HB 290-CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION: MEMBERSHIP  4:11:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 290, "An Act relating to the membership of the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission; and providing for an effective date." 4:11:51 PM VALERIE DAVIDSON, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), stated that favorable consideration for the proposed bill would be appreciated. REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that an additional fiscal note had been received from the Alaska Judicial Council. 4:12:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Commissioner Davidson how her role on the advisory committee would be enhanced by status as a voting member as opposed to that as an advisory member. COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON stated that a voting membership would allow the Department of Health and Social Services to weigh in on policy decisions considered by the Criminal Justice Commission. Although both voting and non-voting members participated in the deliberations of the meetings, those with a vote have a greater opportunity to influence the outcome of the policy decisions. 4:14:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30- GH2586\A.2, Radford, 3/2/18, which read: Page 2, line 15: Delete "nonvoting member, serving ex officio, who is a" Insert "[NONVOTING MEMBER, SERVING EX OFFICIO, WHO IS A]" Page 2, line 17: Delete "nonvoting member, serving ex officio, who is a" Insert "[NONVOTING MEMBER, SERVING EX OFFICIO, WHO IS A]" REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected for discussion. 4:14:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that the proposed bill would add two more voting members appointed by the governor to the commission. He offered his belief that the Criminal Justice Commission would become more a reflection of the governor's cabinet, pointing out that the majority of the 13 voting members of the board were appointed and served at the will of the governor. He opined that the purpose of the commission was larger than passing on the agenda of the governor. He suggested that, as the reasons offered by Commissioner Davidson for a voting membership were in line with the two non-voting legislative members, it would be "only proper that we also add these two legislative members to the voting category." He added that it would preserve the larger role of the commission for making recommendations inclusive of the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches. 4:16:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked about the voting membership of other boards and commissions with legislative ex-officio members. 4:17:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to a memo from Legislative Legal Services and stated that it would not be improper for the Criminal Justice Commission to have voting members from all three branches of government. He offered an example of another commission which had voting members from both the House and the Senate. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON emphasized that these were very distinct commissions with very different missions and asked for another example. She asked if there were any state policy commissions on which the legislature had voting members. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he would also like to have that information. He suggested that there were very few, if any, similar commissions which, by design, were reflective of all three branches of government and had more than one representative from each. 4:19:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that it would take a systematic review to recognize which commissions and boards had voting legislative members. He stated that, although this commission did authorize judiciary votes, it denied that legislative members have the right to vote, which he deemed to be inconsistent. He declared his support for the proposed Amendment 1. 4:19:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE KITO shared that he had been appointed, as a voting member, to an advisory committee to the Department of Education and Early Development for bond reimbursement and grant review. He reported that this position was identified very specifically in statute. He offered his belief that this commission was "a little bit broader" and that it became a legislative policy call. He allowed that there could be a concern if there were recommendations from the Criminal Justice Commission to the Legislature while there were legislators on the commission who had already voted, and the Legislature was aware of the direction of those votes. He offered his belief that there could be a conflict if legislators were offering recommendations and having a vote on those recommendations. He stated that he could see reasons for both allowing and not allowing members to have voting rights and that it was up to the committee members to determine whether it was appropriate. 4:21:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered his belief that it was a conscious choice by the commission to not have legislators vote, as these were policy recommendations to the legislature. The expectation was that legislators would make their vote in the Capitol. He offered his belief that the commission appreciated the perspective from legislators for how things would be received in the Capitol, and that a vote by legislators on the commission "would probably unduly impact the commission deliberations." He declared that he did not support the proposed amendment. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his agreement that this was a policy call, and that the proposed policy would be to add two more voting members to the commission. He suggested that this would offer the opportunity for the commission to have joint representation from all three branches of government. 4:23:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered her belief that her service on a council as a non-voting member and a citizen legislator allowed the council to more easily reach a quorum when she was not present. She expressed concern that legislative members could limit or discourage conversation regarding proposals related to funding as it may be unpopular. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out that the original premise for the Criminal Justice Commission did not include the Commissioner of the Department of Health and Social Services. He mused that the premise for much of the state criminal policy was that much of the criminogenic process was based on behavior. He stated that, to the extent that behavioral health was increasingly a factor in state correctional policy, the Commissioner of the Department of Health and Social Services already had tremendous influence on the dialogue and the policies that were pursued had far more impact than an advisory position. He added that many commissioners had multiple responsibilities on boards and commissions, and that the designee often represented them at board meetings. 4:28:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked what the legislators brought to the table at the commission in order to be voters. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that the question for legislators interested in service on the Criminal Justice Commission was for how active they should be, similar to the question for the level of activity for the Commissioner of Department of Health and Social Services. He shared that his desire to serve would be prioritized differently, dependent on the role as a voting or non-voting member. He declared that the message he wanted to send was for the "legislators to be just as active as our Commissioner." He acknowledged that, although legislators could quash discussion based on funding concerns as non-voting members, giving legislators the vote "tells them its important and that it also encourages the Commission as their going forward and making decisions to fully include the legislators." 4:31:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON opined that the commissioner was bringing access to the department, whereas a legislator was bringing a political agenda with the possibility to act on that agenda. She acknowledged that this could go "both ways." She pointed out that, as voting members, the legislators were responsible for taking the policy of the commission to their respective bodies. If they were non-voting members, they did not have to champion the policy. 4:33:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that it could be argued that legislators could be some of the most effective members of the Criminal Justice Commission, based on their broad experience and perspective for state policy, funding constraints and opportunities, and the necessity of coordinating different state policy and law. He pointed out that legislators were a distinct minority on the commission, and he opined that two voting legislators would not be able to drive the agenda. He added that the commission was an advisory commission for recommendations. He noted that, as the judges would also be able to take votes on criminal justice policy when cases came through the judicial system they would also be required to implement the same policies. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that members of the judicial branch on the Criminal Justice Commission were often declining and recusing themselves from voting because they believed it was a policy question that they may be called upon to act in a judicial capacity. He stated that the judiciary viewed that these issues "could come before them on the bench and they don't want to have taken a position." REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER responded that this was the practice and not the policy, and that this supported his argument. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked whether, once the commission adopted a policy, a legislator would be responsible for championing this policy in the legislature. 4:36:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered his belief that passage of the proposed Amendment 1 would still allow that the now two voting legislators would still be "outnumbered more than two to one simply by the governor's cabinet." He declared that it would be na?ve to assume that the governor's cabinet did not have a political agenda. He opined that the commission members would be well qualified and had a concern and passion for the work of the commission. He stated that this was an opportunity to encourage that commitment and passion by "making [the legislators] a full voting member." He stated that having the legislators as a lively part of the discussion was a value to be brought back to the legislature after a recommendation had been made. He opined that no commission member would feel obligated to support a recommendation from the commission, regardless of their vote. 4:39:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR maintained her objection to proposed Amendment 1. 4:39:57 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Saddler (alternate) voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Tarr, Kito, Claman (alternate), Johnston, and Edgmon voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 2 yeas - 5 nays. 4:40:48 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 4:41:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR brought the committee back to order. 4:41:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that he could not support the proposed bill. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that adding a crime victim to the commission as a voting member was good and would add to the diversity of discussion, although he was less convinced to the necessary addition of the commissioner of Department of Health and Social Services as a voting member. 4:42:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that, as he had overlooked the addition of a crime victim as a member of the commission, he would revise his position on the bill. REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that it was usually necessary to add two voting members to a commission to maintain an odd number of members. 4:43:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to report HB 290, Version 30- GH2586\A, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 290 was moved from the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee.