Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
11/02/2017 10:00 AM House 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 | |
| SB54 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 54(FIN)
"An Act relating to crime and criminal law; relating
to violation of condition of release; relating to sex
trafficking; relating to sentencing; relating to
imprisonment; relating to parole; relating to
probation; relating to driving without a license;
relating to the pretrial services program; and
providing for an effective date."
10:06:47 AM
^AMENDMENTS
10:07:00 AM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-LS0461\T.17
(Martin, 10/31/17) (copy on file):
Page 2, lines 10 - 11:
Delete "[, ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION AS PROVIDED IN
AS 11.46.982,]" Insert", adjusted for inflation
as provided in AS 11.46.982,"
Page 2, lines 23 - 24:
Delete "[, ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION AS PROVIDED IN
AS 11.46.982,]" Insert", adjusted for inflation
as provided in AS J 1.46.982,"
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment with a prepared
statement:
This is a technical amendment to fix a drafting error
that occurred as a result of the House Judiciary
conceptual amendment. In Judiciary the leading
inflation adjustment of monetary amounts from the
statute was originally part of Amendment 37, but a
conceptual amendment removed that part of the
amendment, leaving inflation adjustment in the statute
unchanged. Legislative Legal conformed this with the
conceptual amendment in all but one section. Amendment
1 would conform with the intent of the Judiciary
conceptual amendment and would leave inflation
adjustment in all sections unchanged in the current
statute.
Co-Chair Foster remarked that the amendment was technical.
10:08:12 AM
Representative Pruitt noted that the amendment pertained to
Class C felonies and Class A misdemeanors. He asked if it
was related to all theft. He wondered if there was
inflation adjustment in other areas.
Co-Chair Seaton replied that inflation adjustment had been
added back in to all sections in the conceptual amendment,
with the exception of the references in the amendment. The
sections had been inadvertently missed.
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being
NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
10:09:50 AM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 30-LS0461\T.27
(Martin, 10/31/17) (copy on file):
Page 2, line 3:
Delete "two"
Insert "three"
Page 2, line 29:
Delete "two"
Insert "three"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment with a prepared
statement:
This amendment addresses the ambiguity around the
sentencing for theft in the fourth degree as pointed
out in the October 27th memo that all members received
from Legislative Legal. As a result of the amendment
N.23 in Judiciary, SB 54 now contains two different
sentencing structures for the same crime and that
crime is third offense of theft in the fourth degree;
theft under $250 value, a B misdemeanor. The concern
is that the first sentence is for the third offense
and that is under Section 19 of the bill, which states
that the third offense of theft in the fourth degree
is up to 10 days of active imprisonment, which is an
increase from the 5 days on the second offense, but it
is still considered a B misdemeanor. The second way in
which a sentence could be carried out is under
Sections 1 and 2 of the bill, which says that a person
that commits a crime in theft in the third degree,
which is an A misdemeanor, would be 0 to 30 days. If
that is their third offense or more - under $250,
which is normally theft in the fourth degree. Having
two sentences for the same crime creates ambiguity and
would lead to an equal production claim.
This amendment changes the point at which the step up
in theft from fourth degree (B misdemeanor) to theft
in the third degree (A misdemeanor) is from the third
offense having two priors to now having the fourth
offense, having three priors. This would leave in
place the third offense is only charged at one spot -
up to 10 days in jail as a Class B misdemeanor, but it
keeps the spirit of the House Judiciary amendment
because the sentence increases with each offense and
still converts to a higher crime of Class A
misdemeanor, it's just after the fourth offense.
Representative Wilson asked if the conceptual amendment was
needed prior to withdrawing her objection.
10:13:13 AM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2. The amendment would delete the words "or more"
following the word "two" on page 12, line 23.
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion. He wanted to
understand the impact. He asked if the intent was that
after a third offense, the crime would be considered a
misdemeanor A. He asked if the conceptual amendment was
necessary or duplicative.
Co-Chair Seaton replied that it was necessary in order to
know where the second, third, and fourth offenses occurred.
He furthered that if the statute merely referenced "two or
more" the interpretation was that an offense could be a
Class B misdemeanor instead of elevating to a Class A
misdemeanor after a fourth offense.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2
was ADOPTED.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION to Amendment 2
as amended. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 2
was ADOPTED as amended.
10:15:52 AM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 30-LS0461\T.30
(Bruce/Martin, 11/1/17):
Page 8, lines 3 - 7:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) a class C felony
(A) under AS 11.41, AS 11.56.730, AS 28.35.030,
or 28.35.032;
(B) that is a sex offense; in this subparagraph,
"sex offense" has the meaning given in AS
12.63.100; or
(C) that is a crime involving domestic violence;
in this subparagraph, "crime involving domestic
violence" has the meaning given in AS 18.66.990;"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment with a prepared
statement:
This amendment makes an adjustment to a change made in
Judiciary Committee creating a list of specific C
felonies that can be held for up to 48 hours before
pretrial release, even if that individual had been
assessed at a low-risk using the assessment tool if
the prosecution requests more time. Under current
statute, this 48-hour prosecutorial hold provision
applies to all felonies except C felonies if the
individual is assessed as a low-risk. In Judiciary
they created a list of specific C felonies which were
exceptions to that rule, meaning that they could now
be held for additional time even if they were low-
risk. However, the Judiciary list did not include all
crimes against persons and it did include some
nonviolent crimes such as witness tampering. Amendment
3 modifies the list of C felonies that could be held
for additional time to cover all crimes against a
person, all sex offenses and domestic violence crimes,
failure to appear, and DWIs. This ensures a broader
range of crimes against a person are covered. It also
aligns this section with other C felony exemptions or
carve outs that exist in the pretrial section of the
law, which will reduce possible confusion and
contradictions for the courts or the attorneys.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that the amendment would align C
felonies that were not eligible for automatic release under
their own recognizance. The pretrial list and the list for
longer hold, would be the same.
10:18:40 AM
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
10:19:08 AM
Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW Amendment 4, 30-LS0461\T.18
(Bruce/Martin, 10/31/17) (copy on file).
10:19:29 AM
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5, 30-LS0461\T.10
(Martin, 10/28/17):
Page 10, line 24, following "(B)":
Insert "AS 11.41.438, zero to 18 months; (C)"
Page 10, line 26:
Delete "(C)"
Insert "(D) [(C)]"
Page 10, line 28:
Delete "(D)"
Insert "(E) [(D)]"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara explained that he would need to offer a
conceptual amendment to Amendment 5. The goal was to
increase the maximum sentence for sexual abuse of a minor
in the third degree for a first-time felon. He had been
informed that the section the amendment pertained to may be
deleted. He did not want to adopt the amendment to later
have the entire section deleted.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1 to
allow Legislative Legal Services to ensure Amendment 5
would not be deleted in a different part of the bill.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She asked to hear from
Legislative Legal Services.
10:21:07 AM
AT EASE
10:21:48 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW conceptual Amendment 1. He
explained there would be a statement at the end of the
amendment process giving Legislative Legal Services the
authority to write conforming language in case any language
offered during the amendment process was mistaken. He
flagged that there was some concern that subsection (C) may
be deleted in another part of the bill. He wanted to ensure
that if Amendment 5 was adopted that it would remain in the
bill.
Vice-Chair Gara explained that Amendment 5 would increase
the jail sentence for a first-time felon who commit sexual
abuse of a minor in the third degree; it was a Class C
felony. As written in the current bill, the jail sentence
would be 0 to 1 year, which was the same sentence for a
misdemeanor lower level crime of sexual abuse of a minor in
the fourth degree. He furthered that the sentence for a
Class B felony for sexual abuse of a minor was 0 to 2
years. He surmised that there should not be a felony
sentence that was the same as the misdemeanor sentence. He
wanted to give the court a broader range of sentences. He
explained there was a broad range of conduct that fell
under sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree. He
explained details about what constituted sexual abuse of a
minor. There was a minimum four-year age difference between
the two people - it could involve an 18-year-old and a 14-
year-old or a 40-year-old and a 14-year-old; it was the
same crime. The amendment would change the sentencing range
to 0 to 18 months to give the judge more discretion. He
thought the offense between an 18-year-old and a 14-year-
old was a lesser crime than a 40-year-old doing the same
thing to a 14-year-old. The crime would apply whether
individuals were clothed or not; the more extreme versions
of the crime should be a longer sentence. It would give the
judge the ability to impose sentencing up to 18 months. He
stated that if any of the aggravators applied (e.g.
committing physical violence or use of a weapon) the
sentencing could be up to five years.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Andy Josephson in
the audience.
10:25:11 AM
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6, 30-
LS0461\T.34 (Martin, 11/1/17):
Page 12, line 31:
Delete "or"
Page 12, following line 31:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(3) a sentence of more than five days of
active imprisonment and a term of probation of
more than six months if the person has
(A) not been previously convicted of an
offense under AS 11.46.110 - 11.46.220,
11.46.260 - 11.46.290, 11.46.360. or
11.46.365. or a law or ordinance of this or
another jurisdiction with substantially
similar elements; and
(B) been previously convicted of an offense
under AS 11.71.010 - 11.71.060. or a law or
ordinance of this or another jurisdiction
with substantially similar elements; or"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
Representative Grenn OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt explained the amendment. He addressed
the increase in nonviolent theft that had been attributed
to the current opioid crisis. He spoke to the importance of
getting the individuals into treatment. He noted the
committee had earlier fixed a few aspects of thresholds on
theft. He stressed that the amendment only pertained to
prior theft offenses, not any other crime. The amendment
pertained to first-time theft with prior drug convictions.
Instead of the first theft starting off as a violation or
five days suspended; the individual would be started off at
a second instance of theft with five days of active
imprisonment. The amendment would give the individuals five
days in jail and would enter the individual into the system
to consider treatment.
10:27:47 AM
Co-Chair Seaton wondered if the amendment corresponded with
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's mandate to stop
recidivism. He believed data showed that if a person with a
first-time theft offense was put in jail for five days with
hardened criminals, it would not reduce recidivism. He
thought it would encourage more bad behavior. He was trying
to determine how relating a theft offense to a previous
drug offense would reduce recidivism.
Representative Pruitt answered that if the person had a
prior drug offense and then committed theft it was
indicative that the first conviction did not work. He
believed that most likely an individual would be farther
along in the process of their addiction. He had learned
from conversations with police officers that when a person
started committing theft, they had most likely lost their
job and suffered from bad addiction. He detailed that it
cost up to $100,000 per year to pay for some addictions. He
argued that there was a problem with the correctional
system if people put in prison became worse. He believed
there was a need to get the individuals back into the
system to address their issues if they had previously been
arrested for a drug offense. The goal was a balance. He
continued that the public was demanding the legislature
repeal SB 91. He was trying to balance between the repeal
discussion and addressing the valid concerns of the public,
while taking the opioid crisis into consideration. He did
not want to fully roll back the commission's work and items
previously passed under SB 91.
10:31:38 AM
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Matt Claman in
the audience.
Vice-Chair Gara observed that before marijuana had been
legalized in Alaska, possession of marijuana constituted a
drug offense. He noted that the amendment pertained to
Class B misdemeanors - theft of less than $250, which was
mostly shoplifting. He asked if the amendment included
prior marijuana use convictions.
Representative Pruitt noted that Vice-Chair Gara was
speaking about individuals who had been convicted prior to
the passage of the new marijuana law. He would have to take
a moment to consider the answer.
Vice-Chair Gara opposed the amendment. He stated there was
currently a problem with repeat theft; someone could get
convicted for shoplifting repeatedly with no jail time. He
believed most to all legislators believed it was a problem.
He did not want to allow repeat petty thefts of less than
$250, which was addressed by SB 54. He explained that the
bill reinstated the prospect of jail time for repeat
shoplifters. He furthered that the bill imposed active jail
time of 0 to 30 days for individuals arrested for stealing
something worth more than $250. The issue of repeat thefts
was already addressed in the bill. He continued that the
amendment specified that a first-time shoplifting offense
was punishable with jail time. He underscored that the
state did not want repeat thefts, which had been a problem
and was addressed by the bill. He did not believe throwing
individuals in jail for a first-time shoplifting offense
was prudent. He reiterated that repeat offenders should
have jail time, which was already addressed by the
legislation.
10:34:22 AM
Representative Ortiz spoke to Representative Pruitt's
explanation that the amendment's purpose was to get
individuals with a prior drug conviction [who were then
arrested for theft] into the system. He asked if the
amendment sponsor meant the individuals would have better
access to treatment. He asked if the belief was that a
person with a prior drug conviction did not have access to
treatment.
Representative Pruitt replied that the first offense was a
violation and a person received a ticket. He explained that
if the first offense was a catch and release scenario and
the person had a [prior] drug offense, the prosecutors did
not have a tool to encourage someone to get help. He stated
that the amendment would allow up to five days of
imprisonment. A court could also rule that a person was
mandated to get treatment with no jail time. He reasoned
that the option was not available if individuals were
merely ticketed and released for a first offense. The
amendment would start at sentencing at the level of a
second offense. He underscored that the amendment pertained
to individuals who had been convicted in the past. He added
that not everyone with drug issues had been convicted of a
drug crime. The amendment pertained to individuals who had
been through the system in some capacity with a conviction
(but not a prior theft conviction). He wanted to give
prosecutors a tool instead of the catch and release issue.
He stated that prosecutors had not been given the
opportunity to offer individuals with the needed help
because they did not have the tool in their toolbelts.
Representative Wilson asked to hear from the Department of
Law (DOL). She was reading the amendment differently than
it was being explained. She thought the amendment would
require five days of jail time.
Representative Pruitt explained the misunderstanding. He
referred to the bill [version T, Section 19, page 12, line
20] and explained that subsection (l) already included the
language that a court "may not impose." The amendment
language would follow the current bill language to read
"may not impose a sentence of more than five days..." He
clarified that five days was the maximum.
Representative Wilson stated that the amendment did not
specify former crimes pertaining to drugs. She remarked
that it referred to individuals who had been shoplifting
and she thought it could be for any purpose. She wanted to
make sure that the committee's interpretation was the same
as the department's. She stated that shoplifting was a
serious problem in her district. She did not care what the
reason was that a person was shoplifting - whether they
were on drugs or not - she wanted to make sure the
amendment would be a useful tool for DOL.
Representative Pruitt responded that subsection (B) of the
amendment listed statutes pertaining to prior drug
convictions. Subsection (B) clarified that it affected
individuals who had been previously convicted of an offense
under specific statutes.
Representative Wilson restated her desire to hear from the
department. She thought perhaps limiting the amendment to
prior crimes pertaining to drugs was not enough. She
explained that people were repeating offenses and
violations were not stopping this from occurring. She
wanted to ensure the committee had the same understanding
as the department.
10:40:47 AM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, replied that Amendment 6 would create additional
judicial discretion when an individual had previously been
convicted of a drug offense (not a theft offense). He could
not say when a person committed theft that it was or was
not related to a prior drug offense. He understood the
logic used by the amendment sponsor - he found the concept
intriguing, but it was not a concept that the Criminal
Division had contemplated. The department's position was
that the type of issue was best referred to the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission for evaluation in order for
various stakeholders to analyze whether the structure made
sense. The amendment specified that a court may have
greater discretion in the sentence they imposed (0 to 5
days) if an individual had previously been convicted as a
drug offense. He did not know whether it was a good or bad
thing; therefore, he recommended the commission should have
an opportunity to evaluate the concept.
10:42:52 AM
Representative Grenn asked for verification that SB 54
would roll back some of the sentencing changes made by SB
91.
Mr. Skidmore replied in the affirmative.
Representative Grenn surmised the amendment took an
additional step.
Mr. Skidmore agreed.
Vice-Chair Gara provided a scenario of a person stealing
something under $250 from Fred Meyer's. He explained that
the crime did not involve hurting someone or breaking into
a house. He asked if a person was high on drugs at the time
of the theft whether it was a separate crime.
Mr. Skidmore replied it was not a separate crime. In
Alaska, possession meant possessing a drug outside of a
person's body, not in their bloodstream. He stated that if
an individual had it on their person and in their system,
it may be further evidence of possession. A person could
not be charged with possession merely for being under the
influence.
Vice-Chair Gara surmised that if a person had been given a
sentence pertaining to using drugs in the past (but not
dealing) the sentence had probably involved probation and
rehabilitation. He stated the amendment would punish the
individuals again for something they had already been
punished for. He would be more sympathetic to the amendment
if it pertained to individuals previously convicted of drug
dealing, which did not rehab well.
10:45:20 AM
Co-Chair Seaton had concern about the amendment. He stated
that the goal was to establish proportional sentencing,
which the amendment did not adhere to. He referenced
testimony that the average shoplifting crime was $50 or
less. He observed that the amendment meant that if an
individual had previously been convicted of a drug offense
in any jurisdiction it would apply. He was concerned that a
person may lose their job if they were sent to jail for
five days. He opposed the amendment. He wanted to ensure
the bill did not veer from proportional sentencing. He
explained that theft under $250 sentencing was 0 to 5 days
suspended for a first offense and 0 to 5 days active jail
time for a second offense.
Representative Pruitt replied that sometimes people looked
at the numbers as hard numbers that were guaranteed. He
stated that interpreting that the amendment would mean a
person would be sentenced to 5 days was incorrect. He
stated that interpretation meant a person would also
inappropriately read the other existing statutes. The
amendment would give a judge the right to sentence a person
with up to 5 days in jail. He stated that a prosecutor
would not be able to argue the particular case without
bringing up a person's prior drug offense. The prosecutor
would have to explain how the drug offense related to the
theft. The amendment's goal was to allow a judge to
sentence a person up to 5 days; they did not have to give 5
days of active imprisonment. He thought it was important to
recognize that the penalty was the maximum, not a
guarantee.
