Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/19/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 19, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Cliff Davidson (via teleconference
from Kodiak)
Representative Jim Nordlund
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 113 "An Act regulating the solicitation of
contributions by charitable organizations and paid
solicitors and the solicitation of sales by
telephonic means; and amending Alaska Rules of
Civil Procedure 79 and 82."
CSHB 113 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 137 "An Act authorizing special medical parole for
terminally ill prisoners."
CSHB 137 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 67 "An Act relating to eligibility for and payments
of public assistance; and providing for an
effective date."
CSHB 67 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 136 "An Act relating to the offenses of driving while
intoxicated and refusal to submit to a breath
test; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
HB 138 "An Act relating to limitations on a drivers'
license; imposing a limited license fee; and
providing for an effective date."
INCORPORATED INTO HB 136
WITNESS REGISTER
GAYLE HORETSKI
Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-6841
Position Statement: Outlined changes in CSHB 113 (JUD) and
CSHB 137 (JUD)
JUDY MATHIS, Legislative Aide
to Representative Ron Larson
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3878
Position Statement: Answered questions related to HB 113
JIM FORBES
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 269-5100
Position Statement: Answered questions on HB 113
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 116
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-2647
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 137 and HB 136
DANA LATOUR
Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Corrections
P. O. Box 112000
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-3376
Position Statement: Provided information related to HB 137
RICH COLLUM
Director
Parole Board
P. O. Box 112000
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-3384
Position Statement: Provided information and answered
questions related to HB 137
JAN HANSEN
Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
P. O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-3347
Position Statement: Provided information and answered
questions related to HB 137 and HB 67
JUANITA HENSLEY
Chief, Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P. O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 465-4335
Position Statement: Discussed HB 136
MIKE FORD
Attorney
Legislative Affairs Agency
Division of Legal Services
130 Seward Street, Suite 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-2450
Position Statement: Discussed HB 136
MARGOT KNUTH
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Criminal Division
P. O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Discussed HB 136
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 113
SHORT TITLE: CHARITABLE & TELEPHONIC SOLICITING/SALES
BILL VERSION: CSHB 113(FIN)
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) LARSON
TITLE: "An Act regulating the solicitation of contributions
by charitable organizations and paid solicitors and the
solicitation of sales by telephonic means; and amending
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 79 and 82."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/01/93 199 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/01/93 199 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
02/10/93 290 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED, FOLLOWING
L&C
03/04/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/04/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/05/93 542 (H) L&C RPT 5DP
03/05/93 542 (H) DP: PORTER,SITTON,MULDER,GREEN,
HUDSON
03/05/93 542 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)
3/5/93
03/15/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/15/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 137
SHORT TITLE: PAROLE OF TERMINALLY ILL PRISONERS
BILL VERSION: CSHB 137(JUD)
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER
TITLE: "An Act authorizing special medical parole for
terminally ill prisoners."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/05/93 238 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/05/93 238 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/25/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/01/93 480 (H) HES RPT 6DP 1NR
03/01/93 480 (H) DP: VEZEY, BUNDE, TOOHEY,
OLBERG
03/01/93 480 (H) DP: B.DAVIS, BRICE
03/01/93 480 (H) NR: NICHOLIA
03/01/93 480 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (CORR)
3/1/93
03/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 67
SHORT TITLE: ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
BILL VERSION: SCS CSHB 67(FIN)(EFD FLD)
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act relating to eligibility for and payments of
public assistance."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/15/93 86 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/15/93 86 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION & SS,
JUDICIARY,FINANCE
01/15/93 86 (H) -6 FNS (6-DHSS) 1/15/93
01/15/93 86 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/10/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/10/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/22/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/22/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/25/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/02/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/02/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/05/93 541 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 3DP 3DNP 3NR
03/05/93 542 (H) DP: VEZEY, BUNDE, OLBERG
03/05/93 542 (H) DNP: B.DAVIS, BRICE, NICHOLIA
03/05/93 542 (H) NR: KOTT, G.DAVIS, TOOHEY
03/05/93 542 (H) -2 FISCAL NOTES (HES) 3/5/93
03/05/93 542 (H) -4 PREVIOUS FNS(DHSS) 1/15/93
03/15/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/15/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 136
SHORT TITLE: DRUNK DRIVING AND BREATH TEST OFFENSES
BILL VERSION: CSHB 136(FIN)
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER
TITLE: "An Act relating to revocation of and limitations on
a driver's license to the offenses of driving while
intoxicated and refusal to submit to a breath test; imposing
a limited license fee; amending Alaska Rule of Civil
Procedure 32(b); and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/05/93 238 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/05/93 238 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/25/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/02/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/02/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/05/93 543 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NEW TITLE 3DP
6NR
03/05/93 543 (H) DP: B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA, BRICE
03/05/93 543 (H) NR: KOTT, VEZEY, G.DAVIS,
BUNDE,
03/05/93 543 (H) NR: OLBERG, TOOHEY
03/05/93 543 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (CORR) 3/5/93
03/05/93 543 (H) -2 ZERO FNS (DPS, LAW) 3/5/93
03/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 138
SHORT TITLE: LIMITED DRIVERS' LICENSES
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER,Ulmer,Carney
TITLE: "An Act relating to limitations on a drivers'
license; imposing a limited license fee; and providing for
an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/08/93 253 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/08/93 254 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
03/04/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/04/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/05/93 543 (H) STA RPT 5DP
03/05/93 543 (H) DP: KOTT, B.DAVIS, OLBERG,
VEZEY, G.DAVIS
03/05/93 544 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
3/5/93
03/05/93 544 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
03/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-37, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to
order at 1:12 p.m., on March 19, 1993. A quorum was
present. Chairman Porter announced that the committee would
address HB 113 first.
HB 113: CHARITABLE & TELEPHONIC SOLICITING/SALES
Number 055
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, outlined changes that appeared in a draft
committee substitute for HB 113 (CSHB 113 (JUD)), dated
March 18, 1993. The first change was located on page 2,
line 19. She stated that the phrase "solicit payment for
the purchase" had been added. She commented that this
language explained what a telephonic seller could and could
not do regarding a written contract.
Number 125
MS. HORETSKI noted that the criminal penalties section of
HB 113 had been clarified, at the recommendation of the
Department of Law (DOL). She called members' attention to
page 3, lines 23-30 of CSHB 113 (JUD). She said that the
criminal penalties' section was a two-tiered system. A
person would be guilty of a class C felony if he or she
violated the law by trying to sell without having the
written contract for soliciting payment. If other
provisions of HB 113 were violated, however, a person would
be charged with a class A misdemeanor.
MS. HORETSKI stated that the next change appeared on page 4,
lines 6-8. She said that persons registered with the United
States Securities Commission, when acting within the scope
of their license, had been added to the list of exemptions
in HB 113. She said that this change had been made because
the securities industry was already heavily regulated under
federal law.
Number 140
MS. HORETSKI noted that a change had been made regarding the
length of time records had to be kept. In earlier versions
of HB 113, she said, records were required to be kept for
three years. That period had now been extended to five
years, she stated. She called members' attention to page 9,
line 4, and page 11, line 3, where that particular change
was contained.
MS. HORETSKI cited new language in the criminal penalties
provision of the charitable organization section of CSHB 113
(JUD). She said that the new language appeared on page 10,
lines 7-9, and was clarifying language suggested by the DOL.
Number 165
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked why embalmers and funeral
home directors were exempted from the provisions of HB 113.
Number 170
JUDY MATHIS, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REPRESENTATIVE RON LARSON,
PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 113, replied that those particular
professions were already regulated by another agency. She
noted that Assistant Attorney General Jim Forbes could more
thoroughly answer Representative Phillips' question.
Number 176
JIM FORBES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
spoke via telephone from Anchorage. He commented that
embalmers and funeral home directors were already
specifically covered by the Consumer Protection Act. He
said that including them in HB 113 would be duplicative. He
noted that they could still solicit business over the
telephone without registering with the DOL.
Number 195
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Mr. Forbes to clarify his
remarks.
Number 202
MR. FORBES responded that by being exempt from HB 113's
provisions, the only thing that funeral home directors and
embalmers were permitted to do was solicit business by
telephonic means, without registering with the DOL. If the
exemption was eliminated, he noted, they would merely have
to register with the DOL before soliciting business by
telephonic means.
Number 234
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if the exemption for people
registered with the United States Securities Commission
applied to stockbrokers.
Number 245
MR. FORBES believed that the exemption applied to
stockbrokers. He commented that people in the securities'
business solicited two types of business over the telephone:
the sale of securities, and the sale of stockbroker
services. He said that the bill had been recently amended
to cover both of these types of sales, as earlier versions
of HB 113 had merely covered the sale of securities. He
commented that the securities industry was already very
heavily regulated.
Number 274
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER stated that HB 113 would help to deal
with the problem of fraudulent use of telemarketing.
Number 284
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 113 (JUD).
There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
Number 290
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 113 (JUD)
out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
Number 309
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the next item of business
before the committee was HB 137.
HB 137: PAROLE OF TERMINALLY ILL PRISONERS
Number 315
MS. HORETSKI called members' attention to a draft committee
substitute for the bill, dated March 19, 1993 (CSHB 137
(JUD)).
Number 326
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 137, said
that the bill was an outgrowth of the Alaska Sentencing
Commission's recommendations. He commented that within the
criminal justice system, there was always a trade-off
between protecting the community and the cost that society
was willing to pay. He was of the opinion that HB 137 would
diminish cost, while at the same time not pose a threat to
the safety of the community.
Number 346
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that HB 137 would give the Parole
Board the ability to give special medical parole to
terminally ill prisoners. He did not envision that this
special medical parole would be used often, nor would it be
used if a prisoner was thought to be a threat to society.
He noted that the intention of the bill was to give the
Parole Board some discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that giving a terminally ill
prisoner special medical parole would result in the
financial obligation of that prisoner's medical care being
transferred from the Department of Corrections (DOC) to
Medicaid or Medicare. He cited one prisoner who had already
cost the state thousands of dollars in medical costs. He
said that, in the long term, HB 137 would have an impact on
HIV-positive prisoners who developed full-blown cases of
AIDS later.
Number 379
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked the sponsor at what point a
prisoner would be considered to no longer be a threat to
society.
Number 390
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER responded that CSHB 113 (JUD) sought
to more clearly and narrowly define who was a terminally ill
prisoner. He commented that the Parole Board was by nature
very cautious, and reluctant to issue parole. He said that
the board would not issue parole to a prisoner who was
deemed a threat to society.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that a prisoner who had cancer
could still be capable of committing many crimes.
Number 428
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER reiterated his belief that the Parole
Board would make use of the special medical parole for
terminally ill prisoners in very rare circumstances, often
when a prisoner was on his or her deathbed.
Number 433
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND asked the sponsor how terminally
ill prisoners were currently cared for.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER understood that the state currently
bore the cost of providing medical care to terminally ill
prisoners, even if that care had to be provided outside of
the correctional facility.
Number 447
CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that a representative from the DOC
was present. He commented that any situation that required
hospitalization for a prisoner resulted in not only medical
costs to the state, but also the cost of a guard to
accompany that prisoner.
Number 461
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if there were ever situations
in which terminally ill prisoners resided in hospitals,
under guard.
Number 466
DANA LATOUR, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, cited the case of one prisoner,
who had cost the state over $500,000 in medical costs over
the last 18 months. That prisoner had had triple bypass
surgery, she said.
Number 476
RICH COLLUM, DIRECTOR OF THE PAROLE BOARD, commented that
that particular prisoner was eligible for parole; however,
the prisoner's attorney would not agree to apply for parole.
He noted that not many people would be affected by HB 137,
but that even reaching a few prisoners could save the state
a great deal of money.
Number 483
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked why a person could not collect
Medicaid or Medicare while in prison.
Number 497
JAN HANSEN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES (DHSS), DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (DPA),
indicated her understanding that persons in correctional
facilities were not eligible for Medicaid.
Number 504
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the federal government,
through Medicaid or Medicare, would allow the state to
abrogate its responsibility toward prisoners.
Number 512
MS. HANSEN replied that she could only speak to the
mechanism by which a person would qualify for Medicaid or
Medicare. She commented that a terminally ill released
prisoner could very likely meet the guidelines for aid to
the disabled.
Number 529
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked about a situation in which a
terminally ill prisoner, from a wealthy family, was released
from prison on special medical parole. "Could that person
or his or her family sue the state for not continuing to pay
the cost of that person's medical care?" she asked.
Number 542
MR. COLLUM replied that parole had to be accepted by a
prisoner, under conditions specified, which could include
that he or she take care of financial responsibilities.
Number 546
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS questioned whether or not a person
could be paroled without his or her consent.
Number 550
MR. COLLUM replied that a prisoner could not be paroled
without his or her consent.
Number 554
MR. COLLUM thanked Representative Mulder for being open to
the suggestions of the Parole Board. He felt that CSHB 137
(JUD) was a greatly improved version of the original bill.
He was still somewhat concerned about the bill's treatment
of the term "terminally ill." He said that the bill now
stated that the DOC would develop regulations regarding the
definition of "terminally ill," and suggested that the
committee give the DOC some guidelines for creating that
definition.
MR. COLLUM believed that HB 137 was primarily directed at
HIV-positive prisoners. He said that it was known most
people who tested positive for HIV eventually died of AIDS
or related complications, but sometimes not for years after
they were found to carry HIV. He said that the parole board
would feel more comfortable with granting special medical
parole if specific conditions could be attached to that
parole, including cooperation with public health officials,
a prohibition against selling blood, and informing sexual
partners and household members of the illness.
MR. COLLUM said that the Parole Board had been told by both
the state's epidemiologist and the DOC's attorney that they
could not treat people differently because of some medical
problem. He noted that the board wanted to be able to set
conditions of parole for prisoners released due to terminal
illness. He commented that dealing with terminally ill
prisoners was not new to the DOC or the state. He said that
the governor occasionally granted a pardon to a terminally
ill prisoner.
Number 603
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked how the state could
sufficiently control a paroled AIDS patient, so as to
guarantee that that person did not pass his or her infection
on to others.
Number 612
MR. COLLUM noted his similar concerns. He said that some of
the definitions of "terminally ill" that he had heard
related to bedridden individuals who were incapable of
hurting anyone.
Number 620
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that a person who only
recently contracted AIDS was terminally ill, because he or
she would not recover. Yet, she said, that person might be
in the same physical condition as any healthy person. She
asked Mr. Collum if he wanted the legislature to define
"terminally ill."
Number 627
MR. COLLUM commented that the legislature had to be
comfortable with the definition of "terminally ill." He
stated that there were two types of parole: mandatory and
discretionary. He said that mandatory parole was granted to
those prisoners who earned "good time" prior to their
release. That type of parole was not consensual, he noted.
He said that some of the prisoners released on mandatory
parole might have AIDS, but noted that their supervising
parole officers were not aware of that. He expressed a
desire for the legislature to develop better supervisory
conditions for paroled prisoners.
Number 646
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Mr. Collum what the Parole
Board's definition of "terminally ill" was.
Number 650
MR. COLLUM replied that the Parole Board currently
experienced no situations in which they applied a definition
of "terminally ill." He had spoken with the DOC's doctor,
who stated that three doctors would be involved in any
decision about whether or not a prisoner was terminally ill.
Beyond that, he said that it was not clear to him what the
definition of "terminally ill" would be. He had heard
people say that the definition referred to a person who was
bedridden to the point that doctors felt he or she was
unable to commit another crime.
Number 660
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN called Mr. Collum's attention to page
5, line 13 of CSHB 137 (JUD), subsection (17), in which a
condition of special medical parole could be that a released
prisoner refrain from participating in an activity that may
endanger the public. He asked if the Parole Board could use
that provision to require that a released prisoner not
engage in activities that could result in transmission of
the AIDS virus. He further asked if that provision would
relieve the legislature's anxiety about the Parole Board
granting special medical parole to a person infected with
the AIDS virus.
Number 696
MR. COLLUM commented that criteria now used by the Parole
Board in granting discretionary parole, and that same
criteria which was contained in HB 137, included that a
prisoner would not pose a threat to the public if she or he
were placed on parole. He noted that Representative Green
was not referring to criteria used for granting parole, but
rather conditions for supervision once a prisoner had been
released on parole.
Number 705
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Collum if, as a condition of
release on parole, an AIDS patient would have to be
bedridden, in order to not be considered a threat to the
public.
Number 711
MR. COLLUM was of the opinion that the condition set out in
subsection (17) would have nothing to do with a
determination about the definition of "terminal illness."
He called Representative Green's attention to page 5, lines
22-24, which contained a definition of "special medical
parole." He noted that definition appeared to be the only
definition of who would be eligible for that particular type
of parole.
Number 722
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that the definition of
"special medical parole" did not guarantee society that a
person suffering from AIDS, who was released on special
medical parole, would not be out infecting innocent members
of the public.
Number 732
MR. COLLUM replied that the wording in proposed AS 33.16.085
could be strengthened to say that a prisoner could not pose
a threat of harm to the public.
Number 738
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN was concerned that the bill as
currently drafted was placing too much trust in the parolee.
MR. COLLUM mentioned that prisoners who had been released on
mandatory parole could have their parole revoked if they
violated the conditions of their parole.
Number 754
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES commented that AIDS patients
were already being released on mandatory parole. She noted
that the state currently had no control over those parolees,
in terms of whether or not they infected others. She was of
the opinion that the state might be liable if it prematurely
released an AIDS-infected prisoner on parole.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that in addition to the
financial aspects, there were other advantages to paroling
terminally ill prisoners, including allowing a dying person
to spend time with his or her family. She believed that
putting the cut-off point for releasing a prisoner on
special medical parole at the point at which they became
bedridden would probably not result in a large cost-savings
for the state.
Number 782
MR. COLLUM mentioned the Neokok decision from a number of
years back, in which the DOC had paid an out-of-court
settlement of approximately $6 million because of its
failure to warn the community about a parolee who was
dangerous. He said that the Parole Board wanted to be able
to treat people released on special medical parole as
criminals, rather than as regular members of the community.
Number 795
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS liked the idea of special medical
parole for terminally ill prisoners, and supported HB 137.
However, she said that the committee should amend the bill
so as to better define "terminally ill."
Number 800
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that HB 137 gave the Parole
Board the discretion to determine whether or not releasing a
terminally ill prisoner was in the state's best interest.
She said that it would be difficult for the legislature to
define "terminally ill" in such a way that it would cover
situations which the legislature wanted to include, and not
cover situations which the legislature did not want to
include.
Number 805
MR. COLLUM was completely comfortable with the current
Parole Board making determinations of that nature. However,
he said that he might not be so comfortable with future
members of the Parole Board.
TAPE 93-37, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. HORETSKI discussed changes incorporated into CSHB 137
(JUD), dated March 19, 1993. The first change, she said,
appeared on page 2, line 25. New language had been added to
allow the DOC's Commissioner to apply for parole on a
prisoner's behalf. She said that this was an attempt to
solve the problem of a prisoner who might not want to be
paroled, preferring instead to have the state pay his or her
medical costs.
MS. HORETSKI stated that from page 2, line 26, through page
4, line 6, was all new language. She noted that the rest of
CSHB 137 (JUD) was the same as the original bill. She
mentioned that there already existed in statute standards
for releasing prisoners on discretionary parole. With one
exception, she noted, those standards were placed in the
section on special medical parole. The first standard,
regarding terminal illness, however, was not from the other
list of standards, she said.
MS. HORETSKI noted that one existing standard for release on
discretionary parole was dropped. That standard said that a
prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration into society
would be furthered by release on parole. She said that the
committee could add a requirement that the parolee have some
degree of incapacitation to this set of standards. However,
she commented that it might be difficult to predict all of
the situations in which the bill might apply. She noted
that CSHB 137 (JUD) was considerably more restrictive than
the original bill.
MS. HORETSKI called members' attention to a provision on
page 3, line 5, which specifically allowed the Parole Board
to rescind or revise an individual's parole. That, she
said, could occur if an individual was not abiding by the
conditions of his or her parole. She stated that CSHB 137
(JUD) included a provision allowing victims to be notified
and to comment when an offender was being considered for
release on special medical parole. She said that this
language had been lifted from existing provisions of the
Alaska Statutes.
Number 158
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that the provision on page 3,
line 1 of CSHB 137 (JUD) adequately addressed the concerns
he expressed earlier.
Number 176
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that if the committee were to write a
definition of "terminally ill" that covered worst-case
scenarios, they would likely negate the intent of the bill.
He felt comfortable with the current construction of HB 137.
He noted that currently, when mandatory parole was granted,
the problem of what would keep a criminal from committing
more crimes existed in every case. He recognized the
potential for someone with HIV to infect another individual.
However, in reality, he said that many prisoners who carried
HIV were released simply because their sentences had ended.
Number 195
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that any responsibility that the state
had regarding HIV-positive prisoners released on parole
already existed. He was comfortable with giving the Parole
Board the authority to examine each case on an individual
basis.
Number 209
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that there was a distinct
difference between releasing HIV-positive prisoners at the
end of their sentences and releasing prisoners because they
had AIDS.
Number 218
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS was still uncomfortable with the
lack of a definition of "terminally ill" in the bill. She
thought that she had heard Mr. Collum state that the
legislature should include a definition of "terminally ill"
in HB 137.
Number 231
MS. LATOUR said that the DOC had considered suggesting that
its Medical Advisory Board review and prepare a report to
the Parole Board that would determine whether or not a
candidate for special medical parole was terminally ill.
She said that when the DOC first began working on HB 137,
there had been talk about defining a terminally ill person
as someone who was likely to live one year or less. She
said that later, discussion expanded to include people who
might live longer than one year, but who would require
ongoing, expensive medical care.
MS. LATOUR stated that the Medical Advisory Board currently
sometimes prepared reports on prisoners being considered for
discretionary parole.
Number 264
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER commented that the Alaska Parole Board
was very proud of its record of exercising caution when
granting prisoners parole. He said that the board needed to
be granted a certain amount of flexibility, because it would
be difficult for the legislature to envision the scope of
all situations to which special medical parole could be
applied. He felt very comfortable giving the Parole Board
flexibility.
Number 301
CHAIRMAN PORTER believed that it would be difficult to
adequately define "terminally ill" in HB 137.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Mr. Collum to contact the
legislature in the future, if he wished for there to be a
statutory definition of "terminally ill."
Number 331
REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON, speaking via teleconference
from Kodiak, asked if the legislature was doing itself a
disservice by not including strict guidelines in HB 137. He
noted that although Representative Mulder might feel
comfortable with the current Parole Board, he might feel
differently in the future, when the members of the Parole
Board changed.
Number 357
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER commented that parole was based on an
educated guess, and said that there were no guarantees. He
applauded the work of the present Parole Board, and
expressed his belief that future Parole Boards would have
the same judicious nature.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON cited the vengeance factor of some
prisoners. He noted that his comfort level was not as high
as that of Representative Mulder.
Number 393
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the committee needed to add
language to HB 137 regarding the DOC's Medical Advisory
Board.
Number 399
MR. COLLUM did not know whether or not inclusion of that
language was appropriate.
Number 410
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if that could be accomplished through
the regulatory process.
Number 412
MS. LATOUR replied that HB 137 did not provide the
opportunity for the DOC to write regulations.
Number 413
MS. HORETSKI expressed her opinion that HB 137 provided the
opportunity for the DOC to adopt regulations, through the
amendment of an existing statute, located on page 2, line 14
of CSHB 137 (JUD).
MS. LATOUR reviewed the language and agreed that the DOC
would have the authority to adopt regulations in this area.
Number 432
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 137 (JUD)
dated March 19, 1993. There being no objection, IT WAS SO
ORDERED.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES then made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 137
(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and a
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO
ORDERED.
Number 447
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 67 was the next item of
business before the committee. He mentioned that
Representative Nordlund had amendments to offer.
HB 67: ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
Number 465
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if the committee was working
off of CSHB 67 (JUD).
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS reminded the committee that they had
adopted CSHB 67 (JUD) at the last meeting where HB 67 had
been discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that the AMENDMENT which he
had just distributed pertained to CSHB 67 (HES). He said
that his amendment would delay the effective date of the
bill. He stated that the bill before the committee would
take effect on July 1, 1993. His amendment would change the
effective date to January 1, 1994, he said. He added that
the reason he was offering the amendment was to give welfare
recipients sufficient time to plan for the drastic reduction
to their monthly income. He noted that his amendment would
result in a reduction of savings to the state.
Number 504
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested changing the reference in the
proposed amendment from "page 3, line 26" to "page 3, line
24".
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that he had not altered
his amendments to comport with CSHB 67 (JUD). He noted that
staff had informed him that Representative Green's change
would be appropriate.
Number 520
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that Representative
Nordlund's amendment would result in the savings to the
state for fiscal year 1994 being decreased by half, or
$217,000. Savings to the state for future fiscal years
would remain the same, she added.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND indicated that his understanding was
the same as that of Representative James.
Number 531
MS. HANSEN commented that Representative James' calculations
referred only to the interim assistance section of HB 67.
She noted that the ratable reduction portion of the bill
would result in an $8.6 million dollar savings to the state
for fiscal year 1994, and that the adult public assistance
section of the bill would result in a $4 million savings to
the state for the same fiscal year.
MS. HANSEN said that if Representative Nordlund's amendment
was adopted, it would reduce the savings to the state for
fiscal year 1994 by half, but she reminded the committee
members that there were six fiscal notes attached to HB 67.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed serious concerns about
Representative Nordlund's amendment.
Number 554
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked how Representative Nordlund's
amendment would affect a 77-year-old woman living at the
Glory Hole homeless shelter in Juneau, who had been
mentioned at the last meeting at which HB 67 had been
discussed.
MS. HANSEN could not speak to that particular individual.
However, she commented that the smallest impact for an Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipient would
be $53 per month, and the largest impact would be $175 per
month. She said that an individual on Aid to the Disabled
would receive $43 less per month.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND MOVED his AMENDMENT.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED. A roll call vote was
taken. Representatives Nordlund and Davidson voted "YEA."
Representatives Green, Phillips, Kott, James, and Porter
voted "NAY." And so, the AMENDMENT FAILED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the rules provided that a
committee member participating by telephone could vote on
amendments or other procedural items, but could not
participate in a vote to move a bill, as that required a
signature.
Number 601
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked the Chairman to clarify what
the action of not adopting the amendment meant.
Number 603
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that the committee had before it
CSHB 67 (JUD), dated March 11, 1993.
Number 605
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked if the effective date would be
July 1, 1993.
Number 606
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied in the affirmative.
Number 609
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND OFFERED ANOTHER AMENDMENT. He said
that his amendment would bring HB 67 back to the form in
which it was initially introduced by the governor. He said
that the amendment would allow for a one-year suspension of
the cost of living allowance (COLA), after which there would
be automatic COLAs in future years. He noted that the DHSS
had indicated that they would support his amendment. He
commented that state employees received COLAs as a result of
the contract negotiating process. However, he noted that
public assistance recipients had no one who would bargain
for COLAs on their behalf.
Number 637
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that Representative
Nordlund's amendment appeared to be essentially identical to
an amendment that he had offered during the previous meeting
on HB 67. She said that the other amendment had already
been voted down.
Number 642
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND responded that the amendments were
not identical.
Number 650
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS countered that the committee had
already voted down parts of Representative Nordlund's
currently proposed amendment.
Number 657
CHAIRMAN PORTER ruled that he would allow the amendment to
be considered, as it was not identical to the previously
offered amendment.
Number 659
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern that the Judiciary
Committee was overstepping its bounds. She said that HB 67
had received considerable testimony and discussion in the
HESS Committee, which was the committee she believed should
handle substantive changes to the bill.
Number 668
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that protocol in the House
allowed any committee to make any amendments that it wished,
regardless of the nature of the amendments.
Number 676
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated her belief that the HESS
Committee should be the one making substantive changes to
the bill, and that the Judiciary Committee should look at
the judicial aspects of it.
Number 690
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS cited a rule from Mason's Manual
which held that once an amendment was defeated, that same
amendment could not be brought before a body. She said that
in essence, Representative Nordlund's recent amendment was
identical to one which he had offered at an earlier meeting.
Number 697
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON commented that some members of the
Judiciary Committee were overly concerned with actions taken
by other committees. He noted that just as the House did
not jump in and swim with the Senate, neither did the
Judiciary Committee have to jump in and swim with other
committees. He said that the committee process allowed the
issues to bounce back and forth, making the process a
healthy one. He hoped that committee members would not be
overly prejudiced by the work of other committees, and give
each bill before the Judiciary Committee a thorough review.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked Ms. Hansen to comment on the
effect of HB 67 on the 77-year-old woman who lived at the
Glory Hole. He asked Ms. Hansen to compare her monthly
payment today, with what it would be in 1996.
TAPE 93-38, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. HANSEN could not speak to that particular individual's
situation.
Number 010
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON cited more specifics of the
particular individual's situation. He said that the woman
was a 77-year-old welfare recipient, with no other
dependents and no visible means of support. He asked Ms.
Hansen to describe the monthly benefit that that person
would receive today, and in 1996, if HB 67 was enacted.
MS. HANSEN replied that a 77-year-old individual receiving
Adult Public Assistance benefits would receive $778 per
month today. Under CSHB 67 (JUD), she said, the amount
would remain the same, except that part of the $778 was
federally funded, and therefore eligible for a federal COLA.
Approximately 3% would be added to the $447 in federal
funds, she said.
Number 059
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND MOVED HIS AMENDMENT.
Number 065
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED.
Number 067
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Ms. Hansen to convey the DHSS'
position on his amendment.
Number 072
MS. HANSEN said that the DHSS supported the governor's
original HB 67.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Nordlund and
Davidson voted "YEA." Representatives Green, Kott,
Phillips, James, and Porter voted "NAY." And so, the
AMENDMENT FAILED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee now had the
unamended CSHB 67 (JUD) before it.
Number 095
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 67 (JUD)
out of committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND OBJECTED. A roll call vote was
taken. Representatives Kott, Green, Phillips, James, and
Porter voted "YEA." Representative Nordlund voted "NAY."
And so, CSHB 67 (JUD) MOVED out of committee.
Number 110
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 136 was the next item of
business before the committee.
HB 136: DRUNK DRIVING AND BREATH TEST OFFENSES
Number 125
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 136
commented that HB 136 included another recommendation from
the Sentencing Commission's report. He said that the report
advocated alternative sentencing for Driving While
Intoxicated (DWI) offenses. He said that his bill was a
cooperative effort among himself, Mothers Against Drunk
Driving (MADD), the DOC, the DOL, the Court System, and the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that HB 136 was introduced to
address the tremendous backlog within the court system
pertaining to DWI offenders serving their sentences. He
said that HB 136 held that DWI offenders would serve their
sentences in halfway houses, and would pay for the cost of
their incarceration.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that currently, it costs the
state approximately $140-160 per day to house an offender in
a jail or prison. He said that incarcerating DWI offenders
in halfway houses would cost 1/3 to 1/2 of that amount. He
said that HB 136 would require an offender to pay for the
cost of her or his incarceration at the time of sentencing.
The court would be allowed to tap an offender's Permanent
Fund Dividend check if the offender refused to pay the cost
of the incarceration.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that when an offender served time
at a halfway house, he or she would also be required to
perform 24 hours of community service. He said that this
was what would happen to a first-time DWI offender, or a
person who refused to take a breath test. He said further
that a person convicted of a second DWI offense would serve
20 days in a halfway house. He noted that the DOC had said
that this was where the greatest cost savings to the state
lay.
HB 138: LIMITED DRIVERS' LICENSES
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that HB 136 allowed the
department flexibility in that if no halfway house existed
in a particular area, the department could determine an
appropriate facility for a DWI offender to serve his or her
sentence. He said that the cost of incarceration would be
standardized throughout the state. He added that provisions
of HB 138 had been rolled into HB 136. Additionally, he
said, some of the DMV's concerns regarding limited licenses
were addressed in HB 136.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that currently, a person
convicted of a DWI offense for the first through sixth time
was eligible to apply for a limited license.
Number 220
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that Representative Mulder
had been very generous in only requiring 80 hours of
community service for second DWI offenders. She said that
when she had worked on a similar bill in the past, they had
considered requiring 200 hours of community service.
Number 231
JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF OF DRIVER SERVICES, DIVISION OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (DPS), said that in
1990, legislation passed which granted limited licenses for
people convicted of up to a sixth drunk driving offense.
She commented that no fiscal note had accompanied the 1990
legislation; however, the law had impacted both the DMV and
the court system immensely. Additionally, she said that the
1990 law had taken the state further away from eligibility
for certain federal highway grants.
MS. HENSLEY stated that the federal government frowned upon
states giving limited licenses to anyone but first
offenders.
MS. HENSLEY said that the draft committee substitute before
the committee would bring Alaska one step closer to being
eligible for those federal grants. She said that HB 136
would allow the DPS and the court to review the record of an
offender whose license was presently suspended, as well.
For individuals whose licenses were revoked for 40 or 50
years, she said, the DPS could choose to shorten the
revocation period, so that a person could see the "light at
the end of the tunnel."
Number 310
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that provisions from HB 138 had
been rolled into HB 136. He said that the intent of HB 138,
as rolled into HB 136, was to address a problem regarding
driving privileges for persons with multiple drunk driving
convictions. He noted that HB 136 would give the DMV the
ability to review an individual's record, once the minimum
time for each revocation had passed.
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that it would be very hard for a
person to continue with a regimen of abstinence and
rehabilitation if there was no light at the end of the
tunnel. Additionally, he said that because limited licenses
had been so problematic, the state would rather have the
ability to get an individual back driving, without the
problems of a limited license.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON announced that he had to leave in
order to attend another meeting. He signed off of the
teleconference at 2:54 p.m.
Number 366
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked what the current fine was for
persons caught driving in violation of a limited license.
Number 377
MIKE FORD, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, DIVISION OF
LEGAL SERVICES, said that existing law was contained in the
draft committee substitute, and that the fine was $1,000.
Number 378
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if a person paid a $1,000 fine
each time she or he was convicted of a drunk driving
offense.
Number 385
MR. FORD commented that the section of the draft committee
substitute which Representative Phillips was looking at,
section 7, pertained to persons who drove without a license.
Number 400
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that a $1,000 fine might not
mean anything to people who did not respect the revocation
of their driver's license.
MR. FORD noted that some people were not deterred by
anything, except for being in jail.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested considering raising the
fine from $1,000 to $10,000.
Number 403
MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, said that the problem, from a law
enforcement perspective, was that many people convicted of
drunk driving offenses did not have even $100. When a
person had nothing, she said, he or she could lose nothing.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned the permanent fund
dividend check.
MS. KNUTH commented that many of these people never even saw
their permanent fund dividend checks, as they had already
gone for child support and other obligations.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS applauded the provision at the
bottom of page 5 of the draft committee substitute, which
said that the cost of imprisonment would not exceed $1,000.
Number 422
MS. KNUTH mentioned some technical problems with the draft
committee substitute. She said that it would be best to
draft another committee substitute before acting on HB 136.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Ford when another draft committee
substitute would be available.
Number 441
MR. FORD said that the changes to which Ms. Knuth was
referring were not extensive; however, he cautioned that
HB 136 was complex in nature. Because of that, he
recommended that all parties have time to digest the bill's
contents and ensure that the bill did what it was intended
to do.
Number 453
MS. HENSLEY commented that the provision on page 4, lines
20-21 of the draft committee substitute, instituting a $100
fee for a limited driver's license, would change the DPS'
fiscal note to be a revenue-generating one.
Number 465
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if a new committee substitute could be
ready by the following Wednesday. He said that he shared
Mr. Ford's concern that all parties have time to digest HB
136's contents.
Number 471
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the proposed amendments had
been reviewed by the sponsor.
Number 476
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the draft committee
substitute for HB 136 was the result of a team effort.
Number 479
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER was unaware that there were problems
with the current draft committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS was concerned that agencies were
bringing amendments to the attention of the Judiciary
Committee without first contacting a bill's sponsor.
Number 482
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that HB 136 would be held over until a
new draft committee substitute could be prepared. He stated
that he would try to reschedule the bill for the following
Wednesday.
Number 495
MR. FORD commented that he could probably have a draft
committee substitute prepared and distributed by Monday,
giving all concerned parties time to review it prior to the
Wednesday meeting.
Number 506
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|