Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
01/19/2018 01:00 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 | |
| HB216 | |
| HB15 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 216-TRANSFERS FROM DIVIDEND FUND; CRIMES
1:03:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 216, "An Act relating to
restitution; relating to the office of victims' rights; relating
to transfers from the dividend fund; creating the restorative
justice account; relating to appropriations from the restorative
justice account for services for and payments to crime victims,
operating costs of the Violent Crimes Compensation Board,
operation of domestic violence and sexual assault programs,
mental health services and substance abuse treatment for
offenders, and incarceration costs; relating to delinquent
minors; and providing for an effective date."
1:04:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP described SSHB 216 as "crime victim
restoration legislation," and an effort to get back to the
original 1988 legislative intent. He explained that in 1988,
the State of Alaska recognized that it was "woefully inadequate"
in its resources and its ability to help restore survivors of a
crime to a pre-offense condition. Subsequently, the Committee
Substitute for House Bill 245 [passed in the Eighteenth Alaska
State Legislature] established the Criminal Fund within the
Permanent Fund Division. It was decided that ineligible people
included: people convicted of a felony during the qualifying
year, convicted of a felony, or convicted of a misdemeanor and
they had a prior misdemeanor conviction in the qualifying year.
Rather than just pushing the ineligible dividends back into the
overall amount, it was decided that these funds would be used to
compensate crime victims, he explained.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that over the years, the
legislature drifted from this purpose and instead added more
eligible recipients to receive money from this fund. He
referred to the chart showing that victim funds have fallen to
approximately 1 percent of the entire amount, and inmate
healthcare is approaching 99 percent of the entire amount. The
argument, he explained, is not against any program the state is
required by law to fund, he is simply advocating restoring crime
victims to the level of the highest priority and purpose of this
fund. In 1994, Alaska amended its Constitution of the State of
Alaska to recognize victims' rights in 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.
1:06:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP pointed out that within that section
"restitution" was named as a fundamental right of crime victims
and this bill recognizes that restitution is one of the greatest
needs for the restoration of survivors of crime today.
Currently, the Alaska Court System (ACS) advised that there is
approximately $121 million in outstanding court ordered
restitution. He noted that the sponsor statement read "$80
million," except the sponsor just received the update and it is
about $120 million. He pointed out that a couple of those are
large cases, but approximately 90 percent is split between
private individuals/natural persons and businesses. This bill
simply looks to restoring crime victims first before looking at
funding inmate healthcare.
1:08:14 PM
ERIC CORDERO GIORGANA, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska
State Legislature, offered a PowerPoint presentation titled,
"Establishing the Restorative Justice Account and Prioritizing
Help for Victims of Crimes." He turned to slides 1-2, titled
"Legislative Intent" and reiterated that the intent of the
legislation is to restore crime victims to a pre-offense
condition. The Criminal Fund and its mechanism was created 30-
years ago, this legislation does not involve that fund because
the sponsor is simply restating the fact that the original
intent was to assist victims. This legislation is necessary
because Alaska is in first place when it comes to domestic
violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. Recent reports from
the Alaska's Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
shows that 59 percent of adult women in Alaska have experienced
domestic violence or sexual violence within their lifetime. The
most recent report from the Violent Crimes Compensation Board
shows that the majority of claims for compensation are as
follows: child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence.
According to the chair of the Violent Crimes Compensation Board,
most of the child abuse cases actually involve some sort of
sexual assault. The Violent Crimes Compensation Board reported
that compensation claims continue to increase yearly, and the
outstanding balance of restitution orders is over $129 million,
and of that amount, it is estimated that $40 million is
outstanding for natural persons. He stressed that numerous
people must wait "many, many, many" years before actually seeing
any type of assistance.
1:10:44 PM
MR. GIORGANA turned to slide 3, titled "Criminal Fund Use Over
the Years," wherein the slide depicts FY2008 through FY2016. He
said that "the top line" is how the fund has been used to pay
for inmate healthcare through the Department of Corrections
(DOC), and the green line reflects the amount of money that has
gone to assist victims. For several years, the entities changed
as to who is allowed to receive money and for what type of
services. Initially, he offered, the intent was for the Violent
Crimes Compensation Board to assist people with compensation.
Over the years, other entities were added as follows: the
Department of Corrections (DOC) for treatment - which eventually
changed from treatment to costs of incarceration and probation;
the Department of Public Safety (DPS); the Alaska Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; the Office of Victims'
Rights when the office was established; and grants to non-profit
agencies that help crime victims which could be given through
any state agency and in this case, it would be the Alaska
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. He pointed to
the dramatic drop after FY2011, and advised that in 2010, the
legislature decided it would use general funds to fund the
Office of Victims' Rights and the Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault because the fund did not allow for any sort
of stream prediction that it could count on for money. It was
decided that because the fund changes from year-to-year, it made
more sense to use general funds for these agencies, thereby,
completely changing the emphasis from victims to inmate
healthcare.
1:12:53 PM
MR. GIORGANA turned to slide 4, title, "Compensation Claims,"
and offered that during the period 2000 through 2016,
compensation claims have steadily been on the rise, noting the
two big spikes in 2011-2012 with the largest spike in 2015.
Generally, he said, since the year 2000 compensation claims have
been increasing and the majority of claims are made by victims
who are suffering from child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic
violence. He reiterated that just those three categories make
up the majority of the claims received by the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board.
1:13:34 PM
MR. GIORGANA turned to slide 5, titled "Restitution Orders" and
noted that the orders are "pretty much split half-and-half"
between people and businesses. He described that a business
could include a large corporation or a sole proprietor working
from home, and the State of Alaska, "of course," is also owed
money. The bill prioritizes that natural persons receive
assistance and it includes compensation. The majority of the
restitution owed to a natural person is $1,000 or less, with the
average restitution order being anywhere between $500 to $700.
Therefore, he remarked, even a $100,000 appropriation to
restitution can help many people because that is where the
majority of folks fall.
