Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/07/1999 06:07 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 108
"An Act relating to fees for probation and parole."
BEN GRIN, staff to Senator Jerry Ward, would charge
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if he had a chance to review
the fiscal notes. Ben had not and admitted he was
unfamiliar with the bill.
Bruce Richards began by telling the history of the matter.
A bill had been adopted and Senator Al Adams had then
repealed the legislation.
The process was very difficult for the department.
The difference in this bill was that it dictated the
department contract out the bill collection process. They
had been unable to find an agency willing to take on the
process. This group of people tended to be difficult to
work with. This year, the department was able to find a
bank willing to do this. He detailed the proposed
collection process.
He noted earlier testimony on the success of a similar
program in Texas. The reason for that success was that the
judge set the priority above child support and restitution.
The fiscal note provided was based on a ten- percent
collection rate and would not provide a cash flow. The last
time this law was in effect the program only brought in
$12,000.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if the dollar figure was
$1.50. Bruce Richards said it was and that was the national
average. Co-Chair John Torgerson noted the sponsor
statement was from the prior year.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked how many people this would
apply to. Bruce Richards listed the numbers for adults.
Department of Health and Social Services would have numbers
for youth parolees.
Bruce Richards added that it was unclear in the bill that
it was possible to be on probation and parole at the same
time. He suggested an amendment to change that so the
person did not have to pay twice since they had the same
parole officer.
He referred to page 3 saying that if the PFD was over the
amount due, the Department of Corrections would have to
refund the difference. He suggested changing that so the
department did not have the burden of collecting and then
returning a balance. He suggested deleting the language.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if once the assignment was
made by the department, he assumed they could only collect
after other attachments were made. Bruce Richards affirmed
and said that was the reason the department did not
anticipate they would collect much after all the other
obligations were satisfied.
Senator Al Adams observed that this would be a paperwork
nightmare. It created two groups of people, parolees and
those of probation. Was there any chance an inmate could
be both. Bruce Richards said that was his earlier point.
Senator Al Adams asked if the department felt this would
create a greater burden in collection efforts than it would
generate. Bruce Richards said it was and said that was the
reason for the fiscal note.
Blair McCune, spoke to the difficulties of collection. The
PDA would not have a fiscal note if the process was set up
to not include probation hearings in the determination of
collection efforts.
He noted that many of his clients did not have much assets
after they settled their other obligations.
He told the committee which statutes applied to the
Page 2 line31 he understood it to mean this applied only to
situations with close supervision. He had concerns that
the level of supervision was light for those who did well.
He felt the fee would have to be commensurate with the cost
of the supervision.
He also had concerns with the parents of children in
probation. In some situations the parent or a sibling of
the child were the victim.
He referred to language that said the parole board "shall"
revoke parole and felt they should have some discretion.
Senator Al Adams asked if the agency would handle both
parolees and those on probation who were charged with not
paying. Would that increase the workload? Blair said they
represented before the parole board those faced with
returning to jail. They would be impacted because they had
the burden of showing how the non-payment was justified.
ROBERT BUTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer, Department of
Health and Social Services, testified in opposition to the
bill. He suggested deleting sections from the bill in order
to exempt juvenile offenders from the provisions.
The department would have to have to create a collection
unit that would not serve the mission of the department.
Department of Health and Social Services placed a high
obligation on the parent to participate in the process.
That included financial obligations. Sometimes the other
costs of these youths placed a burden on the family's
finances. He also spoke of instances where the victim is
also a member of the family.
Senator Al Adams noted most of the PFD collected went to
the victims. He asked that percentage. Robert Butcane was
unsure but said most restitution in was beyond the amount
of the PFD so most went to the victim.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked about the victim service
grants listed on the fiscal note. Robert Butcane answered
that when the accounts showed receipts in excess of
expenditures, the balance was intended to go to support
victim services. This would be done by means of grants to
community organizations to benefit those who experienced
the impact of juvenile crime. This presumed the provided
figures were accurate
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked for clarification that the
bill did not stipulate a specific grant program. Robert
Butcane affirmed.
Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|