Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/09/2004 01:44 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
March 09, 2004
1:44 P.M.
TAPE HFC 04 - 55, Side A
TAPE HFC 04 - 55, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:44 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Harris, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Bill Stoltze
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Carl Moses
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Ralph Samuels; Doug Wooliver, Alaska Court
System, Anchorage; Sara Nielson, Staff, Representative Ralph
Samuels
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Judge Stephanie Joannides, Alaska Court System, Anchorage;
Judge Leonard Devaney, Alaska Court System, Bethel; Michelle
Bartley, Division of Behavior Health, Department of Health &
Social Services, Anchorage
SUMMARY
HB 451 An Act relating to therapeutic courts; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 451 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal note by
the Alaska Court System, zero fiscal note #1 by
Department of Administration, zero note #2 by the
Department of Corrections, zero note #3 by the
Department of Health & Social Services and zero
note #4 by the Department of Law.
HJR 4 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to the duration of a
regular session.
CS HJR 4 (STA) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with fiscal note #3 by
the Office of the Lt. Governor and fiscal note #4
by the Legislative Affairs Agency.
HOUSE BILL NO. 451
An Act relating to therapeutic courts; and providing
for an effective date.
DOUG WOOLIVER, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, ANCHORAGE, stated that
HB 451 would extend the termination date for two pilot
therapeutic court programs until after a planned study of
the Courts had been completed and reviewed by the
Legislature. The bill removes a sunset clause to the
Anchorage Superior Court judge position that was added to
administer one of the therapeutic courts.
In 2001, the Legislature passed HB 172, which established
felony-level Therapeutic Courts in Anchorage and Bethel.
Each Court was set up as a pilot program scheduled to run
for three years. The Anchorage Court admits those with a
felony conviction for driving under the influence of an
alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled substance (DUI).
The Bethel Court admits those convicted of either felony DUI
or certain felony drug offenses. The findings section of HB
172 explains the purpose of the Courts:
The purposes of Therapeutic courts are lasting
sobriety of offenders, protection of society from
alcohol-related and drug-related crime, prompt payment
of restitution to victims of crimes, effective
interaction and use of resources among criminal
justice and community agencies, and long-term
reduction of costs relating to arrest, trial, and
incarceration.
Mr. Wooliver stated that in order to determine the
effectiveness of the Courts, the Judicial Council was
charged with evaluating them and publishing a study for
legislative review. Unfortunately, both the Anchorage and
Bethel programs sunset before the evaluation is scheduled to
be complete and because the report is to be published in
July, before the Legislature has an opportunity to review
the evaluation. If the Legislature looks at the evaluation
study and decides that the programs should continue, it
would be too late and both programs would have ended more
than a year earlier. In order to fix that problem, HB 451
would extend the termination date of the pilot program until
after the Legislature has had an opportunity to review the
effectiveness.
HB 451 removes a sunset clause from HB 172 that would
terminate the Anchorage Superior Court judge position added
by the bill. The new judge was necessary not only to do the
work of the Therapeutic Court but also to help absorb the
growing felony caseload in Anchorage. The sunset clause
would take effect this summer at the same time the
Therapeutic Court program was scheduled to end. Not only
will that mean the end of the felony Therapeutic Court, also
mean that Anchorage will have one less judge for other
Superior Court work. The Therapeutic Court judge in
Anchorage spends most of her time on general Superior Court
work unrelated to therapeutic court cases. If the Judicial
System looses the judicial position, it will impact all
Superior Court cases in Anchorage.
Mr. Wooliver concluded that the loss of a Superior Court
judge in Anchorage would return the State to the number of
judges initially established in 1984. Since that time, the
felony caseload in Anchorage has increased approximately
100%. Alaska cannot afford to lose a Superior Court
position in Anchorage and to return to a level of judicial
coverage that was appropriate 20 years ago.
JUDGE STEPHANIE JOANNIDES, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, ANCHORAGE, voiced her frustration with
sentencing more and more people for longer periods of time
when they continue to re-offend. She claimed that the State
can no longer afford to keep doing that both economically
and from a public safety perspective. The State must look
at new ways of doing business. Because of that frustration,
judges, courts and lawyers have the realization that
something must be done about the problem.
The Drug Court model was first used in Florida in the
1980's. Since then, the original model was so successful
that now there are over 1,000 across the country. Five
years ago, there were only about 400 in operation. She
reiterated that currently, there are over 1,000 drug court
models and that is the model the Anchorage Court system
uses.
Judge Joannides emphasized the success rate of people in
that program. There are mothers that are having "clean and
sober" babies that might have otherwise had Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome (FAS), parents learning how to better interact with
their children and offenders are staying clean and sober for
longer periods of time. She requested that members come to
observe the Court in Anchorage to better witness the
strengths of the program.
JUDGE LEONARD DEVANEY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, BETHEL, echoed sentiments made by Judge
Joannides and stated that the Therapeutic Court in Bethel is
having a great success rate. He advised that nearly 100% of
the crimes in that area are alcohol related and the results
of the Court has been very good.
Judge Devaney noted that the Bethel Court has only been in
existence for about 18 months. He pointed out that they are
using $25 dollars per day for treatment as compared to the
$100 dollars per day incarceration costs. The Courts in
Bethel take many different substance abuse crime clients.
Judge Devaney offered to answer questions of the Committee.
Co-Chair Harris inquired about the recidivism rate and asked
if there had been a "dramatic" drop in that number.
Judge Joannides replied that it would be premature to
provide those statistics. Almost 2/3 of people in her court
were re-offenders; in other words, had a prior felony and
then quickly reoffended. She stressed that they have seen
success in that population and on a national level, the
success has been promising. She understood that it is
difficult to convince members without the "hard" numbers
available but reiterated that it is early in the program to
determine. The people in that program could be serving from
12 to 18 months and those people are just beginning to get
back into their community. She pointed out that many people
in the program could not have made it eighteen months
without picking up another felony DUI and that information
is promising.
Judge Devaney reiterated that the Bethel program started
later and stated that only seven people had graduated from
the program to date. He pointed out that they would need
another year or two to determine the recidivism rate. There
is success being seen but the number is difficult to
quantify at this point.
Co-Chair Harris inquired about using an "implant" or other
device. Judge Joannides responded that Anchorage is not
using any type of implant with the offenders in the program.
They do use other tools to monitor sobriety. Some of the
clients are on naltrexone but that is not required for
everyone in the program. Some are monitored using a
sobritor attachment to test them for alcohol consumption.
She added that these people are tested 1-5 times a week,
with a minimum of 3.
Judge Devaney noted that Bethel does use naltrexone if the
doctor prescribes it and it is used for six months. They
take it at treatment five days a week and then on the
weekends, the participants come in for breath tests. In
Bethel, there is no electronic monitoring, as the
infrastructure in Bethel does not allow for the use of the
scram.
Representative Fate inquired if preliminary data had been
collected. Mr. Wooliver responded that it is and is an
important aspect of HB 172, as a direction to Judicial
Council to undertake a long-term study and journaling the
statistics.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 451 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
attached fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
HB 451 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a new fiscal note by the Alaska
Court System, zero note #1 by the Department of
Administration, zero note #2 by the Department of
Corrections, zero note #3 by the Department of Health &
Social Services and zero note #4 by the Department of Law.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to the duration of a regular
session.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS pointed out that HJR 4 proposes
an amendment to Alaska's Constitution that would limit
regular legislative sessions to 90 consecutive calendar
days. If the resolution passes, the proposed constitutional
amendment would be presented to the voters at the 2004
general election. Voters would decide the fate of the
proposal.
Representative Samuels stated that ninety days is more than
enough time for the Legislature to complete business. In an
era of decreasing budgets, reducing the session by thirty
days would save State funds. Shorter sessions would:
(1) Save almost $1 million in per diem and staffing
costs;
(2) Aid in candidate recruitment; and
(3) Focus the public's attention.
Representative Samuels added that other states can do their
work in 90 days or less and that Alaska should be able to
accomplish that also. Fourteen other states have
legislative sessions of 90 days or less.
He elaborated that another benefit to the shorter session
idea is that Alaskans want citizen-legislators. They feel
legislators should be able to carry on a livelihood outside
of legislative work. Shorter sessions would encourage a
larger number of people to run for office and still be able
to make a living at their everyday jobs.
Representative Samuels noted that prior to 1984, the
Legislature had no time limit on the number of days it could
remain in session. The voters approved the present 120-day
limit on November 6, 1984. Since that time, it has been
amply proven that the Alaska Legislature can operate within
a time limit.
Vice Chair Meyer asked about the history of the 120-day
session. Representative Samuels pointed out that there was
information in member's packets on what other states do.
Historically, Alaska has slowly "racketed up the number of
days". He admitted that he did not know the specifics.
Vice Chair Meyer noted that some states meet every other
year. He questioned if a 90-day session would work better
in Alaska than having a bi-annual session. Representative
Samuels thought that the biannual idea would be more
difficult because the State's finances are so dependant with
the price of oil. That price cannot be determined from year
to year.
Vice Chair Meyer noted that he supports the bill.
Representative Fate noted that the issue had been proposed a
number of years ago and had moved through the House State
Affairs Committee. He questioned how thoroughly the
complexity of the issues had been discussed regarding the
Alaskan fiscal dynamics. Representative Samuels pointed out
that the first committee of referral had been the House
State Affairs Committee and added that issues and
legislation could continue to be addressed during the
interim. Should the legislation pass, the first legislative
session would remain at 120-days in order to guarantee
adequate time to discuss the details of implementing the
plan. He advised that there had been "thorough hearings" to
address the issues brought forth in the House State Affairs
Committee.
Co-Chair Harris agreed that the idea was good. He inquired
how many states in the country have governor's that choose
all their cabinet members as well as the attorney general.
Representative Samuels replied that he had been informed
that Alaska's Executive Branch is one of the most powerful
in the country.
Co-Chair Harris pointed out that it was designed that way
when the Alaska Constitution was written. He questioned if
Alaska really has the ability to operate as a State given
the current available resources and not using Permanent Fund
earnings. He voiced concern giving up legislative power in
the third branch of government. He noted that he would
support the legislation if there was some sort of guarantee
that the Legislature would have interim committees that
could operate and move legislation. He added that 90-days
would be fine if there was a process in place of working in
both bodies. If there is a situation of different parties
ruling, the budget process could be much longer and more
drawn out. He stressed that the Legislature should attempt
to avoid situations of "extending legislative sessions".
Representative Samuels reiterated that more work and
legislation could be handled during the interim.
Co-Chair Harris suggested that the sessions could be changed
starting in March when the spring forecast is available.
The Legislature could even meet in Anchorage or Fairbanks.
Representative Samuels commented that would be a better
process than what currently exists.
Co-Chair Harris added that the session could be shortened to
60-days if legislation could be moved through committee
meetings. He noted that fewer laws would be passed.
Representative Fate pointed out that in the last two years,
the Governor has flooded the market with his legislation.
He voiced concern with not enough time for the budget
process and individual legislation. The change could make
it possible to set up where the Administration dictates the
"flow of traffic" without a committee process. He warned
that the idea needs to be thoroughly discussed before making
the proposed change. Representative Samuels argued that
other than the budget, the Legislature does not "have to do
anything". If the budget information is available the first
month of the session, bills could be placed on the agenda
following that process.
Representative Fate agreed that problems could result and
that last year, the scenario with the Governor's sixty bills
did impact the flow of legislation.
Representative Stoltze commented that with a mission and
focus much could be accomplished in a limited time period.
He provided an historical reference to amending the
constitution. Representative Stoltze thought that the
government must be responsive and limited; the balance will
have to be addressed. Representative Samuels enumerated the
days not in session as outlined in the information packet.
Co-Chair Harris asked if there had been discussion given to
having a short session outside of Juneau, lasting perhaps a
week, in order to move a bill to the floor. He pointed out
that otherwise, the bills would have to wait until the
following session to be heard. Representative Samuels
replied that discussion had not yet happened. He did not
think it was a bad idea, reiterating that a shortened
session would help to spread out the workload. He added
that it could help the public process and create a better
product increasing the number of people participating.
Representative Samuels advised that he did not see the
"projected $1 million dollar savings", as it will cost
transport legislators from place to place, however,
indicated that he did not think it would cost more than the
$1 million dollars.
Co-Chair Harris pointed out that the Alaska Statutes call
for the Legislature to meet in Juneau and a "special
session" as determined by the Legislature can be determined.
Representative Stoltze thought that the legislation would
create a need for a comprehensive revision of the Uniform
Rules in order to allow for such a revision. Representative
Samuels agreed. He acknowledged that they would have to do
a lot of work, "looking at how business is being done,
internally", and if the same rules would continue to apply.
Representative Stoltze pointed out that any change to the
Uniform Rules would need a 2/3 vote of the entire
Legislature.
Representative Fate commented on the proposed interim
committee. He asked if there would be discussion on having
time certain discussions or if they would be more ad hoc.
Representative Samuels pointed out that recommendations had
been made to spread the workload out throughout the year.
He acknowledged that the specifics had not been discussed.
HJR 4 would only establish the framework.
Representative Fate voiced concern if legislators could be
efficient in a 90-day period. He asked if that discussion
had taken place. Representative Samuels admitted that in
detail, it had not.
Co-Chair Harris stated additional consideration would need
to be given to issues regarding the timetable for the
Governor submitting his budget and the amendments.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED to report CS HJR 4 (STA) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
TAPE HFC 04 - 55, Side B
CS HJR 4 (STA) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with fiscal note #3 by the Office of the
Lt. Governor and fiscal note #4 by the Legislative Affairs
Agency.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:33 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|