Legislature(2005 - 2006)BELTZ 211
03/22/2005 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB140 | |
| SB137 | |
| SB130 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 137-EVICTING INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY USERS
CHAIR CON BUNDE announced SB 137 to be up for consideration.
JOE MICHEL, staff to Senator Seekins, sponsor, said the
University of Alaska requested this legislation which stems from
a few cases where disruptive students have used the court system
to stall evictions from their unit until it's most convenient
for them. The students' infractions were way beyond what was
allowed under their student housing contract. The University
needed to remove these students from their housing before their
disruptive behavior started affecting other students.
He said this bill is an attempt to correct a discrepancy between
legislative intent and some recent lower court decisions on the
Uniform Landlord Tenant Act in AS 34.03.330. It reads:
'Unless created to avoid the application of this
chapter, the following arrangements are not governed
by this chapter: residence at an institution, public
or private, if incidental to detention or provision of
medical geriatric, educational counseling, religious
or other similar services.' And [this] basically means
public service institutional entities such as
hospitals, schools, counseling centers or higher
educational establishments are not compatible with the
heightened protections that were designed under the
Landlord Tenant Act.
He said the University of Alaska has put into place a three-
strike system intending to work with students regarding their
university housing. There's a review and an appeals process for
major infractions. The university has shown a dedication to
working with students who are not observing housing rules.
2:23:48 PM
MIKE SFRAGA, University of Alaska, said it is their role and
mission to serve its students. Some students make the
environment not as productive as might be. Processes are in
place that allow the university to do a case by case review.
It is certainly not the intent of any of us to make
undue challenges to our students in terms of hurdles.
In fact, we look to do things on a case-by-case basis,
although within a framework, to address issues because
we don't want to treat all students the same way....
So, we have those processes that were presented to
you. These are internal processes, administrative
guidelines that we follow.... If we find that it is in
the best interests of the institution, our students
and a particular student, we will ask them to leave
the residence. The student has the right in a due
process procedure to appeal that to a dean of
students. Then certainly the dean of students can make
the final decision.
If the student does not agree with the final appeal decision,
they can go to superior court for an appeal as well.
I guess we would like to emphasize that this is an
educational institution. These are not arbitrary
dismissals of students. There is a process in place.
We follow that process and we have a responsibility to
make sure that our environment is conducive to
education while maintaining the processes in place and
understanding that our role is to educate out
students.
2:26:23 PM
MIKE HOSTINA, University of Alaska, said he would answer legal
questions. He said:
Our concern is we ended up in a few cases with
students really getting two bites of the apple. They
follow the administrative procedure within the
university. If they don't like that outcome, they,
then, go to court to seek to block their removal from
housing. We end up with multiple processes going on
and I think it was you, Mr. Chairman, who hit the nail
right on the head. We have some school-house lawyers
here on campus and they've cost us literally tens of
thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of
administrative time to accomplish what everybody
agrees, even the courts agree, should be a relatively
simple process. But, the courts have felt obligated to
require an eviction action, because of the language of
the current forcible entry and detainer statute.
CHAIR BUNDE asked how many students have been a problem.
MR. HOSTINA said that just one student had cost the university
tens of thousands dollars and hundreds of hours of time in the
two years he has been there.
CHAIR BUNDE saw no further questions and said he would hold SB
137 for another hearing.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|