02/09/1995 08:05 AM STA
HOUSE STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE AFFAIRS
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
Representative Scott Ogan
HB 32:"An Act relating to administrative proceedings involving
a determination of eligibility for a permanent fund
dividend or authority to claim a dividend on behalf of
another."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 44:"An Act providing that a political use is not an
authorized use of charitable gaming proceeds; prohibiting
the contribution of charitable gaming proceeds to
candidates for certain public offices, their campaign
organizations, or to political groups; providing that a
political group is not a qualified organization for
purposes of charitable gaming; relating to what is a
qualified organization for the purpose of charitable
gaming permitting; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
* HB 38:"An Act relating to criminal sentencing; relating to the
availability for good time credit for offenders convicted
of certain first degree murders; relating to mandatory
life imprisonment, parole, good time credit, pardon,
commutation  of sentence, modification or reduction of
sentence, reprieve, furlough, and service of sentence at
a correctional restitution center for offenders with at
least three serious felony convictions; and amending
Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35."
HB 106:"An Act relating to art in public places requirements and
the art in public places fund."
HJR 20:Relating to unfunded federal mandates and the Conference
of the States.
* HB 30:"An Act relating to a dress code for public schools."
* HB 132:"An Act repealing the ability of persons seeking an
elective state executive office or a state or national
legislative office to petition for inclusion of their
names on the state general election ballot; requiring
candidates of all political groups for a state or
national legislative office to compete at the state
primary election for the placement on the general
election ballot of the name of the one candidate from
each political group that receives the greatest number of
votes cast; and requiring candidates of all political
groups for state executive office to compete at the state
election ballot of the name of the one candidate for
governor from each political group that receives the
greatest number of votes cast and the name of the one
candidate for lieutenant governor from the same political
group that receives the greatest number of votes cast."
* HB 90:"An Act changing the date that the legislature convenes
in the years following a gubernatorial election."
HJR 4:Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska authorizing the use of the initiative to amend the
Constitution of the State of Alaska.
(* First public hearing)
MELINDA GRUENING, Legislative Assistant
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided sponsor statement for HB 32
TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant
Representative Terry Martin
State Capitol, Room 502
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
MARGARET BERCK, Attorney
Alaska American Civil Liberties Union
POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 38
JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Corrections
240 Main Street, Suite 700
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided sponsor statement for HB 106
TIM WILSON, Executive Director
Alaska State Council on the Arts
411 W. 4th Ave. Suite IE
Anchorage, Alaska, 99501
POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 106
NATALIE ROTHAUS, Executive Director
Juneau Arts Council
Juneau, Alaska 99802
CHARLES ROHRBACHER, Artist
109 Troy Street
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL:  HB  32
SHORT TITLE: PFD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE      JRN-PG              ACTION
01/06/95        29    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95        29    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95        29    (H)   STA, JUD, FIN
02/07/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/07/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)
SHORT TITLE: GAMING PROCEEDS/DEFINE CHARITABLE ORG'NS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Rokeberg,Porter,Bunde
01/16/95        32    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/19/95        90    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
SHORT TITLE: SENTENCING;3RD SERIOUS FELONY OFFENDER
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE,Toohey
01/20/95       105    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
BILL:  HB 106
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL ART IN PUBLIC PLACES REQUIREMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION
01/20/95       102    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/20/95       102    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
BILL:  HJR 20
SHORT TITLE: CONFERENCE OF THE STATES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BARNES,Grussendorf,Foster,Mulder
01/23/95       115    (H)   WTR, STA
01/31/95              (H)   WTR AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 408
01/31/95              (H)   MINUTE(WTR)
02/01/95       195    (H)   WTR RPT  6DP
02/01/95       195    (H)   DP: PHILLIPS, WILLIAMS, KUBINA
02/01/95       195    (H)   DP: G.DAVIS, MULDER, BARNES
02/01/95       195    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (LAA) 2/1/95
02/01/95       195    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/1/95
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL DRESS CODES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS
01/16/95        28    (H)   STA, HES
SHORT TITLE: CANDIDATES FOR STATEWIDE BALLOT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACKIE,Phillips
SHORT TITLE: CONVENING LEGISLATURE AFTER GOV ELECTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS, Foster, MacLean, Mackie,
Nicholia, Elton, Finkelstein, Robinson, Davies, Kubina, James,
Toohey
01/27/95       163    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER, MACLEAN
01/30/95       180    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): MACKIE, NICHOLIA
01/30/95       180    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): ELTON, FINKELSTEIN
02/01/95       210    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): ROBINSON, DAVIES
02/01/95       210    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): KUBINA, JAMES
BILL:  HJR  4
SHORT TITLE: USE OF INITIATIVE TO AMEND CONSTITUTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Rokeberg
TAPE 95-12, SIDE A
The meeting of the House State Affairs Standing Committee was
called to order by Chair Jeannette James at 8:05 a.m.  Members
present at the call to order were Representatives James, Ogan,
Willis, Robinson, Ivan, Porter, and Green.  No members were absent.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced there was a quorum present and a
full audience.  She stated the first item on the agenda was HB 32
continued from the last meeting.  She called for Melinda Gruening
to testify on behalf of the sponsor.
HSTA - 02/09/95
HB 32 - PFD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
MELINDA GRUENING, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe
Green, announced that she would be speaking on the changes
incorporated in the proposed committee substitute for HB 32.  These
changes would address concerns expressed by members of the
committee about how a person would be determined indigent for
purposes of having the proposed permanent fund appeal fee waived.
