thousands of people are  affected by                                                               
the horrible crime epidemic. "We need to do something about it."                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR COGHILL  commented that  there are a  couple of  sides to                                                               
video conferencing.  One is how  quickly it's done and  the other                                                               
is the right to counsel.  In video conferencing somebody could be                                                               
intimidated or  have a language  barrier of some sort.  He opined                                                               
that the  intent language isn't wrong  and expressed appreciation                                                               
for Ms. Mead's work on the bill.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Shanigan to  speak to the policy change of                                                               
taking pretrial services out of  the probation section because he                                                               
has  a  broad law  enforcement  background  and can  provide  the                                                               
perspective of someone on the street.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:55:16 PM                                                                                                                    
TERRENCE  SHANIGAN,  Staff,  Senator Mike  Shower,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, Juneau,  stated that  when he talked  to corrections                                                               
officers about  the pretrial  services unit,  he learned  that it                                                               
was initially  staffed both by seasoned  corrections officers and                                                               
by  people who  had no  experience  in corrections.  Many of  the                                                               
corrections officers  that were hired  for the new unit  had been                                                               
probation officers  and that  is how  they are  still classified,                                                               
although they  perform the duties of  pretrial services officers.                                                               
Corrections officers  also pointed out the  redundancy in current                                                               
law that  separates people who  perform pretrial  services duties                                                               
and  probation officers,  because it  essentially designates  two                                                               
people to  do one person's job.  They suggested it would  be more                                                               
streamlined if the duties of  pretrial had been combined with the                                                               
duties of  the probation  officer. Their  reasoning is  that this                                                               
would take advantage of institutional knowledge.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHANIGAN  said he's also  asked people outside the  system if                                                               
all parts of  the pretrial services unit should  be discarded and                                                               
the answer  was no. The  pretrial services duties  addressed some                                                               
of  the very  good  parts of  Senate Bill  91.  For example,  the                                                               
pretrial services component allows  some prevention activities in                                                               
a specialized situation.  He said that may have  a fiscal impact,                                                               
but the cost of pretrial services could be supported privately.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
He directed  attention to Section  15, line 18, that  talks about                                                               
the  powers  of the  commissioner  and  describes establishing  a                                                               
probation  system. Then  Section  16 returns  to  talk about  the                                                               
pretrial services  officer. He described  it as  an uncomfortable                                                               
nuance to  ask probation officers  who still identify as  such to                                                               
do pretrial work.  He cautioned against losing  the good elements                                                               
of  the pretrial  services unit  in the  responsibilities of  the                                                               
commissioner. He  pointed to Section  19 that adds a  new section                                                               
titled  "Duties of  probation officers  when  acting as  pretrial                                                               
services officers."  and advised that  it would be  more accurate                                                               
to say,  "Duties of probation  officers when  conducting pretrial                                                               
services  responsibilities."   This  goes   to  the   point  that                                                               
probation officers are  clear that they continue  to be probation                                                               
officers  even  though  they were  performing  pretrial  services                                                               
duties.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER drew  an analogy between F15 pilots  and F16 pilots.                                                               
F15C pilots  are air to air;  they specialize in one  mission and                                                               
get very  good at it. An  A10 pilot specializes in  air to ground                                                               
and they get very  good at it. There are also  a lot of platforms                                                               
that  specialize in  a  lot of  things and  it's  hard for  those                                                               
people to be good at all the missions.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER reviewed the upcoming committee schedule.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
5:02:45 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER recessed the meeting to 6:00 pm.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
6:11:58 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  SHOWER  reconvened  the   Senate  State  Affairs  Standing                                                               
Committee meeting and opened public testimony on SB 33.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
6:12:19 PM                                                                                                                    
KATIE  BOTZ, representing  self, Juneau,  asked if  the committee                                                               
was taking testimony  on repealing Senate Bill 91  or comments on                                                               
SB 33.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER clarified the hearing was on SB 33.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOTZ responded  that she wanted to testify  about Senate Bill                                                               
91.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  explained that the  governor filed four  bills this                                                               
year  that  relate to  changes  to  Senate  Bill 91  and  Senator                                                               
Micciche filed one  bill on the topic. He asked  if she wanted to                                                               
testify on  SB 33, which  would change the law  regarding arrest,                                                               
release, sentencing, and probation.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  said he can't apologize  for the administration                                                               
for  posting a  very confusing  Facebook  note,   but all  [five]                                                               
bills relate to  Senate Bill 91, they're just split  up by topic.                                                               
He said  you have  expressed interest  in SB  35 that  relates to                                                               
sexual  assault.  SB  33  specifically   relates  to  arrest  and                                                               
pretrial  bail issues.  He suggested  she  give her  view on  the                                                               
Senate  Bill  91  issue  and the  committee  would  consider  the                                                               
message.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BOTZ  offered  her  understanding  that  there  is  lots  of                                                               
confusion  associated  with  Senate   Bill  91  regarding  police                                                               
officers and state troopers not being  able to do their jobs. She                                                               
voiced  support for  returning to  the "basic  of what  our state                                                               
troopers and what  our police officers are supposed  to do." That                                                               
is protect  the people,  keep criminals  in prison,  and ensuring                                                               
that  communities are  safe.  She said  the  reports that  police                                                               
officers  and state  troopers don't  think  they are  able to  do                                                               
their jobs adequately is very  frustrating and it's reduced these                                                               
professionals' standing in the public's eye.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER asked  if she supports or opposes SB  33, which does                                                               
repeal portions of Senate Bill 91.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
6:16:53 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. BOTZ replied, "I do support SB 33."                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
6:17:05 PM                                                                                                                    
MICHAEL  VAN  LINDEN,  Alaska  Therapeutic  Court  Alumni  Group,                                                               
Juneau,  Alaska, during  the hearing  on SB  33, stated  that the                                                               
pretrial services  unit helped funnel people  into the previously                                                               
underutilized therapeutic  court in Juneau  to get the  help they                                                               
needed. He said it's also  important to not discriminate based on                                                               
the ability to  post bail. He summarized his opinion  is that the                                                               
pretrial services unit  provides a great service  that hasn't had                                                               
enough time  to work.  "We need  to give this  a little  bit more                                                               
time before we start repealing anything."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
6:18:41 PM                                                                                                                    
DON  HABEGER, Community  Coordinator, Juneau  Re-entry Coalition,                                                               
Juneau, advised  that the  history of this  coalition is  that it                                                               
was functioning prior to criminal  justice reform and Senate Bill                                                               
91. When Senate Bill 91  was enacted, the coalition supported the                                                               
provisions  that  allow  people  that   want  to  return  to  the                                                               
community and  become productive members. The  coalition supports                                                               
giving good  tools like the  pretrial assessment to the  court to                                                               
make  informed  decisions. He  said  the  evidence suggests  that                                                               
anybody assessed as  low risk is at increased  risk to recidivate                                                               
if  they are  mixed with  a  high risk  criminal population.  The                                                               
coalition opposes this.  He asked the committee to  be mindful to                                                               
provide appropriate exit strategies for  those who want to return                                                               
to their community and be participating members.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
6:20:50 PM                                                                                                                    
ERIK REED,  representing self, Wasilla,  shared that  on December                                                               
13, 2017  he and his  family were struck  by a drunk  driver. His                                                               
wife was  killed and he  and his son  survived but are  left with                                                               
ongoing  trauma. The  drunk driver  was  released on  third-party                                                               
monitoring and  he said he  feels that it  would be a  tragedy if                                                               
this  man was  able to  apply his  EM time  against his  ultimate                                                               
sentence. "He gets  to spend all his time with  his wife and kids                                                               
and his family, but my son and I,  we have nothing. We go to PTSD                                                               
counseling  every  week."  He  said  the focus  seems  to  be  on                                                               
rejuvenating criminals  but they're not held  accountable and the                                                               
victims  are  forgotten.  He  stressed   the  unfairness  of  the                                                               
process. He urged the committee  to send a message that criminals                                                               
don't get out of jail free.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER expressed  condolences for his loss  and assured him                                                               
the committee is considering that perspective.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
6:25:08 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD thanked Mr. Reed  for his testimony and asked if                                                               
he supports SB 33.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  REED   replied  he  supports  anything   that  makes  people                                                               
accountable  for the  crimes they  are guilty  of. He  emphasized                                                               
that  he  doesn't  support  anything  that  doesn't  hold  people                                                               
accountable for their crimes.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  asked if he  supports SB  33, "which takes  it back                                                               
to,  in   many  cases,  pre-Senate   Bill  91   arrest,  release,                                                               
sentencing etc. Do you concur with that?"                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. REED said yes.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
6:26:39 PM                                                                                                                    
SAMANTHA LIGHT, representing  self, MatSu, stated that  SB 33 has                                                               
good parts and she agrees that  the court needs to be more active                                                               
in  timely case  management.  She voiced  support for  electronic                                                               
monitoring  and  related  her  son's  story  to  demonstrate  its                                                               
benefit.  Parts of  SB 33  that she  doesn't support  include the                                                               
rebuttable  presumption. She  worries  that  her 20-year-old  son                                                               
won't be  able to resume his  life until age 35.  She understands                                                               
that  crime is  rampant and  she  appreciates what  the state  is                                                               
doing to protect its citizens.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
6:29:39 PM                                                                                                                    
KARA  NELSON,  representing self,  Juneau,  stated  that she  was                                                               
testifying in  opposition to SB  33. Some of the  reasons include                                                               
eliminating  the  credit  while on  electronic  monitoring  (EM).                                                               
There is no evidence that this  will further public safety but it                                                               
will  deter people  from getting  help. [technical  difficulties]                                                               
She  voiced  support  for  the  use  of  video  conferencing  for                                                               
pretrial hearings. However,  SB 33 generally returns  to a system                                                               
that does not  work. She said she appreciates  that the committee                                                               
is committed to  avoid things that create harm such  as bail that                                                               
people can't pay and long times  in jail pretrial. She said there                                                               
is ample evidence showing this creates less public safety.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
6:32:03 PM                                                                                                                    
ROBERT DORTON, representing self,  Fairbanks, Alaska, stated that                                                               
he  opposes SB  33  primarily because  it  eliminates credit  for                                                               
receiving rehabilitative services  while on electronic monitoring                                                               
(EM). He  shared that he was  sent to prison on  drug charges and                                                               
was  released  on electronic  monitoring  after  three years.  He                                                               
takes responsibility for what he's  done and since he was granted                                                               
EM, he has  done things to turn his life  around. He acknowledged                                                               
that it  is rare, but  people do  change their behavior  and make                                                               
amends with  their community.  He listed the  things he  is doing                                                               
personally to live  a better life. He has been  drug-free for six                                                               
years and he  credits Senate Bill 91 for his  current success. He                                                               
urged the committee to give Senate Bill 91 another cycle.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
6:35:12 PM                                                                                                                    
SCOTT OGAN,  representing self, Seldovia,  stated support  for SB                                                               
33.  He said  he  does not  like  the Alaska  he  lives in  today                                                               
because  of crime  issues. He  recounted  the crimes  he and  his                                                               
family have suffered the last three years.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  noted that his son  in law's truck was  broken into                                                               
last week while he was taking testimony on a crime bill.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
6:36:51 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER closed  public testimony on SB 33 and  held the bill                                                               
in committee.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
6:37:16 PM                                                                                                                    
There being  no further  business to  come before  the committee,                                                               
Chair  Shower   adjourned  the  Senate  State   Affairs  Standing                                                               
Committee meeting at 6:37 pm.                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA MEMO.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
agenda
SB 23 TL - Senate President.pdf SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB0023A.PDF SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB23 Sectional.pdf SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24 TL - Senate President.pdf SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB0024A.PDF SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB24 Sectional.pdf SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB 24 Fiscal Note.PDF SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB 23 and 24 presentation.pptx SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
DOR S STA Letter.2.26.2019.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB23 Follow up to SSA.3.6.2019.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
LEG.PFD.Supplemental.SB23.SB24.2.8.19.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
Letter re SB 23 and SB 24 permanent fund dividend payments.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
SB23-24 (IN FAVOR) Written Testimony(uploaded 03-06-19).pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB23-24 (NOT IN FAVOR) Written Testimony(uploaded 03-06-19).pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB23-24 (VARIOUS TESTIMONY) (uploaded 03-06-19).pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 23 Amendments.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24 Amendments.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB 33 Transmittal Letter.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB0033A.PDF SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33 - Pretrial Highilghts.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33 - Pretrial Sectional.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOL-FN#1.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DPS-FN#2.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOA-FN#3.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOA-FN#4.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOC-FN#5.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOC-FN#6.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-Court System-FN.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (In Favor) - additional final tally.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (Organizations Opposed).pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (Opposed) - additional final tally.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (Various) - additional final tally.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24