Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/05/2003 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
HB 68 - OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS: INCLUDE MUNIS Number 0045 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 68, "An Act relating to the office of victims' rights." Number 0083 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, speaking as the sponsor, explained that HB 68 merely clarifies existing statute with regard to the jurisdiction of the Office of Victims' Rights (OVR); HB 68 does not expand the authority of the OVR, which was created by the 22nd legislature in order to give victims an independent voice in the criminal justice system. In effect, he added, the OVR [acts as] an ombudsman; the OVR can issue a report at the end an investigation, with possible requests for any necessary changes including changes in statutes. He indicated that in the legislation that originally created the OVR, the language defining "justice agency" did not specifically include municipalities. However, in addition to the OVR being headquartered in Anchorage, over 50 percent of all [Alaska's] crime victims are subject to investigation by the Anchorage Police Department (APD) and live within the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA). REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS relayed that the question of the OVR's jurisdiction was raised as a result of its investigation of the circumstances following the murder of former Department of Public Safety (DPS) commissioner, Glenn Godfrey, and the shooting of his wife, Patricia Godfrey. He noted that although this particular conflict between the OVR and the MOA has been resolved, HB 68 would ensure that such a question would not be raised in the future. He explained that he is sponsoring HB 68 at the request of the mayor of Anchorage, George P. Wuerch, and noted that in members' packets are letters of support from the Anchorage Assembly, the OVR, and the Godfrey family. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked whether "municipality" is defined in statute and, if so, does it clearly indicate that boroughs and cities are included in that definition. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that in creating the OVR, the 22nd legislature intended for municipalities and their police departments to be included in the OVR's jurisdiction. He then read a portion of that original legislation: (1) "justice agency" means a department, office, institution, corporation, authority, organization, commission, committee, council, court, or board in the executive or judicial branches of the state government that is, in any manner, involved with or responsible for the apprehension, prosecution, incarceration, or supervision of criminal or juvenile offenders .... Number 0312 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed members to Title 29, which contains the definition of "municipality" as follows: "'municipality' means a political subdivision incorporated under the laws of the state that is a home rule or general law city, a home rule or general law borough, or a unified municipality". REPRESENTATIVE GARA, after noting that HB 68 is warranted, opined that municipalities are already covered by the existing law. He indicated, however, that HB 68 ought to be passed to keep anyone from arguing that point in the future. He asked what reasoning the MOA used in saying that it was not covered. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS remarked that that question would best be directed at "the city attorney." REPRESENTATIVE GARA said: At this point, I can't see the good faith argument that the [MOA] wasn't covered in the first place. And that there is somebody who is ... making the legislature go through this process of enacting a new bill just to address a concern that I still don't understand ... rubs me the wrong way. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS relayed that by the time he entered into the discussion, there were already a lot of misunderstandings, a lot of hard feelings, and a lot of heels dug in. Number 0525 STEPHEN BRANCHFLOWER, Director, Office of Victims' Rights (OVR), Alaska State Legislature, relayed that he was appointed in May 2002 by the 22nd legislature to serve on the OVR, the purpose of which is to advocate on behalf of crime victims and investigate their complaints, ensuring that none of a victim's 50-plus statutory and constitutional rights are violated. He also relayed that one of the very first cases that the OVR undertook to investigate was the aforementioned Godfrey case, and this investigation lasted approximately three months. The OVR subpoenaed over 4,000 documents, took sworn testimony, and published its report on its web site on November 26, 2002. MR. BRANCHFLOWER explained that under the terms of the OVR legislation, the MOA had a statutory right to file a response, which, in part, raised the question of whether the OVR had jurisdiction to investigate the MOA. The MOA argued that the definition of a "justice agency" in AS 24.65.250(1) only addressed the judicial and executive branches of state government. He said that counter to the MOA's argument, his position is that there is other authority granted within AS 24.65.110, which very clearly states that the OVR "shall assist crime victims in obtaining the rights crime victims are guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state with regard to the contacts crime victims have". MR. BRANCHFLOWER relayed that as a result of the publicity surrounding both the Godfrey case and the MOA's assertion that the OVR did not have jurisdiction, the Anchorage Assembly adopted a resolution - Resolution No. AR 2002-391(F) - on December 17, 2002, specifically acknowledging that the MOA was subject to the jurisdiction of the OVR. He also relayed that on January 25, 2003, the MOA passed Ordinance No. AO 2003-2, which states explicitly that, "the jurisdiction of the Office of Victims' Rights over the Municipality of Anchorage and its departments, agencies, officials, and employees is officially acknowledged". He, too, referred to the letters of support in members' packets. Number 0784 MR. BRANCHFLOWER opined that it is important to pass HB 68 because, in many areas of the state, crimes are investigated by local police departments rather than the Alaska State Troopers. He also opined that in creating the OVR, the 22nd legislature intended that municipalities would be included in the jurisdiction of the OVR, particularly the largest law enforcement agency in the state, the APD. He relayed that most of his cases originate with the APD, and that at this time, the OVR has 124 cases. MR. BRANCHFLOWER surmised that the reason the word "municipality" was omitted from the original OVR legislation was because when it was created, it was modeled after statutory language pertaining to the Office of the Ombudsman, which specifically did not include "municipality" in order that individual municipalities could institute their own ombudsman's offices. He posited that this omission was merely an oversight, and that the 22nd legislature did intend for the area of the state with the largest population to fall under the jurisdiction of the OVR. In closing, he said that the OVR supports the adoption of HB 68. CHAIR McGUIRE relayed her belief that "justice agencies" as defined in AS 24.65.110 is certainly broad enough to include the largest police force in the state of Alaska, adding that HB 68 will clarify that issue for the future. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG raised the issue of amendments, and spoke of possibly adding, to page 1, line 10, after "municipality" the words "as defined in AS 29.71.800". MR. BRANCHFLOWER confirmed that such an amendment would preclude smaller jurisdictions from arguing that somehow they are excluded from the definition of "justice agency" in AS 24.65.250 simply because they don't qualify as a municipality. He opined that such a change would be an improvement. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the OVR would be amenable to adding language that would allow the OVR to assist individuals with issues related to junk cars. MR. BRANCHFLOWER pointed out that the OVR is specifically designed to assist victims of crimes against a person, not property crimes, and remarked that his preference would be for the OVR to focus its limited resources on addressing crimes against a person, as outlined in the original legislation: felonies, misdemeanors involving domestic violence, and misdemeanors involving violations of AS 11.41. Number 1312 GERAD GODFREY, speaking on behalf of the Godfrey family, recounted for the committee the process that his family and the OVR went through in investigating the circumstances following the shooting of his parents, Glenn and Patricia Godfrey, as well as details of the MOA's response to that investigation. He relayed that the OVR has proved to be an invaluable resource for his family, whose primary goal at this juncture is to ensure that no one else suffers from the same problems uncovered by the OVR's investigation, including the problems encountered because of the MOA's - specifically, the city attorney's office - obstructive stance regarding that investigation. In closing, he reiterated that the OVR has been an invaluable tool, and expressed his support for the passage of HB 68. CHAIR McGUIRE assured Mr. Godfrey that the committee would do every thing it can to ensure that the OVR's jurisdiction is not questioned again. Number 1747 MARCI SCHMIDT said simply that she is in support of HB 68 and the OVR, and mentioned that it was Victims for Justice that put her in touch with the OVR. She asked members to continue to do what they can to support the efforts of the OVR. REPRESENTATIVE GARA extended an invitation to the Godfrey family to contact his office regarding the possibility of pursuing a bar complaint against the city attorney for his conduct related to the OVR's investigation of the Godfrey case. Number 1878 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, on page 1, line 10, after "municipality" add "as defined in AS 29.71.800". There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then expressed concern regarding the title of HB 68, and relayed that he had an another amendment to offer on that point. The committee took an at-ease from 1:37 p.m. to 1:38 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, after distributing [Conceptual] Amendment 2, explained that his intent is to narrow the title, which would then read: "An Act adding municipalities to the definition of 'justice agency' with regard to the jurisdiction of the office of victims' rights". Number 1931 The committee took an at-ease from 1:40 p.m. to 1:42 p.m. [Not on tape, but reconstructed from the committee secretary's log notes, was the following motion:] REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2. Number 2010 CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to adopting Conceptual Amendment 2. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 2023 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 68, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 68(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|