Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
11/10/2017 08:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Sb 54 and Fiscal Notes | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION
November 10, 2017
8:09 a.m.
8:09:10 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Natasha von Imhof
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Sponsor, Senate Bill 54; Jordan
Shilling, Staff, Senator John Coghill; John Skidmore,
Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Walt
Monegan, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety; Quinlan
Steiner, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court
System; Susanne DiPietro, Director, Alaska Judicial
Council, Advisor, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission;
Shawnda O'Brien, Assistant Commissioner, Finance Management
Services, Department of Health and Social Services; Senator
Tom Begich; Senator Bert Stedman; Representative Andy
Josephson; Representative Gabrielle LeDoux; Senator Cathy
Giessel.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Dean Williams, Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
Ohio; April Wilkerson, Admin Services Director, Department
of Corrections, Juneau.
SUMMARY
^OVERVIEW: SB 54 and FISCAL NOTES
8:10:21 AM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, SENATE BILL 54, introduced
himself.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted the legislators in the gallery.
Senator Coghill acknowledged his wife's birthday. He stated
that SB 54 was originally a 16 page bill and had increased
to a 46 page bill. He stated that the Senate had passed the
bill with 25 sections with six major policies. The bill had
returned to the Senate with 84 sections and 24 major
policies. He stated that there were 113 amendments offered
on the floor, and 28 passed.
Senator Coghill explained the policies in the latest
version of the bill.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked that sections be identified. Senator
Coghill replied that he did not have the ability to
identify the sections as he addressed the major policies.
He stated that he could provide the amendments.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that the committee had an
amendment summary and the department would address the
issues following his testimony.
Senator Coghill continued to address the policies in the
bill.
8:19:07 AM
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, stated that
there was a change in the mental state required to
prosecute an individual for riding in a stolen car. He
stated that, under current law, the mental state was
"knowingly." That was reduced to "with criminal
negligence", which was the lowest culpable mental state in
statute.
Senator Coghill completed the policy changes. He noted that
there were some major changes. He announced that some of
the changes were easily acceptable, and some were
problematic.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried additional comments. Mr.
Schilling replied that he did not have additional comments.
Senator Stevens wondered whether there were constitutional
concerns. Senator Coghill replied that the class C felon
was the most problematic because it overlapped class D
felons. He stated that there was a due process concern. The
read, "the end result of the overlap could be that the
court, reverting the sentence scheme in place to a law made
previously." He restated that there was a substantive due
process issue in an overlapping sentence where the lower
crime may have a higher penalty than the higher crime. He
deferred to the Department of Law for more information. He
felt that the issue would be a litigated.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted some additional legislators in the
room.
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, stated that the Department of Law did see any
additional fiscal impact because of the changes. He stated
that the tramadol amendment might give the Department of
Law additional cases, but those would be absorbed into the
department.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that the bill was not an
appropriation bill. She stated that there were not genuine
fiscal notes. She remarked that Alaskans were not feeling
safe, so the prosecution of criminals was important. She
furthered that, due to the current fiscal situation, there
was an expectation that all departments do the best they
can with their available resources. She remarked the
appropriation bill would come from the governor's budget or
in the form of a supplemental request for consideration in
the next legislative cycle. She stressed that all the
fiscal notes were in draft form in anticipation of actions
by the governor in a future budget.
8:25:26 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried more information on the fiscal
note. Mr. Skidmore replied that the Department of Law
fiscal note was a zero fiscal note. He agreed to discuss
the changes. He announced that he would address the House
additions to the bill, rather than the changes to the
adopted policies.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at Fiscal Note 8, OMB 2202.
Mr. Skidmore stated that Section 1 addressed the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission working with law enforcement to
train them on criminal justice reform efforts. He stated
that it was a legislative intent section, so there was no
fiscal note for the Department of Law. The increase in
felony property threshold for behaviors like theft and
criminal mischief was decreased from $1000 to $750. He
stated that those cases would be evaluated and prosecuted,
regardless of the threshold. He announced that Department
of Law did not support the reduction in the threshold, but
the change did not affect the fiscal impact for the
Department of Law. He stated that the changing of the
threshold was found in Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. He stated that joyriding was
found in Section 12. The change altered the mental state
from "knowing" to "criminal negligence." He stressed that
cases referred to the Department of Law for joyriding were
still evaluated. The change in the mental state would not
have a fiscal impact on the Department of Law. He looked at
Section 13, which was a mandatory 25 hours of community
work service for criminal mischief. He stated that a
mandatory minimum of criminal mischief would not impact
whether there was prosecution. He looked at Sections 24 and
25, which was addition to the controlled substances. He
stated that Department of Law supported that addition. He
announced that Department of Law did not see a fiscal
impact with that addition. He looked at Section 26, which
added certain C felonies to the list of crimes for which a
person may be held for up to 48 hours to assess the flight
risk or danger of that individual before they were released
on bail. That addition also did not have a fiscal impact on
the Department of Law. He addressed Section 27, which was
referred to as the "Sober Law." The provision gave the
Supreme Court the authority or requirement to set as a
condition in a bail schedule that someone not be released
until that person sobered up. The amendment defined
"sobered up" to a 0.08 percent blood alcohol level, or
until a third party was able to provide care. He stated
that there was no fiscal note for the Department of Law,
although he encouraged a discussion with the Department of
Corrections (DOC) about that issue. He looked at the issue
that eliminated administrative parole, which were addressed
in a number of sections. He stated that the elimination of
administrative parole had no fiscal impact on the
Department of Law.
8:30:59 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop asked for a restatement of the definition
of "sobered up." Mr. Skidmore replied that the sober law
allowed for the Supreme Court to set a bail schedule with a
condition that said, "an individual who was arrested for a
crime related to alcohol, and at the time the person is
arrested that person is under the influence of alcohol,
that person should not be released until one of two
conditions has been met: A) they are below a 0.08 percent
blood alcohol level, or B) there was a third person capable
of providing care to that individual with consent."
Vice-Chair Bishop surmised that someone with below a 0.08
percent blood alcohol level could drive away. Mr. Skidmore
replied that 0.08 percent was the legal limit in the state
for driving. He stated that he did not want to
categorically say that it was permissible for a person to
drive at that rate, because there was a subsection of the
DUI statute that addressed whether a person was impaired to
drive. He stated that alcohol could affect different people
differently. He remarked that some people could have a
blood alcohol level of below 0.08 who should not drive. He
furthered that the law stated that if a person was below
0.08, there was a legal threshold that no one should drive
above that level.
Vice-Chair Bishop surmised that the bail officer or the
court would make that recommendation whether the person
could drive. He stated that the limit for a commercial
vehicle was 0.04 percent blood alcohol level. Mr. Skidmore
agreed. He stated that the 0.08 percent that the other body
inserted was in response to concerns about a condition that
courts would impose before the criminal justice reform. He
stated that some courts would set a condition that said
that a person should not be released until they were sober.
He remarked that after the criminal justice reform, there
was an examination of authority for issuing that condition.
He explained that there was concern that there was not a
statutory legal authority to impose such a condition, so
the courts no longer used that condition.
8:35:53 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that there was a process in
place to address that issue. Mr. Skidmore replied in the
affirmative, but there was no final decision on the issue.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that the documents were
available online. She requested that there be an
explanation of whether the amendments reverted to before SB
91, or whether there was an increase in crime in statute.
Mr. Skidmore explained that the threshold was the only item
that went backwards. He restated that the Department of Law
did not support that change. He stated that there were
several subsections related to administrative parole.
Co-Chair Hoffman looked at the Class C felonies, where
there was no a differentiation between first, second, and
third-time felonies. He wondered whether the administration
supported the house version related to Class C felonies. He
remarked that some of his constituents felt that the change
from zero to 90 days, and the amount was important to
consider. He stressed that his constituents represented
approximately 17 percent of the population, but 60 percent
of the population in the criminal system.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that the committee was not
debating SB 54.
Co-Chair Hoffman felt that it was an important point
because the bill was specifically on the call from the
governor.
8:42:43 AM
Mr. Skidmore stressed that the Senate passed zero to one-
year for a Class C felony, which was requested by
prosecutors and law enforcement. He stated that the
Department of Law did not support the House version.
Senator Stevens queried more information about a lower
crime having a higher penalty. Mr. Skidmore replied that
the sentences should follow the severity of the crime.
Senator Micciche referred to a question about changes that
became law before SB 91. He used the example of petty
theft, and increased sentences. He asked if the list had
expanded from what was stated earlier.
Mr. Skidmore explicated that he had referred to changes
pertaining to amendments made by the other body. Theft
sentences would be rolled back further than had been set by
the committee earlier.
Senator Micciche clarified that there were aspects of the
amended SB 54 that needed work, but he did not like the
term "moving backwards.
8:47:37 AM
Mr. Skidmore noted that the elimination of administrative
parole did not have an impact on the Department of Law. He
stated that clarifying that a person not be released on
electronic monitoring after conviction, but prior to
sentencing had no fiscal impact on the Department of Law.
He stated that adding six months before a probation or
parole officer was required to make a recommendation for
termination did not have a fiscal impact on the Department
of Law. The increase in the presumptive range for a class A
felony, when a first responder was the victim, did not have
a fiscal impact on the Department of Law. He stated that
there were a few others, but stressed that the changes did
not have a fiscal impact on the Department of Law.
Co-Chair MacKinnon felt that the Senate version of the bill
was tougher on crime. She understood the concern that C
felonies were treated differently.
8:50:08 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that there was a sliding scale
for a judge on the Class C felonies. Mr. Skidmore replied
that a Class C felony had a maximum of five years in jail.
He stated that a first-time C felony, under the House
version, would allow for the judge's discretion for zero to
two years. He stated that a second-time C felony would be
one to four years, with the judge's discretion. He stated
that a third or more offense would be two to five years. He
explained that each of the ranges could be further adjusted
based on aggravators or mitigators.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that a judge used their
discretion to apply the law based on the circumstances of
an individual case. She wondered whether the same exercise
was available for a judge on a Class B felony. Mr. Skidmore
replied that a first B felony was zero to five years under
current law. He explained that the same range for Classes B
and C created a problem. He felt that there should be a
tiered structure, so that a lower level crime had a lower
tier than the higher level crimes. He stressed that it was
a policy matter. He shared that the administration
recommended the Senate version, which was zero to one year.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that she had received complaints
from people who felt that it was unfair to have the same
sentence for each level of felony, because the judge would
ultimately make the determination. Mr. Skidmore stressed
that there was a legal issue to having the sentence level
the same in statute. He hoped that the legislature would
find a tiered structure to avoid litigation.
8:55:34 AM
Senator Micciche shared that he had researched Title 11 and
Title 12. He had never seen so many notes and decisions in
precedence, and stressed that criminal law was not a simple
matter. He felt that many aspects of the changes could
result in a challenge, even though the Class C changes
seemed more likely to be challenged. Mr. Skidmore replied
that it was correct to say that defendants in a criminal
case could challenge any law. He stated that it did not
necessarily mean that there was an issue within the law. He
was attempting to make the distinction that the same
sentencing range for Class B and C felony was a problem.
Senator Olson shared that there was a fear that the ACLU
would file a lawsuit. He furthered that the legislature was
motivated by public outcry. He remarked that the judicial
system was less affected by the political motivations. He
wondered why the courts should not make that determination.
Mr. Skidmore replied that it was the prerogative to set the
laws. He stressed that he always wanted to avoid
litigation.
9:00:17 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that almost 10 percent of the
House were attorneys. She had confidence that they had
thoroughly though through their votes.
Mr. Skidmore remarked that there was a requirement that the
Judicial Council and the Commission study risk factors for
criminal activity. He continued to address the fiscal
impacts.
9:06:05 AM
Senator von Imhof wondered whether it was important to
address the Class C felonies directly through statute at
the beginning of session, thereby avoiding a lawsuit. Mr.
Skidmore replied that the litigation would already begin
between the current day and the upcoming session. He
stressed that the legislature did not normally have an easy
process.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the DOL had been asked
the questions in the other body related to the Class C
felonies. Mr. Skidmore replied that he was never asked
whether it would be constitutional or have problems.
Co-Chair MacKinnon restated that there were four attorneys
on the House floor.
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered whether Mr. Skidmore was a member
of the Commission. Mr. Skidmore replied that he was not a
member of the Commission. He provided advice to the
Attorney General.
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered whether any of the issues on the
House floor were addressed by the Commission.
9:11:23 AM
WALT MONEGAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
introduced himself. He announced that he was a member of
the Commission, and there were many days of debate. He
remarked that the issue of the Class C felony was an
animated discussion. He stated that he had submitted a
suggestion that it be one year. He stated that the police
officers and state troopers who had the first contact with
the aggressors and victims.
9:16:37 AM
Commissioner Monegan highlighted the "sober law." He
stressed that the individuals were always entitled to the
constitutional rights, and were not guilty until proven to
be so. He noted that there was a tragic incident where a
person died, because they were released while intoxicated.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at Fiscal Note 9, OMB 2325, which
was a zero fiscal note. She wondered whether there the
troopers implementing the law. Commissioner Monegan replied
in the affirmative.
9:20:02 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that the Courts should be able
prosecute based on the current bill. Mr. Skidmore agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether people could be held
accountable for bad actions. Mr. Skidmore replied in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that the committee was not
debating SB 54.
Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that the Commission had spent
many hours on the issue. He pointed out that there were
issues in SB 91 that were attempting to address in SB 54.
He stressed that the legislature knew that additional
issues needed to be addressed. He wondered whether the
issues on the House floor without public hearings could be
better addressed by the Commission. Commissioner Monegan
agreed, and explained that the commission meetings were
open to the public.
Co-Chair Hoffman agreed that the issues should have
received more considerable debate and public input.
Commissioner Monegan explained that if litigation defaulted
to SB 91 there would be a continued period of time of
intense criminal activity.
9:25:03 AM
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
OHIO (via teleconference), introduced himself.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at the draft fiscal note from the
Department of Corrections (DOC). She remarked that it was
an extensive four page fiscal note.
Commissioner Williams shared that there were a number of
changes in the current bill. He stressed that there would
be undoubted fiscal impacts to the department. He shared
that some of the changes would increase costs.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for information about Section 27.
Commissioner Williams stated that there was a working group
to address the issue. He stressed that there was not yet a
consensus on the issue. He wanted to let the process finish
in the working group.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether Commissioner Williams
wanted to address the fiscal note.
Commissioner Williams deferred to Ms. Wilkerson.
9:29:51 AM
APRIL WILKERSON, ADMIN SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, JUNEAU (via teleconference), referred to the
draft fiscal analysis that included all of the House
changes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon agreed.
Ms. Wilkerson stated that it was an indeterminate fiscal
note.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that the committee had the
draft fiscal note. She understood that the House provided
different fiscal notes.
Ms. Wilkerson explained that the indeterminate draft fiscal
analysis carried a range of impact that the changes would
have on DOC incarcerated population. She shared that the
department anticipated from 108 persons per day to 208
persons per day, however that number could be impacted by
elements of SB 91 that had not been implemented or fully
implemented such as the pre-trial division and diversion
situations that were continuing to be developed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to understand the fiscal note.
Ms. Wilkerson explained the fiscal note.
9:37:40 AM
Ms. Wilkerson continued to explain the fiscal note.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether there was data to
support the 75 average case load. Ms. Wilkerson deferred to
Commissioner Williams.
Commissioner Williams explained that it was a
recommendation from the other body.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether there was a state
average or national average for case load. Commissioner
Williams replied that there was some national data from
other states, which he believed was the basis for the other
recommendation from the House.
Co-Chair MacKinnon did some calculations related to parole
work and case load. He wondered whether there was a typical
or broad situation. Commissioner Williams responded that it
was very broad.
9:45:30 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that she had been told that the
language was odd, because it said, "the average." She noted
that there was a cap, but there could be management based
on the language included by the House. She queried
continued comments on the fiscal note. Ms. Wilkerson
replied that she summarized the fiscal impact.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the House actions could
be implemented, keep people in jail, or correctly monitor
those individuals. Commissioner Williams replied that DOC
would do the best possible to manage whatever they were
given. He stressed that the changes would drive the costs
further, and remarked that if there may be more people in
the system with the same amount of money. He stressed that
it was his job to keep the prisons safe. He did not want an
untenable situation because of lack of funding.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that any implementation costs
would come in the budget proposal or a supplemental budget.
9:51:08 AM
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, introduced himself. He stated
that he had been a member of the Commission from its
inception. He stated that the recommendations rolled back
some of the reforms and initiative that were originally
recommended. He stated that the fiscal impact of the
changes put an upward pressure on costs. He remarked that
increasing penalties increased the amount of work necessary
to review the case to become comfortable with negotiations.
9:57:12 AM
Mr. Steiner noted that he was concerned with the "sober
law." He felt that it could create a situation where there
was not a good relation between the 0.08 level and a
person's safe release on their own. He stated that there
may be a situation where a person could not drive, but that
does not mean that a person could not care for themselves
and going home. He addressed the concern about a situation
where people were detoxing in custody, which may not be the
best and most appropriate place to detox. He stressed that
it was the reason that the Commission had an entire
subcommittee on that one issue. He remarked that it had
broad participation including health care providers. He
stressed that the issue crossed a number of statutory
schemes. He shared that the preferred method was a
commitment proceeding to deal with someone who was
intoxicated to the point where they could not care for
themselves.
10:00:01 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether there was advice
offered to the other body about the issue. Mr. Steiner
replied that he was available in committee and on the
floor. He shared that he answered questions from
representatives throughout the process. He felt that he did
not talk to the floor as a whole. He could not speculate
about what of his comments made and impact.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that some of the concerns were
debated on the House floor. Mr. Steiner replied that some
of the concerns were addressed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the 25-hour issue was
addressed. Mr. Steiner replied that he was not present for
the debate of that issue.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether there was participation
in the earned compliance issue. Mr. Steiner replied that he
could not recall whether he offered comments on that issue.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to understand the House thought
process. She remarked that the Senate had waited 48 hours
to ensure that the administration had time to document any
concerns. She stressed that there was an indication by some
that the process moving too quickly. She remarked that
there were some residents of Alaska who felt that
perpetrators had more rights than the victims of the crime.
She wanted to ensure that all were held accountable for
crimes. She queried comments on that issue. Mr. Steiner
stated that he was present for the earned compliance in the
House Finance Committee, and offered comments on that
issue. He understood some of the concerns about the rights
of perpetrators. He stated that he had voted for some of
the recommendations, because the concerns about the
legitimacy and the evenness of the scheme were appropriate.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that "voting" referred to the
Commission. Mr. Steiner agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the issues had been
properly vetted, and not quick decisions. Mr. Steiner
10:05:34 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that the problems that exist as a
result of decisions made late at night regarding the Class
C felonies was problematic, and may have issues related to
the constitution. He felt that reverting to SB 91 may
eliminate the fixes from the Senate. He stressed that the
problems with criminal behavior would continue to exist. He
queried the problems in reverting to the provisions in SB
91 for Class C felonies. Mr. Steiner replied that there
would be litigation unless there would be a resolution. He
stressed that there was a strong argument that it was a
constitutional violation, which could result in striking
that provision. He remarked that the provision did not work
well with the entire scheme.
Co-Chair Hoffman stressed that it was a major issue in
trying to make the correction in SB 54. He hoped to correct
the issue.
10:09:51 AM
Senator von Imhof wondered whether SB 54 statutes would
hold in effect until a lawsuit was settled. Mr. Steiner
replied that the Public Defender Agency would not file a
lawsuit. He stated that motions would be filed in every
case to declare the provision unconstitutional.
Senator von Imhof surmised that SB 54 would be law until
otherwise addressed. Mr. Steiner agreed.
Vice-Chair Bishop requested a meeting about community work
service because he had an idea related to that issue.
Senator Micciche wondered whether criminal law could be
retroactively applied. Mr. Steiner replied that it would
be litigated before sentencing.
Senator Micciche wondered whether the new statute could be
applied retroactively to cases that were in flux between
the current day and passage of new legislation. Mr. Steiner
responded that lowering the penalties retroactively is
probably permissible, but did not normally occur. He stated
that it was normally lowered from current point forward. He
stated that raising penalties retroactively was a clear
violation.
10:14:33 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
announced that the Court System submitted a zero fiscal
note. She stated that, generally, the court was able to
apply any statutory changes to sentences lengths or
definitions of crimes. She noted that a number of
provisions in the bill would affect the Court System. She
felt that there was a virtual promise of litigation of the
Class C felony range, and would have a change on every
Class C felony sentencing until it resolved. She remarked
that it would not be resolved by an individual superior
court felony case, but would likely go to the Supreme
Court. She stated that the first Class C felony in this
form would have lengthy motions on both side, and a judge
would decide the manner with other judges deciding
differently. She remarked that some may decide that the
best result was that the statute be invalided, and revert
to SB 91, in which case that Class C felon first-timer with
no aggravators would be granted probation (SB 91), and
another judge may decide differently. She felt that with
inconsistencies it would reach the Supreme Court. She
remarked that often the legislature would not like the
Supreme Court decision. She looked at Section 27, which
told the Court System that it was required to include in
the bail schedule that the correctional facility shall test
every person due to be released to determine their level of
sobriety, and only release them only if they were below a
0.08 blood alcohol level or if someone was there to provide
care. She stated that the court would take that statutory
direction. She remarked that it involved a court rule
change, and through and oversight there was not court rule
change, nor the two-thirds vote required under the
constitution to make the rule change.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether Ms. Meade had provided
advice that the items be included in the bill. Ms. Meade
replied that she was not in the committee when those
provisions were added in the House Judicial Committee. She
mentioned the problem off the record, and it was not
resolved.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the issue was raised in
the House Finance Committee. Ms. Meade replied that she did
not address the issue in the Finance Committee, and was not
asked the questions in that committee.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether a memo was issued. Ms.
Meade replied that she did not typically issue memos. She
mentioned it to a few people. She felt that it was the
province of Legislative Legal to point out those problems.
Ms. Meade looked at the Community Work Service provision
that passed on the House Floor with very little discussion.
She remarked that the 24 hours of required community work
service could create some problems. She remarked that
community work service was unavailable in some areas of the
state. She stressed that there must be infrastructure or
supervisor to ensure that the service occurred.
10:21:44 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that Legislative Legal should
have advised the House that a court rule change might be
needed, and agreed to take it under consideration.
Senator Stevens wondered whether there was a concern with
maintaining a job while performing community service. Ms.
Meade replied that it was not a Commission recommendation.
She stated that the concern was a policy issue.
10:24:44 AM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, DIRECTOR, ALASKA JUDICIAL COUNCIL,
ADVISOR, ALASKA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION, explained some
recommendations issued by the commission in January 2017
related to SB 91. She stated that the recommendations were
incorporated into SB 54. She remarked that many provisions
were added and changed in the meantime.
Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that his question was answered by
the commissioner.
Ms. DiPietro stated that the Commission recommended zero to
90 days for the first-time Class C felony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon invited someone to explain the fiscal
note.
SHAWNDA O'BRIEN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, FINANCE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES,
explained the fiscal note from Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS).
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that there was an additional zero
fiscal note.
Senator Coghill thanked the committee.
ADJOURNMENT
10:29:20 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 54 DRAFT DOC Fiscal Note 110917.pdf |
SFIN 11/10/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Fiscal Impact of (H) Amendments - Summary for Senate Finance - 11.8.17.pdf |
SFIN 11/10/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Amended House-Senate Changes Spreadsheet.pdf |
SFIN 11/10/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |