HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE March 29, 2000 9:30 A.M. TAPE HFC 00 - 87, Side 1. TAPE HFC 00 - 87, Side 2. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 9:30 A.M. PRESENT Co-Chair Therriault Representative Foster Co-Chair Mulder Representative Grussendorf Vice Chair Bunde Representative Moses Representative Austerman Representative Phillips Representative J. Davies Representative Williams Representative G. Davis ALSO PRESENT Senator Tim Kelly; Lauree Hogonin, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), Juneau; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law: Kris Knauss, Staff, Senator Pearce. SUMMARY HB 366 An Act relating to the rights of crime victims, the crime of violating a protective order or injunction, mitigating factors in sentencing for an offense, and the return of certain seized property to victims; expanding the scope of the prohibition of compromise based on civil remedy of misdemeanor crimes involving domestic violence; amending Rules 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17, Alaska District Court Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration. HB 366 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration. SB 269 An Act relating to the deadline for the submission of monetary terms of collective bargaining contracts between the state and a labor or employee organization representing state employees to the legislature. CS 269 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(RLS) am An Act relating to legislative powers and responsibility with respect to collective bargaining agreements between the state and a labor or employee organization representing state employees; and providing for an effective date. SENATOR KELLY noted that he did not support Amendment #1, 1- LS1386\KA.3, Cramer, 3/27/00. [Copy on File]. He commented that there could be some language developed which could take care of the University of Alaska. The intent of the legislation is to make certain that, following the court decision, that the Legislature must fund new contracts. The language has created ambiguity whether it should include the non-monetary terms. He pointed out that verbiage contained in one of the new contracts, clarifies that provisions of the agreement not require Legislature funding before they are put into effect and implemented on the effective date of the agreement. If the Legislature should decide that this year the contracts would not be funded, according to the agreement, the non-monetary terms would go into effect. If there should be a second round of negotiations, the contracts would already have the non-monetary terms in the "bank". He reiterated that the idea is to clarify that non-monetary terms do not go into effect until the monetary terms are approved by the Legislature. The next step clarifies that it would be an administrative nightmare to change non- monetary terms during the three-year time span of the contract. Once the monetary terms are funded, the non- monetary terms would go into effect. If the monetary terms of the contract are not funded, the non-monetary terms stay in effect until the end of that contract. The Legislature would need to reappropriate each year of a multi-year contract. Next year, the Legislature will come back and reappropriate funding for the increase in health benefits and the 2% salary increase. Representative J. Davies countered that the "clarification" actually makes the legislation "muddier". He pointed out that the amendment addresses that concern. Representative J. Davies noted that there are many non- monetary provisions that are not controversial. He suggested that in the interest of the Unions and in the interest of the State, those things should move forward. He noted concern that the non-controversial things are disallowed. He noted that would not be in the best interest of either the State or the Legislature. Additionally, he asked, if the monetary terms were not signed and the non- monetary terms then would not be effect, at that time would, the Unions be at an impasse and strike. Representative J. Davies believed that situation will "trigger" a lot of strikes, which could otherwise have been avoided. Representative J. Davies added that the multi-year contracts would remove the "right to strike" in the second and third year. Senator Kelly suggested that normally these types of things are "trade offs". He thought that they would remain under the provisions of the old contract until there was agreement with the new contract. In response to comments by Representative J. Davies, Senator Kelly explained that if the Legislature does not fund each of the twelve contracts, a number of possibilities could happen. It is hoped that if the Legislature does not fund the contracts, they would be renegotiated. Senator Kelly advised that he did not know what would happen with the contracts this year, but anticipated that they would be renegotiated. He did not know if that would "waive" the right to strike. He thought that there was language in the bill, which indicates that if the second and third years of the contracts are not funded, they do not give up the right to strike. Senator Kelly understood that work was being done on a committee substitute which would redefine the monetary terms to include benefits. Representative J. Davies stated that the terms of the contracts were negotiated under the status quo. There would be different terms if the proposed language were taken into effect. He stated that the largest difference is that there would not be a multi-year contract happening again. He acknowledged that some terms are more complicated than others, which will create problems with the Legislature only meeting once a year. He believed that it would force many of the contracts to go unaddressed for an additional year or could force the Legislature into a Special Session. Senator Kelly replied that if the proposed legislation went into effect, the Legislature would not have to refund a multi- year contract every year. The bill does not identify that. Representative J. Davies clarified that the Legislature has the option to not fund every year. He acknowledged that was language was clear and that it would remain clear given the status quo. He pointed out that in multi-year contracts, the Unions would have to agree to take the non-monetary terms for the three years whether or not the monetary terms are funded. If the Unions were forced to accept that, the Legislature would effectively be taking away their