03/29/2005 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB59 | |
| SB132 | |
| SB143 | |
| SB26 | |
| HJR8 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 132 | ||
| = | SB 143 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 2005
3:57 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gene Therriault, Chair
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Vice Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Kim Elton
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 59
"An Act relating to service as a diplomat in the United States
Foreign Service as an allowable absence from the state for
purposes of eligibility for permanent fund dividends; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 132
"An Act relating to complaints filed with, investigations,
hearings, and orders of, and the interest rate on awards of the
State Commission for Human Rights; making conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date."
MOVED SB 132 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 143
"An Act amending the definition of the term 'state agencies' as
it applies under Executive Order No. 113; relating to
information systems in the legislative branch and to the
Telecommunications Information Council; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED CSSB 143(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 26
"An Act relating to the voting rights of felons."
HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8
Expressing support of Alaska Army National Guard soldiers
deployed worldwide.
MOVED HJR 8 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 59
SHORT TITLE: PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCE FOR DIPLOMATS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DYSON
01/14/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/14/05 (S) STA, FIN
03/29/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 132
SHORT TITLE: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/04/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/05 (S) STA, JUD
03/17/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/17/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/17/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
BILL: SB 143
SHORT TITLE: STATE INFO SYSTEM PLAN: LEGISLATURE
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
03/16/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/16/05 (S) STA
03/22/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/22/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
BILL: SB 26
SHORT TITLE: FELONS' RIGHT TO VOTE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DAVIS
01/11/05 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/11/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/11/05 (S) STA, JUD
02/16/05 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/16/05 (S) STA, JUD
03/29/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: HJR 8
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORTING ALASKA ARMY NATL. GUARD
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WEYHRAUCH
02/02/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/05 (H) MLV, STA
02/17/05 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/17/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/17/05 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/18/05 (H) MLV RPT 5DP
02/18/05 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, ELKINS, THOMAS,
DAHLSTROM, LYNN
03/08/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/08/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/08/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/05 (H) STA RPT 5DP
03/09/05 (H) DP: GARDNER, GATTO, GRUENBERG, ELKINS,
SEATON
03/18/05 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/18/05 (H) VERSION: HJR 8
03/21/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/21/05 (S) STA
03/29/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Fred Dyson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor SB 59
Lucky Schultz,
Staff to Senator Dyson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 59
Joel Kopp, Diplomat
U.S. Foreign Service
Monterrey, Mexico
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 59
Darwin Peterson
Deputy Legislative Director
Office of the Governor
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 59 and gave the
Administration view on SB 143
Paula Haley, Executive Director
Alaska State Commission on Human Rights
800 A Street, Suite 204
Anchorage, AK 99501-3669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 132
Steve Smith,
University of Alaska Anchorage Representative
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 143
Amanda Wilson,
Staff to Senator Davis
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SSSB 26
Alonzo Patterson JR.,
Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSSB 26
Michael Macleod-Ball, Executive Director
(ACLU)
P.O. Box 201844
Anchorage, AK 99820-1844
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in strong support of SSSB 26
Portia Parker, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections
431 N. Franklin, Suite 400
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Raised questions regarding SSSB 26
Terry Harvey
Staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SJR 8 for sponsor
Lieutenant Colonel Mike Bridges,
Alaska National Guard
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 8
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:57:31 PM. Present were Senators
Wagoner, Huggins, Davis and Chair Therriault.
SB 59-PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCE FOR DIPLOMATS
CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT announced SB 59 to be up for
consideration.
3:58:17 PM
SENATOR FRED DYSON, sponsor, explained that SB 59 adds diplomats
serving in the U.S. Foreign Service to the list of people who
qualify for an allowable absence for purposes of continuing to
receive a Permanent Fund dividend while living outside of
Alaska. Thirty Alaskans might be serving in this category.
CHAIR THERRIAULT referenced the fiscal note and asked how he
proposed to define and limit "diplomat."
4:00:45 PM
LUCKY SCHULTZ, Staff to Senator Dyson, said it would be a
Foreign Service officer or a specialist on active duty with the
U.S. Department of State.
CHAIR THERRIAULT questioned whether the definition is currently
in statute or would it be developed under regulation.
MR. SCHULTZ said the proposal is to provide a definition in
either the new or an additional section.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if the drafter advised that there was no
definition for the term.
SCHULTZ answered no.
CHAIR THERRIAULT pointed out that legislators frequently receive
requests to include different categories of individuals to the
allowable absence list and he has a strong view on the issue. He
wasn't sure how the sponsor would prevent a sort of "Christmas
treeing of the idea."
SENATOR DYSON acknowledged it's a legitimate concern.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if these individuals reside in Alaska
when they aren't assigned elsewhere.
SENATOR DYSON said he assumes that they maintain a voting
address here and use Alaska as a residence of record. When not
assigned they return to the state.
4:04:27 PM
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER said he doesn't object to the bill but
he'd like sideboards requiring the funds be placed in a special
account until the individual returns and establishes the fact
that he/she is going to reside in the state.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said that discussion was held for college
students that went out of state for school. The legal advice was
that if you make the determination that the individual is
eligible, it's a property right and there is no ability to deny
access.
SENATOR WAGONER responded we should ask the legal minds to give
us a method that will work instead of a reason why it won't.
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS asked the sponsor if he is aware of any
individuals who previously served in the U.S. Foreign Service
and now reside in Alaska.
SENATOR DYSON replied he probably does but he couldn't think of
anyone right then.
CHAIR THERRIAULT advised that he wanted to work with the
sponsor's staff on the definition for "diplomat."
SENATOR DYSON said he understood that a diplomat was going to
call in from Mexico.
4:07:49 PM
JOEL KOPP testified that he is a Foreign Service officer working
in Monterrey Mexico. He was born, went to school, and worked in
Alaska before joining the Foreign Service. Up to that time he
qualified for and received every Permanent Fund dividend that
was issued.
He said he is testifying to communicate that denying the
Permanent Fund dividend because he and other Alaskans are in
diplomatic service is inconsistent with what appears to be the
values of the PFD program as evidenced by the list of absences
that are allowed.
Military personnel and congressional staffers are apparently
included because they have chosen a profession of high service
to the U.S. that requires absence from the state. He said
diplomats consider it an honor to represent the U.S. government
abroad and Alaska should be proud of its residents who have
achieved that profession. Support should be expressed tangibly
by not denying a dividend.
It's important to realize that he isn't a resident of another
state. If he's not an Alaskan then he's stateless because if
Alaska doesn't treat him as a resident there is certainly no
other state that would do so.
The argument put forth that diplomats should be excluded because
they don't need the money is unsustainable. The PFD program has
always been about equal treatment for Alaskans. It doesn't
matter how much money you have or don't have.
Another argument is that if the program is open to Foreign
Service personnel it would open the door for other groups. His
response is that there may or may not be other groups that
should be included in the PFD program. Offering that as a reason
is a red herring, he said. Each group should be evaluated on
merit.
Alaska Foreign Service personnel are a small group that has
little political power. However, they serve and represent Alaska
in a way that would make Alaska proud.
He thanked Senator Dyson for sponsoring the bill.
4:13:48 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if he was hired directly out of Alaska.
MR. KOPP said yes, the State Department paid for his move from
Kenai.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if his tour of duty that has a definite
end date after which he would be required to move back to the
U.S.
MR. KOPP explained that when you're in the Foreign Service your
tour of duty is either in a foreign country or in Washington DC.
Tours always have a definite time and between tours the diplomat
is allowed home-leave and by congressional law you must return
to your home. He said he would be back in Alaska this coming
summer.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if his next tour of duty would be in
Washington DC.
MR. KOPP said it would, but there is no standard regarding where
you would go.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if his family was with him.
MR. KOPP answered yes, he's married with three sons.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS asked when he joined the Foreign
Service.
JOEL replied his hiring date was 2002.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if there was any doubt when he joined
about whether or not he would receive the Permanent Fund.
MR. KOPP said, "I wanted to be denied the dividend just to have
that as the listed reason as the refusal..." He said he
continued to apply and then once he moved over seas he was
denied.
SENATOR HUGGINS said then when you left Alaska you understood
you wouldn't receive the dividend.
MR. KOPP replied he realized that was almost a certainty.
SENATOR DYSON said his argument for sponsoring the bill is that
a condition of the job makes it difficult to impossible to
return to the state every 180 days to maintain the
qualification. He asked if that is true.
MR. KOPP agreed it is virtually impossible.
4:18:16 PM
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER asked how military personnel are treated.
CHAIR THERRIAULT stated that military service is an allowable
absence.
SENATOR WAGONER asked if there weren't sideboards limiting the
number of years.
CHAIR THERRIAULT replied they must remain in active duty and
after a certain number of years the requirement becomes more
difficult.
SENATOR WAGONER suggested reviewing the requirements because
there is a parallel. Both entail reassignments away from home
base.
SENATOR DYSON said that's what we're amending. He directed
attention to item 3 at the bottom of page 1 and the top of page
2, the additions in the old Section 14, and the renumbered
Section 15.
MR. KOPP agreed there are a lot of parallels between the
military and diplomatic service.
4:20:26 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS suggested there are differences. He asked Mr.
Kopp if he carries a weapon.
MR. KOPP answered no.
SENATOR HUGGINS asserted the differences outweigh the
similarities.
4:21:18 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced he would hold SB 59.
SB 132-HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
4:22:01 PM
CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT announced SB 132 to be up for
consideration.
DARWIN PETERSON, Deputy Legislative Director, Office of the
Governor, said the previous hearing ended with discussion on
Section 4, which the Human Rights Commission did not support.
The Administration's position is that Section 4 is a legitimate
provision in the legislation.
He pointed out that the bill says that the commission may use
its discretion to review the executive director's order of
dismissal. By regulation the commission used to do that. They
stopped because they agreed with the executive director most of
the time.
The Administration does not intend to require the commission to
review all the appeals or dismissals by the executive director.
However, the commission should have the authority to supervise
its own staff and if it happens to disagree, it could review
that dismissal by the executive director. If the commission
doesn't have that authority there really isn't any need for a
commission. The executive director could do all the work.
The language was drafted to give the commission flexibility. The
Administration is open to suggestion, he said.
4:24:18 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT verified the language is permissive.
MR. PETERSON answered yes.
PAULA HALEY, Executive Director, Human Rights Commission,
participated via teleconference to say she was available to
answer questions. Commissioner Grace Merkes had intended to be
available, but was attending a funeral.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said he is baffled why the commission would
oppose the permissive language in Section 4.
MS. HALEY replied her understanding is that the concept of
review isn't the concern. The commission repealed the regulation
allowing review because of dwindling resources. She understood
Chair Fitzpatrick to say that the concern relates to putting
into statute what was previously in regulation because that
essentially creates a right. The reality is that people will
apply for reviews and that would cost the commission a
considerable amount of time and effort.
The Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that when review is made
available before the Human Right's Commission, a complainant who
believes that the staff has made a decision error has a right to
request the complaint file in its entirety in order to craft a
request for review. This entails making a copy of the file and
redacting any documents that would not be disclosed.
Furthermore, if a complainant or a complainant's attorney crafts
a request for review the commissioners feel they would need
legal assistance in sorting some of the more challenging issues.
The commission respects the Governor's point of view that it
could be a discretionary review, but the commissioners have
clearly said that they would need to review the requests to know
whether or not to grant the request.
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER agreed that it's a matter of redundancy
and could be a waste of resources. However, if that could be
avoided he would have no problem with the provision.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked her to respond to the assertion that
without the discretion to review there isn't anything left for
the commission to do.
MS. HALEY said the commissioners' most important role and
function is their quasi-judicial role. When the staff finds
substantial evidence of discrimination, which warrants moving to
the next stage of investigation, there is a public hearing. The
commissioners render the ultimate decision following that public
hearing. The commissioners are the judges and the staff presents
the case with the complainant and/or an attorney on the other
side.
The commissioners also have general oversight of the agency.
Because of the agencies unique role in government they direct
the activities ranging from regulation change to general policy
decisions. Typically it is the commissioners who articulate
positions on legislation.
4:32:38 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT called on Ms. DeYoung on teleconference.
JAN DeYOUNG, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL), said she would give some background on the language and
why it was added.
The proposed subsection (a) in Section 4 in AS 18.80.112 is
included because the law is silent on what happens in the event
of a finding of no substantial evidence in support of the
complaint of discrimination by the assigned investigator. The
subject was addressed in regulation but not in statute.
Subsection (a) does the obvious; if there is no substantial
evidence of unlawful discrimination the executive director
dismisses the complaint. As Ms. Haley stated, the chairperson
formerly had the power to review decisions. That regulation was
repealed because the commission apparently believed it did not
want to exercise that authority.
The idea was not to preclude review or to compel a procedure. It
was to provide the commission discretion. By having the statute
drafted this way a future commission could adopt a review
procedure if it chose to do so.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked how she would respond to the issue that
to decide not to review would entail going through a process
that would expend time and resources.
MS. DeYOUNG responded, "There's nothing to compel the commission
to undertake the expense of the review." It could adopt a
regulation to that effect. The intent was not to change the law
it was to address a silence in the law.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if it would operate in the same way as an
appeal to the court system. An individual could appeal a
decision, but the request could be turned down without any
reason.
MS. DeYOUNG said it would be similar to what is referred to as a
petition to review and the court could decide in a summary
fashion to not take up the case.
4:37:47 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT ascertained there was no further testimony and
closed the public hearing. He mentioned two zero fiscal notes.
SENATOR WAGONER stated that he talked to Commissioner Grace
Merkes and she told him that the commissioners feel that
additional funds would be necessary if the provision in Section
4 were included. He recommended that the Finance Committee
review the provision closely.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Peterson if he had discussed the
potential fiscal impact with the commission.
MR. PETERSON replied the Human Rights Commission submitted a
request for funds because of Section 4. The Office of Management
and Budget disagreed because the Administration testified that
the intent with Section 4 is that it would be permissive and
open. He said, "The commission is able to adopt regulations to
not conduct those reviews. If they do then the Governor's Office
can take care of any additional funds that they would need
through the normal budget process. ... In FY 07."
4:40:16 PM
SENATOR WAGONER motioned to report SB 132 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
Seeing no objection, Chair Therriault announced SB 132 would be
forwarded to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SB 143-STATE INFO SYSTEM PLAN: LEGISLATURE
4:40:48 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced SB 143 to be up for consideration. He
informed members that an amendment was adopted during the first
hearing on SB 143 and discussion took place regarding whether
the University of Alaska should be removed along with the
Legislature.
He reported that Pete Kelly gave two reasons why the university
should be taken out of Department of Administration IT system.
First, the university deals with super computers and IT that is
out of the ordinary. Second, as an educational institution,
hardware and software manufacturers frequently approach the
university with special deals. He asked Mr. Smith to respond.
STEVE SMITH, University of Alaska Anchorage, related that as a
public educational system, the university receives special
pricing on software, hardware, applications and sometimes
telecommunications.
The university uses an Oracle database system behind the core
applications and Oracle gives the university an educational
price for that. Similarly, the university uses the Microsoft
desktop utility and it receives special educational pricing. Sun
hardware is used in research and a distinct price advantage is
given. About 40 percent of the computers on the Fairbanks campus
are Apple and the university receives special pricing for those.
In addition to the special pricing, the university uses
applications that are specific to the university. For instance
the student information-system application is specific for
university use. It keeps track of student transcripts and
records and to make sure the university adheres to FERPA laws
relating to student privacy. In addition the university uses a
course management system that is specific to higher education.
The application makes it possible for instructors to put course
information on-line.
Furthermore there are needs that are specific, special, and
unique to a university system such as research and instruction.
With the high-performance computing and networking, specifically
with the supercomputer in Fairbanks but also with other
departments, there are specific needs for databases or systems
used to collect and analyze data for research. This, he said, is
tied closely to instruction. Examples of that are the CISCO
academies that are run through a number of the campuses to train
students on networking. There are specific separate setups to be
able to do that kind of training. For research and instruction
to be cutting-edge the university must use a variety of systems.
MR. SMITH said while they adhere to university wide standards,
flexibility is needed to meet research and instructional
demands. For example, the university partners with other
universities to work on Internet II, which is the next
generation Internet. Internet II has set standards that the
university must adhere to so that the researchers can
collaborate. Students also have access to that. Those standards
may not be the same as those used within state government, but
those are the standards that work for the university.
Certain contributions and partnerships are made specifically for
use by the university. Contributions have come from Alaska Fiber
Star and GCI and other carriers with the specific criterion that
it only be used for education and research. Partnerships with
other universities and research entities are not uncommon so
applications need to be in line with other education and
research institutions.
"We would like you to consider that the university may have
similar consideration to the judicial and legislative branches,"
he said. In closing he said the university adheres to standards
and works to coordinate, collaborate and share with state
agencies whenever possible.
4:49:37 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted that the Board of Regents is
constitutionally charged with setting policy for the university
system. He questioned whether it had established an overall IT
policy for the university.
MR. SMITH answered yes and he is the chief IT officer. That is a
defined officer in university policy and it describes his areas
of responsibility and his duties. New policy was instituted at
the last board meeting to include language to require all IT
investments to be reviewed through his office. Finally, the most
extensive language in policy relates to user rights and
expectations.
SENATOR WAGONER asked what kind of time constraint his office
places on itself when it reviews IT requests for change or new
equipment.
MR. SMITH replied the actual policy language doesn't describe
how it would be done and all the procedures aren't in place
since this was just passed at the last board meeting. However,
in practice it would be coordinated with the procurement offices
at each main campus. With the delegation it means that at
appropriate places those practices and the review process will
be reviewed, but if something doesn't look right the central
office would become involved.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Peterson if he could offer an opinion
from the Administration.
MR. PETERSON replied the Administration has no problem with the
university being exempt from the definition of state agency. He
added, "Any other agency of the state though we would like to
have a discussion about that. Only because there is an internal
process within the Administration for that to occur."
CHAIR THERRIAULT moved conceptual AMENDMENT 2 to include the
university in the list of exempt agencies. There being no
objection, conceptual AMENDMENT 2 passed.
There were no further questions or testimony. He noted the zero
fiscal note and asked Senator Wagoner for a motion.
SENATOR WAGONER motioned to report CSSB 143(STA) and attached
zero fiscal note from committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced that without objection, it was so
ordered.
SSSB 26-FELONS' RIGHT TO VOTE
CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT announced SSSB 26 to be up for
consideration.
4:55:27 PM
AMANDA WILSON, Staff to Senator Davis, explained that SSSB 26
addresses Alaska voting laws. The Alaska State Constitution has
a provision that a person who is convicted of a felony of moral
turpitude loses the right to vote until his/her civil rights are
restored. Under statute a person's civil rights are restored
upon unconditional discharge. Unconditional discharge is defined
in statute as being discharged from probation or parole
provisions after having served the sentence.
The problem associated with this is demonstrated in the example
of a person who is convicted of a felony of moral turpitude and
receives a six-months sentence. After 6-months incarceration
comes probation and that can extend for a decade. The probation
period is not necessarily in line with what the judge thought
the sentence should be, she said.
While on probation the person pays taxes, maintains employment,
and perhaps raises a family, but he/she may not vote. SSSB 26
proposes to change the law to state that once a person is
released from incarceration, he/she would have the right to
vote. This changes no other rights or obligations, but it brings
the person back into society in a meaningful way. Furthermore,
studies have shown a person who votes is much less likely to
recidivate than a person who doesn't vote.
She suggested that the process would be rehabilitative to
participate in the community and public process of voting. To
bolster that point she read from President Bush's 2002 State of
the Union Address as follows:
This year some 600,000 inmates will be released from
prison back into society. We know from long experience
that if they can't find work or home or help they are
much more likely commit crime and return to prison.
America is the land of a second chance and when the
gates of the prison open the path ahead should lead to
a better life.
MS. WILSON said that although Alaska Natives make up just 15.6%
of the population, fully 37.4% of the disenfranchised population
is Alaska Native. Similarly, African American's make up 3.5% of
Alaska's population, but account for 8.2% of the
disenfranchised. She said these numbers indicate a greater
impact on the minority community.
"Felony disenfranchisement is the last major form of
disenfranchisement," she said. However, in the last seven years
a number of states have addressed this issue and two have
removed felony disenfranchisements altogether. The American Bar
Association and the National Association of Mayors have endorsed
this concept and she urged the committee to do the same.
5:00:14 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT referenced the sponsor statement and noted that
Alaska isn't out of step with the majority of states. Fully 21
states have the same provision and 14 states have permanent
disenfranchisement.
SENATOR DAVIS acknowledged that Alaska is in the middle.
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER commented he doubts that when an
individual commits a felony that he/she thinks about losing the
right to vote. He suggested it is a consequence of the action
and he doesn't understand why the committee would worry about
that. Furthermore he wasn't sure how many would exercise the
right.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said a number of considerations go into setting
the jail time and length of parole and he didn't believe it was
fair to say that the judge thought the person should serve just
6-months and all rights should be restored at the end of the 6-
month period. The Legislature may have made the policy call that
the sentence should be 5-years and the judge could mitigate that
by giving part of the sentence as parole.
SENATOR DAVIS responded the Legislature did make that policy
call and that's why she introduced the bill. "It's time for us
to look at it again," she said. Just because someone didn't
think about losing the right to vote when committing a crime
doesn't mean that he/she wouldn't exercise the right if it were
given.
SENATOR WAGONER said he thought if a person was convicted and
did 9 months in jail he/she would be on parole in his/her own
community.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said Portia Parker could address the particular
questions.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS assumed the majority of the people in
the population under discussion probably weren't registered to
vote prior to committing the felony.
MS. WILSON replied 4,643 Alaskans were registered to vote and
lost the right as a result of a felony conviction.
SENATOR HUGGINS responded, "The question is whether they voted
or not." He further assumed that for a felon, being able to vote
is not an important thing in his/her life.
MS. WILSON replied she hadn't done that poll, but if it's
important to a few it should be important. It's a part of the
rehabilitative process and some people often don't realize that
they lost the right to vote until they're released from prison.
SENATOR WAGONER clarified he said that the parole period is part
of the sentence. Losing the right to vote isn't part of the
sentence but with the parole period comes the loss of the right
to vote.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said if 4,600 people were previously registered
to vote and had lost that right then passing this bill would
give the right to vote to a much larger group.
MS. WILSON replied just the people who are on parole or
probation would be re-enfranchised.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said those people who are out on parole and
weren't previously registered to vote would have the right to
vote if this were to pass.
MS. WILSON said yes.
SENATOR HUGGINS remarked there are several things, such as
voting, that you do for your country. He elaborated, "The other
would be to go to Iraq or Afghanistan to defend your country.
The same people we're talking about here would not meet the
prerequisite to go to Afghanistan or Iraq." He asked Senator
Davis whether she would agree with that statement.
SENATOR DAVIS responded she didn't necessarily agree because she
didn't know the qualifications, but some convicted felons do
serve in the military.
SENATOR HUGGINS said it would require a waiver and his point is
that when you become a felon, there are things such as voting or
going to defend your country that you simply cannot do. However,
he said, "I think you could probably make a case that it might
be as good a thing as anything for recidivism if they could go
to Iraq..."
SENATOR DAVIS stated the intent of SB 26 is to give people the
right and opportunity to vote if they want to exercise that
right. The idea certainly isn't that you have to go to Iraq to
get the right to vote back. "That's not what we're concerned
about and neither should you be concerned about that," she
declared. Once you've served your time you should get back the
right to vote.
SENATOR HUGGINS clarified his point that felons are precluded
from service to country without a waiver.
5:12:43 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT remarked there is a right to vote in this
country as long as you keep the compact with society. Committing
a felony breaks that compact, which is why the freedom of
movement is revoked. The right to vote is the same. You can be
incarcerated and serving your sentence isn't limited to the time
spent behind bars. He said he would like Ms. Parker to clarify
whether or not it's possible to commit a felony in Alaska and
have no jail time. If you serve no jail time and didn't lose the
right to vote, "I'm not sure my constituents are ready for
people committing felonies and paying no price," he said.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if the people in his district appreciate the
fact that you might commit a felony and not serve any time at
all. It still happens, she said.
CHAIR THERRIAULT agreed that you might maintain the right to
move around but you'd lost your right to vote.
SENATOR DAVIS responded, "That's what I'm trying to correct."
MS. WILSON clarified the technical point that some convicted
felons serve jail time and don't lose the right to vote. It's
only those convicted of felonies of moral turpitude that lose
the right to vote. She said the list of those crimes is listed
in the bill packet.
CHAIR THERRIAULT opened public testimony.
5:15:04 PM
ALONZO PATTERSON JR., representing the Shiloh Missionary Baptist
Church, the American National and Alaskan Baptist Churches, the
Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, the Martin Luther King
Foundation of Alaska, and former member of the Alaska State
Parole Board spoke via teleconference. He reported that he also
served 12 years as chair of the Alaska State Parole Board.
He spoke in strong support of SB 26 and emphasized that
sentencing disparity and errors do occur. He further said:
Certainly when one goes to jail a price must be paid.
However, please keep in mind, part of the paid
programming in the institution is rehabilitation. If
rehabilitation is not a high consideration for us then
what is? If you take away the hope of an individual in
jail, to come out and do better, then you encourage
re-incarceration of that person or continued
recidivism of that person in the institution.
He urged the committee to pass SB 26. Give them something to
reach for, he said.
5:22:49 PM
MICHAEL MACLEOD-BALL Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), spoke in strong support of SB 26 and drew
attention to the letter he wrote to Senator Davis.
Since the mid 1980s the ACLU has supported the right of any
individual convicted of any offense to vote. Prisoners should be
able to express their beliefs freely except when the state can
demonstrate a compelling interest in limiting that expression.
"In our view, no compelling state interest can justify barring a
prisoner from expressing his or her belief in the form of
casting a secret ballot in a popular election."
If rehabilitation is a most important goal for the penal system,
what could be more important than ensuring successful reentry
into society, he asked. Establishing a comprehensive set of
connections between the offender and the community in which he
or she resides advances successful reintegration. Convicted
felons who reenter the community on parole or serve on probation
face overwhelming odds against successful reintegration yet we
expect them to face challenges in the same way as a non-
offender. "If that's our demand, we ought to act by the same
standard and give the released offender the opportunity to
exercise his or her rights as a functioning member of society if
in fact they have been released into society."
Referencing NAACP vs. Harvey he said that experts found that
there is no rational purpose in denying the vote to parolees and
probationers. Furthermore,
Denying suffrage to them, in fact, contradicts the
purpose of rehabilitating offenders. Voting is a
positive and re-integrative event that connects the
offender to his or her community and
disenfranchisement laws frustrate offenders in their
attempts to reenter society fully and successfully.
Disenfranchisement hinders the rehabilitative purposes
of parole and probation by denying to parolees and
probationers the rights and responsibilities of
citizenship and participation in community life
necessary to rehabilitation.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL said his letter to Senator Davis cited a study
in Minneapolis that found a strong correlation between voting
and recidivism. It showed that voters are about half as likely
to be rearrested as non-voters. This study supports logic, he
said. Since voting is a pro-social endeavor, it has the effect
of weaving the offender back into the community. Furthermore,
since the purposes of probation and parole are rehabilitative
rather than punitive, SB 26 makes particular sense.
In passing this bill, Alaska will join a movement of states that
are recognizing that there is no practical reason for arbitrary
restrictions on voting rights. In fact, the American Bar
Association has taken a position that matches this bill.
"SB 26 offers you the opportunity to work for positive change in
advancing the ideals of our nation and the ACLU strongly urges
enactment of the bill," he concluded.
5:29:15 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Parker to come forward.
PORTIA PARKER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), reported that the department has taken no position on the
bill, but it does have several concerns regarding implementation
and cost.
One issue is the definition of incarceration or incarcerated. A
number of offenders are receiving credit for being incarcerated
when serving in halfway houses, under electronic monitor, and in
treatment beds. These individuals are in the community but they
are incarcerated; they are in prison.
The other issue is the confusion between probation and parole. A
judge gives probation. If an offender receives a 12-year
sentence with 3 years suspended, 9 years would be served and the
3 years would be probationary upon release. However, because of
mandatory parole the offender would get out after 6 years. Some
of that time could be served in a halfway house. Following the 6
years, the offender is on probation for 3 years and parole for 3
years. In Alaska they run concurrently so supervision is for
just 3 years.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if the offender is released
unconditionally after 9 years.
MS. PARKER said that's correct; they would receive unconditional
release and their voting rights would be restored.
Since Peratrovitch, the Department of Corrections can no longer
restrict an offender from returning home if he/she is on a
waiting list for treatment. "Whether it's alcohol treatment or
sex offender treatment, we cannot - as probation and parole -
keep them from going back to their hometown as they're waiting
to get into a treatment facility or to other services. That was
a 2002 case in Peratrovitch."
Another concern is the cost and logistics of letting the
Division of Elections know because violation occurs between 30
and 50 percent of the time. Typically, parole violations and/or
revocations occur within the first year and it's not uncommon
for violation to occur within the first month. Certainly this
would increase the workload for the department and the Division
of Elections.
5:34:53 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted the Department of Corrections fiscal note
is zero.
MS. PARKER acknowledged that was correct and that the department
is working with the Division of Elections to determine the
impact. "It would just depend on the volume and turnover," she
said.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked how long a parole violator might spend
back in prison and how many times the door might revolve.
MS. PARKER said it depends. If he/she commits a technical
violation and a new crime is committed then he/she is revoked
and would typically go back into the system and serve the
probation/parole time. The offender may also reapply to get out
on discretionary parole or they serve and get out in another
two-thirds of the sentence.
Often the offender is re-released, but she didn't have data on
how often that occurs.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if she would be contacting other states
that have taken this step to determine the fiscal impact.
MS. PARKER said that would probably be the next step in trying
to determine the fiscal impact. She noted that Alaska has the
unified system compared to the county system so comparison is
challenging.
5:38:42 PM
SENATOR DAVIS asked her to speak to the form that DOC uses for
individuals who will be out on probation. She said her staff was
retrieving a copy.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if the recidivism rate is higher or lower
for felony of moral turpitude than other crimes.
MS. PARKER said she didn't have that information; the offenses
are wide ranging.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said it ranges from murder in the first degree
to unlawful furnishing of explosives to misconduct by a juror.
He asked Senator Davis what she had in mind for a definition for
"incarcerated."
SENATOR DAVIS answered as long as they're serving the sentence -
even if it's under house arrest - they would be serving their
term.
SENATOR DAVIS asked Ms. Parker to speak to the probationary
form.
MS. PARKER responded, "This is a letter that is used in the
Juneau region. They are a little different in each area." The
letter is provided to the offender upon completion of the
probation/parole advising that the individual's rights are being
restored.
SENATOR DAVIS asked what difference it would make to use this
letter under the provisions of SB 26.
MS. PARKER said there wouldn't be any difference. The individual
would receive the letter when discharged from prison and going
onto probation/parole. She said her concern relates to the
number of revocations.
SENATOR DAVIS asked how they use the letter now.
MS. PARKER answered it's used when the individual is completely
off probation/parole and therefore no longer under supervision.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if it's correct that parole/probation
can't be extended beyond the term of the original sentence.
Unless a new crime is committed, the individual would get just
one letter. Under SB 26 an individual could receive multiple
letters.
MS PARKER said that's correct.
SENATOR DAVIS suggested the wheels of progress don't move that
fast and the person who violates probation/parole within 12
hours probably wouldn't have received the letter yet.
Nonetheless, "That's something that could be worked through. I
have no problem with that. That still doesn't say they should
not have that right simply because we have to come up with some
way to make it work."
MS. PARKER responded she is just addressing the fact that once
released, the letter is sent to the Division of Elections. If
the individual isn't registered to vote and doesn't register
upon release it probably wouldn't create a lot of work for the
Division of Elections, but DOC would still need to give the
individual the letter upon release.
SENATOR DAVIS said that would all be taken into consideration if
the bill were to pass. It's premature for DOC to say how it
would work at this point.
MS. PARKER said it could be worked out that a letter wouldn't be
provided at all; she was just explaining what is done currently.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said, "At the very least, Senator Davis, we
need to work with the drafters on the definition of the word
"incarcerated."
SENATOR DAVIS said she had no problem with that.
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced he was closing the hearing on SSSB
26. The bill was held in committee.
HJR 8-SUPPORTING ALASKA ARMY NATL. GUARD
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced HJR 8 to be up for consideration.
5:46:38 PM
TERRY HARVEY, Legislative Aide to Representative Bruce
Weyhrauch, presented HJR 8, which recognizes and offers support
to the active members of the Army National Guard that are
currently deployed worldwide. The language in the resolution is
inclusive and it also recognizes members who have returned and
those who are preparing to deploy. He noted that the number of
deployments is at a record high and more are pending.
The resolution received unanimous support in the House and he
asked the State Affairs Committee to extend its support as well.
5:48:10 PM
LIEUTENANT COLONEL MIKE BRIDGES, Alaska National Guard, spoke
via teleconference to say that he provided the background
information for the resolution and he was available for
questions.
5:49:11 PM
SENATOR DAVIS stated this is a good resolution and the committee
should move it out.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if she would like to make a motion.
SENATOR DAVIS motioned to report HJR 8 and attached fiscal zero
note(s) from committee with unanimous consent.
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced SJR 8 passed from committee with
unanimous support.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Therriault adjourned the meeting at 5:49:57 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|