Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/24/1998 09:15 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 274(JUD)
"An Act relating to fees for probation and parole."
Co-Chair Sharp invited Senator Jerry Ward, sponsor of the
bill to join the committee and speak to his request.
Senator Ward's testimony was as follows:
"This bill and also I have put in an amendment on it
(hopefully it will be presented,) - basically what this
does, it enable those people that are causing the cost to
government to share in that burden of cost."
"At the beginning, before the amendment, basically let me
tell you what it does. What it does is it puts into place,
which has been in place since 1846 and this is not to punish
or to inflict punishment. What this is, is to generate
revenues to offset those dollars, which the public is now
paying. Every person in this room that is not on probation
or parole, and with the amendment hasn't been convicted on a
misdemeanor, is sharing the cost and the burden of this."
"We have sent letters to all the commissioners asking them
to please identify which portions of their budgets goes
towards the - and I want to speak on the amendment too as
well as the first part. Because that's what led me to it is
when I first went into Probation and Parole and realized
that there was $8.5 million being spent on this. Even going
through the original bill, at the very highest level it only
generates $5.5 million. That's with 100% participation.
Then when I started looking, and one of the bills you just
had earlier - we've got a list of all the misdemeanors -
under current statutes possession of child pornography under
this bill with the amendment except that they would lose
their permanent fund dividend."
"There is a lot of misdemeanors. I don't pretend to
understand all of them but I do know that somebody's staff
and somebody's legislative office spent a lot of time
getting these through and putting them on the books."
"If all convicted misdemeanors and all convicted people and
all people on probation and parole entered into their share
of the cost and if it was 100 percent successful, they would
generate $25 million. This is a revenue-generating bill.
That's exactly what it is. It's set up and the purpose of
it is, is to take the permanent fund away from those people
that are in this position to off-set the cost of getting
them in this position."
"The cost is the cost of charging, arresting, prosecuting
and it flows through the court system, through Public
Safety, to Village Public Safety, to Fish and Game, to
Transportation, through almost every department there is.
We have tried to gather these various costs together - and
what is the total cost - and we have been so far been told
that it is much too complicated to ever figure that out.
But anybody that takes a look at the State's operating
budget clearly realized that it's somewhere around $60
million in order to do these functions. That's taking in
all the departments there are. What this does, it enables
the people of the State Of Alaska to generate revenue from
those people that cause the problem in order to off-set some
of those costs."
"I don't think that we should drop anybody from probation or
parole or convicted misdemeanors just because it costs the
state more than we could possibly bring in, but however in
this time of measuring revenues and measuring results, this
is one of the ways of doing it."
"I have been down here for some time and I haven't seen very
many revenue-generated mechanisms. I do believe that we
should join in not only with some other states, in having
our probation and parole pay for their debt to society and
help to reimburse those costs. But I also feel that this is
an appropriate way of doing it."
"We are the only state in the union that does give out a
permanent fund dividend. Under the probation and parole at
$3.30 per day, it works out to roughly $100 per month, which
is equal to our permanent fund dividend. Even with all the
probation and parole people paying for this amount, that
does not generate the $8.5 million that's needed."
"You'll notice in the legislation we clearly call for
professional collectors - third party collections that's
because the people that are in parole and probation have not
and can not have the capability to collect these, nor should
they. They should do what they are hired to do, which is to
be in charge of probation and parole, not to be collectors.
There are third party independent people - companies that do
this for a living and can do it quite well. That is who we
should have do it. We've had several of them contact our
office and they are available."
"Coming into this, when I started to realize the tremendous
cost that is put upon public safety, the departments of law,
the public defenders office, and all facets of government.
That's where the proposed amendments for misdemeanors to be
applied at this time because they share in the burden of the
cost too. They too have a debt to society and if they were
not convicted they would not be causing us to have that
portion of government that need to be funded at a certain
level."
"Right now the way this bill presently is and with the
amendment, if every person were to pay it would generate $25
million. Because of child support payments and other things
that come in line before these and because of multiple
attachments that of course will not come to be. But it
should at least hit the 50 percent level of $12 million."
"I believe whole-heartedly that this debt to society that
these people should share in that burden. If our burden of
cost is too high to charge, prosecute and convict all of
these people, then we should re-look at our underlying
statutes as to their worthiness. But as it stands right
now, in the reality of the day, what this is, this is a
repayment of a debt to society instead of having those
people that did not cause this pay the debt. That's what
this bill is about. It's a revenue-generating bill."
"With that I have Craig Johnson of my office who has been
working on this legislation and we'll be glad to try to
answer any questions that we can."
That concluded Senator Ward's opening remarks.
Senator Adams questioned the collection of fees. He
referred to Section 3 and Section 4. Section 3, lines 13
and 14 he read into the record, "While on probation among
the conditions of probation, the defendant may be
required..." He pointed out that it was not mandatory that
the defendant have to pay according to the language, because
of the use of the word "may". However, he jumped to Section
4 and read the language stating that, "the court granting
probation shall require a periodic portion." Therefore, he
wondered if there was a conflicting statement between the
two, because one said, "shall" and the other "may".
Senator Ward told the committee his intention was for
"shall". He believed the "shall" was overriding. Senator
Adams said he didn't see the requirement as mandatory
because of the language.
Senator Adams continued his questioning and directed
attention to the collection of the permanent fund dividends.
He referred to Page 5, Section 8, the exemptions and where
this collection was prioritized behind such obligations as
child support, court-ordered restitution, defaulted
scholarship loans, court-ordered fines, judgements, debts to
state agencies, domestic violence statutes. The way this
bill read, the parole/probation obligation would be number
eight in line, he observed. He also pointed out that felons
don't receive a dividend so he didn't see how the state
would recover $12 million.
Senator Ward responded that was why he added the misdemeanor
offenses to the legislation. Their cost to the state was
every bit as much. He warned that the state would need to
either reduce the cost of misdemeanors or let them help pay
for the debt. He stressed that they were being convicted,
there was a cost and the citizens were paying for it. He
apologized to the chair for speaking to an amendment that
had not been offered. He gave as his reason that it had
become clear to him that the system was not remotely
starting to pay even a portion of what was being demanded of
the citizens. He emphasized that he was trying to get those
people who were burdening society with these costs to pay
for a portion of their debt to society. He stressed that
this was not a punishment but a revenue-generating
legislation. Instead of giving them a permanent fund
dividend, let those funds be directed toward reducing the
parole/probation costs, he said.
Senator Donley asked Senator Ward to refresh his memory of
the current requirements. He thought that for a person
imprisoned for a felony then released; in the year they got
out and for one following year would not receive a permanent
fund dividend. After that they would be eligible to receive
the dividends again. Senator Ward confirmed that, but said
that under this legislation, as long as they were on
probation or parole there was a cost to the state and they
would be liable to pay the equivalent of the PFD.
Senator Ward continued, restating much of his testimony.
Senator Pearce, for discussion purposes, moved for adoption
of Amendment #1 and asked Senator Ward to speak to that
amendment. Senator Adams objected to the motion so the
committee could get an explanation from the sponsor.
Senator Ward started speaking to a different amendment,
which had not yet been offered. After he was corrected, he
directed CRAIG JOHNSON from his office to speak to Amendment
Mr. Johnson explained that the amendment was initially
introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee at the request
of the Permanent Fund Division. The Legislative Affairs
Agency's Legal Services' staff had concerns with the word
"except" and it was their belief that when language said
"except for number eight in prior state agencies", the
Department of Corrections was a state agency. In their
interpretation, that eliminated DOC's ability to collect
money under this law. Therefore this amendment was offered
to correct Section 8. He explained that this was just a
housekeeping amendment.
Senator Adams requested that the new language be read in
full, incorporating the changes from the amendment. Mr.
Johnson obliged, reading, "A dept owed by an eligible
individual to the agency of the state, unless the dept is
contested and appeal is pending or the time of limited
filing of appeal is not expired, other than for a fee under
8 of this subsection."
Senator Adams understood the change would read "...a dept
other than...owed by an individual". He asked to have that
explained to him. Mr. Johnson replied that his
understanding, the word dept was not in there. Senator
Donley attempted to clarify that this was the section that
referred to the fee exemption. He asked if it was the
sponsor's intent to make this a case where the exemption was
not available. Senator Ward said no, and read the changes
as, "A debt other than for a fee under 8 of this subsection,
owed by an eligible individual..." which was where he felt
the change would be inserted.
Senator Donley still didn't understand if the intent was to
make the exemption applicable to this new fee. He wanted to
know why it was mentioned there and also in Section 8.
Senator Ward said his understanding was because Corrections
was a department. By stating it there, it put it into
chronological order. Senator Donley realized it was the
order of priority. He further clarified the amendment's
intent with regard to the priority.
Senator Adams removed his objection. He stressed that he
still did not believe the state would collect that much
money with the priority order as such.
Co-Chair Sharp noted there was no objection to Amendment #1
and ordered it adopted.
Senator Pearce moved for adoption of Amendment #2. Co-Chair
Sharp asked the sponsor for explanation of the amendment.
Senator Ward spoke to the amendment as follows.
"What Amendment #2 does, and there's approximately 20,000
misdemeanor convictions in the State Of Alaska. I have
written a letter to all the commissioners and I haven't had
a response yet. Basically what I have asked all of them is
you go through this enormous list of misdemeanets all the
way from fishing ones to sexual things with corpses and
child pornography possession you just spoke on, there's a
big list of them. But, and they cover all the departments
with maybe the - I don't know which departments they
wouldn't have some effect on."
"So I've written to all the commissioners and asked them,
because they don't have this information, exactly what is
the cost of these 20,000 misdemeanants to arrest them, to
charge them, to convict them, to fine them, to do whatever
it is that's going to be done through the court system, and
through Public Safety, through Fish and Game, through
Transportation, airport police. Its a - and all my staff
and I've been able to do is look at the total budget and
guess. We've guessed around $60 million."
"As Senator Adams clearly stated and I agree with him, this
if enacted 100 percent, the $25 million, I don't believe
that it will raise $25 million, but I do believe that this
bill with the amendment would raise half of that. I believe
it would raise about $12.5 million. I think that would go a
way towards the people that are causing this debt to society
to help repay part of that debt."
"I don't think that we as a society should stop enforcing
these laws or take them off the books, because they're there
apparently for good reasons, whatever those reasons may or
may not have been. I think that what this does, this is a
revenue-generating mechanism."
"I support this amendment because I don't think those
citizens in the State Of Alaska that don't do these, that
they should have to pay 100 percent of them. I think that
those people that are actually convicted of them should
share in the reimbursement of that debt. That's what this
is."
"Also it comes into the same provision of third party
collection because I don't believe the state government is
capable within their current mission statements of being a
collection agency of this type. There are plenty of third
party companies more than willing to step forward and take
care of this process."
"With that I would like the committee to at least consider
this as what it is very clearly - a revenue-generating piece
of legislation for those who owe a debt to society."
Senator Adams objected to the amendment. The original bill
affected felons, but this amendment adds misdemeanants. He
felt this went beyond the bill. He asked the committee how
many of us had gone to a state park and perhaps stayed over
our time limit and perhaps got a citation. He pointed out
that would perhaps be a misdemeanor. He gave another
example of getting off a plane and illegally parking at the
Juneau Airport, which would also be a misdemeanor. He
stressed the need to look at adding the misdemeanor. He
noted other misdemeanors such as subsistence violations,
drinking alcohol on an election day or disorderly conduct.
He suggested that if the misdemeanor clause was inserted to
the bill it either need to be returned to the Judiciary
Committee or else this committee would need to site each
misdemeanor that would be affected.
Senator Pearce shared a list of all the misdemeanor crimes
that the sponsor had handed out for committee members.
Senator Ward concurred with Senator Adams that possession of
child pornography and subsistence fin fishing with
unidentifiable gear would be categorized the same under this
legislation and both defendants would lose their PFDs.
However, he felt the simple fact was that 20,000
misdemeanants cost this state approximately $60 million. He
added that if some of the crimes should be taken off the
list of misdemeanors, he hoped that some of the people
convicted of those crimes would lobby the Legislature to
have them removed. Meanwhile, he felt that somebody still
had to pay the associated costs and he didn't want to pay
for them. The citizens he represented no longer wanted to
pay for them either, he stated. He continued speaking to
the potential need to have some of the misdemeanor offenses
taken off the books, referring to the costs involved.
Senator Donley tried to understand the pattern. Citing
Sections D1 and D2, which talked about convictions of a
misdemeanor and incarceration as a result of the
convictions, he asked if both would have to occur before the
offenders would lose their dividend or would the mere
conviction be sufficient to cause the loss of the PFD.
Senator Ward stated the conviction was the method by which
the dividend would be fore-fitted. Senator Donley asked for
further clarifications on the meaning of the two sections.
He continued, asking about AS 11.81.900 that was referenced
in Line 18. Mr. Johnson explained that under the current
law, if a person were convicted of three misdemeanors he
would lose his permanent fund. The proposed amendment would
in part repeal that portion of the language, because the PFD
would be denied after the first conviction. Senator Donley
then pointed out that the PFD would be taken away in the
same manner as for a felony conviction, for the first year.
This was not permanent, according to Senator Ward, unless
they commit another crime and are convicted.
Senator Donley asked how Amendment #2 related to the on-
going fee provision. Would this replace the version in the
bill or would it be an addition, he wanted to know. Mr.
Johnson said it would be a separate section and would be in
addition to the existing fee structure. The bill was a
vehicle to get PFDs from misdemeanants. It did not relate
to probation and parole, he said.
Senator Donley expressed that he agreed with the system
placed forth in the amendment because it was clean, it
didn't have administrative cost problems and the state
wouldn't have to defend these people. It would just say
they were not eligible without needing to provide public
defenders. He liked Amendment #2 and suggested expanding on
it to clean up some of the other provisions in the bill.
Senator Ward responded to those comments. He felt the
people on probation and parole needed to understand their
responsibility in paying for what they had done. He thought
those people should pay for their costs of probation and
parole. He believed that helped them. He told the
committee that was his beginning thrust of adding
responsibilities. He referred to boot camps and getting up
in the morning. He stated that responsibility was a good
thing, which was how this legislation started out.
Senator Donley said he agreed with the philosophy, but he
thought the process had not gone far enough with regard to
felony convictions. When a person was convicted of a
felony, they only lose their dividend for one year under
existing law. He said he would be interested in extending
beyond that. He wanted to deny PFD for a misdemeanor
conviction and to extend the time for a felony conviction.
Senator Ward noted that a large percentage of people who had
been convicted of a felony have gone on probation, those
were the people he was targeted. He talked about efforts of
putting people behind bars and that it didn't work to
rehabilitate offenders. He spoke about reentering the
community and repaying and accepting responsibility.
Senator Donley asked if the state could pre-garnish the PFD
for felons who were on probation. He noted a provision in
the legislation allowing for an individual who claimed they
were unable to make the payments. He wanted to know how
that would relate to the garnishment of the dividends. He
felt that obviously the money was available by the issuance
of the PFDs, but would some individuals get the dividend,
blow the money on something else and when it came time to
pay this debt, claim they couldn't make the payment. He
wondered if there was a way for the state to collect the
money first and avoid the whole problem.
Senator Ward defended the fore-mentioned provision, stating
it was inserted to avoid becoming a debtor jail. He
stressed that if someone was truly unable to pay this, he
did not want to see that person put back into jail. Senator
Donley responded that he understood the provision, but
wondered if there was a way to avoid getting into the
position of granting the dividend, the defendant spending
the funds on something else, then saying they couldn't pay
the probation fee. Senator Ward assured him that this
legislation would prevent the PFD from being issued to the
probation/parolee. He said that with electronic transfer,
the money would never get into their hands. Senator Donley
clarified that there was an anticipatory garnishment that
would occur. Senator Ward explained that once the
individual was in the system, there would be a procedure
that would direct the funds to the state. He further spoke
to the costs charged the probation/parolee. He wanted those
people to clearly know they were repaying their debt to
society.
Senator Donley said he would like to work with the sponsor
and his staff with changing this legislation.
There was discussion as to where the committee was with
regard to the amendment. It was determined Amendment #2 had
been moved and they were in discussion on that amendment.
Senator Ward brought back to the attention of the members
his request to the commissioner to identify the actual costs
incurred by felons and misdemeanants. He admitted that his
figure of $60 million was a guess. He felt that if the
departments were to report back actual figures, there would
be a better understanding of what the citizens were paying
for.
Co-Chair Sharp said he had questions he was holding until
they came to discussion on the bill.
Senator Adams asked Senator Ward if this amendment had been
offered in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Ward
replied that no, he didn't come up with the amendment until
after the bill had moved from that committee. He expounded
further on his reasons for adding misdemeanors to the
legislation. He said the matter was brought up with phone
calls to his office. Another reason was the crime of
possession of child pornography.
Co-Chair Sharp interrupted announcing that he would like to
hear from the Department of Corrections, otherwise he would
put the bill aside for a future meeting. First he intended
to complete action on the amendment before the body.
Senator Adams continued to speak against Amendment #2. He
read some other misdemeanor offenses that he felt were
unworthy of forfeiture of a PFD. Senator Ward countered;
arguing that constituents guilty of those offenses could
lobby to have them removed from the list of misdemeanors.
Senator Pearce observed that Senator Donley had an interest,
not only in Amendment #2 but also with some further changes.
In the interest of time, she offered to remove her motion to
adopt Amendment #2 so he could get with the sponsor and the
department to incorporate those changes.
Senator Donley stated that he liked Amendment #2 and did not
object to it. Senator Pearce stressed it was clear the
committee would not get through the legislation in the time
allotted for this meeting. She deferred to the co-chairs
call of how he wished to proceed on the motion.
Co-Chair Sharp called for a vote on Amendment #2. It failed
by a three to three vote with Senators Donley, Phillips and
Sharp voting in favor. Senator Parnell was absent during the
roll call.
Co-Chair Sharp voiced a concern with the high figures
included in the fiscal notes. He regretted the committee
did not have a chance to hear from the DOC on this
legislation. He ordered the bill held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|