Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/13/2017 05:30 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB204 | |
| HB79 | |
| SB55 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 204 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 55-OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS
6:31:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 55(FIN), "An Act relating to criminal law
and procedure; relating to controlled substances; relating to
sentencing; relating to protective orders; relating to
restitution; relating to the period of probation; relating to
revocation, termination, suspension, cancellation, or
restoration of a driver's license; relating to parole; relating
to the duties of the Department of Corrections and the
Department of Health and Social Services; and providing for an
effective date."
6:32:01 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 6:32 p.m. to 6:34 p.m.
6:34:24 PM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, advised that SB
55 was borne out of the recommendations from the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission, and it is mostly technical and conforming in
nature. He noted that SB 54 contains policy calls and has taken
on a life of its own. This bill is based on issues the
Department of Law (DOL) brought to the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission wherein the commission put something in one statute,
and through the amendment process there was not a conforming
change, and this bill conforms those changes, he explained. The
goal is to be as "technically clean" as possible during this
session, which would help both the DOL, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF), Division of Motor
Vehicles while hammering out some of the policy call questions.
Senate Bill 91 [passed in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State
Legislature] was a large omnibus crime package with many
amendments, and it is now necessary to line up the statutes.
6:36:56 PM
JORDAN SHILLING, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, offered a sectional summary and advised that
Sections 1, 2, and 3, of the bill all do the same thing. He
explained that in 2015, the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
recommended that the felony theft threshold be raised, which is
the dividing line between misdemeanor theft and felony theft.
The commission had advised to not only raise that threshold but
to link it to inflation so the legislature would not have to act
in the future on that issue. However, with Senate Bill 91
having 193 sections there were some drafting errors, and this
drafting error occurred when the drafter inadvertently, in three
instances, linked the higher amount of grand larceny, $25,000,
to inflation adjustment. He opined that this was an inadvertent
result of a floor amendment in the House of Representatives,
last year.
6:37:56 PM
MR. SHILLING advised that Section [3] of the bill relates to
drug possession, and as recommended by the commission in 2015 a
simple drug possession shall be a misdemeanor, with exceptions
to that recommendation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that she doesn't understand why
adjusting for inflation would be considered a technical
amendment because it appears to be a fairly substantive change.
MR. SHILLING responded that the commission and Senator Coghill
consider it a technical change because the commission never
recommended that that the higher amount be linked to inflation.
He explained that it is the sponsor's understanding that there
was never an intention to link $25,000 to the inflation
adjustment.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that if he was adjusting for
inflation, why there was never an intention to link $25,000 to
the inflation adjustment.
6:39:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opined that this was the subject of a floor
amendment and was a compromise to adjust for inflation at the
lower level, but not at the higher level.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that the lower level determines
the first level of felony when moving from misdemeanor to
felony, and that the broad agreement was that $25,000 would
probably always be a class B felony throughout "our lifetime and
the next lifetime." The lower level is more sensitive to the
market, inflation, the actual value of items most frequently
stolen, and that the market is sensitive because it is a lower
amount moving from a misdemeanor to a felony theft, he said.
Whereas, the higher amounts are actually not as sensitive to the
threshold they are attached to on the felony scale. There will
always be felonies, he reiterated, but the lower level is moving
from misdemeanor to felony, and the debate was around when
something should go from a misdemeanor to a felony.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX disagreed with this being the result of a
House of Representative floor amendment because she did not
recall any of those floor amendments actually passing.
CHAIR CLAMAN agreed with Representative LeDoux and advised that
he believes it was not a subject of a House of Representatives
floor amendment, it was actually a function of the amendments
offered in the House Judiciary Standing Committee last year.
6:41:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether it was Chair Claman's
recollection that the committee meant to do this in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, in which case it was not a
technical amendment.
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that it was a technical amendment because
the House Judiciary Standing Committee "did it, but we did it in
most sections," and Mr. Shilling explained that there were a few
sections that appeared as though they were drafted erroneously.
Therefore, he said, this is conforming the statute to the intent
of the bill as it came through committee.
6:42:18 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, clarified that
the language being eliminated was, "adjusted for inflation as
provided in AS 11.46.982" and explained that AS 11.46.982
specifically reads that the judicial council will only adjust
for inflation the $250 amount and the $1,000 amount. She
pointed out that the Judicial Council does not have authority
anywhere to address the $25,000 amount, so that really was a
case of the drafters going through, and each time they saw
something added "adjusted for inflation," but erroneously doing
it for the dollar amount that was not authorized.
6:43:10 PM
MR. SHILLING advised that Section 4 of the bill relates to drug
possession, and as recommended by the Alaska Judicial
Commission, Senate Bill 91 made simple drug possession a
misdemeanor, with exceptions such as, felony forms of possession
in the law. Unfortunately, he said, those changes inadvertently
created some overlapping penalties, specifically for possession
of less than one ounce of a schedule VIA controlled substance.
This section eliminates those overlapping penalties, and
accommodates for the fact there are felony forms of drug
possession referenced in other statutes and it simply needs to
be referenced in Section 4 as well, he explained.
6:44:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to "overlapping penalties."
MR. SHILLING referred to CSSB 55(FIN), Version T, page 3, lines
3-6, which read as follows:
(4) under circumstances not proscribed
under AS 11.71.030(a)(3), 11.71.040(a),
11.71.040(a)(4), [AS 11.71.040(a)(3)] or
11.71.060(a)(2) [11.71.060(a)(2)(B)], possesses any
amount of a schedule 1A, IIA, IIIA, IVA, VA, or VIA
controlled substance.
MR. SHILLING explained that this statute makes simple possession
of drugs a class A misdemeanor, and it makes possession of
schedule 1A, IIA, IIIA, IVA, VA, or VIA substance a class A
misdemeanor. However, he pointed out, another statute has
another penalty for possession of less than one ounce of a
schedule VIA substance. He explained there is a statute that
makes it a class B misdemeanor for someone to possess less than
one ounce of a VIA controlled substance, and another statute
simultaneously makes it a class A misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that there are inconsistent
penalties.
MR. SHILLING answered in the affirmative, and offered that the
sponsor chose to default to the class B misdemeanor, which was
the law prior to Senate Bill 91.
6:45:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to previous testimonies
referencing the State of Texas and asked Mr. Shilling to
describe how similar or different the drug issues are in Senate
Bill 91 in Alaska versus Texas.
MR. SHILLING pointed out that he is not an expert on the
sentencing frameworks of other states, but generally when
speaking of Texas it was spoken of as being one of the first
conservative states to embark on these types of criminal reform
efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that she would like to speak to
the committee at a later time as to the differences in Texas
because many times people have been misled, and stressed
considerable concern regarding Section 4.
6:46:52 PM
MR. SHILLING advised that Section 5 relates to victim
notification. Senate Bill 91 created a new requirement of the
court by requiring that information regarding sentencing be
given to the victim, thereby, giving the victim an opportunity
to update their contact information with the Victim Information
and Notification Everyday (VINE) system. However, the language
was not written in a manner that would accommodate for the fact
that many victims simply do not show up to court and; therefore,
the court system has been out of strict compliance with the
statute. Oftentimes, he commented, victims do not want to be
part of these hearings, and because it is not the court's role
to maintain a contact list of victim information, it would be
inappropriate to require the court to seek out these victims and
provide this information. Instead, he explained, the language
"if practicable" was added in recognition that many victims do
not show up to court.
6:48:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked permission to read "Section 24" of
the constitution.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the committee did not need
Representative Reinbold to read from the constitution while
moving through the bill sectional, and she would have an
opportunity during the committee comment segment of the bill
hearing.
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Reinbold's
continuing argument, stated that the committee would move
through the sectional summary at this time.
6:48:50 PM
MR. SHILLING clarified that the requirement to provide
information to victims did not exist prior to Senate Bill 91.
He explained that it is a piece of information the sponsor
strongly believes should be assessable to victims, and it was
established in law last year. He further explained that had
they identified a need for the language "if practicable," it
would have been changed last year.
6:49:09 PM
MR. SHILLING explained that Secs. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, all have
to do with the suspended entry of judgment (SEJ). Last year the
commission recommended a diversionary tool called a "suspended
entry of judgment (SEJ)" which resembles a "suspended imposition
of sentence (SIS)". The SEJ was established under Senate Bill
91, and was intended to operate a bit differently than the SIS
wherein a conviction would not be entered for defendants granted
an SEJ, thereby, avoiding some of the consequences resulting
from a conviction. He explained that Section 6 provides for an
array of authorities for the court system, and is the general
statute authorizing the court system to impose community work
service, fines, and sentences of imprisonment. Section 6 makes
it explicitly clear that the court does have the authority to
impose a suspended entry of judgment (SEJ).
6:50:17 PM
MR. SHILLING turned to Section 7, and advised that this section
is necessary to bring the suspended imposition of sentence (SIS)
and suspended entry of judgment (SEJ) closer into alignment. It
ensures that when a restitution order is made as a requirement
under an SEJ, that the responsibility to pay that restitution
does not go away or disappear when that individual successfully
completes an SEJ, and their case is discharged. The requirement
to pay restitution remains just as it does under a suspended
imposition of sentence (SIS).
6:50:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD requested an explanation of the
difference between an SEJ and an SIS.
MR. SHILLING explained that [under an SEJ] a judgment is never
entered, the individual is truly not convicted, the case does
not appear on CourtView, and they can legally write on an
employment application that they have never been convicted of a
crime. He pointed out that this is designed for first time, low
risk offenders, and deferred to the Department of Law or the
Alaska Court System for any additional questions.
6:51:40 PM
MR. SHILLING advised that Section 8 deals with an SEJ, and
explained that it was unclear in the SEJ statutes whether a
brief prison stay could be imposed, similar to what can occur
under an SIS. He related that practitioners had requested
clarification as to whether there was an option of imposing a
brief period of imprisonment for individuals going through an
SEJ. He clarified that the commission never intended "shock
incarceration," for example, to be used under an SEJ and if the
commission had, it certainly would have recommended the
appropriate language. The commission felt it was prudent to
clarify in statute that incarceration may not be imposed as a
condition of probation under a suspended entry of judgment
(SEJ).
6:52:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD paraphrased that "the court may not
impose a sentence of imprisonment under this section," and asked
for additional information as to this language tying the hands
of the court.
MR. SHILLING explained that it was not the intention of the
commission to impose shock incarceration under an SEJ.
6:53:20 PM
SENATOR COGHILL reminded the committee that under the suspended
entry of judgment (SEJ), the judgment is still there and the
idea is to get the person into treatment. The person must
complete that treatment in order to have that judgment suspended
and set aside. He described it as an accountability measure
because in order for the judgment to be set aside, the person
must complete the program requirements.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that with an SEJ, the court made the decision
to suspend entry of judgment and send the person to a treatment
program. Therefore, the court decides at the very beginning of
the process whether it will give the person that opportunity.
The court's hands are not tied, he pointed out, this is simply
recognizing that a court decided to give a person that chance to
rehabilitate and not have a conviction.
SENATOR COGHILL described it as a methodology tool that a court
may or may not use.
6:54:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD paraphrased "the court may not impose a
sentence of imprisonment under this section," and expressed
concern that many times funding and/or programs are not
available in certain areas, and in those instances what would be
the next step.
SENATOR COGHILL answered that the court may use the programs if
they are available, and if they are not available, the chances
are a court would not suspend an entry of judgment because it
couldn't practically follow the rules.
6:55:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to [Section 8] and asked how
broadly or narrowly imprisonment was defined, and if the court
decided a person needed to be hospitalized for a certain amount
of time whether that falls under imprisonment.
