Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/30/2024 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB259 | |
| HB11 | |
| HB68 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 30, 2024
6:11 p.m.
6:11:07 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 6:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Sarah Vance, Sponsor; Lauree Morton, Self,
Juneau; Brenda Stanfill, Executive Director, Alaska Network
on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; Lisa Purinton,
Acting Legislative Liaison and Special Assistant, Director,
Division of Statewide Services, Department of Public
Safety; Robert Ballinger, Staff, Representative Sarah
Vance; Angie Kemp, Director, Criminal Division, Department
of Law; Brodie Anderson, Staff, Representative Neal Foster;
James Stinson, Director, Office of Public Advocacy,
Department of Administration; Nancy Meade, General Counsel,
Alaska State Court System; Lisa Keller, Staff,
Representative Andy Josephson; Kate Tallmadge, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of Law; Sylvan Robb, Director,
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional
Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Terra Burns, Advocate, Community United for Safety and
Protection, Fairbanks; Maxine Doogan, Community United for
Safety and Protection, Fairbanks; Teri West, Administrative
Services Director, Department of Corrections; Kelly
Manning, Deputy Director, Division of Innovation and
Education Excellence, Department of Education and Early
Development; Renee Gayhart, Director, Health Care Services,
Department of Health; Mike Shaffer, Attorney, Office of
Victims' Rights; Terrance Haas, Public Defender, Public
Defender Agency, Department of Administration; Amber
Nickerson, Community United for Safety and Protection,
Anchorage; Terra Burns, Advocate, Community United for
Safety and Protection, Fairbanks; Maxine Doogan, Community
United for Safety and Protection, Fairbanks; Lynn Tobey,
Self, Anchorage; Ajela Banks, Self, Anchorage; Michelle
Overstreet, Founder and CEO, My House, Wasilla; Staci
Yates, Director of Human Trafficking Recovery Services, My
House, Wasilla; Delayna West, Self, Homer; James Stinson,
Director, Office of Public Advocacy, Department of
Administration.
SUMMARY
HB 11 CRIME: ASSAULT IN THE PRESENCE OF A CHILD
HB 11 was HEARD and HELD for further
consideration.
HB 68 CRIME OF SEX/HUMAN TRAFFICKING
HB 68 was HEARD and HELD for further
consideration.
HB 259 COUNCIL ON HUMAN AND SEX TRAFFICKING
HB 259 was HEARD and HELD for further
consideration.
CSSB 187(FIN) am
APPROP: CAP; REAPPROP; SUPP
CSSB 187(FIN) am was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 259
"An Act establishing the Council on Human and Sex
Trafficking; and relating to the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault."
6:14:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, SPONSOR, explained that the
bill would establish the Council on Human and Sex
Trafficking in statute and would provide planning and
coordination programs specific to victim services,
education, public awareness, data collection and
dissemination, and reducing demand for human and sex
trafficking. The bill would develop standardized data for
the annual reports, award grants and provide audits, and
increase education and public awareness. She spoke to the
reason for establishing the council in statute versus
continuing the council established under an executive order
by the governor. The bill would enable the council to award
grants and provide audits, a function the current council
under administrative order could not do. The council would
also have the ability to pursue federal grants that would
bring more money and services to the state. The bill would
mean providing longevity for the work. She believed
continuing the council in statute would be money well spent
and it would be a significant step to the state's long-term
commitment to eradicate human trafficking in Alaska.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
6:17:10 PM
LAUREE MORTON, SELF, JUNEAU, shared that she had joined the
battered women's movement in 1984 in rural Alaska. She
moved to Bethel in 1989 and led Tundra Women's Coalition
for five winters. She moved to Juneau in 1994 and served as
the director of the Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault. She elaborated further on her work history. She
had been the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault (CDVSA) director under former Governor Sean Parnell
and into the former Walker administration.
Ms. Morton stated that Sections 1 and 2 of HB 259 were not
practical. She stressed that each council needed its own
director. She explained that their critical natures
demanded separate, undivided attention. She detailed that
CDVSA had 14 statutory responsibilities. She expounded that
choosing a chair and hiring the executive were critical
steps for the full council, not merely two members. She
relayed that the application of the remaining 12
responsibilities fell to the director, which was a full-
time job. She knew what it was like to fund victim
services, batterers' intervention, and prevention programs.
She understood what it was like to support an intensive
statewide campaign Choose Respect. The director was
responsible for interacting with school districts, health
facilities, training academies, Department of Public
Safety, Department of Health, Department of Corrections,
Department of Law, Department of Education and Early
Development, the supreme court, and the Alaska Court
System. She noted that she would submit the statutory
responsibilities along with her written testimony.
Ms. Morton hoped committee members would take time to think
about how they would be able to coordinate getting it all
done and done well, much less adding another council's work
into the mix. She stated, "I'm saying to you, I could not
do it." She stated that it was not fair to any of the
issues to think that anyone could combine the councils. She
thanked the committee for its time.
6:20:00 PM
Representative Josephson asked if Ms. Morton had brought
her concerns to the bill sponsor earlier in the session.
Ms. Morton responded affirmatively.
Representative Coulombe asked if Ms. Morton supported the
idea of a commission. She asked for verification that Ms.
Morton's concern was that one director would be doing both
jobs.
Ms. Morton responded in the affirmative. She believed both
were important, critical issues in Alaska and they deserved
to have focus and attention. She stated that one person
could not do both.
6:20:48 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, shared that she was
representing the 24 member programs across the state that
provided direct services, batterer intervention programs,
and prevention programming to communities and outlying
areas. She considered the bill to be a situation where two
things were true. She supported the creation of a council
on human sex trafficking. She had participated as a co-
chair. She relayed that the council had big plans and a lot
of work was needed in the state. She stressed that it was a
big job and it needed someone whose sole attention was
focused on the issue of sex trafficking and labor
trafficking. She explained that between the councils there
was four major issues including domestic violence, sexual
assault, sex trafficking, and labor trafficking. She
elaborated that while there may be some overlap between sex
trafficking and sexual assault, there was not a lot. She
shared that when she had been the director of the Fairbanks
program for 25 years, they had received a sex
trafficking/human trafficking grant and they had discovered
that programming was very different than the services
provided for sexual assault and domestic violence victims.
Ms. Stanfill relayed that CDVSA wanted to ensure the issues
were not overlooked. She detailed that the executive
director of CDVSA was hired to supervise a staff of 11,
oversaw more than 100 grants from multiple funding sources,
and coordinated the work of an 11-person staff and 11-
person council. She highlighted that the council would be
undertaking the Alaska Victimization Survey in the current
year, and it needed to begin the process of a new strategic
plan. She relayed that there was no additional capacity in
the position [for other work]. Under the legislation, two
members of each council would be making the decision to
hire the executive director along with the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) commissioner or designee. She explained
that it ignored the careful work that had been done with
the creation of the seats on CDVSA. There were six state
seats and five public seats. She noted the five public
seats were very specific to rural Alaska representing
Alaska Native members and three public members. She
explained that under the bill, there was not a guarantee
that a public member would sit on the hiring committee of
the new executive director.
Ms. Stanfill urged the legislature to create the council on
human and sex trafficking with its own executive director
and support person, using the newly created victim services
division within DPS. Additionally, she supported ensuring
the new council had the knowledge, focus, and attention it
deserved by removing all connection to CDVSA. She thanked
the committee.
6:24:28 PM
TERRA BURNS, ADVOCATE, COMMUNITY UNITED FOR SAFETY AND
PROTECTION, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in
opposition to the bill. She shared that she was a victim of
sex trafficking as a child. As an adult she had spent over
20 years working in almost every aspect of Alaska's sex
industry. She stated that according to what Representative
Vance told the committee in the last hearing on the bill,
it meant Ms. Burns had lived over 20 years longer than
expected. In 2015, she successfully defended her masters
research at the University of Alaska Fairbanks on the lived
experiences and policy recommendations of people in
Alaska's sex industry. The research was replicated at Brown
University and later across the U.S. The research was
instrumental in Alaska in 2016 in the changes in the
prostitution and sex trafficking law included in SB 91
[omnibus crime legislation passed in 2016]. She believed
she was the only one who had done academic research on sex
trafficking in Alaska.
Ms. Burns shared that she traveled nationally and
internationally to consult and present on the issues at
institutions such as the Cambridge Union, the Freedom
Network Conference, universities, nonprofits, and community
groups. She currently worked as the research and policy
director of Coyote Rhode Island where she did participatory
action research with sex workers and sex trafficking
survivors about how they were impacted by different laws.
She had reported the Alex Asino case, which at the time was
the second case in ten years of sex trafficking of a non-
fictitious minor in Alaska's sex industry to be charged at
the state or federal level. She stated it was despite the
fact that for several of the years the Alaska Bureau of
Investigations operated an investigative unit with the
focus of locating and rescuing minor sex trafficking
victims.
Ms. Burns relayed that she had emailed the committee
details about the difficulty the Community United for
Safety and Protection had accessing the council meetings
and the ombudsman complaints the organization had made
about the difficulties. She stated that at the last House
Finance Committee hearing on the bill, Representative Vance
had stated the average life expectancy of a sex worker was
seven years. She elaborated that it was a common claim
about 15 years back, but it had been debunked numerous
times. She highlighted a 2004 study in the Journal of
Epidemiology that followed 2,000 sex workers over 33 years
and only found an 8 percent mortality rate during that
timeframe. She stated that if anyone on the council had
searched online, they would have discovered the "supposed
fact" was completely false; rather, they were comfortable
in presenting easily discredited facts as reality to the
legislature.
