Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/04/1997 01:35 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 4, 1997
1:35 P.M.
TAPE HFC 97 - 17, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97 - 17, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97 - 18, Side 1, #000 - #343.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:35 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Grussendorf
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Kohring was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter; Jayne Andreen, Executive
Director, Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault,
Juneau; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law; Tom Wright, Staff,
Representative Ivan Ivan; Dennis Poshard, Director,
Charitable Gaming Division, Department of Revenue; Paul
Sweet, (Testified via teleconference), Mat-Su; Janice
Lienhart, (Testified via teleconference), Anchorage; Dave
Lambert, (Testified via teleconference), Fairbanks.
SUMMARY
HB 9 An Act relating to the right of crime victims and
victims of juvenile offenses to be present at
court proceedings; and amending Rule 615, Alaska
Rules of Evidence.
HB 9 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 20 An Act relating to dog mushers' contests.
CS HB 20 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal
note by the Department of Revenue dated 1/24/97.
1
HOUSE BILL 9
"An Act relating to the right of crime victims and
victims of juvenile offenses to be present at court
proceedings; and amending Rule 615, Alaska Rules of
Evidence."
Co-Chair Therriault explained that Representative Porter,
the sponsor of HB 9, had been requested by the
Administration to use the legislation as a vehicle for
additional language. He clarified that the Committee would
take testimony on the bill and then it would be held in
Committee for rescheduling.
REPRESENTATIVE BRAIN PORTER noted that the Alaskan
Constitution had been amended in 1994 adding Article #1, a
new Section #24, which specifically extended to crime
victims, "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...".
He added, at least two Superior Court judges are
interpreting the Alaska Statutes and Rule #615, Alaska Rules
of Evidence, to exclude victims of crimes and juvenile
offenses from being present in the courtroom during a trial
of the accused until after the victim has testified.
HB 9 was created to implement the mandate of the 1994
Amendment to the Constitution and to make clear to
judiciary, a crime victim's right to be present at the trial
and other proceedings of the accused, including juvenile
proceedings, whenever the accused has the right to be
present.
Representative J. Davies asked if a balance would occur
incorporating the two constitutional provisions.
Representative Porter responded that the right of the victim
to be present in court anytime the defendant is present, is
already included in the Constitution. Previously, whereas,
the victims rights were in statute and the defendants rights
were in the Constitution, the defendants rights being
constitutional had preference over statutory rights of
victims. The court should create the balance and thus
determine whose rights should prevail.
JAYNE ANDREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE & SEXUAL ASSAULT, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the
legislation. She stated that equal rights would send a
clear message that victims have the right to be present and
heard.
2
Co-Chair Therriault spoke regarding a spousal abuse
situation, asking if that situation would be a concern for
the Council. Ms. Andreen stressed that there are a number
of domestic violence victims who are willing and want to
participate in the prosecution of their abuser. Cases do
exist in which the victims do not want to be present
throughout the trial. In those situations, the alleged
offender could make eye contact, thus manipulating and
controlling the victim further. She stated that it was
important to clearly stipulate that victims would have
either option. With the support and advocacy, the victims
will be assisted in making a determination as to whether it
would be in their best interest to be present during court
proceedings.
PAUL SWEET, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MAT-SU, spoke in
support of the legislation, although, questioned how the
bill would affect appeals on mandatory parole.
Representative Porter explained that the victims right to be
present at any court proceeding in which the defendant was
present, would continue throughout the legislation. He
added, other provisions exist in statute and in the
Constitution that allow the victim to be notified and
present their point of view. The victim would be well
covered throughout the process.
Mr. Sweet echoed his concern regarding the victims rights
during the appeal process. Representative Porter agreed
that the victim should be notified when the defendant was
scheduled for an appeal. Mr. Sweet stressed that the court
must be constitutionally required to notify the victims of
the scheduled appeal process. Representative Porter
acknowledged that the revised version of the legislation
will incorporate language addressing that concern.
Representative Porter added, an abundance of statutes
currently exist, which address the notification process of
the victims. The committee substitute will attempt to
consolidate information so that the victim can look at the
Victim's Right Statute and have information clearly defined
in one place.
Representative J. Davies advised that there is other
legislation which addresses victim notification.
JANICE LIENHART, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
voiced support of the proposed legislation. She noted that
the Department of Corrections (DOC) is supposed to notify
all victims, although, some "fall through the cracks" as a
result of the case volume. For a victim of crime to heal,
they need to have all the information regarding the crime,
and then to be a part of the trial process if they so
3
desire. This will empower the victim to have a sense of
closure around the situation.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, testified in support of the HB
9. She added that the legislation is similar to Governor
Knowles Omnibus Bill. That legislation intends to remedy
occasions when judges have excluded victims from court
proceedings, even after the constitutional amendment was
ratified. The ability to cross-examine, answers any
possible problems of due process that arise on behalf of the
defendant. She commented that it is important that victims
see the justice system prosecute the defendants on their
behalf.
Representative J. Davies asked if a more fair trial could
exist, if there was no cross-examination, suggesting that it
could taint the trial. Ms. Carpeneti disagreed, noting that
cross-examination was the best way to get at the truth.
Whether or not a victim or a witness has heard testimony in
a trial, they are subject to cross-examination. There is no
good reason why the victim should not be present and watch
the justice system proceed against the defendant.
Representative J. Davies noted that his amendments would
encourage testimony early on in the trial. Ms. Carpeneti
did not agree with that positioning, stating that the order
of witnesses is a tactile position and neither the
prosecution or the defense would want to schedule their
witnesses in any particular order. An additional problem to
that approach would be when a witness was recalled.
Co-Chair Therriault referenced a sheet in the handout,
received from the Court System from the Criminal Rules
Committee minutes regarding: Evidence Rule 615: Exclusion
of Victims from Courtroom. That handout states:
"The committee reviewed the Department of Law's
request (dated July 10, 1996) that Evidence Rule
615 be amended to prevent victims from being
excluded from proceedings at which the defendant
is present. Chuck Pengilly expressed the view
that Rule 615 should be eliminated entirely. He
would like to do further research on this
possibility. The committee agreed, however, in
the meantime, to ask the supreme court to include
the following note at the end of the rule:
This rule does not authorize the
exclusion of a crime victim, as defined
by law, from any hearing at which the
defendant has a right to be present.
4
See Alaska Const. art. I, & 24."
HB 9 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE BILL 20
"An Act relating to dog mushers' contests."
TOM WRIGHT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN, explained that
HB 20 would authorize the dog mushers' associations to
conduct statewide games of chance. The Division recognizes
those associations which have been in existence for at least
three years, with at least 25 Alaskan members and are a "not
for profit" organization. Prizes would be awarded for the
nearest guess of three uncertain elements in a sled dog race
which were not determined before the start of the race. The
intent would be to provide a mechanism to assist race
organizing committees to become financially self-sufficient.
Passage of HB 20 would also allow participants to purchase
raffle tickets in which the contestant would guess the
checkpoints, finish line arrival times, temperature when a
particular team crosses the finish line, and the total
number of dogs that finish the race, etc. The dog mushers'
association would administer the contests in conjunction
with State regulatory authority.
Co-Chair Therriault distributed Amendment #1. [Copy on
file-Attachment #1]. Mr. Wright spoke to the amendment,
noting that it had been brought to the attention of
Representative Ivan that the language in Section #2 was
unclear and could possibly prohibit the conducting of sled
dog races. He stressed that this was not the intent of
Representative Ivan.
Representative Martin asked if "raffle" referred to prizes
or money. Mr. Wright replied that would depend on the
association. Representative Martin suggested that "could"
be a play on words and recommended the language be
consistent. He questioned why the language "raffle tickets"
was being used. Co-Chair Therriault identified that the
only language being added was to Section #1, "dog mushers
contest". Raffle tickets would not be included as the
prize. Representative Martin felt that the bill could
encourage "gambling". Mr. Wright clarified that the
language used in the sponsor statement was not intended to
confuse anyone. He agreed that use of the word "ticket"
would be adequate terminology for the raffle.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-17, Side 2).
Representative Martin spoke to the zero fiscal note,
5
suggesting that the legislation could add an additional
twelve races. He asked how the Department would oversee
"above-board" operations of the legislation.
DENNIS POSHARD, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CHARITABLE GAMING,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, responded that the activities would
fall under the same minimum charity provisions and expense
limitations of the ten percent adjusted gross income that
other activities must adhere to. The amount of time that
the Division would spend on enforcing provisions would be
insignificant. He noted that pull-tabs, bingo and raffles
provide ninety-nine percent of charity money in Alaska.
Mr. Poshard reiterated that he did not anticipate additional
costs for the Department to implement the legislation. The
Department currently is implementing a new computer system
which will free-up a significant amount of time for data
entry work and processing applications.
Co-Chair Hanley asked if an entity would need to be non-
profit in order to qualify. Mr. Poshard advised, in order
to receive a permit for any charitable gaming activity, the
association must be a non-profit organization, having at
least twenty-five Alaskan members, and having been in
existence for at least three years before the time the
application was filed. An additional requirement exists for
the type of gaming that is proposed in Section #B, limiting
that contest to a "dog mushers association".
Co-Chair Hanley asked if the new games would fit into the
cap of a gross amount an organization would need to have to
qualify to receive a permit. Mr. Poshard thought that would
fall under the cap as would any gaming activity. A cap is
based on prize limit awards.
Representative Grussendorf asked if there would be a limit
to the number of races conducted. Mr. Poshard noted
currently, statute provides a yearly $1 million dollar
limitation. The limitation is determined through the award
of prizes. The Division requires every charitable gaming
activity to provide a financial statement including a
detailed listing of expenses associated directly with gaming
activities and a listing of how profits were spent. Each
statement is reviewed closely by the Division.
Mr. Poshard continued, the cap is established on the prize
award up to $1 million dollars and including all activities.
There is no language indicating that the activities can not
be statewide; this does not differ from what currently is in
statute. Presently, AS 05.15.690(12) states that: "Prizes
can be awarded for the correct guess of the racing time of a
6
dog team". There is no language which limits it to being a
statewide contest.