1:14:47 PM
MR. GIORGANA turned to slides 6-7, titled "Highlights of Current
Law/Changes Under HB 216," and reiterated that the Criminal Fund
was established in which [permanent fund] dividends that would
otherwise be paid to ineligible offenders, could be used to fund
the Violent Crimes Compensation Board. Currently, he
reiterated, many entities are allowed to use some of those funds
for the purposes previously mentioned. This legislation creates
a mechanism in which the Permanent Fund Division will set aside
a determinant amount "that is done pretty much every single
year. The bill authorizes the legislature to appropriate
restitution payments to the agencies that are allowed to receive
the payments, and if restitution payments are received by the
state to re-appropriate that money into a new account. The
account that SSHB 216 proposes to create is called the
"Restorative Justice Account, which is not a new bank account
because it is simply an account within the Permanent Fund
Division for its accounting and bookkeeping purposes. He
described it as "a basket to be able to hold the funds that
would be appropriated."
1:16:20 PM
MR. GIORGANA advised that SSHB 216 prioritizes the use of the
funds because currently there is a list of agencies and uses,
but no actual set of priorities. Therefore, he explained, the
intent is to say, "Victims come first," and allow directed
appropriation to state agencies and/or non-profits to provide
services to victims. Currently, the difference between
compensation and restitution is that compensation can help with
immediate assistance, known as "a bridge in front." He pointed
out that restitution cannot be ordered by the court until there
is an actual conviction; therefore, a lot of time can pass
between the crime that was committed and a conviction.
Therefore, compensation funds are essentially in assisting
victims between the crime and the conviction. All 50 states
assist victims with compensation of some sort through direct
appropriations or creating boards or agencies. He reiterated
that restitution takes places only after an order by the court,
and in Alaska all victims who qualify for an order are
automatically entered to receive assistance from the State of
Alaska. The Department of Law and the Alaska Court System will
notify victims that they have 30-days to "opt out" from
receiving that assistance. He speculated that the reason a
victim may opt-out could be as follows: the victims no longer
want to deal with the issue because it was too traumatizing for
them; they need more than 30-days to make an informed decision;
or because they want to hire a private company to deal with the
restitution on their own.
1:18:43 PM
MR. GIORGANA advised that SSHB 216 extends the opt-out period
from 30-days to 90-days and adds restitution as another venue to
help victims. Currently, the funds are only allowed to be used
for grants and compensation. Although, he explained, to some
degree the funds are already being used for restitution because
"if compensation is given to a victim at the time the
restitution order is made, the restitution order is for the
Violent Crimes Compensation Board." Therefore, if a payment is
made to the State of Alaska by the offender, "that is basically
what they are doing," and importantly, he mentioned, the
offenders are not off the hook as they are still liable for the
money they were ordered to pay in restitution. He explained
that that is exactly what is done with compensation, "the
liability shifts as to who they owe the money to" directly to
the victim or in this case the State of Alaska. He reiterated
that HB 216 is "not re-creating the will, we are already doing
this through the Violent Crimes Compensation Board."
1:20:09 PM
MR. GIORGANA related that the Office of Victims' Rights is the
most obvious entity to help victims with restitution, and this
legislation enables that office to assist with restitution
payments to victims. He pointed out that the Office of Victims'
Rights is already authorized to receive those funds for its
operating costs, "it just hasn't happened since 2010."
Therefore, this bill allows the Office of Victims' Rights to
continue receiving those funds, in addition to creating a
mechanism within its office to assist victims with restitution
payments and work with the Alaska Court System, the Permanent
Fund Division, and all of the agencies assisting victims, to
coordinate and be a "one stop shop" when it comes to restitution
issues. He noted that the Alaska Court System will continue to
accept restitution payments. He pointed out that for several
years, the Department of Law (DOL) previously had a restitution
collections section that was de-funded during the last fiscal
year. Although, that collections section did not receive money
from this fund because it simply garnished money and assets.
The purpose for the restitution in the bill is for those people
who had already exhausted all of the different avenues available
to them and had not received any results.
1:22:10 PM
MR. GIORGANA advised that he had worked closely with all of the
agencies involved, and the Office of Victims' Rights had advised
that there are victims who have been waiting more than 10 years
to receive their restitution which, he pointed out, is actually
their constitutional right. He added that compensation and
restitution is offered by all 50 states, but every state is
different and challenged to help victims and some states create
a collections agency, some states direct appropriations to help
victims, and some states add fines to traffic violations to help
victims, there is not just one solution to fix this issue. The
intent of HB 216 is that "victims come first," together with
restoration of the original legislative intent of the 1988 law,
he reiterated.
1:23:39 PM
MR. GIORGANA referred to the handout in the committee packet
that was not included in the slideshow and advised that the
handout depicts not just the amount of money that has gone to
crime victims versus inmate healthcare, but it also shows the
percentages. The most recent data showed that approximately 94
percent of the fund went into inmate healthcare, and a tiny
portion was used to assist victims, he said.
1:25:08 PM
MR. GIORGANA advised that the originally filed HB 216 did not
include a hearing, and this presentation had been exclusive to
the Sponsor Substitute for HB 216. Mr. Giorgana then paraphrase
the sectional analysis as follows:
Section 1 - AS 12.55.045(m)
Section 1 establishes that the Alaska Court System can
accept restitution payments or prepayments at any
time. Language that is explicitly stated in Section 2
regarding the Alaska Department of Law is removed.
Section 2 - AS 12.55.051(f)
Section 2 includes the process that the Alaska Court
System will use to share information about restitution
orders with other state agencies. It amends the
current statute to allow the Office of Victims' Rights
to receive and share information with the Alaska Court
System consistent with all the rules of privacy as
required by law.
This section also amends the notification requirement
for victims by the Alaska Department of Law to include
information on receiving assistance from the Office of
Victims' Rights and information on how to apply for
that assistance.
1:26:36 PM
MR. GIORGANA pointed out that the legislation does not create a
dedicated fund or appropriation, it simply creates priority as
its intent.
Section 3 - AS 12.55.051(g)
Section 3 requires a notification from the Department
of Law to victims about their right to assistance with
collecting restitution payments and it amends the
period from 30 to 90 days, from the time of
notification, for a victim to opt-out from receiving
automatic assistance. This section allows victims to
stop receiving assistance at any time in the future.
Section 4 AS 24.65
Section 4 enables the Office of Victims' Rights to
assist victims with restitution payments, subject to
appropriation, from the Restorative Justice Account
based on priority: a natural person, private
businesses, and state and local governments.
It authorizes the Office of Victims' Rights to
establish a process to assist victims through the
Restorative Justice Account and caps the amount of
funds that a victim can receive.
Section 5 AS 43.23.028
Section 5 delineates the duties of the Department of
Revenue to administrate the permanent fund dividend
payments, regulations, timelines, and deadlines and
allows cooperation with other state agencies and law
enforcement. It requires the department to pay annual
dividends from the dividend fund to eligible
recipients. The Department of Corrections and the
Department of Public Safety will provide the
Department of Revenue with a list of individuals
ineligible for a dividend to transfer these funds into
the Restorative Justice Account.
This section clarifies the legislative intent and
lists which entities can receive appropriations from
the Restorative Justice Account. It also clarifies
language about public disclosures.
Section 6 AS 43.23.048
Section 6 establishes the Restorative Justice Account
as a separate account in the dividend fund. It tasks
the Commissioner of Revenue to transfer an amount
equal to the yearly calculation of individuals
ineligible to receive a permanent fund dividend made
by the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections
and the Commissioner of Public Safety.
This section allows the legislature to prioritize use
of the funds through appropriations with services to
victims as the highest priority.
The section further clarifies that a defendant ordered
to pay restitution is still liable for payments
regardless of whether a victim receives help from the
Restorative Justice Account. The Legislature may
appropriate restitution payments back into the
Restorative Justice Account.
The section clarifies that the bill does not create a
dedicated fund.
Section 7 AS 43.23.055
Section 7 defines the process and duties of the
Department of Revenue regarding the calculation,
eligibility, and distribution of permanent fund
dividends. The bill adds language for the department
to establish regulations pertaining to the Restorative
Justice Account created in Section 6.
Section 8 AS 47.12.160(f)
Section 8 authorizes the Court System to receive
payments and pre-payments from a minor or a minor's
parent at any time. This section removes redundant
language.
Section 9 AS 47.12.170(c)
Section 9 authorizes the Alaska Court System to
forward copies of restitution orders to the Office of
Victims' Rights and the Department of Health of Social
Services. It instructs the DHSS to inform crime
victims that they may qualify for services through the
Office of Victims' Rights.
Section 9 also requires that information considered
confidential by law, remains confidential.
Section 10 47.12.170(d)
Section 10 clarifies that the opt-out period for a
victim is extended from 30 to 90 days from the day of
notification and instructs the Department of Health
and Social Services to notify victims of their rights
to assistance.
Section 11
Section 11 establishes an effective date.
1:31:02 PM
MR. GIORGANA summarized SSHB 216, as follows: it restores the
legislative intent of the Criminal Fund established years ago;
it adds restitution as an allowed use of the funds through the
Office of Victims' Rights; it expands the opt-out period from
30-days to 90-days for victims to receive automatic assistance;
and it continues to support costs of incarceration, probation,
and treatment.
1:31:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to adopt Sponsor Statement for SSHB
216, Version 30-LS0572\T, Martin, 11/16/17, as the working
document. There being no objection, SSHB 216 was before the
committee.
1:32:16 PM
[CHAIR CLAMAN and Representative Reinbold discussed the
committee's procedures.]
1:33:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that it is outlandish that 94
percent of the restitution goes toward inmate healthcare when
the money that was supposed to go to restitution is instead
going to inmate healthcare. While she understands, she said,
that this is a "feel good bill" ...
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded Representative Reinbold that this was the
time for questions and not for comments.
1:34:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her belief that one of the sales
pitches on Medicaid expansion was that it would cover inmate
healthcare, and she asked why any money would go to inmate
healthcare.
MR. GIORGANA reiterated that the number of allowable entities
has expanded over the years, and the Department of Corrections
was added to that list in order to utilize some of those funds
for treatment of offenders. Eventually, he noted, that changed
to include reimbursement for costs of incarceration and
probation, which then began to include inmate healthcare costs.
He noted that everyone is aware that the healthcare costs for
inmates has continued to increase dramatically, but
Representative LeDoux is correct in that Medicaid expansion
resulted in a small decrease in costs. He referred to Senate
Bill 74 [passed in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska Legislature] and
advised that it allowed for telemedicine to be used by the
Department of Corrections (DOC) and acknowledged that he was not
aware of its status, but it was estimated to reduce some of
those costs. He deferred to Commissioner Dean Williams as to
why this fund was used for most inmate healthcare.
1:36:26 PM
COMMISSIONER DEAN WILLIAMS, Alaska Department of Corrections,
remarked that he was not prepared to offer specifics, but
Medicaid expansion definitely decreased costs for the Department
of Corrections (DOC). For example, he advised, an inmate who
stays longer than 24-hours in a hospital due to a serious
injury, a serious accident, or a serious medical condition,
qualifies for Medicaid payments for which the DOC no longer had
to pay. He acknowledged that there not a lot of those
particular type of cases, but when they happen they are very
expensive. The DOC's medical director tracks how much money had
been saved since Medicaid expansion. Although, and without a
doubt, he remarked, it has definitely saved the State of Alaska
money.
1:37:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why the state would pay any money
into inmate healthcare costs when the state has Medicaid
expansion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS explained that there are costs not covered
by Medicaid and the DOC is responsible for the care and custody
of inmates, which includes Alaska's expensive medical care. He
said that while he understands the question, the DOC is still
responsible for an inmate's medical care that is not covered by
Medicaid.