MR. SHILLING commented that he was unaware whether there was a
definition for imprisonment in Title 12, and opined that when
the word "imprisonment" is used, it refers to incarceration at a
Department of Corrections (DOC) facility. He explained that
different terms such as, home confinement and electronic
monitoring are used when referring to something other than a
hard bed facility within the DOC.
6:57:01 PM
MR. SHILLING explained that Section 9 also has to do with a
suspended entry of judgment (SEJ), and under existing law if a
person successfully completes probation under an SEJ, the court
may discharge the person and dismiss the proceedings any time
after one year from the date of the original probation. He
related that practitioners were confused by this language as to
whether it referred to the start date, end date, or at what
point in the probation term was being discussed. He clarified
that because probation terms are longer than one single day, it
is an increment of time and it makes sense to add the language
"was imposed," which is a grammatical issue to clarify that the
statute was referring to the start date of the term of
probation. Also, he said, this section clarifies that a person
is not convicted if they successfully complete an SEJ.
6:57:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to an SEJ, and asked whether
the person was ever convicted, and paraphrased: "a person who is
discharged in this section may not be convicted of a crime."
She said she wanted to look at the full ramifications from the
beginning to the end with regard to that sentence.
MR. SHILLING explained that under an SEJ, the person is never
convicted and this language makes it crystal clear that that
person is not convicted.
6:58:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said, "Yet, he or she has to do
probation and a whole bunch of other things," and something was
missing. She commented that if they are not convicted, why are
they on probation.
MR. SHILLING responded that a person faces many consequences
associated with being charged with a crime and are required to
perform community service, fines, or treatment, for example.
However, he said, the uniqueness of an SEJ that sets it apart is
that the person is not truly convicted and, thereby, avoids the
consequences that follow a conviction.
6:59:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that the person actually
committed the crime and this is a way to erase the offense, but
argued that people have the right to know whether someone
actually committed a crime and see it listed on CourtView.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked Mr. Shilling to explain who would
know about the SEJ, wherein the person actually committed the
crime but was not convicted.
MR. SHILLING explained that this is exactly how an SEJ works,
the person is not convicted and as a result their record does
not appear on the CourtView criminal record.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD argued, "But, they committed it."
7:00:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained to Representative Reinbold that she was
exactly correct, under the criminal justice reform efforts an
SEJ is a tool the court can use for someone who admits to
committing a crime, to give them an opportunity to rehabilitate
themselves. He related that he fully understands Representative
Reinbold does not agree with that part of the criminal justice
reform efforts, and her distaste is clear.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said this is an issue that has been "of
great alarm" and she wanted to put it on record.
CHAIR CLAMAN assured Representative Reinbold that it was clearly
on record.
7:01:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained to Representative Reinbold that
suspended entry of judgment (SEJ) means there is no written
official record of the conviction. He explained that the
defense, prosecution, [and judge] must all agree that the
conviction could be set aside if a whole host of conditions were
fulfilled on probation. He pointed out that the legislature
determined that a person was not eligible for an SEJ when
involving crimes against a person, sexual assault, violent
crimes, and almost any serious offense. The whole purpose
behind this is to allow first time offenders a chance to avoid
that initial conviction which could put them in the death spiral
of un-employability for the rest of their lives, he related. In
the event someone violates that probation they lose their
ability for that SEJ, and it will be a conviction. He described
it as a refined process.
7:03:26 PM
MR. SHILLING advised that Section 10 is a continuation of the
previous conversation regarding a suspended entry of judgment
(SEJ). It uses the words "convicted of" and "convicted" in
three instances, and because the person had not been convicted,
it made sense to refer to the charge rather than the conviction.
The fourth replacement of the words "convicted of" with "is
charged with" is for a different reason, there are a number of
exceptions, and a number of individuals are not eligible for an
SEJ. Under current law, a person convicted of a crime of
domestic violence is not eligible, "with convicted being past
tense" leads some practitioners to believe that might be
referring to a previous conviction of domestic violence. He
stressed that the sponsor wants to ensure that someone who is
"currently, right now," being charged with domestic violence
would not be eligible for an SEJ.
7:04:38 PM
MR. SHILLING explained that Section 11 eliminates overlapping
probation term lengths because Senate Bill 91 established
maximum probation term lengths. For example, he said, one of
the maximums was 15 years for a felony sex offense, and 10 years
for an unclassified felony under Title 11, and there are felony
sex offenses that are also unclassified felonies under Title 11.
He explained that there is an ambiguity about which maximum
probation term lengths would apply, and this section clears up
that ambiguity.
7:05:19 PM
MR. SHILLING pointed to Sections 12 and 13, and related that
they do the same thing. Senate Bill 91 raised the maximum fine
amount that could be imposed for a class A misdemeanor from
$10,000 to $25,000, and opined this was part of the
aforementioned House of Representatives amendment, but he would
perform research.
CHAIR CLAMAN said he was certain that amendment came out of the
House Judiciary Standing Committee and not from the floor of the
House of Representatives.
7:05:51 PM
MR. SHILLING remarked that these two statutes require certain
information to be on the protective order form, and these
sections talk about what the penalties might be for violating a
protective order. He noted that the form says that one of the
possible penalties would be a fine up to $10,000 except that is
no longer the maximum fine, and these two sections simply update
the information on the form to specify that the maximum fine can
be up to $25,000.
7:06:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the money goes to the
court system, the general fund, or whether it was restitution.
MR. SHILLING responded that he does not know the answer to that
question, and this is just a technical change that conforms
Alaska's fines statutes with the protective order statutes in
Title 18.
MS. MEADE answered that all fines for all crimes go straight
into the general fund.
7:07:19 PM
MR. SHILLING said that Section 14 has to do with license
revocations and this section removes a reference to the type of
dismissal that would serve to meet the requirements of this
section, and removing this reference to prejudice is
appropriate. The intent of this policy is to return the license
to the individual if they have been acquitted or their case
dismissed regardless of whether the dismissal was with or
without, prejudice. This simply removes the reference to
prejudice and gets back to the intent of that policy, he noted.
7:07:52 PM
MR. SHILLING explained that Section 15 is a new addition into SB
55 from the Senate Finance Committee. In 2015, the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission recommended that municipalities be
prohibited from having greater punishments under municipal
ordinances that go beyond the punishments for similar offenses
described under state law. Senate Bill 91 enshrined that
recommendation in statute, but afterwards it came to the
sponsor's attention that folks were interpreting the language to
not only apply to crimes, but also non-criminal offenses and
traffic infractions. He noted that this has had the effect of
limiting significant revenue sharing for the Municipality of
Anchorage, for example, and creating an inability to collect
greater fines for traffic infractions. This section simply
changes the statute to apply only to criminal offenses, he
explained.
7:09:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether this is similar to HB 223.
CHAIR CLAMAN responded "identical."
7:09:17 PM
MR. SHILLING referred to Section 16, and advised that the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission recommended that agencies be
required to collect specific data on key performance measures,
to analyze the data, prepare reports for the legislature, to
continue to make recommendations, and play an oversight role for
the next five years. Due to an apparent oversight, the bill
missed an important data point that does need to be reported to
the commission relating to earned compliance credits, he said.
7:09:58 PM
MR. SHILLING said that Section 17 has to do with the Alcohol
Safety Action Program (ASAP), and this section aligns two bills
that were passed around the same time. Senate Bill 165 [passed
in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature] made minor
consuming alcohol a violation and provided that the fine for
this violation may be reduced if that juvenile successfully
participated in ASAP. Senate Bill 91 limited the types of
offenses that could be referred to ASAP, in order to accommodate
for the fact that Senate Bill 165 felt strongly about sending
these juvenile offenders to ASAP, this section of the bill adds
those two juvenile offenses to the list of offenses that not
only the court can refer to ASAP, but the ASAP can accept.
7:10:58 PM
MR. SHILLING advised that Section 18 eliminates the notification
requirement for a parole hearing that will never occur. He
explained that this is a statute that says that individuals who
have committed a crime against a person or committed arson in
the first degree, and become eligible for an administrative
parole that notification should be sent to the victim. However,
he pointed out, those individuals are just not eligible for
administrative parole; therefore, no notification would ever
need to be sent and it is being repealed here.
7:11:34 PM
MR. SHILLING noted that Sections 19 and 20 are the applicability
provisions with respect to the entire bill. Section 20
clarifies that any decision made by the Board of Parole prior to
January 2017, is not somehow invalidated by the passage of a
certain section of Senate Bill 91, he explained.
7:11:55 PM
MR. SHILLING related that Section 21 provided for an immediate
effective date of all of the sections of Senate Bill 91.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that it is his intention to move the bill
from committee today.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected to moving the bill as this is
the bill's first presentation and public safety is government's
number one mandate.
7:13:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska, Article 1, Section 24, which read as follows:
Section 24. Rights of Crime Victims Crime victims, as
defined by law, shall have the following rights as
provided by law: the right to be reasonably protected
from the accused through the imposition of appropriate
bail or conditions of release by the court; the right
to confer with the prosecution; the right to be
treated with dignity, respect, and fairness during all
phases of the criminal and juvenile justice process;
the right to timely disposition of the case following
the arrest of the accused; the right to obtain
information about and be allowed to be present at all
criminal or juvenile proceedings where the accused has
the right to be present; the right to be allowed to be
heard, upon request, at sentencing, before or after
conviction or juvenile adjudication, and at any
proceeding where the accused's release from custody is
considered; the right to restitution from the accused;
and the right to be informed, upon request, of the
accused's escape or release from custody before or
after conviction or juvenile adjudication.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD remarked that it is important to keep
the constitution at close hand, and expressed concern with the
technical changes.
7:14:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SB 55. After
ascertaining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony.
7:15:28 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN advised the committee that his office had received
"only one amendment," which was from Representative Reinbold and
it was received after 12:00 noon, which was after the deadline
for receiving amendments. He pointed out that the subject of
"those amendments" was addressed in two other bills, SB 54 and
HB 228, which are Representative Reinbold's bills. For both of
those reasons he ruled those amendments out of order and they
would not be considered, he stated.
7:15:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he was curious about Chair Claman's
last statement, and commented that, obviously, not all of the
bills that come before the committee will pass, and asked how
the fact that the information was in another bill would keep the
committee from putting an amendment on this bill today.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that when "we have the exact thing" that
has already been referred to a different committee, it takes
that work away from that committee. The amendment was also late
and for both of those reasons the committee would not hear the
amendment, he said.
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Eastman, answered
that his view as committee chair is that the bill needs to be
moved out of committee.
7:16:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD expressed her disappointment and said
that her amendment being ruled out of order was unnecessary and
she objected to her concerns not being heard.
7:17:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said, "Good bill, Mr. Chairman, let's move
it."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Section 15, and asked whether
there had been discussion, "as we're tightening down" on what
municipalities can do because the change essentially encourages
municipalities to put higher costs on citations, and asked what
was driving the desire for those higher costs.
MR. SHILLING responded that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission never recommended that this limitation be imposed on
municipalities in a manner that restricted them from doing their
own thing when it came to non-criminal offenses. He expressed
that it was simply not what the commission recommended, and when
this language was in Senate Bill 91, the sponsor thought that it
did what the commission had recommended. After the bill was
signed it was determined that the language did not follow the
commission's recommendation, thus the change.
7:19:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report CSSB 55, Version 30-
LS0119\T out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected.
7:19:40 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Fansler,
Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins and Claman voted in favor of passing CSSB
55 out of committee. Representatives Eastman and Reinbold voted
against it. Therefore, CSSB 55(FIN) passed out of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.