Legislature(1993 - 1994)

04/16/1993 01:00 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         April 16, 1993                                        
                            1:00 p.m.                                          
                                                                               
                                                                               
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
                                                                               
  Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                        
  Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair                                   
  Representative Pete Kott                                                     
  Representative Joe Green                                                     
  Representative Jim Nordlund                                                  
                                                                               
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative Cliff Davidson                                                
  Representative Gail Phillips                                                 
                                                                               
  OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT                                                        
                                                                               
  Representative Joe Sitton                                                    
  Representative Tom Brice                                                     
                                                                               
                                                                               
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
                                                                               
  HB 188    "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain                          
            property; and providing for an effective date."                    
                                                                               
            CSHB 188 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS                           
            RECOMMENDATION                                                     
                                                                               
  HB 222    "An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to                      
            termination of tenancies and recovery of rental                    
            premises, to tenant responsibilities, to the civil                 
            remedies of forcible entry and detainer and                        
            nuisance abatement, and to the duties of peace                     
            officers to notify landlords of arrests involving                  
            certain illegal activity on rental premises."                      
                                                                               
            CSHB 222 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS                           
            RECOMMENDATION                                                     
                                                                               
  SB 54     "An Act relating to violations of laws by                          
            juveniles, to the remedies for offenses and                        
            activities committed by juveniles and to records                   
            of those offenses, and to incarceration of                         
            juveniles who have been charged, prosecuted, or                    
            convicted as adults; and providing for an                          
            effective date."                                                   
                                                                               
            CSSB 54 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS                            
            RECOMMENDATION AND A LETTER OF INTENT                              
                                                                               
  HB 195    "An Act authorizing youth courts by which to                       
            provide for peer adjudication of minors who have                   
            allegedly committed violations of state or                         
            municipal laws, renaming the community legal                       
            assistance grant fund and amending the purposes                    
            for which grants may be made from that fund in                     
            order to provide financial assistance for                          
            organization and initial operation of youth                        
            courts, and relating to young adult advisory                       
            panels in the superior court."                                     
                                                                               
            CSHB 195 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS                           
            RECOMMENDATION                                                     
                                                                               
  HB 132    "An Act extending the time period of all permits                   
            issued by the state relating to the extraction or                  
            removal of resources if the holder of the permits                  
            is involved in litigation concerning the issuance                  
            or validity of any permit related to the                           
            extraction or removal."                                            
                                                                               
            HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER                            
            CONSIDERATION                                                      
                                                                               
  HB 187    "An Act authorizing the interception of private                    
            communications related to the commission of                        
            certain criminal offenses; making related                          
            amendments to statutes relating to eavesdropping                   
            and wiretapping; relating to the penalty for                       
            violation of statutes relating to eavesdropping                    
            and unauthorized interception, publication, or use                 
            of private communications; and providing for an                    
            effective date."                                                   
                                                                               
            NOT HEARD                                                          
                                                                               
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
                                                                               
  GAYLE HORETSKI, Committee Counsel                                            
  House Judiciary Committee                                                    
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 120                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  Phone:  465-6841                                                             
  Position Statement: Reviewed changes in CSHB 188 (JUD),                      
                      CSHB 222 (JUD), CSSB 54 (JUD); answered                  
                      questions related to HB 132                              
                                                                               
  CAPTAIN GLENN FLOTHE                                                         
  Alaska State Troopers                                                        
  5700 East Tudor Road                                                         
  Anchorage, Alaska 99507                                                      
  Phone:  269-5655                                                             
  Position Statement: Supported SB 54                                          
                                                                               
  JAY PAGE                                                                     
  Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, Crime Committee                               
  8150 Clearhaven Circle                                                       
  Anchorage, Alaska 99507                                                      
  Phone:  265-3860                                                             
  Position Statement: Supported SB 54                                          
                                                                               
  MARGOT KNUTH                                                                 
  Assistant Attorney General                                                   
  Department of Law                                                            
  Criminal Division                                                            
  P. O. Box 110300                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                    
  Phone:  465-3428                                                             
  Position Statement: Supported CSSB 54 (JUD)                                  
                                                                               
  RANDALL HINES                                                                
  Youth Corrections Specialist                                                 
  Division of Family and Youth Services                                        
  Department of Health and Social Services                                     
  P. O. Box 110630                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                         
  Phone:  465-3187                                                             
  Position Statement: Answered questions related to SB 54;                     
                      supported HB 195                                         
                                                                               
  JOHN SHEPHERD, Legislative Aide                                              
    to Senator Rick Halford                                                    
  State Capitol, Room 111                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  Phone:  465-4958                                                             
  Position Statement: Discussed SB 54                                          
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE SITTON                                                    
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  Court Building, Room 609                                                     
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-2327                                                             
  Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 195                                  
                                                                               
  CHRIS CHRISTENSEN                                                            
  Staff Counsel                                                                
  Alaska Court System                                                          
  303 K Street                                                                 
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                      
  Phone:  264-8228                                                             
  Position Statement: Suggested changes to CSHB 195 (JUD)                      
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE                                                     
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  Court Building, Room 605                                                     
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-3466                                                             
  Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 132                                  
                                                                               
  EVANS MCMILLION                                                              
  Alaska Environmental Lobby                                                   
  P. O. Box 22151                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska 99802                                                         
  Phone:  463-3366                                                             
  Position Statement: Opposed HB 132                                           
                                                                               
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 188                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY                                 
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                               
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain property;                   
  and providing for a effective date."                                         
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  03/01/93       489    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/01/93       490    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  03/01/93       490    (H)   -4 ZERO FNS (ADM, ADM, DPS,                      
                              LAW) 3/1/93                                      
  03/01/93       490    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  04/05/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/06/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/07/93              (H)   JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/12/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/14/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/16/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 222                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW VIOLATIONS                          
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES,Porter                                 
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to                         
  termination of tenancies and recovery of rental premises, to                 
  tenant responsibilities, to the civil remedies of forcible                   
  entry and detainer and nuisance abatement, and to the duties                 
  of peace officers to notify landlords of arrests involving                   
  certain illegal activity on rental premises."                                
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  03/12/93       619    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/12/93       619    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY                      
  04/01/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  04/01/93              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  04/02/93       932    (H)   L&C RPT  3DP  4NR                                
  04/02/93       932    (H)   DP: WILLIAMS, MULDER, PORTER                     
  04/02/93       932    (H)   NR: GREEN, MACKIE, SITTON,                       
                              HUDSON                                           
  04/02/93       932    (H)   -2 FISCAL NOTES (DPS, LAW)                       
                              4/2/93                                           
  04/12/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/13/93      1188    (H)   FIN REFERRAL ADDED                               
  04/14/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/16/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  SB 54                                                                 
  SHORT TITLE:  OFFENSES BY JUVENILE OFFENDERS                                 
  BILL VERSION: CSSB 54(FIN)                                                   
  SPONSOR(S):   SENATOR(S) HALFORD,Phillips,Leman,Taylor,                      
  Miller; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Porter,Bunde                                       
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to violations of laws by juveniles,                  
  to the remedies for offenses and activities committed by                     
  juveniles and to records of those offenses, and to                           
  incarceration of juveniles who have been charged,                            
  prosecuted, or convicted as adults; and providing for an                     
  effective date."                                                             
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/22/93       122    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/22/93       122    (S)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  02/08/93              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                   
  02/08/93              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  02/17/93              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                   
  02/17/93              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  02/19/93       408    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  3DP 1DNP     NEW                    
                              TITLE                                            
  02/19/93       408    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTES TO SB (LAW,                    
                              DPS, CORR)                                       
  02/19/93       408    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO SB (ADM - 2)                      
  02/24/93       461    (S)   FISCAL NOTES TO CS (COURT,                       
                              CORR)                                            
  02/24/93       461    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTES TO CS (DHSS,                   
                              LAW)                                             
  02/22/93              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  02/24/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              518                                              
  02/25/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              518                                              
  02/26/93       499    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  6DP 1NR      NEW                    
                              TITLE                                            
  02/26/93       500    (S)   FN TO FIN CS (ADM-2, COURT)                      
  02/26/93       500    (S)   PREVIOUS CS ZERO FNS APPLY                       
                              (LAW, DHSS)                                      
  02/26/93       500    (S)   PREVIOUS SB ZERO FN APPLIES                      
                              (DPS)                                            
  02/26/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              518                                              
  02/26/93              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                      
  02/26/93              (S)   RLS AT 01:15 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM                  
                              203                                              
  02/26/93              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  03/01/93       538    (S)   PREVIOUS FN APPLIES TO CS                        
                              (CORR)                                           
  03/01/93       540    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  3/1/93                        
  03/01/93       541    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  03/01/93       542    (S)   FIN  CS ADOPTED Y11 N8 E1                        
  03/01/93       543    (S)   THIRD READING 3/2 CALENDAR                       
  03/02/93       561    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 54                     
                              (FIN)                                            
  03/02/93       562    (S)   RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 1 FLD  Y9                   
                              N10 E1                                           
  03/02/93       567    (S)   RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 2 FLD  Y9                   
                              N10 E1                                           
  03/02/93       568    (S)   RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 3 FLD  Y9                   
                              N10 E1                                           
  03/02/93       568    (S)   RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 4 FLD  Y9                   
                              N10 E1                                           
  03/02/93       569    (S)   RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 5 FLD  Y9                   
                              N10 E1                                           
  03/02/93       570    (S)   RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 6 FLD  Y9                   
                              N10 E1                                           
  03/02/93       571    (S)   (S) ADOPTED LETTER OF INTENT                     
  03/02/93       571    (S)   PASSED Y12 N7 E1                                 
  03/02/93       571    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y14 N5 E1                  
  03/02/93       572    (S)   Kerttula  NOTICE OF                              
                              RECONSIDERATION                                  
  03/03/93       595    (S)   RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                     
  03/03/93       596    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  03/05/93       538    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/05/93       538    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  03/12/93       629    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S): PORTER                         
  03/16/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  03/24/93       765    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S): BUNDE                          
  03/26/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/26/93              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/26/93              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  04/16/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 195                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  AUTHORIZING YOUTH COURTS                                       
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) SITTON,Ulmer,Willis,Foster,                  
  Brown,B.Davis,Olberg,Porter                                                  
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act authorizing youth courts by which to provide                  
  for peer adjudication of minors who have allegedly committed                 
  violations of state or municipal laws, renaming the                          
  community legal assistance grant fund and amending the                       
  purposes for which grants may be made from that fund in                      
  order to provide financial assistance for organization and                   
  initial operation of youth courts, and relating to young                     
  adult advisory panels in the superior court."                                
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  03/03/93       519    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/03/93       519    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                          
  03/12/93       628    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): WILLIS, FOSTER,                    
                              BROWN                                            
  03/12/93       628    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): B.DAVIS, OLBERG                    
  03/19/93       716    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): PORTER                             
  03/24/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/31/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/01/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/01/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  04/02/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/05/93       974    (H)   HES RPT  CS(HES) NEW TITLE 5DP                   
                              2NR 1AM                                          
  04/05/93       974    (H)   DP:BUNDE,G.DAVIS,TOOHEY,                         
                              B.DAVIS,NICHOLIA                                 
  04/05/93       974    (H)   NR: VEZEY, OLBERG                                
  04/05/93       974    (H)   AM:  KOTT                                        
  04/05/93       974    (H)   -2 ZERO FNS(DCRA, DHSS)  4/5/93                  
  04/14/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/16/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 132                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  EXTEND RESOURCE EXTRACTION PERMIT/LEASE                        
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) BRICE,Kott,James                             
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act extending the time period of all permits                      
  issued by the state relating to the extraction or removal of                 
  resources if the holder of the permit is involved in                         
  litigation concerning the issuance or validity of any permit                 
  related to the extraction or removal."                                       
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/05/93       236    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/05/93       236    (H)   RESOURCES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                    
  03/22/93       739    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): KOTT                               
  03/29/93       838    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): JAMES                              
  03/23/93              (H)   MINUTE(ARR)                                      
  03/26/93              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  03/29/93              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  03/29/93              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  03/30/93       848    (H)   RES RPT  CS(RES) NEW TITLE 5DP                   
                              2NR                                              
  03/30/93       848    (H)   DP: HUDSON, CARNEY, JAMES,BUNDE,                 
                              WILLIAMS                                         
  03/30/93       848    (H)   NR: FINKELSTEIN, DAVIES                          
  03/30/93       848    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE  (DNR)                         
                              3/30/93                                          
  04/16/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 187                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  INTERCEPTION OF PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS                         
  BILL VERSION: CSHB 187(FIN) AM                                               
  SPONSOR(S):   RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                               
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act authorizing the interception of private                       
  communications related to the commission of certain criminal                 
  offenses; relating to pen registers, trade devices, and                      
  communications in electronic storage; amending statutes                      
  relating to eavesdropping and wiretapping; relating to the                   
  penalty for violation of statutes relating to eavesdropping                  
  and unauthorized interception, publication, or use of                        
  private communications; and providing for an effective                       
  date."                                                                       
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  03/01/93       488    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/01/93       488    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY,                     
                              FINANCE                                          
  03/01/93       488    (H)   -3 ZERO FNS(ADM, DPS, LAW)                       
                              3/1/93                                           
  03/01/93       488    (H)   -INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE                       
                              (ADM) 3/1/93                                     
  03/01/93       488    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  04/01/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  04/01/93              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  04/02/93       929    (H)   L&C RPT  3DP 1DNP 2NR                            
  04/02/93       929    (H)   DP: PORTER, GREEN, HUDSON                        
  04/02/93       929    (H)   DNP: SITTON                                      
  04/02/93       929    (H)   NR: MACKIE, WILLIAMS                             
  04/02/93       929    (H)   -FISCAL NOTE  (DPS)  4/2/93                      
  04/02/93       929    (H)   -PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN(ADM)                  
                              3/1/93                                           
  04/02/93       929    (H)   -2 PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM,LAW)                   
                              3/19/93                                          
  04/16/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-62, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to                 
  order at 3:30 p.m., on April 16, 1993.  A quorum was                         
  present.  Chairman Porter announced that the committee would                 
  take up HB 188 first.                                                        
                                                                               
  HB 188:  FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY                                      
                                                                               
  GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY                           
  COMMITTEE, called the committee's attention to a draft                       
  committee substitute for HB 188, dated April 15, 1993                        
  (CSHB 188 (JUD)), which contained four changes from the                      
  original version of HB 188.  She said that the first                         
  difference appeared on page 3, line 13, and required the                     
  state to prove that real property was subject to forfeiture                  
  by "clear and convincing evidence."  She noted that the                      
  state had to prove that other types of property were subject                 
  to forfeiture by a showing of "a preponderance of the                        
  evidence."                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 070                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER clarified that the existing state                      
  forfeiture law imposed the standard of a "preponderance of                   
  the evidence."  House Bill 188 added the standard of "clear                  
  and convincing evidence" for forfeiture of real property.                    
                                                                               
  Number 076                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI commented that the next change was on page 3,                   
  line 20.  A sentence pertaining to notice had been deleted,                  
  she said, at the recommendation of Ms. Margot Knuth from the                 
  Department of Law (DOL).  The next change appeared on page 3                 
  as well, she said, and added a new subsection (c) on lines                   
  21-23.  The new subsection recognized a constitutional                       
  requirement that forfeiture proceedings be held in abeyance                  
  in the event that a criminal case was pending, so that a                     
  defendant would not be forced to incriminate him- or herself                 
  in the forfeiture case.                                                      
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that if a person was charged with                  
  a crime, and also had his or her property subject to                         
  forfeiture in connection with that crime, he or she might be                 
  forced to testify against his or her own interests in a                      
  forfeiture hearing, thereby negating his or her Fifth                        
  Amendment rights.  The change which Ms. Horetski had just                    
  mentioned addressed that concern.  Either the state or the                   
  defendant could request that forfeiture proceedings be                       
  postponed until after the criminal case had come to a close.                 
                                                                               
  Number 129                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if the forfeiture itself                      
  would also be postponed.                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER replied in the affirmative.                                  
                                                                               
  Number 132                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI said that the final change which appeared in                    
  CSHB 188 (JUD) was the deletion of some language which had                   
  been contained in the original HB 188.  She noted that the                   
  phrase "or have reasonable cause to believe" had been                        
  omitted from page 7, line 2 of CSHB 188 (JUD), at the                        
  suggestion of the attorney general.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 151                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the deletion to which Ms.                     
  Horetski had just referred resulted in strengthened                          
  protection for innocent property-owners.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 172                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to ADOPT                        
  CSHB 188 (JUD), dated April 15, 1993.  There being no                        
  objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 186                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER briefly explained the changes which Ms.                      
  Horetski had just discussed, for the benefit of                              
  Representative Nordlund who had just arrived.                                
                                                                               
  Number 199                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 188 (JUD)                    
  out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero                 
  fiscal note.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                   
                                                                               
  Number 210                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  HB 222 next.                                                                 
                                                                               
  HB 222:  USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW VIOLATIONS                               
                                                                               
  Number 214                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI called the committee's attention to a draft                     
  committee substitute for HB 222, dated April 13, 1993                        
  (CSHB 222 (JUD)).  She outlined changes made in the bill,                    
  which were amendments adopted by the committee at the last                   
  hearing on HB 222.  The first change appeared on page 5,                     
  line 6, and added to the list of activities which                            
  constituted a nuisance "illegal activity involving a place                   
  of prostitution."  She stated that language on lines 14 and                  
  15 cross-referenced that change.                                             
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI stated that new language also appeared on page                  
  5, line 21, new subsection (2), and provided that if a                       
  person had been sued repeatedly over a nuisance, the court                   
  would be able to review court records detailing that                         
  history.  She pointed out another change, located on page                    
  10, lines 6-7 of CSHB 222 (JUD).  The phrase "prostitution,                  
  an illegal activity involving a place of prostitution" had                   
  been added, she stated.  She commented that language                         
  beginning on page 10, line 23, and continuing through page                   
  11, line 4 was also new.                                                     
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI explained the effect of the new language was to                 
  describe which acts or omissions would constitute sufficient                 
  breach of the lease to trigger the 24-hour notice                            
  provisions.  She stated that under current law, a landlord                   
  had to give a tenant at least ten days' notice for eviction.                 
  Under certain specified circumstances in the committee                       
  substitute, she said, a tenant could be given 24 hours'                      
  notice.  The new language set out those circumstances in                     
  which a landlord could give a tenant 24 hours' notice.                       
  Those circumstances pertained to damage, she said, and not                   
  to non-payment of rent.                                                      
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI stated that new language on lines 18-20, and                    
  line 26 of page 12 cross referenced other changes.  The                      
  final change appeared on page 13, lines 7-8, and represented                 
  a conforming amendment, she said.  She again explained that                  
  the changes which she had just described were the result of                  
  amendments adopted by the committee at the last hearing on                   
  HB 222.                                                                      
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI explained further that there were two general                   
  civil court rules about effective dates of court orders.                     
  She stated that questions had been raised as to whether or                   
  not HB 222 changed those rules, and if so, whether the title                 
  needed to be altered to reflect those court rule changes.                    
  She commented that the court had the authority to adopt                      
  rules of procedure, and the legislature had the authority to                 
  set substantive laws.  Unfortunately, she said, the line                     
  between procedure and substance was not always clearly                       
  drawn.                                                                       
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI expressed an opinion that there was a                           
  legitimate argument that HB 222's provisions made                            
  substantive changes in a landlord's rights regarding his or                  
  her property, and were, therefore, within the legislature's                  
  purview.  If the court concluded that it needed to adopt new                 
  rules as a result of HB 222's passage, she said, then the                    
  court was free to do so.  She noted that if the committee                    
  felt that HB 222 represented a substantive change, then no                   
  title amendment was necessary, and the bill would not                        
  require a 2/3 floor vote.                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 369                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER believed that HB 222 represented a                           
  substantive change, not a procedural one.                                    
                                                                               
  Number 378                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI explained that all bills which passed the                       
  legislature were presumed to include a clause which said                     
  that if any portion of a statute failed, the rest of the                     
  statute was severable and was to be given effect to the                      
  extent that the court could do so.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 385                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that concerns had been expressed                 
  about shortening notice periods from ten days to five days,                  
  in instances of non-payment of rent.  She said that she                      
  would not be opposed to changing the notice period back to                   
  ten days in such instances.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 401                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI responded that the change which Representative                  
  James had suggested could easily be accomplished in CSHB 222                 
  (JUD).                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 404                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND echoed Ms. Horetski's remarks,                   
  and was supportive of such a change.                                         
                                                                               
  Number 410                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to AMEND section 21 of                    
  CSHB 222 (JUD), to change the notice period from five days                   
  to ten days in instances of non-payment of rent, as was                      
  provided in current law.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 417                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI mentioned that the committee had not yet                        
  adopted CSHB 222 (JUD).                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 420                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 222                     
  (JUD), dated April 13, 1993.  There being no objection, IT                   
  WAS ADOPTED.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 423                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MOVED the AMENDMENT changing the five-                  
  day notice period back to a ten-day period.                                  
                                                                               
  Number 426                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI commented that section 21 of CSHB 222 (JUD)                     
  could simply be struck, as existing law provided for a ten-                  
  day notice period.  But, she said, a conforming amendment                    
  also would be required in section 2 of the bill.  She                        
  suggested removing "within five days" on line 14 and "within                 
  five" on line 16 of page 2.                                                  
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she considered Ms. Horetski's                 
  suggestion a FRIENDLY AMENDMENT to her amendment.  There                     
  being no objection to Representative James' amendment, IT                    
  WAS ADOPTED.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 444                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 222                      
  (JUD), as amended, out of committee, with individual                         
  recommendations and attached fiscal notes.  There being no                   
  objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                                                
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  SB 54.  He mentioned that the committee had before it a                      
  proposed Judiciary Committee substitute (CSSB 54 (JUD)), and                 
  said that the bill's sponsor, Senator Rick Halford,                          
  concurred with the changes included in CSSB 54 (JUD).                        
                                                                               
  SB 54:  OFFENSES BY JUVENILE OFFENDERS                                       
                                                                               
  Number 472                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI stated that CSSB 54 (JUD), dated April 16,                      
  1993, was the product resulting from numerous discussions                    
  among the DOL representatives, Department of Health and                      
  Social Services (DHSS) officials, the sponsor's staff, the                   
  legislative drafters, and herself.  She noted that SB 54                     
  addressed many public policy issues.  She outlined changes                   
  incorporated into CSSB 54 (JUD).  The first change, she                      
  said, appeared on the bottom of page 3, in section 4.                        
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI noted that section 4 in SB 54, as passed by the                 
  Senate, dealt with "automatic waivers" into adult court for                  
  youths aged 16 and older charged with any unclassified or                    
  class A felony.  The entire section 4, she noted, had been                   
  replaced with language which provided that minors aged 16 or                 
  older, who were arraigned and charged with murder in the                     
  first degree, attempted murder in the first degree, or                       
  murder in the second degree would be automatically waived                    
  into adult court.  She mentioned that the new section 4                      
  language mirrored language in the governor's juvenile waiver                 
  bill (HB 189).                                                               
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI said that CSSB 54 (JUD) was a more narrowly-                    
  drafted juvenile waiver bill.  She called the members'                       
  attention to page 5, section 7 of CSSB 54 (JUD).  Regarding                  
  crimes other than those she had already mentioned, new                       
  language appeared on lines 16-18, and provided that when a                   
  petition for waiver was filed, the minor had the burden of                   
  proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that he or she was                  
  "amenable to treatment" within the juvenile court system.                    
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI noted that under existing law, the District                     
  Attorney or an intake worker filed a petition for waiver;                    
  CSSB 54 (JUD) would not change that.  Nor, she said, did                     
  CSSB 54 (JUD) change the fact that a hearing was held once a                 
  petition was filed.  The standard for whether a juvenile                     
  stayed in juvenile court or was waived to adult court,                       
  amenability to treatment, was not changed in CSSB 54 (JUD)                   
  either, she said.                                                            
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI said further that the court was the entity                      
  which ultimately decided whether a juvenile was waived to                    
  adult court, under both the current law and that proposed in                 
  CSSB 54 (JUD).  The only factor changed in CSSB 54 (JUD),                    
  she said, was that the burden of proof on the treatment                      
  issue was shifted to the juvenile, instead of being on the                   
  state, as in current law.                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 573                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked which court would make the                        
  determination as to whether a juvenile should be waived to                   
  adult court.                                                                 
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI replied that a superior court judge, acting as                  
  a children's court judge, would make that determination.                     
                                                                               
  Number 583                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked to which crimes the new burden                 
  of proof applied.                                                            
                                                                               
  Number 586                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI responded that, as in existing law, the                         
  "amenability to treatment" standard applied to all petitions                 
  for waiver for all crimes, and to juveniles of all ages.                     
  She mentioned that petitions for delinquency were filed in                   
  approximately 18% of cases which were accepted and on which                  
  action was taken.  In most instances, she said, petitions                    
  were not filed.  She said that the number of cases, under                    
  existing law, in which petitions for waiver were filed was                   
  so small that they did not even appear on the DHSS' pie                      
  charts.                                                                      
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI noted that section 5 on page 4 of CSSB 54 (JUD)                 
  was also new, and had been included at the request of the                    
  sponsor.  Because the vast majority of cases did not involve                 
  the filing of a petition, she said, section 5, in                            
  conjunction with section 6, would allow for restitution in a                 
  matter which was "informally adjusted" by the DHSS.                          
                                                                               
  Number 637                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the restitution provisions                     
  would apply primarily to situations in which property had                    
  been damaged.  He also asked what would happen in a rape                     
  case.                                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 642                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI stated that section 5 proposed to amend                         
  AS 47.10.020, which dealt with informally adjusted cases.                    
  She stated that whether or not a petition for waiver into                    
  adult court was filed for a sexual assault case would depend                 
  on the facts of the case, but the cases which were                           
  informally adjusted were usually minor offenses, she added.                  
  She stated that the next change in CSSB 54 (JUD) appeared on                 
  page 6, and pertained to sealing records.                                    
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI commented that under current law, if a juvenile                 
  was tried as an adult and convicted, there was a provision                   
  under which a juvenile could request that his or her records                 
  be sealed.  Language in CSSB 54 (JUD) stated that the court                  
  could not seal a juvenile's records under certain                            
  circumstances.  A conforming amendment appeared on lines 12-                 
  13, she added.  The new language provided that if a juvenile                 
  was waived into adult court and convicted, records of the                    
  conviction could not be sealed unless the juvenile was                       
  convicted of an offense which would not have transferred him                 
  or her into adult court in the first place.                                  
                                                                               
  Number 655                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to page 8,                        
  section 10.  She said that existing law, AS 47.10.090, dealt                 
  with juvenile records, but was very poorly written and                       
  difficult to understand.  The drafter had rewritten the                      
  section, she said, in order to make it easier to interpret.                  
  She stated that new language appeared on page 8, lines 19-                   
  27.  She noted that the general rule was that records                        
  involving juveniles were confidential.  Subsection (b)                       
  created an exception to that rule, she said.                                 
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI explained that if a minor was at least 16 years                 
  old and was adjudicated delinquent, then the following would                 
  be public records:  petitions filed to have the juvenile                     
  declared a delinquent, petitions filed to revoke probation,                  
  petitions filed to waive the juvenile into adult court, and                  
  judgments related to any of those petitions.  Many juvenile                  
  court records would remain confidential, she noted,                          
  including educational and psychological records.                             
                                                                               
  Number 713                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Ms. Horetski to explain how                    
  section 1 of CSSB 54 (JUD) related to the section which she                  
  had just described.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 716                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI explained that section 1 provided that every                    
  person had the right to inspect public records, except in                    
  certain cases, including the records of juveniles.  A                        
  further exception to that exception, she said, was when                      
  certain juvenile records were deemed public records.  She                    
  said that language in section 1 cross-referenced language on                 
  page 8.                                                                      
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI commented that there was new conforming                         
  language on page 9, line 5.  She stated that subsection (2)                  
  on page 9, lines 10-12 was new, and provided that state or                   
  city law enforcement agencies could disclose to school                       
  officials information regarding cases that was needed by the                 
  school officials to protect the safety and well-being of the                 
  school's students and staff.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 752                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that there had been two recent                     
  cases in Anchorage in which police had taken action against                  
  students for firearms' offenses, but later could not                         
  disclose to school officials which students had been                         
  involved and what the nature of the illegal activity was.                    
  Current law precluded law enforcement officials from                         
  disclosing certain information about students to school                      
  officials, resulting in possible threats to the safety of                    
  students and staff.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 768                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI said that new language also appeared on page                    
  10, lines 18-26.  She noted that subsection (i) was included                 
  in the Senate-passed version of SB 54, and provided that                     
  victims who wanted to file civil suits against a juvenile                    
  offender were included in the group of persons with                          
  legitimate interest in the inspection of records.  She said                  
  that this section would apply to all offenses, and to                        
  juveniles of all ages.                                                       
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI commented that the final change in CSSB 54                      
  (JUD) was the deletion of conforming language on page 11.                    
                                                                               
  It was brought to MS. HORETSKI's attention that some                         
  committee members did not have page 11 of the draft                          
  committee substitute; an "at ease" was called at 4:14 p.m.                   
  in order to have copies made and distributed.  The meeting                   
  was called back to order at 4:15 p.m.                                        
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI pointed out that certain applicability language                 
  on page 11 had been deleted, as it was no longer needed                      
  because of other changes made to the bill.  She noted that                   
  the present applicability section mentioned civil actions                    
  and criminal offenses which took place on or after the                       
  effective date of SB 54; therefore, she said, the bill was                   
  not retroactive.                                                             
                                                                               
  Number 808                                                                   
                                                                               
  CAPTAIN GLENN FLOTHE, from the ALASKA STATE TROOPERS,                        
  testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of                    
  automatic waivers for juvenile offenders who committed                       
  serious or violent crimes.  He deemed it important to hold                   
  juvenile offenders responsible for their actions by imposing                 
  sentences commensurate with the crime committed.  He urged                   
  the committee to support SB 54.                                              
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-62, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 015                                                                   
                                                                               
  JAY PAGE, representing the ANCHORAGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S                   
  CRIME COMMITTEE, testified via teleconference from Anchorage                 
  in support of SB 54.  He said that he had sent a U. S.                       
  Department of Justice report to the committee members, and                   
  summarized the findings of the report for the committee.                     
  The report found that there had been a dramatic increase in                  
  juvenile violent crime.  He said that the report also found                  
  that the most effective response to first and second                         
  offenders was to impose sanctions which were carefully                       
  designed to instill values of discipline and responsibility.                 
                                                                               
  MR. PAGE added that the report found that such sanctions                     
  benefited juveniles more than leniency did.  He commented                    
  that Title 47 of the Alaska Statutes held as a basic premise                 
  that juveniles were incapable of understanding their                         
  actions.  Therefore, rehabilitation, not punishment, was the                 
  answer.  He said that juvenile rehabilitation was passive in                 
  nature, and enabled juveniles to shift responsibility away                   
  from themselves, and onto substance abuse or family                          
  problems.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 130                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. PAGE stated that the recidivism rate at McLaughlin Youth                 
  Center was 48%.  That, he said, was an indication that the                   
  state's juvenile rehabilitation program was not working.  He                 
  expressed his support for SB 54, especially the shift in the                 
  burden of proof regarding amenability to treatment onto the                  
  juvenile.  He commented that SB 54 was badly needed and                      
  urged the committee to pass it out.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 143                                                                   
                                                                               
  MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,                 
  DEPARTMENT OF LAW (DOL), expressed her strong support for                    
  CSSB 54 (JUD).  She said that it closely tracked the                         
  governor's juvenile waiver bill by having automatic waiver                   
  provisions for 16- and 17-year-olds who committed first-                     
  degree murder, second-degree murder, and first-degree                        
  attempted murder.  She also applauded the shift in the                       
  burden of proof regarding treatability.  She commented that                  
  the juvenile was in a far better position to carry that                      
  burden, given a recent court ruling regarding psychological                  
  evaluations.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 173                                                                   
                                                                               
  RANDALL HINES, YOUTH CORRECTIONS SPECIALIST, DEPARTMENT OF                   
  HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (DHSS), DIVISION OF FAMILY AND                    
  YOUTH SERVICES, mentioned that the state's juvenile justice                  
  laws were somewhat dated.  Trends in juvenile justice                        
  procedures emerging in other states indicated that Alaska's                  
  juvenile justice laws could use some changes, he said.  He                   
  asserted that currently, the DHSS held juveniles accountable                 
  for their behavior, and did not take a passive approach to                   
  juvenile offenders.  He stated that SB 54 would change                       
  statutes so that the DHSS could hold kids more accountable                   
  for serious offenses.                                                        
                                                                               
  MR. HINES mentioned that the DHSS' previous concerns                         
  regarding SB 54 had been addressed in CSSB 54 (JUD).  He                     
  asked a question about the last lines of section 6,                          
  regarding restitution.  His interpretation was that the DHSS                 
  would be setting the terms and conditions of restitution.                    
  That, he said, was somewhat different from what his agency                   
  currently did.  He said that currently, the DHSS had a                       
  policy of entering into voluntary restitution agreements                     
  with juveniles who had not been adjudicated delinquent for                   
  offenses.                                                                    
                                                                               
  MR. HINES said putting that policy into statute would put                    
  the DHSS into the position of having to enforce the                          
  restitution agreements at a different level than it now did.                 
  He stated that this might be a problem.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 242                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND expressed his opinion that CSSB 54                   
  (JUD) was an improvement over earlier versions of SB 54.                     
  However, he said that he still had concerns about                            
  incarcerating juveniles charged with offenses in adult court                 
  with adult offenders.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 267                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HINES replied that the DHSS shared Representative                        
  Nordlund's concern.  He said that "sight and sound                           
  separation" of juvenile offenders and adult offenders could                  
  vary by facility.  He commented that it was the Department                   
  of Corrections' (DOC's) intent to separate juvenile and                      
  adult offenders, both in order to protect juveniles and to                   
  facilitate management.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 286                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that no DOC representative was                 
  present.  He commented that although the DOC might intend to                 
  separate juvenile offenders from adult offenders, that might                 
  not be possible, due to prison crowding.  He was concerned                   
  about placing a juvenile who was simply charged with a                       
  particular offense into an adult facility.  He wanted to see                 
  CSSB 54 (JUD) amended to include a requirement that                          
  juveniles and adults be separated, at least under some                       
  circumstances.                                                               
                                                                               
  Number 301                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI mentioned that existing statutes regarding                      
  sight and sound separation were not clear, and she agreed                    
  that practices differed among facilities.  She understood                    
  that the DOL had advised the DOC that present sight and                      
  sound restrictions did not apply to juveniles who had been                   
  waived into adult court.  She said that CSSB 54 (JUD) would                  
  continue that present practice.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 327                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if a problem would occur if                       
  certain juvenile offenders were treated as adults in the                     
  justice system, but were still considered juveniles by                       
  society when they were released from the justice system.                     
                                                                               
  Number 339                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that automatic waivers only applied                   
  to 16-and 17-year-olds and, therefore, those juveniles would                 
  be over 18 years old when released from incarceration.                       
                                                                               
  Number 347                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this was also true for crimes                  
  and juveniles to which automatic waivers did not apply.                      
                                                                               
  Number 350                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HINES replied that, in his eighteen years of experience,                 
  he only knew of one case in which a juvenile was waived into                 
  adult court, served time, was released while still a                         
  juvenile, and was arrested again.  That juvenile was waived                  
  into adult court a second time, he said.                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the answer to Representative                  
  Green's question was "no."  He said that if a juvenile was                   
  deemed an adult once, for a particular criminal offense,                     
  that did not give the juvenile emancipation or any other                     
  rights as an adult.  He added that it would not create any                   
  legal problems.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 380                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSSB 54 (JUD),                   
  dated April 16, 1993.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO                   
  ORDERED.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 389                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND OFFERED AMENDMENT NO. 1, which would                 
  allow for "reverse waivers" for certain juveniles who might                  
  have committed first- or second-degree murder, or first-                     
  degree attempted murder, but where mitigating circumstances                  
  applied.  He gave an example of a juvenile who had been                      
  sexually abused by his or her parents for years, and ended                   
  up killing the parents.  He expressed his opinion that                       
  enacting an ironclad requirement that juveniles who had                      
  committed murder be tried in adult court would be too                        
  strict.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 439                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that Representative Nordlund's                   
  amendment would defeat the purpose of SB 54.                                 
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1.                               
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER OBJECTED for the purpose of discussing the                   
  amendment.  He agreed with Representative James.  He noted                   
  that the committee had already reduced the scope of SB 54.                   
  He expressed an opinion that the least a juvenile waiver                     
  bill should accomplish was to waive into adult court those                   
  juveniles who had intentionally taken a life or attempted to                 
  take a life.                                                                 
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that there could be situations that                     
  would require an adult court to look at mitigating                           
  circumstances, but said that did not mean the state should                   
  provide for a "reverse" waiver of the offender back into                     
  juvenile court.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 461                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that the adult court would                    
  take into account mitigating circumstances.                                  
                                                                               
  Number 472                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that a court could, through a variety                 
  of means, consider mitigating circumstances.                                 
                                                                               
  Number 477                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND expressed an opinion that his                        
  amendment would not gut the bill, as Representative James                    
  had asserted.                                                                
                                                                               
  A roll call vote on amendment no. 1 was taken.                               
  Representative Nordlund voted "YEA."  Representatives Green,                 
  Kott, James, and Porter voted "NAY."  And so, AMENDMENT NO.                  
  1 FAILED.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 491                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked to hear from Senator Halford's                     
  aide.                                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 498                                                                   
                                                                               
  JOHN SHEPHERD, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO SENATOR RICK HALFORD,                     
  commented that there were strong philosophical differences                   
  between the Senate-passed version of SB 54 and CSSB 54                       
  (JUD).  But, he said, the Judiciary Committee's bill was a                   
  giant step in the right direction.  He said that concerns                    
  had been raised that the courts would view the transfer of                   
  the burden of proof as a procedural change, not a                            
  substantive one.  He mentioned that Senator Halford saw the                  
  transfer as a substantive change.                                            
                                                                               
  MR. SHEPHERD said that if the court viewed the transfer as a                 
  procedural change, and the bill did not pass the legislature                 
  by a 2/3 margin, then that part of the bill would not stand.                 
  However, he said, other components of SB 54 would be given                   
  effect.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 547                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER called the members' attention to a draft                     
  letter of intent in their bill packets.  He noted that the                   
  legislature had the authority to enact substantive law, and                  
  the courts adopted rules of procedure.  He said that the                     
  change in the burden of proof fell into the gray area                        
  between substantive and procedural changes.  He noted that                   
  the letter of intent asserted that changes made in SB 54                     
  were substantive, and not procedural.                                        
                                                                               
  Number 584                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT the letter of                    
  intent.  There being no objection, IT WAS ADOPTED.                           
                                                                               
  Number 591                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSSB 54 (JUD) out                 
  of committee, with attached fiscal notes and letter of                       
  intent, and with individual recommendations.  There being no                 
  objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 607                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  HB 195 next.                                                                 
                                                                               
  HB 195:  AUTHORIZING YOUTH COURTS                                            
                                                                               
  Number 612                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE SITTON, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 195,                          
  commented that his bill enjoyed bipartisan and statewide                     
  support.  He said that the bill would authorize the creation                 
  of a program under the DHSS in which youths under the age of                 
  18 who had allegedly committed an offense could choose to go                 
  through a youth court proceeding, instead of through the                     
  regular court system.  In order to go through the youth                      
  court, he said, the juvenile, his or her parents, juvenile                   
  intake authorities, and the youth court would have to agree                  
  to have the case heard in the youth court.                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE SITTON commented that other states had youth                  
  courts, but in Alaska, only Anchorage had such a program.                    
  The Anchorage program had proved successful since its                        
  inception in 1989, he said, showing a dramatic decrease in                   
  recidivism, as compared to other courts.  He commented that                  
  one reason the Anchorage youth court was so successful was                   
  because it relied on volunteers.  He said that the Anchorage                 
  youth court program relied on the DHSS, the court system,                    
  the Alaska Bar Association, the school district, and law                     
  enforcement agencies.                                                        
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE SITTON stated that cases were referred to the                 
  youth court by juvenile probation officers or other                          
  entities.  He noted that the youth court had the same                        
  provisions protecting an individual's rights as the adult                    
  court system had.  He commented that the very youth that                     
  could be a problem to society could also be part of the                      
  solution.  He said that the court was composed of students                   
  under the age of 18 who volunteered as bailiffs, judges,                     
  jurors, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and clerks.                          
  Additionally, he said, the students were required to undergo                 
  intensive training and pass a youth court bar examination.                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE SITTON stated that HB 195 would allow a youth                 
  court program to be implemented in areas of the state other                  
  than Anchorage.  He said that HB 195 contained a match                       
  requirement for grants.  He stated that the Health,                          
  Education, and Social Services (HESS) Committee substitute                   
  for HB 195 contained two changes from the original bill.                     
  One change was that the term "nonprofit corporations" had                    
  been replaced with "persons."  That change allowed for                       
  individuals, governmental bodies, and corporations to be                     
  eligible for youth court grants.                                             
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE SITTON said that the HESS Committee had also                  
  omitted a section relating to grant funds, in order to                       
  create two separate funds.  He noted that a draft committee                  
  substitute dated April 13, 1993, before the committee,                       
  reversed both changes made by the HESS Committee.  He said                   
  that the youth court program was a proven success and should                 
  be expanded to other areas of the state.  He urged the                       
  committee to support HB 195.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 689                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated his wholehearted support for                  
  HB 195.  He asked Representative Sitton how youth court                      
  sentences compared to juvenile court sentences.                              
  Additionally, he asked what percentage of people who could                   
  use the youth court chose to do so.  He asked if perhaps the                 
  low recidivism rate was attributable to the type of people                   
  who chose to use the youth court system.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 706                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE SITTON responded that students involved in                    
  the Anchorage youth court program took their involvement                     
  very seriously, and tended to be "hanging judges."  He cited                 
  one instance in which an offender being tried by the youth                   
  court was caught in a lie.  The recommended sentence was for                 
  that youth to walk the streets wearing a sign saying that he                 
  was a liar.  He noted that the youth court received                          
  supervision from adults, so that it did not impose sentences                 
  which were too strict.  He stated that the program's                         
  recidivism rate was admirable.                                               
                                                                               
  Number 724                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN restated his question regarding the                     
  type of people who elected to go to youth court, and its                     
  effect on the recidivism rate.                                               
                                                                               
  Number 728                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE SITTON replied that Representative Green                      
  might be correct.  He commented that if, instead of a                        
  juvenile offender being able to strut before his or her                      
  peers after committing an offense, he or she were made by                    
  those same peers to perform community service, they received                 
  condemnation, not approbation.                                               
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-63, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HINES stated that the DHSS had submitted a zero fiscal                   
  note for HB 195, and added that the department strongly                      
  supported the bill.  He cited the excellent results of the                   
  Anchorage youth court program.  He commented that youth                      
  courts generally dealt with younger juveniles who committed                  
  first-time property offenses.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 027                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,                       
  stated that the changes incorporated in CSHB 195 (JUD) were                  
  technical in nature.  He suggested that CSHB 195 (JUD) be                    
  AMENDED on page 2, lines 4-5 to DELETE the phrase "use of                    
  `pre-petition diversion programs'."  He stated that the                      
  amendment would make the language of the bill more accurate,                 
  as the present court rules did not specifically authorize                    
  the use of pre-petition diversion programs.                                  
                                                                               
  Number 083                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1.  There being no                  
  objection, IT WAS ADOPTED.  However, it was discovered that                  
  CSHB 195 (JUD) was not properly before the committee.                        
                                                                               
  Number 100                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 195 (JUD),                  
  dated April 13, 1993.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO                   
  ORDERED.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 104                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN again MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1.  There                     
  being no objection, AMENDMENT NO. 1 WAS ADOPTED.                             
                                                                               
  Number 111                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 195 (JUD)                    
  out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero                 
  fiscal note.                                                                 
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED.  He pointed out possibly                       
  conflicting language on page 4, line 21, regarding matching                  
  grants.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 170                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the language provided that if a                  
  nonprofit corporation wanted to apply for a grant, then it                   
  was required to match that grant, unless that requirement                    
  was waived.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 177                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that the use of "must" and                     
  "may" in the same section appeared to be contradictory.                      
                                                                               
  Number 180                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER understood Representative Kott's concern,                    
  but noted that in order for a waiver to occur, a condition                   
  must be required in the first place.                                         
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT WITHDREW his OBJECTION.  There being no                  
  further objection to moving CSHB 195 (JUD) out of committee,                 
  IT WAS SO ORDERED.                                                           
                                                                               
  An "at ease" was called at 5:10 p.m.                                         
                                                                               
  Number 203                                                                   
                                                                               
  The committee meeting was called back to order at 5:12 p.m.,                 
  and began its consideration of HB 132.                                       
                                                                               
  HB 132:  EXTEND RESOURCE EXTRACTION PERMIT/LEASE                             
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 132, stated                    
  that the bill would allow for the extension of a resource                    
  extraction permit in cases in which the permit could not be                  
  exercised due to legal action enjoining the permitted                        
  activity and in which the final judgment was in the                          
  permittee's favor.  Also, he said, HB 132 would allow an                     
  automatic extension, upon application by the permit holder,                  
  for the time lost on the permit due to the legal action.                     
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that the House Resources                         
  Committee had made a couple of amendments which had                          
  questionable effects.  He called the members' attention to a                 
  memorandum from Jerry Luckhaupt of the Legislative Affairs                   
  Agency's Division of Legal Services which addressed the                      
  effect of one of the House Resources Committee's amendments.                 
  On page 2, line 24 of CSHB 132 (RES), he said, the                           
  definition of permits would result in negating the bill,                     
  because it made reference to an obsolete statute.                            
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that members had in their                     
  bill packets an amendment which would delete that reference,                 
  and instead use the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR's)                 
  broad definition of "permit."                                                
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER identified that particular amendment as                      
  AMENDMENT NO. 1.                                                             
                                                                               
  Number 332                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that AMENDMENT NO. 2 pertained to                  
  page 2, line 2 of CSHB 132 (RES), and deleted the phrase "a                  
  substantial extent," which the House Resources Committee had                 
  added.  Discussions with the Legislative Affairs Agency's                    
  Division of Legal Services attorneys and the DNR officials                   
  resulted in the recommendation that the phrase be deleted.                   
  He stated that the Alaska Miners' Association, the                           
  Department of Commerce and Economic Development, and the                     
  Usibelli Coal Mine had all endorsed HB 132.                                  
                                                                               
  Number 338                                                                   
                                                                               
  EVANS MCMILLION, representing the Alaska Environmental                       
  Lobby, testified in opposition to HB 132.  She said that the                 
  bill was overly broad and contained ambiguous language.  She                 
  noted that the bill did not give credence to unforeseen                      
  consequences which could lead to additional court cases.                     
  Additionally, she said, the bill assumed clear-cut                           
  litigation outcomes by the use of the term "successful" on                   
  page 2, lines 5-6.  She stated that courts often granted a                   
  plaintiff part, but not all, of what he or she wanted.                       
                                                                               
  MS. MCMILLION questioned who would decide if a permittee was                 
  in fact successful, and what criteria would be used to make                  
  that determination.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 358                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the section to which Ms.                          
  McMillion was referring went on to say, "and the suit is                     
  dismissed with prejudice or judgment is granted to the                       
  holder of the permits..."                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 364                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. MCMILLION replied that she was not an attorney, but                      
  noted that attorneys with whom she had spoken had informed                   
  her that the language was still troublesome.  She expressed                  
  her opinion that HB 132 did not take into account external                   
  factors that could change during the time of litigation,                     
  including changes in federal laws or scientific information.                 
                                                                               
  Number 393                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that a quorum was not present.                         
                                                                               
  Number 398                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Ms. Horetski to comment on the                     
  language on page 2, line 5 of the bill.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 405                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI mentioned that Civil Rule 82 provided that                      
  courts should estimate attorneys' fees and award them to the                 
  prevailing party in a lawsuit.  Many times, she said, it was                 
  difficult for a court to decide which party had prevailed.                   
  She commented that the bill's reference to a "successful"                    
  litigant made it a very high standard to meet.  She did not                  
  have any language prepared which would tighten that                          
  provision, but stated that the drafting attorneys might be                   
  able to come up with some appropriate language.                              
                                                                               
  Number 434                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee would prepare                      
  language pertaining to "successful" litigants and bring                      
  HB 132 back before the committee at a time uncertain.  He                    
  noted that the idea behind HB 132 was to prevent an existing                 
  situation in which suits designed solely to obstruct                         
  resource extraction could have the effect of requiring a                     
  permit holder to go through a time-consuming, expensive                      
  permit process more than once.  He said that HB 132 could                    
  bar specious litigation and he expressed his support for the                 
  bill for that reason.                                                        
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER thanked Representatives Kott and Nordlund                    
  for being present throughout the meeting.  He stated that,                   
  due to time constraints, HB 187, Interception of Private                     
  Communications, would not be heard that day.                                 
                                                                               
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects