Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/06/1994 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 6, 1994
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice Chair
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Joe Green
Representative Cliff Davidson
Representative Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HJR 48: Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to revenues from natural
resources, the Alaska permanent fund, the
appropriation limit and the budget reserve fund;
and providing for an effective date for the
amendments.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 337: "An Act relating to the possession of controlled
substances within 500 feet of recreation and youth
centers; and permitting municipalities to install
`drug-free recreation and youth center zone'
signs."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 153: "An Act relating to sentencing."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 417: An Act relating to the possession of weapons
within the grounds of or on the parking lots of
preschools, elementary, junior high, and secondary
schools or while participating in a school-
sponsored event; and relating to school lockers
and other containers provided in a public or
private school by the school or the school
district."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 534: "An Act relating to insurance, to the licensing,
accreditation, examination, regulation, and
solvency of persons engaged in the insurance
business, including insurers, nonadmitted
insurers, purchasing groups, risk retention
groups, and United States branches of alien
insurers; relating to the management of and the
filing of reports by persons licensed or otherwise
doing business under the insurance code; amending
Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 45; and providing
for an effective date."
NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Aide
Representative Ramona Barnes
State Capitol, Room 208
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3438
POSITION STATEMENT:
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Attorney
Division of Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Rm 401
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 153
PATTY SWENSON, Legislative Aide
Representative Con Bunde
State Capitol, Room 112
Juneau, AK 99801=1182
Phone: 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed CSHB 417
MARGOT KNUTH, Attorney
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSHB 417
LARRY WIGET
Division of Governmental Relations
Anchorage School District
P.O. Box 196614
Anchorage, AK 99519-6614
Phone: 269-2255
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSHB 417
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 112
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSHB 417
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 48
SHORT TITLE: RESTRUCTURE PERMANENT FUND
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/11/94 2032 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/94 2032 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/02/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
02/02/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/04/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
02/04/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/07/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
02/07/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
BILL: HB 337
SHORT TITLE: DRUG FREE RECREATION AND YOUTH CENTERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)NORDLUND,Porter,Finkelstein,
Martin,Brown,Ulmer,Brice,Hudson,Menard,Sitton,Navarre,
Davies, Phillips,B.Davis,Green,Nicholia,G.Davis,Toohey,
Mulder
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/94 2015 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/10/94 2015 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/10/94 2015 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
01/13/94 2055 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B. DAVIS
01/14/94 2084 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
01/18/94 2101 (H) COSPONSOR(S): NICHOLIA
03/02/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/02/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/03/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/04/94 2603 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NEW TITLE
4DP 4NR
03/04/94 2603 (H) DP:G.DAVIS,TOOHEY,NICHOLIA,
BRICE
03/04/94 2603 (H) NR:VEZEY,KOTT,BUNDE,OLBERG
03/04/94 2603 (H) -3 ZERO FNS (LAW,DPS,CORR)
3/4/94
03/04/94 2625 (H) COSPONSOR(S): G. DAVIS
03/23/94 2952 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
03/25/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 153
SHORT TITLE: GOOD TIME: PT. MACKENZIE REHAB PROJECT
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/15/93 345 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/15/93 345 (H) STATE AFFAIRS,JUDICIARY,FINANCE
02/27/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/27/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/93 481 (H) STA RPT 4DP
03/01/93 482 (H) DP:VEZEY,B.DAVIS,OLBERG,G.DAVIS
03/01/93 482 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COURT)
3/1/93
04/06/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 417
SHORT TITLE: POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN SCHOOL LOCKERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/31/94 2205 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/31/94 2205 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
02/17/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/17/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/22/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/24/94 2518 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NEW TITLE
4DP 4NR
02/24/94 2518 (H) DP:G.DAVIS,BUNDE,TOOHEY,BRICE
02/24/94 2518 (H) NR:KOTT,VEZEY,OLBERG,NICHOLIA
02/24/94 2518 (H) -2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, DPS)
2/24/94
04/06/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 534
SHORT TITLE: OMNIBUS INSURANCE REFORM
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/18/94 2868 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/18/94 2868 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/29/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/29/94 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/06/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-57, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order
on April 6, 1994. A quorum was present. CHAIRMAN PORTER
stated that the committee would be hearing HJR 48, HB 337,
HB 153, and HB 417. He said the committee would not be
hearing HB 534 because the Labor & Commerce Committee did
not get it out of committee. CHAIRMAN PORTER called on
Representative Phillips, chairperson of the subcommittee for
HJR 48 to talk about the subcommittee's work.
HJR 48 - RESTRUCTURE PERMANENT FUND
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS: "Mr. Chairman, that was an
interesting subcommittee, because we had to deal with an
awful lot of material and come up with a workable decision
for the House Judiciary Committee to take a responsible
position. After meeting quite a few times and coming up
with what we think is a workable solution, we did put
together a packet that includes the bill as originally
presented to us. It includes a letter of intent that is
fairly comprehensive as to what we think needs to be done.
It includes a resolution that we would like to see
addressed, a like resolution to be addressed by the Finance
Committee with a general fiscal note on it. Basically,
what we said is this legislative body does not have time or
the wherewithal to deal with this subject during the
legislative year, that we would recommend the bill go on to
Finance, and that Finance look into creating a blue ribbon
task force comprised of major Alaskans that are
knowledgeable about the state government and state budgeting
process, out of the private sector; and then highly
technical members of both the legislative and administrative
staffs that comprise this blue ribbon task force, that will
look at not only the CREMO plan, but maybe other plans that
have been turned in, and come up during their investigation.
And they be required to spend a lot of time looking at all
the ramifications of the CREMO plan. We did list quite a
few policy issues that we felt should be addressed before we
have a document that is ready to take to the public, and we
would like to pass the letter of intent with our
recommendations with the bill onto the Finance Committee."
Number 091
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "As a member of the subcommittee,
I support that, and would certainly hope that the Finance
Committee can do what we suggest, and if they have time in
the evenings, or whatever, to take a look at the CREMO
proposal itself, and try to begin to answer some of these
questions, or at least begin the research or get the wheels
in motion to answer some of these questions. I certainly
support passing out the bill today. I would like the
opportunity to add a couple of things to the letter of
intent. I am sorry I did not get that done. I apologize.
I was given plenty of opportunity and I was late, but I
would really appreciate it if we could take action to pass
the bill out today. One of the questions I think should be
asked is - it's not clear in the legislation - `What are the
sources of revenue that would be required to go into the
principal of the permanent fund under the CREMO plan?'
There is some question that income taxes that would be
derived from people who earn income off of resource related
jobs would go into it, that some similar sales taxes could
possibly be construed as needing to go into the fund, and
it would be my hope that that wouldn't happen, and I think
that's an issue that should be addressed. I had a couple of
notes on other things that I would want to add there.
Again, they are just questions. They are not controversial,
so I would like to bring those up with the Chair of the
subcommittee and add them to the letter.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said she had no problem with that at
all.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said what he would do then would be to
initially entertain a motion to adopt the draft letter of
intent as a working document for the letter of intent.
Number 132
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the draft letter of
intent.
Number 143
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was any objection. He said,
"If not, we have a letter of intent before us. I think for
just purposes of consensus, if there is no objection, I will
finalize the letter of intent with the items that
Representative Nordlund would like to add and attached that
to the bill and pass it along. So with that in mind, I
would entertain a motion to move the bill with the adopted
letter of intent."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed to move the letter of intent and
HJR 48 to the Finance Committee.
Number 180
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "The only discussion necessary would be
the Chairman's thanks and sincere appreciation to the
subcommittee for working diligently on what had to be quite
a task, and I thoroughly agree and support your decision.
This is something of the magnitude we should not try to
resolve at one of our round tables in the Judiciary
Committee, although we are good at that. This might be a
little bit more expansive than that process would allow for
accomplishment. With that in mind, is there objection? If
not, HJR 48, with the letter of intent is moved on to the
Finance Committee. Now, we have HB 337, Drug free
recreation and youth center."
HB 337 - DRUG FREE RECREATION AND YOUTH CENTERS
Number 184
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman for
scheduling this bill. It's really a pretty simple concept.
It's an expansion of the current law we have which provides
for drug free schools. It expands that concept to include
an area 500 feet around youth and recreation center that are
operated by a municipality or by the state. Basically, it
increases the penalties by one notch, for instance from a
Class A misdemeanor to a Class C felony for possession of
controlled substances. It increases the penalties for
possession in those zones. The need for the bill, Mr.
Chairman, comes from a problem in my district surrounding
the Spenard rec center. I've gotten reports that,
ironically, the place where you send kids to play and have
recreational activities, are actually being approached in
the parking lot by people wanting to sell drugs. It is an
expansion of the drug free zones around the schools
presently. There is no fiscal note with the bill. The
bill does provide for municipalities to erect signs if they
so choose, and in the case of our community, I'm sure they
will probably choose to do that. They can also post signs
in the rec centers, themselves, that would alert potential
drug dealers that this is not a place that they are invited,
by any means, to do business. That is basically what the
bill does."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Nordlund, I certainly agree with the concept
of your bill, and will support it. I have one question,
however. On the designation of recreation or youth center,
will there be any problem with private versus public
facilities? Are we making this inclusive to any kind of
facility, regardless of ownership?"
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's a
good question. When we originally had the bill drafted, it
included all recreation centers, regardless of whether they
would be operated by nonprofit, or whatever. In talking to
the Departments of Law and Public Safety, they thought the
definition was too broad, so we narrowed it down to rec
centers that are operated by municipalities, or by the
state. Otherwise, it would be virtually impossible to
enforce all the areas that were included in the original
version of the bill."
Number 252
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess
I've got a couple of questions that the sponsor might be
able to answer. Do we have any estimate as to what these
signs might cost? I envision actually allowing
municipalities to post signs at recreational facilities or
youth center, ballparks, playgrounds, and what not. But
when we look at the total numbers and the total cost,
because this is a little bit different than hanging a sign
like `School Zone', where it's just attached to the post, we
are talking about a whole new feature, if in fact, we are
talking about the same kind of vehicle for the sign to be
embedded on. Or are we talking about placing a sign on,
let's say, a building. I'm not clear."
Number 275
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I have something here from the
Department of Transportation that says, `large sign
contracts average approximately $50 per square foot for
installed sign. Including the need to locate signs rather
accurately, the estimated cost per sign is conservatively
$150 a piece.' Again, this is something that would be up to
the municipality to decide the size of the sign, where they
would be located, and even whether or not they wanted to put
the sign up, given their own budget constraints. There is
no mandate here."
Number 292
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT: "And that kind of is what I'm leading
to. I certainly support the idea. I am just wondering how
effective it would actually be, considering the budget
constraints of many municipalities around -- and just $150
per -- and I don't know how many facilities this would apply
to. Do you have any numbers just for Anchorage alone?"
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "No, Mr. Chairman, I don't have
any numbers as to how many signs would be necessary to
effectively post the area, or not necessarily an indication
of whether or not they would, other than the fact that we
got letters of support from Chief O'Leary, and the
Department of Parks and Recreation, and various entities in
our community, indicating they would like to have this as an
additional tool for enforcement."
Number 316
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "As Representative Nordlund points
out, the city of Kenai goes along with it. There is
overwhelming support from various types of groups, as well
as various cities."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Nordlund. The permissiveness in the signage,
that was done in order for us not to do an unfunded mandate
necessarily."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, these are programs
that are operated by municipalities, and I think it should
be up to them to decide how - including this particular
aspect of signage for a criminal offense - it should be up
to the municipalities to decide on whether on where to put
them and if they want to put them..."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm
wondering if I might offer what I call a friendly amendment
to page four, line 19, and insert after `may' the word
`prominently' post a sign. We are in fact, increasing the
penalty. I think at least it should be apparent that we
are, in fact, entering a drug-free recreational zone or
area. And if it is going to be on a building, let's not put
it on the side of a door, where you can't see it from the
front of the building."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, I would certainly
consider that a friendly amendment."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Let me see if I understand the amendment.
