CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 22(FIN) "An Act relating to the commencement of actions for felony sex trafficking and felony human trafficking; relating to the crime of sexual assault; relating to the crime of unlawful contact; relating to forfeiture for certain crimes involving prostitution; relating to the time in which to commence certain prosecutions; relating to release in a prosecution for stalking or a crime involving domestic violence or for violation of a condition of release in connection with a crime involving domestic violence; relating to interception of private communications for certain sex trafficking or human trafficking offenses; relating to use of evidence of sexual conduct concerning victims of certain crimes; relating to consideration at sentencing of the effect of a crime on the victim; relating to the time to make an application for credit for time served in a treatment program or while in other custody; relating to suspending imposition of sentence for sex trafficking; relating to consecutive sentences for convictions of certain crimes involving child pornography or indecent materials to minors; relating to the referral of sexual felonies to a three-judge panel; relating to the definition of 'sexual felony' for sentencing and probation for conviction of certain crimes; relating to the definition of 'sex offense' regarding sex offender registration; relating to the definition of 'victim counseling centers' for disclosure of certain communications concerning sexual assault or domestic violence; relating to violent crimes compensation; relating to certain information in retention election of judges concerning sentencing of persons convicted of felonies; relating to remission of sentences for certain sexual felony offenders; relating to forms for sexual assault, stalking, and domestic violence protective orders; relating to the subpoena power of the attorney general in cases involving the use of an Internet service account; relating to reasonable efforts in child-in-need-of-aid cases involving sexual abuse or sex offender registration; relating to mandatory reporting by athletic coaches of child abuse or neglect; making conforming amendments; amending Rules 16, 32.1(b)(1), and 32.2(a), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rules 404(a) and (b), Alaska Rules of Evidence; and providing for an effective date." 1:54:59 PM Representative Costello MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee substitute for CSSB 22(FIN), Work Draft 28- GS1587\R (Strasbaugh, 4/10/13). Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion. DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, discussed the changes in the CS. He relayed that the first change had been made to the bill title on page 2, lines 8 through 11: ...the rights of certain victims of sexual assault to obtain legal and equitable remedies from injuries arising from the conduct of a perpetrator; relating to the definition of 'sexual assault' for the purpose of adoption and the termination of parental rights in certain proceedings; relating to... Co-Chair Stoltze noted that some of the changes were not products of the House Finance Committee and included the adoption of work done by the House Judiciary Committee. Mr. George relayed that the next change clarified which offences were eligible for the forfeiture of property (page 7). 1:57:17 PM Mr. George pointed to the addition of a fifth item (Section 17, subsection (a), page 10) to the list of items a victim may request from the court prior to a presentencing report: "letters of support submitted to the court for consideration." Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that the change resulted from outreach to the Office of Victims' Rights. Mr. George noted that Sections 31 and 32 had been added to the bill (page 16) in the House Judiciary Committee. The additions related to a savings clause that would allow a victim of sexual assault to terminate parental rights and pursue civil damages. The meaning of sexual assault was further defined in Section 32. He continued on page 20 and relayed that the word "and" had been inserted on line 30; additionally, language had been deleted from line 31 that read "any individual the defendant may seek to qualify to furnish expert testimony at trial." Representative Holmes asked for the page number. Mr. George reiterated the information about page 20, lines 30 and 31. He read the full sentence beginning on line 27: The material shall be considered to be made reasonably available to the defendant or defense counsel if the prosecuting attorney provides, at a law enforcement or prosecution facility, ample opportunity for inspection, viewing, and examination of the material by the defendant and the defendant's attorney. Mr. George elaborated that the sentence had gone on to read (but had been deleted): "any individual the defendant may seek to qualify to furnish expert testimony at trial." 2:00:37 PM AT EASE 2:01:37 PM RECONVENED Mr. George continued on page 21. Lines 2 through 5 had been edited to read "If the defendant or the defendant's attorney identifies an expert who must view the material, the court shall make arrangements for the court or the law enforcement agency that possesses it to send the material directly to the expert"; the words "outside the state" had been removed from the sentence. 2:02:49 PM Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 28-GS1587\R was ADOPTED. Representative Wilson asked whether the use of a global positioning device was available throughout the state or in urban areas only. LESLIE HOUSTON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, asked Representative Wilson to repeat the question. Representative Wilson stated that she was uncomfortable with the concept of using a global positioning device. She wondered whether the devices would be used in all Alaskan communities if Department of Corrections decided to use them. Ms. Houston replied that the technology did exist for use throughout Alaska. Representative Wilson asked for verification that court ordered treatment outside a treatment center did not count as jail time unless a person was escorted. ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (DOL), agreed. She detailed that in order for a person to get credit for treatment they needed to go to a treatment center and to be escorted by the center to any other treatment location. She noted that some exceptions existed such as meetings with counsel, going to court, and other. Representative Wilson planned to research the issue over the interim. She was concerned about smaller treatment facilities that could not provide all services and about the additional cost that may occur as a result of the chaperone requirement. She wanted to avoid people choosing to sit in jail instead of leaving for treatment. She reiterated her plan to look into the issue further. Ms. Carpeneti replied that DOL would be happy to work with Representative Wilson on the issue. Representative Gara referred to a sexual abuse case at Penn State [Jerry Sandusky case]. He asked for verification that if a college coach or personnel learned about sexual abuse occurring they were legally required to report it in Alaska. Ms. Carpeneti answered that a person connected with a school, a part of a school administration, or teaching staff was legally required to report the abuse. Representative Gara stated asked for verification that the law included universities. Ms. Carpeneti believed so. Representative Gara asked for confirmation that existing Alaska law covered a Jerry Sandusky situation, assuming all people charged were guilty. Ms. Carpeneti was not certain that all individuals who knew about the Sandusky abuse were paid staff of the university. Representative Gara asked if paid university staff would be subject to prosecution under Alaska law. Ms. Carpeneti replied that the individuals would be mandatory reporters under Alaska law. Representative Gara asked for verification that it was a crime for a mandatory reporter to not report abuse. Ms. Carpeneti replied that it could be a crime if a person knew about the abuse and did not report it. She added that the state had never prosecuted a similar case. Representative Gara asked whether the situation was covered by the law. Ms. Carpeneti replied in the affirmative. Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 1 (28-GS1587\Y.4, Gardner/Strasbaugh, 4/4/13)(copy on file): Page 19, line 8, following "members": Insert ", including athletic coaches," Page 19, lines 19-20: Delete"; (9) athletic coaches" Page 19, line 22, following "team": Insert "." Page 19, lines 23-25 Delete all material. Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Gara noted that the amendment was conceptual as it had been written to the prior bill version. The bill related to pages 19 and 20 of the legislation. Currently the bill stipulated that paid coaches were liable as mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect that they knew about. He provided a scenario of a person being asked to coach their child's soccer team the night before school started for a token amount of pay. He did not want to make the individual under the scenario liable. Existing law made school teachers, school administrative staff, members of public and private schools liable. He explained that the amendment would insert the words "including athletic coaches" to the list on page 19, line 31. The amendment would delete subsection (9) reading "athletic coaches" and Section 40 that defined an athletic coach as a person who may get a token amount of pay (e.g. $10 or $25). The amendment contained conforming language as well. Representative Gara explained that the intention of the amendment was to distinguish between a school athletic coach who ostensibly received some kind of training in mandatory reporting and a parent who had no training. He stated that a parent who volunteered to coach a team should not be held to the same requirement. 2:11:03 PM Representative Wilson asked for the definition of a school administrative staff member. NAOMI HARRIS, COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER, OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES (OCS), DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, did not have the definition of a school administrative staff member available. She was available to speak to mandatory reporting requirements and available training. Representative Gara asked for verification that currently all mandatory reporters were in professional positions. Ms. Harris responded in the affirmative. Co-Chair Stoltze wondered who would potentially be subject to a felony charge under the legislation. Ms. Carpeneti replied that teachers fell under the description of a professional person. She elaborated that in the absence of a definition for "administrator," the dictionary definition could be used. She cited the definition as someone on the staff who is paid in a school (e.g. school counselors or other paid employees). She relayed that the mandatory reporting requirements applied to childcare workers as well. She noted that childcare workers did not get paid a substantial amount of money, but they were required to report if they suspected child abuse and neglect. Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that the assertion was not about making a substantial amount of money. He noted that the individuals [the amendment aimed to exclude] were often uncompensated; they may receive inexpensive items such as a ticket to a school event or lunch money. Ms. Harris added that there was a training video available on the OCS website that could be sent in the mail as well through the Children's Justice Task Force. Co-Chair Stoltze was concerned about the possibility that the bill was overreaching in the area related to who would be considered a mandatory reporter. He did not want to felonize a person who did not have training and who may not be present very willingly [as a volunteer coach or other]. He agreed with Representative Gara on the issue about the seriousness of creating a felony possibility for a person who was essentially a volunteer. 2:17:13 PM Representative Wilson surmised that the term "school administrative staff" had been included in the bill for a reason. She was not a fan of the legislation and believed it was overreaching. She wanted statistics showing who the bill aimed to catch. She stated that athletic coaches fit under the term school administrative staff. She referred to workers who received a stipend to care for students after school on school grounds. She wondered if the after school workers would be subject to the mandatory reporting requirement if the bill language was changed to "school staff." She did not know what "school administrative staff member" meant and was concerned about the issue. Co-Chair Stoltze redirected the conversation towards Amendment 1. Representative Wilson wondered why the term "athletic coach" was needed in the legislation; she wondered who the [mandatory reporting] provision applied to. Ms. Harris clarified that mandatory reporters were not expected to be experts in child abuse. She detailed that coaches, school staff, and after school staff had unique and close relationships with the children. She elaborated that the staff often noticed things or children disclosed information to them. The requirement was that if the staff became aware of incidents of child abuse or neglect that they were to alert OCS. Co-Chair Stoltze asked what would happen if the individual did not alert OCS. Ms. Harris replied that a person would not be charged with a misdemeanor if it came to light that they had been aware of abuse and had failed to report it. She added that an incident had only been reported once in the past. Ms. Carpeneti believed the amendment would most likely make the section in the bill unnecessary; people connected with a school were already mandatory reporters. She referred to a letter from Gary Matthews [executive director, Alaska School Activities Association, Inc.], which mentioned that hundreds of athletic coaches were not connected with schools (copy on file); the bill would require the coaches to be mandatory reporters. She relayed that the group of coaches were treated differently at different schools. There were a number of schools in Anchorage that contracted their coaching to individuals; some schools required the coaches to be mandatory reporters and others did not. The association [Alaska School Activities Association, Inc.] required people with direct supervisory authority over children to receive training. She relayed that the training was not onerous; it took approximately 30 minutes to watch the training on the OCS website. A person was able to report suspected abuse anonymously; OCS used standards to determine whether an investigation should occur following a report. She stated that adding paid athletic coaches was not an onerous addition to the existing law. Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that a bill on the issue ought to easily stand alone. 2:21:47 PM Representative Thompson spoke in support of Amendment 1. He discussed his involvement with the youth soccer and hockey associations in Fairbanks; every year the associations were short on coaches and the groups had to beg parents to coach teams. He believed the provision in the legislation would make some coaches hesitant to get involved. He opined that the language in the bill was overreaching. Representative Munoz supported the amendment. She believed the bill language was too broad with its inclusion of any sporting programs that received municipal funding. She stated that in Juneau the provision could include almost all of the youth sporting programs where most coaches were volunteers who were paid a small stipend. She worried that as written, the provision would be a deterrent to participation. She had heard from parents who were concerned with the provision. She believed it was important to include coaches associated with public or private school programs in the school employee section, but she did not want unintended consequences impacting participation in all local programs. Co-Chair Stoltze corrected his earlier statement that the crime would be a felony. The offence was a misdemeanor with maximum incarceration of up to one year. Ms. Carpeneti communicated that the provision did not apply to volunteer coaches. Co-Chair Stoltze noted "we don't know the interpretation." He believed in the fundamentals of choosing respect and having responsibilities to prevent bad things from happening. He stated that it was not possible to formulate everything on moral behavior into a law. He stated that there were delineations for the providers that people have training. 2:25:00 PM Representative Gara stated that the Jerry Sandusky situation was currently covered by Alaska law. He wanted to ensure that school coaches were subject to the same rule. Currently the only people covered in schools were teachers and school administrative staff. The amendment would ensure that school athletic coaches were included as mandatory reporters. He explained that the amendment would remove subsection (9) and the definition of athletic coach was to exclude individuals who were paid a small stipend to coach. He stressed that if the individuals were included the bill may as well include all people in Alaska. He expressed discomfort at making a person who was paid $25 a mandatory reporter. He communicated that the amendment tried to adhere to the intent of the bill; athletic coaches in schools would be subject to the law. Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 (28-GS1587\Y.4, Gardner/Strasbaugh, 4/4/13) was ADOPTED. 2:28:00 PM Representative Costello communicated that the bill had eight indeterminate and zero fiscal notes. Representative Holmes expressed discomfort at DOL's zero note that did not include an explanation on the zero impact. She felt the same way about the indeterminate notes. She stated that crime bills invariably cost the state a significant amount of money. Co-Chair Stoltze discussed a past crime bill package that had many fiscal notes attached from a broad range of departments. He discussed that the cost had been substantial and had been included in the fiscal notes. Ms. Carpeneti offered to respond to DOL's fiscal note. She relayed that the fiscal note was zero because the bill only added one new crime that prohibited a probation or parole officer from engaging in sexual contact with a person on probation or parole. The bill's other provisions dealt with improving the efficiency of the administration of justice. She believed the fiscal note was legitimately zero. She stated that only one probation/parole officer situation had been brought to the state's attention sense 1978. Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the information would have been helpful to have in the department's written fiscal note analysis. Representative Holmes remarked that two of the indeterminate notes were from a department she would work on the following year. 2:33:18 PM Vice-Chair Neuman wondered about costs to victims. He stated that sex offenders had an average of 110 victims and 318 offenses prior to being caught. He furthered that the offenders went undetected for an average of 16 years, which explained why there were so many victims of each offender. He shared that the National Institute of Justice estimated that the average cost of caring for the victims was $86,500. He stated that only 16 percent of the crimes were reported. He relayed that Alaska spent approximately $45 million on sexual assault victim treatment. Representative Holmes clarified she was not opposed to the legislation, but that she would prefer to see numbers included in the fiscal notes. Representative Wilson surmised that because the bill was about efficiencies she believed savings should occur. She requested comment on the issue. Ms. Carpeneti replied that her testimony related to increasing efficiencies was only related to DOL. 2:35:46 PM Representative Wilson wondered what problem the bill was aimed at solving. JOSEPH MASTERS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (DPS), viewed the fiscal impact as zero because it did not see additional expenses to the department. He communicated that it was difficult for DPS to calculate potential savings. He stated that one section dealt with adding a second representative of the attorney general that could assist DPS with administrative subpoenas; the absence of a second person during critical times would cause DPS extra work. Calculating the extra work was not difficult; however, counting the number of times it may occur was challenging. Representative Wilson wondered about the possibility of zeroing out all of the fiscal notes. She remarked that it did not sound like any additional offenders would be caught or incarcerated under the legislation. Co-Chair Stoltze noted that members had communicated their concerns about the fiscal notes. He believed some of the concerns had been answered adequately. Representative Wilson hoped that information on an existing problem and solution would be provided in future bill presentations. Co-Chair Stoltze added that it would be helpful for departments to include an explanation on zero or indeterminate notes in the analysis section. Representative Costello MOVED to REPORT CSSB 22(FIN) as amended out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion. Vice-Chair Neuman referred to earlier testimony on the need to correct issues related to a three-judge panel and wondered what the bill would change. He recalled discussion on a prior bill regarding the complexity of the issue including false accusations. He stated that individuals were placed in jail for significant periods of time due to mandatory requirements. Ms. Carpeneti replied that hopefully nothing would be changed with the three-judge panel. One of the bill's goals was to correct a mistaken interpretation of the intent of a bill passed in 2006. She spoke to the intent of the prior legislation related to the increased sentencing ranges, which was due to harm done by people committing sex felonies. She relayed that the past October when the court of appeals had decided Collins v. State it had adopted a different interpretation. The department had not found any legislative history of intent to change standards for referral of the cases to a three-judge panel. Vice-Chair Neuman read from a subsection [Section 23, subsection (f), page 12]: ...manifest injustice would result from imposition of a sentence within the presumptive range based solely on the claim that the defendant, either singly or in combination, has (1) prospects for rehabilitation that are less than extraordinary; or (2) a history free of unprosecuted, undocumented, or undetected sexual offences. Vice-Chair Neuman surmised that unless the three-judge panel believed an offender could be rehabilitated, the offender could apply for a three-judge panel. Ms. Carpeneti replied in the affirmative. She detailed that the department's concern was related to the Collins v. State decision, which addressed the law for the transfer of a case to a three-judge panel for sentencing after conviction based on standards that were different from other cases. Currently a sentencing court had to find that a person had prospects for rehabilitation that were extraordinary in order for referral to a three-judge panel for sentencing. The court decision had allowed the transfer of a case for sex felons to a three-judge panel under ordinary rehabilitation prospects, which the bill aimed to correct. 2:42:57 PM Representative Edgmon thanked first lady Sandy Parnell for championing the issue. He spoke in strong support of the legislation. He remarked that many of the victims were young Native women from rural Alaska. He referred to a sexual trafficking committee report from the past fall and relayed that many signs pointed towards child abuse and childhood trauma. He encouraged legislators to not lose sight of the importance of preventing victims from becoming engaged in horrific situations with "Johns" [sex traffickers or other] who were among the more despicable members of society. 2:44:40 PM Representative Wilson felt that the committee was being pushed to pass the legislation. She did not want to see any more victims, but she did not want innocent people to be punished for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. She was uncomfortable about the legislation and did not know who the bill aimed to catch and what it would do. She stated that it was not possible to make laws to catch every bad person. She felt that provisions in the bill were too far reaching at an unknown cost to the state. She did not believe the committee had been given sufficient time to examine the bill. She stressed that she did not want to see unintended consequences result from the legislation. Representative Gara supported preventing domestic violence and sexual abuse, but he did not believe a new bill was needed annually to convey that the state apposed sexual abuse. He discussed that legislation on the topic arose every year and required slight adjustments to statute. He stated that sex and human trafficking were already illegal. He felt the bill was more positive than negative, but he surmised that solutions to the issue were largely budgetary. He noted that he did not object to the bill. Co-Chair Stoltze spoke in strong agreement of other portions of the bill. He believed there was one provision that was not as thought out, but that it was well intentioned. He stated that the committee had a vast concurrence on the majority of the legislation including initiatives on sex trafficking and other. He remarked that it was not possible to make malignant behavior illegal; a statutory connection was required. He applauded the administration for its efforts and first lady Sandy Parnell's attention to the issue. He communicated that there were positive feelings about the direction of the bill. 2:50:07 PM Co-Chair Stoltze commended the bill on its valuable components. Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 22(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HCS CSSB 22(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new indeterminate fiscal note from the Court System; four previously published indeterminate fiscal notes: FN5 (ADM), FN8 (ADM), FN10 (COR), FN12 (CRT); and four previously published zero fiscal notes: FN2 (DPS), FN7 (DHS), FN9 (LAW), and FN11 (DPS). 2:51:19 PM AT EASE 3:03:18 PM RECONVENED