Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/04/1997 03:38 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
February 4, 1997
3:38 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chairman
Senator Jerry Ward, Vice-chair
Senator Jerry Mackie
Senator Mike Miller
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Jim Duncan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 67
"An Act relating to the imposition of criminal sentences; and
amending Rule 32.2, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."
MOVED CSSB 67(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
EXECUTIVE ORDER 98
TRANSFERRING CERTAIN FUNCTIONS FROM DCED AND DPS TO DOT/PF
HEARD AND HELD
EXECUTIVE ORDER 99
TRANSFERRING CERTAIN FUNCTIONS FROM DPS TO DOA
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 67 - No previous Senate committee action to report.
WITNESS REGISTER
Sam Kito III, Special Assistant
Dept. of Transportation & Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, AK 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed EO 98
Senator Rick Halford
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 67
Chris Christensen
Staff Counsel
Alaska Court System
303 K St.
Anchorage, AK 99501-2084
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 67
Paul Sweet
P.O. Box 1562
Palmer, AK 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 67
Commissioner Ron Otte
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed EO 99
Commissioner Mark Boyer
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed EO 99
Juanita Hensley
Driver Services
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, AK 99811-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed EO 99
Mike Lessmeier
Lessmeier and Winters
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 303
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed EO 99
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-2, SIDE A
Number 00
CHAIRMAN LYDA GREEN called the Senate State Affairs Committee
meeting to order at 3:38 p.m. Present were Senators Green, Ward,
Mackie, and Miller. The first order of business before the
committee was EO 98.
SAM KITO , Special Assistant to the Commissioner of the Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF), gave the
following description of EO 98. Under the current state government
structure, three departments are involved in administering the
commercial vehicle program: the Department of Public Safety (DPS),
the Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED) and
DOT/PF. EO 98 transfers the responsibility for administering all
relevant functions of this program to DOT/PF. DOT/PF currently
issues regulations relating to overweight and oversize vehicles.
DCED currently issues overweight and oversize permits in compliance
with regulations adopted by DOT/PF, through the Division of
Measurement Standards. DCED also operates the state's ten fixed
weigh stations. DPS provides safety and secondary size and weight
enforcement through its commercial vehicle program and provides
overall law enforcement authority for that program.
MR. KITO continued. The commercial vehicle program is essential
to the preservation and safety of the state's highway system.
Because of the fragmented structure of that program, the
Administration believes a consolidation of the three components
will result in increased efficiency both internally, and for
highway users. All three departments were involved in the
construction of EO 98, and a public hearing with agency members,
the Alaska Trucking Association and other industry groups was held.
Staffing and funding requirements will not change under EO 98.
Staff will be transferred to DOT/PF with the exception of two state
trooper positions which will remain within DPS. Although the
transfer will not require additional funding, it will require
changes to departmental budgets once EO 98 is implemented. In
addition to the transfer of the commercial vehicle program, the
functions of the Division of Measurement Standards will be
administered by DOT/PF.
Number 092
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted she has reviewed information about the ongoin
regulation review and changes within DOT/PF and asked if any of the
regulations under review apply to the programs proposed to be
transferred under EO 98. MR. KITO replied regulations that impact
the commercial vehicle program are already in place and no changes
are anticipated.
CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned whether increased efficiency and/or
savings are expected outcomes of EO 98. MR. KITO said no savings
are expected, but increased efficiency is expected and will be most
apparent to the industry. The trucking permit process will be
completed at one office, rather than three, which will decrease the
amount of consumer time needed to comply with regulations.
Number 118
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether any functions, required by statute,
are not being performed by the departments at this time. MR. KITO
was unable to answer the question. He added DOT/PF hopes the
consolidation will enable the department to keep tabs on the
overweight/oversize vehicles on the state's highways.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Kito to be more specific about industry
support. MR. KITO answered DOT/PF has a letter of support from
Frank Dillon who represents the Alaska Trucking Association.
SENATOR MACKIE questioned whether DOT/PF has investigated ways to
realize financial savings through the consolidation. MR. KITO
stated DOT/PF hopes to gain some financial efficiencies and to
apply them to more active enforcement and support of the commercial
vehicle program. DOT/PF does not foresee a cost savings but does
foresee a level of service increase.
Number 148
SENATOR WARD asked if one of the program's functions is on the Old
Seward Highway in the Huffman Business Park. MR. KITO replied the
Division of Measurement Standards currently oversees that location.
DOT/PF plans, as a long term goal, to bring all of the components
of the division under one roof.
SENATOR WARD questioned whether one of the original concepts for EO
98 was to resolve the fact that there is no place for any
commercial trucks to stop and get to that facility. MR. KITO was
unaware of that issue.
There was no further testimony on EO 98.
SB 67 TRUTH IN SENTENCING
DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, SENATOR HALFORD'S TESTIMONY WAS NOT
RECORDED.
SENATOR RICK HALFORD, sponsor of SB 67, explained SB 67 requires a
judge, when imposing a sentence, to explain the minimum possible
amount of time that can be served under the sentence. The current
sentencing process does not live up to the intent of the victim's
rights amendment to the Alaska Constitution. The intent of SB 67
is to require judges to notify others of the approximate amount of
prison time that will actually be served under the sentence
imposed.
SENATOR MACKIE asked if SB 67 requires a court rule change.
SENATOR HALFORD answered it does. SENATOR MACKIE questioned
whether SB 67 would limit the amount of a sentence reduction
possible for "good time." SENATOR HALFORD said it would not
restrict any sentencing criteria, it only requires a judge to
explain the amount of time that may actually be served.
Number 220
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN , General Counsel to the Alaska Court System,
informed committee members the Supreme Court has taken no position
on SB 67 but does have several concerns with the bill. As drafted
by the Division of Legal Services, SB 67 is not workable. The
Supreme Court has ruled, on several occasions, that there is very
little inherent judicial authority given to judges when imposing
sentences. In Alaska, sentencing is considered a legislative
prerogative: judges are bound by the sentencing statutes passed by
the Legislature. When a person is convicted of a felony, a
sentencing hearing is scheduled, usually several months in the
future. The Alaska Constitution requires a judge to consider a
variety of factors when imposing a sentence. Those factors
include: reformation, reaffirmation of community norms, public
safety, and condemnation of the conduct. The Department of
Corrections (DOC) prepares a presentencing report while those
factors are being considered by the judge; that report contains
background information and a criminal record. During the
sentencing hearing, the district attorney, the public defender or
private defense attorney, and victims make statements about an
appropriate sentence. With that information, the judge determines
the sentence.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained SB 67 requires judges to state the
earliest possible release date to the day. Exact calculations are
often complicated and can take DOC up to two days to complete.
Some defendants are placed in different jails around the state,
particularly offenders originally arrested in the bush. The number
of days spent in each jail must be determined, as well as the
amount of time released on bail, disciplinary problems that
occurred while in jail, the type of offense, whether the offense
carries a mandatory, mandatory minimum, or presumptive term, and
whether consecutive or concurrent sentences are to be served. SB
67 does not recognize that a judge's statement regarding the
minimum sentence a person might serve if parole is granted becomes
part of the sentence. If the judge made an error, that error might
cause a defendant to be released earlier or later than planned; if
later, he/she may file a law suit for post conviction relief.
MR. CHRISTENSEN requested the committee to consider the following
conceptual amendments. The first amendment would change the word
"incarceration" to "imprisonment" throughout SB 67, to conform with
Titles 12 and 33. The second change would allow the judge to state
the approximate, rather than exact, time a prisoner would be
eligible for parole. He requested SB 67 make very clear that
approximate minimums stated by the judge are provided for
informational purposes only and are not part of the sentence, and
that the prisoner has no appeal right if the judge makes an error.
Number 293
SENATOR MACKIE felt SB 67 touches on an area that outrages many
people and asked why DOC calculations cannot be completed in the
amount of time that elapses between the conviction and sentencing.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained a judge does have statutory authority to
restrict discretionary parole if the judge believes the offender
cannot be rehabilitated or that public safety would be jeopardized.
In most cases the judge has a good idea of when the person will be
eligible for parole but making the calculation to the day is time
consuming.
MR. CHRISTENSEN commented one alternative is to hold two sentencing
hearings. All parties would make statements at the first hearing.
DOC would then prepare the calculations. At the second hearing,
the judge would state the sentence on the record. That alternative
would have a tremendous fiscal impact. He explained under Alaska
statutes, judges make the initial determination in setting a
sentence, but once a person has been remanded into the custody of
DOC, it becomes the responsibility of the Executive Branch,
including the Board of Parole, to decide whether the terms of the
sentence are met and when a person is eligible for parole. Parole
is completely speculative: a judge has no idea whether the Board of
Parole will grant an early release for good time.
Number 344
SENATOR MACKIE clarified he was questioning whether it is possible
for a judge to receive the DOC calculations prior to the final
sentencing. MR. CHRISTENSEN explained the judge is not supposed to
prepare a sentence prior to the sentencing hearing. The judge is
supposed to take, and consider, statements from the district
attorney, defense attorney, and victims first. That is why two
hearings would be necessary.
SENATOR MACKIE questioned at what point the judge determines the
sentence. MR. CHRISTENSEN indicated the judge is required to state
the sentence orally, on the record, and then provide a written
judgment. The oral statement overrides if there is a discrepancy
between the oral and written statement. Once the judge has read
the presentencing report, and has received recommendations from
DOC, he/she must hear the oral arguments from the district and
defense attorneys, and the victims, prior to deciding on the
sentence.
SENATOR MACKIE asked why a judge cannot just say, "This person is
sentenced to x amount of years, with x suspended, and he/she will
serve x amount of time." That would inform the victim's family how
much of the sentence will be served.
Number 376
MR. CHRISTENSEN answered judges can set specific sentences for some
of the more serious felonies, but overall, the sentencing statutes
are extremely complex.
Number 383
SENATOR WARD asked Mr. Christensen if the calculation process
cannot be completed in two hours, but instead takes two days. MR.
CHRISTENSEN replied he has been advised by DOC that in some cases
it can be done in one hour, but other cases take up to two days.
He discussed the sentence calculation for an offender recently
convicted on nine separate counts ranging from a misdemeanor to an
unclassified felony. Each count is treated differently in the
sentencing statutes: some counts require a mandatory sentence, some
require a mandatory minimum sentence, some require presumptive
sentences, some require sentences be stacked consecutively, and
some allow concurrent sentences. The judge, being familiar with
the statutes, has a ball park figure of when the person might first
be eligible for parole. The Court System is proposing the judge
advise the victims, and others in the courtroom at the time, of the
ball park figure.
SENATOR MACKIE asked, once the judge issues the final sentence, how
much time it would take for the judge to be advised as to the exact
date the offender would first be eligible for release. MR.
CHRISTENSEN believed the statute requires the Court System to
forward the paperwork to DOC within 30 days. DOC can typically
make the calculation within 10 days to two weeks after receipt.
Once DOC completes the calculation, it sends copies to the Board of
Parole and the inmate. If a copy was sent to the Court System from
DOC, it could be attached to the sentencing judgment so that it
would be available for public review in the file.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if that information is currently available to
the public. MR. CHRISTENSEN said it is not available from the
Court System, and he was unsure whether it was available from DOC.
Number 432
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Senator Halford if he thought this problem
could be worked out with the Court System and a resolution
presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee. SENATOR HALFORD
replied changing the term "incarceration" to "imprisonment"
throughout the bill, and adding the word "approximate" would
maintain the intent of SB 67, and avoid the trap of requiring a
second hearing. Any delay at any point in the process will cause
more heartache to family members of victims who have been terribly
abused. The delay should be avoided, but the truth about the
approximate time to be served should be available to them as soon
as possible.
Number 432
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced it was her intention to move SB 67 out of
the State Affairs Committee at this time and have a committee
substitute ready for the next committee of referral.
SENATOR MACKIE moved to remove the word "incarceration" and replace
it with the word "imprisonment" throughout SB 67. CHAIRMAN GREEN
identified the amendment as Amendment #1. There being no objection
to the motion, Amendment #1 was adopted.
The committee took a brief at ease and then took teleconference
testimony.
PAUL SWEET , testifying from Palmer, asked how a judge could
estimate the approximate length of a sentence to be served when a
person is sentenced to 133 years, but becomes eligible for release
after 16 years.
Number 458
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded SB 67 does not address the type of concern
expressed by Mr. Sweet, assuming Mr. Sweet's concern is the
reduction in time served.
SENATOR HALFORD asserted it was his intent to avoid the kind of
aberrations referred to by Mr. Sweet. The object of dealing with
truth in sentencing is to inform interested parties of what may
actually happen. One never knows what will happen on appeal, but
at least the judge can state the approximate time the offender will
actually have to serve under the sentence imposed.
MR. SWEET asked if that would apply after an appeal, at which time
the sentence is reduced substantially. SENATOR HALFORD replied it
cannot apply to an appeal; when people are represented at no cost
to themselves, they continuously appeal the case until the process
runs out. At least on appeal, the judge will be required to again
state the approximate time to be served. Every time the actual
time to be served must be stated before the victims and families,
the system will be encouraged to decide sentences that are more
representative of what the victims and families expect the
punishment to be.
SENATOR MACKIE asked Senator Halford if he has investigated whether
the DOC calculation can be made available to the Court System or
victims during the time period between the conviction and
presentencing hearing. SENATOR HALFORD responded that will add
another process that will add a burden to the Court System and a
fiscal note to the bill. Requiring an approximate amount of time
to be served be stated will avoid a second hearing and resolves the
problem. The exact date is not as important as informing people
whether the release will occur in 3 years or 6 years. The object
is to get the decision made in a timely manner and in front of the
injured parties.
SENATOR MACKIE clarified he was wondering how the victim's family
could find out the actual date of release after it has been
determined.
Number 500
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that information is not available from the
Court System but he was unsure whether it was available from DOC.
There is a statute that allows victims to provide their addresses
to DOC so they can be notified of the release of offenders.
SENATOR MACKIE asked Senator Halford to investigate whether that
process can provide some resolution to the problem. He moved to
adopt Amendment #2:
Page 2, lines 5, 8, 23, and 26: insert the word "approximate"
prior to the word "minimum."
There being no objections to Amendment #2, it was adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked the sponsor to review Amendment #2 to ensure
the word "approximate" is inserted in all necessary places
throughout the bill for the purpose of conformity, as that is the
committee's intent.
SENATOR MACKIE moved CSSB 67 out of committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection to the motion, CSSB 67
moved to the next committee of referral.
EO99
TRANSFERRING CERTAIN FUNCTIONS FROM DPS TO DOA
COMMISSIONER RON OTTE , Department of Public Safety (DPS), described
DMV's functions. Each year about 3 million Alaskans access DMV by
mail, or at the counter. Over the last 13 years, through federal
requirements and state legislation, about 54 programs have been
added to DMV. As an example, about $780,000 of DMV's budget is
used to support federally mandated directives and protects $56
million in federal highway funds. Alaskans are very frustrated
they cannot comp
lete a simple business transaction in a timely manner. New
business technologies need to be applied to DMV transactions, yet
DMV is struggling to provide basic counter service. Limited
resources in DPS must be prioritized: the life/safety issues have
taken priority while the business side of the programs within DPS
have rarely been addressed. The Department of Administration has
the resources and technical expertise to make the necessary
changes.
COMMISSIONER BOYER , Department of Administration (DOA), stated many
other states have attempted to "fix" their Divisions of Motor
Vehicles and have failed, yet he remains firmly convinced that
despite limited resources, DMV has made incremental improvements
but needs to make another incremental improvement to benefit
customers waiting in line. DOA is a two-sided department: half is
focussed largely on senior related programs, the Office of Public
Advocacy, APOC, and the Public Defender Agency; the other half is
fixed on things the government needs to operate such as general
services, accounting, personnel, information services, and
financial services. The second half enables government agencies to
perform better. The Legislature has been concerned about
inadequate customer service at DMV and has taken the initiative to
make improvements. The biennial registration effort was designed
to diminish long lines. DMV expects that effort to reduce lines by
10 percent. DOA can apply the tools needed to improve DMV business
transactions, such as point of sale transactions with the use of
credit cards, and interactive voice transactions. DOA has been
working on the development of the RFP for credit card acceptance
for DMV transactions, authorized by the Legislature. Those
transactions can occur 24 hours per day, seven days per week on a
toll free number.
TAPE 97-2, SIDE B
Number 537
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the toll free number will provide
services for agencies other than DMV. COMMISSIONER BOYER replied
other agencies have probably researched toll free lines but DOA's
focus has been specific to DMV.
COMMISSIONER BOYER discussed opportunities on the internet. The
State of Massachusetts has developed an on-line interactive
transaction system that has been operating for three years.
Residents can file tax returns with an interactive voice response
system. The State of Massachusetts also has an interactive web
page for all DMV transactions. That system is partnered with a
banking institution so that transactions are as secure as possible.
Nationally 41 to 42 percent of all homes have computers, a large
percentage of those have internet access. DOA anticipates
developing an on-line internet presence by June or July of this
year. Such a system will provide access to two new lines into DMV.
Those are two examples of business applications DOA can apply to
DMV's operations quickly and easily because it is the normal way of
doing business within DOA. He emphasized DOA is very interested in
expanding DMV "storefronts" by maximizing opportunities to conduct
transactions and is discussing the possibilities with banking
institutions in Alaska.
Number 497
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if one could also make those transactions in
other state offices, thereby providing a "one-stop" shopping
opportunity. COMMISSIONER BOYER replied focussing several state
services in one place offers another storefront opportunity for
transactions and can be accomplished.
COMMISSIONER BOYER described some strategic partnerships that are
key to moving business out of the DMV lines to point of contact
areas. DOA and DMV have focussed on moving some of the business
transactions to automobile dealers. Currently, the transactions
involved in purchasing a new automobile can take from one to eight
weeks. A pilot program is being designed that will allow all
transactions to be processed at once by the automobile dealer.
That program should save dealers and buyers a tremendous amount of
time. Those types of partnerships with the private sector will
enhance services to the public. He believes DMV's current budget
is adequate to achieve necessary changes. DOA does not intend to
request an increased appropriation in DMV's operating budget. He
expects, after one year to eighteen months, significant
improvements in customer service to have occurred, and perhaps the
opportunity to manage DMV with fewer financial resources. He does
not believe, under the current system, customer service can be
improved without increased funding.
Number 448
SENATOR MACKIE stated he was skeptical of the transfer at first,
but understands how technology is the key to improved services.
SENATOR WARD asked if the State of Massachusetts requires a pre-
insurance policy before one can get a drivers license.
COMMISSIONER BOYER was unfamiliar with that requirement. SENATOR
WARD believed proof of insurance becomes part of the DMV database
in Massachusetts.
JUANITA HENSLEY , Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, was
not sure whether the State of Massachusetts requires proof of
insurance at the time of vehicle registration, or has direct on-
line service to verify insurance coverage.
SENATOR WARD thought the State of Massachusetts has used an
insurance database for at least five years. He asked how many
states have been unsuccessful with DMV transfers because they tried
to over-privatize operations. MS. HENSLEY was aware of one state
experiencing difficulties because it privatized services too
quickly. That state is now reassessing some of its programs to
design internal audits to oversee the privatization firms and
ensure that documents are secure.
COMMISSIONER OTTE informed the committee that Ms. Hensley will be
attending a symposium on privatization and he hopes a DOT/PF staff
member will attend.
Number 407
SENATOR WARD commented he has received many mixed signals about
privatization, primarily about defining the benefits and keeping a
measuring tool on it.
MS. HENSLEY remarked the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators is sponsoring the privatization symposium. The
Association put together a working group, which she chairs, to
study the nationwide privatization issue. She hopes to find out
what is or is not working, so that Alaska does not have to reinvent
the wheel.
SENATOR WARD noted Michigan and either Florida or Colorado are
using the same hardware for their DMV programming.
Number 385
CHAIRMAN GREEN discussed her concern about DPS' decision to no
longer enforce AS 28.20.270 (Suspension for nonpayment of
judgments) and stated her dissatisfaction with the reasons given
for that decision. She asked what measures are being taken to
restore enforcement of that statute. COMMISSIONER OTTE shared
Senator Green's concern, and informed the Senate Finance Committee
during the previous session that the increase in fixed costs would
require the elimination of 14 positions. Positions from that
program were identified as some of those to be eliminated. Ms.
Hensley explained to the committee why cutting that program would
be the best solution given the options. Commissioner Otte added
the degradation of those kinds of services is the reason he has
been discussing solutions with Commissioner Boyer. He believes
there are remedies available to restore that program in the
foreseeable future contingent upon legislation pending this year.
JUANITA HENSLEY said that program was chosen for nonenforcement
last year after she reviewed the variety of programs requiring
license suspension, such as habitual traffic violations, failure to
pay child support, minor consumption, drunk driving, lack of
insurance, and others. She felt non-enforcement of AS 28.20.270
would have the least impact on the public. She does not believe
the insurance industry would have been satisfied with any program
that she cut. In 1986 the Legislature passed the mandatory
insurance law with sufficient personnel to administer AS 28.20.270.
In 1987, four of the six positions were cut. Over the last 10
years, DMV lost 33 positions, added 31, and added 58 programs. To
get DMV on its feet, initiatives and efficiencies, requiring new
technology, are needed.
Number 295
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked about current legislation that might help.
MS. HENSLEY answered a bill has been introduced in the House which
will require the insurance industry to report to a database so that
DMV can access that information for vehicle registration purposes.
The database would also allow on-line verification of insurance at
the time of an accident. That would free employees from current
paper shuffling activities that are required for verification.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if current law requires drivers to be insured
or to prove one's financial ability to pay for damages. MS.
HENSLEY explained there are two laws: one requires proof of
insurance; the other requires an at-fault driver to prove damages
were paid if the driver was not insured at the time of an accident.
CHAIRMAN GREEN remarked although the probability of non-enforcement
of AS 28.20.270 was presented to the Senate Finance Committee, that
committee did not approve that action. She asked Commissioner
Boyer his intention regarding reinstatement of that program.
COMM ISSIONER BOYER replied he intends to leverage opportunities
technologically and join forces with the private sector to reduce
the time it takes to process transactions to free employees to do
higher level work. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what the time line would
be. COMMISSIONER BOYER estimated, if DOA is successful
implementing the interactive voice and internet services as
scheduled, and DMV funding remains constant, AS 28.20.270 could be
enforced in early fall.
Number 256
CHAIRMAN GREEN said she anticipates some difficulty in implementing
the proof of insurance at point of sale system. She questioned
whether there is any other legislation that might directly impact
reinstatement of AS 28.20.270. MS. HENSLEY answered if Chairman
Green is suggesting charging a fee for processing suspension files,
that could be done provided the Legislature appropriate funds to
DMV to process the work. DMV already brings in $29 million which
is deposited in the general fund every year, and another $7 million
is collected for municipalities. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if those
funds go to the DMV budget. MS. HENSLEY said they do not.
SENATOR WARD recalled, during the debate on the mandatory insurance
bill, the State of Massachusetts program was presented as a model
because its DMV transactions were contingent upon proof of
insurance which was available in a database. Critics asserted the
intent of that program was to make insurance companies rich, but
proponents pointed to the number of people harmed by uninsured
drivers. During the vote in Alaska, he understood a database would
be created with the insurance companies paying the cost however
that never occurred.
COMMISSIONER OTTE was unaware of that debate but indicated a bill
has been introduced that would provide for the type of database
referred to by Senator Ward. SENATOR WARD said that very subject
was discussed in 1984 and he agreed with the idea at that time.
CHAIRMAN GREEN repeated her concern that such a system would be
tough to impose. She announced EO 98 and EO 99 would be held over
to the next meeting.
Number 195
SENATOR MACKIE expressed concern that DPS chose not to enforce a
statute and asked whether funds to restore that function are in
DMV's budget request this year, and what those costs would be.
COMMISSIONER OTTE replied funds are not included in this year's
budget request. There were four full time positions that managed
that program. He, Commissioner Boyer and DMV staff are convinced
if the changes that have been discussed can be made, that program
can be re-established with the existing budget. The frustration
over the situation is shared by DMV employees. A similar issue
occurred on Hillside. DPS was mandated, by law, to answer calls in
that area, when in fact state troopers were pulled out of there.
The state troopers were very frustrated by the situation.
MIKE LESSMEIER testified on behalf of State Farm Insurance Company.
State Farm is very concerned about the failure to enforce AS
28.20.270 and believes a practical, not theoretical, remedy is
needed now. Lack of enforcement of AS 28.20.279 affects a system
created over a number of years to protect Alaska drivers. The
mandatory insurance law included mandated offers of uninsured and
underinsured motorist coverage and the ability to collect from
uninsured drivers. The lack of that ability affects every single
Alaskan who buys an insurance policy and is injured by an uninsured
driver. State Farm believes, rather than discussing a theoretical
solution to the problem, a real solution should involve collecting
a fee from the uninsured party. That solution would generate
revenue and provide funds to hire staff. Regarding the
effectiveness of Alaska's mandatory insurance law, all mandatory
insurance proposals that were enacted in the country were examined
during the debate of that legislation. Massachusetts' mandatory
insurance program was the most expensive in the country and was not
very effective because the enforcement mechanism was not in place.
Alaska's program included points of proof: if accident damage
amounted to over $500, or a certain kind of citation was issued,
those were coupled with mandated offers of uninsured and
underinsured motorist coverage. Those two provisions were added to
an existing strong Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. That
system has worked well - the problem is one part of the puzzle is
now missing.
There being no further testimony, CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the
meeting at 5:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|