Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/28/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB351 | |
| HB193 | |
| HB307 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 310 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 312 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 351 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 28, 2008
1:46 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:46:37 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Les Gara
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Mary Nelson
Representative Bill Thomas Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Bob Roses; Representative Lindsey Holmes;
Karen Lidster, Staff, Representative John Coghill; Crystal
Koeneman, Staff, Representative Bob Roses; Doug Wooliver,
Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System; Dwayne
Peeples, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections;
Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law
SUMMARY
HB 193 An Act relating to the composition of the Alaska
Police Standards Council; and providing for an
effective date.
CS HB 193 (STA) was reported out of Committee with
"no recommendation" and with new zero notes by the
Department of Corrections and Department of Public
Safety.
HB 307 An Act relating to penalizing certain misdemeanor
domestic violence offenses as felonies.
HB 307 was HEARD & HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 351 An Act relating to submission of fingerprints by
applicants for a concealed handgun permit; and
providing for an effective date.
CS HB 391 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a new zero
note by the Department of Corrections and zero
note #1 by the Department of Public Safety.
1:48:01 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 351
An Act relating to submission of fingerprints by
applicants for a concealed handgun permit; and
providing for an effective date.
KAREN LIDSTER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, directed
comments to the House Judiciary Committee version of the
bill. She noted that because of changes to the way the
Department of Public Safety processes fingerprint cards, it
is now possible to notify the Alaska Automated Fingerprint
Identification System and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) from one card.
The proposed bill would amend the requirements in AS
18.65.700(a)(4), submitting two sets of fingerprint cards to
submitting one set for individuals applying for a concealed
handgun permit. The bill changes the FBI approved
fingerprint card to a format approved by the Department.
The changes will provide a savings in cost and effort for
fingerprinting the format of the cards, allowing the
Department latitude to change the fingerprint cards and not
requiring another future bill.
1:50:22 PM
th
Vice-Chair Stoltze remembered that during the 18 Alaska
Legislature, another HB 351 was passed, sponsored by Senator
Jeannette James, the original concealed weapons permit
legislation.
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out the zero impact in the proposed
note.
Vice-Chair Stoltze directed comments to finger-printing
bullets. He hoped to see that incorporated if it does not
deter to bullet imprinting. He assumed that was a "back-
door" approach to controlling and banning ammunitions.
1:52:27 PM
Co-Chair Meyer believed that HB 351 would save State revenue
by moving from two sets of fingerprints to one. Ms. Lidster
said yes.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
1:53:16 PM
Co-Chair Chenault inquired if the Department of Public
Safety supports the bill. Ms. Lidster acknowledged they do.
Representative Hawker discussed concerns in issuing
concealed gun permits. He noted a classification for
outstanding concealed handgun permits called "nix-exempt".
That status allows the holder both the repercosity in other
states and a prequalification for purchasing a fire arm. In
order to achieve that status on a concealed handgun permit,
the person must be signed-off by a law enforcement agency
as if purchasing a firearm. He pointed out that those
checks no longer happen and as a result, the State of Alaska
has been unable to issue nix-exempt checks.
Representative Hawker continued, many people in the fire arm
community are upset that the service is no longer available.
The FBI has created frustration in the State's ability to
offer it. He hoped to see a legislative fix; he requested
the sponsor work on the issue. Representative Hawker warned
of serious consequences for Alaskan's individual rights to
keep and bear arms.
1:56:31 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS HB 351 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 391 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new zero note by the
Department of Corrections and zero note #1 by the Department
of Public Safety.
1:57:37 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
An Act relating to the composition of the Alaska Police
Standards Council; and providing for an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB ROSES, SPONSOR, explained that the bill
would add two certified police officers with at least five
years experience to the Alaska Police Standards Council
(APSC). By doing that, those who are charged with daily law
enforcement to the training and standards as State board
participating members, certifying police officers. At
present, APSC is the only board with no representation from
the group most affected by its decisions. APSC has assigned
seats for the police chiefs, the department commissioners
and to members of the public, there are no line officers on
board. He maintained that APSC has done a good job, but
could benefit from the presence of line officers that bring
experience and perspective to the board.
1:58:53 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 to Page 2, Line 8,
deleting "and correctional". Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED
for discussion purposes.
Vice-Chair Stoltze stated that he wanted to guarantee the
position of all correctional officers.
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if that language had been added
during another committee process.
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB ROSES, replied
the language was added in the House State Affairs (STA)
Committee. She said that adding the correctional officers
makes the language more complicated, hence Legislative Legal
Services suggested leaving it out. Vice-Chair Stoltze noted
for the record that they (LAA) should not be in the
"business" of providing policy direction.
2:00:54 PM
Representative Roses recalled the discussion, noting that
LAA was not attempting to make policy, but rather, it was a
part of an argument previously made. He agreed with the
comments made by Vice-Chair Stoltze.
Representative Joule inquired the percentage of correctional
officers that would be eligible to serve. Representative
Roses did not know. Representative Joule hoped that the
legislation would not remove a certain class of employee.
Vice-Chair Stoltze commented that within the law enforcement
and public safety community, the correctional officers are
underappreciated; he emphasized the importance of that group
of employees. He maintained his opposition to the amendment
on behalf of the correctional officers.
Representative Roses responded that he would support the
Committee's decision.
Representative Kelly asked if the amendment would change the
opposition voiced by the police chiefs & the commissioners.
Representative Roses noted that he had discussed the
legislation extensively with six police chiefs,
acknowledging he did not know their position on the
amendment.
2:04:20 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the police chiefs do not
like the bill; he thought that amendment would not matter
either way. Representative Roses agreed.
Representative Kelly asked Co-Chair Meyer's intent for
offering the amendment. Co-Chair Meyer hoped the language
would keep it strictly for the police officers,
acknowledging the fine line between that group and the
correctional officers. For the record, Vice-Chair Stoltze
advised that correctional officers are accredited by the
Alaska Police Standards Council and are all law enforcement
professionals.
Representative Roses referenced language on Page 1, Line 9,
which allows the Governor to appoint a correctional
administrative officer. He did not want to see the
correctional officers eliminated.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the sponsor supports the amendment.
Representative Roses explained, the language had been added
during another committee process. He thought the intent was
cleaner without the amendment, reiterating he would support
the will of the Committee.
2:07:51 PM
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW Amendment 1. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
Representative Crawford agreed that passage of the bill is
the "right thing to do", noting that all other professional
standard councils have membership to represent the members
doing that work. He reiterated his support for the bill.
Representative Hawker noted for the record, he agrees it is
correct thing to do, however, recognize that the law
enforcement community does not favor the bill. He added his
support.
Representative Kelly realized it was clear that the
leadership of that community is not in favor of the proposed
change. He recommended that current law be maintained,
urging the bill not be moved out of Committee.
Vice-Chair Stoltze agreed with the statements submitted by
the police officers. Representative Roses referenced the
language of the bill indicating that the Governor may pick
from that group. He stated that it is important that those
names brought forward are recommended by the council & their
criterion checked. He wanted to see "line guys" on the
council.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if a police union could select
someone not represented by their organizational fraternity
and if so, could it become an exclusive placement. He
mentioned the political pressures that happen when
appointments occur. He maintained his support of the
correctional officers being included on the council.
Representative Roses agreed, understanding the conflict.
2:15:37 PM
Representative Gara advised that the bill does not address
the concerns of the Committee. The bill does not adopt pro
or anti labor positions. The bill adopts positions only on
police officers conduct and standards. He pointed out the
division of the Committee of those who are pro-labor or not.
He believed that either position would have little impact on
how the council accomplishes their work. He stated there is
nothing the council can do that would favor either pro or
con labor issues. He agreed that there are legitimate
arguments on labor concerns but thought they would not
happen under the context of HB 351.
2:17:15 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze interjected that no one on the Committee
was speaking about pro or anti labor, pointing out there is
no language addressing that. He discussed the concern of
eligibility. The work of a professional organization is to
protect jobs when someone is challenged. He reiterated his
concern with the eligibility pool and who might be excluded.
2:18:37 PM
Representative Gara stood corrected on his observation.
2:20:50 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS HB 193 (STA) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 193 (STA) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with new zero notes by the Department of
Corrections and Department of Public Safety.
2:21:32 PM
Co-Chair Chenault apologized for the record that he had made
comments to Representative Nelson regarding charter school
funding. He understood that there had been $100 thousand
dollars put in, and last year during Conference Committee,
it was reduced to $50 thousand dollars. He pointed out that
zero dollars had been placed in by the House & $200 thousand
dollars was placed in by the Senate. The Conference
Committee did settle at $100 thousand dollars.
2:22:34 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 307
An Act relating to penalizing certain misdemeanor
domestic violence offenses as felonies.
REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES, SPONSOR, offered to answer
questions of the Committee.
AT EASE: 2:24:07 PM
RECONVENE: 2:27:11 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, Page 2, Line 8,
deleting all material and inserting, "Applies to convictions
on or after the effective date of this Act". Vice-Chair
Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Co-Chair Meyer recalled previous discussion regarding the
pro or retro-activity and if it could reduce the fiscal
impact.
2:28:26 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEY, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
directed his comments to the bill. He pointed out that the
Court System is the agency that generated the fiscal notes.
He apologized for the tardy note from the Courts and offered
to answer questions of the Committee regarding the notes.
2:30:06 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked the sponsor's intent regarding the
pro & retro activity of the bill. Representative Holmes
replied she realizes both sides of the matter; however,
noted concerns voiced by the Network on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault regarding offenders who already have a
couple strikes. The Network worries about victims who are
not perpetrators but have already plead guilty.
Representative Holmes understood the merit of making the
legislation prospective.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if Representative Holmes supports
Amendment 1. Representative Holmes replied she does not
oppose it, however, could not say that she actually supports
it. She expects to see the bill move forward so that the
law can be enforced. She said she will respect the
Committee's decision given the high fiscal cost.
2:34:27 PM
Representative Hawker asked the consequences to the
Department of Corrections if the amendment did not pass.
DWAYNE PEEPLES, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, explained that the Department of Corrections
had a difficult time determining the fiscal impact,
consequently chose the numbers determined by the Courts. He
assumed it could take up to three to four years to build a
point of heavy incarceration. He deferred to the Courts.
Representative Hawker stated that deferring the
implementation date, would only be a deferral of the phased-
in fiscal cost. Mr. Peeples assumed that was correct. Mr.
Wooliver advised that would not be the only variable and
with the passage of the bill, could also change the manner
in which cases are plead and prosecuted.
2:37:58 PM
Representative Hawker acknowledged that there will be
additional variables, difficult to quantify. He understood
that the intent of the bill is:
· Punish the guilty, and
· Create and establish a disincentive for people to
become guilty.
Representative Hawker questioned how much of a deterrent the
bill is expected to create. Mr. Wooliver did not know;
however, from other cases, increasing a penalty does not
necessarily decrease the incidences of crime.
Representative Joule observed that over the years,
indeterminate fiscal notes continue to grow the operating
budget. In response, Mr. Wooliver explained that the Courts
can not determine the long-term effect from indeterminate
notes on the General Fund's operating budget. Mr. Peeples
added that the Department of Corrections does not track such
impact or information.
Representative Joule worried about the State being able to
sustain funding for the legislation over the long-term.
2:44:55 PM
Co-Chair Chenault acknowledged that the legislation is good,
however, any indeterminate fiscal notes concern him. For
the Department of Corrections alone, the costs will amount
to $12 million dollars by 2014. He appreciated the
department's effort to provide accurate dollar costs. He
said that he supports the bill, however, Committee members
should realize actual costs of such legislation.
2:46:52 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the amendment temporarily
impacts the fiscal notes.
Representative Nelson maintained that a perpetrator with two
prior convictions, indicates a person that has a serious
problem. She worried about patterns established during
domestic violence altercations. Some domestic violence
cases are never reported. She believed that there is a lot
of psychology involved in the convictions. She stressed
that this legislation is a "Lot more than a fiscal impact;
it is a human impact, which affects children". Once
children become involved, the impact can affect other
department fiscally, down the road.
2:50:02 PM
Representative Gara echoed comments made by Representative
Nelson and asked about the corrections included in the
fiscal notes. Co-Chair Chenault responded that for the
record, he had requested notes representing "real" numbers.
Representative Gara agreed.
Representative Gara asked if the amendment does pass, would
then only the third conviction qualify as a felony charge.
Mr. Peeples pointed out that the Department of Corrections
assumes that if the amendment does pass, only the third
conviction would be determined a felony, accompanies a
longer jail sentence. He said the Department of Corrections
was relying on the Court System assessment.
Representative Gara concluded, if Amendment 1 should pass,
the person charged with misdemeanor domestic violence,
whether they plead or go to trial, would only go to jail for
a misdemeanor charge and it would not affect their jail
sentence. He understood that the jail sentence would not be
affected until the third offense occurs.
2:53:33 PM
Mr. Wooliver advised that the Alaska Court System would make
the same analysis. As long as the offense remains a
misdemeanor, there will be little or no impact on the
Courts. The impact is reached when the misdemeanor becomes
a felony. The Courts are attempting to determine how long
it will take a domestic violence offender to get to their
third domestic violence offense.
Representative Gara asked if the sponsor would include the
amendment based on the current analysis. Representative
Holmes responded that when the bill was written, she assumed
it would be retrospective and thought that the offense would
start at the bill's effective date. Following discussion
with prosecutors, it was obvious it becomes more difficult
to make it prospective. She preferred it be retrospective,
however, would support implementation either way.
2:58:03 PM
Representative Crawford questioned if the legislation could
act as a deterrent, helping to break the domestic violence
cycle. He urged that funds be placed into prevention
education. Representative Holmes agreed that the aspect of
prevention must be addressed, pointing out that the Task
Force report on domestic violence and sexual assault will be
available soon. It provides many recommendations in how to
addressing the need for prevention. If it passes, it will
become the cornerstone of that work. Representative
Crawford recommended intervention at the time of the second
offense. Representative Holmes supported that idea.
3:04:35 PM
Representative Kelly noted that he would not object to
passing the bill out of Committee; however, emphasized his
concerns. He spoke in support of Amendment 1, because it
adopts lower fiscal notes. He worried that the crime is
being classified as a "hate crime" because of the domestic
violence association tag. Mr. Wooliver advised that the
crime itself would remain the same and that no one is ever
charged with a domestic violence crime, but rather with an
th
assault in the 4 degree. Representative Kelly assumed that
the set of circumstances were identical, but that one would
be moved to a felony if associated with domestic violence.
Mr. Wooliver acknowledged under HB 307 that was correct.
Representative Kelly expressed frustration on the number of
issues the Committee has addressed dealing with domestic
violence. He commented on his philosophical reasons that
domestic violence has become such an epidemic in our
society.
3:08:29 PM
Representative Thomas questioned if the fiscal note took
into consideration, costs to protective children services.
Mr. Peeples testified that the note only addresses the
incarceration costs.
Representative Thomas noted the amount of press regarding
domestic violence issues resulting from servicemen returning
from Iraq. He pointed out that if a military person
receives three convictions, they stand to loose their
military career. He asked who assumes the military base
jurisdiction. Mr. Wooliver was not sure about crimes
committed on military bases.
Representative Thomas urged that the convicted receive
counseling. He related personal experience during the Viet
Nam war era.
3:10:19 PM
Representative Joule said he would vote against the
amendment.
Representative Gara summarized issue regarding how to punish
people engaged in the domestic violent conduct. It is
difficult to prevent the behavior through a sentencing bill.
The legislative concern is not what happens at the third
sentencing but what happens the next time the behavior
occurs and how will that victim be protected. He suspected
that the Courts will order some type of treatment before the
sentence is over. He asked about a provision providing a
condition of probation, before contact is allowed between
the defendant and the victim and also that counseling be
completed.
3:15:04 PM
Mr. Wooliver stated that would not impact the Court's note,
pointing out that currently, there is a requirement for
batterer's counseling. He was not sure at which offense it
become law. There exists practical implementation concerns
regarding the availability of treatment.
Representative Gara recommended that for the defendant to be
considered for probation, counseling should be mandatory
after each conviction and making the third felony
prospective.
3:16:52 PM
Representative Holmes recalled the discussions within the
Task Force. She noted concerns that the probation periods
are often shorter than the counseling programs, creating
timing issues. She thought that the idea was a good one;
however, she would need adequate time to address the
programs availability, who pays and what hopefully, could be
expected to be accomplished.
3:17:54 PM
Representative Crawford inquired what was expected for the
defendant to move a charge from a misdemeanor to a felony.
He asked the duration of a no-contact order.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, stated
that the longest domestic violence protective order is six
months; violating a protective order is classified as a
Class A misdemeanor.
3:20:17 PM
Representative Crawford understood that a protective order
would be applied for by the victim. Ms. Carpeneti said yes.
Representative Crawford asked if there could be a court
mandated separation time. Ms. Carpeneti explained that
generally, when a person applies for a domestic violence
protective order, the law states that the judge is not
supposed to let the perpetrator back in the home, which was
litigated and found defective. It was challenged on appeal
and found to have constitutional problems.
Representative Crawford asked how people are able to live
together again after there has been a domestic violent act
committed. Ms. Carpeneti explained that at a certain point,
there is a resolution of the case with no conditions of
bail. Sometimes the orders are disregarded.
Mr. Wooliver added that those are domestic violence
restraining orders and are different than a condition of
probation. The case referenced by Ms. Carpeneti was ruled
unconstitutional because it was open-ended. Now, a long-
term domestic violence restraining order lasts for one year,
which are civil matters, not criminal cases.
3:23:35 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked about the perpetrator being allowed
back into the home. Ms. Carpeneti advised that feature of
the law has been determined defective.
Co-Chair Meyer referenced previous discussion regarding the
retroactivity potential. Ms. Carpeneti concluded at present
time, when prior convictions are taken into consideration,
there is no formal fact finding available for domestic
violence. She did not think those findings would be
adequate in defining a new offense.
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that during previous discussion,
Representative Holmes agreed to the original prospective
intent. Co-Chair Meyer acknowledged the encompassing
Committee discussion and recommendations of Representative
Gara. He suggested that the bill be held for further
discussions between Representative Holmes, Representative
Gara and his office.
3:27:00 PM
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW Amendment 1. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
Representative Hawker addressed the larger issues relative
to the fiscal notes. He requested that representatives for
the notes be present at the next discussion.
HB 307 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
3:28:23 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:27 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|