Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/18/2018 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| HB147 | |
| HB216 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 216(FIN) am
"An Act relating to restitution; relating to the
office of victims' rights; relating to transfers from
the dividend fund; creating the restorative justice
account; relating to appropriations from the
restorative justice account for services for and
payments to crime victims, operating costs of the
Violent Crimes Compensation Board, operation of
domestic violence and sexual assault programs, mental
health services and substance abuse treatment for
offenders, and incarceration costs; relating to
contributions from dividends; relating to delinquent
minors; and providing for an effective date."
9:48:23 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon read the full title of the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the committee would like to
hear about what the bill was trying to solve.
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, SPONSOR, stated that the Senate
had unanimously passed a similar bill in 2014. He stated
that the bill attempted to solve the problem of getting
restitution back to victims of crimes. He referenced the
many outstanding restitution orders for which there was no
mechanism in place to complete. The Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission's (ACJC) December 2016 report on victim
restitution highlighted the need for restoration to victims
of property crime. He stated that the bill was a summary of
an effort to analyze the problems in the restitution
system. He detailed that the Court System reported that
there was over $120 million in outstanding court-ordered
restitution. With the exclusion of a large restitution for
the Alyeska pipeline, the amount equaled approximately $80
million.
Representative Kopp continued that the bill would get the
Crime Victim Compensation Fund back to its original state.
In 1988, the legislature had implemented a vehicle to help
deliver restitution. Those persons convicted of a felony
(or persons with a second or third misdemeanor) during the
qualifying year for the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD),
would be ineligible to receive a dividend, and the monies
would instead be directed toward the Crime Victim
Compensation Fund for victim restitution. Over the past 30
years, other eligible entities had been added, and one
inclusion was the cost of incarceration and probation. The
fund was no longer primarily for victim's compensation, but
rather was known for paying for inmate health. He
emphasized that only two percent of the fund went towards
victims of crime.
9:52:29 AM
Representative Kopp continued discussing the rationale for
the bill. He specified that HB 216 would establish a
priority order for funding similar to that of the Technical
Vocational Educational Fund, which had established
percentages to go towards the eligible entities. A total
percentage of the fund would go to various victim's
services agencies, and a priority order would be set. He
discussed the Crime Victim Compensation Board, which helped
individuals affected by violent crime with funding up to
$40,000 per incident. The second priority for funding was
the Office of Victim's Rights (OVR), which would help
people with restitution orders. The bill proposed to put a
vehicle in the law for the legislature to make an
appropriation of money that could be applied toward
restitution orders, which averaged between $500 and $1000.
He reported that some individuals had been waiting for
restitution for up to 20 years.
Representative Kopp stated that the bill did not alleviate
an offender from paying the state back. Additional
priorities went to domestic violence and sexual assault
service agencies, behavioral and mental health treatment
for substance abuse, and the Department of Corrections
(DOC). The bill set percentage ranges based on historical
use that would keep DOC "relatively whole." With the range
in the bill, DOC could still receive the majority of the
fund needed to pay for inmate healthcare. The priority list
would provide guidance for the Office of Management and
Budget during the time appropriations were made. He stated
that the bill was unanimously endorsed by the Anchorage
Municipal Assembly and the Anchorage Peace Officers
Association.
9:56:11 AM
ERICK CORDERO GIORGANA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP,
discussed the presentation "House Bill 216 - Establishing
the Restorative Justice Account and Prioritizing Help for
Victims of Crimes" (copy on file).
Mr. Cordero looked at slide 2, "Legislative Intent":
Restoring crime victims to a pre-offense condition
through the Criminal Fund established in 1988.
Mr. Cordero showed slide 3:
? 59% of adult women in Alaska have experienced
domestic violence or sexual violence throughout their
lifetime. (CDVSA Report)
? Compensation claims continue to increase yearly.
(VCCB Report) and in 2017, the majority of victims
were women and children.
? The outstanding balance of restitution orders is
over $129 million.
Mr. Cordero discussed the state's leading rates of domestic
violence and child abuse. He thought the bill was another
way the legislature could address the matter.
Mr. Cordero reviewed slide 4, "Compensation vs
Restitution":
Compensation
Emergency funds that innocent victims can obtain
without waiting for a conviction
Restitution
Court - ordered payments to victims post conviction
Mr. Cordero informed that compensation was money that was
available before the court ordered a restitution payment to
a victim. Compensation was available right away, while
restitution could be delayed for quite some time.
Mr. Cordero showed slide 5, "Criminal Fund Use Over the
Years," which showed the historical use of the fund From FY
08 through FY 16. He pointed out that at one time the
fund's use was largely even between DOC and the agencies
that provided services to victims; while currently the
services to victims received only a very small percentage.
He noted that the amount of the funds available changed
from year to year depending upon the size of the PFD.
Mr. Cordero spoke to slide 6, "Sample Appropriations from
the Criminal Fund," which showed a bar graph that
highlighted an example of how the funds were used. The blue
line depicted the services to victims and had at one point
included the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault and the operating costs of OVR and others. The
yellow showed the funding going to DOC.
Mr. Cordero reviewed slide 7, "Violent Crimes Compensation
Board," which showed a bar graph. The Violent Crimes
Compensation Board reported that even with a rise and fall
in violent crimes, there was a steady increase of
individuals applying for compensation payments. He pointed
out a steady rise in news claims received over the previous
17 years.
Mr. Cordero discussed slide 8, "Violent Crimes Compensation
Board," which showed a pie chart entitled 'New Claims By
Crime Type.' He pointed out that the majority of claims for
compensation were from the crimes of domestic violence,
homicide, and child abuse. He noted that most cases of
child abuse involved sexual abuse of children.
9:59:17 AM
Mr. Cordero showed slide 9, "Annual Outstanding Restitution
Balances," which showed a line graph. He discussed the
spike on the graph in 2003 pertaining to the Alyeska
pipeline incident. The majority of persons were owed less
than $1,000. He informed that there was a $10,000
restitution cap in the bill based on information from the
Alaska Court System.
Vice-Chair Bishop asked about eligibility for restitution
and assumed that it would require a court settlement
delivered by a judge.
Representative Kopp stated that an individual would be
automatically in a queue for compensation given there was a
police report, victimhood was established, and the
individual met the minimum eligibility requirements
established Violent Crimes Compensation Board. The board
considered factors such as whether a person was a
participant in the crime situation, or rather a victim in
the classic sense. A restitution order came after cases
were adjudicated, which could take up to years.
10:01:10 AM
AT EASE
10:02:46 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon mentioned eligibility requirements and
the process for restitution.
Representative Kopp stated that there was a $10,000 award
for each individual and event. The award would be made as a
result of a court process by due process of law, at the end
of which an adjudication of guilt was given and the court
determined if there was a monetary restitution award owed
the victim. There was protection in the law before the
amount of the award was arrived at, and the victim's loss
must be proved to the court.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the perpetrator of the crime
was held responsible to pay the restitution to the state.
Representative Kopp answered in the affirmative. He stated
that previous legislation required probation and parole to
set-up payment and restitution as a requirement for
successful completion. He reiterated that no liability of
the perpetrator was alleviated by the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if a person had to be identified
in order for restitution to take place.
Representative Kopp stated that a restitution order had to
identify a responsible party. He thought it would be
possible for the legislature to appropriate restitution
funds for cases in which a responsible party was not
identified, but it would be complex. A restitution order
would not be written by a court unless there was an
individual that was successfully prosecuted.
10:05:51 AM
Senator Stevens asked if restitution funds paid back by the
perpetrator went back into the compensation fund or back to
the General Fund.
Mr. Cordero informed that the repaid funds currently went
to the General Fund, but the bill would authorize the
legislature to appropriate the recovered funds into a fund
that was created in Section 6 of the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon informed that the presentation was
available online.
Mr. Cordero informed that he would review the Sectional
Analysis, which would address the last two slides of the
presentation.
Mr. Cordero reviewed the Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Section 1 - AS 12.55.045(m)
Section 1 establishes that the Alaska Court System can
accept restitution payments or prepayments at any
time. Language that is explicitly stated in Section 2
regarding the Alaska Department of Law is removed.
Section 2 - AS 12.55.051(f)
Section 2 includes the process that the Alaska Court
System will use to share information about restitution
orders with other state agencies. It amends the
current statute to allow the Office of Victims' Rights
to receive and share information with the Alaska Court
System consistent with all the rules of privacy as
required by law. This section also amends the
notification requirement for victims by the Alaska
Department of Law to include information on receiving
assistance from the Office of Victims' Rights and
information on how to apply for that assistance.
Section 3 - AS 12.55.051(g)
Section 3 requires a notification from the Department
of Law to victims about their right to assistance with
collecting restitution payments and it amends the
period from 30 to 90 days, from the time of
notification, for a victim to opt-out from receiving
automatic assistance. This section allows victims to
stop receiving assistance at any time in the future.
Representative Kopp informed that Section 3 incorporated a
recommendation from the ACJC's restitution report. The opt-
out would give victim's more time to assess their needs
post-incident.
10:08:54 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop asked if the bill section allowed a
victim to opt out of the process.
Representative Kopp stated that extending the opt-out
period would allow for a victim to have more time to
determine an actual loss and whether assistance from the
state was needed.
Mr. Cordero continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Section 4 AS 24.65
Section 4 enables the Office of Victims' Rights to
assist victims with restitution payments, subject to
appropriation, from the Restorative Justice Account
based on priority: a natural person, private
businesses, and state and local governments.
It authorizes the Office of Victims' Rights to
establish a process to assist victims through the
Restorative Justice Account and caps the amount of
funds that a victim can receive.
Section 5 AS 43.23.028
Section 5 delineates the duties of the Department of
Revenue to administrate the permanent fund dividend
payments, regulations, timelines, and deadlines and
allows cooperation with other state agencies and law
enforcement. It requires the department to pay annual
dividends from the dividend fund to eligible
recipients. The Department of Corrections and the
Department of Public Safety will provide the
Department of Revenue with a list of individuals
ineligible for a dividend in order to transfer these
funds into the Restorative Justice Account. It also
clarifies language about public disclosures.
Section 6 AS 43.23.048
Section 6 establishes the Restorative Justice Account
as a separate account in the dividend fund. It tasks
the Commissioner of Revenue every year to transfer
from the dividend fund to the Restorative Justice
Account an amount equal that would have been paid to
ineligible individuals if they had been eligible.
This section allows the legislature to prioritize use
of the funds through appropriations with services to
victims as the highest priority by using percentages
and ranges.
The section further clarifies that a defendant ordered
to pay restitution is still liable for payments
regardless of whether a victim receives help from the
Restorative Justice Account. The Legislature may
appropriate restitution payments back into the
Restorative Justice Account.
The section clarifies the bill does not create a
dedicated fund.
Mr. Cordero informed that there was a legal opinion
contained in the members' bill packet that informed that
the legislature always had the discretion whether or not to
appropriate funds.
10:13:10 AM
Mr. Cordero continued to address the analysis:
Section 7 AS 43.23.055
Section 7 defines the process and duties of the
Department of Revenue regarding the calculation,
eligibility, and distribution of permanent fund
dividends. The bill adds language for the department
to establish regulations pertaining to the Restorative
Justice Account created in Section 6.
Section 8 AS 43.23.062(a)
Section 8 authorizes the Department of Revenue to add
the crime victims' compensation fund, managed by the
Violent Crimes Compensation Board, to the list of
entities that qualify for the Pick.Click.Give program.
Section 9
Section 9 defines the duties of the Department of
Revenue regarding the list of entities that qualify to
receive donations through Pick.Click.Give's public
database. The section adds the crime victims'
compensation fund to the list.
Section 10
Section 10 authorizes the Department of Revenue to
charge a processing fee to the entities that receive
donations through permanent fund dividends. This
section also exempts this fee from donations made to
the crime victims' compensation fund.
Section 11 AS 47.12.160(f)
Section 11 authorizes the Court System to receive
payments and pre-payments from a minor or a minor's
parent at any time. This section removes redundant
language.
Section 12 AS 47.12.170(c)
Section 12 authorizes the Alaska Court System to
forward copies of restitution orders to the Office of
Victims' Rights and the Department of Health of Social
Services. It instructs the DHSS to inform crime
victims that they may qualify for services through the
Office of Victims' Rights.
Section 12 also requires that information considered
confidential by law, remains confidential.
Section 13 47.12.170(d)
Section 13 clarifies that the opt-out period for a
victim is extended from 30 to 90 days from the day of
notification and instructs the Department of Health
and Social Services to notify victims of their rights
to assistance.
Section 14
Section 14 establishes an effective date.
10:14:47 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated she was contemplating the idea of
Pick.Click.Give contributions to state government. She
mentioned a bill that passed the Senate that addressed the
same subject.
Senator von Imhof asked if slide 12 had been addressed.
Mr. Cordero stated that the highlights of law mentioned on
the slide were the items covered in the Sectional Analysis.
Senator von Imhof asked about the reasoning for creating a
secondary fund when there was a fund already.
Representative Kopp stated that the fund was a line item
rather than a true fund. The bill would create the fund and
use it as a tool so that monies would go into the fund for
the purpose of the appropriations based on the priority
order proposed in the bill.
Mr. Cordero added that the bill would allow the legislature
to make appropriations to the fund from repayments by
offenders, which would then be available for future use.
10:17:24 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the Director of the Alaska
Permanent Fund Dividend Division and a representative from
the Court System were present.
SARA RACE, DIRECTOR, PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, stated that she had a fiscal note
that outlined how the proposed bill would administratively
change the Crime Victims Compensation Fund. She referenced
the way dividends were calculated for felons and
misdemeanants. She mentioned the proposed Restorative
Justice Account, from which garnished funds would be
appropriated for victim's compensation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the bill would provide any
additional burden for the division.
Ms. Race stated that the division and DOR would take on
additional transactions if the bill were to pass. Money
coming out of the dividend was itemized, but the division
was not involved in ensuring the transfers occurred. If the
bill were to pass, funds would flow into the new account
and DOR and the division would be responsible for making
sure money appropriated through legislative process went to
the correct accounts. Likewise, transactions of funds into
the account would be under the purview of the department
with the help of the Court System.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that usually regulations cost
between $2,500 and $4,000; while the division was
requesting $5,000. She asked Ms. Race to address FN 7, OMB
component 981.
Ms. Race stated that the first year after the bill's
passage the division would be setting up the account and
creating a reporting process. In the outgoing years, there
was $15,000 listed on the fiscal note as there would be
transactions coming in and out (depending upon the number
of accounts).
10:21:58 AM
Senator Micciche surmised that Ms. Race was asserting that
the division would be the payer of the program going
forward.
Ms. Race stated that the division had not completely worked
out the logistics, but thought the division would be
working with the Court System and other entities that
worked with individuals directly. She suggested the
division would be working agency-to-agency.
Vice-Chair Bishop referenced Section 8 on the Sectional
Analysis. He asked about the addition of the board to the
entities qualified for the Pick.Click.Give program.
Ms. Race stated that the Crime Victim's Compensation Fund
would operate similarly to the Survivor's Fund within the
program. The fund would not be subject to the $250 fee or 7
percent charge as part of the registration process.
10:23:44 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for the Court's perspective on the
bill and the protentional impact on the department.
DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, stated
that the bill would affect the Court System, as it
collected restitution from defendants to pass on to crime
victims. He informed that the collections division within
the DOL had been closed, after which the Court System took
over the task. Over the previous year, the department had
disbursed over $2 million in restitution payments. Payments
were made frequently by incarcerated individuals, and the
Court System worked with DOC to facilitate restitution
payments from prisoner funds. The Court System tracked
amounts payed and owed.
Mr. Wooliver continued, and relayed that after passage of
the Court System would need to communicate with both OVR
and DOR in order to share information and be in accord
about the balance owed to victims. The Court System would
continue to collect restitution and would send the money to
the appropriate account. The bill would affect the extent
to which the court system communicated with the entities,
and a system would need to be set up. He thought that OVR
might not have a system in place, and thought it had an
associated fiscal note.
Mr. Wooliver continued to discuss the bill's impacts on the
courts. He asserted that the bill would have a significant
impact if the payments were up to millions of dollars per
year due to the amount of records that would need to be
updated. The inverse was also true.
10:27:20 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if Mr. Wooliver had issues with
any of the language in the bill.
Mr. Wooliver answered in the negative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if even though the courts demanded
restitution as part of the process, if the act of
collection should be the purview of the court.
Mr. Wooliver stated that the Court System only collected
restitution to pass on to victims because DOL had stopped
doing it. He discussed the importance of restitution. By
collecting restitution, the Court System reduced additional
workload by diminishing its potential caseload of victims
using the execution process to claim restitution.
Co-Chair MacKinnon reminded that the bill proposed that
Courts work with OVR, which would perhaps pursue
restitution with more vigor than was previously attempted.
She asked how he viewed working with the office.
Mr. Wooliver stated that the only work that the system
would share with OVR was the weekly sharing of reports on
restitution balances.
10:29:28 AM
Senator Micciche read the fiscal note and thought that
there was a question of whether the Court System was
covered with appropriate resources. Hi liked the bill. He
asked Mr. Wooliver to speak to the degree of probability
that the department could absorb the costs associated with
passage of the bill.
Mr. Wooliver stated that in the early stages of the bill
the Court System had tried to estimate how much additional
funding OVR would have to make restitution payments. The
bill put a mechanism in place by which OVR could facilitate
the payment of restitution. He stated that if the
department was required to update 200 records per week, it
would require a full position. If the amount of funds
available to OVR was minimal, the impact would be small.
Creation of a fiscal impact note from the department would
depend upon how much money the legislature appropriated to
the project.
Co-Chair MacKinnon referenced the interchange in
communication proposed in the bill.
TAYLOR WINSTON, OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), stated that OVR fully supported the bill.
The office had observed extended restitution orders over
the years made by the court for victims, many of which were
never fulfilled (particularly for property victims). She
noted an increase in property crime and noted the only
secondary recourse in pursuing restitution was onerous. She
thought that the plan for the proposed Restorative Justice
Fund would be incredibly helpful. She stated that there
were victims that had been waiting almost 20 years from
amounts of restitution in the range of $1500 to $2000.
Ms. Winston thought Mr. Wooliver had accurately described
the nature of future communication for verifying
restitution orders and other details. She noted that the
verification would be a new function for OVR, and the
fiscal note incorporated the addition of a case management
system for restitution files as well as a position to enter
the cases into the system. Once payment had been made, the
Court system would need to update files.
10:34:26 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if OVR's role had expanded to help
property victims through the bill, or if it already was
able to do so.
Ms. Winston stated that under current statute, OVR was able
to help all property victims of felony-level crime. The
statute did not allow for assistance to misdemeanor
property victims. If the legislature wanted to contemplate
OVR addressing restitution for misdemeanor property crimes,
she thought it would require a change in statute.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for a dollar value that made a
property crime a felony.
Ms. Winston thought the amount had been changed through the
passage of SB 91 and was approximately $2500. She continued
that OVR could help with victims of vehicle theft or
burglary, regardless of the amount of property that was
taken. Arson and embezzlement were other conditions under
which OVR could assist with restitution.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the committee would check
the dollar value that made a property crime a felony. She
thought a secondary bill had lowered the amount after
passage of SB 91 due to public outcry that property crimes
had not been taken seriously.
CSSSHB 216(FIN)am was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked members to provide proposed
amendments by then end of the following day. She discussed
the agenda for the afternoon meeting.