House Finance, 5/17/26, 6pm

Okay, I'll go ahead and call House Finance Committee to order. Let the record reflect that the time is currently the early evening hour of 7:55 PM on Sunday, May 17th, 2026. And present we do have Representative Stepp, Representative Galvin, Representative Tomaszewski, Representative Hannan, myself, Co-Chair Foster, and I'd like to invite up Senator Kawasaki. And we also have with us here Representative Kocher-Josephson and Representative Jimmy.

And let's see here, we're going to be taking up Senate Bill 167. We're just going to do the rollout, public testimony, invited testimony, fiscal note.

And Senate Bill 167 is the over-vacating PFD eligibility for vacated convictions. And so with that, Senator Kawasaki, welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the House Finance Committee. I definitely have to commend you because you definitely earn your keep here in the legislature for taking up these bills so, so early or so late at night and so early in the mornings, even after a long floor session. So I just wanted to thank you.

For the record, Senator Scott Kawasaki, I represent District P in the State Senate, representing Fairbanks, Fort Wainwright, and Badger. Thank you for taking the time to hear Senate Bill 167. It's a bill that has passed both houses but never at the same time. So this comes back to the back to this committee once again. And the mission of the Department of Law is clear: to assure the safe and healthy communities by ensuring prosecution of criminal offenders.

And that mandate is taken very, very seriously. However, that mandate carries an equal weight on the opposite side of the scale. And so the state has a fundamental responsibility to ensure that every prosecution is fair and every conviction is just. And if the system were to fail, and sometimes it does, such as when an Alaskan has been wrongfully convicted and then later has had their judgment vacated, reversed, then the state must go beyond merely unlocking the cell. We have a duty to make amends.

For those who have endured an injustice under our laws. While incarcerated, Alaskans forego their Permanent Fund dividend to the state. And for those who are rightfully convicted, this consequence is one of the consequences of the actions. But for those whose convictions are overturned, these funds represent a loss of personal property during that period of time. And I'll just say Senate Bill 167 isn't about restoration or— and not comp— is about restoration and not compensation because really the amount of time that a person has been behind bars can just never be repaid.

The bill ensures that the state returns funds that are due and I just want to say that there are other types of wrongful conviction compensations across the country. Examples where Some states offer free tuition at their state college or university or a certain stipend for the number of years in which a person may have been wrongfully incarcerated and then found to be not guilty. So with that, I will just be happy to answer any questions you might have about the bill. Great. Thank you.

And I'm going to maybe first go to public testimony. I don't know if we still have anybody waiting. I saw some folks earlier. I'm going to just open public testimony. I don't see anybody, but just to make sure we check the box off.

Also, I'd like to note that we do have with us Representative Moore and Representative Bynum and Representative Kocher-Schragg. And I'm going to go ahead and open public testimony on Senate Bill 167. And if anyone would like to submit written testimony, they can do so by emailing us at house.

[email protected]. And I don't believe I see anybody in the room who would like to testify, and I don't think we have anyone online who would like to testify. So we will go ahead and close public testimony on Senate Bill 167. And let's see here, I also have a fiscal note. Thank you very much, Ms. Genevieve Wachusik.

For waiting so patiently all day. If you can walk us through the fiscal note, maybe cite the control code that you are working off there of the fiscal notes.

Good evening, Co-Chair Foster and members of the committee. I have got fiscal note with control code GZVGP. And that is an indeterminate fiscal note from Department of Revenue, PFD Division, as we are not sure how many former incarcerants this will affect, so we need to have an indeterminate note moving forward. Great, thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. Wachusik?

Seeing none, uh, thank you very much for presenting. And, um, then we're going to come back over to the invited testimony. I'm not sure, uh, Mr. Senator Kawasaki, I believe that, uh, they were probably waiting earlier today, but they are not here now. I just want to verify.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I think we had a number of folks from Tanana Chiefs Conference and an organization called the Innocence Project and maybe one other person, but they were on early this morning and probably are asleep by now. Okay, great. So with that, we'll come back to questions.

Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster, through the chair. Thank you for being here, Senator Kawasaki. So This bill actually reminds me of a pretty famous case in Fairbanks. We called that the Fairbanks Four.