She mentioned that the committee had copies of a memo, which
contained wording defining "indigent" for the purposes of fee
waiver.  She said permanent fund administrators indicated that the
criteria for determining indigency needed to be simple,
nonsubjective and easily verifiable.  She said she researched
several agencies to determine how they determined indigency for
purposes of fee waver.  She said she had talked to the public
defenders office, the hunting licensing people, and limited entry
people to see how they qualified people for reduced fees or fee
waiver.  She said the solution that seemed to be the most workable
was to use the federal poverty guidelines.  These guidelines are
published once a year by the U.S. Department of Health and Social
Services and the figures are used by a variety of federal agencies
and the court system.  She explained that the applicants income can
be easily verified by a copy of the first page of their previous
years tax return.  She stated the federal poverty guidelines are
adjusted annually for inflation proofing and they do have a
separate chart in the guidelines for Alaska to take into account
the higher cost of living.  She said other than the new subsection
(2), the bill was completely unchanged.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any questions of the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked if Ms. Gruening could tell the
committee exactly what the guidelines would be.
MS. GRUENING replied that a copy of these guidelines were enclosed
in their packets.  She said the enclosed copy was for 1994.  She
said the new copies for 1995 come out next week in mid-February.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any other questions or comments.
As there were none, she called for a motion with regard to this
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER moved to pass the proposed amendment to
HB 32, as described in the memo dated February 9, 1995, signed by
Representative Joe Green, adding Section 2 to HB 32.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections.  Hearing none, the
amendment passed.  She asked if there was a motion to pass this
bill out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON moved to pass the committee
substitute for HB 32 out of committee with individual
recommendations as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he wished all of the bills had a
negative fiscal note like HB 32, except that they applied to the
general fund and not the permanent fund.
CHAIR JAMES stated the bill needed to be passed with the attached
fiscal notes.  She asked if there were any objections.  As there
were none, the bill passed.  She announced the next item on the
agenda was HB 44.  She mentioned there was a representative speaker
from Representative Martin's office, the bill's sponsor.
HB 44 - GAMING PROCEEDS/ DEFINE CHARITABLE ORG'NS
TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Terry Martin,
stated he was there to speak on HB 44 as a representative of
Representative Terry Martin.  He said he wanted to pass out copies
of an information sheet that referenced portions of the bill.  He
said this was the Internal Revenue Service's 501C listing of tax
exempt nonprofit corporations.  He mentioned there was debate at
the previous meeting concerning Representative Martin's intention
of excluding all other categories of IRS nonprofits on this list,
other than the 501C3 category.  This is the category covering
religious, educational, charitable, literary and several groups.
He mentioned that Representative Willis had expressed concerns
about excluding unions from being able to obtain gaming permits.
It was Representative Martin's preference to include only those
groups listed under the 501C3 category.  He had also expanded his
bill to allow 501C10 organizations, 501C19 groups, and possibly the
category of 501C23.  Thus, Representative Martin was willing to
include an amendment to include these additional categories, but
would prefer to not expand beyond these groups.  He said the intent
of this bill was to try to get politics out of "charitable gaming."
They were also trying to analyze who can get gaming permits and who
can't.  Representative Martin felt that if the idea was to try to
support charitable organizations, why should a union be allowed to
have a permit or cemetery companies?  He thought it was better to
specify those types of organizations considered a charity.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions or comments for the
sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she had at the last meeting, asked if
raffles were included in this bill.  She said she was told that
they weren't, and then when she talked to Legal, they informed her
that raffles were included.  She stated she did not know what was
wrong with political groups doing a raffle.  She argued that people
who participate in a raffle know what they are buying and who they
are supporting.
MR. ANDERSON agreed that raffles were presently included in the
bill, but this could be amended if this was the wish of the
committee.  He said when they drafted the bill, that they were
trying to focus on the gaming idea, and realized later that they
had included things such as raffles.
CHAIR JAMES asked if this bill would preclude these people from
having gaming permits, or if they were just saying they could not
use the proceeds for political purposes.
MR. ANDERSON said the way the bill was written presently, it said
that these people could not have gaming permits.  This bill says no
one can have them except 501C3 organizations.  The bill is
excluding a lot of groups as a result of a miscommunication with
Legal Services.  He stated they were proposing to include the other
listed 501 categories and would consider exempting raffles.  He
further stated they were trying to make the bill more definitive by
saying that just bingo and pull-tabs would be included.  He said
they were actually attempting to do two different things with this
bill, to prevent gaming proceeds from going to political groups and
to define who should qualify for a charitable gaming permit.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated this was why she felt the committee
didn't have all of the information.  She said she still did not
know all of the groups that would be affected by this bill.  She
said she thought it was a mistake to include attempts to exclude
political groups from the proceeds of charitable gaming and
attempts to define who should have a gaming permit in the same
bill.  She said it seemed that in some ways we had politics
involved in this bill, instead of really looking at the issue at
hand.  She further stated that at the last meeting it was mentioned
that individuals did not know who they were supporting with gaming
proceeds, when last year a law was passed that required vendors to
post a sign saying who the proceeds were going to, and so this was
not true.  She said she was still trying to figure out where they
were trying to go with this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thought this was a reasonable effort
to try and get gaming proceeds out of politics, without an entire
election reform bill.  He said he thought that what this bill
needed was for the committee to come to a conclusion on who it is
they want to have the ability to have permits for bingo and
pull-tabs, the most favored type of gambling in Alaska.  He
mentioned he was under the impression that raffles were not
included in this bill and that could be fixed very easily.  He
stated the reason the committee should consider trying to limit the
types of organizations that can participate in charitable gaming is
that the Act was originally intended to support charitable
organizations only.  This was why, he said, it was called
charitable gaming and not credit union gaming or union gaming.  He
stated the problem with saying that everyone could have a gaming
permit, but just to not allow the proceeds to go into politics, is
the accounting nightmare of trying to figure out which proceeds
came from gaming and where they were spent, as opposed to where
their other revenues were spent.  He thought it would be much
simpler to only expend the resources necessary to insure that
gaming proceeds go to charities, as originally intended, rather
than expecting the Division of Gaming to try and audit where the
proceeds from gaming were being spent.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN was concerned that this bill was too broad and
was excluding organizations in his area that were intended for
charitable purposes.