right to strike on those issues. Senator Kelly disagreed that they would be giving up their right to strike. Co-Chair Mulder did not see the point of why the Unions would go only to the single year contracts. He argued that non-monetary terms are questionable. Going from a sick leave to a cash benefit, is a monetary term. He thought that the amended language would "throw the bone" to the Unions. Representative J. Davies countered that the Unions had testified that they would not go for a multi-year contract. Senator Kelly stated that the contracts are currently all on the same cycle. He believed that was good. He pointed out that they are three-year contracts which will all come up for renegotiation at the same time. Now all twelve public employee contracts are on the same cycle. Each contract contains different divisions and each division was written by Unions not the Administration. Co-Chair Mulder asked if it would be good public policy to allow the non-monetary terms to take effect in a contract, if the monetary terms had been rejected. Representative J. Davies suggested whatever moves forward should be determined by the negotiated process with the exception, that the Legislature has the right to define what is monetary and what is non-monetary. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that a definition of monetary terms had been presented. He noted that Senator Kelly was willing to consider new language. Senator Kelly commented that change would be in lieu of only Section 1, which would then solve the University's problems. Senator Kelly pointed out that the discrepancy, which exists between the employee numbers, submitted by the Unions and those of the Administration. He advised that in the non- monetary contracts, the cash buy out provision was most perplexing. He noted that there are twenty-six employees that have more than 2,000 hours of sick leave. He reiterated that the cash-out provision would be costly. Representative Williams questioned the circumstances associated with the non-Union employee and how the contracts would affect them. Co-Chair Mulder replied that would be a non-monetary term. Representative Williams reiterated the circumstance of the employer paying sick leave rather than training an additional employee. Senator Kelly agreed that is a value, but that the cost surpasses that value. The reserve would be used for all State employees. Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment 1. [Copy on File]. Co-Chair Mulder OBJECTED. Representative Phillips recommended that the wording be worked out in Committee before submitting it to the House Floor. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that it is scheduled for the House Floor today. Representative J. Davies observed that if the amendment has the support the leadership and the House Finance Committee, it would be accepted on the House Floor. Representative Grussendorf stated that without the amendment, there would not be multi-year contracts. The idea of 12 contracts coming up for renegotiations every three years would be too much. He preferred that the contracts be staggered so that there could be several Unions settled. He reiterated that if all 12 contracts are up for renegotiation and several are not happy, it would present a difficult situation. Currently, they stagger in, leaving a core that has approved contracts. If they were addressed all at the same time, it could be a nightmare to public services. Representative Williams spoke to the cost of negotiations for 12 multi-ear contracts. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment IN FAVOR: J. Davies, Grussendorf, Moses, Williams, Austerman OPPOSED: G. Davis, Foster, Phillips, Bunde, Therriault. Mulder The MOTION FAILED (5-6). Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CS SB 269 (RLS)am out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. Representative Grussendorf OBJECTED, stating that the additional work should be addressed in the House Finance Committee and not on the House Floor. Representative Williams also OBJECTED to undertaking the work on the House Floor. Representative Austerman echoed comments of the Representative Williams. He expected to see the amendment be clarified. Co-Chair Mulder WITHDREW his MOTION to MOVE the bill from Committee. CSSB 269(RLS) was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE BILL NO. 366 An Act relating to the rights of crime victims, the crime of violating a protective order or injunction, mitigating factors in sentencing for an offense, and the return of certain seized property to victims; expanding the scope of the prohibition of compromise based on civil remedy of misdemeanor crimes involving domestic violence; amending Rules 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17, Alaska District Court Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration. ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, stated that HB 366 deals with victims' rights. It does not adopt any major changes in the law, but does adopt changes that are important to victims' suffering the circumstances which the bill addresses. The bill does four things: ? Allows a mitigated presumptive sentence for speedy no contest or guilty pleas; ? Simplifies procedures for victims to recover stolen property; ? Establishes a crime for violating protective injunctions in child in need of aid cases; ? Extends current disallowance of civil compromise in some domestic violence cases to all domestic violence cases. Ms. Carpeneti noted that a court can not issue an injunction for a child in need of aid case unless it makes a finding that the individual has abused the child physically or sexually. Representative G. Davis stated that portion concerned him given the "subjective present danger". Ms. Carpeneti explained that would not be affected in this bill. Co-Chair Therriault clarified that on Page 2, new language was being added which was a reference to the domestic violence section. Ms. Carpeneti added that was a provision contained in Title 11,which makes it a crime to violate a domestic violence protective order. Co-Chair Mulder commented that Section 3 was a different focus from the rest of the bill. Ms. Carpeneti replied that Section 3 deals with victims of property crimes. It provides a simplified procedure for getting the property back. That section addresses only those cases where the property is in the possession of the law enforcement. The language provides for a simplified procedure. It would allow the pawnbroker to have