I can't remember how many years these— those young men were in jail. 20 Years, 15 years. But how would this— and how would this have affected the Fairbanks Four? Senator Kawasaki, thank you. Through the chair.

Representative Tomaszewski, yes, it sounds familiar, it looks familiar. This was modeled about a dozen years ago with that sort of concept in mind that they were potentially innocent. They were later found innocent. If this had been around during the time in which they were exonerated, they would have been— they did spend almost their entire adult life up to 18, I think most of them were in their teens and spent nearly 16, 17 years. I think there might even be testimony from one of them here.

They would be able to, after— within the year in which they were released, be able to apply for the permanent fund dividends in which they would have received. Okay, follow-up. Follow-up.

So when they, when their convictions were overturned and they were released, there was some sort of a settlement, some sort of an agreement with those four. And I'm just imagining it was the state, I believe, who had to pay for that. Can you give us a little information on that? And would something like that, would a lawsuit or transpired after that fact kind of negate this, or would this be considered part of the compensation of the lawsuit that happened after they were found innocent and released? Senator Kawasaki.

Thank you. Through the chair, Representative Tomaszewski. Yeah, this would be in addition to— and I know just from the specific case that In that case, they had— it's trying me a little bit, but I think what had happened was when they were released and they basically signed saying that they would not try to pursue litigation against the City of Fairbanks at the time, and I think it's at some point in between then and recently, What happened was they were, that the courts essentially said that they can sue the city for wrongfully being incarcerated. And so that actually happened. This would not have anything to do necessarily with that, although this could be considered compensation in the case of another case like that in which a person was, again, incarcerated, spent time in jail, and then was released and exonerated, and they could— they would be able to apply both for their PFD and they would be able to sue.

I guess it really just depends on what— on the specifics of that case, though. A follow-up. Follow-up. Yeah, horrible, horrible case that was, and I don't remember what they received individually. I think it was well over $1 million each.

So yeah, I just— I'm not sure how that would actually— this would be incorporated with that settlement or just— so you're saying it would be— it would be completely on the side? Senator Kawasaki? Yeah, through the chair, Representative Tomaszewski, it would be completely different. Okay, thank you. I'd also like to recognize that we have with us Representative Ellard, and next up I've got Representative Moore, then Hannon.

Representative Representative Moore. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Um, thanks for being here, uh, Senator Kawasaki. Um, and what a great bill. I, I'm, I'm in support of this.

I think this is really great. Do we have any modeling or any history on what kind— how many, um, cases in Alaska, maybe in the last 5, 15 years, of wrongfully convicted cases? Senator Kawasaki. Yep, through the chair, and I believe this is part of the packet. It was up— there's an Exonerated Alaskans list from the National Exoneration Registry.

It was updated 9/29/2025. It has under convictions and potentially would qualify the Fairbanks Four: George Freese, Kevin Pease, Marvin Roberts, Eugene Vent. They were convicted in '99, exonerated in 2015. Another one that might is somebody named Leo Senegal in Petersburg, 1995, was later exonerated in the year 2000. Wonderful.

And that looks like the only two out of many, many years of exonerations. Although we do find that exonerations are happening more and more across the country. Right. Yeah, and I just—. Representative Moore.

More of a comment. I just— I appreciate this because I think this is a trend that we're seeing across the country and a lot of people put away under false pretenses. And I really appreciate the bill. So thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you.

Representative Hannan. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Senator, this is not retro— Is there anything that makes the Fairbanks Four eligible in this? Senator Kawasaki. Through the chair, Representative Hannon, no, this is not retroactive and it isn't meant to be.

Follow-up. And I want to just clarify because skimming the bill real quick, wrongful conviction is what it's to address. And I want to make sure that it is in no way and we've You've clarified along the path of this bill that people who eventually are pardoned are not covered by this. Senator Carlson. Yes.

Through the chair, Representative Hannon. Yes, that's very— that's very true. A person who's pardoned is not necessarily innocent. And I think if you need somebody to talk about legal— the legal terms, you might I know Nancy Mead was around. I'm not sure if she's online.

No, she's not. Okay. Representative Hannan. So thank you, Chair Foster. So Senator Kawasaki, that question has been addressed and you believe the bill has been narrowly constructed so folks who are pardoned would not be eligible for this?