CHAIR JAMES said she wanted to assign this bill to a subcommittee
to work out the details.  She asked for Representatives Porter,
Ivan, and Robinson to sit on this committee and to work this bill
with Representative Martin's office.  She also asked that they
contact Representative Gene Therriault's office, as he had
submitted a similar bill.  She asked Representative Porter to chair
the subcommittee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if in the subcommittee there would be
greater leeway for interpretation of this bill.  She didn't know if
it was better for the sponsor to do this, but she wanted to know
the fiscal impact of this bill for the state.  She thought there
were a lot of groups that were going to be affected by this bill,
that were not necessarily 501C3 organizations, but could be
considered charitable groups.  Thus, she wanted a clear list of all
organizations that would be affected by this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he could alleviate any concerns about
the fiscal impact of this bill.  He said the Division of Gaming
brings in about $1.4 million and spends about $350,000.
MR. ANDERSON reiterated that the idea of this bill was to limit who
would be eligible for a gaming permit and to ban all political
activities and groups from benefitting from the proceeds of
charitable gaming.  He said they had program receipts and
documentation, which they had not yet presented to the committee,
that backed up how much money was going to political organizations.
CHAIR JAMES stated she thought the goal of this exercise was to
eliminate any gaming or gambling from being used for political
reasons.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if the mission of the subcommittee
was to study not just who owns the permit, but who the operators
were.  He was concerned that with inflated operating costs, there
might still be a large sum of revenue from gaming diverted to
political purposes.
CHAIR JAMES said she thought every cent that came into a permit as
a result of selling or collecting from this activity, that none of
these funds should be allowed to go to supporting political
activities.  She said it should not matter whether the funds came
from the owner of the permit or the operator, as she understood the
intent of the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wanted to point out that this bill could
affect organizations who only had gaming money available for
funding political education and advocacy activities.  She
emphasized that she thought the intent of this bill was to insure
that gaming proceeds did not go to support political candidates;
not necessarily to prevent a citizens group from raising revenue
and then be able to educate the legislature on issues that were
important to them.  Now she thinks that she is hearing otherwise.
CHAIR JAMES answered she thought the intent was to limit gaming
proceeds from being used for advocacy.  She said the idea behind
this was that these groups should raise their own funds, without
depending on a gimmick to trick people into giving them the money,
to support something they may or may not consent to.  She said to
allow that, was to allow these organizations to, in effect, prey on
the people. She stated that because there was extensive
conversation needed on this bill, she would prefer they hold any
other discussion until they heard the report of the subcommittee.
She also asked that the subcommittee keep her informed of the
schedule of their meetings, as she wanted to participate.  She also
urged the subcommittee to speak to their peers, so they could try
and get a well rounded bill coming out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS stated this bill just seemed to be getting
broader and broader.  He said he was wondering, that because the
Governor had just appointed a commission to study the gaming issue,
if it might not be better for the subcommittee to work with this
commission or possibly wait for their recommendations.  He said not
only was there this bill, but also several other gambling issues
before the legislature this session.  He thought maybe the
Governor's commission should study all of these issues and come
back with a recommendation.
CHAIR JAMES said she could understand his concerns, but his very
own testimony spelled out the underlying problem, which was that
the legislature had allowed charitable gaming in this state and
that proceeds from this activity were supporting political causes.
She felt this was the underlying problem and how they decided to
fix it, was the decision of this legislature.  She said they could
not wait for the commission to find a solution because there had
been a lot of commissions and their advice was not always followed.
Thus, she thought that to wait for their decision could be a long
process, which might not amount to anything, and she would just
prefer to keep this bill moving through the process.
MR. ANDERSON added that in Representative Martin's view, that
commission was extremely deficient in its whole representation of
the gaming industry, in that it was made up almost entirely of
gaming operators and had little representation from the charitable
organizations.  He said the commission was very lopsided.
CHAIR JAMES stated she felt there was no reason to belabor the
issue now until they heard the recommendations of the subcommittee.
She requested Representative Porter to chair the subcommittee.  She
said they would be moving down the agenda to HB 38, as the sponsors
for the other two bills had not yet arrived.  She called for
Representative Con Bunde to come up and testify as the bill
HB 38 - SENTENCING; 3RD SERIOUS FELONY OFFENDER
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated he and his aide had worked on this
issue for the past three years and he had a sponsor statement that
he would pass out to the committee.
WALT WILCOX, Committee Aide for State Affairs, announced that the
public defender was on teleconference from Anchorage and asked her
to identify herself.
BARBARA BRINK announced that she was the Deputy Public Defender in
Anchorage.  She asked if she would have the opportunity to make any
comments.
MR. WILCOX verified that she would.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that HB 38 provided for a mandatory
99-year sentence for a specific group of offenders, who have two
separate prior Class A or unclassified felony convictions.  He said
it was called popularly the "Three Strikes" bill, but that had such
negative connotations in other states, whose bills were not as
carefully drafted, that he would prefer to call it the habitual
offender bill.  Under this proposed legislation, discretionary
parole and good time sentence reductions are not available to
offenders who are sentenced to a 99-year term.  However, HB 38 does
allow the court to reduce a sentence after 50 years have been
served, the rationale being that someone that is in for a third
felony conviction is probably in their thirties or forties, and by
the time they are sixty or seventy years old, they are probably no
longer a threat to society.  They become very expensive for the
state to house and it is frankly good business to allow them to
petition to be released at the Governor's discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that this bill also includes some
prosecutorial discretion and flexibility, so that either normal
presumptive sentencing can take place, or in a case of weak
circumstantial evidence, we can avoid the kinds of things that we
hear about, where someone is a lifetime career criminal and then
they steal a piece of pizza and are locked up for life as their
third offense.  He mentioned that he knew there were costs
associated with incarcerating someone for 99 years, but this bill
was crafted to keep that cost to a minimum.  He thought it would
actually save the state money in the long run.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE argued that strong punishment does help to
shape behavior and deter crime, and that although it was certainly
a goal of the state to rehabilitate people, that some who have
proven with a lifetime of crime, that they were beyond or incapable
of being rehabilitated.  He said there was little left for the
legislature to do, except to protect society from these predators
who continue to create more victims.  He claimed research has shown
that the recidivism rate is 65 to 70 percent and it appears that
only 5 to 6 people a year would fall under the effect of this
legislation.  He said there is not a large population of these
types of criminals, but there is a significant core of these types
of predators.  He said these offenders are taking up costly time in
the judicial system, to say nothing of the costs to their victims.
He felt that if the revolving door of justice was stopped, these
types of crimes would decrease.  He said we had too many repeat
offenders, depending on the goodwill of the people of Alaska.  He
said that HB 38 would make Alaska a safer place.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked to read a few things into the record
from the packets that the committee had received from a group
called Crime Strike, a division of the National Rifle Association.
He said he wanted to emphasize that Alaska was not immune to the
crime wave spreading across our nation, that a woman was raped
every 15 hours, someone was robbed every 13 hours, and that in
fact, a violent crime was committed in Alaska every 2 hours and 15
minutes.  He added they suggested that passage of this bill would
help to alleviate the effects of crime on the citizens of Alaska by
locking up these incorrigible criminals for life.  He further
stated that repeat offenders are a serious threat to public safety,
according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the average
criminal commits between 187-287 crimes per year.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said with the passage of this bill, the threat
to the public will be substantially reduced by taking these repeat
offenders off the street.  He pointed out an accompanying chart
which showed that when Alaska's level of incarceration went up, its
level of crime went down.  He pointed to California as a state that
had experience with this type of legislation, and showed statistics
which documented that their rate of violent crime went down 7
percent in the first 6 months their bill was in effect.  Homicides
and robbery were both down 11 percent.  He said that the National
Center for Policy Analysis reported that it costs taxpayers about
$25,000 a year to incarcerate criminals, a nationwide average that
Alaska does not achieve unless we send our prisoners outside.  He
said if the criminal was out on the street committing 187-287
crimes a year, the average cost to society was about $2,300 per
crime.  Added together, one career criminal could cost Alaska
$430,000 annually.  He stated California has figured that their
"Three Strikes" legislation has saved taxpayers $29.5 billion over
5 years.  He said he would be willing to answer any questions.
CHAIR JAMES stated she noticed that in fiscal year 1996, there was
a note of almost $5 million in contractual fees that doesn't show
up afterwards.  She also noticed the fiscal note showed that this
bill would put an additional 202 prisoners in jail over a period of
time.  She asked if Representative Bunde could explain the fiscal
note and its accuracy.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated he had some serious disagreements with
the attached fiscal note for HB 38.  He said he would point out
that they are dramatically larger than the fiscal notes received
last year on the same bill.  He thought the logic behind this
fiscal note had its problems.  He stated he would ask the committee
to focus on the philosophy of this bill, as he was still gathering
information to refute this fiscal note.  He said he would like the
opportunity to do that in the Finance Committee.  He mentioned that
he thought the large fiscal note may stem from those who are
philosophically opposed to this bill, or there may be some errors
in calculation.  He said that as he pointed out, there should only
be 3 to 5 people incarcerated each year, and there should be zero
fiscal impact for the next 10-12 years, because if someone is
convicted under this bill, as it would be their third felony
conviction, they would be incarcerated for that long under current
statute.  He thought there were some weaknesses in the calculations
for this current fiscal note, and he would like to argue that point
after he had finished gathering his information.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he was appalled that so few people are
responsible for so many crimes.  He questioned if the recidivism
statistics showed that after someone was caught twice committing a
crime, if they became more clever, and so committed a
proportionately larger number of crimes before being caught the
third time.  He said he was concerned there might be a larger
number of people out there with two convictions on their record,
who might be close to getting convicted under this bill.  He stated
though, he thought this was a good use of general funds, because as
a criminal got more experienced, he figured they committed many
more crimes before getting caught the third time.  Thus, he figured
the cuts to crime will actually be better than the statistics
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed, saying he found it appalling that the
average criminal commits 200 crimes a year.  He commented that
equalled almost one crime a day and that was rather busy.  He said
he could alleviate any concerns that there was this huge population
of criminals that would be impacted by this legislation, and
pointed out that only unclassified and Class A felonies would fall
under this bill.  To give an example, he said the type of criminal
that would be affected by this would be first-degree murderers,
kidnappers, first-degree sexual assault cases, first-degree sexual
abuse of a minor, and similar cases.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there wasn't a different mind set
between the hardened criminal who would commit these types of
crimes, and the smaller petty criminal, such as the petty thief.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he had spent a good part of his life
trying to figure that out and came to the conclusion that all of
them are different.
CHAIR JAMES asked Barbara Brink, the public defender, if she had
any comments or questions.
BARBARA BRINK, Public Defender testified via teleconference from
Anchorage and said she had been a public defender in Alaska for 13
years and wanted to share her perspective as to how this bill would
affect them.  She said this bill would cause increased litigation
for the public defender's office in three ways:  1) An individual
charged with a third felony, will more likely exercise their right
to trial, as opposed to pleading out; 2) she said there would have
to be a more extensive look at the two prior convictions to make
sure that they are constitutionally valid; and 3) a person charged
with a conviction will be more likely to take their case to trial
instead of pleading out, as they will not want even the first
conviction on their record for fear that it will count towards
their allowed total of three convictions.  She argued that today,
94 percent of their felony cases do not go to trial, but are
pleaded out short of trial.  She feared that with this bill, the
existing system would collapse on itself because of the increased
workload.  She said there was dispute as to how many cases this
bill would affect.  She stated the Criminal Justice Working Group,
made up of representatives from all of the criminal justice
agencies, believed that prosecution of 10-30 defendants will occur
each year.  While developing this fiscal note, they had picked 15
cases a year as a fair representation of the projected number that
this bill would affect.  She said even this small number would
consume weeks for the court system.  She pointed out that in
California, after they passed their "Three Strikes" law, the Los
Angeles District Attorney's Office had to shut down numerous
departments dealing with environmental law and fraud, to deal with
the increased workload from the "Three Strikes" cases.  She added
the California Judicial Council projected that this law would
amount to an extra 17,000 jury trials per year.  She also said that
many of the civil judges in California had been taken off of the
civil bench and reassigned to criminal cases.  She thought this was
an important lesson for us to learn of the far reaching
consequences of this legislation.  She said that figures from the
FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed there had not been
growth in the overall crime rate over the last two decades.  She
said the rate of violent crime had actually dropped 22 percent
between 1980 and 1992.
TAPE 95-12, SIDE B
MS. BRINK said she wanted to point out that the rate of violent
crime among offenders 35 and older has decreased, and that where
violent crime is on the increase, is in younger populations which
would not be affected by this bill.  She said that in Washington
State, prosecutors and police officers have observed that since the
passage of their "Three Strikes" law, criminals have been showing
a scary tendency to be more violent or desperate when they are
about to be apprehended.  They are more willing to resist arrest,
knowing that for that crime, they will spend a lifetime in prison.
She also argued that incarcerating a person for life places a much
larger management burden, as there is no incentive for good
behavior.  She also thought that the incarceration of older
prisoners forces the release of younger ones, and so the desired
result is not a consequence of this bill.  She said the largest
group of inmates is in the 18- to 24-year-old category and is
uneducated and unemployed.  They don't have a high school degree
and are likely to have been raised by a single parent.  They have
an income of less than $10,000 a year.  Nationwide, more than half
of convicted violent offenders were under the influence of drugs or
alcohol and she thought that in Alaska, the percentages were
probably higher.  She said child abuse and neglect increased by 40
percent, the chance that the child will eventually become a
criminal.  She said these are areas where violent crime could be
effectively combatted through education and social policy.  Violent
crime needs to be prevented, not punished after the fact.  She
feared the legacy of the "Three Strikes" bill could be that it
diverted limited resources away from things that actually could
have had a positive effect on our crime rate.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded saying he agreed Alaska's violent
crime rate has not gone up, but he would argue that the type of
violent crime had gone from domestic violence to drive by
shootings.  He also said the public's perceptions of their
vulnerability to violent crime has increased.  He thought part of
what this bill did was to send a message of support to the average
citizen, building their support in the criminal justice system.  He
thought it was pretty low now, after 40 years of what he said that
some would call coddling criminals.  He said it was hard for him to
imagine and the testimony last year indicated that serious felonies
such as this bill affects, are already seriously litigated.  He
also reminded the committee there was discretion allowed on the
part of the prosecutor, and he argued that they would only attempt
this route, if they had a sure case.  He stated he would also like
to remind the committee that this bill is not like the "Three
Strikes" legislation of other states that have plugged up their
courts, and he could say, at least in the case of New York, they
were wanting copies of this bill to use as a starting point for
their own "Three Strikes" or habitual offender legislation.
Finally, he wanted to remind the committee there were perks in
prison, and so he was not convinced by arguments that if you place
someone in prison long term, they would not be able to be managed.
He said that there were perks for good behavior and so we did not
have to let them out early to make them feel good.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wanted to verify whether there was any other
testimony.
MARGARET BERCK, Attorney and member of the Alaska Chapter of the
American Civil Liberties Union, said that in looking at this bill
as a trial attorney, she wanted to share her views as to what she
thought this bill would mean to the public and criminals in Alaska.
She stated she could think of one of her clients that might fit
under this legislation, who had been sentenced to 61 years in
prison with 20 years suspended.  By the time he gets released and
is clear of his sentence, he would be 72 years of age.  She was
concerned that the bill, as currently worded, did not allow for the
discretion of either the parole board or the judge to go back and
look at someone's sentence until they had served half of it, or 49
1/2 years.  She thought the sponsor intended that when the person
gets in their sixties or seventies and is unlikely to commit any
more crimes, they would be released, so the public would not have
to care for them in a costly prison nursing home.  She was
concerned that there was no provision for going back to the court
and requesting a modification of sentence for a rehabilitated
prisoner.  She pointed out that she had only been successful twice
in getting a modification of sentence for any of her clients, and
one was for a person diagnosed with terminal cancer.  She also
expressed concern that this bill would limit the ability of the
judiciary, who she thought had acted very responsibly.  She also
thought the committee should reconsider the position of this bill
to force an elderly individual to serve the remainder of their
sentence, after they are no longer a threat to society.  She was
also concerned that this bill would give greater discretionary
authority to the prosecutor by forcing up the penalties and making
them more mandatory.  She pointed out that prosecutors are not
elected and so the public has very little control over them.  She
concluded by saying she agreed with Representative Porter, who she
thought was saying that each person was an individual and that
bills such as these, took away the discretionary authority of the
judiciary to treat each person as an individual and make individual
decisions on the people who appear before them.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Ms. Berck what she meant when she said
she had only one client who would fall under the purview of this
MS. BERCK verified that what she meant was she had one client
within the last two years, who would fall within the parameters of
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he thought that the fact that this bill
was before the committee, was a demonstration of the public
perception that criminals get sentenced lightly and are back on the
streets creating havoc.  He asked if Ms. Berck could offer an
alternative solution to this bill that would keep criminals in jail
for a longer period of time their first or second offense, and that
would satisfy his constituents' demands that the legislature do
something about these repeat offenders.
MS. BERCK said she thought that public perception was possibly
skewed by the unusual cases that are publicized in the press.  She
said she didn't know how to educate the public and she didn't know
who was responsible for this education process.  She said her
response was to not take the discretion away from the judiciary to
make those determinations of who should be sent to prison for a
long time and who should have the chance of rehabilitation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Berck to explain how in the 1980s
we completely revamped our criminal code and put in presumptive
sentencing.  She wanted to point out that a lot of discretion was
taken away from judges a long time ago.
CHAIR JAMES commented that she thought the members of this
committee were aware of presumptive sentencing, and so asked Ms.
Berck to respond quickly in the interest of saving time.
MS. BERCK stated that under presumptive sentencing, the criminal
code did increase penalties and did erode the discretionary
authority of the judges.  She said if larger penalties do deter
criminals, we should have seen some results from these stiffer
penalties of the 1980s, but haven't.
CHAIR JAMES stated she wanted to point out that although the level
of crime has remained relatively the same, statistics show that
there is a difference in the kind of crimes and the people who are
committing them.  She stated if that were included and we realized
that even with this new layer of crimes and criminals, the level of
overall crime had stayed the same, then we could safely assume the
crime that we had before had decreased as a result of presumptive
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER admitted that his background was going to
show on this bill.  He said that presumptive sentencing came about
as a result of the abuse of judicial discretion.  He stated a study
had indicated that the judges at that time were sentencing
minorities and people of lower economic backgrounds to harsher
penalties than those who were not in these categories.  He
submitted that the average offender would not be affected by this
bill, but rather your "John Dillinger" variety of criminal.  He
thought these people should be sent away for longer periods of
time.  He argued that the fiscal notes and concerns of the defense
bar were driven by the philosophy of what would happen if every
opportunity of invoking this legislation were invoked.  He said
these decisions would be made by the prosecutors.  He pointed out
there was a history of the habitual offender law in this state
which would suggest that these fiscal notes were not correct.  He
said when he was a police officer, there was a habitual offender
law and it was used as a deterrent to persuade some professional
criminals to get out of business.  He also argued that this type of
law does help to turn around the average criminal who gets into a
bad pattern, because they feel the threat of being sent away for
life.  He said that habitual offender legislation has saved a lot
of crime and expense in this state, as opposed to causing it.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if there was anyone representing the
Department of Corrections.  He asked what percentage of the
population who had committed these types of crimes were minorities.
JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of
Corrections, said he couldn't answer the question of what
percentage of these criminals were minorities.
CHAIR JAMES asked that he gather this information and provide it to
Representative Ivan.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON was curious if we had invited the
Department of Law to testify on this bill.
CHAIR JAMES responded there was no special guest list; anyone was
invited to testify on any bill they wished.  She added that the
State Affairs committee's overview was to see how these bills would
affect the state, and while there probably was some legal
questions, she felt very comfortable with letting them be raised in
the Judiciary Committee.  She said Representative Robinson was free
to invite anyone she wished in the future, but this committee did
not have a special guest list.  She added that generally the
sponsor makes many of these invitations or they come on their own.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee pass HB 38 with
individual recommendations and the attached questionable fiscal
bill was passed to the next committee of referral.
HB 106 - REPEAL OF ART IN PUBLIC PLACES REQUIREMENT
CHAIR JAMES called for Representative Al Vezey to testify and
provide an explanation of the intent of his bill.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, Sponsor of HB 106, stated that HB 106 is
a bill intended to repeal one of the statutes that set into
operation a formula funding program.  He said the purpose of the
bill is to repeal a formula program and to place back into the
realm of the legislature, the accountability and responsibility of
the appropriation of state funds.  He did not intend to comment on
the merits of where the funding for this program goes.  He said the
statute being repealed by this bill is probably one of in excess of
100 statutes where the legislature has abrogated its constitutional
authority and responsibility to appropriate funds.  He thought it
was very appropriate that legislators start to take steps to bring
back some of this authority and responsibility back to the
legislature and away from the Administration.  He said it gets to
an issue of accountability.  He said when it is in a formula
program, there is no one that the public can hold accountable if
they do not like the way that money is being spent.  He said this
was just one of many areas in the statutes where he felt the
legislature needed to resume its constitutional responsibility and
accountability for appropriating funds.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated she thought it was good public
policy to include art in the constructing costs, which she felt
really made a building pleasant to be in for long periods of time.
She said she was curious as to why he felt this was not good public
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he thought he had answered this in his
opening statement, but pointed out that the state spends a lot more
than 1 percent of our public works for aesthetics.  He said you
could build a box for under $100 a square foot and our public
buildings cost $200 a square foot.  He said some of this was
requirements of law, but much of this funding was architectural
improvements which add to the aesthetics and quality of the
building.  He said the legislature has this responsibility and
should be accountable for how we spend this money.  With a formula
program, there is no accountability or responsibility.  He said the
public has no recourse.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated she did not see how the architect
had anything to do with the 1 percent.  She said the 1 percent was
intended for decorating the building after it was already built.
She wondered what he meant by the role of the architect in this.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY responded that her question addressed the area
of aesthetics and public appreciation of the building, and he had
commented that most of the aesthetics and public appreciation
factor was incorporated into the architecture of the building.
CHAIR JAMES commented she saw this bill as taking the approach that
currently when there is a capital project appropriation, it is 1
percent larger to factor in the formula program for art.  If this
bill passed, then the legislature would have the choice of saying
this is how much they want to spend on this building and this is
how much they want to spend on art.  She said that currently with
the formula funding program, there is no relationship between the
1 percent for art and the value of the building.  With the choice,
the legislature may choose to spend more or less for art in a
particular building.  She said she thought the thrust of this bill
was to put the choice back to the legislature to decide exactly
what they want to do.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she didn't think this would change
things.  She said she knew from personal experience that people
building a new structure did not divide out the 1 percent that they
would spend on art.  She said they would come in and request
funding, and out of that amount take 1 percent for art.  She said
she did not see this was going to save any money for the budget.
She said if a contractor didn't have that requirement for art, they
would come back to the legislature to get additional funding.
CHAIR JAMES stated her personal response was that she would much
rather have that 1 percent go into a maintenance account for the
maintenance of things which are not currently being addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN mentioned that he could appreciate the intent
of this bill and felt this 1 percent could accumulate to a sizeable
amount over the course of many construction projects.  He said this
could, five years down the line, affect issues of economic
development and things such as water and sewer projects, which
might not have the necessary amount of funding available.  He said
if there was a need for art in a particular instance, he was sure
that someone would raise the issue with the legislature or the
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated art was something that was truly in the
eye of the beholder, and when he looked at some of the art in our
public buildings, it was hard for him to justify some the curly Q's
and squiggles that are called art.  He said he agreed that art
should be something that should be optional to the builder and not
mandatory.  He felt the sponsor was right, that by allowing this
formula program, the legislature was abrogating its responsibility
to oversee the budget.  He stated he agreed that this should
certainly be made voluntary and not mandatory.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he agreed with Representative Vezey's
analysis that the aesthetics of a building could be designed in
with the architectural details.  He said he would support moving
this bill out of committee.
CHAIR JAMES called Tim Wilson to come up and testify on HB 106.
TIM WILSON, Executive Director, Alaska State Council on the Arts,
said the council was an autonomous council and commission budget
unit under the Department of Education.  He referred to a letter
from the council enclosed in the committee packets.  He wanted to
point out that the vast majority of these projects were in schools.
Thus, he claimed the primary constituency that would be affected by
this would be children.  He said in rural areas, schools are very
much public facilities used not only for the education of children.
He stated the council considers this program as kind of a fiscally
conservative program.  He said the program operated on eligible
costs, and not every building was eligible and not every cost was
eligible.  He stated it was only above the ground construction cost
of that building.  He said it was not 1 percent of the entire
capital budget.  He argued that the formula funding program just
obliges the contractor to set aside 1 percent of their capital
project for purposes of art and decor.  He argued that the
legislature did have oversight in that they appropriated the
capital budgets.  He said it did not cost more because they just
cut a little on something like the carpets or floors to pay for the
art and aesthetic enrichment of the building.  He thought this was
reflected in the attached fiscal notes.  He said he would agree
that art is in the eye of the beholder.  He said the Arts Council
does not administer this program, but are its advocates.  He
thought this program allowed for each community to decide what type
of art it wanted in its buildings.  He said art is a legacy that
reflects the values of society and he thought that to take it away
was a serious loss.  He attributed the increase of crime and the
decay of society to a loss of our culture's values and he thought
that art could reinforce and educate us of our values.  He said
that as individuals enter the Capitol, they are reminded of the
history of our state, as a result of the art displayed.  He claimed
that to repeal this program would not save any money, but we would
lose a statement of our history and our spirit.
CHAIR JAMES reiterated that she supported art in public places.
She thought though, that she did not agree that this program did
not cost us any money.  Even if you take it out of something else
such as the carpet, it still costs money.  She stated she was
distressed that we had about $500 million on the request list for
schools in this state.  She said many of these schools were in dire
need of repairs for life-saving health safety issues.  She asked if
it wouldn't be better for the legislature to make a decision on how
much they wanted to spend on art in these schools, as opposed to a
mandatory 1 percent, so that maybe they could come up with some of
the funding necessary to resolve some of these safety issues.
MR. WILSON said he did not mean to imply that this program did not
cost money.  Certainly it does.  He stated what he meant was that
it did not get added on top of the capital budget.  He thought it
did not add to the cost of the building.  He emphasized with the
legislature having to prioritize budget decisions, but he thought
this was a very small percentage of the budget pie.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER thought perhaps there was a better process of
budgeting and decision making in Southeast Alaska than Anchorage,
but he had to comment that he thought art in the Federal Building
was really bad.  He said he could not see how $100,000 neon tubes
on a wall were a wise use of public funds, and although this was
not a state expenditure, it was similar to the type of program they
were proposing to repeal.
MR. WILSON said communities selected the type of art that was
appropriate for them.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER argued that these types of decisions could
still be made if they repealed this statute, but the question was,
who was to be held accountable - some art people or those charged
with the entire project and expenditure.
MR. WILSON explained that after a capital project appropriation is
made, then the builder will begin planning either through the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities or the
Department of Education.  By regulation, they must form a
committee, which includes the architect, the users of the building
and other artists and members of the community.  He said the
artists sometimes visit the schools and work with teachers and
students to try and get their input into the design of the art.  He
thought if they could visit different facilities around the state,
they would be very proud of the art displayed.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he also disagreed that it did not cost
money to implement the 1 percent for art program.  He also added
that this bill did not deny art in public buildings, it just said
that we would not demand it.  He also wanted to point out that we
had art in public places before this program was in effect, and he
felt this would continue.  He said we did not have to dedicate or
dictate that it be there.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN wanted to state for the record that he was not
in opposition to art in public places.  Having said this, he
thought there were better uses for this money as we plan for the
future.
CHAIR JAMES commented that some of her favorite art in the Capitol
was the school art displayed on the walls, and this did not require
the 1 percent funding formula to be placed there.  She said the
problem that she had with this program, was the arbitrary taking of
1 percent, without consultation of the legislature, and deciding
this was the best way to spend our money.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he wanted to send a message to the
artistic community that maybe if they were a little more sensitive
to the traditional values of the people, maybe they would have more
support.  He cited an example of some art that his children had
seen in the Alaska State Museum, which displayed a full frontal
view of a woman urinating in a cup.  He questioned the artistic
value of this and said this was why he thought we should give the
local communities more options to decide the type of art they
wanted in their buildings.
CHAIR JAMES read a testimonial letter from the Institute of Alaska
Native Arts, a statewide organization formed in 1976 to provide
services to Alaskan Native artists and the general public.  They
feared that without the current 1 percent for art program, the
works of Alaskan artists would be limited to a few private
collections.  In today's declining budgets, the acquisition
abilities of most museums were declining.  They said the current
percent for art program still costs less than one penny for every
dollar spent on construction, as art in rural schools receives one-
half of 1 percent contribution.  The display of art in public
buildings sends a message of creativity and opportunity.  An empty
building sends a very different message.  They strongly urged the
committee to not take any action on HB 106, and wherever possible,
maintain the current level of support for art programs in the
state.
CHAIR JAMES commented that with this period of declining revenues,
the legislature was going to be forced to take a closer look at
many of these formula programs, and the question has to be asked
what happened with art in public places before these programs were
in place.  She said that as Representative Green already pointed
out, the art has always been there.  She said that to say that if
you take this program away, art will go away, she thought was a
misnomer.  She thought this legislature was trying to look at more
responsible ways of spending state money and to allow the public
more choice to see if they would rather spend the money a different
NATALIE ROTHAUS, Executive Director, Juneau Arts and Humanities
Council, said the Juneau Arts and Humanities Council is concerned
over HB 106.  They said the purpose of the percent for arts program
is to foster culture and the arts.  She said that repeal of this
program will negatively affect the two constituencies that it is
designed to help - the public and the artists.  They thought the
biggest impact would be felt by Alaska's schools and children.  The
result of this program has been to enrich the environment of our
buildings and to bring the works of our artists to public view.  It
has also given artists work, support, and a place to display their
art.  They thought it should be government's role to set the
example of creating an environment that is culturally rich and
aesthetically pleasing.  They quoted an editorial which stated that
government had as much of a responsibility to fund the arts, which
nourish our souls, as they did commerce, which feeds our bodies.
The Juneau Arts and Humanities Council feels that government has
the responsibility to enhance the quality of life in Alaska, and
urged the committee to vote against HB 106.
CHARLES ROHRBACHER, a local artist and iconographer, said he
thought that it was important for the committee to hear from
working artists on the impact of HB 106.  He said he did not
qualify for the 1 percent for art program, as the quality of his
art was religious.  He said that as a member of the community of
artists, he urged the committee to consider the importance of their
decision today.  He thought it would send a message of what the
state believed about the purpose and function of art to artists and
to the general community.  He also thought it sent a strong message
about what we value and don't value.  He said he did not consider
this a subsidy, but rather a patronage.  He stated that
historically, different entities were the patrons of the arts,
including the church, kings, and in our country, the state as a
representation of the people.  He said he would urge the committee
to take this responsibility seriously.  He said that historically,
people have continuously found the resources to support art and he
would urge the committee to do the same and to not eliminate the
percent for art program.
CHAIR JAMES invited Representative Vezey to come and make a closing
comment on his bill.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that in his opening statement, he did not
address the funding formula program intentionally.  He said there
had been a number of wrong statements about how the formula worked,
but it was in the statutes and anyone could look it up for
themselves.  Thus, he would not take the time now to speak to these
erroneous statements.  He said the subject of the bill was not the
elimination of the arts, but accountability of how the legislature
appropriates funds.  He thought that accountability and
responsibility should come back to the legislature.
CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to move this bill out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that the committee pass out HB 106 and
attached fiscal notes with individual recommendations.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS stated he was going to vote against this
bill, saying that we were a multi-cultural state.  He said various
cultures express their values and beliefs through art, and as has
been pointed out, some of these displays are in our public
facilities, and this should be continued.  He thought the
legislature should not do anything to jeopardize this and it was
important that as a society, we continue this program.
CHAIR JAMES reiterated that the motion was to pass this bill out of
committee with attached fiscal notes and individual
recommendations.  She called for a roll call vote on the motion.
REPRESENTATIVES James, Porter, Green, Ivan, and Ogan voted in favor
of the motion.  Representatives Robinson and Willis voted against.
CHAIR JAMES announced that the bill had passed.
CHAIR JAMES said that for those bill sponsors who could not attend
the Saturday meeting, the committee would be rolling their bills
over until Tuesday, February 14, 1995.  She said we would be having
a Saturday, February 11, meeting to hear HB 132 and HJR 20.  She
adjourned the meeting at 10 a.m.