their say and due process and the right to present his or her case. Co-Chair Mulder asked how the court would make a decision involving the pawnbroker. Ms. Carpeneti replied that the owner of the property has a higher interest than the pawnbroker. Co-Chair Therriault interjected that "victims' rights" brings the bill together. Ms. Carpeneti added that the bill would adopt as a statutory mitigator, if the defendant acted after being charged with a crime, to alleviate the effect of the crime on the victim, by pleading guilty within 30 days of the charges. The mitigator would have already been recognized by the Court of Appeals as a non-statutory mitigator. There is a provision in law which allows for civil compromise of certain misdemeanor charges. Right now, the law allows civil compromise but it does not allow it in about 98% of the domestic violence cases. The new language would make that clear. Representative G. Davis referenced the "mitigating" stipulation. He asked if the judge would have the option of reducing the mandatory sentence. Ms. Carpeneti responded that mitigatory sentencing applies to presumptive sentencing. That would apply to first time classified felonies, first time unclassified felonies and second time felonies. Co-Chair Therriault referenced the Department of Law's, Public Defender fiscal note. He believed that there would be less work for the mitigator. Ms. Carpeneti commented that she did not understand the new roll of the mitigator position, which is being requested. She stated that law currently allows for a civil compromise and admitted that this request would be minor change to current law. Ms. Carpeneti added that a court would have to approve a civil compromise, regardless. Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment #1, 1- GH2024\A.1, Luckhaupt, 3/28/00. [Copy on File]. Co-Chair Mulder OBJECTED. Representative J. Davies explained that the Council on Domestic Violence had submitted the amendment. The amendment speaks to a time when a person commits a crime, violating a protective order. The intent of the amendment would be to relax the requirement that the order needs to be filed. Given that, if there was a valid protective order issued in another state, it would provide that same standard in Alaska. At this time, filing could be an issue. The amendment would fit under the order of protecting victims of crime. Co-Chair Mulder asked if this concern had been presented to the Department before this meeting. Ms. Carpeneti clarified that it had not. Co-Chair Therriault asked if there was a Department position on the amendment. Ms. Carpeneti stated that philosophically, it would be a good idea, however, the civil provision of the domestic violence law provides that a protective order from another state has to be filed to be enforced civilly. By allowing it to be criminal would present an anomaly in law which needs to be fixed. She noted that the federal government does not require filing of protective orders for them to be enforced. Representative G. Davis asked if Alaska was more stringent than other states. Ms. Carpeneti replied that the way the amendment was written, it requires protective orders. In order for it to be a violation of crime, it would have to come under the statutes. (TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 87, Side 2). Co-Chair Mulder stated that ultimately, the victim would have to have contact with the enforcement agency at some point. Otherwise, they would have false protection. Ms. Carpeneti commented that a problem could result if someone came to our State and did not know that they had to file a protective order or did not have time to file it before they were victimized. Representative Phillips asked why the amendment was not considered when the bill was drafted or discussed in the House Judiciary Committee. LAUREE HOGONIN, DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT (ANDVSA), JUNEAU, explained that ANDVSA was not aware that out-of-state orders could not be prosecuted until ten days ago. This concern came up at a national meeting, as an active piece of law right now, enforcing out-of-state protective orders across the nation. The discussion came up about prosecuting the out-of-state orders. It had been left out of this area of protective orders issued from other states. This could happen because the victim was not familiar with the Alaska Statute or because in several other states, filing is not a requirement. When this came to the attention of the ANDVSA staff, Ms. Hogonin noted that she spoke with Ms. Carpeneti and Representative J. Davies to help fix the problem. Representative Phillips asked if the Alaska orders include a phrase noting that if you transfer out of the state, you must make contact with the public safety officers of the state that you are going to. Ms. Hogonin replied that does not happen because there are two functions at looking at protective orders with full faith and credit. The issuing state is responsible for determining who is protected, the terms and conditions of the order and how long that order is in effect. The enforcing state is responsible for how that order is enforced, the arresting authority of responding to it, and the notification and penalty of procedures. It would not be necessary or practical for the Alaska order to indicate that you have to contact law enforcement or the court in the state you are moving to as that may not be the law for that state which may not require filing. Ms. Carpeneti stated that, AS 18.66.140 would require a change in order to comply with the need. She acknowledged that the amendment could fit under the content of the proposed bill. Ms. Hogonin stated that there is work being done by two different national groups in the process of developing a model code for enforcement of protective orders, one through the United States Attorney General and the other through the Department of Justice. She noted that this would be an opportunity for Alaska to include a tool to take care of situations so to have a valid protective order from another state for those victims who either don't know that they are suppose to file or have not had the opportunity to file. If they had a confrontation, inclusion of this language would allow for a prosecution if they were violated. Co-Chair Mulder questioned if there should be a fiscal note submitted by Department of Public Safety. HB 366 was HELD in Committee for further discussion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:30 A.M. H.F.C. 9 3/29/00am