On page four, line 19 we would be inserting the word
`prominently' -- `may prominently post a sign at each
recreation and youth center.' Is there any discussion on
the amendment? Is there objection to the amendment?"
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, the word
`prominently' might fit in better after the word `sign.'
`May post a sign prominently.'"
CHAIRMAN PORTER AND REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with that.
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "So, the amendment to the amendment would
be to move `prominently' the word, not the act, `may post a
sign prominently at each recreation and youth center.'"
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "To the maker of that amendment, is
there any merit to doing that in both one and two?"
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I suppose as the maker of the
amendment, there could possibly could be some merit with the
exception that I believe that when we look at the drug-free
zone signs, they are generally attached to the school or
entering the school zones, so I think in those cases, it
would be fairly prominent."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "The reason I brought that up is in
two they `may' and in one they `shall' and it seems almost
backwards that you may post a prominent sign, but in the
other one, you shall post a sign, it just doesn't have to be
prominent."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Well, I would be hesitate to
(indiscernible) right now, because that is existing law and
it may affect signs already up."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, they might have to
(indiscernible), they might have to go back and take another
look at where they're posting a sign and somebody might
argue that they are not prominently posted, and get into all
that...."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Okay, with no objection, we will consider
that we have adopted amendment number 1, which is now
placement of the word `prominently' between `sign' and `at'
on line 19, page four. And Representative Phillips."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "I would be honored to move the
bill, if that would be appropriate at this time. I would
move that we move HB 337 out of Judiciary, with individual
recommendations and zero fiscal notes."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Is there discussion? Is there objection?
HB 337 is moved."
HB 153 - GOOD TIME: PT. MACKENZIE REHAB PROJECT
Number 417
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "We have next, HB 153 reduction of
presumptive sentences and we have with us, a representative
of Madam Speaker, who is going to tell us about this bill."
Number 420
MEL KROGSENG, Staff assistant to Speaker, Ramona Barnes.
She said, "The Speaker would ask that the Committee
Substitute in lieu of the original bill, a Committee
Substitute with a new title, which would read, "An Act
related to the awarding of special good time deductions for
prisoners participating in the Point MacKenzie
Rehabilitation Project, and providing for an effective
date." The reason for this Committee Substitute is
basically that, according to letters that have been sent by
some of the superintendents in institutions to the chief
classifications officer of the Department of Corrections,
there seems to be reluctance on the part of inmates wanting
to volunteer to go to Point MacKenzie because of a perceived
notion - some of it is not perceived, some of it is actual -
that there are not the same benefits at Point MacKenzie that
there are in the regular conventional institutions. The
reason that those benefits are not there, is that Point
MacKenzie is a farm. It is a prison farm, it is not an
institution. Therefore, we believe that it does not fall
under the Cleary decision. We are not required to have a
library there, and all the other requirements of Cleary. In
order to keep this in this category, it is thought that it
is essential that inmates volunteer to go there, rather than
be simply assigned there. I have provided you with a packet
which is labeled, `Active Inmate Profiles' which was run
from the state OBSCIS system, Correction's computer system,
on inmates, and if you would look at the second page two,
you'll notice that there is the custody level classification
on the left side at the top. There are 481 minimum custody
prisoners as of March 28, and 96 community custody prisoners
sitting in hard beds in our institutions last week. That's
a total of 577 under the existing classification system, who
would be eligible to go to Point MacKenzie. However, again,
I believe there is a letter in your file that Mr. Ken Brown,
Superintendent at Wildwood wrote to Bob Spinde who is our
chief classification officer, saying that the inmates were
reluctant to volunteer to go to Point MacKenzie. So Speaker
feels very strongly that it would be appropriate to develop
an incentive program. The incentive program that is being
proposed in this Committee Substitute is a special good time
incentive. For each full month for an inmate who volunteers
to go to Project Hope - for each full month of participation
at Project Hope, the inmate, upon recommendation of the
project manager, would be credited with three days of
special good time. This would be in addition to the regular
good time that they are already eligible to receive. This
good time would not be revocable unless the inmate were
involuntary removed from Project Hope or Point MacKenzie for
bad behavior. The project manager would post a set of rules
which would list appropriate behavior and inappropriate
behavior examples. As long as the inmate was not
involuntarily removed for inappropriate behavior, then the
good time would be irrevocable. So that should be a pretty
good incentive.
"I might tell you that as of this morning there were 54
prisoners at Project Hope. You were, I believe, given a
copy of the proposed CS yesterday - that was changed this
morning for two reasons. One, Point MacKenzie was spelled
incorrectly in the original proposed CS, and additionally,
no provision had been made for the inmates who are already
there who volunteered to go there with no additional
incentive. And we certainly didn't want to penalize those
people because they have been doing a real bang up job for
us and the program is starting to move forward. We had a
visit yesterday from Mr. Bernie Carl from Fairbanks, who
donated the first set of ATCO trailers. He tells us the
state owns another camp at Prudhoe Bay - the Prudhoe Bay
Hotel, I believe it's called. It is owned by DOT at this
point. He has offered to house, feed, help in any way he
can for us to go up with inmates, as we did before and
remove that camp, and bring it down to either be used at
Project Hope or at Palmer Minimum, as a potential minimum
custody facility. There are some real good things happening
out at Project Hope. We just simply need to have a little
further enticement to get inmates out there and the Project
Director, Mr. Michael Dindinger tells me he feels very
comfortable that they could use 160 prisoners total out
there this year, as long as we can sort of give them the
enticement to come out there."
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Krogseng to give the executive
summary for the record.
MS. KROGSENG read the following Sponsor Statement: "The
Department of Corrections is currently experiencing a
problem with overcrowding in our institutions. The proposed
Committee Substitute for House Bill 153 (Judiciary) is
introduced to address two issues. First, it will help
alleviate the overcrowding problem, and secondly, it will
help attract volunteers for the Point MacKenzie
rehabilitation project. Presently, inmates appear concerned
that the benefits at Point MacKenzie are fewer than those in
the conventional institutions. Consequently, they are
hesitant to volunteer. This proposed legislation will
provide an incentive for inmates to participate in the
program. By implementing a special good time statute, we
believe inmates will volunteer to serve their time at the
Point MacKenzie rehabilitation project instead of in one of
the conventional institutions. At Point MacKenzie, there
are no fences, other than for the reindeer. There are no
lock-down facilities, and all inmates must be minimum
custody level, or lower. Presently, there are over 550
inmates in our system that are classified appropriately, for
placement at Point MacKenzie, but some form of incentive is
needed to entice volunteers. Under this legislation, each
inmate who participates in the Point MacKenzie
rehabilitation project will be entitled to three days of
special good time for each full month served at Point
MacKenzie. This good time will be irrevocable once credited
against the inmate's sentence, unless the inmate is
involuntarily removed from the project for inappropriate
behavior. The inmate's record will be reviewed by the
project manager to determine if a recommendation is to be
forwarded to the commissioner for the crediting of the good
time against the inmate's sentence. Not all inmates who
volunteer will be selected. Each inmate will be thoroughly
screened by the chief of security at Point MacKenzie and/or
his or her designee. If the chief of security feels that an
inmate will not be a suitable candidate, that inmate will
not be selected for placement at Point MacKenzie."
Number 551
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Shouldn't there be some fiscal savings?"
Number 558
MS. KROGSENG: "Mr. Chairman, Representative Nordlund. Yes,
I would think this would provide the department with a cost
savings, how much I can't say for certain at this time, but
it certainly will not, I don't believe it will cost us any
money, but it should save money, because our inmates would
be getting out earlier than they would otherwise."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "But their fiscal note is not
complete yet, is that...."
MS. KROGSENG: "I guess I would ask the committee to adopt a
zero fiscal note and say that it was an oversight on our
part yesterday, not to have that done."
Number 571
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How
many people are out at Point MacKenzie right now? And how -
- currently how many can they house?"
MS. KROGSENG answered that there were 54 inmates at present,
and as soon as the kitchen is complete, the capacity will be
160. She said the department does not oppose this
legislation.
Number 594
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "When we need these kinds of
minimum security beds so badly, why do we have a facility
that people have to go to voluntarily, though. Why do we
not just mandate that they go there?"
Number 600
MS. KROGSENG: "Chairman Porter, Representative Phillips, if
we were to mandate it, there is concern that the counsel for
the inmates who represented them in Cleary, might then say
this is an institution, which would then require us to
provide all the same programs and services, facilities,
libraries, and so forth, that are provided in all the other
institutions. We believe very strongly, that the inmates
will volunteer to go if there is a little more incentive.
We have been told, according to Mr. Brown, as I mentioned in
the letter that you have, that the reason the inmates don't
want to go there are thus and such. However, we have also
received calls from employees within the Department of
Corrections, whose names will remain anonymous, who tell us
that although the material is being provided to them that
says Point MacKenzie is thus and so, that by word of mouth
they are being told, `Why would you want to go to Project
Hope? All you're going to get to do is work 12 hours a day,
seven days a week. It's a long way out there, there are no
programs, your family cannot visit' -which is not true -
it's been made into a very doom and gloom type scenario.
There is a prisoner who was scheduled to go to Project Hope,
and had been screened by security, who was a master
mechanic, who they really needed out there, and just before
he was to be transferred out there, he changed his mind
because somebody talked him out of it. I don't have any
concrete evidence, but that's the sort of thing that's
happening, and it's not just in one institution, we've had
calls from employees in several institutions. Speaker felt
very strongly that this is a good program. We think there's
a lot of potential at Project Hope, given the opportunity to
have the program really get going, so consequently the idea
for some kind of incentive."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "And I should add, when you mentioned the
requirement for libraries, this doesn't presume normal
libraries - the Cleary requires for law libraries, with a
law clerk."
MS. KROGSENG: "Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, if I might take
just take another moment of the committee's time, just to
bring you up to date on a couple of things that are
happening out at Project Hope already. There is, as you may
or may not have heard, in each institution we have to
provide an educational counselor. I think you'll find that
this `Active Inmate Profile' is very interesting, if you can
take the time to look through it because it tells you how
many people in the institutions, out of our almost 3,000
inmates, have a GED, how many have completed a high school
education, how many have not, how many have a four-year
degree, how many do not. We're paying thousands of dollars
for education programs. We have 47 inmates out of almost
3,000 who've gotten a GED. That seems to be, I'm told, the
biggest issue in the institutions as far as education is
concerned. There is a program at Project Hope right now - a
GED program - being run by the inmates, it is accredited by
the State Board of Education and inmates are teaching other
inmates and helping them to get their GED. There is a fire
training program which will provide forest fire training.
The inmates will get a state certificate that has no
reference to Project Hope, or to the Department of
Corrections. They will be certified firefighters. They
will, in addition to being able to, when they complete their
sentence, go out and obtain work in this area of labor, they
will also provide volunteer firefighter services for the
Point MacKenzie area. There is no fire department out there
at all. There's just a tremendous amount of potential to be
had at Project Hope, if we can get it really rolling. It's
picking up steam - it just needs a little more impetus. And
the people that are out there - Mr. Carl that I referenced
before, has two men right now who have been released, who
are working for him on the North Slope. He said he would
like to hire everyone who's released because when the men
went up and took down the camp to bring it down, they did
such an excellent job. Give them a little incentive. Give
them the idea that they're worthwhile and they can make a
contribution. There is potentially hope for some of these
folks down the road."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If this
can be brought about, there's 110 or so beds in other
institutions that would be freed up and I think this is an
excellent, excellent chance to do that."
Number 674
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "The good time reduction of the
sentence here amounts to three days out of a month is
essentially 10 percent. Under the regular good time, what
is the reduction for that?"
Number 680
JERRY LUCKHAUPT: "For the record, my name is Jerry
Luckhaupt, Division of Legal Services. Right now, inmates
get one-third of whatever their sentence is. One-third
comes off the top. When they come in the institution -- it's
a record keeping measure -- they take one-third off. When
the person finishes serving the two-thirds of their
sentence, they are then released on mandatory probation, if
they haven't screwed up while they've been in the
penitentiary and they serve out on mandatory parole that
remaining one-third of their sentence. Add on -- this extra
three days a month would add on to that period of time and
so it would be subtracted off of that one-third, it would
continue stair-stepping down, so it would actually increase
their time on mandatory parole. In a lot of cases, that
mandatory parole gives you a bit of a hammer over the inmate
when he gets out and back into society. They know that they
just can't revert back to their previous bad behavior. In a
lot of situations that mandatory parole is not supervised in
most cases, right at first it is, and then gradually moves
into an unsupervised sort of routine."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "What kinds of folks go to Point
MacKenzie - you know, what kind of crimes have they
committed. Any time you have another bill dealing with
furloughs and we're talking about good times, and basically
relieving people of their sentences, it's always a concern
to the public that you're letting people back in society
sooner than maybe you want to and I'm just trying to figure
out who we're letting off the hook here."
Number 706
MS. KROGSENG: "Mr. Chairman, Representative Nordlund, it's
my understanding that the department's policy is that no
untreated sex offenders would be allowed out there
regardless of custody level, but they must be minimum
custody or lower, which would be community. And as I said,
as of March 28, there are 577 inmates at those two custody
levels - community and minimum. I might also tell you that
on this run that I had done, there's a crime category and
out of the 2800 inmates that were in the institutions on
March 28, 1414 were crimes of violence, 283 crimes against
property, 314 crimes of substance abuse, crimes of other
categories were 793. Now part of those could be
unsentenced, certainly because we've had 700 and some
inmates who had not been sentenced yet and they're not
classified until after that. There were 577 with the
appropriate classification."
Number 721
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "So the decision on who can
participate in the program is made on the security risk, as
opposed to the crime they committed?"
Number 724
MS. KROGSENG: "Yes, that's correct. And as I understand
it, Mike Newman who is the chief of security, goes
personally and interviews each potential candidate to go to
Point MacKenzie, and I'm told that he looks them eyeball to
eyeball and says to them, `Are you ready to be my roommate
for a month?' And he's been a CO, I believe, for about 17
years. He has, I believe, a very good understanding of who
would be a potentially good candidate and who would not.
And he has, in fact, rejected someone that was brought out
there, stayed for one day, and was returned to the
institution because they did not like the behavior he was
displaying immediately. And that's very critical for this
project to succeed, because there are no fences."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one
of my questions has already been answered, but the
subsequent one is, can you tell us what you used as a yard
stick or measurement to come up with three days. What's so
magical about the three days?"
Number 738
MS. KROGSENG: "Mr. Chairman, Representative Kott. The old
statute - the old good time statute which, I believe a copy
has been put in your packet, allowed for crediting of three
days for each month of actual (indiscernible) in a prisoner
camp project or activity for the first year or any part of
it and not to exceed five days for each month of any
succeeding year. Now, we've left it at three. We've not
provided for any increase."
Number 748
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON: "Ms. Krogseng, why is it that
there are not these facilities -- we saw this list in here
of the things people were not going there because of -- why
aren't those other than what we've mentioned as far as the
law library. Is that why there isn't kind of a -- can we
get by with a partial type of library -- or some of these
other substance abuse programs or other educational programs
available at Point MacKenzie?"
Number 762
MS. KROGSENG: "Mr. Chairman, Representative Davidson, I
believe that eventually probably some of them will be
available, especially the substance abuse counseling. I
know there is a plan to have a substance abuse program
there. However, we don't want to have it mandated. Because
if one is mandated, then the next thing you know, another
requirement will be added, we believe, and another, and
another, and another. It's a farm - a work farm. The idea
is that in addition to providing training for the inmates,
it could and hopefully should, and will in the long run
provide sufficient food to feed the prison population, at
least up in the central and northern part of the state.
That's basically why. I'm sure there will be a library of
sorts out there, but we don't want it to be mandated. We
don't want it to be anything considered to be even remotely
close to Cleary."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think
the whole concept and (indiscernible) keeping it away from
Cleary is an outstanding idea, because it's about half the
cost of a regular institution. We go a screen..."
MS. KROGSENG: "One-third."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "One-third. The incarceration time
dropped from 33 1/3 percent to 40 percent and they'll serve
60 percent. That seems to be a real good compromise to
accomplish two things. I think it would be a benefit to
those who are incarcerated, as well as to the state,
obviously in a fiscal crisis year, without jeopardizing
safety to the public. So, it seems like it's about a three-
way win, win, win situation."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think
this is a very good idea. I know if I was in jail, I
certainly would much rather go out to a work farm than I
would to sit in jail - in a prison all day. And I would
move that we move House Bill 153, Draft K dated 4/6/94 and
no fiscal note, out of Judiciary with individual
recommendations."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Is there discussion? Representative
James."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, I would move that
we adopt the CS if we haven't already done so."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Well, I think that was part of the motion
-the CS, dated 4/6/94."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "Yes, I just have only one comment.
I grew up in Oregon where we have the prison farm which is a
very successful operation. It was fenced, however, but I
know that they were very productive, and they did pay their
own way in many of the years, so I support this concept."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "I guess just for the record, I should add
that the first ten years or so of my time in Anchorage, the
Police Department ran an honor farm with the same
principles. And on most occasions, there was one person
looking after about 50 guys. No problems."
MS. KROGSENG: "Mr. Chairman, if I might, I believe Mr.
Dindinger on the farm that he ran back in Wyoming or
Oklahoma had 130 some inmates, had 10 personnel, and in the
two or three years he was there, had one minor incident and
that was it. And it is very cost effective. The beds, we
anticipate, should run about $35 a day and then..."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if this was the only committee
of referral for this bill.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded he did not know.
MS. KROGSENG: "Mr. Chairman, Representative Nordlund, yes,
it was."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I think we need to have a fiscal
note before we pass it out."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Very good idea. Within the discussion of
the motion, could we say that we will include a zero fiscal
note signed by the committee?"
The committee was in agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Although one from Corrections
would be good - I think it'd be a positive fiscal note and
that would do more good for the bill than just a zero fiscal
note from this committee."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "We'll endeavor to do that."
MS. KROGSENG: "I will contact the department. Thank you."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Which would negate the zero from us. Is
there further discussion? If not, the bill is moved."
CSHB 417 - POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN SCHOOL LOCKERS
Number 833
PATTY SWENSON: "My name is Patty Swenson, and I'm a member
of Representative Bunde's staff. HB 417 basically allows
school lockers to be searched after the publication of a
notice for at least two weeks. And it makes the existing
crime of misconduct involving a weapon in the fourth degree,
a Class A misdemeanor. I think that - please just ask me
some questions and I'll try to answer them. Margot Knuth is
here to also answer questions."
Number 846
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Thank you. I didn't see anything
in the back-up regarding any possible constitutional
problems of search and seizure issues and it wasn't
addressed in any of the back-up and I was wondering what the
answer to that..."
Number 852
MARGOT KNUTH, Criminal Division, Department of Law: "There
is a United States Supreme Court decision indicating that
searches such as this are not violative of rights of
privacy, or the prohibition against unreasonable search and
seizures under the United States Constitution. And we also
have two Alaska Supreme Court decisions that have touched on
this issue. Neither of them directly, but both of them are
indicative that this would be constitutional. And the
reason has to do with the school owns these lockers, and
they are provided to students. If you provide notice that
lets the students know that their lockers may be searched,
this is considered reasonable balancing between the
student's right of privacy in the space that they are using,
with the state's need for providing a safe area for
education to be going on. The fourth amendment protections
are greater for searching the student's person than they are
for searching the locker. There is sort of a continuum, and
school lockers are beneath both the student's car and
searching the student's person in terms of the amount of
protection that they are getting. This bill essentially is
setting out specific guidelines and parameters for something
that is allowed under constitutional law already, but it
will increase the schools' comfort with the practice, and it
increases our comfort that there are guidelines set out, and
now they know what to do.
"Speaking to the other part of the bill, the Department of
Law had, in fact, supported making it a felony instead of
just a Class A misdemeanor for there to be a possession of
firearms on school grounds, but the sponsor of the bill was
reluctant to go that far, for reasons...
TAPE 94-57, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. KNUTH continued "when this type of violation occurs,
right now it has been a Class B misdemeanor, which is the
very lowest level of offense, and it hasn't allowed
authorities any flexibility in trying to deal with what they
consider to be a serious matter. To have a gun on school
grounds is the antithesis of what we are trying to
accomplish in education and the more serious an offense
level it is, the more flexibility authorities have in trying
to deal with the situation, so just moving it up to a Class
A misdemeanor helps a great deal."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "This bill moves the offense to a Class A
misdemeanor, of having a firearm on school property period,
let alone a locker."
MS. KNUTH: "That's right."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND inquired what is was now.
MS. KNUTH responded is was a Class B.
Number 028
LARRY WIGET, Director of Governmental Relations for the
Anchorage School District testifying via teleconference. He
said that their executive director wrote a memorandum of
support for HB 417 which would provide statutory support for
administrative procedures already in place in the Anchorage
School District. The Anchorage School District parents and
students have discussed and approved the concept of locker
searches in the Anchorage schools. At the request of one of
the legislators, they hired attorneys to take a look at
this. They provided a letter of support, also. Schools
have had problems with people having guns in school parking
lots who are not even students. Therefore, the gun owners
are not subject to the school's administrative rules. Law
enforcement officers are not able to assist in helping
school officials until some altercation breaks out, and the
school administrator makes a citizens arrest for trespassing
under local ordinances. By the time a situation gets to the
point of an altercation where a citizens arrest is
necessary, the safety of school personnel and students has
already arisen. But local law enforcement agencies have no
criminal law to enforce those situations. The proposed law
would be a meaningful remedy and aid to school
administrators. If the bill was passed, the school would be
able to call the local law enforcement agencies, who would
be able to intervene with possession of a deadly weapon law.
Moreover, such a law would have a deterred impact,
particularly on the non-students.
MR. WIGET stated briefly, regarding the possession of school
lockers, the proposed law would grant broad authority for
school officials to conduct general random searches of
school lockers with advance notice. Although there has not
been an exhaustive constitutionality analysis of this
measure, then (indiscernible) cases have greatly expanded
the authority of school officials to conduct random
searches. In Isaiah B. v. State of Wisconsin, 500 North
West 2nd 637, Wisconsin, 1993, the proposed law would
undoubtedly serve as a significant deterrent to students
bringing weapons, drugs, or alcohol within the school. If
the school districts adopt appropriate policy to implement
this provision, they are confident the legislation could be
applied in a constitutional manner.
MR. WIGET commented that the section on the locker searches
could be made more broad so as to allow notification of the
searches through the student handbook and perhaps permanent
posting of notices of a right to search in each school.
Number 130
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON: "Mr. Wiget, how many incidents of
weapons possession problems did you have within your school
district this past school year?"
Number 138
MR. WIGET: "I don't have those figures before me. We had
provided them to someone else...I know there have been
several and I don't have the specific number at the tip of
my tongue. If you'd like, I could have that information
sent down to you."
Number 147
MS. SWENSEN: "I have those numbers here and they're also
included in your packet, I believe. For 1993, there was a
total of 106 suspensions for all types of weapons-related
incidents, and for this year, the only numbers we have
available, the breakout is minimal for the first two
quarters of the year, and they went down significantly. As
a matter of fact, there were 36 in the second quarter, 32 in
the first quarter."
Number 173
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I'm kind of curious about the
section of the bill that requires the posting of signs. Was
that done for some concern about the possible
constitutionality of the bill?"
MS. KNUTH: "I don't know if it's constitutionally required,
but it is an appropriate measure to, as I say, balance the
student's right of privacy against the interest we're trying
to protect in searching the lockers. I don't know if it's
mandatory, but it's something that the ACLU is behind, and
there has been no objection to the concept by the school
district."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, I guess my concern
is that it says you should post a sign two weeks before the
search is going to be conducted, or that you can leave a
sign up continuously, so you can search any time. I mean, I
think that's kind of (indiscernible). Basically, a search
can be conducted any time as long as there is a sign up. I
don't understand that. It seems that you're trying to have
it both ways or something."
Number 203
MS. KNUTH: "All you're trying to do with the sign is to let
the student know at any time during the semester that their
lockers are subject to inspection, and, if you provide that
notice on the first day, or if you provide it two weeks
before, the point isn't, `Everybody clean out your lockers
and carry the gun in the back belt for this one day when
we're doing the search and then put it back in there, and
feel comfortable about that;' it's to say that `at no point
should you have contraband like this on school grounds and
you should know now and for the next 250 days of the school
session that your interest in privacy in your school locker
is minimal.'"
Number 222
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "So why not just notify the
students that their lockers can be searched and dispense
with the whole notion of the two weeks in advance business?
It makes it seem like they have some warning when they - in
practical - they probably wouldn't. I imagine the Anchorage
School District would make that a standing policy that their
lockers could be searched at any time, which apparently, is
constitutional, so why provide the two week notice
business?"
MS. KNUTH: "To make sure that the student does know and
otherwise what - send a note home..."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Leave a sign up permanently so
the students are notified."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "Mr. Chairman, that is one of the
options that the sign can be posted permanently."
Number 238
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "The question was since that would seem to
be the less - would cause the least amount of activity for
the school, and that's probably what they would do. But it
isn't necessarily so, I mean these signs might - we might
want to work something out with the kids where they wouldn't
want to do that all the time, but if they had some more
problems... What I guess this does guarantee is that you
can't put up a sign at 9 o'clock and search the lockers at
9:05. Not that I'm necessarily opposed to that, but...."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "They're going to be searching
lockers at any time, anyway. It doesn't really make any
difference. If they could be given notice aside..."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "No, not under this law. They will not be
able to search lockers unless they have posted a sign to
these dimensions for two weeks or have one posted
permanently."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Well, once the sign is posted
permanently, then it's...(indiscernible) posted, I think
it's a fine idea, but I'm just kind of curious...."
Number 265
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "I guess that I'm having the same
concern that Representative Nordlund is. I don't see - I
mean I can visualize now - I guess they come to school and
you put a sign up and that means the first two weeks you
can't search their lockers. I see that as a loophole
however, and I would like to have it be so that you must
have a permanent sign up, so they always know that their
locker can be searched. I'm not going to object to this
bill, I'm not planning an amendment, I'm just making that
statement. But I would feel a lot more comfortable if that
was the requirement. And I'm a little uncomfortable with
the two weeks, when school starts, that you can't
(indiscernible) the lockers. I'm a little uncomfortable
with that, I'd rather have it be that you could always do
it. And whatever is required to make that happen, I would
feel a lot more comfortable."
Number 287
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT: "I was going to bring up basically the
same point that my colleague from North Pole brought up
(indiscernible) and go a step further. Why even post any
signs? Don't we have a provision right now where school
officials can search lockers or is there some probable cause
that's required we can actually search a locker - like for
illegal substances - don't we have some kind of provision
this is somewhat mirroring that application?"
MS. KNUTH: "Mr. Chairman, there was a time when we thought
that school officials could go into lockers with no
articulable basis at all, and that because they were not law
enforcement officials, that this should be acceptable. And
that is a ruling from the Alaska Supreme Court. There was
a subsequent decision to cast doubt on that, that
essentially school officials are acting in much the same
capacity as law enforcement officials and therefore, you
need either something short of probable cause, either an
articulable reason for this given search, or you need to be
conducting a random wholesale inspection program. And this
is more what is being authorized under this bill, and what's
being clarified here is the random searches where you are
trying to deter students from using their locker for these
items at all, because they don't know whether theirs is the
one that is going to be searched or not. We don't
anticipate every locker being inspected, although that is
possible. But just enough to deter students from bringing
contraband and weapons to school."
Number 332
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "I guess a question either the sponsor or
you, Margot, having a general feeling for these cases, I
would have been under the impression that a school would be
within its constitutional rights in the normal course of
furnishing information to parents and students - bulletins,
whatever - at the beginning of the school year to say that -
and maybe even require a signature and return or something
- that school property, including lockers are subject to
random searches at any given time; and that would suffice
without any need for signs or anything else. Is there
something I'm missing?"
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "If I could respond as one
(indiscernible), getting signed notices back is not an easy
thing to do and certainly if it didn't come back, that would
be a loophole there."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Well, I meant - I said that, but I
quickly wanted to retract it. What I meant was the normal
course of supplying information would suffice, to me."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "Proving that they received the
information, I think...I would expect that it would be
part..."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "I don't think that that would be a
requirement - that you wouldn't have to prove that they got
it. If this is the way that a school normally provides
information to kids and parents, tough. Ignorance of
a...that would be my..."
MS. KNUTH: "I think you're correct, and then Mr. Chairman I
think that this is codifying existing law and it's adding
some safeguards that people have expressed concern about
that schools are willing to do, but - right - this is more a
comfort zone bill than any change in the law and in terms of
the concerns expressed by Representative James, if we find
that there is a first two week high incident period of
weapons on school grounds, there will be a change
requested."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "My preference would be to write a bill
that reflects the laws that exist and allow schools to go
further, if they so choose, by virtue of their advice that
they receive from their own legal people. But why should we
try to - by perhaps trying to be so protective of individual
rights - just write a law that has loopholes in it."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "...a couple of items here. One is
the loophole of two weeks, as I envision it, once that
loophole only exists for the first time that the sign is
posted, if it's going to be posted as an ongoing thing. And
then the next year, that sign is then policy for an entire
year. So, I don't see that the first two weeks.."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "(Indiscernible) the question, why is
there a two week interval?"
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "If I could just finish on the sign
notification. Again, dealing with students - sending
information home at the beginning of the year is
(indiscernible) - it's good, but I think there's a deterrent
affect if there's a reminder - a posted sign - that the new
kid in school, somebody who - it's now spring and they
forgot about the regulations. If they have a posted sign it
encourages compliance."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I'd like to offer an amendment.
On page three, line 26, put a period after school and delete
the rest of that paragraph."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "That would then read, `Notices and
letters, at least two inches high stating the right and the
intention of school and school district officials to permit
searches and examinations under (a) of this section shall be
posted in prominent locations throughout a school.'"
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "And I might add, Mr. Chairman, I
think it's a good place to - I don't know if we can meet
the two inches high criteria - but a good place to post the
signs, would be on the inside door of the locker. Just
plaster it on there and say, every time a kid opens their
locker, they're going to see a sign that says `Be aware,
this locker could be searched.'"
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "I have a friendly amendment."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Representative James has a friendly
amendment to the amendment."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "Well, in the second sentence, I'd
rather take `may' out and put `shall.' Notices under this
subsection `shall'...."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "That's out."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "Oh, you're taking that out, as
well?"
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "I believe so."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I'm taking out the entire rest of
the paragraph."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "Okay, not a problem."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "...for two weeks on line 26, all of 27
and all of 28."
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Wiget if he was familiar with the
notice provision - posting of a sign on page three of the
bill - line 24, page three? "I don't know if you're
familiar with this portion of the bill, but there's a
portion of the bill that says that a school will post a sign
in the school for at least two weeks or either that or
continuously, to notify of the schools' right and intention
to search lockers. We're taking out the two weeks, or
there's an amendment proposed to take out the two weeks that
would just leave it to say that notices in letters of at
least two inches high, stating the right and intention of
the school and district officers to permit searches and
examinations under (a) of this section shall be posted in
prominent locations throughout the school, period."
MR. WIGET: "That is consistent with my conversation with
Dr. (indiscernible) in which we were talking just about the
permanent placement of a sign in the building, or perhaps
even notification in the student handbook, to deal with this
issue."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Okay, very good. That seems..."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Can I move the amendment?"
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Move the amendment? We'll call it
amendment number 1 which for the record, is removing `for
two weeks' on line 26, all of line 27, all of line 28 on
page three of CS for HB 417(HES), which is in front of us.
Representative Phillips."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Mr. Chairman, if we could ask
the sponsor what his thoughts are on that?"
Number 477
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "Thank you. We have, I think
addressed that somewhat in our previous conversation. I'm
just wanting to try to be as bullet proof as possible, so
if someone's caught with contraband, that there won't be a
legal challenge and that the - without the two week proviso,
is there some possibility that this was capricious or
arbitrary... I don't oppose the amendment, certainly in
concept, I just want to make sure that we don't create
loopholes, as I mentioned earlier."
Number 485
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "For the record, it certainly is my
opinion and agreed upon by the Department of Law
representative here, that this goes beyond the requirement.
The resulting section (b) here on page four of section four,
still goes beyond the requirement that my impression of the
law requires."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "I'd certainly defer to people with
more experience in the law, than myself."
Number 492
MS. KNUTH: "I do believe that that's accurate. I would be
slightly more comfortable if only the two weeks - the word
`two weeks' was taken out and if the rest of it were left.
But that's probably just a lawyer who loves words, and gosh
you're taking out 16 of them or..."
Number 520
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "We would end up with the same intent.
Jim, would you consider that a friendly amendment?"
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Mr. Chairman, we could add one
word in to take the place of the 16 words out. We could add
`continuously' on line 26 - `shall be continuously posted.'"
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "I have a problem with that. I don't
know how many of these kids will climb up and take the sign
down and, you know, I think that that might be a problem."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Let's leave it out then, Mr.
Chairman."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, I guess my only
concern about - I think there might be some expectation
that, with Margot's suggestion, there might be some
expectation that there be some posting of signs before a
certain search was going to happen. And if it's just a
standing policy that any time you beware that your locker
can be searched at any time, you're just better off."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "I think so, too. Is there further
discussion of the amendment? Is there objection? Hearing
none, we have adopted the amendment. We have in front of us
the bill, as amended, what's the wish of the committee?
Representative James."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would
move that we move the CS, version R, as amended with a zero
fiscal note out of committee, with individual
recommendations."
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Motion to move, with individual
recommendations, zero fiscal notes. Is there discussion?
Representative Phillips."
Number 530
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Mr. Chairman, may I to the
sponsor, or to Margot, I don't see any policy statement or
any statement of support from the Department of Public
Safety. Did you have any interaction with them and - I
have a fiscal note, but I don't find a statement from them."
Number 534
MS. SWENSON: "Mr. Chairman, Representative Phillips, I
spoke with the Department of Public Safety and they said
they had no interest either way in the bill."
Number 540
CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Further discussion? Is there objection?
Hearing none, the bill is moved. Anything for the good
(indiscernible)? Seeing none, we are adjourned."
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|