Ms. Burns pointed out that on page 15 of the council's 2022
report, "Do John Schools Really Decrease Recidivism? A
methodological critique of an evaluation of the San
Francisco First Offender Prostitution Program" in support
of their claim that John schools reduced recidivism. She
elaborated that at the 2024 Alaska Data Summit, council
member and assistant attorney general Chris Darnall again
referenced the study as showing that John schools were
effective at reducing recidivism. She emphasized that the
study found that John schools did not reduce recidivism.
She stated that it was a fact the council members would
have known if they would have read the study. She
underscored that lies and misrepresentation of the truth
had no place in good government or policy. She stressed
that it was impossible to create good evidence-based policy
with misinformation.
Ms. Burns stated it was concerning to think of CDVSA
hosting the sex trafficking council because the CDVSA
definition of sex trafficking, located in the most recent
report of the trafficking council, included all commercial
sex as well as seduction. She underscored that it was not
possible to talk about sex trafficking in a way that made
sense if seduction and all sex work was considered sex
trafficking. She stated it was not a way to make evidence-
based policy serving all Alaskans. She detailed that the
council was composed primarily of people whose jobs benefit
from the criminalization of sex workers and sex trafficking
survivors. She elaborated that it was evident in policy
promoted in HB 68, which would further felonize sex
trafficking survivors and sex workers. She believed it
would be a nightmare to legitimize the council and give it
more power in awarding and receiving funding or creating
policy in Alaska. She suggested that a proper council would
be led by sex trafficking survivors and would only promote
evidence-based policy. She asked the committee to vote
against HB 259.
6:31:03 PM
MAXINE DOOGAN, COMMUNITY UNITED FOR SAFETY AND PROTECTION,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), was a currently working
prostitute of 35 years and planned to work as a prostitute
for another 35 years. She testified in opposition to the
bill. She reported that the organization found limited
opportunities for public participation while witnessing
excessive governmental and faith-based participation as
well as numerous issues while trying to gain access to the
public meetings and minutes. She urged the committee to not
fund "this bad government body." She emphasized the
importance of inclusivity of survivor advocates and robust
public engagement in the establishment and function of a
council on human and sex trafficking. She stated that a
more collaborative and transparent approach was essential
in addressing challenges posed by human and sex
trafficking. She reported that the council had only
demonstrated it wanted to profit off of the criminalization
of prostitution. She stressed that if legislators really
wanted to prevent sex trafficking in Alaska, they should
fully fund education. She underscored that having access to
proper, fully funded education and housing prevented forced
labor in the sex industry. She urged members to vote
against the legislation. She thanked the committee.
6:33:28 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Vance noted that the governor's council on
sex trafficking through DPS had issued a letter of support
for HB 259 with the idea of sharing a director. The council
believed it was possible to share a director. She
understood there had been numerous concerns about the
specific issue. She relayed that the bill was based on the
guidance of the governor's council through DPS. She was
open to amending the bill for the council to have its own
director in order to establish the council in statute. She
wanted to ensure the success of the council and CDVSA. She
stated she was not ignoring the concerns, but she had tried
to continue moving forward with the will of the governor's
council in DPS. She had a prepared amendment that any
committee member could pick up, which would give each
council its own director. Overall, she believed
establishing a council in statute would help the state
continue to do the work for the benefit of Alaskans.
Representative Ortiz asked if there had been discussion
about adopting the potential amendment in a previous
committee.
Representative Vance responded that there were concerns
shared in the House State Affairs Committee, but an
amendment was not considered at the time. The conversation
had been more about flushing out the possibility of sharing
a director. She relayed that DPS had spoken with the new
CDVSA director. She elaborated that at the time of hiring
the new director the department talked about the
possibility of establishing the council and providing
oversight. She explained that the bill had a delayed start
date of March 2025 to give the current director time to get
settled with the new staff. She stated that if there was
consternation about the issue, she was open to the
direction everyone felt was best for success.
Representative Ortiz asked the model where one director
oversaw both councils was primarily a financial
consideration or about what would be most effective.
Representative Vance responded that it was a financial
consideration. She explained that the previous year when
there had been discussion about an original goal to have
the council in statute, the conversation had included
looking at the state's financial situation and concern
about adding more positions in government. She expounded
that the discussion had considered how to make the idea
successful. She described the council and CDVSA as cousins
and the idea had been to have a director overseeing both
bodies. She stated that the idea had worked in other areas
and the overall goal was for the work to continue.
6:38:03 PM
Representative Cronk asked if there was someone available
from DPS to answer a question.
Co-Chair Foster highlighted individuals available from DPS.
Representative Cronk asked if prostitution was legal in
Alaska.
LISA PURINTON, ACTING LEGISLATIVE LIAISON AND SPECIAL
ASSISTANT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF STATEWIDE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, responded, "To the best of my
knowledge it was not legal in Alaska."
Co-Chair Johnson asked if any of the fiscal notes showed
what it would cost if the council had its own executive
director.
Representative Vance deferred the question to her staff.
6:40:14 PM
ROBERT BALLINGER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE,
replied that the original fiscal note was $320,000 for the
council. He explained that there would be two employees
including an executive director. The increase would be
$24,000 if the position was located in Juneau. He stated it
could be less if the position was located in Anchorage or
somewhere else. He detailed that originally the bill showed
the position located in Juneau because it proposed sharing
the director with CDVSA and the CDVSA director was located
in Juneau.
Co-Chair Johnson asked how much extra it would be for the
council [Council on Human and Sex Trafficking] to have its
own executive director.
Mr. Ballinger responded, "$24,000."
Co-Chair Johnson asked for verification that the $24,000
was if the position was located in Juneau.
Mr. Ballinger replied affirmatively.
Co-Chair Johnson considered that it would require an office
location. She asked how much extra it would cost to have an
office for the individual. She wondered whether it would be
located within DPS.
Representative Vance deferred the question to Ms. Purinton
with DPS.
Ms. Purinton responded that the department's current fiscal
note included funding for two positions including a program
coordinator 2 and an administrative assistant. The first-
year cost for the two positions was just over $333,000. She
noted that first-year costs were typically higher because
they reflected startup costs for things like a desk, chair,
workstation, and access to any licensing. The annual cost
in FY 26 going forward was $296,900. If the program
coordinator 2 position changed to an executive director
position, the cost would go up by just under $25,000. She
noted that managing the 17-member council would be a lot in
terms of coordinating schedules. The first year cost would
be a total of $358,000 and future years shown in the fiscal
note would increase by $24,000 annually.
6:44:02 PM
Co-Chair Johnson noted that she had looked at some of the
minutes from previous meetings and thought it sounded like
Representative Vance would prefer for the council to have
its own executive director.
Representative Vance responded in the affirmative. She
stated that having a focused mindset was helpful. Overall,
she supported doing whatever possible to get the council
established [in statute]. She was amenable to the idea of
sharing [an executive director] with someone already
working on the issues of sexual violence if it meant being
able to move forward. She agreeable with the will of the
committee.
Co-Chair Johnson remarked that she likely shared some
similarities with Representative Vance's perspective. She
believed it was an important topic and council. She did not
want to see CDVSA's own work negatively impacted. She was
mulling over how to possibly fund the council and make it
work.
6:46:11 PM
AT EASE
6:46:28 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Ortiz asked for verification that the reason
the cost would only be an additional $24,000 was because
the assistant position would be reclassified as the
executive director position.
Representative Vance agreed.
Representative Coulombe asked how the bill was getting
funded going forward. She wondered if the funding was UGF
[unrestricted general fund].
Representative Vance responded that the fund source was
UGF. Her long-term goal was to see grants supplant UGF. She
did not know what the future funding possibility may be.
Representative Coulombe remarked on the funding struggles
CDVSA was having to operate and provide grants.
Co-Chair Foster asked the sponsor if she had any additional
comments.
Representative Vance thought that the crime bill on sex and
human trafficking would provide a broader understanding of
the issue and the importance of the council to further its
work. She thanked the committee.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal notes
beginning with the Department of Corrections (DOC).
6:49:07 PM
TERI WEST, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), relayed that the
department had not submitted a fiscal note for the bill.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal note from
the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED).
KELLY MANNING, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INNOVATION AND
EDUCATION EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), reviewed the zero fiscal
note, OMB component 2796. She explained that DEED's
submitted a zero fiscal note because DEED would sit as a
member of the council and provide support, but there were
not currently any components of the bill that had a fiscal
impact on DEED.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal note from
the Department of Health [note: there was no one from
Department of Health present or online]. He asked for a
review of the fiscal note from the Department of Law (DOL).
6:51:45 PM
ANGIE KEMP, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
relayed that the fiscal note, OMB component 2202 showed no
funding request for DOL.
Co-Chair Foster clarified that it was a zero fiscal note.
He asked Ms. Purinton to review the DPS fiscal note.
Ms. Purinton reviewed the DPS fiscal note, OMB component
521 for CDVSA. The first year cost for FY 25 was $333,700
to fund a program coordinator 2 and administrative
assistant to help manage the council. She noted that the
first-year cost was slightly higher than outyears due to
the initial startup costs for a new position including
workstations, computers, and other services needed for the
positions. The cost in the outyears was $296,900 annually
to continue funding the positions.
Representative Hannan asked if Ms. Purinton knew of any
federal grant programs that could potentially fund the
council.
Ms. Purinton answered that there were federal grants that
could help support the objectives of the Council on Human
and Sex Trafficking whether it was a marketing campaign or
victim support and services. She did not know if there
would be federal grants to fund the positions for the
council. She would have to do more research to provide a
definitive answer.
Representative Hannan asked for verification that the
department anticipated the funding would come from UGF
through FY 30.
Ms. Purinton replied that without additional resources, it
was the department's expectation.
Co-Chair Johnson referenced the operating budget and
believed CDVSA had a $3.7 million budget request [for FY
25]. She directed a question to a committee member and
asked for verification there had been an amendment to
include the funding in the base budget. She recalled there
had been another amendment to add funding to the request,
but it had not been adopted. She asked for the total
amount.
Representative Josephson believed the amount was $3
million. He noted there was a separate amendment for
$500,000 to help with utilities expenses.
6:56:25 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the DOH fiscal note.
RENEE GAYHART, DIRECTOR, HEALTH CARE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH (via teleconference), reviewed the DOH fiscal
note, OMB component 242. The fiscal note was zero as the
impact to DOH was limited to the commissioner or designee
being a member of the council in addition to public health
and public information staff coordinating the awareness and
materials development.
Co-Chair Foster noted there was no one available from DOC
to review their fiscal note. He asked his staff to provide
a review of the DOC note.
6:57:42 PM
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
reviewed the DOC fiscal note, OMB component 694. The fiscal
note was zero. The department had submitted a fiscal note
because the commissioner or their designee would serve on
the council; however, there was no anticipated fiscal
impact.
Representative Galvin directed a question to Representative
Vance. She remarked that the council was very large and
included many commissioners. She remarked on the zero
fiscal notes and highlighted that all of the council
members were doing work, which took time away from their
department work. She noted that the council was assembling
frequently. She asked for comment from the bill sponsor.
Representative Vance recognized it was a large council for
a large issue. She stated that the council had been
functioning for several years with the participation of
most of the same commissioners or their designee. She was
very impressed with the work and enthusiasm by all of the
members involved on the commission. She added that other
commissioners requested to be involved in the council such
as the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT) pertaining to labor trafficking and human smuggling.
She agreed that commissioners had a substantial amount
demanded of them, but they had significant assets in their
designees to participate on their behalf. She believed if
it had been burdensome, the council would have heard about
it and seen a lack of participation; however, in her short
experience she had been impressed by the commissioners'
engagement.
Representative Galvin asked if Representative Vance had
council successes to share or examples of how having "this
many" assemble has moved the ball in terms of changing
outcomes.
Representative Vance responded with an example in the area
of education. She explained that the council was doing work
on providing e-learning modules for first responders,
troopers, medical professionals, and hopefully teachers to
have an introduction into human and sex trafficking through
DPS. She elaborated that DEED had been involved in order to
make the module a usable resource for a variety of
professionals. The idea was for first responders to
understand how to handle the particular kind of trauma.
7:02:58 PM
Representative Galvin stated her understanding that the
council was putting together a program where responders
would know how to identify and respond appropriately to
victims. She asked if Representative Vance was aware of any
change in population outcomes.
Representative Vance responded that it may be too early to
see a change in outcomes because the work was new. She
elaborated it was a part of existing duties the council had
been working on. The goal was to offer continuing education
credits. She stated it was not as widespread yet because it
was still a work in progress. The council was tasked with
providing the data to see any changes in order to determine
the impact of the council's work throughout Alaska over
time.
Co-Chair Foster asked Representative Vance for any closing
comments.
Representative Vance thanked the committee for its
consideration of the bill. She stated that ending
trafficking began with awareness and the ability to
identify it.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for Thursday, May
2 at 5:00 p.m.
Representative Hannan asked if the bill sponsor was running
any amendments that changed the council's intersection with
CDVSA. Alternatively, she wondered if the committee would
need to create the amendment.
Co-Chair Foster replied that the sponsor had indicated she
had an amendment drafted and that she was open to splitting
the duties between two people instead of one.
Representative Hannan remarked that the issue pertained to
several places in the bill. She wondered if there was a
committee substitute (CS) in the works. She noted there
were several places CDVSA was referenced related to a
transition, hiring, and responsibilities.
Co-Chair Foster responded that there was no CS in the
works, but the sponsor had indicated she had an amendment
available. He suggested Representative Hannan may want to
touch base with Representative Vance to determine whether
it was to the extent Representative Hannan was describing.
HB 259 was HEARD and HELD for further consideration.
7:06:41 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 11
"An Act establishing the crime of assault in the
presence of a child."
7:07:19 PM
Representative Josephson explained that the bill would add
a misdemeanor to title 11 of the state code. He shared that
he had been a prosecutor over 20 years back and he had come
across that the Municipality of Anchorage's criminal code,
Title 9, included a crime called family violence, which was
essentially the equivalent of assault in the presence of a
child. He believed it was the only crime he saw that did
not have a state equivalency. He relayed that during the
last campaign cycle the Alaska Network for Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) sent out a
questionnaire to legislators and had asked what remedies
legislators suggested in terms of children witnessing
violence in their homes and the trauma that resulted. He
stated it was an impetus for the legislation. He was
prepared to talk about trauma informed information and data
in terms of the exposure of children to domestic violence
as well as Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES) scores,
which the CDC [Center for Disease Control and Prevention].
Representative Josephson stated that the idea for the bill
was not drafted out of whole cloth; there was a municipal
equivalent. Additionally, there was a sentencing aggravator
in the felony code AS 12.55.155. He explained that there
was something akin to the bill in the circumstances where
there had been a felony conviction and a jury was asked
whether a certain aggravator should apply. He elaborated
that in the domestic violence context, the aggravator
applied to situations where children under the age of 16
witnessed the violence. He noted it had to be proven beyond
reasonable doubt to a jury. He explained that the bill
would make the crime a misdemeanor and would provide
prosecutorial option. The first question would be whether a
crime before the prosecutor a felony. He explained that the
prosecutor could pursue the aggravator if a child witnessed
the felony. He stated that most of the cases were not
felonies. He noted there were about 220 charged per year in
Anchorage.
Representative Josephson stated that the bill required a
predicate offence of assault. He explained that there would
be two charges and depending on the strength or weakness of
the case the prosecutor may agree to dismiss one count or a
no contest plea on another. He described it as a tool in
the toolkit for prosecutors. He highlighted a 2021 case
brought by [David Alan] Linden [against the Municipality of
Anchorage] challenging the constitutionality of the law. He
detailed that the individual lost to a unanimous court of
appeals. The judge had determined a situation involving an
assault against an adult and a child witnessing the assault
were two separate things that should not merge. She ruled
it was legitimate to charge two separate things. The judge
had cited the importance of the Anchorage Assembly putting
the reason behind the creation of the ordinance on record,
which was over 20 years back. The assembly had discussed
the specific type of harm and the different societal
interest of separating out assault in the presence of
children.
Representative Josephson summarized his explanation of the
bill. He stated that the municipality [of Anchorage
criminal code] identified assault in the presence of a
child as a crime. He relayed that law included something
akin to it for felonies only. He noted that was not a new
charge, it was an aggravator that would increase a felony
sentence. He highlighted the court opinion ruling [charging
separately for assault in the presence of a child] was
acceptable. He added that it was also done in other states.
He noted that maltreatment laws in Alaska included exposure
of domestic violence. He relayed that it was consistent
with Alaska's civil law specifying that if children witness
domestic violence, it was considered a maltreatment of the
child. He noted there were letters in support of the
legislation from Alaska Family Services in Palmer and Women
in Safe Homes (WISH) in Ketchikan.
7:14:20 PM
Representative Josephson believed there were some concerns
that there would be unfair charging. He explained that in
the event of domestic violence, it had been asked whether
the police would properly charge the assailant. He had
learned that in [AS] 18.65 there was already a law called
mandatory arrest for crimes involving domestic violence,
which included a four-pronged test. He explained that
police were trained where they could discern between the
assailant and the victim to ask themselves the four
questions before making a determination.
Representative Josephson relayed that the bill had three
hearings by the House Judiciary Committee and received four
"do pass" recommendations including two from more
conservative members. He thanked Representative Vance for
the hearings, which had taken place the previous session.
There had also been discussion about the proximity of a
child when the event occurred. He relayed that the
committee would hear from a former municipal prosecutor who
currently worked for the Office of Victims Rights. He
believed the individual viewed HB 11 as better than the
municipality's ordinance because it defined "present" as
meaning physically present or within the hearing of the
assault. He noted that someone may question whether a
person could be mischarged because they were unaware there
were children down the hall or perhaps in another apartment
building who heard the events. He thought the answer was
found in a person's mental state. He explained it would be
necessary to prove that a person consciously disregarded a
substantial and justifiable risk that others outside their
domicile could hear. He surmised that a prosecutor would
likely use a rule of reason when considering who the kids
were that were really impacted by an incident. He remarked
that it was not necessarily a child who had been
downstairs, although it was possible. He stated it was a
criminal law, which was difficult to craft. He was
available for questions.
Representative Ortiz asked if the bill could apply to a
situation where someone was in a public ball field and
happened to witness a violent act by one person towards
another. He asked if the perpetrator would be subject to
the law of causing harm to the child even if they were
strangers to the child.
Representative Josephson responded that it was a core
question. He stated that the scenario may meet the
elements, but he believed prosecutors would use their
discretion and conclude it would not be a case worth
bringing to a jury. He relayed that the House Judiciary
Committee had wrestled with the question and the language
in the bill resulted from consultation with Mike Shaffer
[Office of Victims' Rights], the Department of Law, and
legislative council.
Co-Chair Foster moved to invited testimony.
7:19:39 PM
MIKE SHAFFER, ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation
and believed the law was long overdue. He provided an
overview of what he would discuss. He shared that in the
past he had done general crime prosecution and domestic
violence crime prosecution for the Municipality of
Anchorage. He had also worked with low income domestic
violence and sexual assault victims at the Alaska Native
Justice Center. He provided further detail about his work
history. He had joined the Office of Victims' Rights in
2022. He first prosecuted family violence in the mid-2000s,
which was enacted in the late 1990s by a prosecutor who
urged the assembly to adopt it. Once he began working at
the justice center, he had done trainings nationwide on
domestic violence and sexual assault. He had learned about
the physical and psychological impacts of assaults that
occurred around children. He explained that although the
assault was committed externally, the assault was actually
committed inside a child's developing brain, which
curtailed brain development in a fundamental way. He
highlighted that Alaska was one of the leaders in the
incidence of domestic violence statewide. He relayed that
domestic violence occurring around children formed their
thinking and understanding and impaired the ability for
their cerebral cortexes to properly develop. He relayed
that clients talked about their children and their behavior
and how it would change subsequent to assaults or multiple
assaults. It had a serious impact on children as they
developed and who did not have the ability to curb their
own impulses. It was part of where intergenerational
domestic violence came from.
Mr. Shaffer elaborated that children who had been around
violence had poorer brain development and they repeated the
behavior when they were old enough. He explained that the
bill was designed to address the cycle of intergenerational
violence. He noted that from his experience, often the
family violence crime was worse than the assault. He
provided an example of a four-year-old child describing
that their dad had hit their mom and she had fallen down
and was crying. He explained that the experience became
seared in a child's brain. He highlighted another case
where a nine-year-old had called 911 from a closet to
report that his father was brutally beating his mother. He
noted the dispatcher could hear the assault happening over
the phone. He detailed that the child had not directly
witness the assault, but the trauma impact of the crime was
likely lifelong.
Mr. Shaffer highlighted the importance of the bill. He
shared that he had prosecuted thousands of assaults, most
of which were domestic violence, which constituted the
majority of assaults. He referenced the example given by
Representative Ortiz about a child witnessing an assault on
a ball field. He stated the situation would not likely
result in a charge associated with causing harm to a child.
He noted that if a young person had stayed to tell the
police what they had witnessed, that child was impacted by
what they saw. He remarked that most people did not witness
any interpersonal violence in their lives but seeing it in
person had an impact. He elaborated that the more apparent
it was, the more impacting it was. He explained that a
child could be hiding under a bed in terror while one
parent was assaulting the other. He added that if a parent
assaulted a child with other children present, it was
equally traumatizing if not more so. He elaborated that it
was confusing for children when they saw one person who
they loved hurting another person they loved without the
ability to do anything about it and with the feeling that
perhaps it was their fault in some way.
Mr. Shaffer relayed that there were times where he
considered the family violence that occurred to be as much
or more severe than the assault itself. Based on his
experience and training, he found the law to be long
overdue at the state level. The cost of enforcement was
minimal because the fundamental crime was the assault
itself that had to be proven. The extra part of the crime
was presence of a child, which was not a time consuming
issue to prove. He remarked on the fiscal note showing that
the Office of Public Advocacy would need an extra attorney.
He did not really understand the need. He had prosecuted
the crime over a period of approximately 17 or 18 years and
there had been no impact or concern expressed by the city
because family violence was a charge associated with the
underlying charge of assault. He pointed out that not all
assaults occurred with children present and there were a
number of assaults that would not be prosecuted with the
additional charge. He added that the Anchorage police under
preferred the potential charges because considering the
children present did not always come into their thinking
when investigating an assault.
Mr. Shaffer strongly endorsed the legislation. He stated it
was one of the most fundamentally impactful bills for the
protection of children that he could think of. He
considered the situation similar to the fact that there
were laws against dealing of drugs and laws and increased
penalties for dealing in schools. Similarly, he argued,
there was a different quality to violent acts, such as
assault, when the acts occurred in the presence of
children, whether children witness the violence directly or
were in close proximity to it.
7:32:15 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that written testimony could still
be submitted via email.
7:33:18 PM
Representative Coulombe asked for more information about
the specifics of the violation. She asked what the sentence
would be for a Class A misdemeanor. She requested
clarification on whether the penalty would involve a fine
or jail time.
Representative Josephson responded that he was trying to
recall the exact fine. He explained that there had
previously been a fine of $5,000, which was likely still in
that range, although he could be mistaken. He clarified
that the primary focus was typically on the potential
sentence, which ranged from zero days to 360 days. He also
noted that for a second domestic violence offense, there
would be a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days. The
sentences were usually handled promptly following a
conviction. He explained that if there was an extensive
criminal history, the sentence would increase, whereas for
a first offense, the sentence would generally be lower,
depending on the severity of the offense. He added that a
suspended sentence could also be considered.
Representative Coulombe recalled that Representative
Josephson had made a previous statement about proving the
violation beyond a reasonable doubt. She expressed concern
that children could become more involved in investigations
and potentially be required to testify or be questioned
about the crime. She was concerned that it could worsen the
trauma for children who had witnessed the crime.
Representative Josephson responded that he may have caused
some confusion by discussing reasonable doubt in the
context of felony aggravators, which could increase the
sentence. He clarified that, while a person could waive
their right to have a jury review an aggravator, the bill
pertained to a misdemeanor. However, he acknowledged that
if the defendant opted for a trial and claimed they did not
commit the crime, the prosecution would have to prove the
case beyond a reasonable doubt. He explained that in many
cases, defendants entered a no-contest plea, in which case
the prosecutor would need to provide the relevant facts in
a charging document or affidavit, and children would not
necessarily be required to testify.
Representative Coulombe remarked that the clarification was
helpful.
7:36:44 PM
Co-Chair Johnson asked whether the charge would be
standalone.
Representative Josephson confirmed that it would not be a
standalone charge, as the assault would need to be charged
and proven before the violation could be considered.
Co-Chair Johnson asked for clarification that after the
assault had been established, there would be no need to
question the child specifically to verify the occurrence of
the assault.
Representative Josephson replied that the charging officer
might interview witnesses who could confirm that they had
witnessed the assault. In such cases, the child might not
need to be directly involved in the investigation. He also
mentioned that a representative from Community Assistance
Response and Emergency Services (CARES) or a similar
organization might interview the child if necessary. There
could also be a referral to the Office of Child Services
(OCS). He acknowledged that it was not a pleasant situation
or experience.
Representative Josephson noted that in Anchorage, with a
population of around 300,000 people, there were
approximately 250 misdemeanors charged each year. However,
the number of convictions were significantly lower, with
only around 40 or 50 convictions. The decrease meant that
roughly one in five cases resulted in a conviction. He
speculated that the other four cases likely did not result
in a conviction because the case was weak, or because the
defendant entered into a plea agreement. In such cases, the
defendant might plead no contest to the assault charge and
have the assault in the presence of a child charge
dismissed. The approach would save time for everyone
involved, including the prosecutor, defense, and the court
system.
Representative Cronk asked whether the intention was to
deter crime, and if so, what Representative Josephson
thought the impact would be.
Representative Josephson responded the question was a
difficult one and there could be many variables at play. He
shared that in 2018, 271 charges were filed in Anchorage,
with a slight increase in 2019 before dropping to 176
charges in 2023. He thought that the decrease could be
related to COVID-19, but emphasized that, like any other
criminal charge, the hope was that there would be a public
service announcement effect. He explained that people would
understand that committing violence in front of children
would have more severe consequences.
Representative Cronk asked why the offense could not be
classified as a felony.
Representative Josephson responded that the House Judiciary
Committee had initially considered the possibility. He
explained that while it could be attached to a felony
charge, the elements of the felony offense would still need
to be met in order for an indictment to be made. He
acknowledged that, based on his own experience, a
misdemeanor was the appropriate classification for the
offense.
Representative Cronk expressed that in his opinion, there
was not enough protection for children and that harsher
penalties would be preferable.
7:42:11 PM
Representative Ortiz referenced the earlier question from
Representative Coulombe and asked whether there had been
prosecutions related to domestic violence that considered
the impact on children prior to the introduction of the
bill. He asked if the experience of child in witnessing
domestic violence had ever been criminally addressed in
such cases, particularly in relation to felony charges.
Representative Josephson responded that he would need to
review the "endangering the welfare of a child" statute.
However, he believed that it would likely not be relevant
to the discussion at hand. He explained that the treatment
of violence in front of children differed between
municipalities, citing Anchorage as an example where the
issue was treated more intensively. In Alaska, however,
violence committed in front of children was treated in the
same manner as always, with no separate charge for
committing a violent act in the presence of a child. He
clarified that this difference in approach was primarily
between Anchorage and the rest of the state.
Representative Ortiz understood that municipalities like
Anchorage had taken a more serious approach to such crimes;
however, state prosecutors had never charged a perpetrator
for the impact of violence on a child in the past.
Representative Josephson responded in the affirmative. He
further explained that while the state had not taken the
approach, life could still become difficult for the
perpetrator. There could be custody disputes, which he was
familiar with from his experience practicing divorce law
for nine years. The perpetrator could be required to attend
a batterer's course, lose custody, face divorce attorney
fees, or deal with restraining orders, all of which could
result in significant ramifications.
Representative Tomaszewski asked about the connection
between the specific charge in the bill and the provisions
in AS 12.55.155. He referenced the sentencing factors
related to aggravation and mitigation. The bill appeared to
increase the penalties for a specific charge, rather than
adding a separate charge altogether, and he asked for
clarification on whether it was similar to a felony under
AS 12.55.155, subsection 18(c).
Representative Josephson responded that the existence of AS
12.55.155 subsection 18(c) illustrated that there were
already provisions in the felony context to enhance
sentences, which was a similar concept to HB 11. Although
the sentencing provision in the felony context might seem
similar, the bill was introducing a standalone misdemeanor
linked to assault. He clarified that a prosecutor could
face difficulties if they attempted to charge both a
misdemeanor and a felony with similar aggravating
circumstances, as it would be complicated to argue for both
charges in court. He reiterated that the bill was different
because it was a standalone misdemeanor tied to assault.
Co-Chair Foster noted that there were eight fiscal notes.
7:48:18 PM
JAMES STINSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, reviewed the fiscal impact
note from DOA with OMB component 43 and control code GBLwE.
He explained that the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) was
requesting one attorney to meet the anticipated workload.
He acknowledged that the charge was attached to an audit
and applied statewide in state statute, but noted that it
would likely be applied differently in various
jurisdictions. He emphasized his main concern was ensuring
that the agency was adequately resourced.
Co-Chair Foster noted that there was a cost of $215,400 for
OMB component 43.
TERRANCE HAAS, PUBLIC DEFENDER, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), reviewed
the fiscal note from DOA with OMB component 1631 and
control code KlxXr. The Public Defender Agency (PDA) was
also requesting $215,400.
Representative Ortiz noted that the two numbers for the two
fiscal notes were identical and questioned if it was a
mistake.
Mr. Haas confirmed that the cost was indeed $215,400, which
was the cost for one attorney position located in
Anchorage. He assured the committee that the two identical
numbers were not a mistake, as each department required one
attorney, thus explaining the matching costs.
Co-Chair Foster moved on to the next department.
7:51:17 PM
TERI WEST, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), reviewed the
indeterminate fiscal impact note from the Department of
Corrections (DOC) with the OMB component 1381 and control
code zPPdd. She explained that the bill would legislate a
new crime and there was insufficient data to determine its
specific impact on the department. If the bill were to
pass, the department would monitor its impact on the
population and any potential fiscal effects. If the impact
proved to be small, the department had the capacity to
submit a zero note and meet the needs accordingly.
Co-Chair Foster invited the next department to present its
fiscal note.
Ms. Kemp relayed that DOL submitted a zero fiscal note with
OMB component 2202 and control code bFEql. She explained
that the department understood that it could absorb the
costs of the bill. The referred charge would be attached to
an existing charge, as pointed out by Representative
Josephson. The department anticipated no additional costs
and believed it could manage the fiscal impact without
issue.
7:53:20 PM
Ms. Purinton reviewed three fiscal notes from DPS: OMB
component 2325 for the Alaska State Troopers Detachment
with control code jMgpf, OMB component 2744 for the Alaska
Bureau of Investigation with the Alaska State Troopers with
the control code yFwWi, and OMB component 3200 for the
Criminal Justice Information Services Program with control
code LwqrZ. She explained that all three were zero fiscal
notes. The department did not anticipate a significant
fiscal impact from the bill and believed any additional
work could be absorbed with existing resources.
Co-Chair Foster invited the next department to present its
fiscal note.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA STATE COURT SYSTEM,
reviewed the zero fiscal impact note from the Alaska State
Court System (ASCS) with OMB component 768 and control code
QuZVV. She explained that the cases would almost always be
aligned with other ongoing cases, specifically with an
additional charge in an ongoing assault case. The court
system could absorb any additional work with existing
resources.
Representative Galvin asked for confirmation that the OMB
component number for the court system was 768.
Ms. Meade responded in the affirmative.
Representative Galvin noted that earlier, testimony had
been received from two different organizations,
specifically PDA and OPA, both of which had requested
additional attorneys. She asked why the departments would
need another attorney when the bill merely added an
additional charge to an existing assault charge.
Ms. Meade replied that she did not work directly with the
agencies on their fiscal notes. She thought that each
agency conducted its own assessment of the impact the bill
would have on their staff and resources. She clarified
that, for the court system, even an increase of 50 more
cases would not require the addition of a new judge. She
explained that it would take a much larger increase in
cases to justify a fiscal note. While the bill would result
in some additional work, it did not lead to significant new
costs for the court system.
Representative Galvin remarked that she was unfamiliar with
the process of fiscal notes for criminal cases. She
suggested that it might be helpful to hear from PDA and OPA
about how many extra hours of work were anticipated.
Co-Chair Foster agreed that it was a good question and
asked to hear from James Stinson from OPA.
7:58:00 PM
Mr. Stinson responded that the bill was a tool designed to
facilitate prosecution, which was a reasonable policy
decision. He did not think it was surprising that the bill
would lead to increased workload for agencies, and he
elaborated that OPA had evaluated the potential impact
based on the specifics of the charge and its connection to
other cases. The bill would not result in a fiscal note for
prosecuting agencies, but it would make defense more
difficult because the addition of another charge to an
assault case would complicate the situation for the
defendant.
Mr. Stinson explained that in domestic violence cases,
facts were often not clear, and charge bargaining was a
routine process. The additional work usually fell on the
defense, especially in cases where the defendant might not
fully understand the charges, particularly in the context
of a new charge like assault in the presence of a child.
The new charge had broader implications, as the definition
of "presence" included not only being seen by the child but
also being heard or simply being in the vicinity. He
anticipated litigation around the broader definition, which
led to increased client control issues. Additionally, the
consequences for the defendant could be severe if the
defendant was charged with two domestic violence offenses,
which might embolden prosecutors to bring forward cases
that they would otherwise consider weak or dismiss.
Representative Galvin asked Mr. Stinson to estimate the
number of cases handled that were annually and whether the
complexity of the new charge would lead to more time spent
on each case, regardless of the overall number of cases.
Mr. Stinson replied that presently, the charge was not in
state statute. He noted that Anchorage handled around 250
family violence charges annually. He anticipated that
similar cases would be charged across the entire state if
the bill were to pass, assuming probable cause for the
assault in the presence of a child.
Representative Galvin requested Mr. Haas from PDA provide
additional insight on the matter.
Mr. Haas agreed with Mr. Stinson's comments, adding that
from the defendant's perspective, the new charge
significantly altered the situation. He pointed out that
adding a misdemeanor charge would double the defendant's
potential liability, which would complicate the defense and
increase the work required from defense attorneys.
Representative Galvin asked how the increased liability
would be relevant to costs and whether defense attorneys
would need to adjust insurance or other measures.
Mr. Haas explained that the issue was not about insurance
but rather the defendant's exposure to a more serious
potential sentence. If the defendant was charged with a
single misdemeanor, they might face a maximum of one year
in jail. However, with the addition of another misdemeanor
charge, the defendant could face up to two years in jail,
which would significantly impact the complexity of the
case. The new charge would lead to increased efforts by
defense attorneys to resolve the case and would raise
additional considerations for the defendant.
8:02:37 PM
Representative Josephson thought that the explanations from
Mr. Haas and Mr. Stinson were impressive. He noted that
there were approximately 200 cases in Anchorage annually,
which represented about 40 percent of the state's cases. He
speculated that there could be around 250 cases across
Alaska with the new statewide statute. He added that while
Anchorage would continue to handle its own cases, the other
regions of the state would now be dealing with these
charges under the state statute. The bill would not add any
new cases, but it would simply add two charges for the same
case.
Representative Galvin noted that after hearing from the
court system, it felt like there might be too much focus on
the fiscal impact, but after hearing from the sponsor, it
made sense to her that the proposal was reasonable.
Representative Josephson remarked that the committee's job
was to thoroughly examine fiscal notes and he agreed that
Representative Galvin's question was valuable. He asked for
the committee's indulgence to allow Ms. Keller to quickly
go through a PowerPoint presentation.
8:05:14 PM
LISA KELLER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,
introduced a PowerPoint presentation "House Bill 11" dated
April 30, 2024 (copy on file). She quickly advanced through
slides 1 through 3 and summarized the details, noting that
the concept of assault in the presence of a child was
derived from the Anchorage Municipal Code 8.10.050. She
highlighted the factors of aggravation and mitigation in AS
12.55.155, which already addressed domestic violence in
felony contexts. She advanced to slide 4 and explained that
the bill was addressing details of family violence, which
was a long-standing issue, and referred to a 2020 report
showing that 19.1 percent of adults had been exposed to
intimate partner violence. The violence had an immense
impact on children and their developing brains, as
indicated by Mr. Schaffer's testimony. She also pointed out
that violence victimization had increased, leading to a
larger impact on children.
Ms. Keller continued to slide 5, which illustrated the
number of domestic violence cases filed annually in Alaska.
She highlighted the percentages on the right side of the
slide, showing an increase in the percentages of domestic
violence cases, though the number remained high. She
continued to slide 6 of the presentation with data on
domestic violence charges in Anchorage, where the majority
of cases were misdemeanors, while felonies represented a
much smaller portion. She continued to slide 7, which
compared family violence charges statewide, showing a
slight decrease over time. Ms. Keller noted that in 2023,
the number had even decreased further, though there was no
slide to reference the specific point.
Ms. Keller continued on slide 8 which included information
on maltreatment. She moved to slide 9 which indicated which
states recognized exposure to domestic violence as
maltreatment, including Alaska. She continued to slide 10
and explained that six states considered it a separate
crime to commit domestic violence in the presence of a
child. She noted that further research indicated
approximately 26 states and Puerto Rico had some form of
protection for children exposed to domestic violence. She
explained that the ways in which these protections were
charged and enacted varied by jurisdiction.
Ms. Keller advanced to slide 11 and emphasized that the
laws and reactions were well-known and contributed to
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scores. There were
observable immediate reactions to intimate partner violence
and long-term reactions. She continued on slide 13 and
explained that prolonged exposure to domestic violence had
observable negative effects on children that detrimental to
a child's development. She acknowledged that while not all
children were "scarred for life," there were significant
long-term effects that impacted their future lives. She
explained that children might have various reactions
depending on age, noting that the responses would
accumulate over the course of a child's lifetime.
Ms. Keller moved to slide 14 and emphasized that
prosecutorial discretion played a significant role in how
domestic violence cases were handled. Specifically, the
prosecutor had the ability to decide how to charge the
offense, including how many counts to file. She raised the
issue of whether to charge one count for each child present
in a domestic violence incident or just a single charge.
She relayed that the decision ultimately rested with the
prosecutor.
8:09:47 PM
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for Friday, May
3, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.
HB 11 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
8:10:19 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to sex trafficking; establishing the
crime of patron of a victim of sex trafficking;
relating to the crime of human trafficking; relating
to prostitution; relating to sentencing for sex
trafficking, patron of a victim of sex trafficking,
and human trafficking; establishing the process for
vacating judgments for certain convictions of
prostitution and misconduct involving a controlled
substance; relating to the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault; relating to permanent
fund dividends for certain individuals whose
convictions are vacated; and providing for an
effective date."
8:10:46 PM
ANGIE KEMP, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
introduced herself and her colleague, Ms. Kate Tallmadge,
who was the assistant attorney general at the Department of
Law (DOL). She explained that Ms. Tallmadge was available
to provide a sectional breakdown of the bill if the
committee desired. She relayed that human and sex
trafficking was a $32 billion industry worldwide, ranking
as the second most profitable criminal enterprise after the
illicit sale of controlled substances. She emphasized that
the industry specifically targeted vulnerable individuals,
with young girls often entering the sex trade at ages as
early as 12 to 13. The age was even younger for boys and
was typically between 11 and 13 years old. The statistics
came from a study conducted by the federal Department of
Justice (DOJ) in conjunction with the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).
Ms. Kemp explained that it was challenging to estimate the
number of individuals affected by sex and human trafficking
each year as it was difficult to quantify. However,
estimates from DOJ and organizations such as the Polaris
Project suggested that as many as 27 million individuals
were affected in the United States alone. The number of
prosecutions related to human and sex trafficking had been
rising. She explained that DOJ had seen a 61 percent rise
in referrals for trafficking cases from 2011 to 2020. There
was also a growing recognition of the severity of the
problem.
Ms. Kemp explained that human and sex trafficking did not
occur in a vacuum. She emphasized that traffickers preyed
on individuals from various walks of life, including those
who were dependent on controlled substances, immigrants,
runaways, homeless individuals, and those with mental
health concerns. Many of the components in the bill
overlapped with these various factors. She explained that
traffickers constantly adapted their methods, including
finding victims through social media platforms like
Instagram that specifically targeted youth.
Ms. Kemp relayed that the Governor's Council on Sex and
Human Trafficking had been focused on tackling the issue.
In Alaska, efforts to address trafficking included
increasing education and awareness, providing support
services for victims, enhancing law enforcement, and
improving prosecution efforts through legislation and
policy.
Ms. Kemp relayed that the bill addressed many of the issues
she had mentioned. She explained that it elevated the most
serious aspects of sex trafficking crimes to a higher
classification. For example, sex trafficking in the first
degree, where force was used to induce a person into
engaging in a commercial sex act, was raised to an
unclassified felony offense, which was the most serious
felony in the state.
Ms. Kemp highlighted that the bill introduced specific
definitions and examples for recruitment into sex
trafficking, emphasizing that the language used in the bill
clarified what was meant by "inducing" a person into
trafficking. The bill also moved sex trafficking offenses
from AS 11.66, to AS 11.41, a move that she argued was
important for a variety of reasons.
8:16:31 PM
Ms. Kemp explained that the change would allow for
additional protections for victims, such as limiting the
ability for the defense to request psychiatric or
psychological evaluations of the victims. The move also
allowed for the appointment of a guardian ad litem when a
victim was under the age of 16. Additionally, the bill
prevented bail for individuals charged with offenses under
AS 11.41, prohibited negotiated sentences between victims
and defendants, and eliminated the ability for defendants
to earn credit for time served through electronic
monitoring.
Ms. Kemp shared that the bill was also focused on the
demand side of trafficking and it would introduce new
classifications for sex trafficking, including first,
second, and third-degree sex trafficking. The bill would
also create a new crime: patronizing a sex trafficker. The
changes were designed to target the demand that fueled the
trafficking industry. She reiterated the importance of the
legislation in combating sex and human trafficking in
Alaska, emphasizing that the bill intended to address both
the supply and demand aspects of the issue and increase
penalties across the board for various offenses. She
explained that the bill recognized the importance of severe
deterrence and consequences for those involved in
trafficking. She highlighted components of the bill aimed
at assisting victims of sex trafficking, such as allowing
victims to have prostitution charges removed from their
records. She noted that this was a rare provision in
criminal law and offered a unique opportunity for
individuals who had been trafficked to move forward with
their lives.
Ms. Kemp emphasized that the bill was one of many efforts
in the state's broader strategy to address sex and human
trafficking. She recognized that the bill was part of a
multifaceted approach to tackle the widespread problem,
raise awareness, and provide support for victims who sought
it. She offered to go through the sectional analysis, which
would take about 20 minutes. She suggested hearing public
testimony before proceeding further.
8:19:51 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
8:20:34 PM
AMBER NICKERSON, COMMUNITY UNITED FOR SAFETY AND
PROTECTION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), stated that she
opposed HB 68. She did not think that the bill adequately
addressed sex trafficking. She argued that allowing the
state to charge a sex worker with a Class B felony for
prostitution was problematic. She noted that a Class B
felony included serious crimes like first-degree burglary
and extortion and carried a sentence of up to 10 years in
prison and up to $100,000 in fines. The fiscal note
associated with the bill, which listed no additional cost
for the Alaska Bureau of Investigations (ABI), was
unrealistic. She argued that adding felony-level
prostitution offenses would result in increased costs for
the state, particularly for investigations and prostitution
stings, which she claimed would disproportionately affect
marginalized individuals.
Ms. Nickerson was also concerned about the proposed
penalties for clients of sex workers. If someone was
convicted three times within a five-year period for
prostitution in the third degree, the individual would face
a Class B felony charge and it would result in a five-year
prison sentence. She argued that the increased penalty
could discourage clients from reporting criminal activity.
She was concerned that the bill's focus on prosecuting
clients would undermine efforts to encourage witnesses to
report violent offenders in the community. She added that
the bill did not address sex trafficking, as it lacked
references to force, fraud, or coercion, which were
essential elements of trafficking. She expressed her belief
that the bill's provisions on prostitution stings would not
address the root causes of sex trafficking and would
instead criminalize individuals who were often the most
vulnerable. She was also concerned about publicly
condemning individuals without due process, specifically
pointing out the practice of listing arrests in the news
and papers before individuals have been found guilty.
Ms. Nickerson relayed that she disagreed with the
criminalization of sex work. She noted the discrepancies
between the criminal charges for different prostitution
offenses. The bill would create harsher penalties for sex
workers and clients while offering sex for a fee in the
fourth degree was classified as a Class D misdemeanor. She
questioned whether the committee cared about the safety of
sex workers. She stated that HB 68 would only increase the
stigma and violence faced by sex workers and further
criminalize them. She claimed that the bill did not address
sex trafficking and criticized the fiscal notes for being
unrealistic. She concluded by stating that the bill was
harmful and would not effectively address the issue of sex
trafficking in Alaska. She also raised concerns about the
discredited statistic regarding the age of entry into the
sex industry, which she stated had been debunked by
multiple sources, including the Washington Post and The
Atlantic in 2014.
8:25:56 PM
TERRA BURNS, ADVOCATE, COMMUNITY UNITED FOR SAFETY AND
PROTECTION, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), shared that she
was sex trafficked as a minor and now worked as an
advocate. She had been involved in research at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) that contributed to
policy changes in related to prostitution and sex
trafficking laws under SB 91, which was passed into law in
2016. She currently also worked as the Research and Policy
Director at an organization called Call Off Your Old Tired
Ethics (COYOTE), Rhode Island, where she conducted
participatory action research with sex workers and
trafficking survivors.
Ms. Burns expressed opposition to HB 68, stating that it
would only exacerbate sex trafficking in Alaska. She also
addressed the discredited statistic regarding the age of
entry into the sex industry, which she explained had been
debunked by major publications. She questioned why the
government would create laws that could increase sex
trafficking under the guise of addressing it and questioned
the bill's focus on the sex industry over other industries
with higher rates of trafficking, such as the fishing
industry in Alaska.
Ms. Burns acknowledged that the bill was too complex to
address in full within a few minutes. She argued that
creating a new provision for felony prostitution and make
it a Class B felony would criminalize sex workers who
shared hotel rooms for safety, a common practice among sex
workers to protect themselves from potential harm. She
explained that while current law applied to those who
profited from prostitution, it did not apply to sex workers
sharing a space for mutual protection.
Ms. Burns shared a personal account of being trafficked as
a minor in Fairbanks by her father, noting that houses of
prostitution at the time operated with regular payments to
police, allowing for safer conditions where victims could
seek help from others. She stressed that laws like HB 68,
which criminalized safety measures in the sex industry,
would leave vulnerable individuals like herself as a child
without support systems, thus isolating victims and
exacerbating their exploitation.
Ms. Burns argued that the bill would criminalize clients,
even those who merely solicited, but did not follow
through, for serious felonies. She warned that
criminalization would discourage clients who might
otherwise help identify and report cases of real sex
trafficking from contacting law enforcement, which would
hinder efforts to combat actual trafficking. She reiterated
that the bill would have negative financial implications
and would drive sex trafficking further underground and
impose substantial costs on the state. She urged the
committee to oppose HB 68.
8:30:06 PM
MAXINE DOOGAN, COMMUNITY UNITED FOR SAFETY AND PROTECTION,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), was a member of Community
United for Safety and Protection (CUSP), a group composed
of current and former sex workers, sex trafficking
survivors, and their allies. She shared her personal
experience as a sex worker with over 35 years in the
industry, stating her intention to continue working for the
foreseeable future. She expressed strong opposition to HB
68, primarily due to its fiscal irresponsibility and the
negative impact it would have on sex workers and
trafficking survivors.
Ms. Dugan relayed that the bill would allow administrative
subpoenas for suspected sex trafficking, which would be
primarily used against sex workers and trafficking
survivors. She argued that the provision violated the U.S.
Constitution's Fourth Amendment's privacy protections and
would result in significant legal costs for the state. The
bill would also allow Alaska's Violent Crimes Compensation
Board to order restitution from sex workers and trafficking
survivors, such as compensation to families of customers
who died while engaging in prostitution. She argued that
the provision would unfairly penalize individuals who
engaged in safety practices within the industry that would
be criminalized under the bill. She was also concerned with
the bill's definition of "fee" and thought that it was too
ambiguous particularly relating to the exchange of sex for
housing rather than money. She questioned whether the bill
intended to exempt clients who paid with housing rather
than money, or if it would provide sex workers with clarity
on how to define "reasonably appropriated" housing
expenses. She urged the committee to not waste additional
state resources on prostitution sting operations that could
result in the arrest of sex trafficking victims rather than
perpetrators.
8:33:21 PM
Representative Galvin noted that many of the testimonies
had come from people affiliated with the same organization,
and she was curious about potential alternatives or
solutions. She asked Ms. Doogan if she had any suggestions
for legislation that could address the issue, especially
since it seemed that she believed HB 68 would not resolve
the problem. She acknowledged the global scale of the
trafficking industry and wanted to pursue ideas for
effective action.
Ms. Doogan responded that CUSP supported the
decriminalization of prostitution, similar to a prior
approach in Alaska where prostitution was not criminalized
and laws were not enforced. She emphasized that
decriminalization allowed individuals in the sex industry
to work together in a safer environment, particularly in
places like Fairbanks. Historically, the approach had
allowed for better communication among sex workers and
safer practices, including sharing information about
clients who might be dangerous. The conflation of
prostitution laws with sex trafficking offenses was
problematic. She argued that by criminalizing safety
measures like sharing spaces with other sex workers, the
legislation was pushing individuals further into danger.
She stressed that the focus should be on helping
individuals who wanted to get out of the industry, but
criminalizing aspects of the sex industry under the
umbrella of sex trafficking was not the solution.
Representative Galvin thanked Ms. Doogan for her
perspective. She did not think there was a clear answer on
how to specifically address sex trafficking.
8:36:45 PM
LYNN TOBEY, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
introduced herself and explained that the issue was so
important to her that she took the day off work in order to
testify. She had been following the legislative process
since 2015 and she felt the issue was too important to
ignore. She opposed HB 68 as it was currently written.
Ms. Tobey shared a deeply personal story, explaining that
her 26-year-old daughter was currently a victim of sex
trafficking. She expressed concern that the bill would
eliminate opportunities for her daughter to find safety if
a sex customer did not report a dangerous situation for
fear of being charged with a crime. Her daughter had
experienced repeated trauma after being trafficked, and the
experience had taken an emotional toll on them both. She
described one of the most harrowing recent encounters with
her daughter. On March 30, 2024, she had received a call
from an unknown number, hearing her daughter's voice and an
intense argument in the background. The call was quickly
ended. After several attempts to call back with no
response, an hour later, she received a text message from
the same number, requesting Ms. Tobey to come pick up her
daughter from a local gas station. When she arrived at the
gas station, her daughter was not there. As she frantically
searched, she eventually found her daughter walking in the
parking lot of a nearby hotel, with a bloody nose and
visibly shaken. Once her daughter entered the vehicle, she
urgently asked to leave the area. Her daughter then
disclosed that she was being prostituted and that the
perpetrator had tried to kill her. In shock, her daughter
was unwilling to talk about her current situation, a direct
result of the conditioning she had experienced.
Ms. Tobey relayed that she had offered to get her daughter
medical help, but her daughter declined, only asking to
take a shower and change into clean clothes. She also
requested to rest in a safe place and eat. Despite her
offer to take her daughter to safety, her daughter
requested that the trafficker pick her up, as she was going
into heroin withdrawal.
Ms. Tobey highlighted that Alaska lacked sufficient
resources for victims of sex trafficking, particularly
those who have suffered into adulthood. There were no
emergency shelters or specialized counselors available to
serve the unique needs of such victims. She was strongly
opposed to HB 68 and she thought that incorrectly charging
victims of sex trafficking with felonies would further
inhibit their chances of recovery and reintegration. She
urged that there should be increased awareness about what
human trafficking looked like and hoped the committee would
oppose the bill.
8:41:09 PM
AJELA BANKS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
indicated that she was a survivor, not a victim. She
explained that she was representing a lineage of silent
women who had been manipulated into appearing as victims
within their communities. She thought that HB 68 would
perpetuate the harmful dynamic, making it harder for women
to escape their situations. She shared that while she
agreed with some aspects of the bill, she could not fully
support it. She felt that the approach being used to combat
sex trafficking was disingenuous, describing it as
"gaslighting." She had repeatedly spoken to the FBI, police
officers, and other agencies, but she had not been helped.
Many of her clients were military police officers and she
felt that individuals who were meant to be responsible for
helping her were not recognizing their own roles in
enabling trafficking.
Ms. Banks shared that her experiences with authorities led
to further victimization, ultimately resulting in her being
convicted of conspiracy to sex traffic at the age of 19.
She expressed frustration that those who were supposed to
help her were instead contributing to her victimization.
She had only been known in the community of Anchorage as a
sexually exploited, missing foster child. Her case was part
of a task force operation involving both state and federal
police. She expressed frustration that the standard process
for handling her case was neglected. She thought that HB 68
would make it easier for perpetrators to act in a
misogynistic manner and avoid facing consequences for their
actions. She relayed that she was still seeking relief,
though she felt she had gained a better understanding of
the issues at hand.
8:44:22 PM
MICHELLE OVERSTREET, FOUNDER AND CEO, MY HOUSE, WASILLA
(via teleconference), relayed that she was the founder and
CEO of My House, a homeless youth drop-in center in
Wasilla. Her organization offered wraparound services, case
management, transitional housing, and job training, along
with a human trafficking awareness and service program. She
shared that there were programs in Alaska designed to help
young people escape human trafficking, with her
organization working specifically with clients aged 14 to
26. She explained that while only 3 percent of new clients
initially reported being trafficked, the figure increased
to approximately 13 percent as clients engaged further with
the services. She mentioned that in February of 2023, seven
new intakes occurred, and among them, two-thirds reported
experiencing trafficking.
Ms. Overstreet was in support of HB 68 because it would
increase penalties for trafficking and provide important
legal protections for trafficking victims. She emphasized
the need for more legal protections for young people being
groomed and recruited for trafficking, as well as for those
attempting to escape it. She stressed the importance of
offering survivors support tools, such as expunging low-
level criminal records, job training to help survivors
secure self-sustaining careers, and expanding educational
curricula to raise awareness about the dangers of grooming
and safe online practices.
Ms. Overstreet relayed that she strongly disagreed with
arguments from individuals in the prostitution business who
opposed HB 68, suggesting that their ultimate goal was to
legalize prostitution. She argued that in areas where
prostitution had been legalized, human trafficking had
increased, and the bill was a necessary step for Alaska.
She thought that HB 68 would help protect Alaska's most
vulnerable populations by addressing serious issues like
child sexual abuse, sexual assault, domestic violence, and
addiction.
8:48:33 PM
STACI YATES, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING RECOVERY
SERVICES, MY HOUSE, WASILLA (via teleconference), shared
that she was a survivor of sex trafficking the Director of
Human Trafficking Recovery Services at My House. She also
chaired the Alaska Stop Human Trafficking Alliance (ASHTA)
and sat on the Governor's Council on Human and Sex
Trafficking. She strongly supported HB 68, emphasizing the
bill's importance in protecting victims' rights. There were
alarming statistics about child abuse and sexual assault in
Alaska. She referenced a 2019 FBI Uniform Crime Report,
which indicated that Alaska's rate of sexual assault was
nearly four times the national average, and child sexual
assaults were nearly six times the national average.
Ms. Yates shared that a 2012 World Development Study found
that countries that legalized prostitution tended to
experience higher rates of human trafficking. She explained
that while there was a theoretical opposing effect where
demand for trafficked might decrease, the actual effect was
that legalized prostitution expanded the prostitution
market and increased prostitution. She argued that
prostitution was not a victimless crime, as many involved
individuals had been sexually abused as children. She
thought that HB 68 was crucial because it held buyers of
sex accountable, especially when they exploited trafficked
individuals or children.
Ms. Yates explained that HB 68 would empower survivors to
testify against perpetrators and would also include age-
appropriate education on trafficking and online safety for
youth. She stressed that it was important to teach children
early on how to recognize grooming tactics and protect
themselves. The bill would also offer vital support to
survivors by expunging their criminal records, which would
help survivors regain access to employment and housing
opportunities. She urged support for the bill.
8:52:19 PM
DELAYNA WEST, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), expressed
her support for HB 68. She echoed Ms. Yates' sentiments and
thought that while the bill might not be a perfect
solution, it was a crucial first step toward protecting
survivors and victims of trafficking. She argued that HB 68
was a positive move in the right direction. She relayed
that it was important to address the issue of human
trafficking in Alaska. She acknowledged that while it might
not be possible to fix the problem on a global scale,
Alaska could take action to make a significant difference
for its women and children. She urged the committee to
support the bill.
Co-Chair Foster noted that there were some individuals who
had been waiting to present fiscal notes and there was
interest in reviewing the sectional analysis of the bill.
He proposed beginning the next morning's meeting at 8:30
a.m. and not 9:00 a.m. to accommodate the additional agenda
items.
8:54:21 PM
AT EASE
8:54:44 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster indicated that the committee would proceed
with the fiscal notes, ensuring that those who had waited
for hours would have their time respected. Public testimony
would remain open in case additional individuals wished to
testify the following morning. The sectional analysis and a
summary of the bill's changes would also be reviewed in the
morning.
8:56:05 PM
JAMES STINSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), reviewed
the fiscal impact note from the Department of
Administration (DOA) with OMB component 43 and control code
vNSYs. He explained that there were several ways the fiscal
note could have been approached, but he had ultimately
decided to add a defense investigator position at a cost of
$128,600. He noted that while it was difficult to predict
how many cases would come to the agency, the cases that did
would have serious penalties, requiring investigative
services.
Representative Tomaszewski asked why the OMB component was
the same as the OMB component in the fiscal notes for HB
11, despite having a different control code.
Mr. Stinson responded that OMB component 43 was always
attached to fiscal notes for the Office of Public Advocacy
(OPA) and that he had never seen a different one used.
Representative Josephson asked why the department needed
half the amount of money as was needed for HB 11 when HB 68
was much longer.
Mr. Stinson responded that there were multiple crime bills
currently circulating and he was not sure which ones would
pass or in which order. He erred on the conservative side
for his estimates for HB 68 because it seemed as though HB
11 and HB 68 were moving at a similar pace. He explained
that HB 68 was extensive, but much of the conduct was often
captured by the federal government and he was uncertain how
many cases the state would receive. He relayed that the
state would need in-house defense investigator services. He
noted that an agency could quickly become overwhelmed by a
variety of crime bills.
Representative Galvin asked how many sex trafficking cases
there were in 2024.
Mr. Stinson responded that the question would probably be
better suited for the court system, as it maintained the
total number of filings in the state. He explained that he
could pull OPA's internal data, but would need to follow up
with the information. He could obtain the number of
unclassified felonies that had come to the agency and
identify which of those were sex offenses. He noted that
the bill would involve creating new conduct and enhancing
penalties, which contributed to the concern regarding the
workload of the bill.
Representative Galvin understood that it was difficult to
assess the impact without knowing the specifics of the new
crime proposed by the bill. She asked if her understanding
was correct.
Mr. Stinson responded in the affirmative. He explained that
it was unclear how many of the offenses would ultimately
reach the agency, but the cases that did would be serious
and require a significant amount of work. He suggested that
the court system provide additional insight on the matter.
9:01:13 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA STATE COURT SYSTEM,
stated that she had data on the number of sex trafficking
cases, convictions, and charges over the last ten years.
She relayed that there had been very few such cases. The
Federal U.S. Attorney's Office handled some sex trafficking
cases in Alaska, but the state had experienced between one
and four cases per year. She pointed out that in 2017,
there had been seven cases, which were likely the result of
a single case with multiple charges. The range of cases had
generally been between one and four each year.
Representative Galvin asked why it would be necessary to
add an entire defense investigator position in order to
implement the bill considering that the average number of
cases over the past ten years had been only two per year.
Mr. Stinson explained that the issue was not solely the
number of cases but also the existing backlog and the
ongoing workload. He emphasized that without adding fiscal
notes to address the anticipated workload, the agency would
quickly become overwhelmed. Committees generally preferred
to avoid indeterminate fiscal notes, as failing to
appropriately resource the agency would exacerbate existing
challenges. He explained that OPA operated as multiple
independent law firms under one central administrative
umbrella. There were some sections within OPA that had as
few as two attorneys, which further complicated resource
allocation and underscored the need for additional support.
The major crime unit in Anchorage was lacking an in-house
investigator and the fiscal note addressed an existing need
that would be exasperated by an additional bill.
Representative Galvin agreed that it would not be wise to
grow in the area of unfunded mandates.
9:04:20 PM
TERRANCE HAAS, PUBLIC DEFENDER, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), reviewed
the fiscal impact note from DOA with OMB component 1631 and
control code QYxCX. He explained that PDA was requesting a
single staff position to address the administrative burden
created by the increased registration requirements.
However, the fiscal note reflected the realities of several
bills that had been considered together.
SYLVAN ROBB, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS,
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, reviewed the zero
fiscal impact note was for OMB Component number 2360 and
control code MRisl. She explained that the bill required
the board to deny a license, prevent the renewal of a
license, and revoke a license for life for anyone convicted
of certain crimes, for 15 licensed professions. She
anticipated that the Division of Corporations, Business,
and Professional Licensing could absorb the workload
created by this bill.
TERI WEST, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), reviewed the fiscal
impact note from the Department of Corrections with OMB
component 1381 and control code Mhybr. She explained that
the fiscal note submitted was indeterminate, as the
department was unable to predict how many people would be
convicted of the offense or how long the actual
incarceration time would be. The department would track and
monitor the impacts on population growth within their
institutions.
9:07:31 PM
KELLY MANNING, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INNOVATION AND
EDUCATION EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and EARLY
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), stated that Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) had submitted a
fiscal impact note with control code SuqIJ that included
costs for year one and out-year costs associated with the
development of curriculum related to human and sex
trafficking. She specified that the year one cost for the
fiscal note was $66,000, which would be used for the
development of the course. There would be a number of one-
time costs associated with the development of the course,
such as working with stakeholders to engage in content
development and collaborating with the e-learning content
provider to integrate the course content into an
appropriate e-learning delivery model for the learning
management system. She specified that $25,000 had been
allocated for the process, as well as stipends for the
participants involved in the development. There would also
be an estimated $6,000 in legal costs to update teacher
certification requirements. The educational content would
be loaded onto the e-learning platform in two delivery
methods: one for educators and one designed for student
safety that educators could use to teach students. She also
mentioned that $5,000 per year would be allocated for
course updates, as the department regularly reviewed and
updated its e-learning content to ensure it remained
current and relevant.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the fiscal note corresponded to
OMB component 2796. He relayed that the next fiscal note
was meant to be presented by Ms. Deb Riddle, but she was
not available. The committee would return to the fiscal
note the following morning.
9:10:23 PM
Ms. Kemp relayed that DOL had submitted a zero fiscal note
for OMB component 2202 with control code hqUCq. The
department could absorb the litigation without the need for
additional positions.
Representative Galvin asked if the department anticipated
more cases, given the impact on other departments, and
wondered whether it was feasible for DOL to absorb these
potential cases.
Ms. Kemp responded that the department's zero fiscal note
was consistent with the court system's description. She
explained that the number of sex trafficking or human
trafficking cases referred to DOL in the past four years
had been low, with only 10 cases in total according to the
case management system. She clarified that sex trafficking
was not a commonly charged statute and the department
believed it could absorb any additional litigation
resulting from the bill. She offered assurance that the
department would continue to assess the situation.
Representative Galvin understood that some departments
anticipated an increase in cases, while others did not. She
asked if the term "indeterminate" might better describe the
situation.
Ms. Kemp responded in the affirmative. The department
thought that it presently could absorb the litigation. She
explained that any case that entered the system required
DOL's involvement, but based on the numbers, the department
felt confident in its ability to manage the cases. She also
noted that while the case numbers reflected referrals, the
court system's numbers only included cases that were
formally charged, which meant there might be referrals that
were never formally charged but still required the
department's review.
9:12:57 PM
Ms. Purinton stated that the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) had three fiscal notes. The first was related to OMB
component 3200 with control code pGFih and would fund the
Criminal Justice Information Systems Program. She explained
that the program was within the Division of Statewide
Services and managed the state's criminal history
repository. She relayed that a key aspect of the bill
included the option for a "vacation of judgment," which
would allow individuals to have certain prostitution
charges withheld from being displayed on certain background
checks. In order to implement the change, the state's
repository would need to be reprogrammed as it currently
operated on a legacy mainframe system. As a result, DPS
would need to contract the work to specialized contractors.
The one-time cost for reprogramming would be $42,000, based
on the department's prior experience in contracting for
similar changes to the mainframe.
Ms. Purinton continued that the second fiscal note, for OMB
component 521 with control code pHrKv, related to the CDVSA
and was a zero fiscal impact note. The department did not
expect the bill to have any significant impact on CDVSA's
operations.
Ms. Purinton relayed that the third fiscal note, for OMB
Component 2744 with control code TYvwB, related to the
Alaska State Troopers and the Alaska Bureau of
Investigation. The department did not anticipate a
significant fiscal impact from the bill and it was
confident that it could absorb any additional costs with
existing resources.
9:15:22 PM
Ms. Meade reviewed the fiscal note from the Alaska Court
System for OMB component 768 and control code psCmq. The
provisions of the bill related to enhanced crimes and the
reclassification of sex trafficking crimes would not have a
significant fiscal impact on the court system as the number
of cases were not expected to rise due to the provisions in
the bill. However, the provision that would allow a person
with an existing conviction for prostitution to seek to
vacate the conviction if the individual could establish
that they had been a victim of sex trafficking would have a
fiscal impact. She explained that the court system would
need to hire a temporary four-month attorney for a one-year
cost of $37,700 in FY 25 to implement the procedure. The
attorney would be responsible for developing forms related
to the new procedure and possibly handling hearings related
to the cases.
Co-Chair Foster noted that there was one fiscal note
remaining which would be covered in the following morning.
He reiterated that public testimony would remain open and
the committee would address both the fiscal note and
questions tomorrow.
HB 68 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reminded the committee that the amendment
deadline was tentatively set for Friday, May 3, 2024, at
5:00 p.m. He intended to recess the meeting until the
morning.
[The meeting reconvened at 8:32 a.m. on May 4, 2025.]
ADJOURNMENT
9:18:36 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 11 Assault in the Presence of a Child Presentation.pptx |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 Alaska Family Services Letter of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 WISH Letter of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 68 Sex and Human Trafficking Sectional 5.3.23.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 Summary of Changes 5.5.23.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB068 - Public Testimony Letters of Support (submitted 03-23-23).pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB068 -Public Testimony Letters of Opposition (submitted 03-23-23).pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 259 Public Testimony Rec'd by 042924.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 259 |
| HB 68 Public Testimony Rec'd by 042924.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |