Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/03/2023 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 | |
| Presentation: Alaska Gasline Development Corporation | |
| SB53 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 53
"An Act relating to involuntary civil commitments."
10:21:22 AM
Co-Chair Olson relayed that the committee had first heard
SB 53 on April 19, 2023, and had taken public testimony at
the time. The committee had worked with the bill sponsor
and the affected agencies and had reached an agreement on
sections of the bill, especially to reduce the fiscal
notes. The committee would consider a Committee Substitute
(CS).
Senator Kiehl MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee substitute
for SB 53, Work Draft 33-LS0172\O (Dunmire, 5/2/23).
Co-Chair Olson OBJECTED for discussion.
10:22:13 AM
KEN ALPER, STAFF, SENATOR DONNY OLSON, explained that the
sponsor had worked with agencies on the CS. He discussed a
Summary of Changes document (copy on file):
1) Section 4 from version P is deleted in its
entirety. This section extended the competency
restoration period for a person found incompetent to
stand trail from one year to two years.
This change was to prevent extending the restoration
waitlist at Alaska Psychiatric Institute and will
reduce the fiscal note from the Department of Family
and Community Services.
Mr. Alper explained that removing the change was important
because it would have created more of a backlog at the
Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API), which he thought had
constituted a large portion of a fiscal note. He noted that
there were four fiscal notes for the bill that had added up
to a little less than $2.4 million. The largest note had
been from API at $1.2 million, and it was hoped that the
change would reduce or eliminate the note. He continued to
address the document:
2) Section 5 in version O, which was section 6 in
version P, is amended to add the words "before the
charges are dismissed."
This is to ensure that all individuals who meet the
bill's standard of dangerousness are seamlessly
transitioned to involuntary civil commitment
proceedings.
3) Section 7 in version O, which was Section 8 in
version P, is amended to clarify that victims of
dismissed criminal charges who receive notice under
this section are not entitled to attend the civil
commitment hearings if the respondent has elected to
have the hearing closed.
4) Adds a new Section 8, which was previously
subsection 6(e). Separating and clarifying this
language, which describes the procedure for providing
civil commitment records to the original criminal
prosecutor, was at the request of the Civil Division
of the Department of Law.
5) Adds a new subsection (b)(5) to Section 9, to
ensure that a longer period of commitment is necessary
to protect the public. This was added by request from
the Disability Law Center.
6) Rewrites Section 11 to clarify the procedures for
discharge from involuntary commitment. The
professional person in charge may discharge the
respondent after a court order terminating the
commitment, and after the prosecutor receives notice.
Also, the respondent may petition the court for early
discharge with evidence demonstrating that they are no
longer likely to cause serious harm. An early
discharge petition may only be filed once every 180
days, a change from once per year in the previous
version.
7) Adds a conforming new Section 13 to establish that
records releases to the Criminal Division, described
in Section 8 of the bill, are confidential.
10:26:42 AM
SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, relayed that he was
supportive of all the changes presented in the CS, which he
had discussed with the co-chairs office and other
stakeholders.
Co-Chair Olson WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered. The CS for SB 53 was ADOPTED.
10:27:32 AM
DR. KRISTY BECKER, CHIEF CLINICAL OFFICER, ALASKA
PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
SERVICES, relayed that she was available to answer
questions about API and specifically about competency
restoration. She reminded that API was an 80-bed facility,
and there were 60 beds available for adult civil
commitments, as well as 10 available beds for competency
restoration. She shared that at present, API was piloting
two projects. Fiscal notes would include an outpatient
competency restoration program that would be designed for
approximately 10 defendants that were low-level
misdemeanants without crimes against people.
Ms. Becker explained that the hospital was also attempting
to open a jail-based restoration program in partnership
with the Department of Corrections (DOC), which would
likely start with 10 defendants before growing in the
future. For the program, clinicians would go into DOC and
provide restoration services to individuals that were
incarcerated and awaiting a bed in API. The individuals
would receive treatment as usual from DOC in terms of
mental health and medical needs.
Dr. Becker explained that API was hoping that the two
projects would reduce some of the pressure. She cited that
the waitlist for competency restoration was 40, and the
waitlist for admissions to the civil side of the hospital
was 14 with 2 in the community for a total of 16. She
encouraged members to consider the pressure that API was
facing as it had grown out of regulatory difficulties it
had experienced in 2018 and 2019. She noted that the
hospital was almost at full capacity. She thought there was
potential that some things in the bill could put pressure
on capacity but noted that the removal of the two-year
commitment period was significant in terms of zeroing the
fiscal notes and benefitting API.
10:30:20 AM
Senator Wilson asked if Dr. Becker felt that the current
version of the legislation would continue to lengthen the
time of people at API, thus creating the need for more beds
in outgoing years.
