Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/16/1997 01:10 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
April 16, 1997
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
prohibiting the imposition of state personal income taxation, state
ad valorem taxation on real property, or state retail sales
taxation without the approval of the voters of the state.
- FAILED TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 67(JUD)
"An Act relating to the imposition of criminal sentences; and
amending Rule 32.2, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."
- MOVED CSSB 67(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 7
SHORT TITLE: VOTER APPROVAL FOR NEW TAXES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 23 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 23 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/27/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/27/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/97 501 (H) STA RPT 1DP 1DNP 4NR
02/27/97 502 (H) DP: HODGINS
02/27/97 502 (H) DNP: ELTON
02/27/97 502 (H) NR: JAMES, BERKOWITZ, DYSON, IVAN
02/27/97 502 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
02/27/97 502 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
04/16/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 67
SHORT TITLE: TRUTH IN SENTENCING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD, Green, Donley, Kelly, Taylor,
Leman, Sharp, Pearce, Torgerson, Mackie, Miller, Phillips;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Croft, Kemplen
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/29/97 161 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/29/97 161 (S) STA, JUD
02/04/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/04/97 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/06/97 249 (S) STA RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE
02/06/97 249 (S) DP: GREEN, MILLER, WARD, MACKIE
02/06/97 249 (S) ZERO FN TO SB & CS (COURT)
02/10/97 267 (S) FN TO SB & CS (LAW)
02/13/97 341 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED FOLLOWING
JUDICIARY
02/21/97 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/26/97 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/26/97 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/05/97 566 (S) JUD RPT CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE
03/05/97 566 (S) DP: TAYLOR, MILLER, PEARCE, PARNELL;
03/05/97 566 (S) NR: ELLIS
03/05/97 566 (S) ZERO FNS TO CS (DPS-2, LAW)
03/05/97 566 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (COURT)
03/12/97 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/12/97 688 (S) FIN RPT 5DP (JUD)CS
03/12/97 688 (S) DP: SHARP, PEARCE,
03/12/97 688 (S) PHILLIPS, PARNELL, DONLEY
03/13/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/13/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/13/97 718 (S) FN TO JUD CS (S.FIN/CORR)
03/12/97 688 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (COURT, DPS-2, LAW)
03/13/97 718 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/13/97
03/13/97 720 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/13/97 720 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/13/97 720 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/13/97 720 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 67(JUD)
03/13/97 720 (S) COSPONSORS: KELLY, TAYLOR, LEMAN,
SHARP
03/13/97 720 (S) PEARCE, TORGERSON, MACKIE, MILLER,
PHILLIPS
03/13/97 720 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
03/13/97 721 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
03/13/97 726 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/14/97 661 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/14/97 661 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/16/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of HJR 7.
BRAD PIERCE, Senior Policy Analyst
Office of Management
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110020
Juneau, Alaska 00811
Telephone: (907) 465-3008
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 7.
BRETT HUBER, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Rick Halford
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 129
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4958
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of sponsor of SB 67.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding SB 67.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-58, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee to
order at 1:07 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Brian Porter, Jeannette James, Ethan Berkowitz and
Chairman Joe Green. Representative Rokeberg arrived at 1:10 p.m.
and Representative Eric Croft arrived at 1:11 p.m.
HJR 7 - VOTER APPROVAL FOR NEW TAXES
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the committee would first consider
HJR 7, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska prohibiting the imposition of state personal income
taxation, state ad valorem taxation on real property, or state
retail sales taxation without the approval of the voters of the
state.
Number 045
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, Prime Sponsor of HJR 7, advised
members that over the years, people of East Anchorage, which was
his district, as well as people all over the state were concerned
about taxation since it was repealed. Representative Martin
pointed out that Alaska was one of the states where a simple
majority was needed in order to impose a personal tax, of one
nature or another, on the people. He did not believe that
technique provided the people any voice at all in the matter of
taxation. Representative Martin noted that most states required a
two-thirds majority vote, and one state required a four-fifths
majority vote by both houses in order to approve the imposition of
a personal tax prior to it going to the people.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN thought that it was either 21 or 24 states
that required final approval of a tax be by the people. He noted
that oddly enough, people were very considerate of what type of tax
was brought before them and they would approve or not approve.
Representative Martin believed the voice of the people was the most
important things that helped develop the country.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN pointed out that the resolution had been
considered by the previous legislature and it was passed on to the
floor where they were four votes short of reaching a two-thirds
majority vote. He advised members that the Constitution was
supposed to be the voice of the people and taxation should be a
part of that voice.
Number 245
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES referred to a backup document
contained in member's bill files titled 1995 State Tax Revenues,
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Economic Analysis,
and asked Representative Martin if he knew how they arrived at
those numbers. She pointed out that it stated that the per capita
dollars of state tax revenues was $3,185 in Alaska, which was 13.6
percent of personal income, and ranked one in percentage of
personal income. Representative James stated that she assumed they
were talking about all taxes, including severance taxes, but
probably not royalties because those were not necessarily taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN advised members that his office had talked to
the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economics on two occasions
after the national reports had been published and asked what
criteria they were using. He stated that basically, it showed the
total amount of revenues that came into a state through taxing, and
they did not break it down much as to whether it was personal tax,
corporation tax, severance tax, or what. They just note that a
state received perhaps $3 billion in taxes, and they then break it
down per capita.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that one of the things that
distressed her was that everyone liked to make a comparison between
the state of Alaska and the rest of the world, and they usually did
it on a per capita basis, or possibly per 100,000 people. She
expressed that Alaska was unique compared to other states because
of its size and much of the state being unorganized.
Representative James pointed out that if oil taxes and severance
taxes were included in the data it would reflect Alaska differently
because those funds go into the state's coffer, whereas in the
other states most of those monies go into private pockets. She
advised members that she did not have much faith in the data
provided by the Census Bureau or Bureau of Economic Analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN advised members that John Manley, his
legislative assistant, had written to the National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL), and provided special information as to
how Alaska taxes were broken down. He noted also that the NEA
Magazine broke down what Alaska paid out towards education and made
the state look very bad as to not supporting education.
Representative Martin advised members that Mr. Manley compiled a
lot of information from the University and from kindergarten
through high school and sent it to the University of Illinois. He
noted that they finally received a response which acknowledged good
points had been displayed. Representative Martin pointed out that
they had stated that Alaska was one of the cheapest in the nation
in providing support to the University. He stated that after
sending back an extensive amount of information, their response was
that they would make an honest effort in providing more realistic
information in their next annual report.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she would like to see a
comparison between Alaska and the rest of the states and she
believed it would show that Alaska was paying less than the other
states if they only counted the taxes paid out of pocket. She
stated that she would also like to have a comparison on the amount
of federal taxes the state of Alaska paid. Representative James
expressed that if Alaska could get the federal government to give
Alaska a tax break, the state could afford to pay some of its own,
although she felt that would be pretty hard to do.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN felt it was necessary that Alaska work as a
team with NCSL who administered those reports.
Number 560
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated if the resolution were to pass, because of
all the various programs the state of Alaska had compared to many
of the other states, of providing money to the public, would it be
less likely that when taxes were needed there would be less
likelihood for the proletariat to vote in favor of a tax, simply
because there were still sources of revenue coming into the state.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated that from what he had been observing,
and yesterday in Anchorage when there was a vote taken on the bond
issue, that there was overwhelming support because they saw the
need and did not mind the increase in property taxes on the
bonding. He stated that if the legislature, or the governing body,
present a picture to the people and the people realized they were
in charge of the purse string, they would support it.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that if the bill were law and the
people voted in favor of a state sales tax and the legislature
wanted to change the rate of that sales tax, if that require voter
approval.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated that it would go before the people for
approval.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that the wording said; a law
establishing a sales tax on personal income tax would have to be
approved. It did not say amending an existing tax, it just spoke
to "establishing".
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN thought it spoke to an increase in a personal
tax of one nature or another also. He stated that members could
add the word "increase".
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG advised members it was his
understanding a State ad valorem tax on real property currently
existed.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN agreed, and again that would come into effect
with an increase in that tax; however, it appeared the word
"increased" had been dropped from the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG advised members he was concerned about that
and as a member of the House Special Committee on Oil and Gas they
had the opportunity to hear reports as to the development of a
trans-Alaska gas pipeline. A recommendation brought forward in
that committee was the need to reform the state's tax regime in
order to create an incentive for investment in the state of Alaska.
Representative Rokeberg advised members that among those mentioned
was the ability to lower, particularly, the ad valorem taxes on
capital equipment and materials used for the construction of a gas
pipeline. He stated that, keeping that in mind, to make that work
so eventually the municipalities and the state of Alaska would be
kept whole, there would be a lowering of taxes, or potentially an
abatement of those taxes for a period of time, and after the
pipeline reached a level of profitability under contractual, long
term obligations, those taxes could be increased. Representative
Rokeberg felt the ad valorem taxes would be one of the primary
methods of being able to create a sliding scale type of taxation on
those kinds of assets. He stated that an amendment such as HJR 7
would absolutely bar any kind of negotiations like that.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN advised members that as used in the
resolution, ad valorem was meant to be the real property of an
individual, not as an ad valorem tax on the property of
corporations, unless they would assume a corporation was a person.
CHAIRMAN GREEN did not see the resolution drafted that way.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed with Chairman Green
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked if it was the sponsor's intent to
get voter approval for a decrease in taxes.
Number 966
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated that he was addressing the imposition
of a new tax, or increase in personal taxes, or personal real
property. He stated that a decrease in taxes would not need voter
approval.
BRAD PIERCE, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor, advised members the administration
did not have a firm position on the resolution. He pointed out
that changing the Constitution that would result in the legislature
losing one of its powers was fairly serious business. Mr. Pierce
advised members that the administration saw the resolution as a
basic difference between the Governor's pledge not to use permanent
fund earnings without a vote of the people. He noted that the
permanent fund was established after statehood by a vote of the
people. Mr. Pierce stated that, clearly, when the framers of the
state's Constitution wrote the provision which stated that the
power of taxation shall never be surrendered, it was felt that the
legislature should not give that power away to municipalities, or
to others. Mr. Pierce advised members that those were the
fundamental concerns of the resolution.
MR. PIERCE stated that it was also the administration's feeling
that giving up the responsibility to tax would make closing the
fiscal gap much harder because it foreclosed the legislature's
option to act. He noted that there was also the law of unintended
consequences that the state could end up with a very strange tax
structure if HJR 7 were to be in place. Mr. Pierce advised members
that Washington state, because they had never wanted an income tax
had ended up taxing everything that moved, which resulted in a very
regressive tax structure. He pointed out that Alaska already had
a fairly strange tax structure with 80 percent of the state's
general fund coming from oil revenues.
Number 1215
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked how problematic it could be if
the state could not respond quickly to a change in circumstances.
He noted that Representative Rokeberg brought up the instance of
changing the state's tax structure in order to develop a gas
pipeline, and asked if there were any other projects that would be
affected by the state's inability to change the tax structure
quickly.
MR. PIERCE did not believe so; however, the idea was that it would
limit the state's options to deal with the state's fiscal
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that in other jurisdictions tax
inducements had been offered for corporations to relocate, and
asked if the implementation of HJR 7 would impede the state's
ability to do that.
MR. PIERCE stated that if Representative Berkowitz was speaking to
an offer of credits, he was not sure, but felt someone from the
Department of Law could respond to that question.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the Governor had
introduced a bill where corporations hiring welfare recipients
would receive a $1000 tax credit. He advised members he was also
introducing a bill, along those same lines, about Alaskan
residents, and HJR 7 would tie his hands, the governor's hands, as
well as the legislature's. Representative Rokeberg expressed that
if the price of oil went to $8 per barrel it would be necessary to
look at existing taxes in the state, and do some restructuring of
them.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that many members would recall when the
price of oil did decrease to nearly $8 per barrel a number of years
ago.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES did not see the same fear of not
being able to move quickly and pointed out that the state was not
poor, and if there was an emergency, there were reserves available
to use. She stated that she, as a State Representative, was
willing to impose state taxes on the public when the public was
willing and ready, but not before. Representative James felt that
HJR 7 could be used in that manner as to how the people felt about
an increase in taxes. She asked if Mr. Pierce could think of any
specific circumstance, other than a drastic drop in oil prices,
that would cause the legislature to act faster than having to wait
for a vote of the people.
MR. PIERCE advised members that he could not think about anything
off the top of his head; however, pointed out that they were
talking about a constitutional amendment, and to change the State's
Constitution it would be necessary to wait for another general
election.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she had a real problem
with a state ad valorem tax on real property, and did not know how
that could be defined to mean personal property, as opposed to
other than personal property because she felt the ownership of
property was varied in so many ways. Representative James stated
that if the issue would be put to the public she would like that
language removed, and only pose the question as to state tax on
personal income and state retail sales tax, which were the only two
broad based taxes that were of great concern.
Number 1463
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out the mention of the Governor's
desire to have some type of voting mechanism for the appropriation
of permanent fund earnings, and asked if that legislation had been
introduced to that effect.
MR. PIERCE stated that there was no pending legislation at the
present time.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if a retail sales tax would be imposed
on all products and if alcohol, tobacco and gas taxes would go to
the vote of the people as well.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that those would be whole sale taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that when discussing the bill
which would allow alcohol to be taxed at a higher rate that North
Pole implemented a bed tax that allowed them to tax alcohol. He
pointed out that he had not thought of a bed tax as a sales tax
prior to that; however, felt in that case, it was an innovative
approach that got him thinking that maybe sales tax was a lot more
broad than he thought it was.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated that in local government, the public
had the opportunity to vote on ship taxes and bed taxes and stated
that he had no problem in doing that at the state level if the
public wanted to vote on an alcohol tax or cigarette tax.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that he supported the thought that
an increase in taxes or imposition of new taxes should be the will
of the people, as was stated by Representative James, and thought
most members felt that way. He noted that the legislature was in
the mode of trying to reduce the cost of government to the point
that the people would say, that is enough, and now we're going to
have to find other sources of revenue. Chairman Green advised
members that in order to get at the intent of the proposed
legislation, which would be the undeniable will of the people by
some sort of an advisory vote or polling type mechanism, that there
was a concern as to how often, and under what circumstances, the
legislature should approach the people for voter approval.
Chairman Green pointed out that if that was done very often, to him
that would be an abrogation of the responsibility of the
legislature.
Number 1630
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN pointed out that during the Cowper
Administration the advisory vote relating to education endowment
was not approved by the people, and now the Lt. Governor had just
approved an advisory vote on education. He stated that by giving
the people the power, as in HJR 7, it would be the final voice of
the people.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that other states required a two
thirds majority vote, and sometimes even a three quarter majority
vote, which was not the case in the state of Alaska, and she asked
why that would not be a better way to go.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN advised members that his personal desire was
to get a final voice of the people. He noted that in the past even
the founding fathers wanted to require a super majority, under
certain elections, and it had always failed because when it came to
the people they wanted true democracy of a simple majority.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that in Fairbanks, a sales tax
had been presented on the ballot seven times and sometimes the
voters said no, and she pointed out also the situation with the
school bonding issue of being put to the people three different
times.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated that Anchorage had turned down some of
the bonding packages in the past as well.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that there was an issue brought up
in the House State Affairs Committee the previous year regarding
requiring a varying degree of public percentage with a simple
majority and a two thirds majority, and there had been quite a bit
of discussion that a specific percentage might not be gotten. He
noted that Representative Martin had indicated that other states
required an 80 percent voter approval and asked if such a high
percentage had ever been reached.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN advised members that he was speaking to a
percentage of the voters, that that would always be a simple
majority.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that he was interested in the
idea of a referendum where the people had the ability to cancel out
any law enacted by referendum during the next election, and he
thought that was phrasing HJR 7 in the negative, where the
legislature passed a tax and the people come back at the next
election and said no. He asked why that process would not be a
better approach, or a statute that stated that any tax put on the
books shall automatically be placed before the public for a
referendum vote.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN advised members that was how some other
states operated; however, Alaska's Constitution stated that the
power of taxation should never be surrendered, and the people could
not address a tax either through an initiative or a referendum. He
stated that in the state of Alaska the referendum was almost
worthless because the time restraints for the people to get the
necessary signatures was almost impossible.
Number 1989
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if that was a judicial decision or an
attorney general opinion.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN advised members that the Constitution made it
very clear that the people not have control of the state's purse
strings.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG advised members that he agreed with
Representative Martin's concept in terms of making sure that the
public had an opportunity to be known and heard when it came to tax
policies. He stated that any change that the legislature might
consider on that issue in the future was a huge state change of
public policy. Representative Rokeberg stated that having voter
input and the people having that ability he felt was very
important; however, HJR 7 was abrogating the legislature's entire
constitutional responsibility, and he was very concerned about that
and felt it was the wrong approach, although he agreed with the
concept. Representative Rokeberg advised members he was also
concerned about the testimony members had heard regarding the
Governor's opinion about the earnings reserve fund, which he felt
was really extraordinary, adding that that would be a usurpation of
legislative power.
Number 2015
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that the issue before the
committee had been discussed in previous legislatures and he
respected the sponsor's position and feelings on that particular
area of the law. Representative Porter advised members that he had
a different foundation of thought in that area and did not think it
was appropriate in a state that had the usual tax structure that
Alaska had that could be impacted by a single factor. He stated
that to put into place an absolute bar that could occur for up to
two years to be able to respond to that kind of emergency, to him
was irresponsible and he could not support it.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to amend HJR 7, on line 9, after
"income," delete [a State ad valorem tax on real property]. There
being no objection, Amendment 1, HJR 7 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed that he was distressed because he
had told the people in his district that he wanted to make sure
they had an ability to vote on the imposition of taxes; however, he
did not believe that was what HJR 7 did. He stated that the shift
of power, as in HJR 7, went well beyond what he thought should be
granted. Representative Rokeberg pointed out that there had been
discussion as to whether the state should go to a statewide sales
tax, versus an income tax, and he felt the only way to get a gauge
on that issue was to have an advisory vote, if needed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with the statements of Representative
Rokeberg and was not afraid of putting the proposed resolution on
the floor for a vote, and because of that moved to report CSHJR
7(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note. Representative Porter objected.
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote. In favor:
Representative James. Opposed: Representative Porter, Rokeberg,
Croft, Berkowitz and Chairman Green. Representative Bunde was
absent. CSHJR 7(JUD) failed to move out of committee by a vote of
5 to 1.
CSSB 67(JUD) - TRUTH IN SENTENCING
[Contains discussion of SB 25.]
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members they would next consider CSSB
67(JUD), "An Act relating to the imposition of criminal sentences;
and amending Rule 32.2, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."
Number 2231
BRETT HUBER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Rick Halford, Prime
Sponsor, advised members that Senator Halford introduced SB 67 to
provide victims of crime, their families and the general public an
honest and accurate assessment of the time which would actually be
served by a person convicted of a crime. Mr. Huber noted that SB
67 was consistent with the Victim's Rights Constitutional Amendment
that was passed by the legislature and ratified by popular vote in
1994.
MR. HUBER advised members that their bill packets included a
sponsor statement, sectional analysis and various letters of
support. He pointed out that the bill was heard on Senate side in
the State Affairs, Judiciary and Finance committees, and passed the
full body by a vote of 20 to 0 on March 13, 1967
MR. HUBER advised members the proposed legislation was fairly
straight forward and he would provide a brief overview if the
Chairman would like.
Number 2283
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ gathered that the intent of the proposed
legislation was for the purpose of protecting victims to ensure
that they know when defendants were going to be released from state
custody.
MR. HUBER explained that the intent of the bill was to make sure
the public had a more accurate assessment of time actually served
when a sentence is handed down by the court.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if one of the components was to know
when a defendant was going to be released.
MR. HUBER did not know if the bill expressly stated that. He
advised members that the intent was merely that when a sentence is
rendered by the court that the public, the victims and those
affected would have an understanding of what the actual minimum
time required to serve would be under the imposed sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what Mr. Huber's understanding was
of how sentences were currently rendered.
MR. HUBER felt that was a fairly broad question and asked if
Representative Berkowitz could narrow it down some.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that it appeared that the whole
point of the bill was that judges were not saying enough in court,
and he was curious to know what the sponsor thought judges were
saying in court that would necessitate the proposed legislation.
MR. HUBER advised members that it was the Senator's understanding
that when a judge imposed a sentence that the length of time
necessary to serve depended on whether there was a mandatory
sentence for the crime committed, and other variables, but the
judge basically passed a sentence down of "X" amount of time. He
noted that qualifiers were included, suspension of a portion of the
sentence, concurrent sentences, et cetera. What was not being
disclosed, at the time of sentence, was what the minimum amount of
time would be when considering things such as mandatory or
discretionary parole. Mr. Huber advised members that was the
intent of the proposed legislation, to make sure the minimum, or
actual amount of time that could possibly be served be a part of
the information relayed to the people in the courtroom at the time
of sentencing.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that it was also imposed that an individual
could not be released prior to serving two thirds of his/her
sentence, or greater than one third time paroled.
MR. HUBER advised members that the bill did nothing to change how
current sentences were imposed, or existing mandatory or
discretionary parole provisions. It merely brought some sunshine
into the process of what those sentences would compute into when
considering mandatory and discretionary parole provisions.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if, currently, people who had been convicted
of a crime would be required to serve at least two thirds of the
sentence handed down by the courts.
MR. HUBER stated that, currently, people convicted of a crime were
eligible to receive credit for good time, which was one third of
the imposed sentence. He explained that discretionary parole
provided the opportunity for criminals to be released prior to the
time of a mandatory parole, which could be substantially less than
the two thirds requirement.
Number 2430
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that she did not completely understand
mandatory and discretionary parole; however, she did understand
what the legislation was purporting to accomplish. Representative
James advised members that her concern was if a judge imposed a
long sentence, but then after considering all the variables that
had to be relayed to the audience in the courtroom that the
individual could be released within a much lesser time period than
the original sentence, would more than likely distress people a
lot. Representative James assumed that was why the courts did not
provide all that information at the time of sentencing.
MR. HUBER advised members that was exactly the situation the
sponsor was attempting to address. Senator Halford believed that
the public ought to know what the sentences that were being passed
down translated into under the current parole provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES believed there were cases when the state's
correctional facilities were full, and in order to accommodate that
problem, select individuals would be paroled early in order to free
up bed space. She pointed out that she believed the department
provided early releases within the framework of what is, or what
was not allowed, although sometimes she felt that a much earlier
release could take place than anyone ever anticipated.
TAPE 97-58, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that once a defendant is
sentenced, he/she is under the custody of the Department of
Corrections and they have control over release by parole. He
advised members that a convicted person is required to serve two
thirds of his/her sentence, at which time the individual would be
eligible for good time; however, pointed out that good time could
be taken away by the department for various reasons.
Representative Berkowitz stated with respect to a three year
sentence, the person would be illegible for parole in two years,
but if the prisoner messed up in some manner, he/she would be
required to serve the full imposed sentence of three years.
MR. HUBER advised members it was his understanding that that
computation was actually made by the Department of Corrections at
the time they receive the prisoner after the sentence had been
imposed. He stated that good time was basically an automatic
credit on account. Mr. Huber noted that there was the opportunity
to remove the good time, if a person conducted some type of
misbehavior while incarcerated. Mr. Huber stated that the
Department of Corrections also had the authority to reinstate the
person's good time after it had been removed.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members it was his understanding that
it would be possible to compute and advise a victim at the time of
sentencing what the earliest release date could be, although it
would not necessarily be the exact time because of the department's
ability to take away good time earned because of behavior problems.
Number 77
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the fiscal note in the amount
of $715,000, and asked what those funds would be expended towards.
He asked, because it was federal money, if it had been marked for
a specific use.
MR. HUBER advised members it was federal money that was available
through Federal Truth in Sentencing construction funds for prison
facilities. He noted that the current fiscal note, prepared by the
Senate Finance Committee, reflected a $650,000 possible capture of
federal funds. Mr. Huber advised members that those federal funds
would require a 10 percent match, which would be $65,000 in general
funds, leaving $715,000 that would be available to the legislature
to appropriate towards the construction of correctional facilities,
if they so chose to accept and appropriate those funds.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that was a three year program.
MR. HUBER advised members there were three years left in that
program, and the estimate of $650,000 was the amount that the state
of Alaska would have qualified for had the provision and the
language included in section 2 of the bill been in place. He noted
that it was possible that that amount would be reduced from
$650,000, over time, as other states qualify for those funds.
Number 133
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was pleased to see a positive fiscal note,
especially in the Department of Corrections, of which he was a
member of the budget subcommittee. He asked if the court, upon
sentencing, had the duty to inform the victim of the defendant's
release date.
MR. HUBER advised members that as he understood the procedure, a
sentence was imposed both orally and within a sentencing report
that was a document of the courts and available to the victims;
however, he knew of no specific mandate for the court to supply
that information to the victims.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that as the legislature expands
on the issue of victim's rights a problem had surfaced as to who
really was the victim.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER saw nothing in the bill that would require
any specific notifications other than providing an explanation of
the sentence at the time the sentence was rendered and recorded.
Number 206
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked for clarification of the fiscal note and
the $650,000.
MR. HUBER advised members that the Department of Corrections had
prepared a fiscal note that did reflect the $65,000 match and
expenditures, and showed a $715,000 capital expenditure. He stated
that the problem that the Senate Finance Committee had was that it
was not yet determined by the legislature whether they should
receive and expend those funds, so the Senate Finance Committee did
not feel comfortable with committing to that in the fiscal note.
Mr. Huber advised members that the analogy on page two of the
fiscal note would explain that.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if what was being said was that the
state did not know where they would spend those funds, but knew
they would likely be received.
MR. HUBER advised members that there were guidelines as to where,
or how those funds could be spent, which was for the construction
or renovation of correctional facilities that would result in
providing additional bed space.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if that would include any capital
expenditure relative to a correctional facility.
MR. HUBER noted that Margot Knuth, with the Department of Law,
could address those questions specifically.
Number 318
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, advised members there was a violent offender
incarceration and truth in sentencing incentive grant program that
the Department of Justice made available to states. She explained
that the state of Alaska had not qualified for the truth in
sentencing part of the grant program yet. Ms. Knuth pointed out
that there had been a recent change made by the federal department
that would make it easier for states to qualify. She advised
members that previously, in order to qualify for truth in
sentencing funds, the state would have had to increase the amount
of time that the state's prisoners serve from two thirds of the
sentence, to 85 percent.
MS. KNUTH pointed out that truth in sentencing still required that
a prisoner serve 85 percent of their sentence, but the Department
of Justice had changed that to say that the 85 percent of the
prison sentence was just the sentence of actual incarceration time
and the state would not have to include supervised release time,
which was what Alaska had with the mandatory parole system for
anyone with a sentence of over two years. Ms. Knuth advised
members that was termed the "Minnesota Exception"; the way of
bifurcating a sentence in statute, but did not change how long
state prisoners would actually serve.
MS. KNUTH stated that the funds were to be used to reduce
overcrowding or increase bed space which could be done in many
different ways. She explained that existing facilities could be
renovated, and there was a provision that allowed sharing with
municipalities; the theory being that a municipality would do
something with their misdemeanants that would free up some bed
space for the violent felons. Ms. Knuth stated that those funds
could also be used for expansion planning purposes, but it had to
be a capital expenditure, not used for operating expenses.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it could be used in some manner for the
prisoners that had been sent outside Alaska.
MS. KNUTH advised members that there was a provision for using
privatized facilities. The theory there, again, was that it would
free up some hard beds in Alaska for other offenders.
CHAIRMAN GREEN believed the Arizona facility involved an operating
expense, rather than a capital expense.
MS. KNUTH agreed, and that was why the booklet containing all the
criteria was as thick as it was. Ms. Knuth advised members that
based on the status of the proposed legislation that currently the
state could apply for those funds before the upcoming deadline
date, and the federal government would then look to see whether the
legislation was enacted and the state would be considered, at that
point, whether Alaska would qualify or not. Ms. Knuth pointed out
that the question was how many more states were doing the same
thing as Alaska, simultaneously, for qualification of those funds.
She noted that there were only 17 states that qualified last year,
and as the number of states increase, the pot of money that was
being distributed would dissipate a little bit.
MS. KNUTH pointed out that Alaska had just been approached by one
of the small states in the east who would like to work on creating
a floor, or a minimum amount that each state could get, which would
be of tremendous assistance to the state of Alaska. She stated
that it would not cost the states like California and Florida that
much because they were getting so much money, but it could bring
Alaska into the $1 million to $2 million range.
Number 538
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the intent of the federal
matching funds was to provide more rights to the victims of a
crime.
MS. KNUTH advised members the intent was to foster protection of
the public, and victims were some of the most interested persons in
the state's criminal justice system.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out there was other proposed
legislation which dealt with the victim notification system, and he
felt that possibly added some teeth to SB 67. The other
legislation provided for notification of the victim when the
prisoner was going to be released, and Representative Berkowitz
asked if the implementation of the victim notification system would
qualify as renovation under the federal scheme.
MS. KNUTH did not believe the federal funds could be used in that
manner because it specifically requires those funds be applied
towards capital expenditures to increase bed space within the
prison system.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Minnesota had the same type of system as
Alaska which included an automatic probation or release date.
MS. KNUTH advised members that Minnesota did have the same type of
system and explained that at the conference, there was a panel of
three different ways that states with determinant sentencing could
qualify, and sitting right in the middle was Minnesota to assist
states like Alaska to realize that there had been a change and
could now qualify for those funds. She stated that it was a part
of the executive branch's decision, on the federal level, that they
did not have an interest in coercing the state to increase the
length of time that Alaska prisoners stay incarcerated because that
was terribly expensive. Ms. Knuth advised members that if the
state was required to go from 66 percent to 85 percent of sentences
for Alaska prisoners, that the price tag on that would never
motivate the state to participate; however, she pointed out that
truth in sentencing, in itself, was a good goal because there were
misconceptions about how long a person would be incarcerated.
Number 690
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the booklet Ms. Knuth had and
referred to page 7, it stated that in order to receive a grant the
state would have to certify by October 26, 1997, that the state had
adopted policies that provide for the rights and needs of crime
victims. It went on to say that the state should provide notice to
victims concerning case and offender status. Representative Croft
pointed out that the state would have to certify, by October, that
it was notifying victims of the status of their offender, of which
he assumed most importantly would be the release date.
MS. KNUTH stated that was correct and was a statutory and
constitutional obligation that the Executive now had, and the state
was fulfilling that obligation through paralegals and district
attorneys offices, as well as through the Department of Corrections
when a victim provides the information that they want to be
notified of the offender's release date.
MS. KNUTH advised members that an automated victim notification
system would have the advantage because you could input the
information and it then calls a phone number repeatedly for a
period of several days until the right code is entered in to
provide that information. She said another part of that system
came with a 900 phone number that costs $1.80 for the first minute
and 95 cents a minute thereafter that would allow anyone to call
the number to find out if a particular person was incarcerated,
where at and what their release date was at that time, and that
could relieve the state of the burden of having to provide that
type of information. Ms. Knuth expressed that the department was
receiving over 400 calls a day requesting information about who was
in custody, where they were incarcerated and when would they be
released. Ms. Knuth stated if the department were to receive over
500 calls a day, the requestor would have to pay a fee for that
information, and that charge would be enough to cover the expense
of implementing an automated victim notification program.
Number 830
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wanted to make the argument that a capital
expenditure for equipment to notify victims could in some cases, be
a way to save bed space. He pointed out that there had been a lot
of discussion about moving certain classes of offenders into
halfway houses and saving money through that method.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that there had been some controversy on
that issue because in halfway houses there was more of a potential
for the offender to walk away and commit a crime. Representative
Croft stated that if an offender were released to a soft bed, which
would free up hard bed space, and the victim was notified of the
release date from a soft bed facility, that that would be a method
of reducing prison overcrowding.
MS. KNUTH felt there was merit to the argument presented by
Representative Croft; however, the federal grant program specified
how those funds could be utilized and it would be necessary to use
those funds for construction purposes, either through remodeling
existing facilities, or building new facilities. She added that
she would be glad to look further into the suggestion made by
Representative Croft.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to report CSSB 67(JUD) out of committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
Representative Berkowitz objected for the purpose of discussion.
Number 962
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed that the bill, in its present
form, did not provide for much more than what already happened in
court, and he felt that if the state was intent on providing
victims protection and provide notification of an offender's
release date that there was a vehicle for that purpose. He noted
that SB 25 was the victim notification bill and he might offer an
amendment to CSSB 67(JUD) that would shoehorn in SB 25 where
appropriate. Representative Berkowitz pointed out that both bills
addressed the same topic and consistent with the intent and it
would be at zero cost to the state.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that his concern was that the
amendment appeared to be substantial and members had not had a
chance to review its effect. He noted that the committee had a
standing rule that required advanced notice of proposed amendments
in a timely fashion. Chairman Green pointed out that there was a
motion on the floor and was not sure Representative Berkowitz
proposal fit under the motion before the committee. Chairman Green
stated that Representative Porter could withdraw his motion for the
purpose of discussing the idea put forth by Representative
Berkowitz.
Number 1086
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that Ms. Knuth had expressed that
the state already had a statutory and constitutional requirement to
notify victims presently, and asked if the change would be the
automated program discussed earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that as he understood the
notification process that the Department of Law had a difficult
time in locating people and that it was very time intensive
process. He advised members that the automated system would
eliminate all the wasted labor that was being taken away from
ongoing cases. Representative Berkowitz explained that it would
free up personnel in the Department of Law to pursue current/active
cases, and there would be a greater likelihood of contacting
victims.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER declared a point of order. He pointed out
that what was being discussed was a bill in another committee.
Representative Porter explained that he had discussed, with the
maker of the amendment very briefly, the notion that that might
qualify; however, he felt it would be more appropriately formed
into an amendment, after researching the federal guidelines to see
if it would even qualify, which could occur in the House Finance
Committee, the next committee of referral.
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed with those comments because it was addressing
a finance issue.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG called for the question.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection. There being no
objection, CSSB 67(JUD) was reported out of committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1625
There being nothing further to come before the committee, Chairman
Green adjourned the House Judiciary Committee at 2:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|