Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/30/1999 08:08 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 30, 1999
8:08 AM
TAPES
SFC-99 # 71, Side A and B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair John Torgerson convened the meeting at
approximately 8:08 AM.
PRESENT
Senator John Torgerson, Senator Sean Parnell, Senator Randy
Phillips, Senator Dave Donley, Senator Loren Leman, Senator
Gary Wilken, Senator Al Adams, Senator Pete Kelly and
Senator Lyda Green.
Also Attending:
Senator RICK HALFORD
Attending via Teleconference: From Anchorage: NANCI JONES,
Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department of
Revenue; KAREN CAMPBELL; JANICE LIENHART, Victims for
Justice; SARAH SHORT, Families First; CHARLOTTE PHELPS.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 4-OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS
The committee heard testimony from the sponsor, the
Department of Revenue and took other public testimony. The
bill was held in committee.
SB 100-REIMBURSEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER
This bill was scheduled but not heard.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 4(JUD)
"An Act relating to establishing an office of victims'
rights; relating to compensation of victims of violent
crimes; relating to eligibility for a permanent fund
dividend for persons convicted of and incarcerated for
certain offenses; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules
of Criminal Procedure, Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency
Rules, and Rule 501, Alaska Rules of Evidence."
Senator RICK HALFORD and BRETT HUBER testified to the bill.
Senator Rick Halford told the committee the bill had been
before the Legislature the previous session and passed the
Senate.
The bill was to implement the constitutional amendment,
which was overwhelmingly passed by the voters. It was to
guarantee the rights of victims of crimes. There were a
number of guarantees in the constitution that seemed to
only protect the accused and the victims were often lost in
the process, as they still were, according to Senator Rick
Halford.
He continued by saying this was an effort to insert an
operating entity behind the Advocacy for Victims' Rights.
It would have the ability, the experience and the
opportunity to represent the victim's interest, in a very
technical forum, at a time when they were at their weakest
point in their lives as they were dealing with horrendous
crimes and they needed help. The system was designed with
its own efficiency to deal with everything from plea-
bargains to difference in charges and other technical
changes. The victims needed this help and this legislation
would help.
He noted the difference between this bill and the prior
bill. The only difference was an effort to ensure that the
funding mechanism actually came from the element that
caused the problem - those people who were convicted of the
crime.
Brett Huber addressed the funding mechanism. He pointed out
that it was detailed in Sections 9 and 10. The funding
mechanism was a pool of people found ineligible for
Permanent Fund Dividends because they had either been
convicted or were incarcerated. The change in this bill
would create a broadening of the pool. The pool last year
was $3.9 million, which was a 24% growth rate over the
previous year.
The bill would apply to someone incarcerated for a
misdemeanor sometime during the calendar year of the
qualifying year that was previously convicted of a felony
or two misdemeanors. Current language in statutes said,
"previously convicted of two crimes."
Numbers provided by Department of Corrections gave an
estimate of the 1998-qualifying year how many people would
be added to the pool by calculating 1997 and 1996. There
was a statutory exemption that set the date of how far back
the provision could reach at January 1, 1997. He explained
that the number supplied by the Department of Corrections
used information about felony convictions in the year 1996
as an example to show what could be expected in 1999 using
the years 1997 and 1998 in the calculations. Actual
application would not use the year 1996. However, the
department expected the numbers to remain somewhat constant
with a four-percent annual increase. Approximately $540,000
new dollars would be added to the pool in FY99.
He pointed out that as the legislation was in place, there
would be a longer history to draw from in terms of numbers
of crimes committed by individuals. For example, the year
2000 would contain felony and misdemeanor convictions for
three qualifying years and 2001 would contain four years
worth of convictions.
He summarized that the growth of the fund would accommodate
the initial fiscal notes. Anticipated growth in the future
would provide a surplus.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked about the fiscal note that
showed the $540,000 figure. Brett Huber replied that it
wasn't contained in a fiscal note it was a fiscal analysis
provided by the Department of Corrections.
Co-Chair John Torgerson said he did have a fiscal note from
the Permanent Fund Division that showed $255,000 that
referred to numbers they got from the Department of
Corrections. Brett Huber commented that the Department of
Corrections had difficulty pulling accurate numbers due to
their system set-up. They had reprogrammed their system and
produced another set of numbers they were more comfortable
with. The $255,000 only accounted for one calendar year,
1998. However, if the bill went into effect in 1999, it
would be possible to use 1997 and 1998 as qualifying years.
He calculated the figures to total $440,000. He stressed
that this was an assumption based on the past two years.
Co-Chair John Torgerson wanted to know if it was the
sponsor's intent that the money to authorize this program
would not come from the other two authorized programs and
that this program would generate enough funds by the change
in definition of qualifying convictions. Senator Rick
Halford affirmed and said there would actually be excess
funds.
Senator Sean Parnell pointed out that an already authorized
program was the Crimes Victim's Compensation Commission. He
understood the mission of the Office of Victim's Rights was
to implement the Victim's Rights Amendment. Part of that
Amendment was the right to restitution from the accused and
the rest dealt with the structure of the criminal justice
process. Since the Crime Victim's Compensation Commission
already existed to provide money to the victims, he
wondered if the bill eliminated the commission or merged it
with this new office. If not, why?
Senator Rick Halford replied that this program would not
give money to victims. It would provide representation to
victims since they could not deal with the legal process in
their weak emotional state. He explained the current
system, which was technical and geared toward maximum
output. The victim was lost in that system without some
form of advocacy.
Senator Sean Parnell agreed, but was not addressing that
part of the mission. He was asking about Section 3. Brett
Huber explained that section was incorporated into the
prior bill at the request of Senator Dave Donley. It
increased the caps that the compensation board could pay.
It did not deal with this program.
Senator Al Adams asked if this legislation duplicated
services provided by the Department of Law. Senator Rick
Halford doubted in did terms of advocacy. While the
Department of Law said they tried to consider victim's
rights, victims claimed they were not adequate. He did not
believe the victims were getting their constitutionally
guaranteed protections.
Senator Al Adams then had a question on Sections 9 and 10
that set the provisions for withholding PFD's after
conviction of two misdemeanors. He wondered how would the
program be paid for. Senator Rick Halford explained how
the PFD would be withheld from those with two misdemeanors
or one felony conviction for the qualifying calendar year.
He noted the state had a significant investment in the cost
of the crime long before this point was reached.
Brett Huber clarified that the prisoner did not receive a
dividend and have it confiscated. They were ineligible to
receive it at all; the Permanent Fund Dividend Division and
the Department of Corrections determined who would
otherwise be eligible and the funds would place in the pool
for legislative appropriation to the three programs.
Senator Al Adams then referred to Section 10, the pool and
wanted to know if this program was a priority over the
other programs. Senator Rick Halford stated it was not a
priority.
Senator Loren Leman referred to the example of the earliest
reach-back date of 1997. He was unable to locate that in
the bill. Brett Huber said it was not in the bill but was a
current law.
Senator Loren Leman asked about the fiscal note prepared by
the Legislative Council. He had difficulty with the high
program cost when the Legislature was trying to revise pay
ranges for legislative positions. Did the position need to
be filled at a Range 26A? He noted other costs he felt were
excessive and wondered if this was reasonable. Senator
Rick Halford responded that the qualifications for the
position were comparable to that of a judge. He also noted
that this was in the Legislative Branch and was subject to
the appropriation process. If this program tried to reduce
costs, he felt it would comply with what was recommended.
If the position could be filled at a lower cost, it would
be considered. The fiscal note was up to this committee and
was submitted as a recommendation. It could be changed at
any time in the process, h e stressed.
Senator Loren Leman asked who gave the recommendation.
Brett Huber said it was comparable to attorney salary for
staff in the Department of Law who had similar
responsibility.
Senator Sean Parnell turned the discussion back to the pool
of dividends asking if it would be about $500,000. Brett
Huber affirmed and detailed. Senator Sean Parnell asked
how much the program would need to exist next year. Brett
Huber said there was a real chance there would be no impact
in the FY00 budget. He detailed the process of collection
of the funds for appointing the victims advocate. It was
possible the bill could be adopted and the advocate no put
into place this year. Other costs included start up costs
for supplies and equipment and on-going costs of about
$450,000. Senator Sean Parnell calculated that would leave
about $90,000 in the pool. He asked if there were any
numbers on the expanded Crime Victims Compensation
Commission, and if that would use up the remaining funds.
Brett Huber responded that the pool was growing all ready
and he detailed the amounts in the fund. He added that
there were also federal funds accumulating.
Senator Gary Wilken referred to testimony that this would
be revenue neutral. He did not see that. Brett Huber
pointed out the document. Senator Gary Wilken asked how
did that figure was reached. Brett Huber detailed the
calculations of the amounts commenting that they tried to
use the safest assumption. Senator Gary Wilken asked where
the 1997 figures came from. Brett Huber read the
information and explained.
Senator Loren Leman recalled a discussion to take the PFDs
from those convicted of a misdemeanor during the time
Senator Frank was in the Legislature. He asked if the bill
considered multiple convictions. Brett Huber said it did
and the bill would amend statute to include one felony and
two misdemeanors.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if there were any questions
of the Department of Corrections. There were none.
NANCI JONES, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
Department of Revenue, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. She concurred with the testimony stated earlier.
She clarified that this would be the first reporting year
of those convicted of a misdemeanor crime. Therefore, their
figures as the contribution to the fund were only
estimates.
Co-Chair John Torgerson noted the division's fiscal note
differed from that of the Department of Corrections and he
asked for comment. Nanci Jones responded that the division
looked back only to 1997. The Department of Corrections
looked back two years to 1996 to get their estimate. She
detailed how the figures would be calculated were the bill
to pass.
Co-Chair John Torgerson had another question stating that
the money went to fund four programs, including this if it
were adopted. He wanted to know if the program ran short of
funds how would the division prorate where the money would
go to cover the costs of the programs? Nanci Jones answered
that Office of Management and Budget made those decisions
and she detailed the process. Co-Chair John Torgerson said
if Office of Management and Budget was distributing the
funds there should be a provision to prevent them from
shorting the Legislative process.
Senator Rick Halford commented that he thought the
statement claiming that the Office of Management and Budget
appropriated the funds was interesting and clarified that
the Legislature really had oversight.
Senator Gary Wilken asked what was the number of the fiscal
note referred to with the $250,000. Co-Chair John Torgerson
said it was number 8 and the figure was contained in an
attachment to the fiscal note. That was were his confusion
came from, until Ms. Jones explained. Senator Gary Wilken
wondered if the cover page of fiscal note # 8 should say
something other than zero. Co-Chair John Torgerson said
the note directed to the attachment. While the program
would cost them zero, it did generate funds.
Senator Gary Wilken referred to page 11 line 23 and tried
to get a sense of what that change meant. In order to
forfeit a PFD, a person had to first be incarcerated at
some point during the year and be incarcerated as a result
of conviction of two misdemeanors. He wondered if a person
could have a speeding ticket and then serve three days for
drunk driving and qualify under the program. Brett Huber
explained that a speeding ticket was a violation not a
misdemeanor. Senator Gary Wilken asked what were
misdemeanors. Brett Huber referred him to AS 11.81.900,
which listed misdemeanors.
Senator Pete Kelly gave an example [inaudible].
There was further discussion to clarify the crimes
pertinent to the provisions of the bill.
Senator Al Adams pointed out that there were two types of
misdemeanors, A and B. He wondered if this bill
distinguished between the two. He spoke of rural residents
loosing their permanent fund dividend. Brett Huber
understood the discussion but noted that all of this was in
current law, this bill just added one felony to the list.
The committee began hearing public testimony.
KAREN CAMPBELL, whose eight-year-old daughter was raped and
murdered, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
testified that she had been victimized by the criminal
justice system and told of her experience. She said she was
not alone and told stories of others victimized by the
system. She said one attorney in the Department of Law
would be unable to perform the duties, mistakes would be
justified within the department. She felt the position
needed to be separate. She implored the committee to adopt
SB 4.
JANICE LIENHART, representing Victims for Justice,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She stressed
that there needed to representation for victims. This bill
would provide assistance. She spoke to the adopted
constitutional amendment saying, "Laws without recourse
were worthless."
Senator Loren Leman appreciated her work over the years
done on a limited budget. He asked what her organization
could have done with the half million dollars. Janice
Lienhart responded that her organization helped the victims
but had no power to enforce complaints when the victim's
rights were violated. She said a separate attorney was
necessary. Her office would help with that.
SARA SHORT, representing Families First and the sister of a
murder victim, testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
She fully supported the bill. She and her infant niece were
victimized by the system and that there was no
accountability for the system. She asked why agencies had
more protection than the victims.
CHAROLETTE PHELPS, Victim's Advocate for Justice [?], and
the victim of a violent crime, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage. She testified in support of SB 4. She took
exception to language on page 1 line 13, which said the
court could limit the number of victims allowed to testify
in sentencing hearings. She found that disturbing since it
infringed on victim's rights. She said it could not be
determined how many victims were affected by a particular
crime. A crime affected each victim differently and input
was needed from all the victims in establishing a sentence.
She stated she thought this was a model bill other states
could use.
Senator Dave Donley made a historical note telling the
committee that provision was part of a compromise reached
by the Legislature and the Cowper Administration.
Tape: SFC - 99 #71, Side B 8:55 AM
Senator Dave Donley continued his statement.
Senator Randy Phillips asked if the current administration
had been contacted for comment. Senator Dave Donley had
not, but noted there were policy arguments for both sides.
There were concerns that if all the survivors of a murder
victim came to testify, it could clog up the court process.
This provision was to prevent that and have the victims
chose a spokesperson. Some judges had abused this and
others had been very considerate of the victims. He felt
the judges who abused victims could have the information
made public. The language would be fine if the judicial
system exercised some restraints.
Senator Randy Phillips asked Charlotte Phelps about her
experience. Charlotte Phelps said in her experience there
were several victims. The judge did not limit the number
of speakers but set a total time limit so each person was
unable to say everything they wanted. She knew of other
situations where the judge ruled that only certain victims
could speak. She suggested adding "reasonable".
Senator Randy Phillips said he would offer an amendment to
reflect her suggestion.
Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee.
ADJOURNED
Senator Torgerson recessed the meeting at 9:03 AM.
SFC-99 (10) 3/30/99
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|