Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/27/2022 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB222 | |
| HB183 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 183
"An Act renaming the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis
Commission; relating to the membership of the Alaska
Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission; relating to
the powers and duties of the Alaska Criminal Justice
Data Analysis Commission; extending the termination
date of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis
Commission; relating to the duties of the Judicial
Council; providing for an effective date by amending
the effective date of secs. 41 and 73, ch. 1, 4SSLA
2017; and providing for an effective date by repealing
the effective date of sec. 74, ch. 1, 4SSLA 2017."
9:06:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation. He thanked the committee for hearing the bill.
He read from prepared remarks.
Good morning members of the Committee, for the record,
my name is Matt Claman, and I am the State
Representative for House District 21 in West
Anchorage. First, I would like to thank you for
hearing House Bill 183.
The Alaska Criminal Justice Commission sunset on June
30, 2021, and will conclude its affairs by June 30,
2022. In accordance with the recommendation of the
Legislative Auditor, rather than extend the commission
in its current form, House Bill 183 maintains the
commission's data collection and analysis functions
and reduces its recommendation functions.
House Bill 183 accomplishes the following:
First, it establishes the Alaska Criminal Justice Data
Analysis Commission in place of the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission.
Second, it modifies the membership of the commission.
Third, it amends and restates the powers and duties of
the commission.
And finally, it extends the termination date of the
Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission to
June 30, 2029.
Data analysis, research, and reporting on all aspects
of Alaska's criminal justice system is essential to
our work as policymakers. Research and analysis about
our criminal justice system, including state laws,
public safety, rehabilitation, crime and incarceration
rates, the needs of victims, and the factors as set
forth in the Alaska Constitution is important, and HB
183 makes sure that they will continue.
For example, the Commission recently published a 2022
report on domestic violence in Alaska. The report
takes an in-depth look at the prevalence, state
response, and best policy practices in the United
States. No one should underestimate the importance of
doing better in Alaska when it comes to preventing
domestic violence and supporting victims.
In 2019, the Commission completed a Sex Offenses
report to the Alaska State Legislature that provides
an overview on the data, research, law, and policies
relating to sex offenses in Alaska. The report
presented data on sex offenses and how sex offense
cases are processed, explains the sentencing laws for
sex offenses, provides an overview of sex offender
treatment and reentry, and looks at the challenges
victims face and the services available to them.
Finally, back in 2015, when the commission first
started meeting, pretrial release was identified as an
important area of concern. The Commission directed the
Alaska Judicial Council to gather data about current
bail and pretrial release practices. This information
had never before been collected, and some of the
results were surprising. For example, in 2005,
pretrial inmates comprised 20 percent of the
population and in 2015, they comprised 28 percent.
Alaska's pretrial population had grown by 81 percent
from 2005 to 2015, driven primarily by longer lengths
of stay for both felony and misdemeanor defendants.
The Commission's experience over the past six years
has shown that effective criminal justice data
collection and analysis is valuable and essential to
the public, policy makers, and practitioners. Thus,
House Bill 183 allows those data collection and
analysis duties and functions to continue under a new
successor commission.
9:10:16 AM
LIZZIE KUBITZ, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, reviewed
the sectional analysis on the bill (copy on file):
Section 1 AS 22.20.211. Staff and support for criminal
justice commission. Amends AS 22.20 by adding a new
section allowing the Alaska Judicial Council to
provide staff and administrative support to the Alaska
Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission.
Section 2 AS 22.20.221. Prison inmate characteristics
information. Amends AS 22.20 by adding a new section
relating to Alaska Judicial Council's duty to design
and implement a project for the purposes of studying
risk factors related to criminal activity should the
Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission
sunset on June 30, 2029 (see Sec. 18 for effective
date of this provision). The Alaska Judicial Council
must prepare an annual report summarizing the
information collected.
Section 3 AS 44.19.641. Creation of commission. Amends
AS 44.19.641 to add "data analysis" to the name of the
commission.
Section 4 AS 44.19.642. Membership; staff.
Amends AS 44.19.642(a) to make changes to the
membership of the commission.
These changes include:
? Ensure representation of rural Alaska on the
commission;
? Make the Deputy Attorney General for the
Criminal Division of the Department of Law or
their designee a voting member (rather than the
Attorney General);
? Allow the public defender's designee to act as
a voting member in place of the public defender;
? Place two peace officer representatives on the
commission (rather than one municipal law
enforcement representative)one representing a
rural community off the road system and one
representing an urban communityappointed by the
Alaska Chiefs of Police;
? Provide for the victims' rights advocate on the
commission to be appointed by the Alaska Network
on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault after
consultation with its member and partner
organizations;
? Make the Commissioner of the Department of
Health and Social Services a voting member; and
? Create a new member seat for a formerly
incarcerated person who has completed his or her
sentence.
Section 5 AS 44.19.645. Powers and duties of the
commission. Amends AS 44.19.645 to remove the duties
of the former Alaska Criminal Justice Commission to be
replaced by the new duties of the Alaska Criminal
Justice Data Analysis Commission.
These new duties include:
? Data analysis, research, and reporting on all
aspects of Alaska's criminal justice system,
including state laws, public safety,
rehabilitation, crime and incarceration rates,
the needs of victims, and other factors set forth
in the Alaska Constitution;
? Receiving data related to the criminal justice
system from the Alaska Department of Corrections,
Department of Public Safety, Department of Law,
and the Alaska Court System;
? Identifying areas for improving the efficiency
and effectiveness of the criminal justice system;
Recommending expenditures from the Recidivism
Reduction Fund;
? Making other recommendations and providing
analysis if requested by the Legislature, the
Executive, or the Judiciary; and
? Issuing an annual report.
Section 6 AS 44.19.645. Powers and duties of the
commission. Amends AS 44.19.645 by adding a new
subsection (i) relating to the commission's duty to
design and implement a project for the purposes of
studying risk factors related to criminal activity.
This new subsection is substantially identical to
former subsection (h), which was repealed on July 1,
2021, upon the sunset of the former Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission, which is currently in its wind-up
year. The Alaska Judicial Council is currently
performing these functions pursuant to AS 22.20.220,
which took effect on July 1, 2021, pursuant to HCS
CSSB 54(FIN) am H (2017).
Section 7 AS 44.19.646. Methodology.
Amends AS 44.19.646 to remove the duty of the
commission to make recommendations, and adds the duty
of conducting research and adopting a research agenda
and priorities based on art. I, secs. 7, 12, and 24,
Constitution of the State of Alaska (which relate to
due process, criminal administration, and the rights
of crime victims), and other issues of pressing
concern to the criminal justice system.
Section 8 AS 44.19.647. Annual report and
recommendations.
Amends AS 44.19.647(a) to remove the reporting
responsibilities of the former Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission to be replaced by the new reporting
responsibilities of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data
Analysis Commission. The commission's reporting
responsibilities are related to the duties of the
commission listed in Sec. 5.
Section 9 AS 44.19.647. Annual report and
recommendations.
Amends AS 44.19.647(b) to remove the reporting
responsibilities of the former Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission to be replaced by the new duties of the
Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission.
Additionally, specifies what the commission must
include in their annual report to the legislature.
Section 10 AS 44.19.647. Annual report and
recommendations. Amends AS 44.19.647 adding a new
subsection (d) specifying that the commission must
prepare an annual report summarizing the information
collected in Sec. 6.
Section 11 AS 44.19.649. Definition.
Amends AS 44.19.649 to update the definitions of
"commission," "recidivism," and "technical violation."
Section 12 AS 44.66.010. Expiration of state boards
and commissions. Amends AS 44.66.010(a)(12) to add the
Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission to
the list of boards and commissions set to expire.
Section 13 AS 47.38.100. Recidivism reduction program.
Amends AS 47.38.100(b) to add "data analysis" to the
name of the commission.
Section 14 Repeals AS 22.20.220, AS 44.19.642(b), and
AS 44.66.010(a)(12).
Section 15 Repeals AS 22.20.211, AS 44.19.645(i), and
AS 44.19.647(d) on June 30, 2029.
Section 16 Uncodified law - applicability
A person who is a member of the former Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission on the day before the effective
date of this Act continues to serve on the Alaska
Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission until the
expiration of the member's term. When making new
appointments or designations, makes Sec. 16 of the Act
conditional on the guidelines established under AS
44.19.642(a), as amended by Sec. 4, which relates to
membership of the commission.
Section 17 Uncodified law - applicability
Transition language regarding the Alaska Judicial
Council's duty to design and implement a project for
the purposes of studying risk factors related to
criminal activity.
Section 18 Effective date
Makes sec. 2 effective July 1, 2029.
Section 19 Effective date
Makes all sections (excluding Sec. 18) effective July
1, 2022.
Ms. Kubitz thanked the committee for the opportunity to
present the bill.
9:16:24 AM
Representative LeBon asked if there would be time for
questions on the sectional analysis.
Co-Chair Merrick replied that they could ask questions
after hearing from the Division of Legislative Audit.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, referenced the sunset review of the
Office of the Governor, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
dated June 12, 2020, Audit Control Number 01-20124-20 (copy
on file) in members' packets. She read from the audit:
The Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
(commission) was established in 2014 when Senate Bill
(SB) 64 was signed into law. SB 64 was the result of a
bipartisan effort to reduce the high costs of
corrections and reduce prison populations and
recidivism through evidence-based reforms. The
commission was given a three-year term, ending June
2017.
State leaders tasked the commission with developing
evidence- based recommendations aimed at safely
controlling prison and jail growth and recalibrating
the correctional investment to ensure the State
achieved the best possible public safety return on
State dollars. Additionally, due to
declining State operating budgets, legislative leaders
requested the commission forward policy options that
would avert future prison growth and reduce the prison
population between 15 and 25 percent.
Over a seven-month period, the commission analyzed the
State's criminal justice system, including a
comprehensive review of sentencing, corrections, and
community supervision data. Based on commission
analysis, and directive from legislative leadership,
the commission developed 21 evidence-based policy
recommendations, known as the December 2015
Justice Reinvestment Report. The report also
included six recommendations for legislative
consideration. According to the report, the
recommendations protected public safety, held
offenders accountable, and reduced the State's average
daily prison population by 21 percent, netting
estimated savings of
$424 million over 10 years.
Many of the recommendations in the commission's
December 2015 Justice Reinvestment Report became the
basis for criminal justice laws enacted in SB 91,
signed into law July 2016. SB 91 extended the
commission's term until June 2021, significantly
expanded the commission's duties, and directed the
commission to oversee the implementation of criminal
justice reform and reinvestment.
Many of the reforms contained in SB 91 were blamed for
an increase in crime. Within a year of SB 91's
effective date, a separate bill was passed to make
minor adjustments to SB 91 and another bill was passed
five months later that substantially altered SB 91.
The next year, a third bill made more substantive
changes. In 2019, many of SB 91's provisions were
fully repealed through House Bill (HB) 49.
Ms. Curtis moved to the Reports conclusions on page 7 and
read:
Overall, the audit concluded the commission met its
statutory responsibilities by analyzing the effects of
sentencing laws and criminal justice practices on
the criminal justice system and recommending
improvements.
Additionally, the commission conducted specific
studies and reported results, as required by law.
The commission was effective as an advisory agency
from 2015 through 2017 and its recommendations served
as the basis for comprehensive criminal justice reform
passed in 2016 (SB 91). Further, its recommendations
helped policy makers amend SB 91. However, beginning
in 2018, criminal justice policy decisions were not
rooted in commission recommendations and the
commission's effectiveness waned.
As of April 2020, the commission does not routinely
recommend improvements; however, it does continue to
analyze criminal justice data and evaluate the impact
of commission recommendations and other changes on the
criminal justice system. As required by statutes,
several agencies submit data to the commission. The
data is reviewed by commission staff, commission
members, and/or other agencies under an agreement with
the commission.
In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(12), the
commission is scheduled to terminate on June 30,
2021. We do not recommend extending the commission's
termination date. Rather than extend the commission in
its current form, the need for and expectations of a
criminal justice advisory commission should be
reevaluated. Although we recommend sunsetting the
commission, we do not recommend terminating its data
collection and analysis functions.
Objective evidence regarding the effectiveness of the
criminal justice system and laws governing the system
are critical to future policy decisions. Legislation
will be required to maintain the commission's data
collection and analysis functions if the commission
sunsets.
Ms. Curtis had been impressed by the amount of work
generated by the commission in the short period of time
between 2015 and 2017, prior to the overturning of criminal
justice reforms when it's the effectiveness began to wane.
She detailed that beginning in 2018, the commissions
recommendations were ignored, and criminal justice policy
decisions were not rooted in commission recommendations.
The commission did not produce recommendations in 2019. The
audit did not recommend extending the commission's
effective date. Alternatively, the audit did recommend
maintaining its data and analysis functions.
9:21:11 AM
Representative LeBon cited the sectional and asked a
question regarding Section 4 of the legislation. He cited
the following provision and inquired how the sponsor
envisioned the process of appointing the member:
Create a new member seat for a formerly incarcerated
person who has completed his or her sentence.
Representative Claman replied that the appointment would be
made collaboratively by the Deputy Attorney General of the
Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL) and the Public
Defender. He elaborated that during commission discussion
and public comment on the audit's recommendations one of
the most frequent remarks had been that there was no one on
the commission with learned experience. The commission
believed including a formerly incarcerated person was
important. He detailed that the deputy attorney general and
public defender would identify a person who had finished
their sentence, parole, and probation and the chief
prosecutor and chief defense attorney needed to agree the
person was appropriate for a seat on the commission.
Representative LeBon asked for verification the selection
would not go through an approval process by the legislature
or governor. He asked if the individual would be a full
voting member. Representative Claman answered
affirmatively.
9:24:16 AM
In response to a comment made by Representative Wool,
Representative Claman replied that the proposed statute did
not distinguish between whether the person committed a
felony or misdemeanor. He deemed that someone who served a
shorter sentence for a period of five years or less would
likely be chosen. Representative Wool asked if there had
been any discussion about including a family member of a
person currently in the criminal justice system to serve on
the commission. Representative Claman answered there had
been numerous people interested in having a seat on the
commission. In the interest of keeping its membership
manageable and based on public testimony it was determined
that the best option was a person who had been formerly
incarcerated was more illuminating than a family member.
Representative Wool mentioned the provisions in SB 91
[Omnibus Crim Law & Procedure; Corrections, CHAPTER 36 SLA
16, 07/11/2016] being repealed through other bills. He
noted a lot of political motivation for the repeals. He
referenced Ms. Curtis's statement that the audit decided
not to include recommendations as part of its functions. He
asked for detail.
9:26:54 AM
Ms. Curtis replied that the comment was made by
Representative Claman. She elucidated that the audit
concluded that the need for and expectations of a criminal
justice advisory commission should be reevaluated. She
reminded the committee that when the audit took place the
commission had not been utilized in an advisory capacity as
it had been in past years. The audit concluded that rather
than extend the commission in its current form, it
recommended policy makers reevaluate the commission to
determine whether there was a different need since the SB
91 repeal. She summarized that in the current form she
could not recommend extending the commission. However, the
auditors determined that its data collection and analysis
was beneficial. She needed guidance from policy makers to
determine what the future of the commission should be.
Representative Wool surmised that because the commission
stopped doing recommendations the audit decided to
recommend against continuing the commission with its
current sets of functions. Ms. Curtis clarified that policy
decisions were made that were not rooted in the
commissions recommendations. She determined that at that
point it was appropriate for the policy makers to decide
the role or life of the commission. Representative Wool
mentioned that the state had faced a situation where it
would have to reopen prisons or build more, and he believed
that currently the state was back in the same position. He
wondered whether in the commissions proposed role, would it
merely provide analysis and leave it up to policy makers to
interpret the analysis and devise a solution. He restated
that criminal justice was very politicized and he wondered
if Ms. Curtis or the sponsor saw political decisions
driving policy in the future.
9:30:17 AM
Ms. Curtis would not weigh in on what should be done in the
future. She could only speak to what had taken place in the
past. She regarded the need to continue to analyze and
provide good input to policy makers due to the numerous
criminal justice issues facing the state in the future. She
emphasized the need for good objective data and experts
to evaluate the data and provide the information. Whether
the legislature wanted a recommendation function, she
believed it would be reasonable and was the reason advisory
commissions were created. She offered that policy makers
could certainly decide to extend the current commission by
proposing legislation to maintain its current functions.
She maintained that commenting on the details of how or
weather the commission should exist would impair her
independence as an auditor.
Representative Claman interjected that the recommendation
from the audit had been clear that the data and analysis
function should continue because it provided a level of
analysis that would take an independent contractor a
couple of years to provide. He emphasized that the audit
was very specific regarding not continuing the
recommendation function. He reported that the only
provision in HB 183 that proposed a recommendation function
to continue was how to expend funding from the Recidivism
Reduction Fund from marijuana tax proceeds. The legislature
would need to request a recommendation about a specific
topic, otherwise, the commission completely lacked
authority to issue recommendations. He remarked that the
only difference in the commission would be useful research
to help policy makers make wise decisions but not
recommendations.
9:33:29 AM
Representative Wool calculated that the commissions stopped
making recommendations for political reasons due to
controversy over SB 91. He mentioned that bills creating
task forces and working groups that made recommendations
were common. The legislature could ignore them. He believed
that it seemed strange to take the recommendation function
away. He stated that the legislature did not have to follow
the recommendations and thought the recommendation was
unusual. Ms. Curtis responded that the difference was task
forces were temporary. She recalled that the original
commission was set up in 2014, with a three year term and
SB 91 extended it until 2021 and expanded its functions to
oversee criminal justice reform and investment. She judged
that since the repeal of SB 91, the vision for the
commission needed to be reconsidered. She stated the
audits' role was to determine whether a commission was
serving the public's interest and was there a need for its
continued existence. She did not see a continued need for
the commission in its current form. She pointed out that
the current composition of the board included many
positions from the administration and could politically
impact its effectiveness. She believed that the legislature
should take a pause and reevaluate.
9:35:47 AM
Representative Claman discussed the years after the passage
of SB 91 when many changes were made and much of the reform
was rolled back. He asserted that the commission made many
recommendations, and the reality was that the legislature
had shown it was not interested in its recommendations but
was attentive to the analysis.
Representative Josephson referenced a letter from the
[governor's] former Chief of Staff, Ben Stevens [included
in the audit on page 41] stating that nearly half of the
commissions recommendations had been repealed. He wondered
what had been repealed. He interpreted the letter as
suggesting that there were still many recommendations in
law. Representative Claman confirmed that many of the
recommendations were still in law. He exemplified the
increase to the minimum sentence for first degree murder.
Ms. Curtis referenced Appendix C in the audit [page 31].
She pointed out that the appendix included all to the
recommendations the commission had made from 2015 to 2020.
She emphasized that it was an incredible amount of work.
The chart included whether action was taken on the
recommendation and if it was amended or repealed.
Representative Josephson drew attention to Section 11 of
the bill that created substantive law in defining the term
"technical violation." He indicated that the term was
unfamiliar to statute until the implementation of SB 91. He
noted that under the bill it only applied to Title 44. He
asked whether a competing definition existed in Title 11 or
12.
Representative Claman responded in the negative. He
elaborated that the reason for the definitions of technical
violation and recidivism in Section 11 was directed to
the research and analysis function and provided for a
consistent definition to be applied to the data and
analysis. Representative Josephson wondered if the
definition of technical violation would be argued in court.
9:40:49 AM
Representative Claman replied that he never wanted to
predict what someone may argue in court. He furthered that
some analysis regarding technical versus substantive
violations had taken place. There was an interest in
ensuring there was a solid definition of technical
violation included for the purposes of research and
analysis.
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated his understanding that the bill
would largely cease the recommendation function. He pointed
to Section 5 of the Sectional Analysis and read:
Identifying areas for improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of the criminal justice system
He inquired how that was accomplished without making
recommendations. He asked whether identifying was different
than recommending.
Representative Claman replied in the affirmative. He
exemplified his opening remarks that stated currently the
pretrial population had increased from 20 percent to 28
percent over a 10-year period. He understood that actually
50 percent of the prison population was pretrial. He
deduced that without a recommendation policy makers could
examine ways to reduce the pretrial population. He argued
that it was totally up to the legislature if it acted on
the information.
9:43:06 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz appreciated the answer but did not quite
understand how it would work. He believed the legislature
needed to continue to receive recommendations and input on
ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
criminal justice system. He wondered how to do so without
receiving recommendations to make change. He noted that
just because the legislature did not adopt recommendations
received in the past, did not mean the recommendations were
not sound and that the function was unnecessary, and they
should not continue to hear from bodies offering data and
objective information. Representative Claman responded that
in many ways he agreed with what Vice-Chair Ortiz had
stated. He relayed that as an ex-officio member of the
commission he observed that in recent years the legislature
had not been interested in the recommendations. He did not
want to sugar coat the issue. He referenced the pretrial
data and maintained that the commission would
enthusiastically make recommendations if requested by the
legislature if the bill was adopted. He believed the bill
recognized that the legislature largely ignored
recommendations. He thought the perspective of the
legislature was do not come telling us what to do unless
we ask. He stated that the purpose of the bill was to
allow the commission to maintain the research and analysis
function and provide it when requested. He noted that a
commission member requested some research and analysis on
HB 5 [Sexual Assault; Def. of "Consent"] and ultimately
provided data and analysis on the impacts of the bill but
did not offer recommendations. He surmised that it was a
perfect example of the proposed role of the commission;
providing data to enable policy makers to be more
responsive.
9:46:44 AM
Representative Johnson thought most of her constituents
would be happy to see the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission sunset. She spoke about the proposal to do
something different. She cited the University of Alaskas
Justice Center and read its mission statement:
The UAA Justice Center, established by the Alaska
Legislature in 1975, has a mandate to provide
statewide justice-related education, research, and
service. The Justice Center is an interdisciplinary
unit that provides undergraduate and professional
education; conducts research in the areas of crime,
law, and justice; and provides services to government
units, justice agencies, and community organizations
throughout urban and rural Alaska to promote a safe,
healthy, and just society.
Representative Josephson believed that it sounded
duplicative to the proposal in the legislation. She cited
the fiscal note of $155,000. She asked if it would make
sense to support the justice center by providing an
additional grant to the organization and transfer some of
the data and analysis function to the center.
Representative Claman replied that the University of Alaska
Anchorage (UAA) Justice Center and the UAA Alaska Justice
Information Center had expertise in certain ways that was
complimentary to that of the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC)
but there were many areas that did not overlap. He
discovered that much of the full range of research and
analysis done by the commission could not be undertaken by
the center. He deferred to the commission for further
explanation. He furthered that the commission was designed
to focus on the current issues and more areas of interest
than the justice center. The university was a vital part of
the process put focused on specific grant research that was
often unrelated to the areas the commission was
researching.
9:50:04 AM
Representative Johnson referenced the mission of the
justice center. She maintained that it sounded like it had
a connection to communities.
Representative Carpenter summarized that the commission's
recommendations had not been used which had resulted in the
commission ceasing to provide recommendations. He asked if
it was due to a lack of awareness on the legislature's part
or of disinterest. He relayed that his focus was on
domestic violence and sexual assault. He understood that
there had not been a criminal justice reform effort since
2017 and subsequently, he would not have thought to ask for
the information. He pondered whether it was a lack of
trust. He asked why the policy decisions of the legislature
were not rooted in the commissions recommendations. He
wondered whether the issues lied in the composition of
board, its members, structure, mission, or requirements.
9:52:18 AM
Representative Claman relayed that he had served in the
legislature for eight years. He reported that during the
first several years of his term when engaging in criminal
justice reform discussions, the commission chair was
constantly testifying before the legislature. He voiced
that its recommendations were a vital part of the
legislature's decision regarding criminal justice reform.
Conversely, when many provision of SB 91 were repealed, the
legislature had been independent in its decisions. The
legislature had not consulted the with commission and they
were not present during deliberations. He ascertained that
the legislature wanted to make its own decisions. He
mentioned the areas of sexual assault and domestic violence
and the commissions report in 2019 had been received by
the legislature, but he was not certain many legislators
had much interest in it. He added that the commission
issued a recent domestic violence report with a tremendous
amount of information on the topic, but it had not
interested many legislators. He was uncertain as to why. He
remarked that he had consulted both reports in relation to
HB 5.
9:55:11 AM
Representative Carpenter thought many of his questions
should be in a conversation offline. He asked where the
recommendations proposed in the bill had come from.
Representative Claman responded that when the auditor's
report was issued and the finding that the commission made
no further recommendations he served as chair of the
commission. However, they wanted to make a recommendation
regarding its data and analysis function. He delineated
that the commission held a number of meetings and heard
from stakeholders and the public and had received a number
of recommendations. He shared some examples. He relayed
that the attorney general's office wanted the deputy
attorney general from the Criminal Division on the
commission, not the attorney general because most of the
questions were from the criminal division. There had been
significant talk about a law enforcement presence and how
to come up with a rural and urban presence but offer
flexibility that was not overly prescriptive. He noted that
another recommendation desired the commission be less
subject to politicization by the executive branch.
Therefore, the law enforcement seat was appointed by the
Association of Police Chiefs and not by the governor. He
reported that the victim presence was chosen by the Council
on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) in
consultation with all its members. He summarized that the
membership of the commission would not be subject to
executive appointment but represented a community presence
and much stakeholder interest. Representative Carpenter
asked if the bill was comprised of recommendations by the
commission. Representative Claman answered in the
affirmative and added that the only exception was he had
added the member with lived experience since no other
member had recommended it.
HB 183 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the schedule for the afternoon
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 183 Additional Document - A Sunset Review of the Office of the Governor, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission 6.12.2020.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Sectional Analysis v. G 1.26.2022.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Sponsor Statement v. G 2.2.2022.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Summary of Changes v. B to v. G 2.2.2022.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Supporting Document - Criminal Justice Taskforce Recommendation 12.3.2020.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Supporting Document - Letters Received by 1.25.2022.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Testimony - Received by 1.25.2022.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |