Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
02/02/2016 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB217 | |
| SB9 | |
| HB243 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 217 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 243 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 243-CRIM. CONV. OVERTURNED: RECEIVE PAST PFD
8:30:32 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 243, "An Act relating to the permanent fund
dividend; and relating to a permanent fund dividend for an
individual whose conviction has been vacated, reversed, or
dismissed or for an individual who has been pardoned because of
innocence and wrongful conviction."
[CHAIR LYNN passed the gavel to Vice Chair Keller.]
8:31:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 243, Version 29-LS1279\F, Martin,
1/29/16, as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion. He then
withdrew the objection. [There being no further objection,
Version F was before the committee as a work draft.]
CHAIR LYNN, as prime sponsor, expressed the importance of HB 243
and asked staff to present the bill.
8:32:21 AM
DENEEN TUCK, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 243 on behalf of Representative Lynn,
prime sponsor. She explained that the only change to HB 243 in
Version F was modification to the title. As background to the
proposed legislation, Ms. Tuck relayed that when "the Fairbanks
Four" were released, Chair Lynn noticed an injustice on the
books. There was no follow up for an Alaskan convicted of a
felony, if the conviction was overturned, for recourse in filing
for the permanent fund dividend (PFD). This proposed
legislation allows all Alaskans, who have experienced that
injustice, to apply for the PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that at the last hearing, a number
of issues were raised, and after talking to Mr. Burnett [Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Revenue (DOR)], he was able to have
many of his questions answered. He repeated a question asked by
Representative Talerico [during the previous bill hearing on
1/26/16], regarding how the proposed legislation addresses a
situation in which a person convicted of multiple offenses has
only one [conviction] reversed.
8:34:49 AM
MS. TUCK stated that in the committee packet is a memorandum
("memo") from Legislative Legal and Research Services dated
January 29, 2016, and that question is addressed on page 2 of
the memo where it is labeled question number 3.
8:35:09 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:35 a.m. to 8:37 a.m. to
review the memo.
8:37:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER observed that the memo answered the five
questions posed at the last meeting.
8:37:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his appreciation for these
answers and acknowledged Ms. Tuck's observation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the last sentence of the
answer to question 4 in the memo, which read as follows: "If a
person receives a dividend after being released, that dividend
is subject to garnishment." He asserted his concern that there
is nothing to entice the obligor to apply for a PFD if it will
be taken for taxes and child support. He asked what can be done
so that the needy parent can get that "back child support."
8:40:59 AM
SARA RACE, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
Department of Revenue (DOR), replied that [this situation] would
be similar to any other garnishment type. She maintained that
because the PFD is a voluntary program, the way in which the
division explains it to individuals is that [the garnishment] is
an amount of money that is going toward a debt that they owe.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there was any mechanism in
state law to allow the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED)
or another entity to be subrogated to the obligor's right to get
the dividend and allow [CSED] to apply through an agency or
another method.
MS. RACE asked Representative Gruenberg if he was asking if the
Child Support Division could require that the individual file
for the dividend so that the funds would be available for child
support.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied either that [scenario] or some
mechanism that would allow the CSED to apply on behalf of the
recalcitrant obligor.
MS. RACE responded that she was not aware of any such provision
but could check into it.
8:42:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered that [the issue] was outside the
scope of the proposed legislation and may require different
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 1, lines 10-13, of
Version F, reading, "if the individual's conviction is vacated
or reversed, and (1) the charges on which the conviction was
based are later dismissed; or (2) the individual is retried and
found not guilty." In stating his question, regarding the final
disposition of the case, Representative Gruenberg said he
realized he had answered his own question.
8:44:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG paraphrased the last paragraph of the
proposed legislation under "transition" which states that
notwithstanding the normal time limit for applying for a
dividend, an individual who is eligible under the proposed
legislation must apply for a dividend not later than 120 days
after the effective date of the Act. He contended that it is
clear to him that the intent is to allow people to apply
regardless of when they were exonerated or when they died.
However, he added that the answer to question 2 in the memo says
another provision of the law might bar them from doing that: "If
a person dies after the time limit has already passed, [the 120
day time limit under AS 43.23.005(j)], the estate would not be
able to apply for the dividends." He alleged that this relates
to HB 243, from page 1, line 14, to the top of page 2. He asked
Ms. Race if the proposed legislation eliminates the right of
certain estates of people who had been wrongly convicted to
apply for the dividend.
MS. RACE explained that with a regular estate application, there
a limit of one year from the time of death for the estate
representative to be able to apply. She further stated that
"this [provision] would be somewhat extending that time period
if the person passed within the year and 120 days."
8:49:07 AM
HILARY MARTIN, Attorney at Law, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, responded that the 120-day
time limit in the memo refers to both people under Section one
of the bill - those whose conviction gets overturned after the
effective date of the act and anyone who's conviction was
overturned years ago - and under HB 243 they would have 120 days
after the effective date to apply. In either situation the
estate would have 120 days, just the same as a person who was
not deceased.
8:49:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG focused on the people whose convictions
were overturned prior to the effective date of the bill, and he
asked if in these cases where the estates would have been closed
some time ago there was a mechanism by which these estates can
be reopened to allow them to receive these dividends.
MS. MARTIN admitted that she is not well-versed in estates and
probate, but said she knows that the provision in Section 3
gives an additional 120 days to apply for anyone whose
conviction was before the effective date of the Act.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that this could involve a
substantial amount of money for a small estate, especially if
child support is involved. He asked if a closed estate could be
reopened to allow an application under the bill. He affirmed
that he did not want to hold up the bill, but offered that this
was something that could have a real effect.
8:51:55 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER said he thinks that this issue is beyond this
proposed legislation and an additive thing, and he would like to
press on.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised that this constitutes a policy
decision, and he recommended the committee be aware of making
that policy decision in case the issue comes up in the future.
VICE CHAIR KELLER expressed his appreciation for Representative
Gruenberg's comments and putting them on the record.
8:52:54 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 243.
8:53:41 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:53 a.m. to 8:54 a.m.
8:54:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Vice Chair Keller if Nancy Meade
could go on record to respond to his previous questions.
VICE CHAIR KELLER reopened public testimony on HB 243.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated his question.
8:55:35 AM
MS. MEADE, Administrative Staff, Office of the Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System, responded that she, too, was not
well versed in probate law; therefore, her response wouldn't be
definitive. She said that she sees no barrier to someone
applying for a PFD on a deceased person's behalf, and HB 243
would give the person [applying], and therefore the estate, the
right to collect the PFD. She stated her assumption that the
[Permanent Fund Dividend] would accept an application from
somebody on behalf of a deceased individual.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that his question was not
whether the PFD application would be accepted but whether there
is a mechanism for reopening a closed estate.
8:57:12 AM
MS. MEADE replied that she did not have a definitive answer to
the question.
VICE CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony on HB 243.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he liked the proposed
legislation.
8:57:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to report CSHB 243, Version 29-
LS1279\F, Martin, 1/29/16, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 243(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 13 HB217 Updated fiscalNote Motor Vehicles.php.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 217 |
| 8 HB 243 F version.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 243 |
| 9 HB 243 Explanation of Changes v.G to F.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 243 |
| 10 HB243 Legal Memo - Hillary Martin 1-29-2016.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 243 |
| 15 SB9 v.N Blank CS.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SB 9 |
| 11 HB243 Fiscal Note DOR PFD.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 243 |