Vice-Chair Gara asked if the committee would wait to hear
if the amendment would apply to someone who had been
previously convicted of [possession of] marijuana.
10:50:24 AM
Vice-Chair Gara explained his question. He detailed that
prior to the legalization of marijuana it had been a crime
to use and possess a certain amount of the drug. He
wondered if the amendment would apply to someone who had
been previously convicted of possession of marijuana prior
to its legalization.
Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative. He directed
attention to line 13 of the amendment that included drug
statutes AS 11.71.010 through AS 11.71.060. He furthered
that AS 11.71.060 was misconduct involving controlled a
substance in the sixth degree, which was the possession of
marijuana.
Representative Guttenberg remarked that the punitive nature
of what had been done over the years had not been as
effective as thought. He noted that the commission was
examining the effectiveness of certain things and making
recommendations. He would rather be effective in criminal
justice sentencing than punitive. He believed the amendment
meant a previous drug offense conviction may or may not be
completely unrelated to the theft offense. He stated that
the commission's recommendation was the starting point. He
continued that being effective on sentencing, probation,
treatment, and other reforms was the purpose of the bill.
He commented on the complexity of criminal justice. He
stated that data-driven evidence was more important than
appeasing his anger.
Representative Grenn remarked that he shared the same
concerns about crime in Anchorage; however, the issue
related to marijuana had changed his mind on the amendment.
He believed action taken in SB 54 to roll back of some SB
91 provisions was getting aggressive towards accomplishing
a goal similar to the amendment. He the clause pertaining
to marijuana went too far for him.
10:54:19 AM
Representative Ortiz asked if the judge would have
discretion to take into account the fact that marijuana was
now legal.
Mr. Skidmore responded that when the court had discretion
of sentencing of 0 to 5 days, it would look at a number of
factors, including how recent a prior conviction had been
(e.g. 20 years back or the prior week). He agreed that if
the prior conviction was for marijuana, the judge would
take that into consideration. He did not know what
precisely a court would do, but it would have discretion.
He had heard judges indicate that because marijuana had
been legalized that they had given less weight to marijuana
convictions.
Representative Wilson supported Amendment 6. She stated
that if the amendment imposed a rigid 5-day jail sentence
she would oppose the amendment; however, it was a range.
She stated that currently courts could only impose
suspended jail time [for a first offense]. She stated that
it was not possible to know all of the cases. She did not
see how it was harmful to give more discretion to the
courts. She did not believe there would be many times when
a court would impose the five-day penalty. She shared that
the stores in her district had stopped calling the police
because there had been no action. She stated there were
some people who were still scared of jail. She thought it
could act as a deterrent.
Representative Grenn MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Ortiz, Pruitt, Thompson
OPPOSED: Gara, Green, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Seaton, Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 6 FAILED (5/6).
10:59:10 AM
Representative Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7:
Page 13, lines 6 - 9:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 32, line 29:
Delete "sec. 25"
Insert "sec. 24"
Page 33, line 8:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 33, line 9:
Delete "sec. 21"
Insert "sec. 20"
Page 33, line 10:
Delete "sec. 22"
Insert "sec. 21"
Page 33, line 11:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 33, line 12:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 33, line 13:
Delete "26"
Insert "25"
Page 33, line 14:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 49"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Seaton explained the amendment with a
prepared statement:
This amendment returns maximum jail time for
disorderly conduct to 24 hours, which is the current
law. Disorderly conduct is most often used to remove
someone from a difficult situation such as a bar
fight; SB 54 raised that to a maximum of 5 days.
Someone held for 5 days on disorderly conduct, a Class
B misdemeanor, would begin to see life consequences
such as losing a job. I have expressed the opinion
before that I'm worried about disproportionate
sentencing, which we have seen in our judicial system.
The information we have seen come forward is that the
police and troopers need some method to remove someone
from a situation, but that doesn't require retention
for a long period of time. I think that we should move
back to the 24 hours, which is what the commission
recommended.
Representative Wilson stated it was another amendment that
pertained to sentencing up to 5 days and gave more
discretion. She could not imagine that if it was a simple
removal, the courts would want an individual in jail 4 or 5
days. She did not know how to fit everyone into 24 hours.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that disorderly conduct was a
"catch-all" crime when someone was fined with something
most people did not consider a crime. He continued that the
bar fight scenario mentioned by Co-Chair Seaton would be
assault. He detailed that assault constituted putting
someone in physical harm against their will. He explained
that disorderly conduct could be a person blaring a speaker
outside someone's house in the middle of the night or
yelling in a bar and disturbing someone. He elaborated that
they were not crimes that hurt people, involved drugs,
sexual offenses, or theft. He characterized the offenses as
having no other crime that covered the conduct "that you
just don't like." He stressed that the amendment did not
pertain to assault in a bar. He clarified it pertained to
kids and drunk people doing annoying things. He stated the
crime was the lowest level crime in Alaska statutes - it
was the catchall when a person really had not committed
what people considered to be a crime.
11:02:58 AM
Representative Ortiz supported the amendment. He believed
SB 91 made disorderly conduct an infraction and that SB 54
would change it to something else. He spoke to the
establishment of a 24-hour period and up to a potential 5-
day period through the judicial process. He had asked the
Ketchikan police chief whether he needed five days. The
chief had responded that he could not imagine why 5 days
would be needed, but that they did need the ability to hold
individuals for 24 hours.
Representative Pruitt opposed the amendment. He had heard
from some police and troopers that the issue was important.
He stated the argument he kept hearing against more
judicial discretion made it appear to him that the system
was so broken that judges and prosecutors would always go
for the worst-case scenario. He reminded the committee that
the bill language specified that they may not impose a
sentencing of more than 5 days. He underscored that the
language did not mandate judges to impose 5-day sentences.
He had faith that the state's judicial system would make a
judicious decision on whether 24 hours or five days was
prudent. He noted that some of the people on the commission
also worked in the criminal justice system and were making
some of the decisions. He spoke against assuming that
judges and prosecutors lacked the ability to determine the
appropriate jailtime for each case. He believed it was good
to give the system the tool to do what was necessary and
needed depending on the situation and circumstance.
11:07:10 AM
Representative Guttenberg supported Amendment 7. He
discussed that the amendment pertained to the lowest, most
basic element of a crime that did not fit under any other
crime. He detailed the situation basically pertained to a
cop on the street needing to take some type of action -
nothing more was needed than to take someone in overnight.
He spoke about missing work or school due to jailtime. He
thought the sentencing discretion for 5 days in jail should
be available if a person committed an actual crime. He
believed 24 hours was an appropriate tool. He stated that
bar fights, waving a gun, and doing other things in
neighborhoods that were more than annoying were already
classified as other crimes. He believed it was completely
appropriate for individuals charged with disorderly conduct
to only receive an overnight jail stay.
Representative Thompson opposed the amendment. He stated
that the newspaper frequently included occurrences where
charges were reduced to disorderly conduct. He believed
some discretion was needed up to 5 days. He doubted a
person arrested for mooning another person would receive 5
days, but in situations where it was clear a person had a
problem, the court could sentence up to 5 days.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Ortiz
OPPOSED: Wilson, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Pruitt, Thompson,
Tilton
11:10:27 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked to VOID the roll. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
7.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Seaton, Foster
OPPOSED: Grenn, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 7 was ADOPTED.
11:11:18 AM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 8, 30-
LS0461\T.15 (Glover/Martin, 11/1/17) [note: due to the
amendment length it is not included here, see copy on file
for detail].
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki noted he would offer a conceptual
amendment to Amendment 8 after explaining the underlying
amendment. The amendment sought to direct the Alaska
Judicial Council and the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
to help them design and implement a project study with risk
factors about criminality. Currently, the Department of
Corrections (DOC) published the offender management profile
annually, which included a person's ethnicity, reason for
imprisonment, length of stay, and age. He stated they
always missed out on some information that he believed was
important to understanding why a person was in jail. The
study would include information on adverse childhood
experience, mental health and substance abuse histories,
education, income, current employment status, and other. He
believed the information would provide visibility into why
a person was in jail to determine if there was primary
prevention policy the state could undertake in the future.
He relayed that DOC (Division of Administrative Services
director April Wilkerson) did not see any financial impact
of the amendment but it requested replacing the word
"regulation" with "policy."
Representative Kawasaki continued that the majority of the
information was already captured through the offender
assessments and the Level of Service Inventory - Revised
(LSI-R) when individuals were in the prison system. The
amendment would impact individuals in jail for longer than
30 days; the information could be used by the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission, the Alaska Judicial Council,
the Alaska Justice Information Center, and other
organizations involved in constructing future policy with
the legislature.
11:13:53 AM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment
1 to Amendment 8. On page 1, line 12, the words
"receive/analyze" would replace the word "obtain." On line
page 1, 22 the word "policies" would replace "regulations"
at the request of DOC. Page 2, line 6, the words
"requirements for collection of information under this
subsection would terminate June 30, 2024" after the word
"happening," which coincided with the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission's sunset. Page 4, line 20, would read
February 14 to give more time before the commission sunset.
The date change would also occur on page 5, lines 9, 24,
27, and one other section that discussed DOC under policies
rather than regulation. He explained that the amendment
pertained to dates before the commission terminated,
policies rather than regulations, and receiving and
analyzing information rather than obtaining information.
There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 8 was ADOPTED.
11:16:25 AM
Representative Grenn asked if partaking in the option under
Amendment 8 be voluntary.
Representative Kawasaki replied in the affirmative. The
information received under LSI-R was voluntary.
Representative Guttenberg stated that earlier in the
regular session, homeland security had issued a national
request for prison systems around the nation for
information on their database. He had found some
restrictions the state had on disseminating some of the
information regarding ethnicity and country origin. He
wondered if there was a conflict with the restrictions and
the proposed amendment. He understood the data collection
for the commission would be public and wondered if the
other information would be included as well.
11:17:58 AM
Representative Kawasaki answered that he was unsure what
data would be public. He knew the requests had been related
to specific individuals' country of origin. He stated that
the data would be aggregated for use as a decision-making
tool. For example, the information could help look at why
there were twice as many Alaska Natives in the state's
prison system. The data would be useful in creating primary
prevention plans. He did not believe individual data was
released at present. He deferred to DOC for further detail.
Co-Chair Seaton pointed to language on page 2, line 16,
subsection (4) of the amendment "may not publish or present
individually identifiable information relating to an
inmate." He asked if the language carried throughout the
bill. He surmised it was meant to specify that only the
identified information would be made public.
Representative Kawasaki replied in the affirmative. He
detailed that the annual report would summarize data. The
report would be for informational purposes and would not
identify particular people - that information would be
confidential.
Co-Chair Seaton stated that although subsection (4)
required making a report, the legislative intent was that
any publicly released information, whether in the report or
any other form, would be deidentified.
Representative Kawasaki replied it was his intent for the
information to be confidential and not identifiable to the
individual.
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to clarify that all the data would
be deidentified.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 8 was ADOPTED
as AMENDED.
11:21:05 AM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 9, 30-
LS046\T.35 (Glover/Martin, 11/1/17):
Page 1, line 5, following "license;":
Insert "establishing a maximum caseload for probation
and parole officers;"
Page 18, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 26. AS 33.05.040 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) The caseload of a probation officer supervising
probationers or the combined caseload of a probation
officer or parole officer supervising probationers and
persons on parole as provided for in (a)(5) of this
section may not exceed 75 persons except in temporary
or extraordinary circumstances approved by the
commissioner."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 33, line 11:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 33, line 12:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 33, line 13:
Delete "26"
Insert "27"
Page 33, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 52. Section 26 of this Act takes effect July
1, 2019."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 33, line 14:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "secs. 51 and 52"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki explained that the amendment would
set an upper cap for probation and parole caseloads at 75.
There was significant data showing that as the number of
supervised probationers or parolees increased, there was an
impact on whether the individuals made it through the
program. He cited a 2012 study called Reduced Caseloads
Improved Probation Outcomes in the Journal of Crime and
Justice had studied the particular impact and had estimated
a smaller caseload could reduce recidivism by roughly 30
percent. At some level, when a probation officer has too
many cases they cannot keep track of everyone under their
supervision. Part of SB 91 and SB 54 were specifically
meant to put low-risk offenders on probation and parole
back into society. He believed reentry reinvestment and
rehabilitation was very important and that the individuals
deserved the best chance they could get.
11:23:05 AM
Representative Wilson asked for the current recidivism rate
for individuals on probation and/or parole.
Representative Kawasaki replied the latest data received
was 2016 through a report published by Legislative Research
Services showing the average recidivism rate at about 65
percent.
Representative Wilson asked if the recidivism rate for
individuals on probation and parole was the same as the
rate for individuals released without probation or parole.
Representative Kawasaki did not know the rate for
individuals released without probation or parole. He
relayed that the rate for individuals released on probation
and parole was roughly 65 percent.
Representative Wilson asked to hear from DOC. She noted the
amendment would also affect pretrial. She wondered about
the number of individuals who would be released on their
own recognizance beginning in January. She wondered how the
amendment would impact the number of people seen as the
program began.
11:24:37 AM
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
requested to hear the question again.
Representative Wilson complied. She stated that pretrial
would begin in January for individuals currently awaiting
trial in jail and new entrants into the system. She asked
if there was an anticipated number of individuals that
would initially be going through and how it corresponded
with the number of officers the department was looking to
hire.
Commissioner Williams believed the amendment could have an
impact on the issue. Under pretrial, some individuals would
be put on monitoring status, meaning they would still be
under a caseload, but they would not be followed the way
others on pretrial status who were getting out or were
higher risk. Research showed that the best thing to do for
low-risk individuals on pretrial status was nothing but to
remind them of their court date. He elaborated that over
monitoring low-risk offenders who had never been in trouble
before was bad. The individuals may be considered on the
case status and the amendment could potentially restrict
the number of people on the caseloads.
Representative Wilson asked about January numbers - she
imagined DOC knew the number of individuals currently in
jail waiting trial who did not have the means to bail
themselves out.
Commissioner Williams deferred to a colleague.
11:26:53 AM
GERI FOX, PRETRIAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
asked Representative Wilson to repeat the question.
Representative Wilson complied. She wondered if DOC had a
ballpark number of the individuals who, through the
screening process, would be released on their own
recognizance.
Ms. Fox replied that she anticipated potential caseload
sizes at approximately 200. She believed Amendment 9 could
impact the pretrial caseload. She explained that the
amendment specified probation; however, there were some
areas where a person had both probation and pretrial. She
thought the distinction did potentially have impact on some
of the realities about how the work would be assigned.
Representative Wilson asked how many officers the
department anticipated hiring by January.
Ms. Fox replied that they believed they would be close to
40 hired by January. Currently, there were approximately 10
individuals the department hoped to make offers to.
Representative Wilson did not want to merely multiply 40
officers by 200 to come up with the number of people DOC
estimated would be released from prison. She asked if the
40 positions included office help, screening, and other
work outside of officers responsible for following up on
individuals who had been released.
Ms. Fox had tried to take every possible PCN at the line
level for supervision. The department had some minimal
administrative support in each of the areas, but the bulk
of the PCNs would be line level officers. She estimated
roughly 8 to 10 support positions including herself and her
administrative team to do the work.
Representative Wilson asked for an estimate of the number
of currently in prison awaiting trial.
Ms. Fox answered there were approximately 1,500 individuals
on pretrial who were in an unsentenced status. While the
assessment tool helped the department with predictions -
DOC did not yet have a sense for the decisions the
judiciary would make when it came to who would be
supervised and who would not be supervised. She had a sense
based on a total projection, but she did not know what the
immediate number would look like from the institution.
11:30:54 AM
Representative Wilson asked about the average caseload size
for probation and parole officers at present.
Commissioner Williams answered that some offices had very
specialized probation officers doing specialized work. The
amount of people on a caseload was representative of some
of the work, but not a great indicator of the level of work
on some cases, which was the problem he saw with Amendment
9. He understood and agreed with the intent and agreed that
overloading the probation system was not a good thing. The
problem was that 30 cases, or 35 specialized cases may be a
maximum capacity. However, there may be other situations
where 100 to 135 low-risk individuals may not be a full
load. The department had divided some of the offices up. He
noted that the deputy director of probation was online for
questions as well. He agreed that numbers mattered, but it
was really about the workload of the numbers the officers
were doing. There were more reentry efforts at present than
probation officers were doing. In some situations,
caseloads of 35 to 40 could be too much depending on the
cases, and in another situation a caseload of 125 may not
be too much because the individuals were low-risk and the
officer's responsibilities for those individuals was much
lower. It was difficult to set the cap.
11:32:50 AM
Representative Guttenberg highlighted the pretrial
population, people released from jail without probation,
and people released from jail on probation. In all the
situations there were programs where people provided
oversight and counseling. He pointed to the success of
counselors in schools. He asked about the success rate of
reducing recidivism. The amendment focused on probation
officers who had a wide range of responsibilities. He asked
whether overloading the officers mattered or whether
oversight by the officers drove recidivism rates down.
Commissioner Williams deferred to his colleague.
Ms. Fox replied that the question got to the heart of
evidence-based practices. One of the tenets of evidence-
based practices was not to overwork a low-risk defendant.
She furthered that it was historically what corrections was
very good at because low-risk defendants showed up, they
were nice, they gave positive urinalysis and the department
liked working with them. However, the tendency was for DOC
to want to work with the individuals; therefore, they
remained on supervision for much too long. Evidence-base
practices showed that recidivism was increased when low-
risk caseloads were overworked. When managing the programs,
it was necessary to consider how to motivate employees to
get the right level of attention to the right level of
client. She continued that high levels of surveillance and
oversight for moderate to high-risk defendants provided
better results. Higher caseloads for low-risk people made
sense because less time and attention was needed for
individuals who were naturally compliant. Likewise, there
were lower caseloads for higher risk individuals in order
to target and surveil the individuals for better outcomes.
Commissioner Williams agreed. He spoke to the intent of the
amendment to ensure there were manageable probation
workloads. He spoke to Ms. Fox's testimony about the
importance of utilizing the right amount of supervision for
the right person. He was concerned about the probation
caseloads, but there were other key components in terms of
how to switch the department over. Specifically, more
evidence-based models of supervision that were more
important. There was a litany of other things he would
target pertaining to why the recidivism rate had not
changed in 20 years. Much of the issue pertained to things
that happened behind prison walls, not just in supervision.
He spoke to the importance of getting smart about how
supervision occurred. He highlighted important strategies
in SB 91 pertaining to probation supervision and earned
compliance credit. He appreciated the intent of the
amendment but thought there were other areas that were the
most important aspect to get right.
11:37:47 AM
Representative Guttenberg remarked that the legislature
left it up to DOC to determine how it managed its
caseloads. He stated that they could get into discussions
about other ways to reduce recidivism, but the amendment
addressed that caseloads were too large. The point was not
to micromanage the department. He asked if the department
had enough people to do the needed casework.
Commissioner Williams replied that before he asked for more
resources for a specific area, he wanted to make sure they
were needed and justified. The amendment did not relate to
anything he had asked for. He continued the department had
reducing probation counts of a fairly significant nature,
but at the same time it was asking officers to do more. He
was not throwing his probation staff under the bus by not
asking for more officers or setting a minimum caseload, he
was concern about the caseload cap of 75 in the amendment.
For example, some offices did field probation and pretrial;
they could take far more pretrial because some would
require little attention. He questioned what would happen
if caseloads exceeded 75. He asked if he would have to hire
more staff. He was concerned about asking for additional
resources without knowing where the positions would be
housed. He did not believe the amendment was in the
department's best interest.
11:40:19 AM
Representative Grenn agreed with the intent related to
caseload burnout. The committee had heard from different
departments on caseloads and burnout. He stated that
probation and parole officers nationally had a high burnout
rate due to the difficulty of the job. He discussed
recruitment and retention. He wondered if the department
had unfilled positions.
Commissioner Williams replied that the department did have
unfilled positions - 10 to 12 vacant in probation ranks at
present, but there were more unfilled positions in the
correctional officer ranks at present. There were currently
10 to 12 vacant positions in the probation ranks. He
believed Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt
Monegan's answer had been good when asked why trooper
positions were unfilled. First, stability and
predictability was needed - people needed to know they were
going to have a job and be supported. He spoke to the
importance of fiscal stability for a long-range plan and to
know how many positions were likely. He detailed that it
provided comfort to come to work and stay in a job. He had
been concerned about the [new] Pretrial Division for the
same reasons. He mentioned discussion of repeal and
questioned who would want to work in the division. He
stressed the work was new and challenging; there needed to
be stability and commitment showing the state was going to
stick with its selected course. He continued that employees
wanted to know the state would keep its word; otherwise it
was difficult to recruit. He agreed that money mattered,
but stability, support, appreciation, and other also
mattered.
Representative Grenn asked there were areas in the state
where unfilled positions took longer to fill.
Commissioner Williams answered that it could be more
difficult to fill positions in some rural offices. For
example, he had been at a rural office where a probation
officer was planning to retire - the individual had been a
stable factor in the community for a long time, which was
positive. Other people applying who were under a different
retirement status, did not view the office the same way. He
worried about the rolling consequences. He stood by his
prior comments about the need for stability and for
employees to know there was a commitment to a chosen
direction.
11:44:25 AM
Representative Grenn asked if the commissioner's lukewarm
feelings on Amendment 9 pertained to the cap.
Commissioner Williams replied in the affirmative. He agreed
with the intent of the amendment but believed the cap would
be restrictive. He explained that a caseload of 75 in one
office may be no problem. He continued there may be another
officer with a caseload of 40 or 50 who was overworked. He
believed the amendment was specific to particular probation
officers.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Chris Tuck in the
audience.
Representative Ortiz was supportive of the goals of the
amendment. He asked if there were ways to achieve the goals
other than a cap.
11:46:12 AM
Commissioner Williams answered that allowing DOC to average
would provide an option, so he would not have to worry
about being in violation of the spirit of the amendment if
one officer constantly had a caseload over 75. He stated it
would provide more flexibility, but it did not address the
issue that sometimes the caseload was representative of the
work, but really it was the type of caseload - who was on
the caseload and the expected work on the caseload. He did
not know how to articulate that in the amendment. He did
not want similar situations he had seen in other states
where their probation force was overwhelmed. He understood
the complete downside of that issue.
Representative Kawasaki commented that the committee was
talking about pretrial services. He clarified that
Amendment 9 pertained to individuals in jail who had been
adjudicated, sentenced, and were serving time in the
correctional system. He underscored the importance of
recognizing the distinction between the Pretrial Division,
which he supported as a substantial portion of SB 91. He
stressed that the amendment only pertained to probation and
parole for individuals who had been convicted. The
amendment did not pertain to individuals in pretrial
status.
Co-Chair Seaton understood the department's reluctance to
go with a hard cap, but he wanted to make sure the system
was not being shortchanged by zero fiscal notes. If the
amendment was not accepted, he wanted to be assured that
DOC would come forward in the next budgetary cycle with the
proper allocation of resources to reduce recidivism and
recommendations to the legislature. He wanted to accomplish
the commission's goal and move forward with reducing
recidivism. He wanted to understand the breadth of the
things the legislature could consider to accomplish the
goal. He stated that if the legislature did not get the
information designed by the agencies, it was left shooting
at targets to make sure that something would move forward.
11:51:03 AM
Commissioner Williams recognized that nothing was free.
Putting people in jail cost money as did to the system. He
did not want to get ahead of anyone in the governor's team
about the items. He shared that the administration was a
team and collaborated. He had been clear that certain
aspects of the DOC budget and that safety inside the prison
mattered for recidivism and reoffence rates. He had been
straightforward about things that he believed were crucial,
such as internal affairs in the system and understanding
why bad things happened and how to fix them. He pledged to
be as transparent as he could be with the legislative
branch. He acknowledged that they would not always agree on
things. He was open to having a discussion, but in the
context of the administration's team and the importance of
ensuring a comprehensive approach.
11:53:12 AM
AT EASE
11:57:45 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee was addressing
Amendment 9. He asked if individuals had questions for the
departments. Seeing no questions, the committee recessed
for lunch.
11:58:34 AM
RECESSED
1:22:57 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee had been
considering Amendment 9.
1:23:23 PM
AT EASE
1:25:13 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster reiterated that the committee was
considering Amendment 9.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment
1 to Amendment 9. The words "an average" following the
words "may not exceed" on page 1, line 9. The sentence
would read "...may not exceed an average 75 persons..."
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She understood that the
commissioner had said the change could be better, but there
still could be issues. She referred to varying caseloads
where some individuals required strict monitoring while
others did not. She stated that if the legislature did not
trust DOC to manage its personnel, it was a discussion the
legislature needed to have. She believed the amendment
would micromanage the department by setting a limit. She
did not know the caseload of each officer. She asked the
amendment sponsor how many parole and probation officers
had caseloads exceeding 75 people.
Representative Kawasaki replied that the most important
component was to determine the level of supervision each
officer was providing. He detailed that for a high priority
person, the generally accepted time spent would be four
hours per month; time spent on a medium priority person
would be closer to two hours; and a low maintenance
individual would require one hour per month. He shared that
the one officer in Barrow had an average caseload of about
30.08 people. He did not know the acuity level at present
but could dig into the numbers later. Whereas, the two
probation officers in Bethel had a total of 238.8 cases. He
continued it depended on the acuity level an officer was
supervising - the higher level the criminal the more hours
an officer spent, while lower level offenders required
fewer hours. He stated it was not really fair to base the
amendment specifically on 75 persons, but he had factored
high, medium, and low risk cases and averaged over a
caseload, which had resulted in a number of about 70.
Representative Wilson asked about other locations with
caseloads exceeding 75.
Representative Kawasaki replied that it was very difficult
to tease out the numbers. The only thing he could provide
was the total caseloads versus total number of probation
officers at a particular field office. Out of the 15
offices, half had caseloads above 75 and half had caseloads
below 75. The average national caseload was 60 individuals
and the average [in Alaska] according to DOC was just below
50.
Representative Thompson asked Representative Kawasaki to
restate the last number.
Representative Kawasaki replied "50 cases." The number had
been derived by taking the total average of the total
number of cases, divided by the total number of probation
officers.
1:29:43 PM
Representative Wilson understood how hard it was to get
information. She stated that she had submitted requests to
agencies weeks ago and getting information had been almost
impossible. However, she believed the amendment would
micromanaging the department. She asked for the measurement
the amendment sponsor hoped to accomplish. For example, she
wondered if the amendment sponsor hoped recidivism would
decline to 30 percent or other. She surmised that with an
average, caseloads would already be under 75. She thought
the amendment would not change what was currently taking
place. She asked about the recidivism rates in states with
caseloads under 75. She wondered if the decline in
recidivism had been based only on the caseloads each
officer had or other factors as well.
Representative Kawasaki replied that the average caseloads
nationally were 58 individuals. There were outliers, such
as Georgia with an average caseload of close to 200 - he
did not know Georgia's recidivism rate. The state fell
somewhere within the median, which was great for the time
being. Under SB 91, the department anticipated over 600
people being out on probation or parole in the coming year.
He emphasized the need for adequate supervision of the
individuals; it was a public safety issue if former
convicts did not receive necessary supervision. He offered
the amendment as an opportunity to allow the department to
move individuals back and forth. Additionally, page 1,
lines 10 and 11 of the amendment allowed for temporary or
extraordinary circumstances as approved by the
commissioner. He stressed that it was a public safety
issue.
Representative Wilson agreed that they wanted to keep the
public safe. The issue was about whether the legislature
trusted DOC to put the right amount of staff in the
appropriate locations. She believed the amendment implied
the legislature did not trust the commissioner to make the
decisions without micromanagement by the legislature. She
believed the commissioner had testified that the amendment
would not be in the department's best interest at present.
She thought Commissioner Williams had tried his best to
answer an earlier question by explaining that how SB 91
would impact each area was not completely known in terms of
the need for more staff and where. She believed that voting
for the amendment communicated that they did not trust the
DOC commissioner. She thought it may be better to let the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission look at the issue. She
did not want to send the message that the commissioner
could not manage his department. She did not believe that
at present. She thought it was the wrong message.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representatives Ivy Spohnholz,
Chris Tuck, and Andy Josephson in the audience.
Vice-Chair Gara thought by including the word "average,"
the amendment did not micromanage the department. He
reasoned the amendment gave the commissioner the
discretion. For example, if there was a higher caseload in
Anchorage and a lower caseload in Bethel, the amendment
would allow the commissioner to decide where to place the
officers. He furthered if DOC did not feel it was able to
monitor people to determine whether they were drinking or
doing drugs, but they were more than full staffed in
another region, it would give the commissioner the
flexibility to move officers around. He believed the
amendment added flexibility for the department by including
the word average.
1:35:36 PM
Co-Chair Seaton remarked that it seemed the concept was
done frequently - whether it was the number of hours a
nurse could work in a shift, or Office of Children's
Services caseloads to ensure children were protected. He
believed the intent of criminal justice reform was to make
sure that recidivism was dealt with and avoid adding more
and more people to the criminal justice system. He did not
want to reach a point where there was insufficient
probation supervision. He spoke to the need to protect the
safety of the public. He believed the amendment sent the
message that they did not want high caseloads. He pointed
out the delayed effective date and believed if there was
something inordinately wrong it could be addressed in the
future. He wanted to make sure that probation officers had
a load they could supervise and the focus on reducing
recidivism was maintained.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION to conceptual
Amendment 1. There being NO further OBJECTION, conceptual
Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that pretrial
would not be impacted by the amendment.
Representative Kawasaki replied in the affirmative. The
amendment only pertained to individuals who had been
adjudicated and were on probation or parole.
Representative Wilson provided a scenario where a parole
officer was also responsible for supervising two or three
officers. She asked if a supervisor was still a probation
officer classification. She asked if a probation officer
would also include her supervisees versus a probation
officer with a caseload of 75.
Representative Kawasaki replied that the amendment
pertained to the probation or parole officer dealing
directly with the probationer or parolee.
Representative Wilson asked if supervisors were classified
as probation officers. She provided an example about the
Office of Children's Services where a supervisor may be
classified as a caseworker, but they did not have
caseloads. She thought the supervisors would fall under the
amendment if so.
Representative Kawasaki replied by reading a sentence from
the amendment regarding intent: "probation officer
supervising probationers or the combined caseload of a
probation officer or parole officer supervising
probationers and persons on parole..." He wanted the
amendment to pertain to the person directly interacting
with the probationer. He believed the amendment and his
intent were clear.
Representative Wilson stated it came down to the
classification of a job. She wanted to ask the commissioner
for verification that a supervisor was not also classified
as a probation officer.
1:41:01 PM
Commissioner Williams answered that there were some offices
where a supervisor provided direct line supervision. He
elaborated that in some cases a probation officer III who
would normally be a supervisor in some locations would have
direct supervision of probationers. There were other
offices where some of the probation officer supervisors
only supervised. He understood the intent of the amendment
and offered that it could be cleaned up by saying "those
officers who are providing direct supervision, regardless
of their class, would be included in the averaging of the
tally." There were some differences between supervisors
depending on what office they were in.
Representative Pruitt wondered if the budget had ever
included intent about the issue being a concern of the
legislature's.
Representative Kawasaki replied that SB 91 had numerous
things it had promised including reinvestment and reentry.
The reentry component was one of the most important
components, because people who did not reenter society on
smooth footing ended up repeatedly in jail. He detailed
that SB 91 had included over 36 positions in the Probation
Division to address the issue in future years. He furthered
that if things went as anticipated, probation and parole
populations would increase by the end of FY 18 and were
anticipated to be steadily increased in outyears. The total
number expected in the next year was 600, some of whom
would be stood up by pretrial as soon as it began in
January 2018. It was anticipated there would be fewer
individuals in jail and more that would be out on probation
and parole or pretrial. He stated that most of the
positions had been taken out - he believed only about five
remained when SB 91 had passed.
1:44:06 PM
Representative Pruitt opposed the amendment. He was
concerned that the issue would be better addressed with
intent language through the budgetary process. He
elaborated that if the [DOC] commissioner was not able to
hire enough people in the coming year or in the future, if
caseloads were higher than the 75 average, the commissioner
would be in violation of the law. He noted that even if the
commissioner was looking at an average of 77 caseloads per
officer, it would be in violation of the law if the
amendment passed. The only way the legislature could repair
the situation would be to pass a law or make an amendment.
He continued that the process to go through allowing the
commissioner to manage the budget was long and detailed. He
reiterated that budget process was a better place to deal
with the issue through intent language. He furthered that
if after several years the department was not listening,
perhaps it would be appropriate to put something in
statute. He did not believe there was evidence the
legislature had told the department to look at a 75-
caseload average or that the department had not been
following intent. He believed they were skipping a key step
in the process.
Co-Chair Seaton viewed the process outlined by
Representative Pruitt as the reverse of what he believed it
should be. He thought it meant public safety would be
risked. He also believed it meant they would have to find
that the state had high recidivism, look for a cause, and
determine the issue the amendment meant to address was the
cause. He continued that after multiple years of a higher
crime rate the issue would then be addressed. He thought a
logical standard with flexibility for temporary,
extraordinary circumstances was the best approach. He
believed acting proactively rather than retroactively was
prudent. He stressed the importance of supervision of
parolees and other. He thought the issue should be looked
at from both sides. He thought the amendment would prevent
higher crime rates.
Representative Pruitt stated that the amendment would not
change funding for the current year. He stated that if the
legislature had the ability to appropriate in the upcoming
budgetary cycle, it could take the policy and go forward.
The amendment did not make structure changes immediately.
He spoke to much discussion about the need to use evidence-
based research regarding the criminal justice system
reform. He stated the amendment was not based on evidence.
The amendment would set a number that he believed was
arbitrary. He stated it would limit the budgetary process
and the legislature's ability going forward. He thought it
appeared the legislature was trying to take some of the
onus off itself for decisions it needed to make in the
future.
1:49:33 PM
Representative Wilson wondered why the effective date was
delayed until 2020 if it was a public safety concern. She
believed the committee had communicated to DOC that the
commissioner needed to look at the topic. She suggested
having the commissioner to come back during the budget
process in the upcoming session. Her biggest concern was
about putting the amendment in statute, given the
difficulty of changing statute. She returned to the delayed
effective date of 2020 and wondered why it made sense to
let crime persist at a high rate for two more years if that
was the logic. She pointed out there could be a scenario
where the department had success at caseloads of 80, but
the amendment changed the number to 75 later.
Representative Kawasaki responded that when SB 91 had
passed there had been specific provisions that went into
effect at specific dates. He explained the reason for the
July 1, 2020 effective date. He detailed that if SB 91
continued on its current course, the probation and parole
population would increase in FY 18. He furthered that an
increase of 600 was anticipated in the following year;
therefore, the change was not yet needed. He stated that
the amendment would save money. There were eight positions
in the Probation Division that were yet to be filled. There
was not a reason in the current year for a supplemental to
add the provision in, but there was a future obligation
that would occur if SB 91 continued on its way. He added
that the amendment used the original SB 91 fiscal notes.
1:52:11 PM
Representative Wilson expressed confusion about the
effective date. She stated the amendment would force a
change and not necessarily get the intended results. She
thought the amendment would mean that even if the
department was having success at caseloads of 80, it would
be forced to add more officers to reduce caseloads in the
future.
Representative Kawasaki provided wrap up on the amendment.
He discussed that SB 91 was about rehabilitation and
reentry. He stated that according to many studies,
including the recent Reduced Caseloads Improve Probation
Outcomes published in the Journal of Crime and Justice,
increases in probation officer interactions and smaller
caseloads could reduce recidivism by roughly 30 percent. He
underscored it was an incredible number of individuals who
would be diverted from jail and crime. Unlike individuals
in pretrial who were innocent until proven guilty, the
individuals coming out of jail were either on probation or
parole. He stressed that the individuals coming out from
jail under SB 91 and SB 54 were let into the communities
across the state. Probation officers were the first line of
defense to ensure the individuals were adhering to their
conditions of release. He reasoned that when a person had
to supervise 150 people, it would not help anyone, and it
would not keep streets safer. The amendment sought to
ensure a minimum level of oversight from public safety over
people who had committed crimes. He stressed it would be
silly and dangerous to provide insufficient funds. The
amendment did not need funding in the current budget
because there were currently some vacancies. He emphasized
that when the law fully came into effect, there would be
more and more people on probation and parole; more and more
people who had committed crimes, would be back on the
streets. The individuals needed supervision and the
legislature owed it to the public to ensure they were
supervised to the fullest extent.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Seaton,
Foster
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 9 was ADOPTED as AMENDED.
1:56:37 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted that Amendment 16 would replace
Amendment 11.
1:56:53 PM
AT EASE
2:01:03 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster relayed that Amendment 10 would be heard
next. Amendment 11 would be withdrawn and replaced by
Amendment 16, which would be heard following
Amendment 15. Additionally, Amendment 12 would be heard
after Amendment 16.
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 10, 30-
LS0461\T.4 (Bruce/Martin, 10/27/17) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 5, following "license;":
Insert "relating to driving while license canceled,
suspended, or revoked;"
Page 18, following line 11:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 26. AS 28.15.291(a) is repealed and reenacted
to read:
(a) A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the
person
(1) drives a motor vehicle on a highway or vehicular
way or area at a time when that person's driver's
license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a
license has been canceled, suspended, or revoked in
this or another jurisdiction; or
(2) drives in violation of a limitation placed on that
person's license or privilege to drive in this or
another jurisdiction.
* Sec. 27. AS 28.15.291(b) is repealed and reenacted
to read:
(b) Upon conviction under (a) of this section, the
court
(1) shall impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment
(A) if the person has not been previously convicted,
of not less than 1O days with 1O days suspended,
including a mandatory condition of probation that the
defendant complete not less than 80 hours of community
work service;
(B) if the person has been previously convicted, of
not less than 10 days;
(C) if the person's driver's license, privilege to
drive, or privilege to obtain a license was revoke
under circumstances described in AS 28.15.181(c)(l),
if the person was driving in violation of a limited
license issued under AS 28.15.20l(d) following that
revocation, or if the person was driving in violation
of an ignition interlock device requirement following
that revocation, of not less than 20 days with 10 days
suspended, and a fine of not less than $500, including
a mandatory condition of probation that the defendant
complete not less than 80 hours of community work
service;
(D) if the person's driver's license, privilege to
drive, or privilege to obtain a license was revoked
under circumstances described in AS 28.15.18l(c)(2),
(3), or (4), if the person was driving in violation of
a limited license issued under AS 28.15.201(d)
following that revocation, or if the person was
driving in violation of an ignition interlock device
requirement following that revocation, of not less
than 30 days and a fine of not less than $1,000;
(2) may impose additional conditions of probation;
(3) may not
(A) suspend execution of sentence or grant probation
except on condition that the person serve a minimum
term of imprisonment and perform required community
work service as provided in (1) of this subsection;
(B) suspend imposition of sentence;
(4) shall revoke the person's license, privilege to
drive, or privilege to obtain a license, and the
person may not be issued a new license or a limited
license nor may the privilege to drive or obtain a
license be restored for an additional period of not
less than 90 days after the date that the person would
have been entitled to restoration of driving
privileges; and
(5) may order that the motor vehicle that was used in
commission of the offense be forfeited under AS
28.35.036."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 32, line 28:
Delete "and"
Page 32, line 29, following "Act":
Insert";
(10) AS 28.15.291(a}, as repealed and reenacted by
sec. 26 of this Act; and
(11) AS 28.15.29l(b), as repealed and reenacted by
sec. 27 of this Act"
Page 33, line 11:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 36"
Page 33, line 12:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 36" 14
Page 33, line 13:
Delete "Sections 10, 11, and 26"
Insert "Sections 10, 11, and 28"
Page 33, line 14:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 52"
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt explained that the amendment had been
brought to him by law enforcement officers. He detailed a
provision in SB 91 lowered the sentences for driving with a
suspended license to a violation (except DUIs); the
amendment would revert sentencing back to the pre-SB 91
structure. He spoke about issues officers found when
pulling people over. He used an example of a person passed
out at a stop light - the officer had found a gun in the
vehicle. He explained that an officer would not have found
the gun if the person had not been passed out. An officer
could suspect a DUI and pull a person over for swerving and
failing to use a turn signal. There was usually some
infraction that allowed an officer to pursue something
further. He furthered that officers could get up to a
person's window and recognize the driver was a "bad guy."
Previously, officers had the ability to dig deeper if the
person had a suspended license. He continued that it had
been very effective pertaining to drug dealers - when an
officer discovered a person had a suspended license, they
typically could look in the person's car because they were
about to detain the individual. The ability had been taken
away when SB 91 had reduced the offense to a citation. He
stated that officers felt that a vital tool had been
removed from their tool belts. He stated that DUIs were a
different circumstance and the individuals were not bad
people, they had made bad decisions. He stated that the
individuals the amendment addressed were bad people. The
officers would like the opportunity to dig deeper, but the
tool had been removed.
2:06:16 PM
Vice-Chair Gara wondered if the amendment would create a
second crime for the same conduct. He spoke to his
understanding that a driver's license was required to get
insurance. He stated that if a person did not have a valid
driver's license they did not have insurance. He wondered
if the amendment would turn one crime into two crimes - the
crime of driving without insurance and driving with a
suspended license.
Representative Pruitt replied he would have to refer to
statute.
2:07:22 PM
AT EASE
2:07:58 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Pruitt remarked that another committee
member had indicated the offense was a misdemeanor. He
recalled that in a car accident situation when a person did
not have their insurance card on them, it did not
necessarily mean they had committed a misdemeanor. He
explained that a person usually had 10 to 15 or so days to
provide proof of insurance. He explained that the police
officers needed the tool to be able to continue the
discussion at the time of pulling a person over.
Vice-Chair Gara noted there were two ways to drive without
insurance: one was forgetting your insurance card, which
was not a crime, but received a fix-it ticket; and the
other was to knowingly drive without having insurance. He
furthered that liability insurance was necessary in the
event of hurting another person in an accident. It was his
understanding that a person without a license could not
have valid insurance. He thought the amendment would create
a second crime for the same conduct - the person driving
with a suspended license and without insurance. He stated
it was a class A misdemeanor to drive without a valid
insurance policy.
Representative Pruitt clarified that the amendment did not
create anything new, it would merely revert to the law
prior to SB 91. He answered that if a person was a "bad
guy" and only wanted to be left alone, they would not
divulge to an officer they were driving without insurance.
He stressed that once the individual was gone, there was
not the opportunity to pursue or continue an analysis to
determine whether the individual may be someone to pull off
the streets. He did not know that the discussion about
insurance and timing was irrelevant - he believed the
individual would not divulge the information. He did not
believe an officer would hold a person to ensure they were
not lying.
Vice-Chair Gara wanted to double check the issue. He
believed the amendment would create two crimes for the same
conduct. He spoke to the concern that a police officer
would not know if an individual did not have insurance and
did not believe it was accurate. He mentioned the scenario
Representative Pruitt had highlighted about an officer
stopping a person and discovering they had a weapon in the
car. He believed when an officer discovered a person had a
suspended license, it was probable cause to think the
individual did not have valid insurance. He thought an
officer would have the ability to pursue the crime at that
point. He thought the committee would need further advice
on the amendment.
2:13:23 PM
Representative Pruitt shared that the police officers he
had spoken to would not go on record out of fear they would
lose their jobs. He would like to have them testify about
their experience, but they would not. He furthered that the
individuals had seen their colleagues punished for talking
to the legislature. He would have to look into whether
driving without insurance would allow the officers to do
the same thing.
Representative Wilson suggested hearing from the
department. She reiterated the question posed by Vice-Chair
Gara.
WALT MONEGAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
answered that typically when a police officer made a
traffic stop the officer asked for a driver's license,
registration, and insurance. The officer's computer would
indicate if a person did not have a license. He explained
that a citation would be issued if the individual did not
have one of the items. The only time an officer could
search the car was if they were invited to. If a person did
not have their license a citation was issued and the
interaction ended.
Representative Wilson remarked that she frequently read in
the paper about the high number of individuals driving
without licenses. She did not know whether the incidents
were tied to a DUI. She asked if it was sufficient to give
individuals a citation or whether the amendment would be
useful for public safety.
Commissioner Monegan replied that he had multiple thoughts
about the amendment. He stated he certainly wanted to
assist with keeping people from going to jail for tiny
things. He discussed that police officers were typically
vigilant about watching for scofflaws. He furthered that if
he pulled a person over for not having a license day after
day, they would be receive citations and be liable for
fines. He questioned whether it made a person a better
driver or the public safer; it was something he did not
recall being discussed by the commission. He believed it
was worthy of discussion by the commission. Officers did
not like to see people flaunting the law, but the other
part of the issue was trying to find balance. There were
individuals "who were young enough, just got all of the
points, didn't understand what it all meant, and now they
have their license revoked." He asked whether they should
go to jail and did not believe so.
Commissioner Monegan continued that part of the concern
expressed by police officers was there were people officers
recognized who may be doing nefarious things. Officers
could pull them over, but if the officer ever found out the
individual was suspended, it was an arrestable offense. He
furthered it would be argued in court that if the officer
knew about the suspension, whether they should act
immediately. He continued that officers did not go looking
for DWLS [driving with a license suspended] or DWR [driving
while revoked], they encountered them. When officers
encountered the offenses, it provided them with a tool to
dig deeper. He reiterated it was usually debated in court
afterwards. He understood the argument being made, but he
believed it would probably be better debated at the
commission level.
2:20:52 PM
Vice-Chair Gara was trying to determine whether driving
without valid insurance was a misdemeanor. Commissioner
Monegan believed the ticket was around $250; it was not an
arrestable crime. Typically, if a person went to the court
with their insurance, the citation was dismissed.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that it was a different insurance
issue. There was situation where a person had insurance but
did not have proof of insurance on hand. He understood a
person received a citation and could provide the proof of
insurance later on. He wondered about a case where a person
did not have valid insurance, which was a danger to the
public. He wondered if it was a crime.
Commissioner Monegan responded that in either situation a
person would receive a citation. There would not be an
arrest because officers would take people at face value. He
detailed they were not going to call an insurance agency in
the middle of the night or on a weekend to determine a
person's coverage. In a situation where a person did not
have insurance, the court would find them guilty and they
would have to pay the fine; the offense was not jailable.
2:23:33 PM
Vice-Chair Gara had been informed that driving without
valid insurance was a crime. He provided an example of a
person without insurance hurting another person in a car
accident. He furthered that if a police officer knew that
driving without insurance was a crime and the officer
discovered a person did not have a license and subsequently
determined they did not have valid insurance, there may be
probable cause to arrest the person for driving without
valid insurance. He queried if a person did not have a
valid license, it meant their insurance policy had been
canceled. He believed it was the case, but did not know.
Commissioner Monegan replied that the law required a person
to have insurance; however, the car could be someone's
parents' or a friend's. There were many variations on the
normal protocol for officers. Prior to his retirement from
the Anchorage Police Department, the protocol had been to
issue a citation. He continued it was determined later in
court whether a person had insurance; if the person had
insurance, the citation was usually dismissed. He did not
argue that it was not against the law, because if that were
the case the police would have no authority to take any
action.
2:26:23 PM
Representative Guttenberg provided a scenario where an
insurance company found out that a person's license had
been revoked and subsequently their insurance was not valid
during that period. He believed it was a safe assumption to
make. He knew that his personal (mainstream) insurance
company would suspend his insurance coverage if his license
was revoked for a period of time. He continued that an
officer knew the difference between not having a license or
having a licensed revoked or suspended. He elaborated that
even if he was current on payments and had a valid
insurance card, the company would not honor anything that
happened to him during that period. He believed a trooper
pulling a person over with a revoked license could safely
assume they had no insurance coverage.
Representative Pruitt believed the committee was assuming
that it understood the contract between the owner of a
vehicle and their insurance company. He did not believe
that was possible to assume. He stressed that a person
driving with a suspended license may be in a car that was
not theirs. He asked members if they knew the insurance had
an agreement stating that an insurance policy is no longer
relevant if a person had a suspended license. He
underscored a police officer could not make the assumption.
He thought they were getting into an area that required
caution. He underscored that officers did not have 100
percent understanding that a civil contract between an
insurance company and the vehicle owner was as other
committee members had stated. He believed they were running
down a rabbit hole that was preventing the committee from
discussing the issue at hand (the ability to provide
officers with needed tools).
Mr. Skidmore remarked that the confusion over the issue was
easily understood. He had been a prosecutor for 20 years
and it had taken him some time to figure out how it all
worked. He began with AS 28.22.011, which required the
operator or vehicle owner to have insurance. He referred to
AS 28.22.019, which specified that a motorist was supposed
to provide insurance when stopped by an officer; if the
person did not provide proof of insurance at the time, it
was an infraction resulting in a penalty up to $500. He
explained it was the way law enforcement primarily
addressed someone without insurance; however, not having
insurance was a crime under AS 28.90.010, which addressed
penalties under Title 28. He read from Title 28:
It is a misdemeanor for a person to violate the
provision of this title, unless the violation is by
this title or other law, declared either to be a
felony or an infraction.
Mr. Skidmore elaborated that failure to provide proof of
insurance was an infraction; however, failure to have
insurance was a misdemeanor.
Vice-Chair Gara asked if it was a Class A or B misdemeanor
to not have valid insurance.
2:33:19 PM
Mr. Skidmore replied it was neither. There was a third
class of misdemeanor called non-classified under AS
28.90.010(b). A non-classified misdemeanor meant there were
specific penalty provisions that fall outside of what
happens to a Class A or Class B misdemeanor. The offense
was punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 and by
imprisonment of up to 90 days.
Vice-Chair Gara wondered whether an officer would have
probable cause to assume an individual did not have valid
insurance if the individual had a suspended license.
Mr. Skidmore replied that he had not encountered the
hypothetical scenario presented. He relayed that failure to
have proof of insurance resulted in an automatic license
suspension. Prior to any criminal justice reform, the
failure to have insurance was more easily managed through
enforcement efforts through a driving with license
suspended. He did not want to assume it was a logical
conclusion that a person did not have insurance if they did
not have a license.
2:36:18 PM
Co-Chair Seaton referred to the conviction portion of the
amendment beginning on [page 1] line 13, subsections (A)
and (B). Subsection (A) pertained to a person who had not
been previously convicted, while subsection (B) pertained
to an individual who had been previously convicted. He
referenced a discussion earlier pertaining to changing a
penalty for a circumstance where a person who committed a
crime had been convicted of a different crime previously.
He asked if the language in Amendment 10 pertained to a
person who had been convicted of the same crime previously.
Mr. Skidmore answered that the provisions dealing with
driving with license suspended in Amendment 10, page 1,
lines 14 through 23 all related to whether a person had
been previously convicted of driving with a suspended
license (not any other crime). Subsection (C) beginning on
page 1 addressed whether a license had been suspended for a
DUI crime. The amendment would revert to the law prior to
any criminal justice reform. If a person had not previously
been convicted of driving with a license suspended, the
penalty was 10 days, with 10 days suspended. If a person
had previously been convicted of driving with a license
suspended, the penalty was 20 days, with 10 days suspended.
He explained the scenarios pertained to situations where
the revocation was based on a points revocation as opposed
to a license being suspended or revoked because of a DUI
conviction. There was a separate mandatory minimum for DUI
convictions.
2:39:02 PM
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Matt Claman in
the audience.
Representative Grenn stated that in SB 91 the two reasons a
license could be suspended had been separated, including
sentencing. He observed that the amendment put them back
together.
Mr. Skidmore agreed. He detailed that Amendment 10 would
completely roll back the provisions of SB 91 that said
certain types of driving with license suspended would be
handled as a violation or infraction.
Representative Grenn wondered if the amendment sponsor had
any research or data on the number of people it may relate
to in terms of a jail sentence of up to 10 days.
Mr. Skidmore responded that research conducted by DOL
suggested that the misdemeanor caseload for driving with
license suspended accounted for about 17 percent of all
misdemeanors prosecuted by the department prior to criminal
justice reform. He did not have detail on whether the
individuals were first or multiple time offenders or if
they had a DUI.
Representative Grenn surmised that the number was
significant.
Mr. Skidmore answered that taking 17 percent of the
approximately 24,000 to 25,000 referrals would provide a
ballpark figure.
2:41:30 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked to hear from Ms. Di Pietro on the
estimated number of bed days that would be impacted by the
amendment.
SUZANNE DI PIETRO, DIRECTOR, ALASKA JUDICIAL COUNCIL and
STAFF, ALASKA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION, answered that
the commission had devised estimates when SB 91 policy of
making non-DUI-related driving with license suspended
crimes non-criminal had been discussed. The commission had
developed estimates of the number of bed days that would be
saved for DOC per month. The estimates started out lower in
the first year and increased in subsequent years. In 2017,
the estimated yearly bed impact was 272. The estimates for
2018 and 2019 were around 36 beds per month. She noted the
figure could be multiplied by 30 to get an estimated
impact. She continued that DOC had testified the previous
day about its marginal rate; the number of bed days could
be multiplied by the marginal rate (either per year or per
month) to determine a cost estimate.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if Ms. Di Pietro had the figures.
Ms. Di Pietro answered that she had multiplied by $41.40
(which she did not believe was the precise rate) by 36
individuals and had come up with $1,491. She believed it
would be best to talk to DOC about the fiscal impact. She
explained that the commission predictions had been focused
on the bed impact.
2:44:18 PM
AT EASE
3:02:26 PM
RECONVENED
Commissioner Williams relayed that the department had
reviewed the numbers over the break. Based upon the
assumption of what had been taken out (the number of people
going to jail for the offense pre-SB 91) about 36 people
per day were in custody for the offense, multiplied by
$42/day, equaled almost $550,000 in additional bed costs
(taking the marginal rate into account). The amount
represented the approximate cost of moving the offense from
a violation to the prior offense of a Class A misdemeanor.
Co-Chair Seaton referred to the violations resulting in
jail bed time. He remarked there was a per bed cost, but
also a social cost. He was trying to figure out how mixing
high-risk offenders with low-risk individuals and how jail
time for the latter individuals impacted their employment,
housing, and other. He asked if the department worried
about the items.
Commissioner Williams had not been on the commission at the
time the recommendation had been made. He believed the
change [made in SB 91] made sense for a variety of reasons.
He continued that the marginal rate for prison beds was
$42/day and the overall rate was close to $150/day (and
more in some locations). The beds were expensive, and it
was necessary to decide how to use them. He referenced a
program called Three Days Matters (in prison) - after three
days in prison a person could lose their job, housing,
social networks, and other. There were concerns anytime a
person was put in prison for generally lower-level, lower
risk offenses because of the other peripheral damage that
got done in terms of support networks. He continued that
the offenses addressed by the amendment were the kind that
he would be as concerned about why the commission had made
the recommendation. He reiterated that prison beds were
expensive and should be used for high-risk people and
people doing dangerous things; it was desirable to try
alternatives for other things. He understood the criminal
justice theory about why the change had been made in SB 91.
3:07:07 PM
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representatives Geran Tarr and
Gabrielle LeDoux in the audience.
Representative Wilson asked understood the offense was on
the low end; however, she emphasized that the individuals
were behind the wheel of a car and why their license had
been suspended was not known. She wondered how it was
determined that a jail bed was not worth the cost versus a
person driving recklessly and putting others in danger.
Commissioner Williams responded that he had not looked at
the underlying data, but he had heard from another
commission member that half of the people got to their
current standing by virtue of points (non-DUI related
citations). The reason could include speeding or a number
of other things. He continued that criminalizing the
offenses was a policy call. He explained there were
financial and societal costs associated with the decision.
He surmised that in some cases it would be desirable to
have an offender in jail, but in many cases he supported
developing other alternatives that did not involve jail
time. He mentioned the "rub-off" effect of having a not-so-
bad person hanging out with a bad person. He stated it was
the theory and the reason DOC tried to avoid it whenever
possible.
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 10. The conceptual amendment would change the
language "10 days with 10 suspended" on page 1, line 17 to
"5 days with 5 suspended." Additionally, it would change
"80 hours" to "40 hours" on line 18.
There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 10 was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Gara stated there was a presumption that a
criminal was a bad person. He shared that in his career as
an attorney he had represented the owner of an auto shop
called Chevy Heaven. He detailed that the man had a string
of DUIs in the 1980s - so many that his license was
suspended for around 40 years. The individual would fix a
person's car and would test drive it - troopers would pick
him up and take him to jail and the judge would tell him he
had to put him in jail due to a mandatory minimum for
repeat offenses of driving without a valid license. The
judge understood the man had done nothing wrong in his
recent life. Under the amendment, he believed repeat
offenders received a minimum of 20 days and a minimum of 30
days under some circumstances. He did not believe he could
vote for the amendment as written. He had a problem with
the mandatory minimums. He continued that they did not
consider who the person was, what they did for a living, or
whether their business would be destroyed. He believed it
was necessary to individualize justice.
Vice-Chair Gara continued that additionally, he did not
have a great sense from the sentencing commission about why
it had recommended changing the provision in SB 91. Under
SB 54, if a person was driving without a license due to a
DUI it was a Class A misdemeanor and was a jailable
offense. He stated it was the non-DUI conduct that would
cause a person to lose their license under the amendment.
He wondered how to distinguish between a person who lost
points towards their license for driving 90 miles per hour
versus a person who lost points rolling through a stop sign
when no one else was within a half mile; he had received
two of the tickets. He reiterated that he could not vote
for the amendment in its current form and could not vote
for it without the knowledge from the sentencing
commission. He had to vote based on his only experience,
which involved a very good man who was going to jail for 10
to 20 days at a time. The law had since changed, but he did
not know the other examples at present.
3:13:55 PM
Representative Pruitt addressed the DUI component of the
amendment. He clarified that the amendment did not change
anything in current law pertaining to DUIs.
Representative Wilson stated that she found the discussion
"almost insane." She elaborated that one minute they were
talking about an amendment pertaining to public safety and
the next minute they were talking about the number of
people who may in a prison bed. She believed everyone could
give examples like the one provided by Vice-Chair Gara.
However, there were also examples where people without a
driver's license chose to get in a car and drive
recklessly; the individuals caused damage and death. She
underscored they were not talking about people stealing
things from a grocery store; they were talking about a
situation where a person could get into a vehicle that
could potentially kill someone. She suggested getting rid
of the law requiring driver's licenses if legislators did
not think people needed licenses. She furthered that
everyone could drive without a license and they would be
ticketed if they did not know how to stop at a stop sign or
follow the speed limit. She continued that a license meant
a person had done the training to be able to drive and that
they had the understanding that following certain rules was
required. She stated that why they would say that some
people needed to follow the rules and others did not made
no sense.
Representative Wilson continued that a person did not lose
all their points at one time - they had to do several
things to make it happen. She noted that the newspaper in
Fairbanks showed there were many people driving without a
license. She did not know whether the occurrences involved
a DUI. She referenced a document showing that 1,408 were
point suspensions and 1,987 were without mandatory
insurance. She reasoned that if a person without insurance
hit her car she would have to pay. She stressed that the
individuals could be potentially dangerous. She did not
believe the crime was minimal. She stated it was only a low
crime if an officer pulled someone over and found they did
not have a license - in a situation where no one had been
hurt. She asked about a major crime where a person with no
license hit a family of five on their way to church. She
emphasized that driving without a license was a big deal.
She reiterated that vehicles could kill someone. She
believed it was a substantial public safety issue. She
stated that the only time it was not a big deal was when an
officer pulled someone over and they were scared enough not
to drive again. She wondered about a situation where a
person without a license and insurance hit and killed the
family next door. She understood the individual would be
charged with another crime, but she questioned whether it
could have been prevented by addressing it the first time
the person had been pulled over.
Representative Wilson supported the amendment. She did not
want to see more people in jail, but she did not want to be
the one to agree to only giving a person a citation. She
thought they would not pay the ticket anyway because their
license had already been revoked. She thought the amendment
provided a tool for officers to utilize. She reasoned that
one of the biggest reasons for SB 54 was to help DOL and
DPS.
Co-Chair Seaton opposed to amendment. He stated that the
amendment would cost $500,000 per year. Additionally,
Alaska had very little public transportation in most areas
and individuals with a suspended license had very few
options if they were working. The committee had heard from
DOC that mixing low-level, nonviolent individuals with
violent criminals was not a way to improve public safety;
it decreased public safety over time. He continued that the
amendment did not have the flexibility of zero to five days
in jail. He stressed that the amendment would mean a
minimum of five days in jail.
3:19:36 PM
Representative Pruitt provided wrap up on Amendment 10 as
amended. He believed the committee needed to be cognizant
of the discretion of officers. He explained that an officer
would have the discretion to determine whether there were
certain things they may bring forward. He agreed the
amendment established a minimum jailtime, but he believed
it was important to recognize the discretion of an officer
still existed. He stressed that the amendment provided a
huge tool for police officers. He shared that the issue had
been repeatedly brought to his attention by police officers
as being detrimental to the safety of the public.
Co-Chair Seaton MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
10 as amended.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Grenn
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 10 as amended FAILED (5/6).
3:22:21 PM
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW Amendment 11 (copy on file).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that Amendment 16 took the place of
Amendment 11 and would be heard after Amendment 15.
Amendment 12 would be rolled to the bottom.
3:23:12 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13, 30-LS0461\T.33
(Martin, 11/1/17) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 6, following "program;":
Insert "relating to the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission;"
Page 29, following line S:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec, 47. AS 44.19.647 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) In addition to the information required under (a)
of this section, the commission's annual reports
submitted to the governor and the legislature in 2018,
2019, and 2020 must include the following infom1ation
on sentences imposed under AS 12.55.135(m) for
disorderly conduct under AS 11.61.110:
(1) an analysis of terms of sentences by various
demographic groups, including ethnic groups; and
(2) whether different demographic groups receive
disproportionately longer terms of sentences."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 32, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec, 50. AS 44.19.647(c) is repealed December 31,
2020."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 33, line 14:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 52"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the amendment with a prepared
statement:
Amendment 13 directs the Alaska Judicial Commission to
report to the legislature for the next three years on
whether the length of sentences for disorderly conduct
is unequally applied to different demographic groups.
The commission has already indicated that they have
access to this type of data and could prepare annual
reports of this direction to include this specific
data analysis for those reports. This is addressing
the concern of disproportionate sentencing.
Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW Amendment 13 because the committee
had adopted a previous amendment going to 24-hour hold.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
3:24:17 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 14, 30-LS0461\T.31
(Glover/Martin, 11/1/17) (copy on file):
Page 33, following line 12:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 50. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT; NOTIFICATION TO REVISOR OF
STATUTES.
(a) Section 47 of this Act takes effect only if, on or
before July l, 2018, the director of the division of
legislative finance provides notice to the revisor of
statutes under (b) of this section.
(b) The director of the division of legislative
finance shall, on or before July 1, 2018, notify the
revisor of statutes if the Thirtieth Alaska State
Legislature passes an appropriation bill that is
enacted into law that makes an appropriation to the
Department of Health and Social Services for the
alcohol safety action program for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2019, that is at least 50 percent
greater than the amount appropriated to the Department
of Health and Social Services for the alcohol safety
action program for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2018.
* Sec. 51. If, under sec. 50 of this Act, sec. 47 of
this Act takes effect, it takes effect July 1, 2018."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 33, line 14:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "secs. 51 and 52"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment with a prepared
statement:
Amendment 14 delays the effective date of the
expansion of referrals to the ASAP [Alcohol Safety
Action Program] program to July 1, 2018, which is the
start of the next fiscal year. It also makes the
expansion of referrals conditional upon the
legislature increasing the funding of ASAP by 50
percent. SB 91 limited ASAP referrals to only a few
specific misdemeanor offenses, but it greatly
increased the intensity of the case management
services the program provides. The change to include
referrals to all misdemeanors would return to numbers
of referrals to pre-SB 91 levels with no reduction in
the service requirements. Judging by past numbers they
can expect referrals to increase by approximately
$3,000, which is 50 percent of the current caseload,
but given the review of the types of misdemeanors in
the courts right now, this increase could even be
greater and more like $4,000. We have already
anecdotally heard that there has been success with the
new more intensive case management, but it is
unrealistic to expect the program to succeed doubling
or pulling up by 50 percent with no additional funds.
It's also important that this change be delayed. It's
a delayed effective date because the courts will need
some time to update their referral forms, but those
cases are available for all cases - it doesn't matter
when those cases or crimes occurred.
Representative Wilson had been disappointed in the
presentation [the committee had heard from ASAP] and had
hoped that someone would take out the other amendment. She
remarked that the group was not monitoring; it was making
referrals, but was not following up on those referrals. She
surmised the amendment would allow the legislature to have
more discussion on what the program was doing. She agreed
that if the program would receive more people, it should
have more funding; however, she did not know why the
legislature should send more people or more funding to a
program that could not provide any numbers or data on who
it was helping. She stated that unfortunately many
individuals with DUIs went to the program. She believed the
amendment would be better than the current scenario where
the number of referrals would increase, but funding would
not. She mentioned giving the program more time to see if
the regulations worked and the agency could come back to
the legislature with the information. She asked for
verification that the participant numbers would remain as
they were under SB 91 if the funding was not provided. She
believed it would mean an amendment added by the House
Judiciary Committee would be invalidated.
Co-Chair Seaton replied in the affirmative - if the funding
did not come through to make the program effective it would
be kept as is under SB 91, which anecdotally they heard was
more effective. He agreed that much more monitoring was
needed. The committee had spoken with the agency and
believed the agency understood that more monitoring was
needed.
Co-Chair Seaton referenced discussion the previous day that
in the past the program had included minors consuming
alcohol. However, since the offense was a violation and not
a misdemeanor, it was no longer available for referrals. He
believed it should be available for minors consuming
alcohol - he believed the individuals needed help the
program provided. He MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
on page 32, line 1 to insert "or under AS 04.16.049 or AS
04.16.050," which would include minor consuming for ASAP
referrals. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
3:29:55 PM
Representative Wilson hoped that the subcommittee chair
(Vice-Chair Gara) would get the data in the coming session.
She WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 14 was ADOPTED
as AMENDED.
3:30:49 PM
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 15, 30-
LS0461\T.2 (Bruce/Martin, 10/28/17) [note: due to the
length of the amendment it is not included here. See copy
on file for details].
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt reviewed the amendment. He discussed
that two things done in SB 91 related to theft. First, the
threshold between a misdemeanor and felony had been
increased from $750 to $1,000. Additionally, an inflation
proofing provision had been added. He pointed out that the
$750 threshold had been raised two years earlier. He
believed they had doubled down. He mentioned that the
inflation aspect had been straightened out and clarified
earlier in the meeting. He referred to the $1,000 threshold
and stated that inflation was looked at every five years
and had been 19 percent in the U.S. He thought it was quick
movement upwards - on $1,000 it would be $190 over ten
years. He knew that some people argued criminals did not
consider the value of things; however, he believed
criminals were smarter than they were given credit for. He
believed the amendment would implement another tool to try
to address people stealing things (i.e. shoplifting,
burglary, and other). The amendment would reduce the
threshold back to $750 and would leave inflation proofing
in place. He reminded the committee that it [the $750
threshold] was something the legislature agreed to a couple
of years before the passage of SB 91. He stated it had been
a hard-fought battle and he believed more time should be
given. Eventually, the amount would increase due to
inflation proofing.
3:33:11 PM
Vice-Chair Gara opposed the amendment. He stated that every
time there was a different audience they had to address an
issue again. He clarified that the amendment did not
pertain to burglary - it only had to do with theft. He
detailed that burglary (breaking into someone's home) was a
Class B felony that was jailable under current law and SB
54. He elaborated that jailtime for a first-time offense
could be up to two years or longer if a person had prior
felonies. Robbery (stealing from someone and endangering
them) was also a Class B felony. The amendment pertained
only to theft. He questioned whether thefts should be
turned from a jailable misdemeanor to a felony with more
jailtime. Currently it was a first-time Class A misdemeanor
for stealing something worth $750. A jail sentence for a
first-time offense was 0 to 30 days and for a repeat
offense the time increased to 0 to 1 year.
Vice-Chair Gara reiterated theft cases did not involve
threatening or hurting anyone or breaking into their home.
He stated it was a policy call to determine how long a
person should be in jail for stealing something worth $750
where they had not threatened anyone. He stated the
amendment would result in putting a person in jail for up
to a year for theft of something worth $750 and no prior
offenses. He believed it meant the state would be paying
for extra jailtime with no benefit to public safety. He did
not think there was a benefit to public safety for
potentially putting a person with no prior offenses in jail
for up to 1 year for theft. He restated that the offense
was currently jailable as a misdemeanor. He did not believe
in turning everything into a felony.
3:35:49 PM
Co-Chair Seaton spoke against the amendment. He stated that
the committee had been told by the commission [Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission] that longer prison stays did
not reduce recidivism any more than shorter stays. The
amendment would increasing stays on individuals stealing
something between $750 and $1,000. He pointed out that in
1978 the amount had been set at $500, which would be $1,824
in current dollars with inflation. He stated that they were
not currently keeping up with inflation. He did not believe
it made sense to decrease the threshold to capture more
people for longer sentences when the threshold was half or
less proportionately than the same value in 1978. He stated
that an inflation proofing report came out every five years
rounded to the nearest $50; it would be some time until
that report came out again. He did not support decreasing
the threshold from $1,000 to $750.
3:37:35 PM
AT EASE
3:37:49 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Pruitt provided wrap up on the amendment. He
stressed that it was the number one issue. He stated that
people were not demanding a repeal of SB 91 because of
murder thresholds; it was because the sense of safety due
to car break-ins and a feeling that things were happening
at a higher level. He understood that the amount had not
been moved at the same rate of inflation since the 1970s.
He remarked that $750 put Alaska in the middle of the other
states - some were at $1,000 and Nevada was at $650 (moved
up recently from $250). He underscored that criminals were
smarter than they were given credit for; they understood
the thresholds and the ramifications. One of the items in
the amendment pertained to writing a bad check. He pointed
out that people knew there was a difference between writing
a $749 check and a $750 check or $999 check and a $1,000
check. He believed people's concerns needed to be
considered. He reasoned that if the legislature wanted to
ensure the public would not be demanding more, the
legislature needed to take their concerns into account. He
concluded their concerns were about things taking place on
their back doorsteps.
Co-Chair Seaton MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Kawasaki, Ortiz
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Seaton, Foster
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 15 was ADOPTED.
3:41:30 PM
AT EASE
4:16:53 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster relayed the committee was on Amendment 16.
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 16, 30-
LS0461\T.36 (Martin, 11/2/17) (copy on file):
Page 18, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 26. AS 33.05.020(h) is amended to read:
(h) The commissioner shall establish by regulation a
program allowing probationers to earn credits for
complying with the conditions of probation. The
credits earned reduce the period of probation. Nothing
in this subsection prohibits the department from
recommending to the court the early discharge of the
probationer as provided in AS 33.30. At a minimum, the
regulations must
(1) require that a probationer earn a credit of 30
days for each 30-day period served in which the
defendant complied with the conditions of probation;
(2) include policies and procedures for
(A) calculating and tracking credits earned by
probationers;
(B) reducing the probationer's period of
probation based on credits earned by the
probationer; and
(C) notifying a victim under AS 33.30.013;
(3) require that a probationer convicted of a sex
offense as defined in AS 12.63.100 or a crime
involving domestic violence as defined in AS 18.66.990
complete all treatment programs required as a
condition of probation before discharge based on
credits earned under this subsection."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 45. AS 33.16.270 is amended to read:
Sec. 33.16.270. Earned compliance credits. The
commissioner shall establish by regulation a program
allowing parolees to earn credits for complying with
the conditions of parole. The earned compliance
credits reduce the period of parole. Nothing in this
section prohibits the department from recommending to
the board the early discharge of the parolee as
provided in this chapter. At a minimum, the
regulations must
(1) require that a parolee earn a credit of 30 days
for each 30-day period served in which the parolee
complied with the conditions of parole;
(2) include policies and procedures for
(A) calculating and tracking credits earned by
parolees;
(B) reducing the parolee's period of parole based
on credits earned by the parolee and notifying a
victim under AS 33.30.013;
(3) require that a parolee convicted of a sex offense
as defined in AS 12.63.100 or a crime involving
domestic violence complete all treatment programs
required as a condition of parole before discharge
based on credits earned under this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 32, line 28:
Delete "and"
Page 32, line 29, following "Act":
Insert ";
(10) AS 33.05.020(h), as amended by sec. 26 of this
Act; and
(11) AS 33.16.270, as amended by sec. 45 of this Act"
Page 33, line 11:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 33, line 12:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 33, line 13:
Delete "26"
Insert "27"
Page 33, line 14:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 52"
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt relayed that Amendments 12 and 16
were in a similar vein. He requested leniency during his
description process. He shared that the concept had come to
him from an individual who worked with individuals in
treatment and the rehabilitation process. The individuals
were primarily sex offenders and domestic violence
offenders. The individual had expressed concern that the
creation of earned time credits during parole, gave the
ability for an individual to complete or be finished with
parole prior to the completion of their treatment. He
questioned whether a person would voluntarily complete
their treatment once they were no longer required to be in
the program as part of their parole. He did not believe it
would happen. He stressed that a loophole had been created
for people needing treatment at the highest levels. He
communicated that 18 other states had enacted the earned
time credit; 7 had carved out sex offenders from the
provision (including Arizona, Texas, and Maryland). He
highlighted Texas that had been the model when the Alaska
had begun to work on criminal justice reform. He explained
that the earned credit in Texas did not apply to sex
offenders.
Representative Pruitt explained that the amendment would
prevent a person from lowering their good time to a time
that was lower than the time it would take them to do their
treatment. A different amendment he would offer was modeled
after Texas law and would not allow earned credit for sex
and domestic violence offences. He wanted to have a
conversation in committee about what was acceptable. He
stressed that the issue was vital. He emphasized that the
state must require a person to complete the treatment they
were directed to do. He stressed that sex offenses and
domestic violence were some of the most heinous crimes. He
referenced the Me Too movement and explained that people
were started to wake up to what was taking place. He
believed the committee must pass one of the amendments. He
underscored that the state could not allow people to not go
through treatment. One of his amendments would carve the
individuals out completely from earned time and the other
amendment allowed earned time, but not below the timeframe
needed for treatment to take place.
4:23:05 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated the issues were a great
concern to him. He wanted to hear about commission findings
on programs and how they worked best with the specific
population of individuals.
Ms. Di Pietro discussed the reason behind the earned
compliance credit recommendation from the commission. She
referred to research showing people change their behavior
in response to incentives, often more so than in response
to sanctions. The goal was to get the individuals to comply
with the conditions of their probation and complete their
required treatment. She likened earned time to a carrot -
if an individual followed the requirements they would not
have to be under onerous probation supervision as long as
they would if they did not comply. She addressed
Representative Guttenberg's question pertaining to programs
a person could or should be doing to earn compliance
credits. The first category in the amendment related to
people who had been convicted of a sex offense. She stated
it was a difficult population to talk about. She relayed
that DOC had sex offender programing called a containment
model. Sometimes the individuals received the treatment in
prison or in the community under close supervision. There
was University of Alaska Justice Center, DOC, and national
data showing that offenders convicted of a sex crime who
went through treatment and the containment model
supervision had one of the lowest recidivism rates in
Alaska. Additionally, when the individuals recidivated, it
tended not to be with a new sex crime.
Ms. Di Pietro elaborated that the programs were effective
and DOC had been very thoughtful and careful with its
program design pertaining to sex offender treatment. The
amendment also pertained to domestic violence. Programs for
people who commit domestic violence crimes were called
batterer intervention programs. To be a state-sanctioned
program, it was necessary to receive the designation from
the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA)
under DPS. There were regulations outlining the qualities
and requirements a program needed to qualify. She believed
the statutory program length was 24 weeks, but she was not
certain. Many programs went to 52 weeks.
4:28:01 PM
Representative Guttenberg remarked it was easy to lump sex
offenders into one large group and classify them as
horrible people. However, he stated it was not the reality
of the situation. He stated there were individuals that
should be locked up forever and he assumed they were not
eligible for early release or treatment. For more minor
offenders he wondered about the success rate. He believed
the amendment specified a person had to complete treatment
prior to getting [credits].
Ms. Di Pietro answered that anyone serving their sentence
was not out on probation. There would be many sex offenders
serving long-term prison sentences who were not out on
probation. Most of the individuals would eventually be
released after the end of their sentence. There were others
serving less lengthy sentences. She did not fully
understand the question.
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that
Amendment 16 would not give an individual any good time
until they completed a domestic violence program.
Ms. Di Pietro clarified that the amendment stated a person
could not receive earned compliance credit.
Representative Pruitt corrected that the individual could
earn the credit, but it could not be taken below the time
it would take to complete treatment.
4:30:32 PM
Representative Grenn stated that the amendment lumped
domestic violence and sex offenses together. He referenced
Representative Pruitt's testimony that Texas had a carve
out just for sex offenses. He stated that perhaps there
were other states that had a carve out for both or for
domestic violence only. He wondered about the effects of
putting the two together and wondered if it was
appropriate.
Ms. Di Pietro replied that it was a policy call. The
commission had not been looking at Texas when it
established its recommended policy on earned compliance
credits. The commission had been looking at what seemed
right for Alaska. She did not remember discussions about
particular types of offenders. She believed it had been
assumed the incentive would apply to all types of
offenders.
Representative Grenn remarked that the statute designating
who could be charged for domestic violence was broad and it
was a very different crime than sex offenses. He believed
he was glad the two groups of offenders had been included,
but he was wondering about the effect.
Representative Ortiz stated that the amendment made a case
that currently a person could be able to walk away from the
system without finishing treatment. He wondered if that had
been the commission's intent and if the scenario could
potentially occur.
4:33:12 PM
Ms. Di Pietro replied that part of the issue hinged on the
policies the department had developed. She stated the
intention of the commission was "it was a month to month
thing." At the end of the month a probation officer
determined whether a person had been in compliance with
their conditions of release including whether they were
going to treatment and paying their restitution. Once a
person did that they received a month off. However, if the
person was not in compliance the next month they did not
receive another month off. She addressed details of how
long a treatment program in the community may be. She
explained that some people did treatment in prison,
including many sex offenders. She stated it would be a
question for the commission about what kinds of batterer
intervention programs they had in prison - she believed
there were some. Some of the treatment happened in prison
and some happened in the community. She did not recall a
discussion about probation terms being shortened to the
extent that an individual did not have time to finish their
required programming.
Representative Ortiz asked if Ms. Di Pietro concurred that
potentially there could be a scenario where a person could
walk away from their treatment program.
Ms. Di Pietro replied it would have to be a pretty short
probationary period. She remembered discussion about
maximum and minimum probationary periods. For example,
there was a 15-year minimum probationary period for a sex
offender. She believed it would be long enough.
Representative Ortiz asked for verification Ms. Di Pietro
believed it would be long enough for an individual to
finish treatment.
Ms. Di Pietro concurred.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representatives Ivy Spohnholz,
Geran Tarr, and Andy Josephson in the audience.
4:36:33 PM
Vice-Chair Gara noted he had some concerns with a prior
version of the amendment and appreciated the amendment
sponsor taking another look. He stated there were two types
of circumstances where a person's treatment program may go
longer than their parole. His understanding of Amendment 16
was that a person's earned credits could not cut their
probation to the extent that the probation became shorter
than a treatment program. He asked for verification that a
domestic violence offender had a shorter probationary
period than a sexual felony case.
Ms. Di Pietro answered that it was difficult to answer
related to domestic violence due to the myriad situations
that could occur under AS 18.66.990.
Vice-Chair Gara provided a scenario where a person was on
probation for 5 years and had a treatment program that
lasted 5.5 years. He surmised that a court could not force
a person to finish the treatment program after their
probation ended. He asked for verification that Amendment
16 did not impact the scenario.
Ms. Di Pietro agreed that the situation Vice-Chair Gara
provided could happen currently.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that the amendment did not extend a
person's probationary period; therefore, a person's
probation could expire prior to their completion of a
treatment program. The amendment would not let credits
shorten a person's probation period to the extent that they
would complete probation prior to finishing treatment.
Ms. Di Pietro answered that the regulations the
commissioner would promulgate regarding earned compliance
credits would require that a probationer complete all
treatment programs before discharge based on credits earned
under the subsection. She explained that a probation
officer may agree that a person had done everything they
were supposed to do but they would not give them the month-
to-month credit because they had not yet finished their
program. She stated the commissioner would have to amend
the policy to work out details.
Vice-Chair Gara understood that the credits would not
shorten a probation period to be less than the time it took
to complete a treatment program. He referred back to the
scenario where a person was on probation for 5 years and
had a treatment program that lasted 5.5 years. He surmised
that under Amendment 16, a person's probation would still
be over in 5 years even though they had not finished their
program.
Ms. Di Pietro agreed.
4:40:48 PM
Co-Chair Seaton stated that the purpose of early compliance
credit was to get probationers started on the right track
and to have incentive (day-for-day or month-for-month
credit) to make sure they were in compliance in the first 6
months to 1.5 years (or more). He detailed that data showed
individuals who had been in compliance for the first part
of their probation would likely not recidivate later on. He
was concerned that requiring an alcohol treatment program
and 3 years of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or a similar
program would mean any earned credits would not apply. He
believed a number of the programs had an active treatment
segment and a tail segment to ensure the person continued,
but they had not yet completed the program. He was
concerned that a person would lose compliance because
individuals would learn that if alcohol was involved in a
crime there would be a longer probationary tail, meaning
credit did no good. He thought it would negatively impact
early compliance in probation and parole. He thought it was
something that may be lost inadvertently. He did not think
the amendment should look at the after care or longer-term
follow up care that a number of programs entail, otherwise
it would defeat the purpose.
Co-Chair Seaton was also concerned about domestic violence.
There could be two brothers living in a household who got
in a fight and alcohol was involved. He explained it could
be a domestic violence charge and would mean a person could
not earn credit. He thought the person may have to go to AA
for a long period of time and he believed it could be an
unintended consequence for the segment of the population.
4:44:06 PM
Representative Thompson provided a scenario where someone
was sentenced to "x" number of years with "x" number of
probation years and sex offender treatment. He stated that
the probation could be over, but the expectation was for a
person to complete the treatment program. He wondered if it
would be a violation of conditions of release if the person
did not finish the program.
Representative Pruitt deferred the question to DOC.
Commissioner Williams answered to hear the question again.
Representative Thompson complied.
Commissioner Williams answered the scenario would not be a
violation of release. He detailed that failure to complete
a program or failure to follow a program expectations would
probably remove the individual from the earned compliance
credit category. Whether or not DOC would revoke on that
may be a separate thing.
Representative Thompson took the earned credits out of the
scenario. He provided a scenario where a person's probation
had ended but they had not yet completed the program. He
asked if it was a violation of their conditions of release.
Commissioner Williams answered it was a more complex
question. He spoke about a scenario he had witnessed. He
detailed that sometimes there were waiting lists for sex
offender treatment. A person could be on a waiting list for
1 to 1.5 years for outpatient sex offender treatment. He
clarified that in no way was the issue about trying to cut
a former sex offender a break. He had met with individuals
who were waiting to go through treatment; those individuals
were in limbo. He questioned where the blame resided (on
the individuals, the system, DOC, or other). He struggled
with the issue - it was one thing if an individual did not
want to comply, but it was another thing if the state had
no way for them to comply.
4:48:31 PM
Representative Wilson underscored that the individuals the
amendment addressed had committed a horrible crime. She
elaborated that the state had chosen to make combating
domestic violence a number one priority. Additionally, data
showed that when sex offenders did not receive treatment
they were likely to recidivate. She reasoned that the
amendment was merely requiring individuals to finish
treatment. She thought the availability of a 30-day credit
may mean individuals would be more apt to take it if
available in the institution. She believed the more the
state could put in place to ensure treatment programs were
completed, the better. She referenced the scenario by Co-
Chair Seaton about two brothers fighting and was sure it
happened, but it did not constitute most cases. Most of the
calls were related to men beating up women repeatedly. She
stressed the severity of the issue. She thought it would be
detrimental if the state decided to give offenders 30-day
credit for good behavior and hope the individual would not
beat a woman up again if they did not finish treatment.
Representative Wilson believed Amendment 16 still followed
what the commission wanted. She stated it was still an
incentive. She agreed about the waitlists, but the
individuals committed the crime [and should deal with the
repercussions]. She stressed that people chose to commit
the crime, which mostly occurred against women. She
understood that men could be victims as well. She wanted to
make sure treatment was completed prior to letting a person
off probation. She believed the individuals needed the
extra incentive. She stressed there were many hurt Alaskans
prior to individuals being charged. She discussed that
victims were scared to testify. She merely wanted the
individuals to finish their treatment prior to receiving
credits.
4:52:05 PM
Vice-Chair Gara agreed with the concept of the amendment.
He understood not allowing the credits to make the
probation shorter than the core program. He referenced Co-
Chair Seaton's point about after care programs such as AA,
which some people went to for the rest of their life. He
asked if there were other after care programs that may go
on for a long period.
Commissioner Williams deferred the question to another
department.
4:53:32 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, introduced himself and noted
he was also a member of the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission. He asked Vice-Chair Gara to restate the
question.
Vice-Chair Gara complied.
Mr. Steiner stated his understanding of the question.
Vice-Chair Gara clarified the question. His understanding
of Amendment 16 was that a person could not use their
earned credits to make their probationary period shorter
than their program. Leaving credits aside, there could be a
circumstance where a probationary period could conceivably
be shorter than the treatment program. In that
circumstance, the probationary period would end. The
amendment specified that a person could not use credits to
shorten their probationary period to be shorter than their
treatment program.
Mr. Steiner answered that the amendment set up a situation
where someone could comply with their full probation and
never be offered a program due to a waiting list and never
receive any of the earned compliance credits because they
were never offered the program (or offered the program so
late that it pushed out their release date and effectively
made it unlikely they would ever receive any credits).
There used to be orders that judges would issue requiring
people to complete treatment in jail, which resulted in the
revocation of individuals' mandatory parole for failure to
complete the treatment, but the treatment had not been
offered. Therefore, the requirement had shifted to
participating in treatment if it was made available. In
that case, if a person was kicked out of treatment for
failure to participate, it would constitute a violation.
Establishing a hard rule in the amendment meant that a
person could be ordered to complete treatment, but they may
not have time, particularly with sex offender treatment
which was not necessarily a set number of weeks (it was a
process that could go on for some period of time). He
explained that it set up a situation where someone would
earn something, but not get the benefit. The commission had
discussed, and research showed that guaranteed benefits for
compliance enhanced compliance and the reductions in
recidivism. The concept was the basis of the earned
compliance credit.
4:56:43 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked if Mr. Steiner had concerns with
Amendment 16 as written.
Mr. Steiner believed the amendment would result in
situations where people would earn their compliance credits
but not receive the benefits.
Vice-Chair Gara asked if it was more desirable for a person
to complete the program than earn compliance credits.
Mr. Steiner replied responded that the goal was for
individuals to complete their program, but if the incentive
was taken away, the success rates may decline.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that currently compliance credits
could mean a person finished probation prior to completing
treatment. He reasoned that the incentive to start
treatment was provided, but there was no probation to give
a person the incentive to complete the program.
Mr. Steiner answered that it was the scenario of the in-
custody order. At present, orders required people to
participate when offered. He believed data showed that
participation even without completion provided a recidivism
reduction benefit. It was a trade between incentive and
completion. He believed it would be worth weighing how much
additional benefit it would bring. There was benefit in
participation alone. He stated that sometimes things could
go on beyond probationary periods.
4:58:50 PM
Representative Grenn stated that the heart of the amendment
was asking a person to complete treatment. He referenced a
report that broke down the commission's goals in SB 91 and
moving forward; a substantial part of the goal pertained to
reinvestment into treatment, such as victim services and
violence prevention. The report addressed why the services
were needed, why it was important in Alaska, and all the
different programs available for victim services and
violence prevention. He spoke to the importance of asking a
person to complete a program and what it communicated to
the public. He wanted to hear the reason for combining sex
offense and domestic violence in the amendment. He was glad
the two were included but wanted to hear from the amendment
sponsor about the benefits from his perspective. He
explained that if he had to pick between someone not
receiving the benefit of their earned credits and someone
finishing treatment, he would prefer someone finish their
treatment.
Mr. Steiner answered that if someone was not given the
opportunity to earn something they were entitled to if
given the opportunity, they could have a claim they should
receive it anyway. A person could argue that they had been
denied an opportunity in a due process claim. They could
argue that they had been required to complete treatment to
earn credits, but the treatment had never been offered.
They could argue to the court they were entitled to the
credits because they had complied with what had been made
available to them (and it had not been the treatment
program that the state required them to complete). He
believed the claim would have merit.
Representative Grenn wondered about eliminating them
completely. He did not want to do that and agreed that the
carrot was better than the stick in many cases.
Mr. Steiner answered it was a balance and one of the
solutions to a balance was requiring participation. He
furthered that if someone willfully failed to participate
they would not earn a credit, but they would earn the
credits if they participated. He explained there would
still be a benefit if a person made it three-quarters of
the way through the program. He reiterated his earlier
testimony that data showed there was a benefit to treatment
even without completion. He stated that completing a
program may not be the end of anything - it was a process.
Representative Grenn surmised there was benefit from merely
participating in a program.
Mr. Steiner believed the data showed a significant benefit
for participation.
Representative Grenn asked if there was more benefit for
completing the program. Mr. Steiner answered that could not
recall whether there was additional benefit for completion
of sex offender treatment or any other program.
5:02:52 PM
LAURA BROOKS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH AND REHABILITATION
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference),
answered that even when a person participated in sex
offender treatment, but did not complete treatment, they
showed a decrease in recidivism to 44 percent compared to
63 percent for the general population.
Vice-Chair Gara tended to favor the amendment, with one
large exception highlighted by Co-Chair Seaton. He spoke to
his understanding that the treatment programs would not
last a full probation period, but there were additional
follow up programs such as AA. There was the core program
he believed the amendment intended to address. He believed
Co-Chair Seaton did not want follow-up programs to count.
He asked if there were follow-up programs for sex offenders
that may take many years - an equivalent of AA.
Ms. Brooks responded that DOC had two types of sex offender
programs. The institutional sex offender programming (e.g.
in Lemon Creek Correctional Center) was considered a
residential treatment program, which was 18 to 24 months of
intensive daily treatment with treatment plans, individual
and group therapy, confrontational awareness, and other.
Whereas programming in communities had originally been
designed as an aftercare program like what Vice-Chair Gara
referred to. She detailed it was outpatient model where
offenders attend weekly groups and had individual sessions.
The outpatient model was a containment model, which
included cognitive behavioral therapy in conjunction with
supervision by specialized probation officers and the
administering of a polygraph. The way DOC determined that a
person was "treatment complete" was the development of an
individualized treatment plan by the offender and provider
when the individual entered treatment. The treatment plan
was amended throughout the course of treatment in a
community. For example, sometimes when a polygraph came
back there needed to be significant changes made to the
treatment plan because there were indications that
something was not working well. When the offender completed
the plan requirements the provider determined along with
the probation officer and case manager whether the offender
was ready to be treatment complete.
5:07:26 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked for verification that the aftercare
program was part of the successful treatment requirement.
Ms. Brooks answered in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson thought the court set an individual's
treatment requirements as part of their sentencing. She
asked if it was DOC that set the parameters.
Ms. Brooks answered that typically there was an order from
the court or Parole Board specifying that an individual was
ordered to complete sex offender treatment. She detailed
that DOC did a number of risk assessments on the offender
to determine the most appropriate course of treatment and
how to prioritize them. For example, the program in Lemon
Creek was for the highest risk sex offenders (those who
were the highest risk to reoffend, highest risk for
violence, and other). Those individuals took priority and
DOC tried to get them into the much more intensive
treatment program versus others who may participate in
treatment in the community. The orders [from the court or
Parole Board] did not specify the type of treatment to
provide; the determination was made by DOC based on the
various risk assessments.
5:09:16 PM
Representative Wilson asked for the difference in
recidivism between a person who completed a treatment
program and a person who finished part of a program. She
highlighted the 44 percent recidivism rate for individuals
who participated in a program but did not complete it. She
did not want to take the odds.
Ms. Brooks replied that the national recidivism rate for
sex offenders who had completed treatment was around 5
percent for sex crimes. The rate in Alaska was between 3
and 4 percent.
Representative Wilson surmised it was the difference
between the 44 percent recidivism rate provided earlier for
individuals who had participated in a program, but not
completed one.
Ms. Brooks clarified that the 44 percent [recidivism rate]
pertained to all crimes, not only sex crimes. She detailed
that a person who had partially completed sex offender
programming received cognitive behavioral therapy that
addressed many things in addition to deviant thoughts
related to sex crimes. The individuals received significant
treatment related to criminal thinking errors and other
types of issues.
Representative Wilson agreed with Representative Grenn's
earlier testimony. She was willing to take the chance that
someone would claim they should receive the credit if it
meant a 3 to 4 percent recidivism rate on two of the most
egregious categories of crime. She remarked that the state
had made domestic violence and sexual assault a major
priority. She believed the amendment sponsor had included
the two categories because the state had been fighting them
together. She did not believe there would be many cases
where people someone would run out of time when they were
given the opportunity. She hoped that the reinvestment
component [of criminal justice reform] would mean
additional treatment programs. She thought it sounded like
there were quite a few offered in [DOC] institutions
already. She believed that as more people found they would
receive credit for completing a program it would help. She
did not believe women should have to keep fearing their
aggressors.
5:12:39 PM
Representative Guttenberg thought debate over the amendment
had been valuable, but he thought the incentive was needed.
He believed the issue was recidivism rate. He thought both
the carrot and stick were needed to drive the recidivism
rate down. He was concerned about comments made by Mr.
Steiner. He thought the amendment may result in legal
situation where individuals were credited regardless. He
wanted to ensure the state had the resources available to
do the programs. Part of the reinvestment coming out of the
commission was the importance of the carrot, which drove
the recidivism rate down as well. He agreed that a 3 to 4
percent recidivism rate was good, but he wanted to drive it
down farther. He was thinking about the victims in the
remaining recidivism rate. He stressed it was not about
being soft on crime or letting people out for good time. He
underscored it was about driving the recidivism rate down
and increasing public safety. There was no golden bullet in
completing a program. He stressed that something miraculous
did not occur when a program was finished. The committee
had heard in the past that people would rather go to jail
than complete treatment programs due to the rigorous nature
of the programs. He believed that at the end of the day
when the numbers were compiled - the carrot and the stick,
the early out, and the earned credits - the lowest
recidivism rate occurred when providing the earned credit.
He did not want the individuals on the street if they were
going to be a problem, but driving down the recidivism rate
was the most important thing. He stated that whether it was
1 or 2 percentage points with the amendment, it was enough
for him. He stated, "I don't think we need to go there."
5:15:12 PM
AT EASE
5:58:35 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 16 (copy on file):
Insert page 1, line 19
Following "subsection" insert ",if the program is made
available to the probationer in time to be completed."
Insert page 2 line 18
Following "subsection" insert ",if the program is made
available to the parolee in time to be completed."
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the insertion on page 2, line 18
was a conceptual amendment to conceptual Amendment 1. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Seaton explained that if a program was offered in
time for a person to complete the program, completion of
the program would be required. If the program was not
offered in time, the individual would need to fully
participate in the program, but it would not eliminate the
earned compliance credit from being available to the
person. The goal was to have full participation and the
earned compliance credit was to facilitate active
participation in the program as soon as it was available.
If the program was not offered in time for a person to
complete it, it should not be a penalty because he wanted
to maintain the incentive.
6:02:33 PM
Representative Pruitt provided a hypothetical scenario
where an individual had a 5-year probationary period. He
elaborated that there was a 3-year program available to the
individual. He continued that when they started probation
they discovered there was a 2-year waiting list for the
program. He believed the likelihood of the individual
deciding to voluntarily participate in and finish the
program was pretty low if the individual could get out
after 2.5 years. He surmised the individual would not try
to be a part of treatment if it was easier to provide the
carrot. He stated there had been much discussion about the
effectiveness of the carrot or incentive. He asked about
the success of a person who went through treatment versus a
person who did not.
Ms. Brooks answered that there was recidivism data that
spoke to the efficacy of a program. The recidivism rate for
sex offenders who did not complete treatment was
approximately 17 percent; if treatment was completed the
number dropped to about 3 percent. She continued that 30
percent of the individuals who partially completed sex
offender treatment committed new (non-sex offense) crimes
versus 44 percent for individuals who completed treatment.
She stated there was definitely a benefit to having the
individuals complete treatment when available.
Representative Pruitt asked for a restatement of the last
statistic.
Ms. Brooks replied that the recidivism rate for a new sex
offense was about 3 percent for individuals who completed
treatment versus 17 percent for individuals who only did
partial treatment.
Representative Pruitt did not support the conceptual
amendment. He considered whether the carrot [incentive] or
treatment was more important. He believed the numbers
provided showed that treatment was critical for reducing
recidivism, much more so than any incentive the state could
provide. He believed Amendment 12 that would exempt
individuals [convicted of sex offenses or domestic
violence] should be exempted completely (as in Texas and
other locations). He believed it would be a better benefit
to the individual to ensure they had the opportunity to go
through treatment (than accepting the proposed conceptual
amendment). He underscored that the numbers showed that
treatment worked for people in the particular circumstance.
He wanted the committee to consider whether the individuals
should be completely exempt from the credit.
Representative Thompson spoke against the amendment. He
believed the conceptual amendment to Amendment 16 created a
loophole for the offender to game the system. He furthered
it allowed individuals to realize if they bowed out of a
program there would not be another program available until
they finished their probation. He wanted to see individuals
complete treatment programs.
6:08:28 PM
Representative Grenn asked if there were programs in place
that were paid for by the individual.
Ms. Brooks replied that the department paid for sex
offender treatment for many offenders. Whether the
department would pay depended on a variety of factors. The
bulk of treatment was paid for by the department.
Representative Grenn referenced programs that were paid by
the individual. He asked what happened when an individual
could not pay, but treatment was a condition of probation.
Ms. Brooks answered that individuals would still receive
treatment regardless of their ability to pay. Weekly groups
for treatment were paid for in full by DOC and monthly
individual treatment sessions were paid for by DOC for
about the first six months; after that time it was expected
the offender would be able to take ownership in treatment
and pay. In cases where a person lost their job or had
other financial hardships the treatment went to a sliding
fee scale and if the individual had significant financial
hardship they would not be removed from the program for
inability to pay.
6:10:37 PM
Vice-Chair Gara explained that the conceptual amendment did
not do anything that was not already happening. He
elaborated that at present if a program was not made
available to someone, they received credit because they
were following their other conditions of parole. He stated
there were a number of other conditions of parole. In
addition to laying your hands off other people, individuals
may be required to go to job training and/or alcohol and
drug abuse treatment. He furthered that by giving incentive
for people to follow their orders, they achieved the other
conditions. Under any version of Amendment 16, if a program
was not available in time, a person would not do the
program. He explained that all the conceptual to Amendment
16 would do was eliminate a "bait and switch" for people
who were following all other conditions of probation or
parole. The conditions may include no drinking alcohol,
staying away from a victim, and other. He understood the
completion of a program was beneficial, but it could not be
completed if it was not available.
Vice-Chair Gara continued that the conceptual amendment
asked individuals to follow every rule of probation and
parole, otherwise they would lose the credits. He did not
believe the state should punish people for something they
could not have. He stated that Alaska was a large state
that was underserved in terms of treatment programs. He
anticipated that in most cases all of the programs a person
needed to complete would be available; but in some cases,
they were not available in time. If the treatment program
was available, the individual would be required to
participate.
Representative Wilson spoke in strong opposition to
conceptual Amendment 1. She wanted to know when they would
address the victim. She believed people were saying "don't
punish people." She stressed that the individuals were
responsible for doing something to someone else by choice.
She emphasized that the individuals had decided to commit
some of the worst possible deeds and the committee was
worried about whether or not they would receive 30 days
extra credit for good behavior. She asked the committee to
consider the issue from the victims' standpoint. She
expressed confusion about the amendment because it
specified "if the program is made available in time to be
completed." She provided a scenario where a person had a
probation period of 5 years without the good time. She
stated a person could complete a 3-year program if they
were on a waiting list for 2 years. Alternatively, she
wondered if the amendment would require a person to
complete a program in the first 2.5 years because it
considered what the time would be assuming they received
the 30-day credits for good behavior. She believed it was a
problem and did not know what it meant.
Representative Wilson believed the conceptual amendment
would water the law down. She emphasized that it was about
the victims. She stressed that it was not merely about
punishment, but about recidivism. She highlighted the 3
percent recidivism rate [for people who completed sex
offender treatment] versus 17 percent [for people who
partially completed sex offender treatment]. She asked if
other members would want to take the chance of being in the
17 percent. She thought 3 percent was bad enough to know
that a victim could be molested in some way; at 17 percent
the odds were even better that a person would be molested,
which were not the odds she wanted. She observed that the
committee was only talking about whether the offender was
treated equally. She reasoned that the offender had made a
choice. The victim had not. She reiterated her question
about the time completed and how it would be calculated.
She underscored there were many victims in Alaska. She did
not want to water Amendment 16 down.
6:18:06 PM
Co-Chair Seaton supported the conceptual amendment.
remarked that the committee had been talking about the
opportunity for a person to go through treatment and the
incentives for people who actively participate in
treatment. He stated that taking away the ability for a
person to receive earned credit (because it was not offered
until too late to complete before probation or parole
ended) removed the incentive for a person to actively
participate in treatment. He did not believe it was a good
way to protect the public. He stated that comparing
statistics between a person who dropped out of treatment
with a person who completed treatment was different than a
person who participated in treatment and left the program
because they received good time and finished their parole.
He explained that it did not mean they were discontinuing
treatment. He explained the conceptual amendment would mean
they had incentive to continue. He reasoned that taking
away incentive to participate in the program meant that
active participation was less likely. He thought
maintaining incentives was smart. He did not believe
eliminating incentives because programs were not offered in
a timely manner was the right way to go.
Representative Pruitt spoke in opposition to the conceptual
amendment. He asked for verification the committee prefer
to give offenders good time credits and put them out on the
street without finishing treatment. He stated that in that
the difference between the 3 and 17 percent rate was 14
additional victims. He stated the people would be
unsupervised and outside the state's control. He thought
the state should do everything it could to find a program.
He provided a scenario with a 5-year timeframe where a
person could be under that timeframe or find a program that
may shorten it. If the program was not available, the state
still had the chance to keep the individuals under
supervision for the whole timeframe.
Representative Pruitt reminded the committee that Alaska
was different than other states; Alaska's constitution had
Article 1 Section 4, which included the rights of victims.
The conceptual amendment would gut the intent of Amendment
16. He detailed that other states that Alaska had used as
its guide to judicial reform did not have the opportunity
for earned credits for individuals in the categories
addressed by Amendment 16. Amendment 16 was his compromise,
but he considered withdrawing the current amendment and
offering Amendment 12. He reasoned that it may be better to
keep the individuals supervised the entire time if the
committee was going to have concern about whether or not
the individuals received due process and that credits may
not be offered to them. He expressed that he was fighting
for victims of some of the most heinous crimes. He implored
the committee to oppose the passage of the conceptual
amendment.