Representative Martin reiterated his concern with the
potential fiscal impact on the Department. He asked if an
association could hire an operator. Mr. Poshard commented
that there exists no prohibition from an association hiring
an operator. The Division could issue an operators license
if necessary, although, the operator would be required to
"put up" a $25 thousand dollar bond. Representative Martin
stressed his concern in bringing a new element to gaming and
"gambling".
In response to Representative John Davies, Mr. Poshard
stated that the agencies would have to register and receive
a permit with the Division in order to award prizes. Those
activities are subject to the same provisions that any other
gaming activities are subject to. He added, there is a 10%
minimum contribution, although there exists no maximum award
amount. On raffle type activities, the expected norm return
would be 30% to 40% of the adjusted gross.
Representative Gary Davis asked about the amount of revenue
the Department would expect to receive through tax
associated with the legislation. Mr. Poshard explained, the
main income received would be generated through a 3% tax
associated with pull tabs and collected from those
distributors. There is a 1% tax fee placed on any
organizations net proceeds. The Department issues few
mushing permits and little money is associated with these as
they tend to award more prizes than funds received.
Representative Davis commented that each year there is a lot
of time taken with this type legislation. He suggested that
the Legislature should not be involved with permitting
decisions; instead it should be handled directly by the
Division which has the expertise and regulations already in
place.
In response to Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Poshard explained that
"raffles and lotteries" were defined in AS 05.615.690.37.
They are basically defined in the same way: "The selling of
rights to participate in the awarding of prizes in a game of
chance, conducted by the drawing for prizes, by lot". He
agreed that the line between a raffle and a lottery was
gray.
Representative Martin stated that the legislation did not
meet the definition of a raffle, but rather a lottery. Mr.
Poshard explained that it was different because of the
distinction between having an active guess on the part of
the participant rather than a drawing by lot. Co-Chair
Hanley added that the result would be different.
7
Representative Grussendorf referenced Section #1, pointing
out the discrepancy between the five year snow machine
licensure requirements, and those of the dog mushers'
contests. Mr. Poshard emphasized that if an organization or
dog mushing association formed at this time, they would have
to wait three years before eligibility to any gaming
activity. The five year limit was placed on snow machines
and resulted from an amendment by Senator Frank last year in
Senate Finance.
Co-Chair Therriault commented that Mr. Lambert of Fairbanks
disclosed concerns with the legislation. Amendment #1 would
address these concerns by deleting the language, "conducted
by a dog mushers' association,". [Copy on file].
DAVE LAMBERT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FAIRBANKS,
noted his support for Amendment #1. He said that the Dog
Mushers' Association had been near extinction until three
years ago when they implemented pull tabs. He observed that
the proposed legislation would give the public a "personal"
interest in dog racing.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-18, Side 1).
Representative Martin voiced concern with passage of
Amendment #1. He felt it would open the market to
professional gambling. Mr. Lambert pointed out that many of
the current dog mushing races would be eliminated if that
language remained in the bill. Representative Martin asked
if contests were limited to those that were in the system
before 1959. Mr. Poshard explained that the Division may
issue permits or licenses to conduct any of the activities
listed in Section #B. Any other activities can be listed as
permits, if they existed prior to 1959.
Representative Grussendorf recommended that snow machine
classics be included in the amendment. Co-Chair Therriault
stated that by making an additional deletion to the
amendment, would allow other entities to operate races. Mr.
Poshard added, Amendment #1 would take (12)A back to the
current language as it exists in statute.
Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. Representative
Martin OBJECTED for purposes of discussion. Discussion
followed regarding elimination of language in Section (12)A
and the effect that would have on the language in Section
(12)B. Representative Martin agreed that only the dog
mushing association should have exclusive rights. Mr.
Lambert commented that the three year eligibility quota
could affect dog mush racing. Representative Martin
WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment #1. There being NO
8
additional OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
Representative Grussendorf suggested adding language to Page
1, Line 9, indicating dog mushing activities. Co-Chair
Hanley summarized that the new games of chance in Section
(B) would need to be in existence for at least five (5)
years rather than the current three (3) years before contest
permitting. Co-Chair Therriault recommended referencing AS
05.15.690(12)B in that language change. Co-Chair Hanley
suggested making the motion a conceptual amendment for Legal
Services to draft. Mr. Wright recommended the language
change be inserted on Page 1, Line 9.
Representative J. Davies asked why the change was needed.
Representative Grussendorf thought that three (3) years
could make this a more viable option. Representative
Grussendorf MOVED to adopt the conceptual amendment.
Representative G. Davis OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Martin, Moses, Therriault,
Hanley
OPPOSED: Davis, Foster, Kelly, Mulder, Davies
The MOTION FAILED (5-5).
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 20 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. Representative Martin OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Foster, Grussendorf, Moses, Mulder, J.
Davies, G. Davis, Hanley, Therriault
OPPOSED: Kelly, Martin
The MOTION PASSED (8-2).
CS HB 20 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Revenue dated 1/24/97.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:15 P.M.
9
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|