Dr. Becker relayed that the five-year commitment period did
have the potential (in a few cases) to lengthen the period
of stay for individuals by a lot. She relayed that there
were between 9 and 10 individuals that she referred to as
not competent, not restorable, and not safe to return to
the community. The individuals were currently committed on
rotating 180-day commitments. The longest-standing
individual to fit the criteria had been in the facility for
9 years. She affirmed that individuals that fit the
criteria were already committed for fairly lengthy periods
of time if needed.
Senator Wilson referenced the continual 180-day
opportunities to be re-committed. He asked if the practice
was improved by the legislation or if the process worked.
Dr. Becker relayed that at present she believed, along with
API's attorney, that the process worked. If individuals
became stabilized and could be released by the facility, it
was possible to do so. She had an appreciation for the
ongoing oversight and the process of checking in on the
cases while continuing to evaluate the need for ongoing
commitment. She thought the bill, with the five-year
period, would reduce some procedural issues because of the
lack of need for recurring legal processes, but she saw
value in the recurring oversight.
Senator Wilson commented that there had not been a clinical
perspective offered earlier. He apologized for the
oversight. He thought the CS would create a two-tier system
by which people could enter into a 6-month or 5-year
involuntary commitment. He wondered if Dr. Becker found any
inequity in the structure.
10:33:55 AM
Dr. Becker relayed that API initially committed individuals
for 72 hours without any criminal offense, after which a
determination was made if the commitment should be longer.
She acknowledged that there would be a two-tier system. She
relayed that clinically speaking, API would follow the law
however it was written. She qualified that committing
people for five-year or 180-day periods did create a
clinical complexity for the hospital because there was not
great programming for long-term stays. She mentioned long-
term effects of people committed to the hospital without a
two-tiered clinical program. She relayed that the hospital
was working on such a program and would continue to do so
in preparation for any individuals committed for a five-
year period.
Co-Chair Olson asked if Dr. Becker needed legislative
oversight to move to a two-tiered system, or if the
hospital could do it on its own.
Dr. Becker thought that API could eventually move to a two-
tier system on its own. She cited the difficulty of housing
at the physical plant, where short-term and long-term
commitments were residing in the same unit. She mentioned
regulatory guidelines, which were not consistent with long-
term stays. She pondered that the pertinent question was
how to marry the regulatory guidelines with the longer-term
stay patients.
Senator Wilson shared a fear that the bill as changed would
change the fiscal note as stated, considering the
complexities listed by Dr. Becker. He thought a person that
was under a five-year civil commitment would have less
rights than a person serving five years in a DOC facility.
He pondered potential civil lawsuits by having a two-tier
system. He shared concerns about lack of due process.
10:38:28 AM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, relayed that he would highlight three
items in the proposed CS. He cited that the bill created an
obligation for prosecutors to file the initial petition for
a civil evaluation for an individual that had been charged
with a certain crime and found incompetent. He highlighted
that the new version of the bill expressly stated that the
petition must be filed and ruled on before charges were
dismissed. The determination of incompetence was a legal
determination by the court supported by the evaluation of
professionals. He continued that whether or not the courts
would ultimately say that a person was incompetent was not
known until the ruling.
Mr. Skidmore thought he would be remiss not to point out
that the vast majority (or 95 percent) of cases, the courts
would agree with API's assessment of incompetence. He
thought the remaining 5 percent highlighted the point that
it was incumbent upon prosecutors to anticipate, when
someone may be found incompetent, to file the petitions in
advance and have rulings on them. He highlighted the
responsibility that would fall on those in the criminal
division. He thought the requirement for the prosecutors to
engage in the conduct prior to the dismissal supported the
concept in the fiscal note.
10:42:00 AM
Co-Chair Olson asked how many of the five percent of cases
would be a detriment to society.
Mr. Skidmore clarified that the five percent of cases was
in reference to people that had received an evaluation from
API that had deemed them incompetent, and despite the
opinion the court had found the person competent and
continued with prosecution.
Co-Chair Olson asked if there was a difference between the
medical evaluation and the courts evaluation.
Mr. Skidmore answered yes.
Co-Chair Olson asked if Mr. Skidmore was saying there was
no detriment to society if the two competency findings were
different.
Mr. Skidmore did not believe there was a detriment to
society because in the instances in which a doctor had
found a person incompetent and the court did not concur,
the criminal conduct for which the person was charged was
being addressed by prosecution. He reminded that the bill
was contemplating whether or not the 90 to 95 percent of
people which the court found incompetent were automatically
released or whether there was a petition for them to be
evaluated should they be committed civilly.
10:43:45 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wanted to hear whether Mr. Skidmore
supported the CS or recommended changes.
Mr. Skidmore addressed a third provision of the proposed CS
pertaining to required victim notifications. He explained
that in the instances of a victim injured by a person, the
person that was harmed did not currently have any rights or
authority to know what happened to the perpetrator if the
criminal case was dismissed. The bill required provision of
notice to the victim as to the date and time of the
hearing, the outcome of the hearing, and whether or not the
person was committed or discharged. The bill did not
provide the ability to attend the hearings nor the ability
to find out more information about the perpetrator.
Mr. Skidmore felt that for a victim to have the ability to
attend the hearings of a perpetrator was a policy call for
the legislature. He explained that the CS it was made clear
that the bill was not meant to give the victim the right to
attend the hearing unless the person that caused the harm
agreed.
Mr. Skidmore relayed that the administration had not taken
an overall position on the bill nor the CS. He explained
that trying to close the gap between individuals having a
criminal case dismissed for incompetency and trying to
initiate a civil commitment was a concept supported by the
administration.
10:47:44 AM
Co-Chair Stedman pondered that the committee might hear
from the sponsor as to why the bill did not give more
rights to victims and victims families.
Co-Chair Olson referenced people in bush Alaska, many of
whom did not have public safety readily available. He
referenced incidents in Golovin in which people were
wounded. He asked what to tell the residents of his
district in terms of whether the bill would make people
safer.
Mr. Skidmore restated that he believed SB 53 took steps to
close the gap between criminal incompetence and civil
commitment. He thought it was an open question as to
whether all the gaps were filled.
Senator Bishop asked for Co-Chair Olson's intention with
regard to bill action.
Co-Chair Olson relayed that the committee would also
address the bill in the afternoon.
10:50:17 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, shared
that the Court System did not have a view on the bill. She
agreed with the criminal division that the bill made the
effort to address the gap that occurred when a criminal
defendant was found incompetent to stand trial and the case
was dismissed if the defendant was unable to be restored to
competency. She thought the bill would segue the defendant
directly into getting an evaluation for a mental commitment
to determine if the person should be held for an evaluation
and further mental commitments. She understood what the
sponsor was trying to accomplish in the bill by addressing
the gap. She considered that there were provisions, as Mr.
Skidmore had mentioned, about whether the victim in a
criminal case should have a right to attend the hearing
when the mental issues were being discussed. She noted that
there was a current statute that indicated a respondent
could choose whether to have a hearing open or closed. She
thought the matter needed to be clarified in the bill.
Co-Chair Olson thought SB 53 was significant and that it
was important to take whatever time was necessary to
discuss the bill.
10:53:06 AM
Ms. Meade discussed a provision in Section 4 and Section 5
that provided for moving a case (with a person accused of a
crime and thereafter found incompetent) that was about to
be dismissed into the mental commitment arena, and thought
it would be helpful and would fill a gap. She thought the
provision would probably be helpful to Alaskans. She
thought there were a few provisions that would take some
work on the part of the Court System. She estimated that
API would have about 100 more individuals to evaluate with
3-day short-term evaluations in order to see if they needed
to be held for a full mental commitment. She referenced Dr.
Beckers testimony about limited numbers of beds and
thought there could be logistical issues. She did not think
evaluation would create a significant issue but would
increase case load.
Ms. Meade thought the five-year commitment would take up
more beds at API, which judges would be aware of. She did
not anticipate very many people receiving a five-year
commitment and did not think it would be a significant pull
on the courts resources.
Co-Chair Olson relayed that the committee would consider
amendments to the bill at the afternoon meeting.
SB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Olson discussed the agenda for the afternoon
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 53 FCS IMH API 041723.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 LAW CJL 041423.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Sponsor Statement version P.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Sectional Analysis version P.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Research - KTUU Article 2.15.2022.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/21/2023 3:30:00 PM SJUD 3/10/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/29/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Supporting Document - Frequently Asked Questions 3.10.2023.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM SJUD 3/10/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/29/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Research - NCSL Involuntary Commitment Timeline Maximums 3.13.2023.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM SJUD 3/29/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Research - NCSL Competency to Stand Trial General Overview 11.1.2022.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM SJUD 3/29/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Research - CSG Competency Report 10.1.2020.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM SJUD 3/29/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Research - Forensic Psychiatric Hospital Feasibility Study Draft Phase 1 Report 2.1.2019.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM SJUD 3/29/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Summary of Changes 4.12.2023.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Testimony Received 4.12.2023.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| Sb 53 Support Dolphin.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Testimony Dahl.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Support Schenker.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Public Testimony Wick.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Testimony Thompson.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Testimony Myers.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Amendment 1 Kiehl.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Summary of Changes version O.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 work draft version O.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Conceptual Amendment 2 Wilson.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 050323 AGDC response to S FIN questions from May 3 meeting.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 050323 ESG report on Aalska LNG project 2023.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |