Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/07/2018 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB312 | |
| HB129 | |
| HB312 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 312 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 129-FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES
2:15:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 129, "An Act relating to sport fishing, hunting,
or trapping licenses, tags, or permits; relating to penalties
for certain sport fishing, hunting, and trapping license
violations; relating to restrictions on the issuance of sport
fishing, hunting, and trapping licenses; creating violations and
amending fines and restitution for certain fish and game
offenses; creating an exemption from payment of restitution for
certain unlawful takings of big game animals; relating to
commercial fishing violations; allowing lost federal matching
funds from the Pittman - Robertson, Dingell - Johnson/Wallop -
Breaux programs to be included in an order of restitution;
adding a definition of 'electronic form'; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded the committee that this is the third
hearing in the House Judiciary Standing Committee on CSHB 129
and there had been questions during the 2/5/18 committee meeting
regarding fiscal notes. He advised that Sylvan Robb, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Administration and Kelly Howell,
Administrative Services Director, Department of Public Safety
are available to testify regarding "your fiscal notes," and
explain the process of preparing fiscal notes.
2:16:55 PM
SYLVAN ROBB, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration,
[Available to testify.]
2:16:59 PM
KELLY HOWELL, Director, Administrative Services, Department of
Public Safety, [Available to testify.]
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Robb to describe the Department of
Administration's fiscal note, provide more insight into the
preparation of fiscal notes, and when they are prepared.
2:17:20 PM
MS. ROBB responded that the Department of Administration (DOA)
is in the process of preparing an indeterminate fiscal note on
CSHB 129, and that Shared Services of Alaska (SSOA) deals with
collections for the Alaska Court System. Once the court has
transferred those fines and fees, those collections are sent to
the DOA in an aggregate format and it has no way to parse out
what percentage or amount from past fines are related to fish
and game offenses versus other types of offenses. At this
point, until there is more data in the future, the department
could not determine the impact of this bill, she pointed out.
She said that she could only speak in general terms about
preparing a fiscal note because she is not an attorney. In the
terms of the way fiscal notes have been handled in the past, she
offered that a fiscal note was required when there would be a
positive or negative impact on a department's budget. In the
absence of an impact taking place on a department, generally,
there would be a zero-fiscal note in the event a committee was
likely to wonder why there was not be a fiscal note, thereby,
giving the department a chance to explain the reason, she
explained.
2:18:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that when something merely
affects the general fund for the entire state and not one
particular department, no fiscal note is prepared.
MS. ROBB reminded Representative LeDoux that when revenue bills
have come up over the past couple of years and were definitely
intended to impact the general fund, those have shown the change
in revenue. She differed to the Legislative Finance Division.
2:19:36 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that Ms. Robb understood, at least as the
Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Administration (DOA),
that if a fiscal note would raise revenue and those funds would
go directly to the DOA, that there would be a fiscal note
showing the positive effect of the legislation. In the event
the funds were going to the general fund and not specifically to
the DOA, that would not cause the department to have a fiscal
note representing the revenue, he questioned.
MS. ROBB responded that that has been the convention in the
past.
CHAIR CLAMAN related that, in contrast, if it would cost the DOA
more money to do whatever is in the bill causing a negative
fiscal note, then it would be looking solely at the DOA and not
beyond the department.
MS. ROBB answered that Chair Claman was correct in that if the
funds to be raised were to be retained by the Department of
Administration, the change in revenue would be reflected.
2:20:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN acknowledged that the indeterminate fiscal note has
not been completed and asked whether it reflected that there
might be revenue going directly to the Department of
Administration (DOA), or rather, if that revenue comes in, that
it is going to the general fund. In the event it is going to
the general fund, he asked why an indeterminate fiscal note
would be prepared if Ms. Robb did not believe there was any
reason this would bring revenue to the Department of
Administration separately.
MS. ROBB explained that the way the collections process works
for the Alaska Court System (ACS) is that once funds had been
transferred to collections, if it had been successfully
collected by a vendor, that the department employed to try to
increase collections for the state, SSOA receives a percentage.
In the event fines were increased, the amount of money the
department had the percentage to collect on, would increase.
2:21:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that she unsure what Ms. Robb meant
by "shared services" and asked whether the fiscal note is being
prepared by SSOA or by the Department of Fish and Game.
MS. ROBB clarified that she was speaking to the fiscal note for
the DOA and its division of Shared Services of Alaska (SSOA), as
it relates to its collections portion.
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that the Department of Administration
(DOA) has different contractors to try to collect debt, and in
that instance if they collect $100, the DOA may receive 3 or 4
percent of the $100, and the other $96 would go to the general
fund. Therefore, the indeterminate role is whatever percentage
the department may receive from contractors collecting these
debts on behalf of SSOA, he offered.
MS. ROBB advised that Chair Claman was mostly correct in that
the contractor employed to perform the collections, receives a
percentage of the money as incentive to collect for the state.
In the event the amount of the fees does not change, the state's
ability to receive more or less money is not impacted. For
example, a $100 fine for a criminal offense that now becomes a
$100 violation that would have no impact for SSOA in the
potential collection. The primary reason the DOA's fiscal note
will be indeterminate is that the debts that are transferred to
collections from the court system arrive in the aggregate and
they are inclusive of all types of debts.
2:23:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he was not concerned so much
about which agency has the fiscal note. He then offered a
scenario wherein on average data showed that 10 black bears had
been illegally harvested over the last 10-years, and the
legislature doubled restitution to, for example, $1,000 to
$2,000. Thereby, causing a positive fiscal note associated with
that increased restitution of $10,000, of which happens
approximately 10 different times in this bill with restitution,
he advised. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins questioned why the
number is indeterminate, and why there is not an estimate of the
revenue raised from the increased restitution.
MS. ROBB clarified that SSOA does not collect restitution, it
collects fines and fees imposed by the court.
2:24:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked which agency handles
restitution.
MS. ROBB answered the Alaska Court System.
2:25:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that the testimony of
Ms. Meade was that the Alaska Court System (ACS) passes that
money onto the general fund. He asked who receives the
restitution revenue from the court system.
MS. ROBB responded that the money flows into the general fund
and once the money is in the general fund, it is up to the
legislature to allocate it as it sees fit. Ms. Robb
acknowledged that these questions were moving beyond her scope
of expertise.
2:26:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that it is unlikely
there is an open pit into which dollars flow and no one keeps
track of the money. The court system has to liaison with
someone, and he said that he would like to know who that is,
whether that person keeps track of the restitution dollars that
flow into the general fund, and to offer an estimate of how much
increased restitution revenue would likely be forthcoming with
the passage of CSHB 129.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that "that seems like that has a different
practice than the legislature's done when there is revenue
that's coming through the general fund." He said that his
office could look for an answer.
2:26:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that it should be doable to
attach a fund code to any funds being collected by the court
system when transferring the restitution money to DOR, DOA, or
whoever, to make sure those funds are identified based on the
categories the state wants to keep track of, if nothing else.
In the event there are specific crimes of interest to the
legislature, that might be something to track and he encouraged
finding a way to maintain that information.
MS. ROBB answered that the money does go to the general fund and
she would find the answer.
2:28:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that he was not looking for a
bean counter, he is looking for an economist, someone who can
assess there is a supply and demand curve at play. He said that
he assumed that by significantly increasing the penalty for a
violation, hopefully there would be fewer violations.
2:29:21 PM
MS. HOWELL advised the committee that the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) submitted a zero fiscal note because the department
will not receive an increase or decrease in its appropriations
as a result of the passage of CSHB 129. Therefore, a zero
fiscal note is appropriate for the Department of Public Safety
(DPS), she said.
2:30:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Major Bernard Chastain, Department of
Public Safety (DPS) that questions were raised regarding the
interplay between this bill and AS 12.55, regarding the
misdemeanor sentencing provisions. He asked Major Chastain to
provide the administration's perspective to the committee.
2:31:02 PM
MAJOR BERNARD CHASTAIN, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife
Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), noted that the
question last week had to do with the increase in potential
fines for class A misdemeanors. He advised that this bill was
first introduced in 2015, and during that time frame Senate Bill
91 and SB 54 had not yet gone through the process and those
amounts have not changed. Under Senate Bill 91, the actual
value for a class A misdemeanor moved to a maximum of $25,000;
part of the Senate Bill 91 change aligned penalties under AS
12.55.035 class A misdemeanor and increased that value to
$25,000. As this bill has moved through the process over the
last couple of years, there was a change to align Title 16 with
a variety of misdemeanor offenses and unclassified misdemeanors
with specific penalties for each section, he explained. This
bill attempted to go through and align the misdemeanor offenses
as all class A misdemeanors within Title 16, and it created a
secondary class within each of those sections of a violation
offense, he related. Some of the offenses have moved up in the
potential maximum fine a court could impose, up to $25,000. All
of the offenses listed in this bill have a secondary possibility
of charging with a violation offense, with a maximum of a $500
fine. He noted that he has it broken out by sections if the
committee would like him to go through each section. In
general, he offered, the possible fine is a maximum of $25,000
under a class A misdemeanor, which was changed under Senate Bill
91, as a maximum fine a court could impose. It is rare that a
fine would be imposed to the maximum amount because it usually
only happens under the worst circumstances, he advised.
2:33:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that the "huge difference" in CSHB
129 between a $1,000 fine and a $25,000 fine was never pointed
out for the committee.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that in 2015, when the bill was
introduced, the difference in the change had to do with $1,000,
and at the time the maximum fine was $10,000. The change in the
maximum penalty took place during the changes to AS 12.55 and
defining it as a class A misdemeanor automatically changed it
under Senate Bill 91, he explained.
2:35:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she understood what Major Chastain
was saying except that someone had testified before this
committee and basically explained the bill. At that time, she
said that she would have thought the change in fines from $1,000
to $25,000 would have been mentioned. She pointed out that that
difference is not something a legislator would have realized
when reading the bill unless they went back to the statute, and
so forth. She commented that that difference does not pop out
and asked why this issue was not mentioned.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that the initial bill went through the
House and Senate Resources Standing Committees and penalties
were discussed "pretty robustly" during that timeframe. He
related that he had presented the bill to this committee during
its first hearing this year, and he went step-by-step through
the sectional analysis. He stressed that it certainly was not
his intent to skip over any information.
[HB 129 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB312 ver O 2.5.18.PDF |
HJUD 2/5/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 312 |
| HB312 Supporting Document-SEARHC Letter 2.7.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 312 |
| HB312 Public Comment-Supporting 2.7.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 312 |
| HB312 Updated Fiscal Note DHSS-API 2.7.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 312 |
| HB129 ver D 1.29.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| Representative Reinbold Document Offered to HJUD Committee- Recidivism Definition 2.7.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |