Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/04/2022 01:30 PM 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 | |
| HB183 | |
| SB20 | |
| HB283 | |
| Public Testimony | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 283 | 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."
1:32:25 PM
Co-Chair Merrick relayed the bill had previously been heard
on April 27, 2022. The committee would consider two
amendments. She asked the bill sponsor's staff if she had
any opening statements.
LIZZIE KUBITZ, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN,
introduced herself and was happy to answer any questions
and speak to the amendments.
Co-Chair Merrick moved to invited testimony.
1:33:30 PM
AT EASE
1:33:51 PM
RECONVENED
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA JUDICIAL
COUNCIL (via teleconference), shared that the Judicial
Council had served as staff to the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission. She intended to speak about staffing under the
legislation. She explained that the Judicial Council would
continue to staff the new entity, the Alaska Criminal
Justice Data Analysis Commission. She shared that Article
IV of the state's constitution one of the council's
constitutional duties was to conduct studies for
improvement of the administration of justice. She informed
committee members that the council had been engaged in
studies of the criminal and civil justice systems for the
past 50 years, including studies on criminal recidivism,
sex offences, felony sentences, domestic violence treatment
programs, therapeutic courts, and other topics.
Ms. DiPietro noted at the previous hearing on the bill
there had been discussion about the role the Alaska Justice
Information Center (AJIC) would play in the work of the
data commission as envisioned in HB 183. She detailed that
AJIC also did discrete research projects for the
commission. The Judicial Council had found in its research
that the roles of the council and AJIC had very
complimentary skill sets that were not overlapping. She
reported that the current structure was working quite well
from her perspective. She explained that the data
commission would have a critical function of collecting and
analyzing criminal justice data supplied by the Department
of Corrections (DOC), Department of Public Safety (DPS),
and the Court System.
Ms. DiPietro stated that while each of the agencies
currently had their own data sources they analyzed for
their own purposes, the role of the commission would be to
collect data from all of the criminal justice entities to
form a more complete picture of how the criminal justice
system was functioning. She highlighted that it was a
unique ability that had not been previously available to
any entity. She explained it would be the primary purpose
of the Criminal Justice Data Commission and would be the
value added to have a view of the big picture. She
expounded that under the bill, the data commission would be
entitled to receive quarterly data from the criminal
justice agencies. She noted it would not be statutorily
possible without the authority in the legislation.
Ms. DiPietro discussed what the commission had been able to
accomplish by weaving together data from all of the various
sources. She highlighted the commission's report on
impaired driving offences from 2016 as an example. She
believed at the previous meeting the committee had been
made aware of reports on sex offences and domestic violence
compiled by the commission in collaboration with AJIC and
the University of Alaska. She stated that most importantly,
the reports used data from the Court System, DPS, and DOC.
Ms. DiPietro highlighted a final potential benefit of
creating a data analysis commission: the ability to
document changes over time in the criminal justice system.
She explained it would include documenting changes in the
laws in addition to variations in patterns of offending,
incarceration, charging, and convictions. She pointed out
it was something that no agency or entity had previously
been in the position to do. The creation of the data
commission, the legislature could ensure that work done
over the last five or six years was not lost and was built
upon going forward.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Ms. DiPietro for her testimony.
1:39:08 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, spoke to the
importance of creating the Alaska Criminal Justice Data
Analysis Commission from a victim advocate perspective. She
shared she had been honored to participate on the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission from the beginning of its
formation through two terms for a total of six years. She
detailed it had been a time of determining what needed to
be done differently in the system. Her time with the
commission had ended in July 2020. As a victim's rights
advocate, the knowledge she had gained while serving on the
commission was transformative in how she performed her
work. She believed that often victim's rights advocates saw
their piece of the work, but not the larger picture of the
criminal justice system.
Ms. Stanfill shared that a unique feature of the commission
and its proposed transformation into the criminal justice
data workgroup was its inclusion of judges who could share
insight and information regarding the court system. She
highlighted the involvement of the head of the Public
Defender Agency and the attorney general or their designee.
She explained it was the only group she knew of that
included the Court System perspective while discussing the
criminal justice system. She pointed out the structure was
also unique because most often those who support
individuals who harm Alaska's communities work together in
a group and those who support individuals who have been
harmed work together in a group. The working group brought
both groups together to try to find a balance in providing
supports to those doing harm so they could make better
choices in life going forward, while also recognizing the
harm caused to the victim to ensure the system provided the
supports victims needed to be made whole over an event that
was not their choice.
Ms. Stanfill discussed that while AJIC (operated through
the University of Alaska Anchorage) collected and analyzed
data, they did not have the story behind the data. She
recalled from a statistics class that a direct connection
had been made between an increase in sexual assault and
consumption of ice cream based on the numbers only. She
stressed the importance of the story behind the numbers.
She explained that the group at the table was where the
story got told to understand things like the reason for a
"blip" one year or what was going on in the system that may
have created something different.
Ms. Stanfill stated that while the group may no longer be
making formal recommendations, it could compile meaningful
reports that legislators could use to bring forward
meaningful legislation. She spoke to the importance of
having a strong victim's rights advocate in a seat on the
working group. She detailed that in a survey of victims
offered over the internet and in a series of hearings
conducted by the current Criminal Justice Commission in
four locations across Alaska, the commission had heard
overwhelmingly that victims did not feel the criminal
justice process was their process. She elaborated victims
shared that their story had been taken and then it was no
longer their story or about them, but about a system that
often seemed to be about winning or losing by a defense or
prosecution.
1:43:16 PM
Ms. Stanfill continued that victims had indicated they did
not feel heard, were not included in decisions, and often
times they were not believed. She explained that having a
victim's rights representative appointed by the groups
working with victims would allow victim's rights advocates
to have a free voice to say what they need at the table,
regardless of whether it may be in line with what others
would like for them to say. The criminal justice system had
a huge job in its attempt to accomplish the goals of
holding offenders accountable, imposing the correct
sentence reflecting the seriousness of the offence, and
deterring future criminal conduct, while at the same time,
supporting the victims and their needs. She relayed that
the balancing act of needs required continual review and
analyzation to determine if it was performing the way it
should. She strongly supported the creation of the Alaska
Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission where the state
could keep a group coming together to talk about an issue
that was way too prevalent in Alaska.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Ms. Stanfill for her testimony.
Representative Johnson asked if there would be time to
speak to the bill.
Co-Chair Merrick replied affirmatively.
Representative LeBon asked Ms. Stanfill if she had an
opinion regarding adding a person who had been convicted of
a felony offense to the commission.
Ms. Stanfill replied that the bill specified that in order
to serve on the commission, a person convicted of a felony
could no longer be "on paper," meaning they had to have
fulfilled their sentence and be off probation. While
serving on the commission, she had found listening to
stories told by individuals who had been incarcerated to be
impactful. She elaborated that people forget about the
impact trauma had in growing up. She expounded on hearing
about the challenge people had coming out of a long prison
sentence for kids who got into trouble early on in life.
She felt strongly the person serving on the commission
needed to be past the event, where they could meaningfully
participate in the conversation without looking for an
outcome that could assist them in some way. She believed as
long as there was a screening process by the public
defender and Department of Law (DOL), the person would be a
good addition to the group.
Representative LeBon wondered about asking Ms. Stanfill
about a yet to be proposed amendment.
Co-Chair Merrick replied that the committee could hear from
Ms. Stanfill once the amendment process was underway.
1:46:47 PM
TRAVIS WELCH, PROGRAM OFFICER, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST
AUTHORITY (via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation with a prepared statement:
Trust beneficiaries account for approximately 40
percent of the annual incarcerations in DOC
facilities. Beneficiaries include Alaskans who
experience mental illness, intellectual developmental
disabilities, substance use disorders, Alzheimer's,
dementia, and other cognitive impairments like
traumatic brain injury. Available data indicates that
unsentenced and sentenced trust beneficiaries remain
incarcerated longer than non-trust beneficiaries.
Trust beneficiaries are also over-represented as both
perpetrators and victims of crime. Alaska is currently
facing high rates of violent crimes such as domestic
violence and sexual assault, high recidivism rates,
and a prison population that is disproportionately
represented by trust beneficiaries. The Alaska
Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission established
by HB 183 includes appropriate criminal justice
representation as well as the opportunity for the
public to engage.
HB 183 establishes a body that represented the key
stakeholders of the criminal justice system including
victims of crime, a member of the Alaska Native
community, and a person with lived criminal justice
involvement, among others. This body would maintain
and prioritize data collection and analysis functions
as recommended in the sunset review of the ACJC by the
legislative auditor. The collection, research, and
reporting of criminal justice data to such a
representative body is critical to understanding
criminal justice in Alaska and analyzing where the
current system is functioning effectively or
ineffectively, in order to find solutions for the
serious problems I just described.
There are other important reasons for a body like this
commission. For example, improved interdepartmental
communication; executive, legislative, judicial branch
communication; and direct meaningful dialogue with the
public to produce results such as small problems get
identified and solved, public awareness of how the
criminal justice system functions, opportunities for
the public to share their experiences with the system,
positive or negative.
I recognize and appreciate that there may be some
concerns in establishing this new commission; however,
I believe the benefits of data-driven, informed public
policy that can result from this commission outweigh
any concerns. Our criminal justice system is far from
perfect, and we must continue efforts to make
investments based on sound information. Requiring the
body to continue to collect, analyze, and report on
data is paramount to making Alaska's criminal justice
system fair, efficient, and protective of the public.
As a program officer with the Alaska Mental Health
Trust whose mission is to improve the lives of
vulnerable Alaskans and as a former chief of police in
Alaska, I urge the committee to support HB 183. Thank
you.
1:49:41 PM
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Mr. Welch for his testimony.
Representative LeBon asked what Mr. Welch thought about the
fact that the proposed commission did not include a member
from the private sector. He asked it if was an omission
that should be considered.
Mr. Welch replied that it was an interesting question that
should be discussed. He had not looked at that particular
aspect. He believed a diverse group was important and that
many of the desired stakeholders were represented in the
legislation.
Representative LeBon highlighted the hope of finding
employment opportunities for individuals coming out of the
prison system. He asked if it would be valuable to have a
private sector perspective in the process.
Mr. Welch answered that he could see value in the idea.
1:51:17 PM
Representative Johnson had a number of concerns and
questions. She stated her concern that there was already an
AJIC steering committee. She read from the audit conducted
by the Division of Legislative Audit (copy on file):
Although we recommend sunsetting the commission, we do
not recommend terminating the data collection and the
analysis functions. Objective evidence regarding the
effectiveness of the criminal justice system and laws
governing the system are critical to future policy
decisions.
Representative Johnson stated that the bill did not create
another objective group, but people who may influence or
give opinions on what the data should or may be. She
highlighted the makeup of the AJIC steering committee that
included a member of the Alaska Native Justice Center, a
member from the Alaska Court System, DOL, AMHTA, DOC, the
Department of Health and Social Services, DPS, Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA). She compared
the existing steering committee to the proposed commission
makeup. The proposed commission included a member from the
Native community nominated by the Alaska Native Justice
Center, a member from the Alaska Court System, DOL, AMHTA,
DOC, the Department of Health and Social Services, DPS, a
legislator (non-voting), two peace officers selected by the
Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police (also in the realm
of public safety), a public defender, victim's rights
advocate, and a person formerly convicted of a felony
offence.
Representative Johnson stated the bill set up a board that
was very similar to an existing group established in 1975.
She considered perhaps people forgot about the existing
group. She believed the bill went above and beyond the
audit's recommendation to sunset the commission and keep
the data collection and analysis in an objective way. She
stated there was already something in place set up by the
legislature. She asked if it was efficient to create
another group with similar people.
Ms. Kubitz deferred the question to Ms. DiPietro to speak
to the differences between the AJIC and the commission she
had staffed for many years.
Ms. DiPietro responded it was a question that the
commission, AJIC, and the Judicial Council spent quite a
bit of time discussing and working on when the commission
received the audit results and was contemplating what would
be a good successor. At the time it had been acknowledged
that the Judicial Council and AJIC had complementary but
not overlapping research expertise. She elaborated that
AJIC had its own research agenda, which was independent
from the criminal justice agencies and Judicial Council.
She shared that the discussion had been that AJIC was not
really in a position to create a research agenda driven
completely by the data commission and to make a commitment
to supporting the research agenda and to commit to
reporting back regularly to the legislature on the research
agenda.
1:57:35 PM
Ms. DiPietro continued to answer the question by
Representative Johnson. She explained that AJIC had its own
research projects and functions and had collaborated well
and assisted with the work of the outgoing commission. She
believed AJIC would be happy to assist with the proposed
data commission and to share the data. She relayed that the
last time the Judicial Council spoke with the director of
AJIC and the commission, AJIC was not really in a position
to take on the full staffing of the data commission.
1:58:27 PM
Representative Edgmon spoke about the battles through SB
64, SB 91, SB 54, HB 49 and a slew of other pieces of
legislation that dealt with the criminal justice system
sometimes in a singular way and other times in a
comprehensive way. He stated that historically the agencies
including AMHTA, Court System all came forward in earnest,
but in a very separate manner. He stated there was no
comprehensive approach. He observed the fiscal notes
attached to the bill had zero fiscal impact. He wondered
why the legislature would not implement the bill. He did
not see any persuasive argument against it. He stated the
committee had spent a significant amount of time with AJIC
over the years and he recalled the agency's role was more
from an academic standpoint. He stated AJIC's role was not
to take retired judges, defenders, prosecutors, or law
enforcement to give a well-rounded perspective.
Representative Edgmon underscored that the state's criminal
justice system cost at least $500 million on paper. He
stressed there were a whole range of costs that were not on
paper. He wondered why they should not implement the
commission. He wanted to hear if there was a credible
argument against it. He stated that if there was a credible
argument, he wanted to hear what, in lieu of the
commission, would bring forward policy recommendations and
needed interpretations from a multidisciplinary standpoint
that would serve legislators' functions as appropriators.
He asked Ms. DiPietro to address the question.
Ms. DiPietro answered that she did not understand "why we
would not move forward with this." She served on the AJIC
steering committee and as staff to the Criminal Justice
Commission. She relayed that the entities had two very
different roles that were important and complimentary to
each other. She relayed that the Judicial Council was not
requesting any additional funding to staff the data
commission. She pointed out that the council was proposing
a decrement because the work of the data commission would
be smaller in scope than the work of the Criminal Justice
Commission.
2:02:19 PM
Representative Johnson spoke to her concerns about the data
commission. She stated she did not believe anyone in the
room did not want to see the criminal justice system
improved. She believed policy makers wanted to see better
things come forward and they all wanted to find the right
answers to things. She pointed out that the committee was
looking at a board extension. She highlighted that the
audit's recommendation was to sunset the board. She did not
believe her stance was "way out there" to want to follow
the auditor's recommendation. She remarked that some
components had been noted to be valuable; however, it
included the data analysis component and not the policy
component.
Representative Johnson believed that in a simple board
extension the bill was getting carried away with many
different policy changes. She remarked that the bill
changed the name of the commission and established a board
with nearly the same members serving on another board
established by the legislature in 1975. The proposal did
not seem efficient to her. She wanted to see "this kind of
thing" come forward as a new board and new discussion. She
stated there had been many recommendations that came from
the existing board, which had contributed to SB 91. She
suggested starting fresh with new discussion and setting up
a board where the legislature was descriptive about the
policy it wanted to see brought forward instead of trying
to put it in a board extension the legislature had been
recommended to sunset.
2:04:58 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
2:05:17 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked the Department of Corrections to
review the first fiscal note.
APRIL WILKERSON, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR (via teleconference), spoke to the
department's zero fiscal note within the research and
records allocation component. She explained that the
department was currently providing portions of the data
request that were identified in HB 183; however, if there
was a change or expansion of the data in the future, the
department would seek an additional position.
2:06:22 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked the Judicial Council to review the
Fiscal Note 3.
Ms. DiPietro reviewed the Judicial Council's fiscal note
showing a decrement. She explained that the scope and
function of the Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission
would be less than that of the [outgoing] Criminal Justice
Commission. The council believed it could support the work
of the new commission with fewer resources than before.
2:07:19 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked the Department of Health and Social
Services to review the next fiscal note.
ALYSA WOODEN, DIVISION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via teleconference), reviewed
the department's zero fiscal note. The division believed it
could accomplish all of the requests within the bill and
did not anticipate a fiscal impact.
Co-Chair Merrick asked the Court System to review the last
fiscal note.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
discussed the Court System's zero fiscal note. She relayed
that the Court System already submitted much of the data to
the Criminal Justice Commission. The Court System provide
the data to the new commission as required, without any
fiscal impact.
2:08:47 PM
Representative Edgmon asked where the Court System would
send the data if the bill did not pass.
Ms. Mead answered replied that the current law required the
Court System to send a whole slew of data to the Criminal
Justice Commission. She explained that if the commission
sunset and was removed from statute, the Court System would
no longer gather or send the data unless someone else
requested it.
Representative Edgmon considered that in theory the
information could be sent to the legislature or executive
branch. He clarified that he was advocating for the current
bill. He remarked that although the data could be provided,
there would no longer be an ability for someone on the
other end to interpret the data in absence of a data
commission. He was perplexed "about all of this."
2:10:24 PM
Ms. Mead responded that the Court System was neutral on the
bill. She relayed that the Court System provided data to
anyone who asked within reason. She noted there was readily
available data that was sort of easy to provide. There was
a different rule with respect to people requesting the
Court System to compile information, which depended on
resources. The Court System could provide the data called
for in the legislation to the legislature, DOC, or others.
The Court System entered into agreements to exchange data
with other entities sometimes. She understood
Representative Edgmon's point about who would do what with
the data and perhaps it would not make its way to policy
makers. She did not take a position on the issue. She
relayed that if AJIC or others sought data, the Court
System was typically cooperative to the extent it could be.
Representative Edgmon stated he believed she had answered
the question that there was no definitive response to
[inaudible].
Co-Chair Merrick noted that Representative Carpenter had
joined the meeting at 2:06 p.m.
Representative LeBon asked if Ms. Mead was familiar with
the reports or data produced by the commission. He asked if
the data was received by the Court System.
Ms. Mead replied affirmatively. She had personally attended
all of the Criminal Justice Commission meetings.
Representative LeBon asked for verification that the
commission collected and analyzed data and offered
recommendations for action to be taken by the legislature.
Ms. Mead relayed that the description reflected the
operations of the Criminal Justice Commission under current
law. She explained that the bill would modify the duties
and change the name of the commission and she expected it
would analyze data and prepare reports. She clarified that
the bill stopped short of requiring the proposed commission
to provide recommendations to the legislature on bills and
policy. She believed it was also limited to providing
recommendations on how to spend funds to assist in issues
regarding criminal justice.
2:13:16 PM
Representative LeBon asked if Ms. Mead had an opinion on
the addition of a person who had a previous felony and had
been cleared [by serving out their sentence and probation].
Ms. Mead replied that she would not offer an opinion on the
policy call. She echoed a prior testifier who had stated
that formerly incarcerated individuals occasionally
attended the meetings to offer perspective, which she
believed voting members of the commission had found
valuable. She reiterated that she did not have a personal
or Court System opinion on whether it was a good addition.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Ms. Mead and moved to the
amendment process.
2:14:16 PM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
LS0645\G.1 (Radford, 4/28/22) (copy on file):
Page 3, line 11:
Delete "16"
Insert "17"
Page 4, line 15:
Delete "and"
Page 4, line 21, following "AS 12.55.185":
Insert "; and
(16) one person who has an immediate family member
incarcerated in the state, designated jointly by the
deputy attorney general for the division of the
Department of Law that has responsibility for criminal
cases and the public defender for a three-year term"
Representative LeBon OBJECTED.
Representative Wool explained the amendment that would add
another member on the proposed commission. He noted there
were currently 15 members on the commission including three
judges, a member from the Native community, deputy attorney
general, public defender, commissioners from DPS, DHSS, and
DOC, AMHTA, two police officers, a victim's rights
advocate, a person who had been incarcerated and was no
longer in state custody. He believed including a person who
had been in jail was of the utmost importance. He stated
that lawmakers did not know what it was like to serve time
or be in state custody. He stated that an increasing number
of places require individuals released from prison to
comply with a list of things including drug and alcohol
testing and numerous appointments. He remarked that some
had said that the system was setting people up for failure
and increased the recidivism rate.
Representative Wool explained that the amendment would add
a family member of an incarcerated person to the
commission. He reviewed the makeup of the commission
members and noted there were numerous individuals on the
law enforcement and corrections side. He pointed out that
if a father was incarcerated it impacted his entire family.
He elaborated that families had to deal with a loss of
income and had to help the person once they were released
on parole or probation. He believed the experience of
having a family member in prison was valuable as well. He
referenced adverse childhood experiences (ACES) scores; one
of the experiences was an incarcerated family member. He
remarked that prison populations were increasing in Alaska.
He thought eventually the state would have to build another
prison or send prisoners outside of state. He believed
having the perspective of a family member of someone
incarcerated completed one of the pieces that was not
included.
2:19:38 PM
Co-Chair Merrick referenced Representative Wool's mention
that sometimes incarcerated individuals were sent out-of-
state. She provided a scenario where a person serving a
three-year term on the commission had a loved one sent to
prison out-of-state. She asked if the commission member
would be replaced under the circumstances.
Representative Wool replied in the negative. He thought it
could be an indicative experience of what could happen more
and more. He stated his understanding that the state was
not using outside prisons with the exception of a handful
of federal prisoners and other.
Representative Rasmussen requested to hear Ms. Stanfill's
opinion on the proposed amendment. She asked about the
potential impact on victims.
Ms. Stanfill referenced her prior experience on the
commission and relayed there was a lot of conversation at
the table and those at the table had a voice. She thought
that having people involved in the system who could provide
real life experiences was important. She stated that having
the voice of someone who understood what it was like to
have a family member serving time out-of-state could be
impactful. She noted that when a person was going through
something at the present moment, it was hard to be
objective. She noted it happened in victims' circles also.
She pointed out that often times when conversations arose,
a person thought about how it may impact them and/or their
family member. She encouraged the committee to consider a
family member of a person who had previously been in the
correctional system. She did not believe it was a bad idea
to have a voice at the table who could really talk about
the experience.
2:22:34 PM
Representative LeBon asked Ms. Stanfill if it was redundant
to have a person who was once convicted of a felony on the
commission in addition to a family member of a person
currently serving prison time in Alaska. He wondered if it
tilted the balance of the commission. He wondered if it
helped with the commission's intended purpose to reduce
crime in addition to gathering and analyzing data.
Ms. Stanfill replied it was not really a tilt when thinking
about the different people represented on the commission
including law enforcement, public defender, and DOL. She
reasoned that because it would be a data commission that
would not put recommendations forward, it would be okay to
add another person. She added that the person had to be
agreed on by DOL and the public defender, which she
believed was a way of ensuring the person would be looking
out for the best interest of the State of Alaska. She
highlighted the importance of a balanced approach on the
commission. She explained that as a victim advocate, she
was not necessarily thinking about the trauma the person
going to jail would experience, what they had experienced,
and what their family would experience. She was thinking
about the victim and their pain. She stated the commission
was a way of bringing a group together that could share in
all of the experiences and come up with the right balance.
Representative LeBon asked if Ms. Stanfill was familiar
with how a parole board was set up in Alaska.
Ms. Stanfill replied that she was not.
Co-Chair Merrick asked Ms. Wilkerson to reply.
Ms. Wilkerson asked to hear the question restated.
Representative LeBon was interested in the typical
composition of a parole board. He wondered about the number
of individuals on the board and the background of the
members.
Ms. Wilkerson answered that she could respond in writing.
She noted there were five board members.
Representative LeBon noted that she did not need to respond
in writing. He believed the parole board sought diversity
in its membership as well. He wondered if there was
representation from the private business sector on the
parole board. He thought the absence was as much of an
absence as the suggestion of adding someone with a criminal
background or a family member of someone currently serving
time in prison.
2:26:55 PM
Representative Carpenter asked if the commission was
currently allowed to bring a family member on in pertinent
situations as invited testimony to help with perspective.
Ms. Stanfill replied that public comment time was available
at all of the commission meetings. She detailed that public
comment time allowed time for individuals (i.e., victims,
incarcerated individuals, and family members) to share the
story. She relayed that the commission had heard from a
substantial number of family members talking about the
impact of the sex offender registry. The commission had
also heard family members talk about the impact on their
kids with a change in financial status. She clarified that
the commission meetings were specific to the members of the
commission in terms of having a voice at the table. She
explained that if the person [under the proposed amendment]
was not on the commission, they would not have an equal
voice, but they would have a time to speak.
Representative Carpenter asked if the issues included in
the data and analysis performed by the commission impacted
families. He was trying to get more information on the
commission's workload and what it did.
Ms. Stanfill replied that she had not been on the
commission for the past two years. She deferred to a
current member.
Ms. DiPietro replied that currently the commission's policy
work was informed by the members of the public with
experience of the criminal justice system who came in to
tell their stories. She suspected that if the Criminal
Justice Data Analysis Commission became a successor entity,
although people's perspectives would still be welcome, the
commission would be looking at the data and adding context
to the data and would not be making policy recommendations;
therefore, the input may be a little less relevant.
2:30:34 PM
Representative Carpenter was trying to understand the value
of having a family member of an incarcerated person as a
member of the board versus having the board hear from
public comment when necessary. He considered that if the
new commission was focused on data, it seemed to be a role
for professionals who understood the system.
Ms. DiPietro replied it was difficult to predict how the
discussions would go. From the perspective of the entity
that would be staffing the commission, there would be no
logistical or fiscal problem for the council to include
such a person as a member. She noted it was hard to predict
the value of their comments and observations, but it was
also difficult to say there would be no value.
2:32:32 PM
Representative Johnson thought it opened up an interesting
idea. She asked if there was value in having a family
member of a victim on the board.
Ms. Stanfill replied affirmatively. When considering a
balance, she had debated the question in her mind. She
elaborated that currently there was a position that would
be appointed by groups that worked with victims but there
was not a position for a victim or family member of a
victim. She would not discourage the idea and believed the
perspective would be a good addition.
Representative Josephson referenced AS 33.16.020 pertaining
to the board of parole, which was composed of geographic
spread by judicial district and required the governor to
use due regard for representation of the board based on
ethnic, racial, sexual, and cultural populations.
Representative Edgmon asked for verification that the idea
presented in Amendment 1 had been presented or considered
in the past.
2:34:44 PM
Ms. DiPietro replied that when the commission had first
been contemplated there had been robust discussion on the
composition its composition. She believed the idea had been
discussed; however, she had not been a part of the
discussion.
Representative Edgmon stated it aligned with his
recollection of SB 64 that created the commission.
Representative Johnson MOVED conceptual Amendment 1 to
include an immediate family member of a victim of a felony
crime.
Representative Wool explained the reason he had offered the
amendment to include a family member of an incarcerated
individual was because they had a different experience from
the incarcerated individual. He believed the family member
of a victim also had a different experience than the
victim. He considered the idea and did not know whether the
distinction between the victim and a family member was a
pronounced. He stated there was a victim of a crime on the
commission already. He referenced Representative LeBon's
comment about redundancy because there was one formerly
convicted person on the commission out of a total of 16
members. He remarked that the other 15 members included law
enforcement, lawyers, judges, and commissioners. He did not
believe adding the position proposed under Amendment 1
would create a tilt in the board composition. He believed a
victim of the crime would be more on the side of law
enforcement. His goal was to have a different perspective.
He the sponsor of the conceptual amendment to discuss the
different perspective the family member of a victim would
offer.
2:38:52 PM
Representative LeBon stated there were two directions the
commission could go: 1) data collection as a process and 2)
interpretation of the data into a recommendation to take
action by the legislature. He wondered if the commission
was about more than data collection, whether the goal was
to get as many voices at the table as possible. If so, he
noted the conceptual amendment would add another voice to
the table. He added that he would need to offer a
subsequent conceptual amendment to add a banker to the
table.
Representative Carpenter was opposed to heading in the
direction of Amendment 1 if its intent of adding additional
members to the commission for different perspective was to
steer results or outcomes that were more friendly to
incarcerated individuals or their family members. One of
the things people should think about before committing a
crime was about how the crime would impact their family. He
did not want to see it made easier for people committing a
crime. He stated it was a consequence of committing a
crime.
2:41:09 PM
Co-Chair Foster surmised that Representative Wool did not
support Representative Johnson's conceptual amendment.
Representative Wool stated that under the bill, the
commission included a victim's rights advocate. He
commented on Representative Carpenter's remarks that a
person should think about how committing a crime would
impact their family. He did not think it was always that
clear. He noted there was mental illness and substance
abuse that contributed to crimes. He was not defending
criminals, but there was more than one reason to commit a
crime. He stated there were many problems in society and
the solution was not as simple as locking people up and for
longer. He recognized it reduced crime, but it produced
other problems. He stated the family bore the brunt of much
of it and they were innocent. He considered why corrections
was a growing section of the state's budget. He remarked
that there was opposition to adding to schools, but they
were adding to corrections, police, and courts. He stated
the problem needed to be addressed holistically. He opposed
the conceptual amendment.
Representative Rasmussen asked to hear what each respective
family member would bring to the commission from the
proposed amendments.
2:44:18 PM
Representative Johnson replied that a family member of a
victim had a unique perspective [poor audio quality]. She
suggested adding the individual to add to the balance of
the commission's membership. She believed the individual
could bring a very different perspective to a situation
than someone speaking about something academically.
Representative Thompson thought the commission was sounding
more and more like the group that worked on SB 91. He
elaborated that the working group had included the same
list of individuals as the proposed commission in addition
to several more. He relayed the group had come up with ways
to reduce the cost associated with crime. He cautioned the
need to be careful.
Representative Edgmon noted that SB 91 had passed in 2016
and done away with in 2019. He remarked that he and
Representative Thompson had both served on the House
Finance Committee at the time. He recalled extensive
testimony on reform measures taking a period of time to be
effective. He believed Representative Johnson's point on
having the victim perspective was well taken. He noted the
proposed commission already included a victim's rights
advocate. He thought there seemed to be a nuance involved.
He understood that the bill sponsor had been on the
Criminal Justice Commission for a period of time. He asked
to hear the bill sponsor's perspective.
2:48:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, relayed that Ms.
Stanfill had served on the commission for several years and
when her term ended, the governor appointed a man from
Kotzebue whose daughter had been brutally murdered. The man
was a member of a victim's rights group in Kotzebue. He
explained that the individual had attended several meetings
but there was a level of policy detail involved on the
commission and Representative Claman believed it had been a
hard place for the individual to be. He explained that Ms.
Stanfill worked with victims daily and in working with
domestic violence groups, the bill specified the groups
would work together to select a person to serve on the
proposed commission. He believed it was important to
include someone who was in the business of working with
victims. He pointed out that the notion of hearing from a
victim on the commission may make it harder on the
individual. He considered the amendment proposed by
Representative Wool and thought it was an interesting
discussion; however, in his experience as commission
membership grew in size it became more unwieldly and
complicated. He advised maintaining the current size and
membership proposed in the bill.
Representative Rasmussen appreciated Representative
Claman's comments about the size of the council growing too
large. She agreed it could be a concern. She asked if he
thought there was a difference in the level of competency
that the relative of an incarcerated person had versus the
relative of a victim. She asked if the two would experience
parity in their policy knowledge.
Representative Claman answered that the knowledge of
someone from the Network on Domestic Violence and their
understanding of policy issues was much more in depth than
the average family member of an incarcerated individual or
the average family member of a victim. He believed the
latter two would be very focused on the specific incident
or events of their personal family experience. He believed
it was incredibly important, which was the reason
committees heard public testimony. He stated that in terms
of policy expertise, people working with the issues more
regularly brought a level of understanding that was hard to
bring just from families. He was not in any way meaning to
diminish the importance of families' participation.
Representative Wool referred to Representative Claman's
mention of perspective of a professional advocate for
victim's rights that was less emotionally attached in their
professional experience in dealing with many victims and
not only a family member. He noted that the commission
included a formerly convicted individual, which he believed
was a good perspective to have. He did not believe an
advocate could have that same perspective. He discussed
people who advocated for rights of families or incarcerated
individuals. For example, the state's prison system had not
allowed any visitors for over a year [due to the COVID-19
pandemic]. He remarked it was traumatic for families when
they could not see a loved one for over a year. He asked if
there was an advocacy group for families of incarcerated
individuals.
Representative Claman replied that in serving on the
commission for the last several years, the most frequent
advocate for incarcerated individuals was the reentry
coalitions. The commission had occasionally heard from
families of incarcerated individuals. He relayed that the
reentry coalitions did not have members on the commission,
but they routinely attended meetings, provided public
comment, and wrote to the commission with comments. He
stated that lack of presence on the commission did not
prevent people from getting information. He noted the issue
about visitation had been discussed in recent commission
meetings. He elaborated that DOC presented to the
commission a couple of times to present on how the
department was dealing with visitation in light of the
pandemic. The fact that someone did not have a seat on the
commission did not mean the concerns would not be brought
forward.
2:56:24 PM
Representative Wool referenced Ms. Stanfill's
recommendation to have a family member of a formerly
incarcerated individual in order to avoid having a person
on the commission with a personal agenda. He understood the
commission was not for that purpose. He wanted to have the
perspective of a person with an incarcerated family member.
He would not be opposed to inserting the word "formerly"
into the amendment.
Representative Wool WITHDREW Amendment 1.
2:58:01 PM
AT EASE
3:02:41 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted Amendment 1 and the conceptual
amendment and had been withdrawn.
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 32-
LS0645\G.2 (Radford, 5/3/22) (copy on file):
Page 3, line 10, following "AS 44.19.642(a)":
Insert ", as amended by sec. 135(23) of Executive
Order 121,"
Page 4, line 14:
Delete "and social services"
Page 13, lines 19 - 20:
Delete "and Social Services"
Representative Wool OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon explained that the amendment was a
cleanup amendment required in the wake of the split of the
Department of Health and Social Services into two
departments by Executive Order 121. The amendment clarified
that one of the members of the commission would be the
commissioner of the Department of Health or the
commissioner's designee.
Representative Wool WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 183(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Johnson OBJECTED. She believed the bill
established something that was outside the scope
recommended by the audit. The audit recommended the sunset
of the commission and maintaining the data and analysis
component to help the legislature make more informed policy
decisions. She did not support the creation of a new
council that would be similar to the Criminal Justice
Commission that had brought forth SB 91. She noted the data
did not lead the legislature in the right direction. She
did not favor making policy changes within a board
extension. She thought the commission was redundant. She
pointed out that the University of Alaska's Justice Center
had been established in 1975 to do the same work. She
stated there were numerous groups to address the issues the
commission would address. She thought setting up a
commission deserved a more detailed policy discussion on
how to address issues related to incarceration and
recidivism in Alaska.
3:06:40 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Merrick, Foster
OPPOSED: Thompson, Carpenter, Johnson, LeBon, Rasmussen
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
CSHB 183(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with four "do
pass" recommendations, four "do not pass" recommendations,
and four "no recommendation" recommendations and with one
new zero fiscal note from the Department of Corrections;
one new zero fiscal note from the Department of Health and
Social Services for the Department of Health; one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (AJS); and one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN3 (AJS).
3:07:34 PM
AT EASE
3:08:46 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 20 TeacherCert_Reciprocity Research Dept.Defense Military Spouses.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 20 |
| SB 20 TeacherCert_Reciprocity Research ECS policy resources 3.19.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 20 |
| SB 20 TeacherCert_Reciprocity Sectional version W.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 20 |
| SB 20 TeacherCert-Reciprocity Summary of Changes Version G to W.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 20 |
| SB 20 TeacherCert_Reciprocity Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 20 |
| HB183 Amendments 1-2 050322.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 183 |