Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532

04/19/2018 09:00 AM FINANCE

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
09:05:55 AM Start
09:07:56 AM SB127
12:27:33 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
SENATE BILL NO. 127                                                                                                           
     "An  Act  relating  to   criminal  law  and  procedure;                                                                    
     relating to controlled  substances; relating to victims                                                                    
     of criminal  offenses; relating to  probation; relating                                                                    
     to  sentencing; relating  to  treatment program  credit                                                                    
     for  time  spent  toward  service   of  a  sentence  of                                                                    
     imprisonment;   relating   to    the   Violent   Crimes                                                                    
     Compensation   Board;   relating  to   permanent   fund                                                                    
     dividends; relating to  electronic monitoring; relating                                                                    
     to  penalties   for  violating   municipal  ordinances;                                                                    
     relating   to  parole;   relating  to   community  work                                                                    
     service;    relating   to    revocation,   termination,                                                                    
     suspension, cancellation, or  restoration of a driver's                                                                    
     license; relating to the duties  of the commissioner of                                                                    
     corrections; relating  to the duties of  the Department                                                                    
     of  Health and  Social Services;  relating to  civil in                                                                    
     rem  forfeiture  actions;  providing for  an  effective                                                                    
     date by repealing sec. 193,  ch. 36, SLA 2016, sec. 79,                                                                    
     ch.  1, 4SSLA  2017, sec.  81, ch.  1, 4SSLA  2017, and                                                                    
     sec.  83,  ch. 1,  4SSLA  2017;  and providing  for  an                                                                    
     effective date."                                                                                                           
9:07:56 AM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MIA  COSTELLO,  SPONSOR,  introduced  herself.  She                                                                    
thanked the committee for hearing  the bill. She stated that                                                                    
Alaskans  were speaking  out  on crime.  She  felt that  the                                                                    
committee was taking the issue  seriously by taking a day to                                                                    
hear  the bill.  She explained  the legislation.  She shared                                                                    
personal  stories.  She  shared  a story  of  Kimberly.  She                                                                    
remarked that  she was a  cosponsor of the  legislation that                                                                    
she  is  looking  to  amend the  legislation  knows  as  the                                                                    
criminal   prosecution  reform   bill   from  the   previous                                                                    
Legislature known as SB 91.                                                                                                     
Co-Chair  MacKinnon   remarked  that  there   were  multiple                                                                    
changes  that had  already  replaced  different portions  of                                                                    
statutes in  response to community outcry  about the passage                                                                    
of  criminal justice  reform  package known  as  SB 91.  She                                                                    
wanted  to draw  attention to  any issues  that had  already                                                                    
been addressed in statute or other legislation.                                                                                 
Senator von  Imhof wondered  whether the  sectional analysis                                                                    
would reference  SB 91  or a brand  new bill  with different                                                                    
ideas on each section.                                                                                                          
9:15:06 AM                                                                                                                    
JOSHUA  WALTON, STAFF,  SENATOR MIA  COSTELLO, replied  that                                                                    
the Sectional Analysis was for  SB 127. He remarked that the                                                                    
concept  of SB  127  would  return to  the  status quo  ante                                                                    
before SB 91 was passed into law.                                                                                               
Co-Chair MacKinnon  surmised that the bill  would undo fixes                                                                    
that were put in place by SB 91.                                                                                                
Mr. Walton agreed.                                                                                                              
Senator   von  Imhof   wondered  whether   there  would   be                                                                    
reasonings for  how returning to  before SB 91  would reduce                                                                    
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  replied  that the  structure  would  be                                                                    
9:18:22 AM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Walton discussed the Sectional Analysis (copy on file):                                                                     
     Section 1: deletes language allowing restrictions on                                                                       
     purchasing alcoholic beverages as a condition of                                                                           
     probation or parole "for any other crime."                                                                                 
     Sections 2-3: changes references to AS 11.71.021 and                                                                       
     Sections 4-11: removes inflation adjustment language                                                                       
     in theft crimes.                                                                                                           
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  stated  that  the  thought  behind  the                                                                    
repeal would be that it was  creating too high a barrier, so                                                                    
the prosecution  was not happening,  because the  felony was                                                                    
increasing.  Mr. Walton  replied that  as the  threshold was                                                                    
adjusted for inflation, it would  take a higher bar to clear                                                                    
to  a felony  theft. He  stated that  the justification  for                                                                    
most of  the sections was that  Section 91 was passed  as an                                                                    
omnibus legislation,  so the challenge was  addressing every                                                                    
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  stressed  that   she  had  respect  for                                                                    
Senator Costello  and all the  people who had  contacted the                                                                    
offices to  look at the  issue from a  holistic perspective.                                                                    
She sensed  that there was  not support for a  total repeal.                                                                    
She remarked  that there  was already  an effort  to replace                                                                    
some problems in SB 91.                                                                                                         
Senator  von Imhof  wondered whether  it was  understood how                                                                    
the  sections would  interact with  one another.  Mr. Walton                                                                    
replied  that  he  could  not  speak  to  how  the  sections                                                                    
interact  with  one  another.  He stressed  that  it  was  a                                                                    
challenge  to anticipate  how a  multitude of  changes would                                                                    
interact  with each  other. The  intent of  the bill  was to                                                                    
return  to a  time when  the  system was  understood and  to                                                                    
limit the unintended consequences.                                                                                              
9:25:30 AM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:                                                                               
     Section 12:  adds a reference  to AS  11.46.40(a)(4) or                                                                    
     prior convictions.                                                                                                         
     Section  13: removes  inflation adjustment  language in                                                                    
     vehicle theft crime.                                                                                                       
     Section 14:  amends arson in  the third  degree statute                                                                    
     to  change "public"  to "state  or municipal"  land and                                                                    
     removes  the   element  of  the   crime  if   a  person                                                                    
     intentionally  damages a  motor vehicle  by starting  a                                                                    
     fire  or causing  an explosion  while a  vehicle is  on                                                                    
     private property.                                                                                                          
     Section  15:  changes  the  crime  of  disregard  of  a                                                                    
     highway  obstruction  from a  violation  to  a class  B                                                                    
     Sections 16-21:  removes inflation  adjustment language                                                                    
     in criminal mischief and other crimes.                                                                                     
     Section 24:  amends violation  of condition  of release                                                                    
   to make the crime either a class A or B misdemeanor.                                                                         
     Section 25:  adds language that  a person  convicted of                                                                    
     disorderly  conduct shall  receive  a  sentence of  not                                                                    
     more than 10 days imprisonment.                                                                                            
     Section  26:  makes  promoting exhibition  of  fighting                                                                    
     animals a  class B misdemeanor  for the  second offense                                                                    
     instead of a violation.                                                                                                    
     Sections 27-28:  makes obstruction of highways  a class                                                                    
     B misdemeanor.                                                                                                             
     Section 29:  removes language  from sex  trafficking in                                                                    
     the first degree that  requires inducing another person                                                                    
     to engage in prostitution.                                                                                                 
     Section  30: requires  intent  to promote  prostitution                                                                    
     for sex trafficking in the third degree.                                                                                   
     Section  31: deletes  language  requiring  a person  to                                                                    
     receive   compensation    for   prostitution   services                                                                    
     rendered by another in order  to commit sex trafficking                                                                    
     in the fourth degree.                                                                                                      
     Section 32:  makes gambling a  class B  misdemeanor for                                                                    
     the second and subsequent offenses.                                                                                        
     Section 33:  creates the crime of  misconduct involving                                                                    
     a  controlled substance  in  the  second degree,  which                                                                    
     punishes    crime   involving    methamphetamines   and                                                                    
     precursors of methamphetamines.                                                                                            
     Section 34: changes  second degree misconduct involving                                                                    
     a  controlled   substance  to  third  degree.   Adds  a                                                                    
     manufacturing and  delivery crime  for schedule  IIA or                                                                    
     IIIA controlled substances.                                                                                                
     Section 35: makes third degree  punishable as a class B                                                                    
     Section 36:  changes third degree  misconduct involving                                                                    
     a controlled  substance to fourth degree.  Adds various                                                                    
     possession crimes.                                                                                                         
9:31:19 AM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Walton continued to discuss the Sectional Analysis:                                                                         
     Section 37:  makes fourth degree punishable  as a class                                                                    
     C felony.                                                                                                                  
Mr. Walton  stated that the  bill drafter was  available for                                                                    
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  looked  at  Section  34,  and  wondered                                                                    
whether the  crime had been  decreased. She asked  whether a                                                                    
second degree  carry harsher penalties  than a  third degree                                                                    
crime. She stated that it could be discussed later.                                                                             
Senator Micciche  stated that  there were  several instances                                                                    
where there was a "softening" of the sentencing.                                                                                
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  stressed  that it  was  a  conversation                                                                    
about  a  general  repeal,  so the  general  public  had  an                                                                    
opportunity to  participate in the discussion.  She remarked                                                                    
that there  should be  an examination  of how  the penalties                                                                    
interacted with the  current law, to note  that the previous                                                                    
law was not necessarily appropriate.                                                                                            
9:35:06 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  von Imhof  noted that  there was  a year  after the                                                                    
passage of SB 91 to  identify which areas would be repealed,                                                                    
and SB  54 "really  toughened up crime  in many  areas." She                                                                    
felt  that repealing  all  of  SB 91  would  return to  more                                                                    
lenient conditions.                                                                                                             
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the  issue of a class C felony                                                                    
would be discussed at a later date.                                                                                             
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:                                                                               
     Section 38: changes fourth degree misconduct involving                                                                     
     a controlled substance to fifth degree. Adds various                                                                       
     possession crimes.                                                                                                         
Vice-Chair Bishop wondered what  that section would address,                                                                    
and  asked whether  it was  actually a  class C  felony. Mr.                                                                    
Walton  replied  a  higher  level  crime  was  inserted,  so                                                                    
misconduct involving  a controlled  substance moved  all the                                                                    
other  felonies  down. He  stressed  that  there was  not  a                                                                    
desire to decrease the crimes for those felonies.                                                                               
Vice-Chair  Bishop wondered  whether  it was  a felony.  Mr.                                                                    
Walton  responded  that  misconduct involving  a  controlled                                                                    
substance in the  fourth degree was currently  not a felony,                                                                    
but the change  would move it from a misdemeanor  to a class                                                                    
C felony.                                                                                                                       
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:                                                                               
     Section 38: changes  fourth degree misconduct involving                                                                    
     a controlled  substance to  fifth degree.  Adds various                                                                    
     possession crimes.                                                                                                         
     Section 39:  changes fifth degree  misconduct involving                                                                    
     controlled substances to sixth degree.                                                                                     
     Section 40: updates a reference to AS 11. 71.050.                                                                          
9:40:38 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Micciche  shared that  he  had  cosponsored SB  91,                                                                    
because it  removed obstacles that  were in place  for those                                                                    
who wanted  to find success in  life. He also felt  that the                                                                    
lower  level drug  crimes did  not make  sense. He  stressed                                                                    
that bad people should be  in prison with violent criminals.                                                                    
He wondered  whether there was  research around  the section                                                                    
related to  the lower  level drug  crimes. He  asked whether                                                                    
they should be in jail. He  remarked that SB 54 pushed those                                                                    
offenders  toward treatment.  Senator Costello  replied that                                                                    
the  bill was  to gain  the public  trust again.  She stated                                                                    
that the public had not been heard.                                                                                             
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  stated  that   there  would  be  public                                                                    
testimony on the bill.                                                                                                          
9:46:45 AM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:                                                                               
     Section  41: requires  a person  arrested  to be  taken                                                                    
     before  a  judge  or magistrate  within  48  hours  and                                                                    
     removes   language   relating  to   pretrial   services                                                                    
     Section 42: removes  class C felonies from  the list of                                                                    
     crimes  that  an  officer  may  issue  a  citation  for                                                                    
     instead of arresting.                                                                                                      
     Section 43: removes violation  of conditions of release                                                                    
     and  failure  to  appear  from  the  crimes  where  the                                                                    
     presumption is arrest as opposed to citation.                                                                              
     Section 44:  requires the time specified  in the notice                                                                    
     to appear to be at least  five days after issuance of a                                                                    
     Section 45:  allows a person  charged with a  felony to                                                                    
     be detained for up to  48 hours to allow the prosecutor                                                                    
     to demonstrate release would  not ensure the appearance                                                                    
     of a  person or protect  the victim, other  persons, or                                                                    
     the community.                                                                                                             
     Section 46:  deletes language that requires  a judicial                                                                    
     officer  to  revise  conditions of  release  that  have                                                                    
     prevented a defendant from being released.                                                                                 
     Section 47:  states that "new  information" for  a bail                                                                    
     hearing does  not include a person's  inability to post                                                                    
     bail  and deletes  language that  allows only  one bail                                                                    
     review hearing solely for inability to pay.                                                                                
     Section 48:  deletes language  referring to  a pretrial                                                                    
     services officer.                                                                                                          
     Section  49:  reverts   AS  12.30.011,  regarding  bail                                                                    
     procedures, to how it read  prior to passage of ch. 36,                                                                    
     SLA 2016.                                                                                                                  
     Sections   50-51:   removes  references   to   pretrial                                                                    
     Section 52:  for a person  charged with  manufacture of                                                                    
     methamphetamines,  if the  person  has previously  been                                                                    
     convicted  of a  similar  crime,  the judicial  officer                                                                    
     shall  require posting  of a  minimum of  $250,000 cash                                                                    
     bond before the person may be released.                                                                                    
     Section   53:   removes   a   reference   to   pretrial                                                                    
     supervision  under AS  33.07. Removes  other conditions                                                                    
    related to appointment of a third-party custodian.                                                                          
     Section 54:  prevents a person  from being  appointed a                                                                    
     third-party custodian if the person  may be called as a                                                                    
     witness in the prosecution.                                                                                                
     Section   55:   removes   a  reference   to   technical                                                                    
     violations of probation.                                                                                                   
9:51:22 AM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:                                                                               
     Section  56:  provides  credit towards  a  sentence  of                                                                    
     imprisonment  for time  spent on  electronic monitoring                                                                    
     only as provided in AS 12.55.027.                                                                                          
     Section  57: repeals  and reenacts  AS 12.55.027(b)  to                                                                    
     set out the requirements for  a defendant to get credit                                                                    
     for time spent in a treatment facility.                                                                                    
     Section  58:  repeals   and  reenacts  AS  12.55.027(c)                                                                    
     relating to  requirements for  a treatment  facility in                                                                    
     order for a  defendant to get credit for  time spent in                                                                    
     that   facility   credited   against  a   sentence   of                                                                    
     Section 59:  removes references to  AS 12.55.110  in AS                                                                    
     Section 60:  removes a reference to  suspended entry of                                                                    
     Section 61: provides  that community work in  lieu of a                                                                    
     fine  is to  be  paid at  $3 per  hour  instead of  the                                                                    
     state's minimum wage.                                                                                                      
     Section 62: amends AS 12.55.090(b)  to allow a court to                                                                    
     revoke or  modify a condition  of probation,  or change                                                                    
     the  period of  probation, but  removes the  ability of                                                                    
     the  court to  terminate  probation  and discharge  the                                                                    
     defendant from probation.                                                                                                  
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:                                                                               
     Section 63: sets the maximum  period of probation for a                                                                    
     felony sex  offense at 25  years, and 10 years  for any                                                                    
     other offense.                                                                                                             
     Section  64:   removes  limitations  on  the   type  of                                                                    
     proceeding where  a defendant and prosecutor  can agree                                                                    
     to a reduction of the period of probation.                                                                                 
     Section 65: raises the  presumptive sentence ranges for                                                                    
     class A felonies.                                                                                                          
     Section 66: raises the  presumptive sentence ranges for                                                                    
     class B felonies.                                                                                                          
     Section  67: changes  the  presumptive sentence  ranges                                                                    
     for class C felonies.                                                                                                      
9:55:59 AM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Bishop surmised that he would be penalized for                                                                       
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the section number that was                                                                          
discussed currently. Mr. Walton replied that he was on                                                                          
Section 68. He continued with the Sectional Analysis:                                                                           
     Section 68:  adds language  to AS  12.55.125(q) stating                                                                    
     that  a  defendant   sentenced  under  AS  12.55.125(i)                                                                    
     cannot have  the period  of probation  set out  in this                                                                    
     section suspended or reduced.                                                                                              
     Section  69:   sets  the  punishment  for   a  class  A                                                                    
     misdemeanor of up to one year.                                                                                             
     Section  70:   sets  the  punishment  for   a  class  B                                                                    
     misdemeanor of up to 90 days.                                                                                              
     Section 71:  adds new  language that  a person  may not                                                                    
     receive  a   sentence  of  imprisonment   or  suspended                                                                    
     imprisonment for  possession of marijuana  in violation                                                                    
     of AS 11.71.060 if the  possession was for personal use                                                                    
     in the  defendant's residence and the  defendant has no                                                                    
     previous marijuana possession convictions.                                                                                 
     Section  72: requires  a prosecutor  to  confer with  a                                                                    
     victim  of  a  crime involving  domestic  violence,  as                                                                    
     opposed to a victim of  any crime, before entering into                                                                    
     a plea agreement.                                                                                                          
     Section 73: removes language  that prevents an employer                                                                    
     from  penalizing a  victim  of a  crime  if the  victim                                                                    
     reports   an    offense   or   participates    in   the                                                                    
     investigation  of an  offense.  Adds  a definition  for                                                                    
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the section was an old                                                                      
or new definition. Mr. Walton replied that it was an old                                                                        
definition prior to SB 91.                                                                                                      
Senator Micciche  stressed that there were  so many sections                                                                    
that  reduced what  could be  very  effective. He  explained                                                                    
that there  was a requirement  to confer with the  victim of                                                                    
any crime  before a  plea agreement.  He noted  the problems                                                                    
with a "wholesale repeal."                                                                                                      
10:01:22 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the meeting may go longer                                                                         
than normal to fully discuss the legislation.                                                                                   
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:                                                                               
    Section 74: updates a reference to AS 11.66.130(a).                                                                         
     Section 75:  allows a person  to be  held for up  to 48                                                                    
     hours following  an arrest before being  taken before a                                                                    
     judge or magistrate.                                                                                                       
     Section  76: removes  physician  assistant or  advanced                                                                    
     nurse  practitioner from  the list  of options  for the                                                                    
     physician  seat  on  the  violent  crimes  compensation                                                                    
    Section 77: updates a reference to AS 11.66.130(a).                                                                         
     Section  78: removes  language  requiring  a person  to                                                                    
     surrender a license  if the person has  been ordered to                                                                    
     refrain  from   consuming  alcoholic  beverages   as  a                                                                    
     condition  of probation  or parole  for any  crime. The                                                                    
     section now  applies to  conviction under  AS 28.35.030                                                                    
    or AS 28.35.032, or a similar municipal ordinance.                                                                          
     Sections  79-80: makes  driving with  license canceled,                                                                    
     suspended, or  revoked a class  A misdemeanor  and sets                                                                    
     out the sentence for committing the crime.                                                                                 
     Section  81: removes  language that  allows a  court to                                                                    
     reduce a  person's fine or license  revocation based on                                                                    
     compliance with a treatment plan.                                                                                          
     Section 82: makes changes to  where imprisonment can be                                                                    
     served under AS 28.35.010(k).                                                                                              
     Adds  community residential  center  as  a place  where                                                                    
     imprisonment can  be spent. Removes  language requiring                                                                    
     imprisonment  to be  spent at  a  private residence  if                                                                    
     electronic monitoring is not available.                                                                                    
     Section 83: removes  language that requires regulations                                                                    
     to   include  the   cost  associated   with  electronic                                                                    
     Section  84: removes  language relating  to restoration                                                                    
     of  a  license  for   a  person  with  limited  license                                                                    
     privileges under AS 28.15.201(g).                                                                                          
     Section 85: makes changes to  where imprisonment can be                                                                    
     served under AS 28.35.032(o).                                                                                              
     Adds  community residential  center  as  a place  where                                                                    
     imprisonment can  be spent. Removes  language requiring                                                                    
     imprisonment  to be  spent at  a  private residence  if                                                                    
     electronic monitoring is not available.                                                                                    
     Sections   86-87:    removes   a   reference    to   AS                                                                    
     29.25.070(g), which is repealed in sec. 123.                                                                               
10:06:01 AM                                                                                                                   
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:                                                                               
     Section  88: removes  references to  the administrative                                                                    
     sanctions   and   incentives  program   for   probation                                                                    
     officers.  Removes   language  requiring   a  probation                                                                    
     officer to recommend early termination from probation.                                                                     
     Section  89: removes  a  reference  to special  medical                                                                    
     parole. Previously, a prisoner  who is not eligible for                                                                    
     special   medical  parole   was  to   be  released   on                                                                    
   discretionary parole after a certain period of time.                                                                         
     Section  90:  removes  a requirement  that  the  parole                                                                    
     board consider suitability  for discretionary parole at                                                                    
     least  30  days before  the  prisoner's  first date  of                                                                    
     Section 91:  Removes language requiring a  person to be                                                                    
     released on discretionary parole  if the prisoner is at                                                                    
     least 60 years  old, has served at least  10 years, and                                                                    
     has  not been  convicted of  an unclassified  or sexual                                                                    
     Section  92:  expands  the  list  of  crimes  that  are                                                                    
     eligible for release on discretionary parole.                                                                              
     Section 93: removes  language that limits discretionary                                                                    
     parole  only  to  those convicted  of  an  unclassified                                                                    
     Section 94: removes a reference to pre-parole reports.                                                                     
     Section 95:  authorizes the parole board,  if the board                                                                    
     denies  discretionary   parole,  to  make   a  prisoner                                                                    
     ineligible for  further consideration  of discretionary                                                                    
     parole or require additional time  be served before the                                                                    
   prisoner can be considered for discretionary parole.                                                                         
     Section  96:  removes a  reference  to  a parole  plan.                                                                    
     Removes  prisoner information  that was  prevented from                                                                    
     being shared with the victim of a crime.                                                                                   
Senator  von  Imhof  stressed that  repealing  the  sections                                                                    
would result in victims losing  the ability to allow victims                                                                    
to request  that they confer  with prosecutors  concerning a                                                                    
proposed plea agreement; allowing  sex assault victims to be                                                                    
notified  of impending  parole board  hearings to  review or                                                                    
consider prisoners' parole; victims  may no longer request a                                                                    
copy  of  the defendant's  parole  plan;  victims would  not                                                                    
longer be notified  of parolee discharge; and  the court did                                                                    
not  need to  provide  victims  information about  potential                                                                    
release  of the  defendant.  She felt  that repealing  those                                                                    
items would deny  so many rights and  provisions to victims.                                                                    
She felt it would be a travesty.                                                                                                
10:10:15 AM                                                                                                                   
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:                                                                               
     Section  97: removes  a reference  to AS  33.16.090, so                                                                    
     that the parole board does  not have to notify a victim                                                                    
     if a prisoner is released under AS 33.16.090.                                                                              
     Section 98: removes victims of  sexual assault from the                                                                    
     people required to be informed  by the board in advance                                                                    
     of a hearing considering discretionary parole.                                                                             
     Section   99:  repeals   and  reenacts   AS  33.16.130,                                                                    
    relating to applications for discretionary parole.                                                                          
     Section    100:    removes    a   reference    to    AS                                                                    
     33.30.011(a)(10), which is repealed in sec. 108.                                                                           
     Section   101:   removes   various  duties   from   the                                                                    
     commissioner of corrections,  including establishing an                                                                    
     administrative  sanctions  and incentives  program  for                                                                    
     Section 102:  increases the period of  time required to                                                                    
     be  served  on  parole before  unconditional  discharge                                                                    
     from one year to two years.                                                                                                
     Section 103:  requires a person  to serve at  least two                                                                    
     years   on   mandatory  parole   before   unconditional                                                                    
     Section   104:  removes   a   reference  to   technical                                                                    
     violations of parole.                                                                                                      
     Section 105: removes a  reference to preliminary parole                                                                    
     Section 106: removes language  requiring tolling of the                                                                    
     period of probation for a  person who has absconded and                                                                    
     provides  that  the  parole  board  cannot  extent  the                                                                    
     period  of parole  beyond a  person's original  maximum                                                                    
     release date.                                                                                                              
Senator Micciche felt that there  would be an opportunity to                                                                    
address the good things in  the bill. He stressed that there                                                                    
may not  be support  for some  of the  sections in  the bill                                                                    
that would be problematic for victims.                                                                                          
10:14:03 AM                                                                                                                   
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:                                                                               
     Section  107:  provides  that a  prisoner  may  not  be                                                                    
     awarded a good  time deduction for any time  spent in a                                                                    
     treatment  program, in  a private  residence, or  while                                                                    
     under electronic monitoring.                                                                                               
     Section 108:  removes duties  from the  commissioner of                                                                    
     corrections, including  requirements of a  written case                                                                    
     plan for prisoners, establishing  a reentry program for                                                                    
     prisoners,  and  establishing   minimum  standards  for                                                                    
     electronic monitoring.                                                                                                     
Vice-Chair Bishop felt that Section 107 was a good                                                                              
reflection Senator Micciche's concerns.                                                                                         
Mr. Walton continued with the Sectional Analysis:                                                                               
     Section   109:   removes   a   requirement   that   the                                                                    
     commissioner of  corrections notify  the victim  if the                                                                    
    offender is discharged from parole under AS 33.16.                                                                          
     Section 110: removes a  reference to private electronic                                                                    
     monitoring contractors.                                                                                                    
     Section   111:   removes   certain   requirements   and                                                                    
     standards for correctional restitution centers.                                                                            
     Section  112: updates  a  reference  to the  misconduct                                                                    
     involving a  controlled substance statutes in  light of                                                                    
     the changes in secs. 33 -39.                                                                                               
     Section   113:  updates   a   reference   to  the   sex                                                                    
     trafficking  in the  third degree  statute in  light of                                                                    
     the changes in sec. 30.                                                                                                    
     Section  114: removes  a  requirement  that the  Alaska                                                                    
     Criminal     Justice     Commission     make     annual                                                                    
     recommendations to the governor  and legislature on how                                                                    
     savings  from the  criminal justice  reforms should  be                                                                    
     reinvested to reduce recidivism.                                                                                           
     Section  115:  removes  certain requirements  from  the                                                                    
     annual  report filed  by  the  Alaska Criminal  Justice                                                                    
     Section  116:  sunsets   the  Alaska  Criminal  Justice                                                                    
     Commission on June 30, 2018.                                                                                               
     Section  117:  updates  references  to  the  misconduct                                                                    
     involving a  controlled substance statutes in  light of                                                                    
     the changes in secs. 33 -39.                                                                                               
     Section 118:  changes the types  of crimes that  can be                                                                    
     referred to the alcohol safety action program.                                                                             
     Section  119:  makes  changes related  to  the  alcohol                                                                    
     substance  abuse  monitoring  program and  removes  the                                                                    
     requirement   that   the  department   of   corrections                                                                    
     contract for the program.                                                                                                  
     Section 120:  changes the recidivism  reduction program                                                                    
     to only apply to transitional re-entry programs.                                                                           
     Section 121:  changes the requirements  of transitional                                                                    
     re-entry programs.                                                                                                         
     Section 122:  amends the repeal  date for  AS 22.20.210                                                                    
     to June 30,  2018. AS 22.20.210 is  a statute requiring                                                                    
     the   judicial    council   to   provide    staff   and                                                                    
     administrative support  to the Alaska  Criminal Justice                                                                    
     Section 123: repeals various statutes.                                                                                     
     Section 124: repeals  a court rule change  from ch. 36,                                                                    
     SLA 2016. Repeals conditional  effect sections from ch.                                                                    
     1, 4SSLA 2017.                                                                                                             
     Section 125: provides  the applicability provisions for                                                                    
     the bill.                                                                                                                  
     Section  126: repeals  effective  date provisions  from                                                                    
     ch. 36, SLA 2016 and ch. l, 4SSLA 2017.                                                                                    
     Section 127: provides for an immediate effective date.                                                                     
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  queried  any closing  thoughts  to  the                                                                    
portion of  the conversation. Senator Costello  replied that                                                                    
she  was  extremely  thankful for  examining  the  important                                                                    
issue to her constituents.                                                                                                      
10:20:44 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair MacKinnon  noted that SB 91  passed the legislature                                                                    
because there was  a problem. She stated that  the next step                                                                    
in  the  meeting's  conversation  would be  to  address  the                                                                    
problem  within SB  91. She  stressed that  there were  many                                                                    
people who  felt that there was  more to be done  to address                                                                    
safety in Alaskans' homes.                                                                                                      
Senator  Costello  noted  that   work  had  been  done  with                                                                    
drafters to replace  bills. She shared that she  was open to                                                                    
introduction of  the legislation about victims'  rights. She                                                                    
hoped that the bill would begin a conversation.                                                                                 
Senator  von Imhof  noted that  the  sponsor statement  said                                                                    
that  there  should  be   a  continued  thoughtful,  focused                                                                    
dialog.  She interpreted  "focused dialog"  was not  a broad                                                                    
repeal. She  read it as  a more intricate dialog  around the                                                                    
issue and  current bills. She  stressed that the  dialog had                                                                    
been  ongoing for  three years,  because there  were current                                                                    
bills that dealt with specific aspects of crime.                                                                                
Co-Chair MacKinnon  wondered whether Senator  Costello would                                                                    
like to respond. Senator Costello replied in the negative.                                                                      
10:24:23 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator  Micciche  understood  and appreciated  the  efforts                                                                    
behind the bill.                                                                                                                
Senator Costello thanked Senator Micciche.                                                                                      
Senator Olson applauded the effort.  He disagreed that there                                                                    
would  be a  "right" move,  but felt  that there  were steps                                                                    
taken to protect society. He  remarked that his constituents                                                                    
would sometimes leave the house  armed, because there was no                                                                    
Village  Public  Safety  Officer  (VPSO)  in  his  district.                                                                    
Senator  Costello  replied that  she  was  listening to  her                                                                    
constituents' concerns.                                                                                                         
10:29:09 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  announced  that  the  legislators  were                                                                    
elected  to represent  the public.  She remarked  that there                                                                    
was  a  foundation  that the  majority  of  the  legislature                                                                    
supported. She thought that there  were many things in SB 91                                                                    
that had  been subsequently corrected. She  noted that there                                                                    
was a survey posted online.                                                                                                     
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that there  was a 187 page document                                                                    
from change.org (copy  on file). She stated  that there were                                                                    
predominantly  Alaskan signatures  and some  commenters from                                                                    
outside  of Alaska.  She wanted  to know  what was  asked in                                                                    
that document.                                                                                                                  
Mr. Walton did not have  the precise wording of the petition                                                                    
in front  of him, but  had seen the change.org  petition. He                                                                    
stated  that the  wording  straightforwardly  asked for  the                                                                    
repeal of SB 91.                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  requested  Mr. Walton  to  provide  the                                                                    
exact wording  that accompanied petition, and  whether there                                                                    
was an underlying document explaining SB 91.                                                                                    
Mr. Walton  replied that he  did not believe that  there was                                                                    
an  underlying  document.  He   agreed  to  provide  further                                                                    
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  was  curious about  the  percentage  of                                                                    
Alaskans  versus  out-of-state  residents  that  signed  the                                                                    
10:34:28 AM                                                                                                                   
AARON  LAUTARET, PRESIDENT,  BUILDING  OWNERS AND  MANAGERS,                                                                    
ANCHORAGE  (via teleconference),  spoke  in  support of  the                                                                    
bill. He  stated that his  members had  experienced multiple                                                                    
break-ins and vandalisms.                                                                                                       
Co-Chair MacKinnon  wondered whether  there was an  issue of                                                                    
the  arraignment  tool.  Mr.   Lautaret  observed  that  the                                                                    
perpetrators were all release with  bail under $500. He felt                                                                    
that  the lesser  punishments resulted  in higher  repeat of                                                                    
Co-Chair  MacKinnon asked  whether the  judge was  using the                                                                    
assessment tool  within SB 91.  Mr. Lautaret replied  in the                                                                    
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether  the bail amount was too                                                                    
small.  Mr. Lautaret  replied in  the  affirmative. He  felt                                                                    
that the bail would allow the criminals to recommit crimes.                                                                     
10:39:45 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator Micciche  shared that the  Kenai had  experienced an                                                                    
uptick  in crime  due to  the increase  in opioid  usage. He                                                                    
remarked  that  the  increase   was  substantial  that  what                                                                    
occurred in the  early 2000s. He wondered  whether there was                                                                    
a  frustration with  repeat offenders  previously to  SB 91.                                                                    
Mr. Lautaret replied that the  uptick had coincided with the                                                                    
opioid problem. He  stressed that there was  a violent crime                                                                    
every night in Anchorage.                                                                                                       
Senator  Micciche shared  that  Kenai did  not  have a  high                                                                    
violent  crime  rate,  but  had   high  property  crime.  He                                                                    
wondered  whether there  should be  an adequate  analysis of                                                                    
the issues.  Mr. Lautaret  agreed. He did  not want  to take                                                                    
away victims' rights.                                                                                                           
Senator von Imhof thanked the  testifier for focusing on the                                                                    
arraignment issue.                                                                                                              
10:45:05 AM                                                                                                                   
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
10:45:48 AM                                                                                                                   
10:46:23 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that  there would be discussions                                                                    
with various  representatives from various  departments. She                                                                    
stressed that the focus was on public safety.                                                                                   
Senator Micciche  recognized that the Kenai  soccer team was                                                                    
in the audience.                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  queried   the  underlying  conversation                                                                    
about SB  91, and  any changes in  the legislation  to alter                                                                    
the foundation.                                                                                                                 
10:48:46 AM                                                                                                                   
DEAN  WILLIAMS,  COMMISSIONER,  DEPARTMENT  OF  CORRECTIONS,                                                                    
discussed  the Department  of Corrections  (DOC) perspective                                                                    
on the  legislation. He  remarked that  there was  an opioid                                                                    
crisis  in the  state. He  stressed that  there was  a major                                                                    
issue with drugs.                                                                                                               
10:53:04 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair    MacKinnon    explained   the    definition    of                                                                    
Commissioner  Williams  stressed  that  the  most  important                                                                    
piece of the  reform effort was in  the Pretrial Enforcement                                                                    
Division. He  stated that there was  approximately 70 people                                                                    
on staff  for the  division. He shared  that people  had the                                                                    
right  to bail  in the  country since  the formation  of the                                                                    
constitution.  He  stated  that  the  department  had  a  37                                                                    
percent  failure rate  of people  charged with  a crime  and                                                                    
committing  a   new  crime  before  their   first  case  was                                                                    
resolved.  He stressed  that  the  Pretrial Enforcement  was                                                                    
specifically tasked  to address  that issue. He  stated that                                                                    
hired  officers  supervised  those folks  and  approximately                                                                    
1100 people who were under  current supervision; and 320 who                                                                    
were  on  tense supervision.  Those  people  had never  been                                                                    
supervised before the change.                                                                                                   
11:00:41 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair MacKinnon  felt that the implementation  had failed                                                                    
for  criminal justice  reform. She  wondered when  there was                                                                    
roll  out in  the bill.  She queried  the supervision  piece                                                                    
happening.  She felt  that  people  could adequately  defend                                                                    
themselves. She specifically  queried the supervisory piece.                                                                    
Commissioner Williams  replied that  it was  enacted January                                                                    
1, 2018. He  stated that the development  took time, because                                                                    
training  was  required,  and lead  time  was  required.  He                                                                    
stated that the assessment  piece was the most misunderstood                                                                    
piece  in  the  entire  effort.  He  stated  that  the  risk                                                                    
assessment tool  could help a  judge make a decision  at the                                                                    
time of arraignment.                                                                                                            
Co-Chair MacKinnon  shared that  there was feedback  that it                                                                    
was not  a tool,  but a  mandate to  the courts.  She wanted                                                                    
clarification about why  there was a belief  that the courts                                                                    
interpreted the tool as a mandate.                                                                                              
11:05:00 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator   von  Imhof   commented  that   some  people   were                                                                    
considering  the scoring  system as  a "score  and release."                                                                    
She  felt  that  the  low  and  medium,  from  the  public's                                                                    
perspective, was too generous.  She queried more information                                                                    
on  the scoring  system,  and whether  it was  a  tool or  a                                                                    
mandate. Commissioner  Williams responded that there  was an                                                                    
unexpected opening  about what would  be fixed in  the data,                                                                    
and  stressed   that  there  were  issues   that  should  be                                                                    
Senator  von Imhof  noted that  SB 91  and subsequent  fixes                                                                    
gave hard  prison time for violating  conditions of release.                                                                    
She wanted  to understand the pretrial  and arraignment. She                                                                    
understood that  there may be a  misalignment of sentencing.                                                                    
She remarked that  there may be a nuance  related to someone                                                                    
who  might  have  petty offenses  of  $1000,  and  continual                                                                    
property crime behavior.  Commissioner Williams replied that                                                                    
the Department of  Law (LAW) or Alaska  Court System (COURT)                                                                    
might  be  better  equipped  to   answer  the  question.  He                                                                    
furthered that  the assessment  scoring looked  at different                                                                    
factors in a criminal history.                                                                                                  
11:12:26 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  queried the  efforts  to  address a  65                                                                    
percent recidivism rate,  and how it compared  on a national                                                                    
level. Commissioner  Williams replied that Alaska  was worse                                                                    
than some  states and approximately  the same as  others. He                                                                    
felt  that  the  statistics   were  difficult  to  evaluate,                                                                    
because  Alaska was  a unified  state. The  recidivism rates                                                                    
were counted the same between  someone with a short sentence                                                                    
and long sentence.                                                                                                              
Co-Chair MacKinnon  queried closing comments on  a repeal of                                                                    
SB  91.  Commissioner  Williams   stressed  that  it  was  a                                                                    
difficult issue, and he wanted  to make the right decisions.                                                                    
He  felt  that changing  midstream  would  be difficult  for                                                                    
Department of  Corrections (DOC).  He understood  that there                                                                    
were  nuances within  the  bill, but  he  wanted to  improve                                                                    
public safety.                                                                                                                  
11:18:28 AM                                                                                                                   
NANCY MEADE,  GENERAL COUNSEL,  ALASKA COURT  SYSTEM, stated                                                                    
that  there  were certain  times  when  the risk  assessment                                                                    
score  provided  that  the individual  must  mandatorily  be                                                                    
released on their  own in their own  community. She remarked                                                                    
that the judge can release people with certain conditions.                                                                      
Co-Chair MacKinnon  queried the  certain charges  that would                                                                    
allow for the release. She  understood that there was a cost                                                                    
associated  and a  right  to bail.  Ms.  Meade replied  that                                                                    
Section 59  of SB  91 rewrote the  bail statute.  The courts                                                                    
would get the two scores. She  stated that most use a matrix                                                                    
of the prose,  which was a chart of low,  moderate, and high                                                                    
risk on one side and the  crime the person was being charged                                                                    
on  the top  of  the  chart. She  stated  that  it would  be                                                                    
determined what decision making  authority or provision that                                                                    
the judge must apply. She  explained that there were certain                                                                    
crimes that  had no  presumption that  the person  should be                                                                    
released on their own, such  as the most serious crimes. She                                                                    
stated  that  the lower  risk  had  a presumption  that  the                                                                    
person  should  be  released.   That  presumption  could  be                                                                    
overcome if  the judge  makes a finding  based on  clear and                                                                    
convincing  evidence  that  something  more  was  needed  in                                                                    
monetary bail  to detain the  person; protect the  safety of                                                                    
community; and  ensure that the  person would appear  in the                                                                    
Senator Stevens  wondered whether the tool  was considered a                                                                    
rule.  Ms. Meade  replied in  the  affirmative, because  the                                                                    
court must look at those scores.                                                                                                
11:25:44 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator von Imhof  asked for a copy of  Ms. Meade's prepared                                                                    
notes. Ms.  Meade shared  that the  notes were  prepared for                                                                    
the judges  and were considered  attorney-client privileged.                                                                    
She,  however,  agreed  to provide  to  the  committee.  She                                                                    
stressed that it was her interpretation of the statute.                                                                         
Senator  von Imhof  wondered whether  the tool  was working.                                                                    
Ms.  Meade replied  that COURT  did not  take a  position on                                                                    
policy  issues.  She  remarked   that  there  should  be  an                                                                    
examination of what was meant by "working."                                                                                     
Senator von Imhof  felt that the lens and  impetus was about                                                                    
whether it was  working to protect Alaskans  from crime. She                                                                    
stressed that  crime could be defined  as assault, burglary,                                                                    
property crime,  etc. She  understood that  it might  be too                                                                    
early to  evaluate its effectiveness. She  remarked that the                                                                    
previous 12  to 18 months  showed that crime  had increased.                                                                    
She hoped  that COURT  as examining whether  that assessment                                                                    
tool was working  properly. Ms. Meade replied  that the tool                                                                    
was only used for just  under three months. The Court System                                                                    
was not  in a position to  amend the tool, other  than apply                                                                    
the bail  statute and use  the scores that were  provided by                                                                    
the pretrial enforcement.                                                                                                       
11:30:34 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair  MacKinnon wondered  whether  there  was a  current                                                                    
bill  to   address  the  repeat  offender   portion  of  the                                                                    
assessment tool. Ms.  Meade replied that the  only bill that                                                                    
she was aware  of that would affect the tool  was alluded to                                                                    
earlier,  which stated  that if  an  individual had  out-of-                                                                    
state  criminal  history then  they  would  not qualify  for                                                                    
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  recalled that  there  was  an issue  on                                                                    
catch and release for property  crime. She stated that there                                                                    
was an accumulation  to assess a different  kind of penalty.                                                                    
She thought that  state statute had been  changed to address                                                                    
that issue,  so when  people were released  and reoffending.                                                                    
She  wondered  why  those two  offenses  were  not  combined                                                                    
within the  assessment tool.  Ms. Meade  replied that  SB 54                                                                    
changed what SB 91 had done  with the very low level thefts,                                                                    
or items  under $250. Those  low level thefts, under  SB 91,                                                                    
did not have a chance for  active jail time. She stated that                                                                    
the thefts  had probation and  suspended time that  could be                                                                    
imposed. She  explained that SB  54 allowed for  active jail                                                                    
time for those level thefts.                                                                                                    
11:34:20 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair   MacKinnon  remarked   that  there   had  been   a                                                                    
recommendation  for a  bail schedule  change. She  felt that                                                                    
there  was convoluted  conversation about  the SB  91 repeal                                                                    
effort. She  wondered what occurred with  the implementation                                                                    
of the  bail schedule change.  She also asked  whether there                                                                    
was a  change after  the initial implementation,  because it                                                                    
intersected  with criminal  justice reform.  She noted  that                                                                    
the reason that  an assessment tool was examined  was due to                                                                    
subjectivity. She  remarked that judges were  expected to be                                                                    
fair and distribute  the law in a just and  fair manner. She                                                                    
stressed that  the assessment  tool was  created as  a "yard                                                                    
stick"  for a  judge to  create  a fair  playing field.  She                                                                    
remarked that  there was testimony  by the sponsor of  SB 91                                                                    
that was  supported by various  organizations. It  was noted                                                                    
that there was  a higher proportion of  minorities that were                                                                    
staying in  the pretrial component and  arraignment section.                                                                    
Ms. Meade  replied that with  respect to the  bail schedule,                                                                    
it should not  be confused with the bail  statute. The COURT                                                                    
had a bail  schedule for decades, since the  1960s. The bail                                                                    
schedule was  a document  that allows  release or  assigns a                                                                    
certain  dollar   amount  to   certain  offenses   for  some                                                                    
circumstances.  She   stressed  that  it  only   applied  to                                                                    
misdemeanors,  and never  felonies.  She  announced that  it                                                                    
would  not never  apply for  domestic  violence crimes.  She                                                                    
explained  that  a person  with  certain  offenses could  be                                                                    
immediately released  immediately if someone pays  the bail.                                                                    
She stressed  that if  law enforcement  or judge  feels that                                                                    
there  should be  a deviation  from the  bail schedule.  She                                                                    
stated that the judges did  a statewide bail schedule at the                                                                    
same  time  as  SB  91,   and  certain  things  were  deemed                                                                    
inappropriate  such as  a high  blood  alcohol content.  She                                                                    
stated that SB 54 added  a provision for DOC tests everybody                                                                    
that would  be released  under the  bail schedule  to ensure                                                                    
that the blood  alcohol content was below  0.08 percent. She                                                                    
remarked that  she had  not heard any  issues with  the bail                                                                    
schedule  in  the recent  months.  She  stressed that  there                                                                    
would  be  a reaction  and  adjust  to law  enforcement  and                                                                    
enhance public safety.                                                                                                          
11:40:11 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  noted  a testimony  from  someone  that                                                                    
considered the $500  as too low a bail  amount. She remarked                                                                    
that  some  minority  populations   might  be  held  longer,                                                                    
because  of a  financial reason  versus a  risk reason.  Ms.                                                                    
Meade replied  that the issue  of the dollar amount  of bail                                                                    
was an  important issue  for judges  and public  safety. She                                                                    
agreed that judges  could use discretion to set  a bail that                                                                    
they  believe  was  appropriate  for  that  individual.  She                                                                    
stated that  one of  the drivers for  pretrial reform  was a                                                                    
sense  that  money and  the  inability  to pay  was  keeping                                                                    
people inappropriately.                                                                                                         
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that there  would be a break to                                                                    
prepare for the public hearing in the afternoon.                                                                                
WALT  MONEGAN, COMMISSIONER,  DEPARTMENT  OF PUBLIC  SAFETY,                                                                    
ANCHORAGE    (via   teleconference),    shared   that    law                                                                    
enforcement's  function was  to enforce  the laws  that were                                                                    
mandated  by  the  state.  He stated  that  there  was  some                                                                    
resistance by a number of  law enforcement after the passage                                                                    
of SB 91. He remarked  that the vast majority had understood                                                                    
the reason  behind the changes.  He stressed that  there was                                                                    
more of  a process than  a project.  He felt that  a massive                                                                    
overhaul would result in some underestimations.                                                                                 
11:45:47 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that  there were families who were                                                                    
victimized  by individuals  who  disregarded their  property                                                                    
and  livelihoods. She  wondered whether  a repeal  of SB  91                                                                    
would improve public  safety. Commissioner Monegan responded                                                                    
that  there would  probably be  no  difference, because  the                                                                    
individuals who  currently commit the crimes  were driven by                                                                    
their  addictions primarily.  He  felt that  they needed  to                                                                    
address the addiction.                                                                                                          
Co-Chair  MacKinnon   queried  the   vacancy  rate   in  the                                                                    
department.  Commissioner  Monegan  responded  that  it  was                                                                    
slightly over  10 percent,  with 45  vacancies in  the State                                                                    
Troopers.  He  shared that  there  was  work to  fill  those                                                                    
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried  the time of the  next academy to                                                                    
address  the vacancies.  Commissioner  Monegan replied  that                                                                    
there  was   one  that  could   be  in  the  fall   with  20                                                                    
participants.  The following  spring  would  see a  slightly                                                                    
higher number.                                                                                                                  
11:49:17 AM                                                                                                                   
Vice-Chair  Bishop appreciated  the comments  on recruitment                                                                    
and retention.  He assumed  that there  was a  multiplier in                                                                    
the recruitment  and academy process  for those that  do not                                                                    
complete the job within the first  year, so there could be a                                                                    
fully staffed department.                                                                                                       
Co-Chair MacKinnon  understood that there was  a request for                                                                    
additional   public   defenders,    but   asked   that   the                                                                    
conversation  occur  at  a  different  time.  She  requested                                                                    
comments on public safety.                                                                                                      
QUINLAN  STEINER, PUBLIC  DEFENDER, PUBLIC  DEFENDER AGENCY,                                                                    
shared  that  his  observations were  mostly  anecdotal.  He                                                                    
remarked that there were some  predicted impacts in terms of                                                                    
shifting  the  focus  from  incarceration  as  a  remedy  to                                                                    
support and  treatment to address the  underlying issue that                                                                    
drive  individuals  to come  in  contact  with the  criminal                                                                    
justice system.  He noted  that guaranteed  incentives drove                                                                    
people to  complete their rehabilitation.  He felt  that the                                                                    
package of  reforms was supportive to  drive rehabilitation.                                                                    
He  stressed  that it  began  with  a release  decision.  He                                                                    
remarked that bail needed to  be put into context. He shared                                                                    
that  a judge  did not  make a  decision to  release or  not                                                                    
release that  person, because  it was  unconstitutional. The                                                                    
judge must  set conditions  of bail. He  shared that  one of                                                                    
the  conditions could  be to  pay a  bond. He  remarked that                                                                    
paying a bond  could result in a release. He  shared that an                                                                    
unsecured bond  was as  effective at  getting people  not to                                                                    
commit a  crime in the  future and  to comply with  terms of                                                                    
their release and  appear. He remarked that  the past system                                                                    
was  very much  about  poverty. He  stated  that there  were                                                                    
currently more options and some restrictions.                                                                                   
11:56:18 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator von  Imhof remarked that  the increase in  crime was                                                                    
largely  associated with  opioid use.  She wondered  how the                                                                    
increase  in  detox  beds  would  intersect  with  the  bail                                                                    
conditions. Mr.  Steiner replied  that he could  not confirm                                                                    
the  added  capacity. He  stated  that  the money  had  been                                                                    
allocated for  that effort. He stated  that the availability                                                                    
was key to helping someone succeed.                                                                                             
Senator  von Imhof  wondered why  rehab was  not offered  in                                                                    
jail.  Mr. Steiner  replied that  there should  be treatment                                                                    
available  to   people  at  every  stage.   He  shared  that                                                                    
incarceration was not appropriate for everyone.                                                                                 
12:01:00 PM                                                                                                                   
Senator Micciche wondered how  different the public defender                                                                    
job  was  from prosecution.  Mr.  Steiner  replied that  the                                                                    
state  made an  allegation. He  stated that  his job  was to                                                                    
review and  investigate that case  to check the  voracity of                                                                    
the statements and allegations.                                                                                                 
Senator Micciche  felt that  defense and  prosecution viewed                                                                    
the  rights  of  crime   victims  differently.  He  wondered                                                                    
whether  eliminating   conditions  of  release   "let  down"                                                                    
victims,  because   they  might  feel  like   they  was  not                                                                    
reasonable  protection. Mr.  Steiner replied  that the  bail                                                                    
system  had  more options  than  have  ever been  available,                                                                    
including   more    potential   restrictions    and   direct                                                                    
supervision. He shared  that all of the  conditions could be                                                                    
applied to  anyone. He  stressed that there  could not  be a                                                                    
required monetary bail and a  third party custodian, because                                                                    
those things were keeping poverty stricken people in jail.                                                                      
12:06:47 PM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair  Hoffman  wondered  whether   there  should  be  an                                                                    
examination  of the  felony  permanent  fund dividend  (PFD)                                                                    
policy. He wanted to give  an incentive to those that commit                                                                    
a felony that  living crime free would allow for  a PFD. Mr.                                                                    
Steiner replied  that nondiscretionary programs  were highly                                                                    
effective.   He  stated   that   making   benefits  at   the                                                                    
discretionary  decision  of  someone   else  would  be  less                                                                    
effective. He felt that it was in line with that principle.                                                                     
Senator  Stevens  remarked that  DOC  had  made attempts  to                                                                    
supervise and follow  up, but there was  an implication that                                                                    
it did  not work  well. Mr. Steiner  replied that  it worked                                                                    
for some people.  He stated that too  much supervision could                                                                    
be  counterproductive for  low-risk  individuals. He  stated                                                                    
that  conditions and  supervisions  for  higher or  moderate                                                                    
risk individuals could be effective.                                                                                            
Co-Chair MacKinnon  stressed that the intent  of the meeting                                                                    
was to understand the basics of the bill.                                                                                       
12:11:32 PM                                                                                                                   
JAHNA  LINDEMUTH,  ATTORNEY   GENERAL,  DEPARTMENT  OF  LAW,                                                                    
stated that  SB 91 was  not perfect,  but a full  repeal was                                                                    
not warranted. She felt that the  approach in SB 127 was ill                                                                    
advised.  She remarked  that LAW  was continuing  to monitor                                                                    
and evaluate the  impacts of the criminal  justice laws. She                                                                    
stated that  LAW would bring  forward any changes  that were                                                                    
needed, which was the impetus behind SB 54 and SB 55.                                                                           
12:17:02 PM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that  she was the former executive                                                                    
director  of  Standing  Together Against  Rape  (STAR),  and                                                                    
prosecution   percentages  had   not   adjusted  much   when                                                                    
discussing the issues.                                                                                                          
Attorney General  Lindemuth stressed  that she was  the most                                                                    
concerned with the rise in  crime. She felt that, along with                                                                    
the fiscal crisis,  it was a high concern in  the state. She                                                                    
stated that  she had  spent more  than half  of her  time on                                                                    
criminal justice.                                                                                                               
Senator  Micciche shared  that there  were discussions  with                                                                    
law   enforcement,  judges,   prosecutors,  defenders,   and                                                                    
community  people. He  stressed that  there were  people who                                                                    
were "fed up"  with the increase in crime.  He wondered what                                                                    
was done to  catalog the changes in SB 91,  the changes that                                                                    
occurred since its passage, and  an ongoing plan on a better                                                                    
system.  Attorney General  Lindemuth  replied  that all  the                                                                    
changes that LAW identified had  already be presented to the                                                                    
legislature. She stressed that it was an ongoing process.                                                                       
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  remarked  that  there was  a  very  low                                                                    
number  of  sexual  assault  criminals  that  were  actually                                                                    
12:23:22 PM                                                                                                                   
JOHN  SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR,  CRIMINAL DIVISION,  DEPARTMENT OF                                                                    
LAW, spoke to the impacts  of the department. He stated that                                                                    
the  impacts were  threefold. He  shared  that the  pretrial                                                                    
enforcement  division  currently  had over  1000  that  were                                                                    
currently supervised  by DOC. He  stated that SB 127  had an                                                                    
immediate effective  date, which would cause  how those 1000                                                                    
cases should be altered. He noted  that SB 91 was a sweeping                                                                    
reform  effort  that was  phased  in  over three  years.  He                                                                    
remarked that the reason for  the three years was because it                                                                    
took time  to train  the judges  and practitioners.  It also                                                                    
took  time  to  determine  how   those  new  laws  would  be                                                                    
interpreted  and  impact  things. He  stressed  that  making                                                                    
those  changes  took  time  to  adjust.  He  felt  that  the                                                                    
immediate effective date would be extremely problematic.                                                                        
SB  127  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further