MINUTES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE 9 May, 1998 3:30 p.m. TAPES SFC 98 # 165, Side A (000-590) Side B (590-537) CALL TO ORDER Senator Bert Sharp, Co-Chair, reconvened the meeting at approximately 3:30 p.m. PRESENT In addition to Co-Chair Sharp, Senators Pearce, Donley, Torgerson, Adams, Parnell and Phillips were present when the meeting was convened. Also Attending: Representative JOE RYAN; RUSS WEBB, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services; SUSAN WIBKER, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section, Civil Division, Department of Law; CAROL CARROLE, Director, Division of Support Services, Department of Natural Resources; NICO BUS, Administrative Services Manager, DSS, DNR; BRUCE RICHARDS, Program Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Corrections; MIKE GREANY, Director, Division of Legislative Finance and aides to committee members and other members of the Legislature. via Teleconference: From Anchorage: DUANE UDLAND, Chief, Anchorage Police Department. SUMMARY INFORMATION CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 393(RES) "An Act relating to contracts with the state establishing payments in lieu of other taxes by a qualified sponsor or qualified sponsor group for projects to develop stranded gas resources in the state; providing for the inclusion in the contracts of terms making certain adjustments regarding royalty value and the timing and notice of the state's right to take royalty in kind or in value from projects to develop stranded gas resources in the state; relating to the effect of the contracts on municipal taxation; and providing for an effective date." Senator Adams began by offering a motion to rescind previous action taken on Amendment #2, where it failed to be adopted. Senator Phillips wanted to clarify that the sponsor had no objection to that amendment. Co-Chair Sharp stated that Representative Ramona Barnes, Chair of the House Oil and Gas Committee, which sponsored the bill, had no problem with the proposed change. Senator Phillips wondered why then he was getting so many phone calls in opposition. Senator Torgerson shared with committee members that he had a conversation with Representative Mark Hodgins and the representative told him he had no objection to the amendment. Without objection, action taken on Amendment #2 was rescinded. Senator Adams then moved for adoption of Amendment #2. There was no objection and Co-Chair Sharp ordered it adopted. With that, Senator Adams offered a motion to move from committee, SCS CS HB 393 (FIN) with accompanying fiscal notes. Co-Chair Sharp so ordered, as there was no objection. SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 375(JUD) CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 375(FIN) am(reengrossed) "An Act relating to children-in-need-of-aid matters and proceedings; relating to child abuse and neglect; relating to kidnapping and the crime of endangering the welfare of a child; relating to sentencing for certain crimes; relating to the state medical examiner and reviews of child fatalities; relating to modification of child support orders by the child support enforcement agency; relating to access to, confidentiality of, and release of certain information concerning children, child abuse and neglect, and child fatalities; authorizing the Department of Health and Social Services to enter into an interstate compact concerning adoption and medical assistance for certain children with special needs; relating to the review of cases involving certain children who are in the custody of the state; authorizing the establishment of multidisciplinary child protection teams and relating to their duties; relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse or neglect; relating to foster care and foster parents; relating to access to certain criminal justice information and licensure of certain child care facilities; amending Rule 218, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 15, 18, 19, and 22, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules." SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 375(JUD) "An Act relating to children-in-need-of-aid matters and proceedings; relating to child abuse and neglect; relating to kidnapping and the crime of endangering the welfare of a child; relating to sentencing for certain crimes; relating to the state medical examiner and reviews of child fatalities; relating to modification of child support orders by the child support enforcement agency; relating to access to, confidentiality of, and release of certain information concerning children, child abuse and neglect, and child fatalities; authorizing the Department of Health and Social Services to enter into an interstate compact concerning adoption and medical assistance for certain children with special needs; relating to the review of cases involving certain children who are in the custody of the state; authorizing the establishment of multidisciplinary child protection teams and relating to their duties; relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse or neglect; relating to foster care and foster parents; relating to access to certain criminal justice information and licensure of certain child care facilities; amending Rule 218, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 15, 18, 19, and 22, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules." Co-Chair Sharp noted this was a priority bill that was just received by the committee. Senator Adams wanted to know the department's position on the legislation. Co-Chair Sharp called upon SUSAN WIBKER, Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Law, and asked her to briefly explain the bill. He wanted to know which provisions were federally mandatory. She introduced herself and spoke as follows: "...I am a state attorney on child abuse cases. Prior to that, I served five years in the District Attorney's office as a prosecutor of child sexual abuse cases. And prior to that, I spent nine years as a councilor to abused children. I researched and worked on this bill for the department." "The bill makes several major changes to the way that social workers would practice every day. The first thing it does is bring our state law in conformity with the federally mandated changes that you mentioned. It also changes our state law to fit several Supreme Court opinions that recently came down advising the department to revise its statutes." "It's also a response to a Kemp Center audit that Commissioner Perdue requested, which concluded that our state statutes were some of the most narrow and restrictive statutes in the country, and did not allow social workers to adequately assess high risk situations." "It also addresses the bipartisan Child Protection Review Team report that was issued in December of '97 that made 24 recommendations for changing practice and law. Those recommendations are contained in this bill." "I can answer questions in whatever fashion the chairman would like." At this point, RUSS WEBB, the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Health and Social Services joined the discussion and testified as follows: "To respond directly to Senator Adam's question, the department supports this bill." Senator Phillips asked if the audit referred to was a Legislative Budget and Audit report. Ms. Wibker explained that it was a Kemp Center audit requested after a six-year- old, sexually assaulted girl died. Mr. Webb noted that there was a LB&A audit issued April 7, and it made recommendations that were addressed in this bill. He also pointed out that the bill had a more recent version from the Senate Judicial Committee that was not included in the committee's packet. The reason for this was the short timeframe and copies of the latest version were not ready for distribution. He noted that it only contained minor changes. He detailed the two changes for the committee's benefit. Senator Phillips asked if the language in this bill tracked with that of HB 245. Ms. Wibker replied that it had been tightened up and described the types of crime a child must witness to be considered placing the child at risk of mental injury. Amendments were made in the House and again in the Senate Judiciary Committee to narrow the scope to homicide, sexual assault, or battery committed by one parent toward the other and witnessed by the child. Senator Phillips wanted to know if the definition of domestic violence for HB 375 was the same as described in HB 245, which Mr. Webb affirmed. Co-Chair Sharp asked if the changes made in the Judiciary version affected the fiscal notes. He was told they did not. Senator Torgerson requested he be allowed to abstain from voting on this legislation. The reason was that his home was a licensed for foster care and this bill might affect him in some manner. Co-Chair Sharp objected and Senator Torgerson was required to vote. Senator Adams stated that his normal procedure would be to object to taking action on a bill version that hadn't yet been seen by the committee. However, he was satisfied with the explanation of the changes given by Mr. Webb and would not object to taking action at this time. Senator Pearce offered a motion to move SCS CS HB 275 (JUD) from committee with the understanding that the accompanying fiscal notes would not change. Co-Chair Sharp noted for the record that this bill, if it became law, would add four full-time and two part-time state employees. The bill was reported out of committee without objection. CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 272(FIN) "An Act relating to allowing the commissioner of corrections to allow a prisoner to serve a term of imprisonment or period of temporary commitment by electronic monitoring; and relating to the crime of escape." Co-Chair Sharp called upon JEFF LOGAN, aid to Representative Joe Green, the bill's sponsor. Mr. Logan testified as follows: "Mr. Chairman, HB 272 allows the commissioner of corrections to designate that a prisoner serve a term, or a portion of a term, under temporary confinement using electronic monitoring equipment." "The bill established the crime of escape in the second and third degree for - or second and fourth degree excuse me - for removing or tampering with the electronic monitoring equipment, excludes prisoners who are - who have perpetrators of domestic violence from electronic monitoring. They are not eligible." "And establishes a list of criteria for the commissioner to determine - or to consider when she's determining who will serve with the electronic monitoring equipment." "I'll note that it has support from the Administration. The version before you has substantially been worked on by the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches and had good support in the House." "Stop there and be glad to answer any questions." Senator Pearce referred to the court order requiring the State Of Alaska to take action to reduce prison overcrowding and the plan the Administration submitted to Judge Hunt as a proposed compliance solution. She wanted to know if the electronic monitoring program was included in that plan. Mr. Logan replied that it was included. She then spoke of the Conference Committee's efforts in establishing the FY 99 Operating Budget and if funding for this program should be included in those talks, as she thought it was. To respond to Senator Pearce's questions, BRUCE RICHARDS from the Department of Corrections came to the table and spoke as follows: "Senator Pearce, you're correct. There is money in the Senate budget for electronic monitoring. And you're right, you don't need it in both places. I think what would be preferable is to have the bill go through since it does have language in it dealing with escape provisions for removing or tampering with electronic monitoring devices." Senator Pearce interjected with another question about the funding that was inaudible. Mr. Richards responded as follows: "The other difference in the funding is the Senate side it's one hundred percent program receipts, I believe, and in the fiscal note from the House Finance Committee, part of the funding is general funds. The department believes that it's going to be difficult to operate this program completely on program receipts. It would be roughly close to $350 a month per person to pay for electronic monitoring, about $11.70 a day." Co-Chair Sharp found where it was proposed that up to 60 prisoners would be involved in this program. Was that the equivalent of sixty prison beds, he asked and was assured that it was. He reconfirmed that this would be part of the overcrowding solution. There was no savings indicated, he pointed out. Senator Pearce responded that there would be no savings. In answer to Co-Chair Sharp's next question of why it then should be done, she stated that there was no savings in obeying a court order. However, to incarcerate 60 prisoners through electronic monitoring was less expensive than to house them in existing state prisons, build new facilities or transfer out of state. She reminded the committee that the court order cost the state between eight and 11 million dollars per year. She shared that the DOC in the past had not been favorable to and electronic monitoring program, but would try it in an attempt to comply with the court order. Co-Chair Sharp agreed and noted other proposed solutions listed in the plan. These included tents located on prison grounds and shipping inmates out of state. Senator Pearce stated that the plan also included the 60 electronic monitoring spots. Senator Donley said the reason financial savings were not shown was because the program would accommodate inmates backlogged in the system. Co-Chair Sharp complained that he had never seen a copy of the complete proposed plan. He wanted a breakdown of what each program would entail and their expected accomplishments at easing the overcrowding. Senator Pearce confirmed that, while the committee had seen portions of the plan, including the request for supplemental funds for the FY98 budget, they had never been provided with the complete plan. Mr. Richards said he would get copies of the plan for the committee members. Mr. Richards said the initial request for funding did not include the electronic monitoring because the program would not have been on-line in time to meet the court order's first deadline. He stressed that even as the deadlines were met, the number of inmates would continue to increase. The state was seeing a rise of about 300 inmates per year. Therefore there needed to be some sort of maintenance beds in place to keep up with the increase. Electronic monitoring was part of that program, he stated. Senator Donley felt that with the commitment from the department to furnish the committee with the complete plan, he felt this was a good bill and an important component in dealing with the overcrowding. He offered a motion to move CS HB 272 (FIN) from committee with accompanying fiscal notes. There was no objection and Co-Chair Sharp so ordered. CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 252(FIN) "An Act relating to criminal records; relating to notice about and registration of sex offenders and child kidnappers; and amending Rules 11(c) and 32(c), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chair Sharp requested someone from the bill sponsor, Representative Joe Ryan's office, speak to the bill. TRACY ASH came to the table and told the committee that Representative Ryan would be there shortly as soon as the Call on the House was lifted. She was not familiar with the bill enough to answer questions, but she offered to go through the sectional analysis and sponsor statement for the committee. She read aloud as follows: "HB 252 makes changes to the sex offenders registration laws to bring them into compliance with recent changes in federal law." "It requires child kidnappers, those who promote child prostitution and those who solicit and conspire to commit these offenses, to register in addition to sex offender." "Offenders who must register must provide quarterly verification via post card." "The bill allows for statewide newspaper publication of the names and address of each person who registers." "In addition, it increases the penalties for failure to register as a sex offender in Alaska. Failure to Register in the First Degree, which is a Class C felony, will be charged against those who have previously been convicted of Failure to Register. Or if they have intentionally failed to register in order to escape detection and identification." "In House Finance, the bill was amended to reduce the minimum sentence for a person convicted of Failure to Register in the second degree from 90 days to 35 days. This reduction in sentence is designed to reduce the fiscal note. Last year 127 sex offenders were prosecuted for failure to register as a sex offender." This concluded the sponsor statement. Senator Torgerson expressed his intent at amending the bill to require sex offenders register at the time of conviction. His reason for this was because of constituent requests desiring the convictions be made public so that other victims may choose to come forward. He said he was waiting for legal advice from the Legislative attorneys as to the constitutionality of such a requirement. He didn't want to hold up progress on the bill and said he would offer the amendment on the Senate Floor or in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Representative JOE RYAN arrived at this time. He commented to Senator Torgerson's idea as follows: "We originally in the original iteration of this bill had done this because there's five documents I think that you get out of court if you're conviction and three of them tell you definitely that you have to register and registration hasn't been forthcoming somehow. So we originally put that in. Then working with the Court System, the AG's office and so forth, it got watered down to where the Corrections would do it for the simple reason: if the person's convicted and they take the registration and photograph, and then they serve a ten or fifteen-year sentence and then they come back out, you've got this old photograph, which makes it difficult later on to identify them because they've changed over this period of time. And Corrections doing this shortly before release gives a current photograph for the database that Public Safety's got up now." "Before - since the introduction of this bill, Public Safety's put an Internet database out. Previous to that time, you had to go down and pay a quarter a page and it was cumbersome and expensive to get the information. Now you can pop up on the Internet, see everybody that's there, their photograph and conviction record and get information from sources other than the person." "And so that was the change from having it done upon conviction to having it just previous to release because they wanted - Public Safety and everybody wanted a current photograph of the individual so that it'd be more recognizable in the community." "I - if you would like to have a voice, I mean - it a..." Senator Torgerson interjected that he did not think the issue of current photographs was a valid reason for not requiring registration at the time of conviction. He suggested using photographs taken at the time of arrest. Representative Ryan said that would affect the fiscal note and raise the cost of the program. The committee took a five-minute recess at 4:00 p.m. Senator Torgerson said he talked to the sponsor and the department and was told they had no objection to his proposed amendment. The department was to check on the fiscal note impact, but he expected only a slight increase. He stated he would offer the amendment either in Senate Rules Committee or on the Senate Floor because he did not want the bill to be held up in this committee. With that, Senator Torgerson offered a motion to move CS HB 252 (FIN) from committee with accompanying fiscal notes. There was no objection and Co-Chair Sharp so ordered. Co-Chair Sharp announced that HB 359 would not be heard at this meeting but would be taken up at the next day's meeting. CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 405(FIN) "An Act relating to failing to stop a vehicle when directed to do so by a peace officer." JAMES HORNADAY from the bill sponsor, Representative Pete Kott's office spoke to the bill as follows: "HB 405 increased the penalties for not stopping at the direction of a police officer. Failure To Stop At The Direction Of A Police Officer in the first degree occurs if, during the commission of the offense, the person violates any other law and is a Class C felony. Failure To Stop At The Direction Of A Peace Officer in the second degree occurs if the person knowingly fails to stop as soon as possible in a safe manner and is a Class A misdemeanor." "The crime of alluding a police officer is inherently dangerous for pedestrians, other drivers and innocent bystanders. Just as an example, in the Municipality of Anchorage in August of 1997, a passenger in a vehicle attempting to avoid arrest was killed when the vehicle ran a red light and struck a building. This is only one of several incidents where casualties have resulted from this very serious crime." "Increasing the penalties for this crime will not only help deter this potentially dangerous behavior, but will more correctly align the severity of the punishment with the severity of the crime itself." "This bill is a legislative priority in the Anchorage Legislative program. It has strong support from the police departments in Fairbanks and Anchorage and throughout the state and from police associations as well as the Department of Public Safety." "The changes that were made in House Finance, which bill was referred to Senate Judiciary and was waived out of Senate Judiciary are found on page one, lines nine and ten. Crime is defined with the meaning given in AS 11.81.900, which means it is either a felony or a misdemeanor. Traffic laws defined in AS 28.15.261, which basically refers to moving violations. And also on page two, line 14, "knowingly" is given the same definition as it is given in AS 11.81.900, which means that that is basically reasonably knew or should have known. That's a kind of abbreviation of it." "There is a feeling that the fiscal notes may be exaggerated. The - Representative Porter was actively in support of the bill in House Judiciary as former police chief of the Anchorage Municipality, felt that the idea of the grapevine if it got out that it was going to be a felony would be effective." "Chief Udland was going to be on the L.I.O. I'm not sure if he made it. We did have him this morning but I don't know if he's still there." At this point, CHIEF DUANE UDLAND of the Anchorage Police Department spoke up that he was connected to the meeting. Co-Chair Sharp asked him to give his testimony. Chief Udland commented as follows: "Thank you for hearing this bill. Mr. Hornaday, I think summarized the bill quite well. I would maybe just add that in addition to what Mr. Hornaday said is that, you know two years ago the Legislature increased the penalty for what we call drive by shootings that was a misdemeanor. Shot out of your car and if you didn't hurt anybody that would be a misdemeanor. Increased that to a felony, I think that was appropriate. Four years ago you changed a law from what we used to call joy riding only class A misdemeanor. You increased it to a felony and I think that was appropriate." "And I think it's time to look at this issue. I think the fact that somebody when they flee from a police officer, we know that 99 times out of a hundred, once they make that decision, will do whatever it takes to allude that officer. And we think that is extremely dangerous behavior. In fact the active pursuits itself very dangerous. The police department and many police departments around the country, we have severely restricted our officer's ability to chase. And we've applied the same standards of review that we would the use of deadly force." "So I would hope that this passes out of this committee and get it on the floor and vote for it. We think it's very important. I think it's also, once the word got out I think people that tend to just sort of off the top decide "well there's not a lot of consequence to if I lose the cops." I think this would change that notion." "Thank you and I'd be happy to answer any questions." Senator Parnell asked what other crimes were in the category of Class C felonies. Were there any sexual assaults or robberies that were Class C felonies, he wondered. Chief Udland replied that there were. Senator Parnell talked about attitude adjustment when a police officer stopped a vehicle. He wanted to know how the police department planned to use this charge. Would it be for an attitude adjustment or used sparingly, he asked. Chief Udland pointed out that under the bill, there were two types of charges. One was for individuals who simply refused to stop and would be considered a Class A misdemeanor. He reasoned that this would be applied to people who, for some religious or constitutionality reasons, felt they should not be required to submit to the police officers command to stop. The more serious charge would apply to drivers who committed other violations during their evasion such as running stoplights, traveling at high speeds, etc. In these cases, it would be charged as a felony. However, he didn't think the more severe charge would be used just for an attitude adjustment. Senator Parnell commented that the charge was a good tool the police could use when a person broke other laws. Senator Parnell asked if currently there was a charge for refusing to stop for a police officer. Chief Udland said there was the current Class A misdemeanor, but there was nothing for the more serious incidents. The intent was to impose a penalty for the commission of the very dangerous offence. Senator Pearce voiced some concern about the large fiscal notes and the potential costs to the trial courts, Department of Corrections and the Public Defender Agency. There was some question about the value of using the charges as a tool to deal with serious offences versus the high cost of implementation. She wanted to know if the police and prosecutors planned to use that charge often under the new law. Chief Udland didn't think there would be many trials. He thought prosecutors would choose the misdemeanor charge in most cases. He referred the threatened raised in cases of auto theft when that law was rise to a felony. Actually, there was a decrease. Co-Chair Sharp thought it was appalling that the Public Defender Agency was claiming it would need three and one- half times the amount of funding as the Department of Law said they would need. He planned to modify the amount. Senator Donley argued that the higher penalty could be a very effective tool for the prosecutors to use. Therefore, he wanted to see the bill passed, but was willing to reduce the fiscal notes to do so. He did comment that he thought the fiscal notes were drafted in good faith by all but the PDA since the costs to implement the program were unknown. There was further discussion between the members as to how they should proceed with Senator Pearce offering the issue could be worked out in conference committee. Senator Donley made a motion to substitute Finance Committee zero fiscal notes for the Courts, Public Defenders Agency and the Department of Corrections. Senator Adams objected noting the increased workload the legislation would cause. The agencies felt a responsibility to implement the law but needed the money to do that, he stressed. He suggested the funding could be looked at in the conference committee. Co-Chair Sharp requested a roll call. The motion to reduce the three fiscal notes to zero was adopted by a vote of 4-1- 2. Senator Adams voted nay and Senators Phillips and Torgerson were absent. Mr. Richards from the DOC returned to the table to comment on the bill. Tape #165 Side B, 4:20 p.m. Mr. Richards spoke as follows: "...I guess the only think I can add at this point is that I am disappointed at the Department of Correction's fiscal note identifies the possibility of five felonies and five misdemeanors under this proposed legislation. In the past three years we have seen an increase in the number of people held in the DOC for fleeing or alluding police officers. And it seems a reasonable estimate that five people out 330 possible charges would get prosecuted and convicted of a felony. And I believe that most of these - and we've only shown that half of them would be felonies. It's hard to believe that anybody who was fleeing an officer would not be charged with the felony since they would probably be violating another traffic law or committing another crime. They'd probably be speeding, running red lights." "I think they're probably very few consititutionalatists as were mentioned earlier that are gonna - I don't think they run into those every day. And so I guess I just wanted to let this committee know that I believe the fiscal note was put together in good faith and was accurate and I hope that they'll take that into consideration at the conference committee level." Senator Parnell wanted to know why the drivers ran from the police. Were they running because they had warrants out for their arrest or other reasons they would be arrested if they were caught? Mr. Richards referred to television shows and listed numerous reasons, such as other traffic tickets pending and drug and alcohol impairment. Because of those reasons, he didn't feel that the punishment would be a complete deterrent, since those individuals had impaired judgement. Senator Donley offered a motion to move from committee, CS HB 405 (FIN) with amended fiscal notes. Without objection, Co-Chair Sharp so ordered. HOUSE BILL NO. 242 "An Act relating to unpaid, underpaid, and overpaid royalty and net profit share payments due on leases of state land and to the collection and payment of interest on those payments." Co-Chair Sharp invited the bill sponsor, Representative Mark Hodgins, to join the committee. Representative Hodgins testified as follows: "...Chair of the Oil and Gas. I thought I would give you a quick explanation of this and then let you go." "HB 242 is designed to increase the efficiency of how the Department of Natural Resources operated by amending the interest statutes as it pertains to oil and gas royalties. The intent of this change is to reduce the administrative workload and the cost of administering minor oil and gas royalty adjustments." "Research has been done to show that the cost of processing and adjustment averages $75 per transaction. Add to that the application of oil interest and the transaction cost can be as high as $150." "Processing an interest transaction of a lesser value than the out of pocket cost is not in the State's best interest. The interest earned on an under or overpayment of $16,000 is approximately $150, which basically equals a wash with our administrative costs." "This is a housekeeping and will tend to save the state time and money. With that I would be open for questions and ask you to pass HB 242 out of committee." Senator Pearce wanted to hear from the Department. CAROL CARROLE, Director of Support Services for the Department of Natural Resources stated that the department supported the bill. Senator Donley offered a motion to move HB 242 from committee with accompanying fiscal notes. There was no objections and Co-Chair Sharp so ordered. Co-Chair Sharp made an announcement for the next day's meeting. The committee would begin with HB 369. The committee took a short recess to determine the start time for the next meeting. Co-Chair Sharp then stated he would announce the time during the Senate Floor session. ADJOURNMENT Co-Chair Sharp adjourned the meeting at approximately 4:30 p.m. SFC-98 (15) 5/09/98 pm