Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/04/2023 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 | |
| SB53 | |
| SB89 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 53
"An Act relating to involuntary civil commitments."
9:07:57 AM
Co-Chair Olson read the title of the bill and asked the
sponsor to give a brief synopsis. He noted that Version O
of the bill was before the committee for consideration.
9:08:23 AM
SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, relayed that he supported the
Committee Substitute - Version O as adopted in committee
the previous day. He referenced previous discussion that
had pertained to the concept that there were two different
tracks for involuntary commitment. He noted that the bill
itself did not create anything that did not already exist
for people in short term psychiatric care and people in
long term psychiatric care. He explained that there was a
practical difference between those that were there for long
periods, and some had been held for as long as 9 years. He
referenced testimony that indicated there was no difference
in the process of whether an individual stayed or did not
stay, and there was no legal distinction. The practical
consideration had to do with beds for long term patients
and beds for short term patients.
Senator Claman continued his remarks and noted that the
bill would close the gap between individuals whose case may
be dismissed for incompetency and starting an involuntary
commitment proceeding. He wanted to clarify that the
process in court whereby an involuntary commitment
proceeding was filed (in terms of the bill) was a fairly
simple process. The court was likely to have a one- or two-
page form which would take a short time for the prosecutor
to fill out before the charges were dismissed. He thought
more detailed questions (such as who was raising competency
questions and whether an individual was found incompetent)
were not changed by the bill and were already in statute.
Co-Chair Olson commented that the longer the bill was
discussed the less likely it was to pass.
Senator Wilson asked if the committee could hear from Nancy
Meade, the General Counsel for the Alaska Court System.
Senator Wilson referenced the sponsors remarks about not
having a two-tiered system, and asked if the courts saw a
difference in short term and long-term civil commitment. He
asked about the process. He asked if the court had any
issues with the current system for civil commitments.
9:12:17 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, was not
certain by what Senator Wilson meant by "two tiers." She
clarified that with the bill, it was the case that someone
who had previously been found incompetent to stand trial
and was subsequently admitted for the beginnings of a
mental commitment, could (after the periods of commitment
in the statute) be additionally committed for a 5-year
term. The additional commitment was only available if the
individual had previously been found incompetent to stand
trial, which was different to an individual that entered
the mental commitment system without having been previously
found incompetent to stand trial.
Senator Wilson asked about a person that might be committed
for 5 years rather than a similar individual that was
committed for 180 days.
Ms. Meade affirmed that it was true that someone in the
system not as a result of being found incompetent to stand
trial in a criminal case (and entered the system another
way) could not be committed for 5 years and would have a
180-day commitment that could also be subsequent 180-day
commitments. She noted that as Dr. Becker had testified the
previous day that there were long-term committed
individuals with serial 180-day commitments. She thought
the bill did set up a different system for someone who had
been previously found incompetent to stand trial in a
criminal case; and the person would not be going through
(necessarily) a series of 180-day commitments but could be
committed once for five years. The distinction was based on
being previously found incompetent to stand trial.
Senator Wilson asked if the hearings proposed in the bill
and the normal civil commitment process time frames were
the same.
Ms. Meade answered "yes," and noted that the bill set up a
three-day evaluation, which most mental commitments started
with. During the 3-day evaluation at the Alaska Psychiatric
Institute (API), if the professional person in charge had
reason (mental illness and likely to seriously harm self or
others), the professional could file for a 30-day mental
commitment and follow with a 90-day and 180-day commitment
if warranted. The bill would create an option for
individuals whose commitment came from a criminal case in
which the person was found incompetent, there was an
additional option to be committed for five years. The five-
year commitment was not an option for individuals that did
not enter the system after a finding of incompetence.
9:15:58 AM
Senator Kiehl MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 33-LS0172\O.1
(Dunmire, 5/2/23).
Co-Chair Olson OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Kiehl spoke to Amendment 1. He thanked the sponsor
and Co-Chair Olson's office for the CS, which he thought
made some material improvements in the bill and addressed
some of his concerns. He addressed a concern that there was
potential for the government to hold an individual that had
not been convicted of a crime for up to five years. He
commented that the span of five years was longer than he
trusted the government and longer than could be justified
medically or constitutionally. He noted that the amendment
took the maximum of five years down to a maximum of two
years, which was still four times the longest that was
currently in place.
Senator Kiehl explained that the reason that the amendment
proposed two years was due to the powerful testimony
offered by a person that had been stabbed. He thought there
was a rationale for allowing a longer commitment than the
current law but considered that raising the limit by 10
times raised constitutional questions. He contended that it
was difficult to concur when medical personnel had
testified that the current system was working. He noted
that after two years the government would have to prove a
person was still dangerous. He noted that the provision
applied to any felony charge, some of which did not result
in two years of jail time. He thought a length beyond two
years brought up constitutional and freedom issues.
Co-Chair Olson questioned how to protect society from a
person with mental issues, especially in rural areas.
Senator Kiehl clarified that he was referring to people
that were already hospitalized and had been in a locked
mental health facility, wherein medical personnel had
judged the person to be dangerous. He considered that if a
person was still deemed as medically dangerous, the hold
would be renewed. He mentioned the victims perspective.
9:20:30 AM
Senator Bishop asked the bill sponsor if the change to two
years proposed in the amendment defeated the purpose of the
bill.
Senator Claman expressed that the two-year period proposed
in the amendment did not completely defeat the purpose of
the bill, but the five-year time period was what was
consistently proposed by testimony. He referenced multiple
hearings and thought that from a victim's perspective, five
years offered more assurance than two years. He noted that
the bill allowed a person committed for five years that was
shown to be safe the ability to go before the court in six
months to establish that they were no longer a danger and
be released. He reiterated his point about a five-year
commitment offering more assurance to victims. He agreed
that two years was better than six months.
Senator Bishop expressed concern that dangerous individuals
would be released to commit additional crimes.
Senator Wilson had similar concerns as Senator Kiehl. He
referenced testimony. He thought there was a difference
between different court systems including a jury versus not
having due process. He had concerns about individuals being
committed without being evaluated. He referenced testimony
from API and the Court System, and the lack of necessary
facilities. He suggested that the topic would come up when
considering the budget the following year as a result of
API needing to renovate its facility to accommodate long
term stays. He supported the amendment.
9:24:11 AM
Senator Merrick asked the sponsor if there was a way to
assure that an individual released would continue on
medication.
Senator Claman relayed that the most significant way for
API to accomplish that was to keep individuals in
involuntary commitment on an out-patient basis. He
continued that API currently engaged in the practice, and
API testimony had referenced an individual currently
engaged in out-patient supervision.
Co-Chair Olson asked Representative Claman to comment on
the amendment.
Senator Claman did not support the amendment.
Co-Chair Olson discussed individuals that could not be
rehabilitated. He questioned how to stop the backup so that
there was no capacity in the dedicated beds.
Senator Claman identified that a key provision of the bill
was the ability for the courts to release people that were
being evaluated for competency in secured release on bail.
Instead of all individuals in custody through restoration,
the bill provided for more ability for custody to take
place not in the in-patient setting. There was testimony
that indicated there were efforts already to increase the
amounts of outpatient evaluation and restoration efforts,
which would relieve backup.
Co-Chair Olson WITHDREW his objection.
Senator Merrick OBJECTED to Amendment 1.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kiehl, Wilson, Hoffman, Olson
OPPOSED: Bishop, Merrick
The MOTION PASSED (4/2). Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Senator Wilson MOVED to WITHDRAW Conceptual Amendment 2,
33-LS0172\P.6 (Dunmire, 5/3/23). There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
9:27:19 AM
AT EASE
9:28:02 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 33-LS0172\O.2
(Dunmire, 5/3/23).
Co-Chair Olson OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Bishop explained that the previous day the
committee had heard testimony from the Department of Law
and the amendment provided for allowing a victim to attend
the hearing of an individual that had committed the crime.
Senator Kiehl asked if the amendment allowed for the victim
to have access to information beyond what was discussed in
court.
9:29:16 AM
AT EASE
9:29:19 AM
REONVENED
Senator Wilson relayed that he had discussed the topic of
the amendment with the Court System and the Department of
Family and Community Services. He thought that if Amendment
3 were to pass, a victim in a case could attend but court
proceedings would change to exclude certain information. He
cited that there could be a chance that a victim could
inadvertently be present during a breach of information and
should be aware of confidential medical information. He
supported the amendment with caution. He thought a victim
should have the right to attend a trial but had concerns
about the respondent's right to privacy.
Senator Kiehl asked to hear from the sponsor.
Co-Chair Olson asked the sponsor to comment.
Senator Claman relayed that he supported Amendment 3. He
thought a victim should be able to attend the hearing and
affirmed that it would be made apparent that it was a
closed hearing with confidential information that should
not be disclosed.
Senator Wilson wanted to ensure that people understood that
there was nothing in the bill that made the hearing
confidential.
Co-Chair Olson asked the sponsor to comment.
Senator Claman deferred to the Department of Law.
9:32:11 AM
STACIE KRALY, DIRECTOR, CIVIL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
affirmed that a civil commitment hearing was confidential
under state law. She agreed with Senator Claman that if
individuals attended the hearing, they should be cautioned
and instructed about the confidential nature of the hearing
and maintain the confidentiality after the hearings.
Senator Wilson asked if the information should be put in
the bill. He shared concerns that confidential information
could be shared after a hearing.
Ms. Kraly thought a provision could be added to make it
clear that the hearings were confidential. She believed
that confidentiality was already part of the process. She
noted that when the Civil Division processed commitment
hearings, confidentiality was understood. She did not know
if an additional provision was necessary since the hearing
in and of itself and the entire statutory scheme was
rendered confidential. She assumed that if there was a
third party attending, the court would explain the
confidential nature of the proceedings.
Senator Bishop asked for Ms. Meade to comment.
Ms. Meade agreed with Ms. Kraly that hearings were
generally confidential. She thought that the victim's
attendance was one exception and trusted that a judge would
convey to those present that confidentiality must be
maintained. She believed the caution from the judge would
be routinely given.
Senator Claman conveyed that the structure of closed
hearings was that the judges assistant closed and locked
the doors, and a victim would be aware that it was a closed
proceeding.
Co-Chair Olson asked for Senator Clamans stance on the
amendment.
Senator Claman supported the amendment without change.
Co-Chair Olson WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 3 was
ADOPTED.
9:35:34 AM
Senator Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, 33-LS0172\O.4
(Dunmire, 5/3/23).
Co-Chair Olson OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wilson spoke to Amendment 4. He considered that the
committee had heard from the Department of Law, the Court
System, and the sponsor that there was currently a problem
in the system. He thought everyone agreed that after
someone was found incompetent, no one filed for a
continuation of an evaluation. The amendment left in place
to allow for the prosecuting attorney to mandate a filing
and included the previous amendment. He thought the
committee had heard from API that it would need funding in
the future to address capacity. He contended that the
amendment tried to keep a one tier system. The amendment
would return the commitment process to a 180-day cycle.
Co-Chair Olson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
9:37:27 AM
Senator Kiehl OBJECTED.
Senator Kiehl MAINTAINED his objection.
Senator Claman did not support the amendment, which he
thought changed a key part of the legislation. He furthered
that part of the bill required the prosecution to file the
petition for involuntary commitment, but had the person
held for 3 days and started the 30-day commitment process.
He summarized that the proposed amendment would continue
the gap that currently existed in the system.
Senator Claman continued to speak to his objection. He
conveyed that part of the bill had specific provisions that
allowed for people to be bailed out if the court believed
the person could be out on bail while doing an evaluation
for competency and also restoration. He thought the
amendment would take out provisions that were intended to
relieve some of the pressure on the system for those being
evaluated for competency.
Senator Kiehl spoke to his objection. He expanded on the
bill sponsor's comments regarding the potential for out-
patient restoration of competency. He thought the
possibility of out-patient restoration had potential and
mentioned advances in medication. He mentioned improvement
in the backlog of individuals waiting in jail for
evaluation.
Senator Wilson MOVED to WITHDREW Amendment 4. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Senator Kiehl MOVED to report CSSB 53(FIN) as amended out
of Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Senator Wilson OBJECTED for discussion. He felt the bill
was a good piece of legislation that would fix an
established problem but considered that the bill would
cause a myriad of legal challenges within the disability
community. He thought there would be imbalances in how
systems were handled.
Senator Wilson WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 53 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with three "do
pass" recommendations and with one no recommendation
recommendation and with two amend recommendations, and
with one new zero fiscal note from the Department of Family
and Community Services, one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Law, one new zero fiscal note from the
Judiciary, and two previously published fiscal impact
notes: FN3 (ADM), FN 5 (ADM).
9:41:06 AM
AT EASE
9:43:39 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 133 FUND CAP 050223.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 133 |
| SB 133 FUND XFER 050223.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 133 |
| SB133 Sectional Analysis 04.24.23.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 133 |
| SB133 Transmittal Letter 04.20.23.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 133 |
| SB 53 Amendment 4 Wilson.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB133 Presentation to S.FIN 05.04.23.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 133 |
| SB 89 Support McDonald.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 89 |
| SB 133 Opioids Testimony - AML.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 133 |
| SB 133 Testimony Dunne.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 133 |
| SB 89 Public Testimony Boelter.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 89 |
| SB 89 AK_Testimony_Oppose_SB89_Vape Tax_Senate Finance PDF.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 89 |