1:38:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered a scenario wherein a prisoner had a cold
and was housed in the Anchorage Correctional Center, that type
of care is not covered by Medicaid. Although, if the inmate was
being treated in a hospital due to the severity of their
injuries, that is when Medicaid starts paying.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS clarified that those [Medicaid payments
begin] after 24-hours [of being admitted to a hospital]. He
pointed out that many prisoners enter prison with a whole host
of medical issues of which the DOC is responsible. He advised
that the DOC runs "mini-clinics" in most of its facilities,
which includes: medical providers, doctors, nurse practitioners,
physician assistants, and nurses. The DOC has infirmities
wherein its only job is to care for those people incarcerated
into its prison system that have serious medical conditions.
That care, he offered, is a whole driving piece in the DOC's
costs as a department because it is obligated to care for its
inmates, he advised.
1:39:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether these people would be
covered by Medicaid if they were not in prison and simply went
to a clinic.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS noted that Representative LeDoux was
moving outside of his expertise quickly, but that certain people
qualify for Medicaid, and there are "all kinds of conditions
about what they apply for." He acknowledged that there are
people walking around on the street who are Medicaid eligible.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX interjected that if those people needed
antibiotics, their antibiotics would be paid by Medicaid.
Therefore, why would the antibiotics not be paid by Medicaid
when given to an incarcerated inmate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS explained that Medicaid eligibility does
not qualify for those people sitting inside the prisons, "it
just doesn't ... but that is just the fact of the regulations."
Beyond that statement, he advised that he would not be able to
help Representative LeDoux. He then reiterated that unless very
specific exceptions apply, the DOC is responsible for all
medical costs for all inmates living within the prison's walls.
The exceptions to being Medicaid eligible are as follows:
admitted to a hospital beyond 24-hours or living in other half-
way house living places.
1:41:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether that was per federal
regulations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS opined that those are not rules the DOC
sets, Medicaid sets those rules.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the DOC has a fiscal note on
SSHB 216.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS opined that Office of Management & Budget
(OMB) prepared the fiscal note on this piece of legislation.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Representative LeDoux that the committee
had just received the fiscal note and; therefore, it was not
included in the committee packets.
1:42:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked for clarification that when the
discussion is about victims, the bill does not differentiate
between human victims, corporate victims, or state victims.
MR. GIORGANA advised that, by definition a crime victim is any
of those entities. He referred to SSHB 216, [AS 24.65.105(b),
page 3, lines 7-12], and advised that that provision is the only
place a natural person, a business, or a government entity is
mentioned. He added that AS 24.65.105(b) deals with the Office
of Victims' Rights' (OVR) ability to assist victims by
prioritizing who it will help first, "when they do the
regulations and when they establish a process." The sponsor's
office found that in other states, the individual persons
receive assistance first and before a business or governments.
But, otherwise, he reiterated, a crime victim is any of those
entities and the bill does not change that definition in any
manner.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP added that Sec. 4 of SSHB 216, [AS
24.65.105(b), page 3, lines 7-12) states the priority for
natural persons, private businesses, and state and local
governments.
1:43:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER described that when looking at what the
state has collected as a whole/total, it is all over the map.
He noted that $23 million was collected in FY2016, which
appeared to be the highest amount the state ever collected, and
that in the prior year, the state collected $11 million. He
asked whether it was "random dumb luck" depending on who the
criminal was and whether they could afford to pay, or whether
there were systemic issues, such that the state was understaffed
on the collection piece, or that there is now a streamlined
collection system.
MR. GIORGANA responded that the Department of Law (DOL) had
advised that as funds were being limited in it collections
section, it was unable to collect more money than in previous
years. He reiterated that the collections section was defunded
last year, and the Alaska Court System took on the role of
accepting payments and assisting victims. Although, he
commented, it was not a fully funded service and over the years
the only type of restitution the section collected for was the
actual garnishment of assets or a lien for certain monies, and
not anything from the fund or other sources. He then deferred
to Doug Wooliver, Alaska Court System, to respond to whether
there was a systemic reason for the variation in collection
amounts.
1:46:01 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Deputy Administrative Director, Office of the
Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS), advised that
the Alaska Court System (ACS) does not take a position on SSHB
21, commenting that he did not believe the ACS would have
difficulty working with this bill. He related that he does not
know why those collection figures sometimes vary from year-to-
year, but he suspected that part of that issue is the size of
the permanent fund dividend which is one of the main sources of
collection revenue for restitution. Perhaps, he speculated, it
was the "luck of the draw," in that almost one-half of the
restitution payments are voluntary payments. He advised that he
was not aware of a systemic reason to explain the variations
from year-to-year.
1:47:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked whether the amount of the
restitution was random, depending upon whatever convictions or
guilty pleas the judges decided. Or, he asked, whether Alaska
is seeing a correlation with the state's lack of funding for
"things where we've seen a lot of cases going down, the number
of cases you can prosecute go down," and whether there is a
correlation in those numbers with the restitution amounts
ordered. After reviewing the committee packet, he noted that it
also appears to be all over the place, up and down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS answered that he had not looked at all of
the numbers to determine whether there was some sort of
correlation between the number of crimes prosecuted and the
total amount of restitution ordered in judgments. He
acknowledged that it varies a lot from year-to-year and he
referred to the "notes to a lot of these," and that the award
for $17 million skews the entire statistical system. He pointed
out that one single individual certainly can create an enormous
amount of damage in that the restitution awards could go up
significantly in one year.
1:48:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked the bill sponsor whether he had
reviewed any of the other states' methodologies that may have
more efficient collection rates on restoration.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that, for instance, the State of
Vermont adds restoration to its traffic sur charge/criminal sur
charge. Currently, in Alaska the charge is: $100 on a felony;
$50 on a misdemeanor; and $10-$50 on a traffic ticket and those
funds go toward the Alaska Police Standards Council for training
and possibly other purposes. Some states simply keep ratcheting
up that sur charge and then fund different things from that. He
related that Alaska is similar to other states by having a
special fund in place wherein the states actually make a two-
fold method for restoring victims. For example, he offered,
through compensation, which is an immediate "bridge in fund" to
get people immediately back on their feet, and for those people
who may have been waiting for years for restitution. For
instance, he explained, a DUI victim had waited 7-8 years for
restitution for their serious injuries, except the offender fled
the state and the victim was never compensated. In working with
the DOL collections section there was finally a way to get some
funds to that victim. This bill makes it possible to help
people with long outstanding restitution issues and immediately
bridge the compensation funds through the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board. Commonly, he advised, states operate in the
same manner similar to Alaska, via a sur charge or through other
direct legislative appropriations.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Commission Williams to provide a written memo
describing when Medicaid pays and when the state is "on the
hook."
1:51:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether, under Commissioner
Williams' direction in 2016, 94 percent of the restitution fund
went to inmate healthcare.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS clarified that "none of this is under my
direction," and opined that this is statutorily mandated. He
further clarified that the DOC has no involvement in the manner
in which this money is divided because he has no control of the
money that goes into that fund or how it is prioritized.
1:52:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for clarification as to whether
Commissioner Williams said that the statute read "restitution
has to go to the criminals' healthcare."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS clarified that it is prioritized under the
current statutory scheme regarding levels of priority, how
decisions are made, and how this money is allocated to this
particular fund that "ends up paying for inmate healthcare." He
related that if he was incorrect, he would appreciate a
correction.
MR. GIORGANA clarified that the current statute does not
prioritize, it is within the budgeting process which is within
the governor's budget and the legislature's budget to determine
how much money goes to which of the entities allowed to receive
those funds. In response to a previous question, he explained
that "in 2016, from the total fund, the Department of
Corrections (DOC) was appropriated from the legislative body
$22,340,000, and the Violent Crimes Compensation Board was
appropriated $1,510,000." He pointed out that the only source
of state money the Violent Crimes Compensation Board received
from the state was from this fund and it also receives federal
grants, but "it is mainly from this fund." Therefore, there is
no priority, it simply became a priority during the budgeting
process, he explained.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, in response to Representative Reinbold's
question, answered that there is a lack of prioritization and
this bill restores victims to a pre-offense condition as the
highest priority. Currently, he offered, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) would review the healthcare needs of
the corrections system. He offered that it would say, "Well,
this is an authorized purpose so we'll, you know, we're going to
put 94 percent of this fund to inmate healthcare." This process
is at an administrative level, and this legislation would
statutorily prioritize, and require that these provisions must
be reviewed first, he reiterated.
1:54:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked who prioritized criminal
healthcare over restitution for victims.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP further explained the budget process and
advised that when the departments put their budgets together,
the budget goes through OMB wherein the determination is made,
and the state has this Criminal Fund which is an authorized
purpose. The budget would then go to the legislature for
approval. Therefore, between what is coming out of the
governor's budget and what is before the legislative body,
"these amounts are approved. He noted that some of it, possibly
not directly with the full understanding of the legislature, "We
may look at more total numbers than how it breaks down than
we're seeing here."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that victims see that
restitution is paid toward criminals' healthcare and it is not
paid to the people who were brutalized, and these victims will
have trouble with that. She opined that the DOC received $22
million and asked, who in the DOC prioritizes that $22 million
because victims' needs must be prioritized including their
healthcare needs. She related that Commissioner Williams
advised the committee today that there was a cost savings to the
state, and yet, he had previously advised that costs were
shifting to the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS).
She asked whether there was a cost savings and if so, roughly
how much of a savings because the Medicaid budget is now
approximately $3.3 billion, "so where is there actually state
savings when our budget is approaching $11 billion right now?"
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS remarked that he could not recall the
context of what he had previously said, and he would have to go
back and listen to his testimony. Although, he stated, Medicaid
expansion has helped the DOC "absolutely save money in terms of
shifting" because Medicaid is now covering certain medical
expenses the state would otherwise have had to pay had Medicaid
expansion not been in play.
1:57:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that it saves the DOC money,
but it is cost shifting to Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), and possibly to the federal government. All of
which is taxpayer money, so she could not see the cost savings
in the big picture. She asked whether Commissioner Williams had
an idea as to the total amount of restitution that has been
collected from the offenders.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS responded that he was not prepared to
answer that question right now in any sort of detail.
CHAIR CLAMAN ruled that the Department of Corrections (DOC) can
answer questions as to how much money is ordered and how much
money is collected. The question as to what has been collected
in restitution is not actually a question the DOC would ever
have any information because that would come from another
department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS answered in the affirmative.
1:58:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that "Because a lot of
programs ... there are prison programs that do have work -- you
know, and sometimes that work is paid restitution." She asked
whether those types of programs are available for the inmates
housed in the state's institutions. She reiterated that $500 -
$700 was the average court ordered restitution, and some people
have waited 10 years. The bill referred to capping restitution
at $10,000 and asked for clarification. In the event the court
orders are only $500 to $700 and the bill is capping it at
$10,000 ...
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that Representative Reinbold did not
ask a question that the DOC could possibly answer because her
questions are around restitution orders. He reminded her that
as she was previously advised, the DOC is not involved in the
process of collecting or managing restitution.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, in response to how much restitution had
been ordered and recovered, referred to the document titled,
"Restitution Data - Including both State and Municipal
prosecutions" and pointed out that the court system is broken
down by year, the total amount it ordered, and what was
ultimately collected. He pointed to the years where it went up
to 47 - 50 percent, noting that in some years it was only 9
percent, and while he did not know why the state was more
effective in some years than in other years, the amounts are
clear. Possibly, it depended upon the crimes that were
committed, he speculated, and that within some years there were
millions of dollars. The chart was probably produced by the
court system, he offered.
2:01:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to the $10,000 cap and explained
that a major event could happen to a private company and that
event could wipe out all of the available restitution funds when
restoring 50-60 victims. He opined that 94 percent of all
restitution orders fall below the $10,000 amount and explained
that the $10,000 amount is not a lifetime cap, it is a per
restitution order. In the event bad things happened to a person
more than once, that person would still be allowed up to that
$10,000 cap again. He explained that the cap offers guidance
and provides a ceiling under which nearly all restitutions would
fall. Therefore, the fund would not be completely wiped out by
a single event, or possibly two or three events, he explained,
and the committee could discuss that size of that cap.
2:02:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that, in her opinion, this appears
to trivialize crime because "you can't take someone back after a
rape, after an assault, after a murder, and trivialize it for
$10,000, or $500 to $700, when -- you know, in the 94 percent or
whatever is going to the criminal's healthcare." She asked
whether Representative Kopp believes this trivializes and adds
salt to injury, and whether it is an insult to think money can
do that.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP pointed out that the entire point of SSHB
216 is to do everything Alaska can do to restore as many
survivors of crimes as possible to a pre-offense condition on a
financial basis. Representative Reinbold spoke to losses that
can never be restored from any event, and this bill is
compensation for the costs incurred that are financially
tangible. Clearly, there are non-financial costs that are
irreparable for victims of crime, and he pointed out that he
worked in that field for 25 years "and know it better than
anybody here." Representative Kopp expressed that he takes
strong exception to Representative Reinbold's comment that SSHB
216 trivializes victims. He stressed that this legislation is
an aggressive effort to help restore to thousands of victims of
crimes that have lost financially and get at improving their
losses.
2:04:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER referred to the document titled
"Restitution Data - Including both State and Municipal
prosecutions, as of 12/31/17" and noted that the restitution
amounts ordered for 2017 were $5 million. He then referred to
the chart Representative Kopp had provided to the committee
during his presentation and noted that "we're talking about
giving out" $23 million total, which is more than the
restitution. He related that the numbers "we are giving out"
are massive: $11 million; $60 million; $21 million; $20 million;
$11 million; $17 million; $15 million; $11 million; and $23
million. Yet, he commented, the numbers ordered for restitution
are significantly under that, except for 2004, and asked "What's
the story?"
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP clarified that the amount coming in "to
this" is based on a formula of the persons the DOC and the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) determine are ineligible
during a qualifying year to receive a permanent fund dividend.
That number is then forwarded to the commissioner of the
Department of Revenue (DOR), who then says, "Okay, we have 113
individuals who are ineligible to receive that dividend," and
that amount would then go into the Restorative Justice Account.
He explained that it is completely separate from restitution
orders, which are actual costs incurred by victims that judges
determine is the amount owed. He explained that this bill
establishes the fund from which "these will be paid."
2:06:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Commissioner Williams whether this
bill, if passed, would cost the department $11,493,000.40 over
each year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS opined that she was mostly correct in that
this changes from year-to-year, but his director could answer
that question more directly. He further opined that it would
cause a reduction of what is currently in the department's
budget of that amount.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that this fiscal note "shows the
same thing for up until 2024."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS deferred to April Wilkerson, Director of
Administrative Services.
2:08:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP clarified that there is nothing in the bill
establishing a dollar amount or a percentage, it simply says to
look at this victim for restitution first. He reiterated that
even a $100,000 appropriation to victims first would mean that
hundreds of victims were restored. He related that "You can't
look at it and say, 'Well, it's going to go down this much,'"
because as the director of the Office of Victims' Rights
advised, it will aggressively try to locate, contact, and
establish health assist. Although, it would be finite number of
victims each year that the office would be set up to actually
help.
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that under the bill, although it creates a
prioritization, it is not a mandatory prioritization because the
legislature could still look at $10 million. For example, he
offered, the legislature could decide to appropriate $1 million
to the victims of crime, and $9 million to the DOC. Wherein, he
pointed out, the legislature could simply say that it took a
look at it, considered the competing interests, and it did its
best to prioritize funds to the victims. The legislature would
not be required to only give the funds to the victims, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP related that Chair Claman was absolutely
correct, wherein the allowable purposes are all stayed, but this
bill prioritizes them and asks the legislature to look at victim
restoration first. There is the victim restoration, and then
the Office of Victims' Rights (OVR) determines how many are "set
up to set." Obviously, the legislature would not provide $20
million when possibly there were only 20 victims to restore.
That is why, he related, he could not see anything other than an
indeterminate note coming from the DOC because when asking to
restore crime victims first, it is not ready to go with 1,000
victims and write a check.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there was an indeterminate
note, or an actual fiscal note.
2:09:58 PM
APRIL WILKERSON, Director, Administrative Services, Department
of Corrections (DOC), explained that the DOC's fiscal note does
reflect the full amount that is currently allocated. She
offered that it does reflect a full fund change and paraphrased
the analysis as follows: "If their fund currently was
insufficient to meet our authorization that is currently
allocated to meet healthcare costs, that we would need that fund
replaced." Therefore, she offered, while it does have an
overall appearance of a full fund source change over to the
general fund, it would depend fully upon the amount available
out of that fund.
2:10:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she supports SSHB 216 as a
co-sponsor, but she has found it perplexing because on one hand
it says, "they really don't need to do anything, all they need
to do is consider it." Except she pointed out, if they are
actually going to do something about it, it actually will cost
somebody something.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that he worked together with
Legislative Legal and Research Services on this bill, and one of
the issue the sponsor was trying to avoid was "the dedicated
funds prohibition." After reviewing a percentage amount for
"each of these," the sponsor was told that he could not do that
although he could prioritize and say, "You must look at the need
here first, and then this, and then this." Once a dollar amount
or percentage amount is applied, he offered, "you just bumped
over the constitutional line."
2:11:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that it was confusing because there
is a finite pot of money, and currently this finite pot of money
is mostly going to the DOC, and then something is taken out of
the DOC, thereby, actually costing real money.
2:09:52 PM
MS. WILKERSON advised that if there is not sufficient
authorization left in that fund to meet the DOC's current
allocation of $11,493,000.40, it would need a different fund
source to supplant the difference.
2:12:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that her next question was for the
Office of Victims' Services.
MR. GIORGANA suggested that the committee keep in mind that the
PFD balances vary from year-to-year, and the DOC has always had
to adjust because the money available from the fund changes from
year-to-year. In some years, the DOC would have to request an
appropriation from the general fund, which is the current
practice, he explained. This legislation does not put an actual
dollar amount to any agency, the bill actually creates a
priority with the highest priority being the funding of the
Violent Crimes Compensation Board. He offered that this was the
original intent of the creation of this fund, followed by the
Office of Victims' Rights, followed by grants to programs that
assist victims of domestic violence sexual assault, and then
followed for reimbursement of incarceration costs and probation.
He reiterated that SSHB 216 does not take away the allowed use
of the fund, it just simply prioritizes the use of the fund.
2:14:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the fiscal note from the
Office of Victims' Rights (OVR) and opined that this bill would
actually give OVR the opportunity to have more money to assist
victims. Except, she said, there is a fiscal note, and asked
why a bill giving the OVR money would actually cost the OVR
money.
2:15:30 PM
TAYLOR WINSTON, Director, Office of Victims' Rights, responded
that as the bill is laid out, the Office of Victims' Rights
would not actually handle the money because it would be looking
at victims who come to them with a restitution order.
Subsequently, it would direct the permanent fund to pay victims
from the Restorative Justice account (audio difficulties), money
they had not been able to otherwise collect on the restitution
order. She clarified that the OVR will not receive those funds
itself, but rather the bill allows for appropriations at the
legislative and gubernatorial level by choosing to provide the
OVR with money to help support its duties of administering this
restitution and Restorative Justice Account for victims.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted audio difficulty during Ms. Winston's
testimony.
2:16:59 PM
MS. WINSTON advised that the fiscal note before the committee
accounts for a one-time, one-year, non-permanent position so
that the OVR can have a person dedicated to data entry. The
thought being that when the OVR takes on this activity, it will
need to process those outstanding restitution orders from the
Alaska Court System (ACS). There are approximately 20,000
unpaid restitution orders. Therefore, the OVR needs to account
for those and establish a file for those unpaid restitutions so
when the victims come into the OVR, it has that information and
is set up. She commented that it will take a while to input
20,000 restitution orders and the funding being requested would
be dedicated solely for that data entry of setting up court
files. Then, of course, there are the benefits associated with
their salaries, parking, and case management costs. The Office
of Victims' Rights (OCR) has a case management system that is
quite capable of having a new room, "for lack of a better
phrase," within it configured to specifically handle the duties
associated with helping victims with the restitution
fulfillment.
2:18:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked that since the ACS has all of these
things online, why it could not simply be imported, such as an
excel spreadsheet, rather than the OVR actually entering the
data from each order.
MS. WINSTON answered that when the restitution orders are not
available online, the current practice is that victims go to the
OVR at various times, and the OVR would have to have that
document. She commented that "they may not even have all of the
information" the OVR needs to process it through and determine
from the court system whether payments had been made, what
payments were made, the fine, and their information. The OVR
would have to set up a tracking system within its office, she
said.
2:20:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to SSHB 216, page 5, lines 30-
31, Restorative Justice Account, and asked what monies go into
that account. Based upon the language, he opined that the words
"if they had been eligible" are particularly important. He
opined that an individual would have to have first applied and
then been eligible before AS 43.23.005 would be operative
because that provision makes the person ineligible due to a
conviction
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that eligibility to receive the
permanent fund dividend in this context is not based on whether
or not the person applied. Instead, it is that the person is
ineligible because they were convicted of a felony, incarcerated
on a felony, incarcerated on a misdemeanor with a prior felony,
or a misdemeanor with (indisc.). Those are the definitive
qualifiers for ineligibility, he offered.
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that the ineligible person who is to
receive the dividend would apply, and that dividend would go
into the Restorative Justice Fund.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered in the affirmative.
2:22:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that whether the person had been
eligible does not apply to actually applying for the dividend.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that Representative Eastman was
correct.
2:22:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the statute dealing with
eligibility itself, which specifically states that the people
being discussed here are those convicted of a felony or were
incarcerated as a result of conviction in this state, which does
not include certain situations. For example, a husband and wife
vacation in Hawaii and receive a conviction in Hawaii and since
the conviction was not in Alaska, they would still receive the
permanent fund dividend and the victim would not be eligible
under this bill. He advised that he was reading from AS
43.23.005, permanent fund dividend eligibility.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that Representative Eastman raised a
distinction in the law which is also seen when considering prior
criminal history. The same distinction is seen there in that
when determining eligibility or priors, it is more distinctive
to have time bars and the law applying to "within the state"
because it is easier to determine. He said that in some states
a misdemeanor would not be a misdemeanor in Alaska and noted
that the reason it is "in this state" is because "we all know"
what a misdemeanor or felony is in this state. It is the same
reason when considering priors that the state is careful to say,
"either in the state or convicted of a crime with substantially
similar offense definitions and penalties as what this state
has." Therefore, the distinction remains the same in here of
keeping that within the state and he acknowledged that it is
possible a person could have been convicted of a crime in
another state, but the reason the bill is drafted in this manner
is to be consistent with how the law carries out in the criminal
law, he explained.
2:25:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 216.
2:25:36 PM
CARMEN LOWRY, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), explained that the Alaska
Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) is a
coalition of 24 programs across the state, and it supports SSHB
216 for its support for victims and survivors. She noted that
ANDVSA reserves its full endorsement pending an amendment that
will come forward clarifying the prioritization of recipients.
She referred to SSHB 216, page 6, lines 8-11, and advised that
the anticipated amendment will prioritize non-profit
organizations to provide grants for services for crime victims
and domestic violence and sexual assault programs, over the non-
profit organizations, to provide grants for mental health
services and substance abuse treatments for offenders.
2:27:22 PM
JOE SCHLANGER paraphrased from the State of Alaska Constitution,
Article 1 Section 24. He then referred to testimony from the
DOC and "the others" saying that Alaska is 8 years behind on
some of the victims and asked why that happens and requested an
answer from the Department of Corrections. He opined that
criminals are receiving help before the actual victims receive
assistance, noting that he has spoken with a number of victims.
He offered his support for this bill and he would like to see it
passed.,
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN thanked Mr. Schlanger for his comments
and echoed his request for information from the DOC.
2:29:24 PM
EDWARD MARTIN, JR., (audio difficulties throughout his
testimony) noted that he would like his representative
overseeing this bill because it affects the permanent fund. As
to the testimony regarding the original intent and priorities,
and basically the discussion is about this money and "where it's
gonna go to the victims." There is a fiscal note for a cost,
and the revenue from which this fiscal note may draw or
otherwise distribute funds. As a young man educated on how laws
are created, he commented that the law should be compact, except
there are 12 different issues for which the legislature is
creating this new law, or changing the law, and offered concern.
It was his understanding, during the testimony that the general
fund (audio difficulties) the collection from criminals and the
permanent fund are all of the revenue for which someone makes a
decision as to where that money goes. His only concern about
the permanent fund, "all of the first three, absent the
permanent fund itself and the use of those funds," are regarding
the eligibility and ineligibility issues. He noted that as far
as he is concerned, when it boils down to who is eligible, the
permanent fund should go to those eligible recipients.
2:32:34 PM
DAVID NESS (audio difficulties throughout his testimony)
referred to the three adults who were murdered by Winona
Fletcher, a 14-year old, at Russian Jack, and advised that
Janice Linhart started Victims for Justice, and victims are at
issue here. He pointed out that the three-elderly people are
still deceased, Winona is still incarcerated and gave birth to
two children while incarcerated, and the state paid her medical
costs for those children because she still receives free
healthcare. This legislation corrects the problem wherein the
money is being used for the wrong purpose because the purpose
should be for victims in order to make those people whole. The
other person is incarcerated and does not have to be made whole.
In honor of Janice Linhart and her sister, and the people that
support Victims for Justice and assisted in getting the original
victims' law passed, he then asked the committee to please fix
[the process]. He stressed that the committee allow the victims
who are owed restitution to receive money from the criminals who
have their permanent fund dividends reduced before any of that
money is spent on inmate's healthcare costs. He further
stressed that it makes absolutely no sense and it is a tragedy
because it victimizes the victims a second time.
2:34:33 PM
CHARLES McKEE (audio difficulties throughout his testimony)
pointed out that both are victims of the compromise and release
Alaskans have been subjected to, by being subjugated by the
public corporation called the State of Alaska. He said, "You've
taken over our account which resides in a social security
system" and being classified as missing because "we've been
disappeared, and our account has been tapped by this
organizational structure." He said that he notified the
Taxpayers Advocate Service Office (audio difficulties) and then
paraphrased the message he sent to the House Ways and Means
Committee. (Audio difficulties.)
2:37:13 PM
KATE HUDSON, Director, Violent Crimes Compensation Board,
offered support for SSHB 216, and noted that the bill does not
impact the Violent Crimes Compensation Board because it would
not gain any more money, or lose any money. The Violent Crimes
Compensation Board submitted a zero-fiscal note, and it does
support the intent of trying to do something about the huge
amounts of outstanding restitution. While this board can
provide some immediate relief, it cannot do it in all of its
cases. Whereby, she explained, there are situations where
someone may not qualify for compensation through the Violent
Crimes Compensation Board's program and still may ultimately
receive a restitution award, those things are distinct. She
asked that the committee bear that distinction in mind moving
forward.
2:38:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board is a state agency, how it is funded, and
whether it is a non-profit.
MS. HUDSON advised that the Violent Crimes Compensation Board is
a state agency. The Violent Crimes Compensation Board receives
an award of $1.5 million from the Criminal Fund, and it receives
an annual federal grant which varies from year-to-year because
it depends upon how much state money was spent in the prior
federal fiscal year.
2:38:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted her "shock" at the $1 million
figure and asked who makes that decision.
MS. HUDSON responded that, as was said earlier, it is through
the budgeting process wherein it submits its budget request
which is based on what was spent in the prior year. Therefore,
it is an administrative procedure whereby the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board advises what it expects to need, and then the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes the award.
2:39:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Ms. Hudson is allowed to
comment as to her thoughts of the 94 percent spent on criminal
healthcare when she knows a lot of the victims need healthcare.
MS. HUDSON related that she did not believe it was her place to
comment on how the budgeting process works. In terms of the
Violent Crimes Compensation Board's budget, if it had demands
from claimants that were $3 million and it was unable to meet
that, then certainly, that would be adjusted through the
budgeting process. As it turns out, she offered, for the past
few years it has basically received enough money to meet the
requests the board awards. She remarked that in the last few
years, the board has not run out of money to meet victims'
needs, possibly because not enough victims are aware of the
board so not enough people are applying for compensation, "that
is likely the case."
2:40:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that in January 2018, under the laws the
legislature recently passed, parole and probation officers are
required to establish with the offenders a restitution plan
which requires the offenders to successfully accomplish the
restitution plan in order to qualify for good time or complete
their time of supervision.
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public hearing on SSHB 216.
2:41:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked that when the DOC comes back for the
next hearing of SSHB 216, to explain how a woman managed to get
pregnant twice in an all-female prison, whether anyone was
tested for DNA to determine whether the father, a possible
prison employee, should have been responsible for some of those
medical costs.
[SSHB 216 was held over.]