SB 104-APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE DIVIDEND FUND  10:00:26 AM CHAIR DYSON announced that the committee is now going to take up SB 104. 10:00:39 AM SENATOR GIESSEL moved to adopt work draft Committee Substitute (CS) for SB 104, labeled 28-LS0847\Y, as the working document to replace Senate Bill 104 labeled 28-LS0847\P. CHAIR DYSON announced that without objection, Version Y was the working document before the committee. CHAIR DYSON, SB 104's sponsor, commented that a continuing error he has made in the legislature is to work very hard on what he thought was good legislation and finding that the execution of the legislation fell significantly short of what the intentions. He expressed that his fault has been not following up. He revealed that he worked with Representative Berkowitz a decade ago on the whole western-government concept of restorative justice for victims to a pre-offence condition. He noted that when possible, perpetrators are restored to a useful role in life as well. He revealed that the legislature passed legislation in 1988 to make felons and certain misdemeanants ineligible for their PFD with the intent that the money go for victim restitution. He remarked that by and large, the intended PFD restitution has not happened. He said several heinous crimes lead to the state instituting the Violent Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB). He said he has found out through research that approximately $100,000 out of the approximate $500,000 in annual court-ordered restitution is being collected from the agencies that are responsible for getting money to victims. He remarked that victims were going a long time with no help. He set forth a fact that he felt startling where approximately $12 million to $13 million in prisoners' PFD funds have gone towards inmate healthcare rather than towards the compensation fund. He said the intent in SB 104 is to fix the system as intended and to clear up a couple of barriers within the existing statute. He asserted that some of the state's agencies have an agency-centric view of what should happen with the funds as opposed to legislature's clear intent. He noted that the Governor is quite enthusiastic about what the legislature is doing. He said the involved agencies are working with his office and providing good feedback to make the bill better, hence the CS before the committee. 10:05:26 AM JOSHUA BANKS, Staff for Senator Dyson, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska; provided a CS overview for SB 104. MR. BANKS set forth that the problem SB 104 is trying to address is as follows: · Fulfill the constitutional right of victims to receive restitution and compensation. There are two basic vehicles that the state has historically used to achieve victim restitution: DOL Collections Unit (DOL-CU) and the Violent Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB). · DOL-CU can only help victims after a conviction, if there is a conviction. The end result leaves many victims of horrific crimes without compensation or any restitution. On the other hand, VCCB is able to give compensation as soon as there is a police report, sometimes years before a conviction is even given. MR. BANKS noted that in FY2012, VCCB was awarded $637,154 in court-ordered restitution, but only $47,652 was received. CHAIR DYSON asked to clarify that VCCB's award is court-ordered. MR. BANKS answered yes. He continued that the majority of restitution funds that DOL receives are through garnishing PFDs. He said currently under AS 43.23.005, a number of restitution ordered offenders are ineligible for the PFDs that the state cannot garnish. Unfortunately the majority of individual PFDs have gone to DOC: 56 percent in FY2006 and 84 percent in FY2014. 10:08:04 AM He addressed SB 104's four primary goals as follows: 1. Seeks to restore crime victims to a pre-offense condition. 2. Establishes a reliable funding source for VCCB. 3. Sets a priority for use of the Criminal Fund. 4. Uses a restitution vehicle that already exists in law. CHAIR DYSON added that when he and Representative Berkowitz did the restitution legislation a decade ago, it was clearly established that the first priority for any funds that the perpetrator had was to go to the victim. He noted that subsequent legislation added child support to the number one priority. He stressed that he and Representative Berkowitz made it very clear that court costs were secondary to victims and children. He asserted that SB 104 also emphasizes victims and children. MR. BANKS detailed that there is no amount of money that can be given to repair the victim's emotional and physical damage. He asserted that the primary goal is to use the criminal funds to give some form of relief in compensation for the victims and to establish a reliable funding source for VCCB. He noted that the current statute has no priority set for how the PFD Criminal Fund (PFD-CM) is to be used. The statute that is primarily used is AS 43.23.028(B) that simply states what agencies can receive money from PFD-CM. He detailed that AS 43.23.028(B) has no priority set to which agency should receive more of the fund; it is up to Governor and the legislature to decide. He said the intent is to create a reliable funding source for VCCB and to prioritize PFD-CM so that victims come first. He reiterated that the majority of PFD-CM funds have gone to DOC. He remarked that prisoners are indirectly receiving their lost PFDs when the DOC obtains funds that should be directed to the PFD-CM. He summarized that SB 104 uses the current restitution vehicle by making priority changes to PFD-CM. 10:11:38 AM MR. BANKS reviewed the PFD-CM history. HB 245 passed in 1988 to make convicted felons ineligible for a PFD. There was intent language in HB 245 that directed the money to go towards victim compensation with VCCB. He said AS 43.23.005(d) was expanded to also include incarcerated felons, misdemeanants with a prior felony, and third time misdemeanants. He added that since 1988, recipients for PFD-CM was expanded to include DOC. He noted that DOC was not originally intended to be a PFD-CM. He pointed out that the primary difference with the CS is to change the PFD-CF's primary recipient to VCCB as opposed to DOL. He said the belief is that VCCB can better determine needs and provide funds more quickly to victims. 10:14:35 AM He detailed the CS sectional analysis as follows: Section 1: (a) Makes language uniform with other Criminal Fund statutes. (b) Ensures that money goes towards priority order created in AS 43.23.031. Section 3: (a) Creates priority order for Criminal Fund: • VCCB for victim compensation, • CSSD for child support arrearages, • State approved rehabilitation programs, • Other incarceration cost. (b) VCCB will send DOR amount of compensable claims for previous fiscal year. (c) CSSD will send amount owed for child support arrearages. (d) Court system will send amount owed for court-ordered drug and alcohol treatment. (e) DOR will use reports to determine the amount each agency should receive from the PFD-CF. (f) DOR will submit a report with the Operating Budget listing the amounts determined under (e). CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Banks to continue his sectional analysis at the next committee meeting. He noted that there is no known opposition to SB 104 and he believes the bill is an important piece of legislation. He expressed his intent to get SB 104 out of committee the following week. He said he would commend to the committee's attention the report from Legislative Research on what has happened historically with victim compensation. He said if the committee reads the report carefully, members may be as angry due to the disturbing information. He said SB 104 has great support from the Governor. He noted a meeting with the Governor where the Governor expressed being surprised that victims' compensation was not working the way it should be. He asked Mr. Banks what department goes after criminal assets in DOL. 10:17:26 AM MR. BANKS replied the DOL Collections Unit (DOL-CU). CHAIR DYSON said DOL-CU is working hard with limited resources. He explained that he had a meeting with DOL-CU and noted that the DOL-CU goes after financial assets, institutions, real property, but does not have the time to go after private property. He disclosed that DOL-CU conveyed that going after somebody's car would cost more money than the asset is worth. He stated that he would argue that a $100,000 airplane or a $30,000 pickup could make a huge difference to victims. He added that Governor Parnell said collections can be contracted along with using auction houses to sell seized assets. He summarized that there is an ongoing effort to encourage DOL-CU to do more with private property collections.