CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 135(JUD) "An Act relating to the rights of crime victims; relating to the duties of prosecuting attorneys; and amending Rule 45, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure." 5:50:50 PM Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee substitute for SB 135(FIN), Work Draft 27-LS0966\I (Gardner, 4/11/12) as a working document. Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion. JOE MICHEL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, outlined the additions in the proposed CS. He detailed that on page 4, Section 3 had been included; Sections 4, 5, and 6 were likewise added to the legislation. He concluded that Sections 7, 8, and 9 were part of the original bill that had entered the committee. SUE WRIGHT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, explained that the CS basically merged HB 221 into SB 135; HB 221 dealt with court appointed council. Page 4, line 25 of the bill added financial resources and "adds a little teeth" to what people swear to in court when they were asking for court appointed council. Page 5, line 14 described the change to the court rule, which was Rule 39.1 subsection (e). Page 5, line 19 specified that people who lied when asking for appointed council were subject to penalties for perjury. She added that the merging allowed for courts to go back and make sure that the financial statements that were signed were correct and enforceable. She expressed appreciation for the cooperation on the bill. She observed that the CS had been delivered to her about 5 minutes prior to the meeting and offered her apologies if she misstated anything. 5:55:11 PM Co-Chair Stoltze emphasized that he had been working with Speaker Chenault's office for quite some time on the legislation and stated that he did not want the public to be under the impression that the speaker's office had just received the CS. Ms. Wright responded that she had been absent from the office and that someone else had been working on the bill. She clarified that she had just personally received the CS. Co-Chair Stoltze commented that the committee had a thorough process, which had not been shortened during the formulation of the legislation. He inquired if the presumption in the bill was that someone would be provided an attorney during arraignment and would have to verify their financial ability at a later date. Ms. Wright responded in the affirmative. Co-Chair Stoltze requested Vice-Chair Fairclough to share her contributions to the measure. Vice-Chair Fairclough replied that the Office of Victims' Rights (OVR) was reviewed and it was discovered that its pay scale was frozen at Step A. She related that it was difficult for someone to stay in an office and be stuck at a particular pay level, while other staff was advancing. She had proposed to Senator French's and Co-Chair Stoltze's offices that the restrictions on that particular level be lifted; the level would stay at a pay grade 26, but the change would allow OVR, based on the employee's number of years of service, to move across the states pay scale. Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if the changes to OVR arose from discussions by the Victims Advocate Selection Committee. Vice-Chair Fairclough responded that she had brought the suggestion to his attention. Co-Chair Stoltze observed that the discussions regarding OVR were conducted in executive sessions and that there probably was an issue with confidentiality regarding the specifics of the discussion. Vice-Chair Fairclough responded that earlier in the day, she had discussed the change to OVR with Senator French, who also had served on the Victims Advocate Selection Committee. Co-Chair Stoltze clarified for the record that the process to change the OVR pay scale did not arise arbitrarily, but that it had come from discussions during the selection process. Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 27-LS0966\I was ADOPTED. LILA HOBBS, STAFF, SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, stated that Article 1, Section 24 of the Alaska State Constitution housed the entitled rights of crime victims and that the amendment that had added those rights had passed by an overwhelming majority, when it had gone before Alaskan voters in 1994; included in those rights was a guarantee that crime victims would have the right to a timely disposition of the case following the arrest of the accused. She offered that it had been 18 years since the constitutional amendment had passed and that the promise of timely disposition was often not kept, particularly with the most serious cases. Delays in the trials of cases, also known as continuances, could go on for years. She shared that SB 135 required prosecutors and judges to consider a victims right to a timely disposition of their case, when making decisions on allowing continuances; the bill also insured that victims were notified of any requests or motions that could substantially delay the speedy prosecution of their case. She mentioned that repeated delays in cases prevented the victims from reaching emotional, physical, and financial closure; furthermore, delays in prosecution could also affect the availability of witnesses, the victim's ability to recall details, and could create other impediments to a successful trial. She concluded that the legislation would guarantee a victims right to a timely resolution in the court system. She concluded that the bill was widely supported from organizations such as the Victims for Justice, the OVR, the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Standing Together Against Rape, the Alaska Peace Officers Association, as well as Karen Foster, who was the mother of Bonnie Craig. 5:59:35 PM KAREN FOSTER, SELF, ANCHORAGE, shared that her daughter, Bonnie Craig, was murdered and that it had taken almost 17 years before the person responsible was convicted. She discussed the incredible tragedy and hardship of having her daughter murdered, as well as having to wait almost five years for a conviction after the defendant was identified. She stated that her family was "re-victimized" by the state of Alaska. Bonnie's killer was identified though a DNA match in November of 2006, but it took almost two years before a trial date was set on September of 2008. She stated that her family had endured six trail dates and related how difficult the process for everyone. She mentioned that she had written a letter to the committee and expressed a desire that the members would all read it. She stated that the system was financially, physically, mentally, and spiritually difficult on families; furthermore, there was nowhere else to turn to while families were enduring the wait. She shared that more than once, her family had talked to the judge regarding the defense attorney's repeated continuation requests; the continuations had wasting two years of the family's and the state's time. She urged the committee to deal with the issue of timely dispositions and emphasized that she did not want anyone else to go through what her family had. She requested that the committee consider the victims and give judges the opportunity to consider the victims as well. Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. Vice-Chair Fairclough discussed six fiscal notes. She addressed the fiscal note from the Department of Law and related that it was currently indeterminate because the Senate did not feel that there was adequate supporting documentation for a new full-time position. 6:06:10 PM Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED to report HCS CSSB 135(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. 6:06:26 PM HCS CSSB 135(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with three new zero fiscal notes from the Court System, the Legislature, and the Department of Corrections, two new zero notes from the Department of Administration, and one previously published indeterminate fiscal note: FN4 (SFIN/LAW). Co-Chair Stoltze noted that he was glad to work on another victims' rights bill and that he had conducted previous work on the issue. 6:07:18 PM AT EASE 6:08:15 PM RECONVENED