Yes. And I'm not going to call it compensation, this return of the property that they, they were deemed ineligible for. Versus people who have been exonerated. They were wrongfully convicted. So, Senator Kawasaki.

Yeah. And that's true that a person who's pardoned is different than a person who is exonerated. Absolutely. Okay. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the chair, Senator Kawasaki, thank you very much for being here. I love the concept of the bill, but I do have some questions as well. In line with some of the questions that the representative from Juneau was asking. So there's definitely different ways that somebody can get relief from being confined to imprisonment.

I see in the bill it basically says that the charges of the conviction were based on— or later dismissed, and the dismissal was not part of a plea agreement. So does this mean if somebody is actually convicted and they go through a court trial, maybe they go even to the Supreme Court and the courts overturn the conviction, um, I don't, I don't know the definitions here, but that doesn't seem to me to be a dismissal. Dismissal means that I'm incarcerated and the charges are dismissed for whatever reason. That's different than having a case vacated or overturned by a higher court. And in many times that when that happens, a court or I'm sorry, the prosecution can refile charges unless they say that you can't retry.

That doesn't appear that that person would be eligible for the restitution, would they? Senator Kawasaki. Thank you. Through the chair, Representative Bynum. Yes, that a person who is— this is only to respond to a person who has been convicted, and then later that charge was overturned, vacated, or one other condition.

And there is— I believe Nancy Mead will be online here very shortly to be able to answer real technical questions. About the difference between a vacation and a— and then just a pure dismissal. Okay. Representative Bynum. Thank you, good chair Foster.

Through the chair, Senator Kawaseki. I appreciate that because obviously in our system of justice you can be found guilty of a crime and then if there are procedural issues, maybe it was other problems that happened and then you get your conviction vacated from the court or overturned, and you can be retried in some cases. And so we don't want to say— I mean, what I'm hearing we say is, well, they weren't proven innocent. Well, we don't prove people innocent. You're innocent until proven guilty.

And a lot of times, even when you're found not guilty, that doesn't mean you were found innocent. So I, I just want to make sure that we're going to protect those people that are going to be that have those cases where they're not being retried, but maybe they wouldn't fit the definition of this.

Thank you. Because they would have otherwise been eligible. So maybe it's something we can ask legal to get us a response on. Senator Kowalki. Yeah, thank you, Representative Bynum.

I, I do know that Nancy Mead's attempting to be online to be able to answer the question and explain the definitions and differences between vacated, dismissed, and reversed. So when she's online, I would definitely direct the question to her as the court administrator. We'll come back to that question. Representative Hannon. Thank you, Chair Foster.

One of the letters in our packet is from an organization called After Innocence, and it's got a suggestion that we move the eligibility to apply for this from 1 year to 3 years, and I'm wondering whether, again, that has been addressed along the way, because I can only imagine, especially if you were incarcerated unjustly for a period of time, a year once you're released, there are a lot of things that you're dealing with. Um, and so was expanding the time frame to apply for the return of this property of your PFDs? Has it stayed 1 year post-release consistently, or has this issue of expanding that time at the end been brought up? Senator Kawasaki. Yeah.

So through the chair, Representative Hannon, it's a good question. Originally, there wasn't a deadline. And so the ability for a person to request funds or PFD funds was just wide open, and prior legislatures, prior members of Finance Committee have either cut that date down, and this is where it settled as it crossed the Senate Finance Committee this year. And so to my— so just, it could be at any— it could be established at any year, and if there's a will or desire to enhance the number of years increase the number of years in which a person could apply. I don't think it impacts the overall legislation.

Thank you. Representative Moore. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the chair to Senator Kawasaki, what I'm— I'm not super familiar. So when someone who has their conviction overturned, they're found innocent, they come out of prison, there is a— they have to apply.

This isn't—. I mean, what is the process for collecting the funds that are due to them? Senator Kozlowski. Through the chair, Representative Moore, thank you for that question. And that's exactly what this bill does, is it creates a system under Section 2 of the bill in which to calculate the amount in which dividend payments would have gone to to the, to the person.

It allows the Commissioner some latitude in drafting regulations to be able to state like, this is the way that a person should be able to apply. And we've left that to the regulatory regime. Okay, follow-up. Follow-up. So we don't have an actual timeline for how speedily this is done for them?

Senator Kawasaki? Not quite. No, through the chair, no, it's— it just says that they will be determined whether they would have been eligible or not for the payment, and then the Department of Revenue would then issue that, and it has no specific timelines that I can see. Okay, um, we don't have anybody on from the department right now. It's pretty late.

Still not yet, but I'll keep an eye out. Thank you. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster, through the chair, Senator Kawasaki. When I'm looking at Section 2— I'm sorry, page 3, line 1— that's that section or Part 2 there.

It looks like that there may be an opportunity for somebody had maybe a conviction overturned or they were dismissed or whatever, saying that there's an eligibility for an estate or successors to receive the money. Is that what I'm reading here? Senator Kawasaki?

I don't think so.

I think Section 2, through the chair, actually applies to Section 1 in which it talks about the ineligibility or the— I'm sorry, the eligibility of a PFD person who is convicted. Roger. Thank you. I see that now. Okay.

Further questions?

I don't. Representative Bynum. Thank you. Through the chair. And I guess one other kind of final thing that we were talking about.

So we're going to leave it— really, the department is going to be able to develop the full program. They'll be able to make a determination of who would be eligible, how much they were eligible for during the time that they may have been incarcerated, and basically lay out the full details of the program application and then the eligibility period to apply. But this seems to me that this might only apply for cases that happen in Alaska. So if I'm an Alaska resident and I go down to Washington and you get picked up for some reason and wrongfully convicted and you're in prison for 15 years and you would have otherwise been an Alaska resident, would you still be eligible to receive your back PFD? Hmm.

Senator Kawasaki, through the chair. Interesting. I think that a person who were incarcerated in another state on another state's charge would be ineligible simply because they were not— well, not a resident of the state.

And they might be eligible for whatever compensation they can get from the state that they were in. But I don't know, actually. Representative Bynum. So thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I mean, obviously, yeah, I'm a resident of Alaska.

I'm currently receiving a dividend. I go down for whatever reason and get picked up for— wrongfully picked up and incarcerated. I mean, you would have otherwise lived here, had a home here, and been a resident here. I think that you might be eligible for your back dividend if a state— another state— maybe wronged you. Maybe that would be part of a lawsuit or something, but I just— it's something to think about.

Representative Hannan. Thank you, Chair Foster. The Tanana Chiefs Conference letter actually says that we are one of only 12 states that do not have compensation statutes for people that have been wrongly convicted. So hopefully Washington would be one of those where there is already some statutory guidance how to compensate people who've been wrongly convicted because we're one of only 12.

Representative Moore. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I think if you're— and I mean, and maybe this needs to be amendment, but if you're breaking the law in another state and that's where you get incarcerated, then maybe, I mean, you don't get your dividend. Sorry. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Not to get in a back and forth debate, but this would only be eligible for somebody that was found innocent, not breaking the law. So— You shouldn't have been in Washington. Thank you. Just something to think about.

Thank you. Senator Kawasaki, any word, any new information on—. I think of a— thank you through the chair. I think that if a person were to be, again, wrongfully found, wrongfully incarcerated in a different state, but deprived of their permanent fund dividend, which they may have gotten up in Alaska, I think it might go to a— might go to some sort of a court-type situation. But I don't think it's clear in this bill.

And I do know that they would be able to apply for a resident hunting and fishing license. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Chair Foster. So a lot of times when an Alaska resident who is convicted and is finding themselves in prison, their Permanent Fund is directed to certain groups, restorative justice. So I think— so what happens, their PFD is already being garnished and taken to the restorative justice funds on behalf of maybe a spouse or someone.

Are there any provisions to kind of deal with that kind of dichotomy during— within this bill? Senator Kozaki? Yes, thank you. Through the chair, Senator— Representative Tomaszewski. The explanation of what the dividend reserve fund is used for, or I'm sorry, the reserve, it's very technical.

It's a dividend prior reserve for prior year dividend liabilities is discussed. Might be something that the Department of Revenue or the PFD division can explain. But there is money that is set aside and it's, for instance, if you've ever gotten a person who says, I think I should have gotten a PFD, but I didn't. And then later they find that they do get it. That is that— that's where they would get the money from.

So there is like a reserve. Follow-up, Representative Tomaszewski. I think Senator Kawasaki's staff may want to come up, and I think he may have some information. He's been—. And if you can put yourself on the record.

Maddie Hall, staff to Senator Scott Kawazaki. For the record, regarding the restorative justice double dip that you pointed out, when reaching out to the legislative legal counsel regarding this, in statute, it— while it is an amount equal to the PFD, it is notable that it is not the PFD, and the specific breakdown on how the restorative justice account— I, I would be happy to send more information, but, uh, based off of just the top of my head, if I remember correctly, it was 70% to the Department of Corrections, um, 10-15% to, um, uh, victims, uh, nonprofits, uh, X amount of percent after that to other, uh, components to cover the cost of incarceration.

But regarding the— regarding their PFD that was taken versus what this PFD is, because the person was not applicable, they never got their PFD because they weren't able to apply for it because they were convicted. So it is not the same thing. Thank you. Follow-up. Follow-up, Representative Tomczewski.

Yes, it's just I think if anyone who's getting that PFD from the incarcerated person, that restorative justice fund, I mean, that's kind of considered that person's PFD. So essentially it would be paying it twice then. One time it's going to the restorative justice while he's in— while the person's in prison and then after he would be exonerated coming out and he would be collecting on that PFD that was already paid into the restorative justice fund. Mr. Hold.

Through the chair to Representative Tomaszewski. You have correctly identified that there was an inefficiency but that inefficiency was created through the wrongful creation, not through the taking of the individual's PFD. Again, there's the legal status of the individual's PFD, and then there is the, the inefficiency of the, of the state funds, whether that fund came through the restorative justice account or was covered through the Department of Corrections general budget. Is, uh, effectively the same outcome, um, whether that person was a resident or not. What matters is for that individual whose personal property was taken from them, of which they weren't able to apply for because they were convicted.

Thank you.

Okay, so in the queue, I do have Representative Galvin, Hannan, and Bynum, and also just want I just want to note that we are trying to get a hold of Ms. Mead. Sounds like the phone lines are not quite working for her to get through, so they are trying to find a workaround. So with that, Representative Galvin.

Thank you. And through the chair, very briefly, my understanding is the way the bill is written currently, it is to allow for a wrongfully convicted person where there's been an overturn to get one PFD. Is that correct? One year of PFD? One— amending this bill, they recommended an amend to change it to three.

We talked about that earlier. So currently it's just one year's worth of PFD. Okay. So I'm trying to understand what this says. Senator Kawasaki.

Through the chair. So the 1 year, it's a person who was incarcerated, then exonerated, would have 1 year to ask for the number of years in which they were incarcerated. I see. Thank you. That clears that up a lot in my brain.

Versus a 3-year. I was really—. Okay. And we did have, and again, like I said, we did have it open-ended, where a person could apply at any time, but we felt that to limit it now would be the right thing to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. And follow-up, if I may. I did notice that the Fairbanks Four waited many years and then they did receive payment, but I recall there were some really rough times in getting to that. So I don't know.

How it is that folks know or are given notice that you are— you may be eligible for this? Is that something that you're going to include in this or that you're hoping is included in the regs, maybe? Senator Kowalski. So, I mean, through the Chair, I imagine I think people who have been wrongfully incarcerated would know that or would find it out one way or another. I think it, you know, whether the person applies or not is completely up to them.

They would have, according to this law, 1 year in which to apply. But—. Follow-up. Follow-up? So just to confirm, you think they would hear about this special program somehow maybe by a— someone working within the system and before they got released that somebody would tell them, by the way?

So through the Chair, Representative Galvin, this— there is support, I think a letter for support from the reentry coalitions across the state. So if you think about reentry coalitions and the folks who are advocating for people who have recently been incarcerated, they would definitely tell a person if they found themselves out, no longer incarcerated. They would definitely find a way to communicate that to them. Thank you. Okay.

We've got Representative Bynum, then Moore. Representative Bynum. Thank you. I'm sorry. Actually, I wrote your— crossed your name out.

Representative Hannon, then Bynum, then Moore. Thank you. I thought I'd just— we call it the restorative justice account, but it does not go to individuals. Now, 40 years ago, those who were incarcerated, they were still eligible to receive their PFDs, and if they had garnishments— child support was the number one garnishment, but other court garnishments. I happen to have been a victim of a crime who had the garnishment of an inmate for 3 years.

I was probably going to get it for 10 years, but the law changed, and now folks who are incarcerated— and it's not everyone. If you did a 3-day for your DUI, but it's felony incarcerations, you're not eligible to apply. So there's no garnishment of your wages. And we created it at the time. It's called the Restorative Justice Account, but it goes to the Department of Corrections first, and there's a percentage breakout.

And then it goes to— like some of that money goes to the Council on Domestic Violence and the Office of Victims' Rights. But it's calculated based on the number of people who are in prison who would otherwise be eligible to receive a PFD, but they are disqualified because they're in custody for a conviction, and we calculate that number out and take that portion and then allocate it through our budget process, calling it restorative justice, but it's going to agencies that deal with incarcerated individuals or their victims, but not to individuals. So there's no correlation between your victim of a crime getting any of that as restitution. It's that the Office of Violent Crimes gets some of the money. Um, And we did away with that direct connection to your PFD about 40 years ago.

So there isn't that your estate got it twice because your kids got it in custody. But I will say it's one of those that it used to be one of the largest ways for— the largest beneficiaries in Alaska were children whose child custody payments were being paid through garnished PFDs. But we've changed that law 40 years ago.

Go. Now it goes to state. Representative Bynum would also like to note that we do have in the room Ms. Nancy Mead. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

Through the chair, Senator Kawasaki, I was looking in the bill. The bill is basically we're just amending the eligibility requirements for absent instances under 4320 or Section 1. And then we are looking at Section 20 or Section 2, which just basically adds the Section I for 21. But what I was really looking for was the element within law that is telling the department to actually develop the criteria and rules for this program. And I just couldn't find it.

I was just hoping that you might know off the top of your head or have it there that would tell us what the actual allowables were for them to develop this actual program? Senator Kawasaki. Thank you. Through the chair, Representative Bynum, I think you might be able— the person who would be best to answer the question would be the Permanent Fund Division Director. Since it's such a small number, I know that in prior years we've discussed this bill and Since it is such a small number of potential people who would be qualified and eligible for it, they think that they can do it internally.

But again, this is something that maybe the PFD division director might want to speak to. Ms. Watusik.

Good evening again. For the record, Genevieve Watusik. Division Director for PFD. Representative Bynum, through the Chair, we already have a process in place through our regulations for those that applied while they were convicted, but then DOC sent us a list that they were convicted, so those were automatically denied. But we already have that in process for anyone that's applied while in prison.

So for a small number of folks that we're going to have to do this for, for the year after they show that they have been vacated or dismissed, we will be able to do a paper application for that process for those small number of folks for each year of their application that they missed. If they missed it. If they— sorry, if I can clarify. If they applied while they were in prison and were denied and then they had their conviction overturned, that is an easy process for us. We already have them in our system, our dividend system, showing that they were denied and why they were denied because they were in DOC's custody.

So, I think this will be an easy enough process for the division. Thank you. And did you want to ask your question of Ms. Mead while you are in the queue here? Sure, absolutely. Ms. Mead, if you could come up.

Thank you very much, Ms. Wachusik. And if you can put yourself on the record, Ms. Mead.

Thank you. For the record, Nancy May, General Counsel for the Alaska Court System, who's been trying to call in for about 30 minutes. And if you could repeat your question, please, Representative Bynum. Thank you. Through the chair, Miss May, thank you.

Always love having you here. The question really revolved in the bill. We, we list two criteria for a person to be eligible for this. One of those criteria is that they were— that the charges are dismissed and that it wasn't part of a plea deal. The second case is that the individual is retried and found not guilty.

What I don't see in here is that if a court were to vacate— vacate a case or basically say that there was some kind of procedural issue where somebody was incarcerated and then you go back and the courts basically say no, no good. I don't see that in here and I was just wondering if that would fall under the dismissal category or would it fall under— it doesn't seem to fall under 2 because it wouldn't be retried and found not guilty. Ms. Mead. Through the chair to Representative Bynum, on page 1, line 12, it deals with— the case does have to be reversed reversed or vacated in every instance. So the first step is either a reversal or vacation of a case, and then thereafter a second step has to occur.

It would be either the one or two, those two circumstances that you mentioned, where they're— the prosecutor dismisses it or they're retried and found not guilty.

Okay, so it wouldn't— they would actually— they couldn't hold the charge then. So in some cases, the— you get the court— the, the prosecution can basically hold their option to retry. So would that— but that looming situation hang over their head where you're waiting for the courts to decide what they want to do with the case? Through the chair to Representative Bynum, I don't see that that being a possibility. What this contemplates is a conviction at the trial level.

You go to the Court of Appeals, they say, uh-uh, reverse. And typically the Court of Appeals doesn't say you are innocent. Well, they don't say the person was innocent. They send it back to the trial court for further proceedings. And then those two second steps would take place.

Either they're retried by the prosecutor found not guilty, or the prosecutor dismisses it, or they are retried and found guilty, in which case, of course, the bill wouldn't apply. But there wouldn't be such a thing as the prosecutor just keeping the case open. There has to be resolution in some manner at that point. So I don't think that your hypothetical could come into play. Thank you.

Next up, Representative Moore, then Tomaszewski. Representative Moore. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. My question is for This is for Senator Kawasaki maybe or maybe his staff. But just in terms of retroactive, I know the bill is not retroactive.

But if hypothetically if it was, would there be— how many— do you guys— have you looked into that at all? How many cases there could possibly be to go back and collect for? Mr. Hull. Through the chair to Representative Moore.

Yeah, when we worked with the advocates to try to find as much conclusive data, um, we've been able to find is 5 potential individuals. Um, trying to find a completely conclusive list through, uh, through the court records is a, is a little bit difficult, but we imagine anyone that has been able to not be found in record, not be able to be found by any reentry organization, not be found by any innocence organization would be a pretty small number. So based off of the information that we have, it is the Fairbanks Four, um, as well as a possible, uh, Laylow-Sinegal, um, of which the total back PFD amounts would be $107,000 $852.38. Follow-up. Follow-up.

Okay. And so— and so from what we've heard from the PFD, I don't even— she's not— oh, there she is right there. So what we've heard from her and your guys' testimony, these 5 people, this certain amount of money, would you entertain wanting this bill to be retroactive? Is that something that we can something that we can do, or is that not something that you would support?

Senator Kawasaki. I would defer to the committee. I think that, you know, we have sort of gone through this a couple of times, a couple iterations, and so we— maybe Mattie wants to say something. Mr. Hull?

Page 8, uh, or sorry, page 3, line 8. Uh, it is retroactive. Sorry. Uh, through the chair to Representative Moore. Thank goodness.

Okay, so some of the conversation that I thought in the beginning it said it wasn't retroactive, so it is retroactive. Okay, well, there's that. Thank you so much. And just to add on to the comments about this has been through a few iterations, Senator Kawasaki gave me a hearing request memo from almost 10 years ago from when Representative Paul Seaton and I were co-chairs here. And so he's been— he's been working at this for a while.

So, and then next up, any more questions, Representative Moore? No, I just wanted— that's— I'm glad we clarified that because it sounded like in the beginning of when committee started that it was not retroactive. But I'm glad to hear that. I have not gone through the bill, like I said, when I stated that before, so I'm glad to know, and that's one less amendment I have to write up. So thank you.

We have got Representative Tomaszewski and then Bynum. Representative Tomaszewski. Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. My question is for Director Wachusik. Ms. Wachusik, if you could please come up, if I said that correctly.

Representative Tomaszewski. So what other ways are people who are incarcerated, how are their dividends, PFDs garnished? There's other ways, not just restorative justice. There must be through for child support, for anything. Is there any other way or is it simply through that restorative justice fund?

For the record, Genevieve Watusik, Division Director for PFD. Representative Tomaszewski, through the Chair, Yes, the, the latter. So once we get the list from DOC, Department of Corrections, as to who has been incarcerated that previous year, those funds, that PFD or equal amount to PFD if that's what legal is saying, is 100% goes to restorative justice, and then it gets transitioned out of there to the percentages that Maddie had mentioned earlier. But garnishments happen only if someone was to be determined eligible for their PFD and then instead of receiving it, it would go to those garnishments like child support, labor, municipalities, other state agencies, IRS. Okay.

Thank you. Senator Bynum? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the Chair, Senator Kawasaki, there was a memo provided from Legal Services in here, February 23rd, 2006. Subject was restorative justice.

This account dividend payment from Director Newman. And in here there was some concern about how this was coordinated. It seemed like there might be some mis— or confusion from the department and what they might understand versus what was being listed in this legal memo. Have the issues, potential issues with the legal memo been resolved? No, we're addressed in the bill.

Mr. Hull, through the chair to Representative Bynum, that was taken care of in an earlier version of the bill. If you see in the section of changes— my apologies, I'll find it— but that was language that was cleaned up to ensure that that confusion no longer continues. Okay, thank you. I could— so Chair Foster, I can go— I'll go look at that if it's resolved.

I just want to make sure it was resolved. And then I just had one final question and then I think I'm done. I like the bill. I think it's a good bill. I don't know that we're going to make it perfect for every scenario and we could probably be here for 3 months trying to fix it, but I don't think we want to do that.

We don't want to be here for the next 3 days doing it. So, um, there is this retroactivity that was just mentioned, and part of that retroactivity says that that individual that maybe was wrongfully incarcerated, say, 5 years ago, they're eligible for this, but they only have 1 year from the time this passes into law. Will the PFD division or somebody notify these people that, hey, by the way, We just passed this law that gives you a right to this. Because I don't see that there's any mechanism that we do reporting. Not that it would be necessary in law, but I want to make sure that we don't pass this and that people that are eligible for this, you know, don't get it.

Senator Kawasaki. Through the Chair, Representative Bynum, I think it would be very difficult for an agency to be able to identify who might be who might be— who might have been exonerated from a— for a crime or from a crime. I think it might be a little difficult for— I think this is going to be self-identification and the fact that there are reentry coalitions, groups like that, that might be able to find those people and let them know. But I think it would be very difficult, again, for a state agency like the Permanent Fund Division to be able to do that.

Representative Bynum. Well, I was just going to say, if the senator would put on a jumpsuit and run down the streets of Juneau with the bill after it's signed, he might get some publicity for it. Ms. Mead, if I might add to the chair, the people who are going through a process such as this would certainly be represented by counsel. And I think that once a case gets dismissed, and they're celebrating, one of the things that their public defender or private counsel would say is, now here are the things you got to do. You're eligible for your pass PFD.

So I think that would be covered by their attorney knowing the new laws. Representative Ballard. I was going to say that. I mean, any legal counsel would tell them that. But also I would say that how many people are exonerated in Alaska?

Can't be thousands, right? Very small amount. Through the chair to Rep. Ballard, the Innocence Project, now they work with people who are, who they believe are truly innocent, exonerated. Now this bill does cover people who, there might be more than that, and that is people that the Court of Appeals might reverse the conviction and the Department of Law thinks, well, they spent 16 years in jail and I'm not going to retry them because they would only get another 16 years in jail and therefore I'm going to dismiss the the case. So some people like that could get through and be eligible, but in general, it's going to be— we all think it's going to be a relatively small number.

Our, our justice system does a pretty good job, but, um, that's the best guess.

Any further questions? Seeing none, um, what I'd like to do is go ahead and set an amendment deadline, realizing that it will be a short amendment deadline, and therefore folks need some flexibility. We can certainly work with folks, but I would like to set an amendment deadline for tomorrow, which is Monday, May 18th, at noon. And, um, in terms of just the plan for tomorrow, we had scheduled 9 AM for, uh, finance, but we do have floor at 9 AM, so We'll just— we won't cancel that at this point. You never know, maybe floor will get delayed and we can come in.

So just, we'll let folks know, but we'll go ahead and keep that on the docket for now, tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., with the understanding that we're going to be on the floor. Senator Kawasaki. So, and it is also my hope that we have a number of bills that are on our docket for tomorrow, but two that we have set amendment deadlines for, and it would be nice to try to kick out would be this bill and also the invasive species bill. So with that, anything further, Senator Kawasaki? I just thank you for the time at this late hour.

Okay, thank you. Anything from the committee? Seeing none, House Finance will be adjourned at 8:47 PM. Thank you.