6:23:59 PM
Representative Grenn thought the conceptual amendment went
too far. He referred to testimony from Mr. Steiner about
incentives and from Ms. Brooks about the importance of
completion of a program. He thought there was something to
be said for both. He believed a carrot was necessary to
incentivize completion. He remarked that not all treatment
programs were made available around the state. He had
difficulty with the portion of the amendment specifying "in
time to be completed." He noted that Representative
Thompson had pointed out a potential loophole, which he
believed veered away from the intent of the amendment for
individuals to complete the program. He believed the goal
was for individuals to have the greatest success in life
going forward, which appeared to mean the completion of a
program.
Co-Chair Seaton believed the state needed to preserve the
carrot and the stick. He thought the conceptual amendment
did not appear to get around some of the issues. He
WITHDREW the conceptual amendment.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Jonathan Kreiss-
Tomkins in the audience.
Vice-Chair Gara addressed Amendment 16. He stated that the
whole legislature worked to protect victims of sexual
assault and to protect people from sexual assault. He
stressed that Alaska had some of the highest jail sentences
in the nation for sexual assault and repeat sexual assault.
He underscored there was much more the state needed to do.
He would not accuse anyone in the building of being soft on
sexual assault. There had been efforts by DOC to ensure
people coming out of jail did not repeat offend. He shared
that he had worked on domestic violence cases, which was
not at the level of severity of sexual assault, but it was
still horrible. There was almost always an order
prohibiting an offender from going near the victim again;
if they did, their probation was over and they returned to
jail. He recognized the work of others in the room who were
champions for doing more outside the criminal system to
prevent sexual assault, including Representative Tarr. He
believed the legislature had worked very hard to ensure
individuals who engaged in some of the most horrific crimes
were punished. Every time he had always voted to provide
resources to individuals in the community working to
prevent sexual assault and protect victims. He believed the
nation and state had significant work to do.
Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED. He stressed the need
for a rational voice and real numbers to reduce recidivism.
He wanted fewer victims and smart criminal justice. He did
not want to merely lock people away in a dark cell, because
it would not improve people's lives. The Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission had done significant statistical work on
causes and what worked and did not. He wanted to see the
recidivism rate decreased "into the ground." He spoke to
the purpose of addressing recidivism. He thought the
commission's recommendations were powerful tools the
legislature should not walk away from. He did not believe
anyone in the room was soft on sex offenders. The committee
members had different opinions. At the end of the day, he
believed facts and numbers should drive policy.
6:32:23 PM
Representative Pruitt agreed that the numbers were needed.
He stated that the numbers dictated that the state needed
to ensure people were completing treatment. He stated that
for every 100 offenders there were 14 victims [when
treatment was not completed].
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Gara, Grenn, Kawasaki, Ortiz,
Pruitt, Thompson, Foster
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 16 PASSED (9/2). There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 16 was ADOPTED.
6:34:35 PM
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW Amendment 12, 30-LS0461\T.13
(Martin, 10/28/17) (copy on file).
6:35:08 PM
AT EASE
6:38:51 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster reported that the bill had six fiscal notes
the committee had discussed the previous day. The committee
had replaced the DOC population management (institution
director's office) fiscal note [OMB Component Number 1381].
Additionally, one fiscal note had been added by the
committee for the DOC commissioner's office [OMB Component
Number 694]. He asked staff to address the committee.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
explained the House Finance Committee for the Department of
Corrections fiscal note, OMB Component Number 1381. The
note included a $1.4 million increment in FY 18; beginning
in FY 19 through FY 23 there was an annual $2.9 million
increment. The fiscal note was informational only and had
been modified to request 67 percent of the of the estimated
maximum funding needed as outlined in the analysis section.
The department believed the range of funding needed to
implement this bill is between $1.6 million and $4.3
million. The request should be adequate for the first year
to ensure the department could carry out the cost impacts
of the bill. He detailed that FY 18 provided funding for
approximately half the fiscal year (January to July). The
attached analysis and the Marginal Rate Billing Rate
Calculation was provided by the department. The discussion
had been about the marginal rate and how much to fund it
at. He reiterated that the note was informational only and
explained the funds would need to be added to a future
appropriations bill. He reported that the Office of
Management and Budget and the Legislative Finance Division
would ensure the appropriate funds were allocated
accordingly.
Mr. Anderson highlighted the second fiscal note, OMB
Component Number 694. The note was from the House Finance
Committee for DOC, Office of the Commissioner. The intent
of the informational note was a place holder reflecting
intent to add one-time funding of $2 million to the Office
of the Commissioner for treatment and rehabilitation
services for FY 19. He specified that $1 million was
intended for population management community residential
centers and $1 million for the health and rehabilitation
services and substance abuse treatment program. The intent
was to begin the process of funding adequate treatment
within DOC.
6:42:35 PM
Representative Wilson asked what part of the bill the
fiscal notes related to. She assumed OMB Component Number
1381 replaced a previous indeterminate note.
Mr. Anderson agreed. He specified that OMB Component Number
1381 identified a cost instead of indeterminate.
Representative Wilson asked how the 67 percent had been
derived. Mr. Anderson answered that in order to come up
with figures for the fiscal note, roughly two-thirds of the
difference between the $1.6 million and $4.3 million was
$2.9 million. He elaborated it was 67 percent of the
estimated marginal rate cost (shooting for a bit above half
the difference).
Representative Wilson asked for verification that the 67
percent was a cost range and was not necessarily based on a
number of inmates they assumed would be coming to
corrections.
Mr. Anderson replied agreed.
Representative Wilson assumed OMB Component Number 694 was
a new fiscal note. She noted there had been money for abuse
treatment programs in SB 91. She asked if the $2 million in
the fiscal note would go to a specific program or treatment
in general.
Mr. Anderson responded that the $2 million would be spread
across the two different treatment and rehabilitation
programs and services provided within DOC.
Representative Wilson stated that most of the treatment had
been included in SB 91 and should have been in the budget.
She assumed the fiscal note pertained to new treatment that
SB 91 did not cover. She knew that CRCs [community
residential centers] had new contracts that brought money
savings. She was trying to determine what new programs the
funding would go towards that had not been in the last
year's budget.
6:45:34 PM
Mr. Brodie deferred the question to DOC.
Commissioner Williams asked for a restatement of the
question.
Representative Wilson complied. The fiscal note listed $1
million for population management/community residential
centers and $1 million for health and rehabilitation
services/substance abuse treatment programs. She had
received information from DOC showing money left over for
treatment. She asked what new treatment the $2 million
would go to.
Commissioner Williams replied that it was the first time he
had seen the fiscal note. He did not have an articulated
plan he felt comfortable talking about. He clarified that
DOC had not requested the fiscal note, but there were items
he had been working on independently that he could use the
money on such as vocational training. He noted he had also
been working diligently with fish processing plants. He
reiterated that the department had not requested the
funding and had not established a plan for the funds.
6:47:33 PM
Representative Wilson apologized to Commissioner Williams
because she thought DOC had requested the fiscal note. She
asked to hear from the author of the fiscal note to
understand where the $2 million figure had come from.
Co-Chair Seaton answered that much of the reinvestment
money was not happening because there was a net negative in
the department. He elaborated that the purpose of the
fiscal note was to ensure there was money allocated for
lowering recidivism through treatment and other programs.
The note was directed at the commissioner's office with the
specific direction to go to programs aimed at reducing
recidivism.
Representative Wilson thought the marijuana tax funds were
directed to reduce recidivism. She asked how much had been
collected and where the funding had gone.
6:49:38 PM
AMANDA RYDER, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
answered that in FY 18 the Department of Revenue was
expecting about $5.3 million in recidivism reduction
funding. She detailed that $6 million had been appropriated
and the legislature had included backstop language that if
revenue was insufficient, UGF would backfill the gap. She
believed it was in DPS. She reviewed the $6 million
appropriation that was to be divided into $2 million to
DOC, $2 million to DPS, and $2 million to DHSS. She
specified that all of that funding was being expended in
the departments; the funds were for substance abuse
treatment and other reinvestment appropriations from SB 91.
The fiscal note [OMB Component Number 694] was an addition.
She reminded the committee that the fiscal notes currently
under consideration were informational only. The funding
would have to come to the committee as a one-time increment
in next year's budget. The committee would have to approve
any additional expenditures and DOC would submit a plan if
the governor chose to include the $2 million in the
governor's budget.
Representative Wilson surmised that DOC should not begin
using the money because it had not been allocated. She
asked for verification that the funds would only become
available if they were included in the governor's budget
for the next fiscal year.
Ms. Ryder agreed. She specified that the governor had to
submit the request for $2 million and the legislature would
have to decide whether to approve it.
Representative Kawasaki appreciated having something other
than an indefinite fiscal note for the population
management. He surmised the 67 percent number was as good a
guess as any. He noted that an amendment had been passed
earlier that reduced the felony threshold for theft. He
asked if it was included in the fiscal note before the
committee.
Mr. Anderson answered it was his understanding that the
note would have to be updated prior to going to the House
floor.
Representative Kawasaki surmised that if the bill passed
there the committee could expect an updated fiscal note
reflecting the $500,000 increment resulting from a change
to the felony threshold.
Mr. Anderson deferred to DOC regarding its marginal rate
calculations.
6:54:11 PM
Ms. Wilkerson requested to hear the question again.
Representative Kawasaki complied. The committee had passed
an amendment that reduced the felony threshold for theft.
There had been discussion about the potential cost using
the marginal rate plus the number of people in prison,
which he believed was about $500,000.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that the $500,000 figure was correct.
The department would need to revise the fiscal note to
reflect amendments passed by the committee.
Representative Kawasaki stated that under SB 91 there was
supposed to have been substantial savings from diversionary
programs. He noted that the Pretrial Division was not up
and running yet and savings were anticipated in the area
the following year. He added that things had ended up
costing more than expected. He asked if the $2 million was
to backfill funds that had been anticipated to be used for
reentry, rehabilitation, and recidivism reduction.
6:56:30 PM
Mr. Anderson replied that he did not have the answer at the
time.
Representative Kawasaki stated that the committee had heard
from the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission discussing the
need for the money for numerous things. The commission had
suggested it would have been advantageous if the
legislature had forward funded the reentry, rehabilitation,
and recidivism components because savings would result from
those areas. He suspected it was the reason the fiscal note
had been brought before the committee.
Representative Wilson was fairly certain the legislature
had fully funded with UGF because marijuana [tax] had not
taken off the ground at the time. She believed it had been
explained to the legislature that it would take time for
all of the regulations to be written and for the state to
begin collecting [the tax]. She believed the legislature
had forward funded [items in SB 91].
Vice-Chair Gara had heard from colleagues on both sides of
the aisle and from public testimony that not enough money
was being put into making certain people coming out of jail
were not criminals. He provided examples including
substance abuse treatment for people with alcoholism and
drug problems, and job reentry services (transitioning
people into housing, job training, and work). He spoke to
making the choice for people to come out of jail who would
not recidivate. He stressed the goal of SB 91 and SB 54 to
protect the community by making sure people did not commit
crimes when they came out of jail. The prior bill [SB 91]
included a larger fiscal note for treatment services and
job training. During the course of things over $2 million
of the money started disappearing. He agreed that the
legislature had underfunded the part that was supposed to
protect the community. The current fiscal note would fund
the amount. He believed it was a bipartisan consensus that
being cheap on crime would endanger the community. He
stressed the need to do everything the state could so that
people coming out of jail went to work instead of
burglarizing homes. He stated the fiscal note was
consistent to remedy what happened with SB 91 when the
money began disappearing as the bill traveled through
committees prior to its passage.
Representative Wilson clarified that it was not about
supporting or not supporting. She merely wanted to know
where the money went. She had asked DHSS over three weeks
earlier where the money went that it had received for
treatment programs. She was still waiting for an answer.
She believed everyone merely wanted to know where the
appropriated money had gone. She thought everyone was
concerned if the money had run out and programs were unable
to continue. She noted that DOC had put its programs back
in place - they had gone through a lag time where their
provider left and they had to find a replacement - she knew
there was money in DOC for that purpose. She was merely
speaking about the numbers and was not debating the need.
She wanted to know where the current money had gone and
where the holes were to ensure they were being filled.
7:01:40 PM
Co-Chair Seaton believed they all recognized that they were
trying to promote public safety. The goal was to help with
the recidivism problem, meaning there were fewer offenders.
He stated they felt that directing funds to the programs
operated through the commissioner's office was the
appropriate place instead of the legislature defining
exactly what the programs would be. He surmised that they
all understood public safety and reducing crime rates would
not be free. The fiscal note provided a suggestion for the
department and governor to include the amount in the
budget. He wanted the administration to know the
legislature was supportive of reducing recidivism.
Representative Kawasaki relayed that he was looking at the
fiscal notes from SB 91. He detailed that much of it had
been predicated on a number of generated savings from a
reduction of offender population. He furthered that because
it happened at a slower rate, the generated savings of $4.5
million in FY 17 and $11.9 million in FY 18 had not come to
fruition. He surmised the generated savings anticipated for
FY 19 would be off considerably as well. He stated the
reason there was not sufficient money for treatment,
recidivism reduction, and reentry programs was because
population management ended up costing more.
7:04:53 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 54(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Tilton OBJECTED. // she believed the bill
had not gone far enough to fix the problems. She agreed
that SB 91 had not caused all of the crime problems. She
agreed that treatment was needed. She knew that the
perception of SB 91 had emboldened criminals. She had done
a ride along and had heard criminals say things like "give
me my ticket, I'll be back on the street in a half an
hour." She stated that crime was rising and // She spoke to
public asking for a repeal of SB 91. She had heard the same
thing in many public testimony locations. She referred to
articles she had on hand as examples (copy not on file).
She had heard the Attorney General Lindemuth say it was an
experiment. She was not willing to experiment. She stated
that victims could be any woman or person. She appreciated
the efforts.
7:10:27 PM
Vice-Chair Gara stated that public safety was paramount //
He stated that violent crime had been rising even though
they had increased the sentences // People committing
violent crimes were being substantially punished. //
Sentences had been increased for the most violent crimes.
He stated that burglary had been and would continue to be a
jailable offense. // sexual abuse of a minor punishment had
been increased under the current bill.
7:17:14 PM
Representative Grenn shared that he had spent the past
several months diving in to the issue to understand. // He
shared that he had done ride alongs // He had gone door to
door to talk to neighbors. The public perception of what SB
91 had done to communities was real. There was a feeling
that there had been a shift in public safety. When he
talked to individuals about how to make things safer // SB
54 was helping to chip away //.
7:21:04 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked members to refrain from
texting during other members' comments.
Representative Wilson believed SB 54 began in the right
direction, but she believed most Alaskans did not feel
safer. // She thought it appeared that the victim was put
on the back burner. She stated that the victims should be
the number one concern. // She believed everyone had a
common goal of increasing public safety.
7:26:20 PM
Representative Guttenberg made comments on the bill. // He
stated that during the two days of public testimony there
were clearly people who were afraid and wondering about the
safety of their families. There was another group of people
who testified from Haven House and others with addiction
issues. The individuals had been successful due to
treatment programs. He stated that the message had been
clear that to address crime, treatment was paramount. Some
people may say the legislature was being soft on crime, but
that was not the point. He did not recall ever having
enough treatment beds - it had always been an issue. He
believed they had come a long way with the bill. There was
always more to do.
7:30:52 PM
Co-Chair Seaton believed it was necessary to recognize that
reducing recidivism was stopping future crime. He stated
that the bill was not an experiment, it was applying
evidence based criteria to address the state's crime
problem. // it put economic stress // the opioid epidemic
was putting huge stress on society. He noted that it was
important to consider that the legislature had reduced the
budgets for the Department of Public Safety and other. He
believed it was important when considering amendments that
financing was not changed that impacted public safety. He
believed they were all working for public safety; what had
been done in the past was not working.
7:33:46 PM
Representative Tilton MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Pruitt,
Thompson, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Wilson, Tilton
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CSSB 54(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two new fiscal impact notes
from the House Finance Committee for the Department of
Corrections; one new indeterminate fiscal note from the
Department of Health and Social Services; one new zero
fiscal note from the Alaska Judicial System; one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Law; one new zero fiscal
note from the Department of Public Safety; and one
previously published zero note: FN3 (DHS).
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to give Legislative Legal the ability
to make technical and conforming //
Co-Chair Foster discussed the schedule for the following
week.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 54 Amedment PKT HFIN.PDF |
HFIN 11/2/2017 10:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Inmate Costing - SB91-SB54 - Population Marginal Costs.pdf |
HFIN 11/2/2017 10:00:00 AM |
SB 54 SB 91 |
| SB 54 Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.pdf |
HFIN 11/2/2017 10:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Public Testimony 2 11.2.pdf |
HFIN 11/2/2017 10:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Amendment 16 HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 11/2/2017 10:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 16 HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 11/2/2017 10:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| DRAFT FN HFIN SB54 Pop. Mgmt. 11-2-17.pdf |
HFIN 11/2/2017 10:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| DRAFT FN HFIN SB54 Admin. & Support. 11-2-17.pdf |
HFIN 11/2/2017 10:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 ACOA Letter of Support, House Finance.pdf |
HFIN 11/2/2017 10:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |