HB 243-CRIM. CONV. OVERTURNED: RECEIVE PAST PFD  8:30:32 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 243, "An Act relating to the permanent fund dividend; and relating to a permanent fund dividend for an individual whose conviction has been vacated, reversed, or dismissed or for an individual who has been pardoned because of innocence and wrongful conviction." [CHAIR LYNN passed the gavel to Vice Chair Keller.] 8:31:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 243, Version 29-LS1279\F, Martin, 1/29/16, as a work draft. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion. He then withdrew the objection. [There being no further objection, Version F was before the committee as a work draft.] CHAIR LYNN, as prime sponsor, expressed the importance of HB 243 and asked staff to present the bill. 8:32:21 AM DENEEN TUCK, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 243 on behalf of Representative Lynn, prime sponsor. She explained that the only change to HB 243 in Version F was modification to the title. As background to the proposed legislation, Ms. Tuck relayed that when "the Fairbanks Four" were released, Chair Lynn noticed an injustice on the books. There was no follow up for an Alaskan convicted of a felony, if the conviction was overturned, for recourse in filing for the permanent fund dividend (PFD). This proposed legislation allows all Alaskans, who have experienced that injustice, to apply for the PFD. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that at the last hearing, a number of issues were raised, and after talking to Mr. Burnett [Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue (DOR)], he was able to have many of his questions answered. He repeated a question asked by Representative Talerico [during the previous bill hearing on 1/26/16], regarding how the proposed legislation addresses a situation in which a person convicted of multiple offenses has only one [conviction] reversed. 8:34:49 AM MS. TUCK stated that in the committee packet is a memorandum ("memo") from Legislative Legal and Research Services dated January 29, 2016, and that question is addressed on page 2 of the memo where it is labeled question number 3. 8:35:09 AM The committee took an at-ease from 8:35 a.m. to 8:37 a.m. to review the memo. 8:37:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER observed that the memo answered the five questions posed at the last meeting. 8:37:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his appreciation for these answers and acknowledged Ms. Tuck's observation. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the last sentence of the answer to question 4 in the memo, which read as follows: "If a person receives a dividend after being released, that dividend is subject to garnishment." He asserted his concern that there is nothing to entice the obligor to apply for a PFD if it will be taken for taxes and child support. He asked what can be done so that the needy parent can get that "back child support." 8:40:59 AM SARA RACE, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department of Revenue (DOR), replied that [this situation] would be similar to any other garnishment type. She maintained that because the PFD is a voluntary program, the way in which the division explains it to individuals is that [the garnishment] is an amount of money that is going toward a debt that they owe. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there was any mechanism in state law to allow the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) or another entity to be subrogated to the obligor's right to get the dividend and allow [CSED] to apply through an agency or another method. MS. RACE asked Representative Gruenberg if he was asking if the Child Support Division could require that the individual file for the dividend so that the funds would be available for child support. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied either that [scenario] or some mechanism that would allow the CSED to apply on behalf of the recalcitrant obligor. MS. RACE responded that she was not aware of any such provision but could check into it. 8:42:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered that [the issue] was outside the scope of the proposed legislation and may require different legislation. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 1, lines 10-13, of Version F, reading, "if the individual's conviction is vacated or reversed, and (1) the charges on which the conviction was based are later dismissed; or (2) the individual is retried and found not guilty." In stating his question, regarding the final disposition of the case, Representative Gruenberg said he realized he had answered his own question. 8:44:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG paraphrased the last paragraph of the proposed legislation under "transition" which states that notwithstanding the normal time limit for applying for a dividend, an individual who is eligible under the proposed legislation must apply for a dividend not later than 120 days after the effective date of the Act. He contended that it is clear to him that the intent is to allow people to apply regardless of when they were exonerated or when they died. However, he added that the answer to question 2 in the memo says another provision of the law might bar them from doing that: "If a person dies after the time limit has already passed, [the 120 day time limit under AS 43.23.005(j)], the estate would not be able to apply for the dividends." He alleged that this relates to HB 243, from page 1, line 14, to the top of page 2. He asked Ms. Race if the proposed legislation eliminates the right of certain estates of people who had been wrongly convicted to apply for the dividend. MS. RACE explained that with a regular estate application, there a limit of one year from the time of death for the estate representative to be able to apply. She further stated that "this [provision] would be somewhat extending that time period if the person passed within the year and 120 days." 8:49:07 AM HILARY MARTIN, Attorney at Law, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, responded that the 120-day time limit in the memo refers to both people under Section one of the bill - those whose conviction gets overturned after the effective date of the act and anyone who's conviction was overturned years ago - and under HB 243 they would have 120 days after the effective date to apply. In either situation the estate would have 120 days, just the same as a person who was not deceased. 8:49:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG focused on the people whose convictions were overturned prior to the effective date of the bill, and he asked if in these cases where the estates would have been closed some time ago there was a mechanism by which these estates can be reopened to allow them to receive these dividends. MS. MARTIN admitted that she is not well-versed in estates and probate, but said she knows that the provision in Section 3 gives an additional 120 days to apply for anyone whose conviction was before the effective date of the Act. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that this could involve a substantial amount of money for a small estate, especially if child support is involved. He asked if a closed estate could be reopened to allow an application under the bill. He affirmed that he did not want to hold up the bill, but offered that this was something that could have a real effect. 8:51:55 AM VICE CHAIR KELLER said he thinks that this issue is beyond this proposed legislation and an additive thing, and he would like to press on. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised that this constitutes a policy decision, and he recommended the committee be aware of making that policy decision in case the issue comes up in the future. VICE CHAIR KELLER expressed his appreciation for Representative Gruenberg's comments and putting them on the record. 8:52:54 AM VICE CHAIR KELLER, after ascertaining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 243. 8:53:41 AM The committee took an at-ease from 8:53 a.m. to 8:54 a.m. 8:54:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Vice Chair Keller if Nancy Meade could go on record to respond to his previous questions. VICE CHAIR KELLER reopened public testimony on HB 243. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated his question. 8:55:35 AM MS. MEADE, Administrative Staff, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, responded that she, too, was not well versed in probate law; therefore, her response wouldn't be definitive. She said that she sees no barrier to someone applying for a PFD on a deceased person's behalf, and HB 243 would give the person [applying], and therefore the estate, the right to collect the PFD. She stated her assumption that the [Permanent Fund Dividend] would accept an application from somebody on behalf of a deceased individual. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that his question was not whether the PFD application would be accepted but whether there is a mechanism for reopening a closed estate. 8:57:12 AM MS. MEADE replied that she did not have a definitive answer to the question. VICE CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony on HB 243. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he liked the proposed legislation. 8:57:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to report CSHB 243, Version 29- LS1279\F, Martin, 1/29/16, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 243(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.