Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/01/2016 01:00 PM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB91 | |
| Public Testimony | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 91
"An Act relating to protective orders; relating to
conditions of release; relating to community work
service; relating to credit toward a sentence of
imprisonment for certain persons under electronic
monitoring; relating to the restoration under certain
circumstances of an administratively revoked driver's
license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a
license; allowing a reduction of penalties for
offenders successfully completing court-ordered
treatment programs for persons convicted of driving
under the influence; relating to termination of a
revocation of a driver's license; relating to
restoration of a driver's license; relating to credits
toward a sentence of imprisonment, to good time
deductions, and to providing for earned good time
deductions for prisoners; relating to the
disqualification of persons convicted of certain
felony drug offenses from participation in the food
stamp and temporary assistance programs; relating to
probation; relating to mitigating factors; relating to
treatment programs for prisoners; relating to the
duties of the commissioner of corrections; amending
Rules 32 and 35(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
1:07:08 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried comments regarding the notion of
jail term versus continuing to incarcerate perpetrators of
sexual violence. She hoped that there would be a new
perspective.
1:09:20 PM
ANNE SEYMOUR, NATIONAL VICTIM ADVOCATE, MICHIGAN (via
teleconference) read from a written statement:
Good afternoon Chairwoman McKinnon and Chairman Kelly
and members of the Alaska Senate Finance Committee,
and thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf
of Senate Bill 91. I helped facilitate the outreach to
crime victims, survivors and victim service
professionals last year in the early stages of the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's reform
initiative, and I'd like to talk briefly today about
this process.
I've been a national crime victim advocate for 33
years and, in the 1980s, co-founded what is now the
National Center for Victims of Crime. I have worked in
all 50 states and at the Federal level to improve
victims' rights and services. I currently serve on the
Board of Directors of five national organizations that
promote pretrial justice; safety and crime prevention
on college campuses; victim services in corrections;
and international victim assistance. I am also a
member of the Victims Committees of all three major
national corrections associations, and had the honor
of serving on the DC Sentencing Commission for nearly
a decade. Over the past two decades, I've worked in
Alaska, first to support your state's victims'
constitutional amendment and later on behalf of the
U.S. Department of Justice on efforts that helped
create your Department of Corrections victim services
program; and that helped ensure that victim safety and
concerns are addressed through sex offender management
and policy.
I offer this brief background as a way of showing that
I have been quite "deep in the weeds" in criminal
justice and corrections reform efforts for my entire
career, and this involvement has been to simply assure
that victims' voices are heard, and that when we speak
often about "public safety," that we also consider the
"individual safety" of victims, survivors and members
of our communities.
I recall with great frustration and sadness my early
days as a victim advocate, when victims had virtually
no rights. They were an "afterthought" in justice
processes if they were thought about at all - the
mother of a murdered child in Texas spoke of the need
for victims' rights when she said: "Just about the
only right a victim of crime has is to be present at
the commission of the crime." We watched from the
sidelines as justice reform efforts passed in state
after state with little or no consideration of
victims' concerns.
I think it's also important to note that in the early
1990s, I was a national leader in my field in the
movement to build more prisons and lengthen sentences
for violent offenders. This was, again, a time when
victims had few rights and their voices remained
largely un-heard.
To say "times have changed" is an understatement. To
me, the most significant change in justice reform and
reinvestment efforts is the strategic, proactive
involvement of crime victims, survivors and those who
serve them.
Over the past five years, I've been involved in
justice reinvestment efforts in almost 20 states, and
I've learned that the needs of victims vary widely
from state-to-state. South Dakota's reinvestment is
helping to build a statewide victim notification
system. In Pennsylvania, one of the outcomes now
provides victim advocates for victims of juvenile
offenders. Hawaii's reinvestment overhauled that
state's victim restitution program to the point that
it is now considered the "standard" for our field. And
in Oregon, JRI doubled the amount of money available
in its Domestic and Sexual Violence Services Fund,
among other provisions.
Yet what is consistent is that states that reduce
their prison population have also reduced their crime
rates. For example, in the first two states I worked
in:
• In 2010, South Carolina reduced its prison
population by 20 percent and has seen a reduction in
its crime rate of over 12 percent.
• In 2011 in Kentucky, the 1.6 percent reduction in
the state's prison population has been accompanied by
a 17.1 percent reduction in its crime rate.
Which brings me to the Commission's work here in
Alaska and SB 91: I applaud any justice reform effort
that is bipartisan in nature, and I give "bonus
points" when the needs of crime survivors are given
the attention they so rightfully deserve.
I want to recognize the Commission's efforts and the
fact that it included an amazing victim advocate,
Brenda Stanfill, on the Commission itself. The
Commission's early and strong commitment to hearing
the voices of victims in Alaska is where I came in.
My work in Alaska began last summer, first reviewing a
rich body of research in your state that showed that
while Alaska has some of the finest victim assistance
programs in the Nation, there are still many victims
who remain un-served or under-served: victims of child
abuse and neglect; the majority of Alaska women who
experience at least one incident of intimate partner
or sexual violence in their lifetimes; and so many
victims whose need for legal assistance far outweighs
Alaska's capacity to provide it.
We reached out to over 50 survivors and victim
advocates to inform them about the Commission's
efforts and to invite them to join discussions to
clarify victims' most important needs and concerns.
Over a week in September, I had the opportunity to
speak personally with seven crime survivors and
finally got to meet Butch and Cindy Moore in person,
having learned of and appreciated their efforts to
pass Bree's Law from 5000 miles away. I heard from
domestic violence survivors for whom "personal safety"
is an oxymoron. And I interviewed victim assistance
professionals who simply struggle to provide quality
services to the many victims in Alaska who need them.
Instead of hosting one Victim/Advocate Roundtable as
we do in most states, we held two Roundtables in
Alaska last September: in Fairbanks, and in Bethel
(where we flew in tribal elders and survivors to
ensure that we learned about the needs of victims in
Alaska's bush communities). Overall, 29 survivors and
victim advocates joined the Roundtable discussions.
It's important to note that their input truly informed
the Commission's work and the bill you have before you
today.
The Roundtables presented 10 priorities to the
Commission and, while you can read the Summary Report
I wrote (which has been provided under separate cover
to the Committee), I'd like to highlight three of them
for you:
1. There was strong consensus about the need to
strengthen victim assistance services in remote and
bush communities to promote justice, healing, wellness
and crime prevention.
2. Participants emphasized the need to focus on crime
prevention and bystander intervention, with a goal of
less crime and fewer victims in Alaska.
3. Finally, there was strong support for evidence-
based and culturally-competent programming and
supervision for convicted offenders, including
batterers' intervention and restorative community
service.
I believe that SB 91 offers both a foundation and
reinvestment funding that can make the Roundtables'
recommendations a reality. In addition, this bill's
emphasis on involving victims and providing them with
rights to information, notification, input, safety and
restitution across the entire criminal justice
spectrum - from pre-trial through parole consideration
- equates to one of the most victim-centered pieces of
legislation I've seen over the past decade.
I have never sought to speak on behalf of victims and
survivors because each victim is unique and it's
impossible to paint them with a broad brush. Instead,
my work over the past three decades and in Alaska over
the past eight months is to make sure that the voices
of victims and those who serve them are heard, and
respected and reflected in public policy that affects
their lives.
I believe SB 91accomplishes this, and I thank each of
you and the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission for
validating the voices of victims and their advocates
through this important bill.
Thank you very much.
Co-Chair Kelly wondered if she supported the commission's
recommendations. Ms. Seymour replied in the affirmative.
1:18:26 PM
KATHERINE HANSEN, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF VICTIMS
RIGHTS, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), introduced herself.
Co-Chair MacKinnon encouraged the use of a handset during
the testimony.
Ms. Hansen continued encouraged the committee to keep the
Alaska constitution in perspective. She remarked that, in
1994, the constitution was amended to provide specific
rights to crime victim, which were overwhelmingly approved
by voters. She noted that a section was added to Article 1
of the constitution that read:
Criminal administration should be based upon the
following: the need for protecting the public,
community condemnation of the offender, the rights of
crime victims, restitution from the offender, and the
principles of reformation.
