Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
04/27/2021 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB116 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB184 | |
| HB106 | |
| SB65 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 184 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 116-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
3:03:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 116, "An Act relating to care of juveniles and
to juvenile justice; relating to employment of juvenile
probation officers by the Department of Health and Social
Services; relating to terms used in juvenile justice; relating
to mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect; relating to
sexual assault in the third degree; relating to sexual assault
in the fourth degree; repealing a requirement for administrative
revocation of a minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to
drive, or privilege to obtain a license for consumption or
possession of alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective
date."
3:04:16 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ introduced HB 116, as prime sponsor. She
said HB 116 would do three things: close a loophole for sexual
abuse of minors; update definitions that reference the Division
of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities and staff; and codify best
practices. She explained that the loophole was found in 2017
when a DJJ staff member was acquitted after sustaining an
inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor who had
previously been under his supervision. The bill would close the
loophole by adding DJJ staff to the list of individuals in a
position of authority over DJJ youth. She related that the bulk
of HB 116 would update the outdated, inaccurate, and obsolete
terminology used to describe DJJ facilities in current statute
and would update statute to reflect the authorities and
responsibilities of the division more accurately. She advised
that these portions of the bill would not substantively modify
the way DJJ operates but would improve DJJ's ability to complete
its mission and would codify best practices to ensure safe and
secure treatment of juveniles in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ further conveyed that HB 116 would codify
best practices at the division and clarify the division's
authority. She said these changes would resolve issues that
have come to light over time or simply reflect the standard
operations at the division. For example, HB 116 would add DJJ
staff and probation officers to the list of mandatory reporters
of child abuse and neglect. This is something that DJJ staff
already does, she continued, but the bill would codify this in
statute to ensure that DJJ probation officers have the authority
to file amended petitions. The bill would correct language
authorizing the department to disclose confidential information
related to the offense when a minor has received an adjudication
rather than the offense the minor was alleged to have committed.
In summary, she stated, HB 116 would improve DJJ's ability to
complete its mission by codifying best practices, ensuring
juveniles are safe and secure, and closing the loophole
regarding sexual abuse of a minor supervised by DJJ staff.
3:07:00 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Spohnholz, prime
sponsor of HB 116, provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled,
"HB 116: Division of Juvenile Justice Clean-Up Bill." She began
with slide 2 titled, "1. Closes a loophole for sexual abuse of
minors," which read [original punctuation provided but
formatting changed]:
? Daniel Carey case in 2017
DJJ staff sustained an inappropriate sexual
relationship with a juvenile under DJJ supervision.
Carey was acquitted because a judge found that
sexual abuse of a minor statute does not explicitly
list DJJ staff as "being in a position of authority"
over DJJ youth.
? Section 6
Clarifies that DJJ staff are in a position of
authority over minors in their custody.
MS. HOLLAND moved to slide 3, "2. Updates Definitions," which
read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]:
? Repeals
Youth Counselors
Juvenile Detention Home
Youth Detention Facility
Correctional School
Juvenile Work Camp
Juvenile Probation Officers
Correctional School
? Amends
Juvenile Detention Facility
Minor
? New Definitions
Juvenile Treatment Facility
Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Area
Juvenile Probation Officers
MS. HOLLAND spoke to slide 4, "Repeals," which read [original
punctuation provided but formatting changed]:
?"Youth Counselors," Section 26
The position of "Youth Counselors" has not existed
within DJJ since 2003. The duties described under
this section do not apply to facility staff but to
probation officers.
? "Juvenile Probation Officers," Section 3
Inaccurate definition limiting to officers with
individuals 18 or 19 years of age in their custody
Corrected with new definition in Section 26.
? "Juvenile Detention Home," "Youth Detention
Facility," "Correctional School," "An Institution" and
"Juvenile Work Camp," Sections 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19,
20, 32 and 34
All are repealed and replaced with "juvenile
detention facility" and "juvenile treatment
facility" for accuracy and consistency.
3:09:34 PM
MS. HOLLAND proceeded to slide 5, "Amended Definitions," which
read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]:
? "Minor," Section 30
Amends the definition of minor to include a person
who was under 18 at the time they committed an
offense and is subject to the jurisdiction of DJJ.
If a minor commits an offense then turns 18 after,
they will remain in DJJ's custody.
? "Juvenile Detention Facility," Sections 29 and 37
Corrects the definition to be a secure facility
for the detention of delinquent minors under DJJ
custody.
The current definition limits it to separate
quarters within a city jail, some communities do not
have such a jail suitable for juveniles and use
other facilities.
MS. HOLLAND addressed slide 6, "New Definitions," which read
[original punctuation provided but formatting changed]:
? "Juvenile Treatment Facility," Section 31
Current statute refers to "juvenile treatment
institutions", however DJJ has expressed that this
terminology is not reflective of the facilities they
currently operate.
? "Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Area," Section
31
DJJ has been operating with a list of temporary
secure holding areas in various communities
throughout the state.
? "Juvenile Probation Officers," Section 26
There is no accurate definition for "juvenile
probation officers" under current statute. Section
24 repeals the definition for "youth counselors" and
replaces it with an updated definition for "juvenile
probation officers", affording them powers of a
probation officer and describing their duties.
MS. HOLLAND turned to slide 7, "3. Codified Best Practices,"
which read [original punctuation provided but formatting
changed]:
? Section 5: Clarifies that employees of juvenile
treatment institutions and juvenile and adult
probation officers qualify as legal guardians.
? Sections 16 and 18: Provides juvenile probation
officers with the authority to file amended and
supplemental petitions, and clarifies that for
juveniles this duty falls upon juvenile probation
officers, not adult probation officers.
? Sections 24-25: Clarifies that the authority to
arrest and detain minors rests with juvenile, not
adult, probation officers.
3:12:30 PM
MS. HOLLAND continued with slide 8, "3. Codified Best
Practices," which read [original punctuation provided but
formatting changed]:
? Section 27: Adds "secure residential psychiatric
treatment centers" to the list of facilities from
which, when a juvenile is released, victims will
receive notification.
? Section 28: Corrects language authorizing the
department to disclose confidential information
related to an adjudicated offense, rather than the
offense the minor was "alleged to have committed."
? Section 40: Adds juvenile probation officers, DJJ
office staff, and staff of juvenile facilities to the
list of mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect.
? Section 41: Repeals revocation of juvenile driver
licenses for offenses involving a controlled substance
that were handled informally by the division.
MS. HOLLAND concluded with slide 9, "In Summary, HB 116:" which
read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]:
1. Closes a loophole of the sexual abuse of minors
2. Updates terms and definitions pertaining to DJJ
facilities and staff
3. Codifies best practices to improve the division's
ability to complete their mission
3:16:20 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY commented that she doesn't see a need for the
sectional analysis because the committee saw this bill last
year. She asked whether she is correct in understanding that
the bill's purpose is largely to clean up outdated language.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ confirmed that the bulk of HB 116 is a
routine statutory cleanup. She said the bill passed the House
last year and probably would have made it "across the finish
line" had it not been for COVID-19 forcing the legislature to
recess six or seven weeks ahead of schedule.
3:17:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA drew attention to slide 8 which states that
Section 41 would repeal revocation of juvenile driver's licenses
for offenses involving a controlled substance that were handled
informally by the division. He asked whether current law
mandates the penalty of juveniles losing their driver's licenses
should an instance described in the section occur.
3:18:48 PM
TRACY DOMPELING, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ),
responded that several years ago there were two sections within
the division's statutes that required the mandatory revocation
of a license for certain types of offenses under Title 28. She
explained that one of these sections was for those youth who had
been formally adjudicated through the Superior Court for those
charges and the other referenced youth whose cases were adjusted
informally through DJJ. Adjudicated offenses have gone through
the Superior Court and the youth have been provided with due
process, whereas informally adjusted cases are instances where
the youth doesn't have an attorney and agreements are worked out
between youth parents and victims. About six years ago, she
recounted, the piece which required the mandatory revocation for
adjudicated offenses was repealed from DJJ's statutes, but
inadvertently left the section of statute for informally
adjusted cases, thereby mandating DJJ to take a harsher stance
for informally adjusted cases than for adjudicated cases. There
are still sections under Title 28 that allow the court to revoke
for those adjudicated cases, Ms. Dompeling said, it just took it
out of DJJ's responsibility to do so. She highlighted the
importance of ensuring that similar penalties or sanctions for
youth are applied to informally adjusted cases as to formally
adjudicated cases.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA requested confirmation that a process will
remain in statute in adjudicated cases where a judge could
decide to revoke a driver's license as a penalty for an offense.
MS. DOMPELING answered, "That is correct, it's only for those
offenses that are listed out under Title 28," which pertain to
drugs and weapons.
3:22:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether more severe substance-
related issues, such as driving under the influence (DUI), would
be considered by the court.
MS. DOMPELING deferred to Ms. Nancy Mead of the Alaska Court
System to answer the question.
3:22:56 PM
NANCY MEAD, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, answered that
the court does not revoke driver's licenses for cases of minors
consuming alcohol. She said that in about 2016 or 2017 those
offenses began being treated as "straight violations" like a
traffic ticket, no matter how many a minor may receive; so, for
minor consuming alcohol straight violations the court may not
revoke the driver's license. Under AS Title 28, she continued,
the court has the ability to revoke driver's licenses for minors
in possession of drugs or for other violations of AS 11.41, the
"drug statutes," as well as for minors in possession of weapons
or minors misusing weapons.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that Ms. Mead clearly described
current statute. However, she explained, HB 116 attempts to
create parity by clarifying that there not be a stricter
enforcement penalty for "less serious" cases that are informally
resolved outside of the court system and cases that go through
the formal court system.
3:24:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether a juvenile youth could have
one or more DUI [offenses] and the court would not be able to
revoke that youth's license even though that is an [offense]
that could result in someone's death.
MS. MEAD responded that HB 116 would not affect DUI laws. The
laws about DUI, she explained, are wholly separated from the
laws for minors consuming alcohol. Prior to October 2016, a
minor consuming alcohol on a park bench could have his or her
license revoked, and because revoking a license is considered a
quasi-criminal proceeding that minor was entitled to a jury
trial and a defense attorney. Driving under the influence is a
wholly separate statute, she continued, which has mandatory
license revocations no matter the age of the individual
involved. This bill would not touch DUI whatsoever, nor would
it touch minor consuming alcohol. Ms. Mead related that a few
years ago a standard was in place that allowed for minors
consuming alcohol to be given lower types of penalties in
courts, meaning that these minors' licenses couldn't be taken
away. She said the repealers in HB 116 would create a symmetry
to allow for minors who are prosecuted through DJJ to not have
their licenses revoked either. She noted that minors prosecuted
through DJJ usually means the minor behaved less egregiously.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY offered clarification that HB 116 would
only impact minors who had engaged in poor behavior that was not
related to a vehicle.
MS. MEAD agreed.
3:27:38 PM
MS. DOMPELING provided testimony in support of HB 116. She
explained the bill was introduced at the division's request to
address long identified and newly emerging statutory issues
related to juvenile justice. She noted that this legislation
passed from the House Health and Social Services Standing
Committee [in 2020]. She said the original statutes, AS 47.12,
were passed when DJJ became its own division approximately 20
years ago, and the proposed updates to definitions and statutes
mirror the efforts to improve the success of the youth who are
engaged in the juvenile justice system through best practice and
innovative approaches to address youth delinquency. These
definitions, she added, have a real impact on the work of the
division's staff and on youth safety, the most dramatic change
being the criminal case against the former DJJ employee who was
acquitted of sexual abuse due to the lack of an updated
definition of DJJ staff in position of authority.
3:30:02 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER opened public testimony on HB 116. After
ascertaining that no one wished to testify, she closed public
testimony.
3:30:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY inquired about Mr. Matt Davidson's role
in HB 116.
3:30:39 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), stated he has worked with the sponsor
over the last three legislatures to develop this legislation,
and therefore he is familiar with the bill's provisions and why
individual components are termed the way they are.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY inquired about the term "legal guardian"
found on page 2 of HB 116.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that Section 5 is the definition of "legal
guardian" for the crimes related to sexual abuse of a minor. He
explained that when developing the bill, a look was taken at the
current definitions in statute that referred to juvenile justice
facilities operated by DJJ; terms were sprinkled throughout
statute that were very similar terms to the department's
facilities. So, throughout the bill where those statutes are
touched, an attempt is made to provide specificity as to which
facilities and staff are being talked about. Section 5 is the
definition of the crime of engaging in sexual contact or sexual
relations with a minor who is under the custody or supervision
of DHSS, he noted, so that relates to youth in facilities
operated by the department as well as the division. The Office
of Children's Services (OCS), he continued, places children in
treatment institutions, and because these children are under
state custody while placed in treatment institutions operated by
nonprofits and other agencies, this same provision, the same
offenses, apply to staff of those facilities as well as to
department staff.
3:33:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that in his 30 years of experience
there is a separation of legal guardian being that of a parent
or someone who is a custodial guardian and a ward of the court.
He said it appears that wards of the court are being referred to
in this situation rather than legal guardians because these
individuals have been placed in institutions by the court or
court systems.
MR. DAVIDSON answered that the terms would have the same meaning
in this specific statute. He said it is not creating the
definition of a legal guardian that was existing in the sexual
abuse of a minor statute, rather it is just updating the terms
relating to those positions that qualify as legal guardians. In
Division of Juvenile Justice statute and in OCS child protection
statute, the term legal guardian or legal custody are used and
sometimes interchangeably, and ward of the court is probably
similar to that or could be replacing that, but in this case in
statute the term is legal guardian.
3:35:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that AS 13.06.050 defines a legal
guardian and doesn't include all these categories. He said it
seems AS 47 is expanding on that or using the exact same
terminology but in a different way, making it confusing.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained that the section of law being
addressed by HB 116 applies to the Division of Juvenile Justice
only and another category of employees is being added to which
this applies. She said it already applies to group homes and
youth facilities, and the bill would add employees of treatment
institutions and juvenile probation officers. [Current] law is
probation officers, and HB 116 clarifies it means both adult and
juvenile probation officers, which would close the loophole that
was identified in the 2017 case.
3:37:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA observed Section 41 would repeal multiple
statutes. He asked whether all these statutes deal with the
same subject of juvenile justice.
MS. HOLLAND pointed out that AS 47.12.990 and AS 47.14.990 in
Section 41 relate to repealed definitions, which includes
detention homes and juvenile work camp. She said AS 28.15.176
and AS 47.12.060 are the revocations related to the driver's
license. Responding further to Representative Kurka, she said
anything ending in 990 is a definition, and AS 28.15.176 and AS
47.121.060 are the revocations related to the driver's license.
3:40:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY noted that the bill's intent is to clean
up different language pieces. He suggested alternate wording
regarding "legal guardian."
CO-CHAIR SNYDER stated that the definition within a statute is
exceptionally important because there is a limited range of
vocabulary.
MS. HOLLAND noted that Title 11 relates to the sexual abuse of a
minor and page 2, lines 30-31, apply "when those persons are
exercising custodial control over a minor or other person". She
said that if additional clarification is needed to that
definition, it would be appropriate to ask the division.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that when drafting the bill, the attempt
was not to fix everything but rather to ensure that the
loopholes in criminal statute were fixed to relate to actions by
DJJ staff and to update terms that referred to DJJ staff. He
allowed there might be misalignments elsewhere in statute that
weren't considered as part of this bill and offered to talk
about that with Representative McCarty.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ suggested there are probably many parts
of statute that intersect but pointed out that when drafting the
bill, the intent was not necessarily to be expansive and apply
to every section of law that could relate to children. Rather,
the intent was to focus on the specific elements related to the
Division of Juvenile Justice in the definitions and solve the
problems that are on the books. She encouraged Representative
McCarty to talk with Mr. Davidson about the sections of law that
were chosen. She noted that last year the House unanimously
passed the legislation, and she would like to protect that
progress and get this done this year because the division has
been waiting a long time to have this done.
[CO-CHAIR SNYDER held over HB 116.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 65 v. B.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 5/4/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Sponsor Statement 2.4.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 5/4/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Sectional Analysis v. B 2.4.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 5/4/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Letter of Support ASMA 2.11.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Letter of Support Alaska Chiropractic Society.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/18/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Amendment 1 Hughes.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Amendment 1 Hughes.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/18/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Amendment 2 Wilson.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB65 Amendment 3.12.21.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM SJUD 3/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| CSSB65 Ver. I.PDF |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 5/4/2021 3:00:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65.msg |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB65 Public Testimony.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Version C.PDF |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Zero Fiscal Note.PDF |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| HB 116 Sponsor Statement, v. A.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document - Carey Acquittal, 2017.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document, FAQs 4.10.21.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document - Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Area.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116, v. A.PDF |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Letters of Support Received as of 4.20.21.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 PowerPoint Presentation.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Sectional Analysis, v. A.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| DHSS Comparison Memo- HB116 - HB105 and SB91 (4-14-21).pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 105 HB 116 SB 91 |
| DHSS comparison of HB116 (HB105 or SB91) with notes.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 105 HB 116 SB 91 |
| HB 105 v. A 2.19.2021.PDF |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Transmittal Letter 2.18.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Sectional Analysis v. A 2.23.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note DOC-IDO 2.8.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 2.10.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note DPS-AST 2.12.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 3.4.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Supporting Document - ABADA & AMHB Letter 3.5.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Testimony - Received as of 3.8.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Additional Document - Memo from DJJ to HJUD 3.9.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 v. A Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Votes 3.10.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 v. B (Distributed by HJUD Committee) 3.12.2021.PDF |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 116 Additional Document - DHSS Comparison of HB 116 and HB 105 (SB 91) with Notes 4.14.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 HB 116 SB 91 |
| HB 184 LOS_Alaska Childrens Trust.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HTRB 5/4/2021 8:00:00 AM SHSS 3/31/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 LOS_Alaska Regional Coalition.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 3/31/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 184 |