Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/03/2007 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB198 | |
| HB61 | |
| HB92 | |
| HB166 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 166 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 198 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 61 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 92
"An Act removing the victims' advocate and the staff of
the office of victims' rights from the jurisdiction of
the office of the ombudsman in the legislative branch."
Vice Chair Stoltze, co-sponsor, spoke about his and
Representative Samuels' work on victim's rights. He
explained how the first ombudsman position was determined.
The intent of the bill is to exempt the Office of Victim's
Rights (OVR) from jurisdiction of the Ombudsman's Office.
He related the purpose and mission of the (OVR).
2:36:26 PM
Representative Kelly noted the zero fiscal note. Vice Chair
Stoltze explained how the OVR is funded by PFD's of
convicted felons. He emphasized that the bill is not about
increasing responsibilities in the OVR.
2:38:20 PM
Representative Crawford wondered about the history behind
the need for the bill. Vice Chair Stoltze explained that
the problem is a clash within agencies. The caseload for
the ombudsman consists predominantly of prisoners and the
caseload for the OVR is victims. There are some inherent
conflicts of interest. This bill clarifies the original
legislative intent.
In response to a question from Representative Gara, Vice
Chair Stoltze replied that the selection of the ombudsman
was not a "political" process.
2:41:24 PM
KATHY HANSEN, OFFICE OF VICTIMS RIGHTS (OVR), testified in
favor of HB 92. She explained that OVR is a satellite
office of the legislative branch, was created to assist
crime victims with legal assistance free of charge, and is
patterned after the ombudsman's office. She referred to a
case in district court and highlighted conflicts between the
two agencies. She noted statutes which prevent attorneys
from accessing victims' files. OVR has access to records
such as active criminal investigations and clemency files,
which the ombudsman does not. She related an inappropriate
use of the ombudsman's office.
Ms. Hansen emphasized that the OVR reports to the
legislature and that there is oversight by the Alaska Bar
Association. Any fiscal impact would be negative, as there
would be no duplication of efforts.
2:47:52 PM
LINDA LORD JENKINS, STATE OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, spoke in opposition to the legislation. She
reiterated that the legislation resulted from the sexual
assault of a mentally impaired individual, who felt that OVR
did not adequately review the complaint. She observed that
the Office of the State Ombudsman issued a subpoena, which
has not been honored by OVR. She noted that they continue
to refer individuals to OVR, but emphasized that
independence is needed to allow review of OVR. She
suggested that OVR statutes do not allow OVR to speak to
legislators about complaints without the victim's consent.
She added that OVR is required to keep confidentiality and
that legislative oversight would not fall within the narrow
exception in AS 24.65.120. She urged a legal opinion by
legislative counsel regarding OVR's ability to discuss
specific case information with legislators. It is not
within the power of the Office of the State Ombudsman to
contravene a discretionary action taken by a governmental
agency. She related further the reasons behind that opinion
and when alternate courses of action could be taken. She
maintained that the large caseload has led to complaints.
She maintained it is not an issue of importance between the
agencies, or a turf war, but that the ombudsman does have
authorization to investigate complaints against OVR.
2:55:15 PM
Representative Gara questioned if the concern investigated
was valid. Ms. Jenkins stated that they were not able to
investigate the case because OVR has not released records.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, co-sponsor explained that the
constitutional amendment in 1994 - the Victim's Rights
Amendment - led to the creation of the OVR, which was
intended to be an ombudsman's office and answer directly to
the legislature. He maintained that the intent was clear.
The bill makes it clear that both agencies answer to the
legislature. The intent was for them to be sister agencies
with separate functions.
2:59:24 PM
In response to a question by Representative Gara, Ms.
Jenkins said she could not answer regarding the substance of
the complaint, but noted that there had only been two
complaints about the quality of OVR's reviews. The prior
complaint was decided in support of OVR. Representative
Gara spoke in sympathy for the ombudsman's position, but
also understood the reasoning behind the bill.
3:02:21 PM
In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Ms.
Jenkins reiterated her concern that there is a gap in review
for the investigation of complaints regarding OVR.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HB 92 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 92 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with zero fiscal note #1 by the
Legislative Affairs Agency.
3:05:47 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|