Ms. Hansen expressed concern that SB 91 focused offender
rehabilitation, but not on the rights of victims. She
stressed that every one of the concerns should be addressed
in the legislation. She wanted to reduce recidivism, but
not at the expense of crime victims.
1:24:50 PM
Ms. Hansen continued with her testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that she had distributed the
document. She encouraged an overarching reason for the
concern with the bill.
1:29:04 PM
Ms. Hansen stated that there was a proposed amendment in
Senate Judiciary Committee which would reduce crimes based
on their age. She did not support that amendment.
^PUBLIC TESTIMONY
1:31:05 PM
JANET KINCAID, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke to
the driver's license reform, and felt that it was a step in
the right direction. She felt that permanently revoking a
driver's license limited the ability to become a
functioning member of community. She felt that those who
had struggled to overcome their abuse, would benefit by
hope that the driver's license provision would allow. She
felt that the bill was a good step forward.
Co-Chair MacKinnon appreciated the specific comments on the
bill.
1:32:56 PM
CLINTON CERDA, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the change in the driver's license provision. He
shared that he had been without a license for two years. He
stressed that the new language did not reflect the past
offenses. He hoped that the bill would allow for him to
obtain a license again. He stressed that he wanted to be a
contributing member of society.
1:34:46 PM
MARTY KINCAID, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke to
the driver's license provisions in the bill. She would like
to change the language to return licenses for past
offenders. She echoed Mr. Cerda's comments. She explained
that families were at extreme risk for homelessness and
poverty, without the hope of reinstatement of driver's
license. She remarked that treatment was often unavailable
for many of the offenders.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the accuracy, and wondered if
the bill only reflected future.
JORDAN SCHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, replied that
provision was retroactive.
1:37:49 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that there is a path forward in
the bill.
1:38:27 PM
TONY PIPER, ASAP PROGRAM MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), shared
that he was only available for questions.
1:38:37 PM
RONALD MICHAEL ALLEN JR., SELF, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the driver's license
provision. He stated that he was a member of the Fairbanks
Wellness Court.
1:40:10 PM
CASEY ST. ROSE, FAIRBANKS REENTRY COALITION, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), spoke to the community provider in SB 91.
She stated that the bill would provide hope for
rehabilitation of offenders.
1:41:43 PM
CARA DURR, FOOD BANK OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), felt that the bill provided provisions
that encouraged positive change. She expressed concern over
Section 197. She remarked that Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) would see an increase in costs. She
stressed that the provision would require additional
funding. She remarked that states with similar programs had
more costs than savings.
1:43:52 PM
NIKKI HINES, COORDINATOR, FAIRBANKS PRISONER RE-ENTRY
PROGRAM, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in
support of job training provisions. She stressed that most
released prisoners wanted the opportunity to succeed. She
felt that SB 91 provided supportive services upon release.
1:45:17 PM
BUTCH MOORE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke to
three items. He referred to his submitted written testimony
(copy on file):
1. Murder-Increase the minimum mandatory sentences for
murder, by adding; 15 years to each minimum sentence
and no parole, (So that it is equal to/exceeds Rape
sentencing)
2. ID-Surrender of Driver's License/ID and replacement
with "ALCOHOL RESTRICTED" Driver's License/ID when
parole/probation/sentencing carries an alcohol
restriction.
3. The Pre-Trial time exceeding 120 days will not be
credited towards the defendant's sentenced time, if
trial is continued at no fault of the State of Alaska.
Here is why: On 6/26/14, my daughter, Breanna Moore,
age 20, was murdered by Joshua Almeda who pled guilty
to Second Degree Murder for killing Bree, at his home,
with a handgun, while drunk. Almeda, almost two years
later has still not been sentenced. At the time,
Almeda was on parole (with a restriction on alcohol
and firearms). Almeda was not required by law to
surrender his license, so he went into a liquor store
and bought alcohol, got drunk, used his gun, (that his
mother knew he had in her home) and shot my daughter
Bree in the head. Now that Josh has admitted to and
has been convicted of murder, he can receive a minimum
sentence of only 10 years. Also, he can be released on
parole after only 1/3 of the sentenced time. If he had
only raped Breanna, while possessing the same handgun,
and she was alive today, the minimum sentence would be
25 to 35 years, (This time must be served in Jail).
(See the Alaska Statutes highlighted below, as well as
full version attached).
1-Mandatory Murder Minimum (Amendment 3/23/16 1.7)
Current Law AS 12.55.125. Sentences of Imprisonment
For Felonies.
(a) A defendant convicted of murder in the first
degree or murder of an unborn child under AS 11.41.150
(a)(1) shall be sentenced to a definite term of
imprisonment of at least 20 years but not more than 99
years.
(b) A defendant convicted of attempted murder in the
first degree, solicitation to commit murder in the
first degree, conspiracy to commit murder in the first
degree, kidnapping, or misconduct involving a
controlled substance in the first degree shall be
sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of at
least five years but not more than 99 years. A
defendant convicted of murder in the second degree
shall be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment
of at least 10 years (i) A defendant convicted of (1)
sexual assault in the first degree, sexual abuse of a
minor in the first degree, or promoting prostitution
in the first degree under AS 11.66.110 (a)(2) may be
sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of not
more than 99 years and shall be sentenced to a
definite term within the following presumptive ranges,
subject to adjustment as provided in AS 12.55.155 -
12.55.175:
(A) if the offense is a first felony conviction, the
offense does not involve circumstances described in
(B) of this paragraph, and the victim was (i) less
than 13 years of age, 25 to 35
years; (ii) 13 years of age or older, 20 to 30 years;
(B) if the offense is a first felony conviction and
the defendant possessed a firearm, used a dangerous
instrument, or caused serious physical injury during
the commission of the offense, 25 to 35 years; (Under
AS 33.16.090 and AS 33.20.010 there is No Eligibility
For Discretionary Parole or No Computation of Good
Time for early release.)
(Please change the minimum mandatory sentences for
murder, by adding; 20 years to each minimum sentence,
(30 and 40 years), and require the minimum time served
in prison to have the same restrictions as for a
sexual felony, on Discretionary Parole, and of Good
Time. This would be adding murder to; (AS 33.16.090)
No Eligibility For Discretionary Parole, and (AS
33.20.010) No Computation of Good Time.)
2-ID (This may be a new amendment?)
Please add: If an alcohol restriction is part of
parole/probation/DUI/sentence, etc., the Surrender of
Drivers License/ID and replacement with "ALCOHOL
RESTRICTED" Drivers License/ID for the offender should
be required. There is no law requiring
surrender/replacement of ID's that carry an alcohol
restriction. (Bree would be alive if Josh had not been
drinking.)
3- Time exceeding 120 days will not be credited
towards the defendant's sentence time.
(Amendment 3/22/16 1.7)
Proposed amendment for SB91. As the prison population
in Alaska has increased 27 percent in the last 10
years and 93 percent of that is Pre-Trial, I propose
we SAVE THE MOST MONEY BY addressing the Pre-Trial
population expansion with the following; These rules,
in part, already exist. See the attached ALASKA COURT
RULES, page 72, Rule 45: Speedy Trial, which I have
highlighted.
Rule 45. Speedy Trial. (a) Priorities in Scheduling
Criminal Cases. The court shall provide for placing
criminal proceedings upon appropriate calendars.
Preference shall be given to criminal proceedings and
the trial of defendants in custody shall be given
preference over other criminal cases. The court shall
consider the circumstances of the victim, particularly
a victim of advanced age or extreme youth, in setting
the trial date. Trial dates in criminal cases in the
superior court shall be set at the time of
arraignment, and if a trial date is thereafter
vacated, the trial shall be immediately set for a date
certain. (b) Speedy Trial Time Limits. A defendant
charged with a felony, a misdemeanor, or a violation
shall be tried within 120 days from the time set forth
in paragraph (c) of this rule.
Please add: If by actions of the defendant /
defendant's attorney, the trial date is continued
beyond the 120 days, the time exceeding 120 days
served in pre-trial will not be credited towards the
defendant's sentence time. Further, any cost to;
house, feed, monitor, maintain, etc. for the time in
excess of the 120 days, will be paid for by the
defendant, at current costs. (To avoid a massive
amount of cases that are currently in pretrial now,
there may be a "Phase In" for those currently in the
system. The effective date for new offenders could be
1/1/2017. Current cases that do not have trial dates
set, less than 2 years from arraignment date could
have 240 days (Double) from the effective date of the
change and any current cases that do not have trial
dates set, that are past two years from arraignment
date could have 120 days.
Benefits are higher cost savings than all other
proposed legislation in SB91, with defendants wanting
a speedy trial, resulting in;
· Less costs to house/monitor pre-trial prisoners
· Less costs to trial courts, as defendants will agree
to "plea deals" if they no longer have the ability to
drag it out for years
· Less manipulation of the criminal justice system by
the defense attorneys.
· Quicker justice for victims
The only loss is to the defense attorneys who will no
longer be able to drag out/continue trials and charge
defendants and their families attorney fees over many
years.
The Criminal Justice Working Group thru the Court
System ran a report on the average of days that a case
stays open, prior to trial/sentence. It's HUGE! And
the State of Alaska is paying for it, while Defense
Attorneys are getting "RICH" by postponing trial
dates, while Alaska pays the bill to house/monitor
defendants whose only chance of getting off is to
"Postpone/Continue" their trial. This in the hopes
that witness's, law enforcement and other persons
vital to their conviction will: quit, die, retire, get
fired, transfer, move or just plain forget the facts
to convict them. This is their only defense... TO
STALL at the cost of the state and victims.
1:50:52 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that Senate Judiciary added five
years to the sentence. The sentence is now 25 years for
Murder 1 and 15 years for Murder 2.
1:51:25 PM
REESE BURKE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), noted
that the bill would save the state $400 million over 10
years. He also remarked that the fee to reinstate the
driver's license would put more money back into the state.
He remarked that the driver's license provision would add
money to the entire automobile industry. He shared that he
did not have an Alaska driver's license. He announced that
he was over 1000 days sober. He spoke in support of SB 91.
1:53:45 PM
EDWARD SMAGGE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), stated
that he was a wellness court graduate, and he had been
sober for almost two years. He shared that many people
struggled to get their licenses back, and he spoke in
support of the provisions related to driver's licenses. He
stressed that it was difficult to obtain a job without a
driver's license. He stated that he was willing to pay for
an interlock device for his entire life in order to drive a
car. He shared that he was currently sitting at Safeway,
and he was observing people driving. He understood that he
had made a mistake, but wanted to be able to drive to
improve his quality of life. He stressed that his family
was the most important thing in his life. He remarked that
he was limited in his job opportunities without a driver's
license. He expressed appreciation for the Fairbanks
Wellness Court.
Co-Chair MacKinnon congratulated Mr. Smagge on his
sobriety.
1:57:44 PM
MICHAEL JEFFERY, SELF, BARROW (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. He stated that he
had retired from the criminal justice system. He
highlighted the prisoner assessment.
2:00:23 PM
GRAHAM SMITH, SOUTHEAST MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE SERVICES,
JUNEAU, encouraged the state to use existing providers and
services in the communities. He remarked that the private
industry was flexible and cheaper than the state employees.
He felt that the service would provide identical results to
ensure that people were compliant with their court orders
and the conditions of their release. He shared that there
was monitoring in custody cases. He remarked that there was
a notification service on the phones.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that the language had been
changed in the Senate Judiciary Committee was amended to
allow for contracted pretrial electronic monitoring. Mr.
Smith felt that the language was an add-on.
2:04:07 PM
SARRA KHLIFI, ALASKA FOOD COALITION, JUNEAU, shared that
the bill provided concrete steps to access to treatment.
She voiced concern about mandatory drug testing for all
drug felons to receive public assistance. She stressed that
the other state's drug testing programs proved extremely
costly.
Senator Bishop requested a copy of her written testimony.
Ms. Klifi agreed to provide that information.
Vice-Chair Micciche stressed that there was an expectation
of personal responsibility and performance. He queried the
connection for the food banks interest in the legislation.
Ms. Klifi replied that the food banks wanted people to be
self-sufficient, and productive members of society. She
wanted felons to be able to buy their own groceries, rather
than use the food banks.
2:09:56 PM
KARA NELSON, DIRECTOR, HAVEN HOUSE, JUNEAU, spoke on the
reinvestment piece. She shared that she was formerly
incarcerated and recovering from drug addiction. She read
from a prepared statement.
Vice-Chair Micciche congratulated Ms. Nelson on turning her
life around in the face of adversity.
2:13:35 PM
MICHELLE FEDERICO, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the
legislation.
2:15:59 PM
CHRIS NETTELS, MEMBER, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESSES, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke against
the increase in the felony threshold to $2500. He remarked
that there was an increase in small crimes near his home.
He remarked that his business had suffered theft, and
shared that many of his employees found that their cars had
been broken into with items stolen. He stressed that he was
already looking to protecting his business with a fence or
other measures. He stressed that, because of the economic
situation in the state, there was an added competition to
the current market.
2:19:00 PM
MARNA SANFORD, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation.
She shared that she was a former public defender, and she
thanked the sponsor's staff to their receptiveness to the
victims' rights advocates. She spoke in support of the
increase in the felony theft threshold. She looked at
Section 146, and spoke in support of the provision. She
urged the committee to consider Section 61, page 35, which
was specific to a very small class of people.
2:22:29 PM
CHRISTINA LOVE, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the rehabilitation provisions within SB 91. She
shared that there were policies in place to reduce
recidivism, and felt that the bill would transform the
system. She
2:26:46 PM
VICKI WALLNER, FOUNDER, STOP VALLEY THIEVES, PALMER (via
teleconference), spoke in support of some various portions
of the bill. She, however, felt that the bill greatly
favored the offender. She felt that the research was based
on a preset outcome. She remarked that the presentations
showed only support of the legislation from the commission.
She felt that the information presented was in oppositions
to her organization's personal observations. She shared
that she had prepared a PowerPoint.
Vice-Chair Micciche queried any specific concepts. Ms.
Wallner replied that the savings portion seemed inflated.
She felt that the savings portion included an $8 million
reduction that was already in DOC that did not relate to
the bill. She felt the implementation costs would be higher
than the report. She remarked that there would also be
continuing costs that were not taken into account when
considering savings.
Vice-Chair Micciche queried the position on the theft
threshold increase. Ms. Wallner replied the property crimes
were examined of the depreciated value of the property,
with no accounting for replacement costs.
2:33:41 PM
JAYCE ROBERTSON, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference),
expressed support for SB 91. He shared that he was a
rehabilitated DUI offender, but he had been sober for five
years. He remarked that he was continually held back by the
inability to obtain a driver's license. He specifically
spoke in support of granted limited licenses to felony DUI
offenders. He felt that DOC had a façade of focus on
rehabilitation, but spoke to his personal experience in the
corrections system. He felt that the cost of housing an
offender was greater than the cost of rehabilitation. He
stated that he had raised $400 to travel to Juneau to speak
to legislators on the bill.
2:36:32 PM
VERONICA PARKS, HAVEN HOUSE, JUNEAU, testified in support
of the bill. She shared that she was convicted of two drug
felonies in 2012. She shared that she was recently
released, and that the Reentry Coalition had helped her
become a productive member of society.
2:38:08 PM
ZACHARY FINKEL, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
stated that he was a felony DUI offender, and was currently
in the wellness court program. He spoke in support of the
driver's license provision in the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
2:40:13 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon encouraged the committee to review the
conversation from the day's hearing. She stated that
amendments were due at 5pm. She shared the following day's
agenda.
SB 91 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 91 Public Testimony Support Copeland.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Public Testimony Support Barker.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Public Testimony Opposition Dorn.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Public Testimony Support Harasack.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Public Testimony Support Fried.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Public Testimony Support Finkel.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Public Testimony Support Knutzen.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Public Testimony Support Pekich.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Pubic Testimony Support Stilson.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Pubic Testimony Support Fleming.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Public Testimony Moore.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Seymour Senate Fin Cmte Testimony 4 01 16.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Public Testimony Support Sorensen.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |