Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/07/1995 03:03 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 7, 1995
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HB 135:"An Act relating to student loans; and
providing for an effecting date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 23:"An Act relating to referrals involving dental services."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 15:"An Act authorizing disclosure from court records of the
name, address, and picture of, and other information
about, certain minors from whom a delinquency petition is
filed."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. JOE L. McCORMICK, Executive Director
State of Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
Department of Education
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, AK 99801-7109
Telephone: (907) 465-6740
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding HB 135.
DR. DAN PITTS
Soldotna Dental Clinic
155 Smith Way
Soldotna, AK 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-4989
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 23.
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT
State Capitol, Room 421
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-4797
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 15.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
National Education Association of Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 15.
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant
Department of Health and Social Services
Alaska Office Building
350 Main Street, Room 229
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 15.
KATHY TIBBLES, Acting Director
Division of Youth and Family Services
Alaska Office Building
350 Main Street, Room 404
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3191
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 15.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 135
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT LOANS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/30/95 174 (H) READ FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/95 174 (H) HES, FIN
02/07/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 23
SHORT TITLE: REFERRALS INVOLVING DENTAL SERVICES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) G.DAVIS BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 26 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 26 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 26 (H) HES, JUD
02/07/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 15
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF MINORS COURT RECORDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT, Rokeberg, Bunde, Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 24 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 24 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
01/19/95 88 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
01/27/95 161 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
02/07/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-5, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde,
Toohey, Rokeberg and Davis. Co-Chair Bunde announced that a quorum
was present to conduct business, and read the calendar.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that Representatives Brice and Robinson joined
the meeting at 3:04 p.m.
HHESS - 02/07/95
Number 069
HB 135: STUDENT LOANS
DR. JOE McCORMICK, Executive Director of the State of Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE), Department of
Education, presented HB 135 to the Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee members. He explained that the bill
contains transition language which accompanies HB 506, which was
passed by the legislature last year.
DR. McCORMICK explained that the transition language will simply
allow the ACPE to promote and finalize regulations required to
fully implement HB 506 by July 1, 1995. The regulations put forth
will call for the calculation of the appropriate interest rate on
student loans awarded for the 1995-96 school year. Without the
authority granted by HB 135, the ACPE cannot offer any loans after
July 1. Therefore, Dr. McCormick requested that the bill be moved
quickly so the ACPE can begin the regulatory process.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE requested clarification on the fact that
a bill was passed last year, but the legislature failed to give the
ACPE authority to implement the bill. DR. McCORMICK answered that
Representative Brice was correct. Representative Brice restated
that all HB 135 does is give the ACPE regulatory authority to
implement a bill passed last year.
Number 180
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked what could be done to prevent such a mix up in
the future. DR. McCORMICK answered that last year he was not
familiar with Alaska's legislative process. The term "transition
language" was new to him. He assumed when the bill was drafted
that it contained all the necessary elements. It was not until the
new regulations were sent over to the Department of Law for
approval that the Department of Law said that the ACPE could not do
anything because there was no transition language in the bill. Dr.
McCormick would be very happy if the HESS Committee members could
figure out a way to prevent this from happening in the future.
Number 250
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated that his previous question was not to be
construed as criticism. Co-Chair Bunde also was inclined to
believe that when something is received from the Department of Law
that it will be drafted in an appropriate form.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE addressed the committee members and reiterated that
the bill was passed last year, changing the interest rate on the
student loans made at a variable interest rate. HB 135 gives the
ACPE regulatory authority to set the interest rate.
Number 293
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked since the bill was passed last year and
is now in statute, is it necessary to place Sections 1 and 2 of HB
135 in to statute or can they be placed into the Session Laws of
Alaska (SLA) and be enacted. DR. McCORMICK answered that it is his
understanding that HB 135 is the exact language the Department of
Law says is necessary to enact HB 506.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that HESS Committee members were told
that the exact language was in HB 506. He confirmed he was not
being critical, but his understanding is that statutory authority
is needed in certain areas to implement regulations.
DR. McCORMICK replied that apparently the section of primary
importance in HB 135 is Section 2. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he
did not know if the section needed to be enumerated or not.
Number 370
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS said that he had the same concerns as
Representative Brice because there are no statutes cited. He
deduced that the SLA is being affected. He read a memorandum from
Teresa Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
which stated, "I am writing to explain the necessity for the
legislature to immediately adopt transition provisions regarding
ch. 112, SLA 1994." Representative Davis, therefore, decided that
it must not be statutes, but SLAs that are being effected by this
bill.
Number 410
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was a representative from the
Department of Law present. There was not.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked if the HESS Committee members were
again relying on the legal department to provide the proper
language. CO-CHAIR BUNDE was inclined to feel that once an initial
mistake was pointed out, Legal Services would be more diligent.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved that HB 135 be passed out of committee and
sent to the Finance Committee because of time constraints. She
stated that the bill can be checked for exact wording and can be
killed in the Finance Committee if the wording is incorrect.
Number 479
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON expressed concern that since the bill
has a zero fiscal note, it may simply be waived out of the Finance
Committee. She asked if it must go to the Finance Committee. CO-
CHAIR BUNDE answered that the bill was scheduled to be heard by the
Finance Committee unless the chair of that committee makes an
extraordinary effort to have it waived.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that many times when a bill has a zero
fiscal note the Finance Chair is petitioned. She wondered if this
bill would further hinder the Finance Committee, and if perhaps it
would not be better to contact Legal Services and get their
questions answered immediately. The HESS Committee members then
could hear other bills and come back to HB 135 at the end of
today's meeting.
Number 519
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the money to adopt regulations was
within the fiscal note for HB 506. DR. McCORMICK answered "yes."
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG asked what student loan interest
rates might be for this coming year. He said that there seems to
be a problem with the state government providing loans at a five
percent interest rate.
Number 570
DR. McCORMICK answered that the main purpose of HB 506 was to tie
the interest rate to the cost of money and to the cost of
administering the loan program. It would be illegal to charge a
five percent interest rate because the cost of money was in excess
of five percent for the past year. The cost of administering the
loan program is not to exceed a 2.5 percent cap. Therefore, the
interest rate is based on the cost of money plus no more than 2.5
percent. The interest rate, therefore, will probably be in the
range of 7.5 percent to nine percent for the coming year. The
exact rate has not been calculated yet.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the cost of the last bond
issue. DR. McCORMICK said he did not have that information, he
would have to look it up.
Number 655
CO-CHAIR BUNDE told Representative Robinson that in light of her
concerns, he will communicate with the Finance Committee chair to
make sure the fiscal note questions are taken care of. He then
stated that the motion to move HB 135 was before the HESS
Committee. Hearing no objection, the bill was passed out of
committee.
HHESS - 02/07/95
Number 676
HB 23: REFERRALS INVOLVING DENTAL SERVICES
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS, sponsor of HB 23, stated that this bill was
a repeat of a bill that passed out of the HESS Committee and
through the House last year. He read a sponsor statement into the
record:
HB 23 will prohibit the receipt of compensation by a
dentist for referring a person to another dentist or
dental practice. The American Dental Association Code of
Ethics forbids dentists from profiting from referrals.
This legislation codified the ethical concern relating to
referrals.
In Section 2, the receipt of compensation by a person or
advertisement referring a dental service, is prohibited
unless the compensation of referral is disclosed at the
time of referral. This legislation will help ensure that
patients are being referred to a dentist or dental
practice as a result of their quality service.
The Alaska Dental Society has had several breeches of
their ethics code and their board has requested this
legislation. I feel this is an appropriate legislative
function of the Board of Dental Examiners under AS
08.36.315.
Number 784
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that the Alaska Board of Dental Examiners
has a number of issues that relate to what the board shall act on.
This bill simply adds another section under their jurisdiction. As
indicated, this bill has been introduced by request of the Dental
Society and is a result of breaches in their national code of
ethics. Because of those breaches and technology that has been
advanced over the last few years, it is quite timely to have this
legislation added to the actions of the board.
Number 849
DR. DAN PITTS, Dentist, testified via teleconference from Soldotna.
He said that the Dental Society was receiving complaints from the
public, and this legislation is a result of those complaints. The
complaints were the result of members of the public calling dental
referral services located in the yellow pages. Such a business
will get a toll-free number or telephone number which is remoted to
another town or city out of state. A large ad is placed in the
telephone book which identifies the company as a dental referral
service for Alaska. The referral service then solicits business to
perhaps three dentists who want to advertise and receive referrals.
The dentists are charged a fee, and if a patient calls the referral
service and requests an orthodontist, that patient may simply be
sent to a dentist and not an orthodontist.
MR. PITTS said these referral services mislead people with their
advertising. It appears they are a service which is run by
organized dentistry when, in fact, the service is just a for-profit
operation.
Number 968
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the names of the dentists who violate
the code of ethics are made public information. Dr. Pitts answered
that the names are not publicized.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Dr. Pitts if he felt this legislation would be
restrictive of advertisement and good business principles?
DR. PITTS answered that the legislation ensures that the referral
service must say, in their advertisements, that the dentists they
refer pay for this service. If this information is disclosed,
advertising is in no way limited. The disclosure of this
information and advertising in general is fully ethical nationwide.
Number 1075
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the bill would preclude the current system,
or referrals, or would it simply provide for a disclaimer that the
referrals are a service purchased by the dentist. Dr. Pitts said
that the latter was true. He continued that in dentistry, it is
unethical to refer a patient to another dentist and then receive a
kickback for that referral. This is called fee-splitting and is
also illegal in dentistry statutes. HB 23 would not effect their
system of referrals. Most dentists will refer patients to a
specialist they feel is the best for the job.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented that no matter what the name, a kickback
is still a kickback.
Number 1166
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved that HB 23 be passed from committee with
the accompanying fiscal notes and individual recommendations.
There being no objection, CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated that the bill was
passed.
HHESS - 02/07/95
Number 1198
HB 15: PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF MINORS' COURT RECORDS
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT read his sponsor statement for HB 15
into the record:
This legislation is intended as an intermediate stop in
the juvenile justice system that goes beyond the degree
of punishment currently possible, but stops short of
prosecution as an adult. It would allow the state, under
certain strict circumstances, to release the names of
juvenile offenders.
With varying degrees of exceptions, most states require
a court order to release the names of juvenile offenders.
Recently, however, the trend has been toward cracking
that confidentiality. In 1993, according to the National
Conference of State Legislatures, Kansas approved a law
that allows officials to publicize the names of juveniles
over the age of 13 who are convicted of certain violent
crimes. In 1990, Rhode Island opened the records of
juveniles who are over 15. In May, 1994, Illinois
legislators overwhelmingly approved a measure to make
public the names of juveniles convicted of crimes
involving guns, gangs or felony drug violations.
In Alaska, prior to 1994, the law contained a little-used
provision that allowed publication of the name of a minor
who committed two offenses classified as felonies. Last
year, Senate Bill 54 replaced that provision with one
that prohibits disclosure of the name or picture of a
minor under the jurisdiction of the court in connection
with the minor's status as a delinquent child unless
authorized by order of the court. HB 15 would again
allow the state to disclose the name, address and picture
of a minor following a second felony offense unless the
court entered an order barring disclosure "for good cause
shown in individual cases.
The current shield of anonymity and lack of serious
penalties foster the perception among many young adults
entering the justice system that they can get away with
anything. This reinforces criminal behavior that
continues into adulthood, where the consequences are far
more serious.
Tight confidentiality laws have been near the center of
America's juvenile justice philosophy for decades.
However, society has changed since juvenile justice
systems were created around the turn of the century, and
it is time for law enforcement to change as well. This
small step toward lifting the privileged status of a
juvenile, when that juvenile has wittingly and repeatedly
broken the law, is a reasonable step in that direction.
Number 1329
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that earlier Representative Rokeberg
had a question about the wording of the bill. They discussed the
previous statutory language which required an order of the courts
to release information and records. That provision had been on the
books for a number of years but was never utilized. Representative
Therriault felt the reason it was not used was because there was
confusion about whether the agency (the Division of Family and
Youth Services in the Department of Health and Social Services) or
the courts would release the information.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT continued that the old statutory language
made reference to the records, but did not make clear whether those
records were under the jurisdiction of the agency or the courts.
When Senate Bill 54 was considered and passed, the section
regarding records was broken into two segments. This created clear
statutory references to court and agency records.
Number 1356
HB 15 is proposing to take the old language which had been modified
and put it back into the statute specifically under the heading of
court records. The court records section is the one specifically
being amended.
Number 1400
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT added that he is currently working on a
packet of legislation, of which HB 15 is a part. The packet deals
with the juvenile justice statutes. He is attempting to address
repeat vandalism and offenders. Currently, the state's system is
such that if you are a repeat offender, there is not much "down-
side" to the juvenile justice system. The activities can be
continued and the minor finds out rather quickly that there are few
deterrents to crime. Representative Therriault stated that this
knowledge is quite prevalent.
However, when a child becomes 18 and an offense is repeated once
more, suddenly the child is thrown into the adult justice system
and treated as an adult. Representative Therriault seeks to
provide for an in-between with HB 15, one in which a minor is still
treated and adjudicated in the juvenile system, but there is an
increased "downside" to illegal actions.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT assured the HESS Committee members that
the only children he was trying to include were those who have
committed a second offense which would be a felony if the minor was
over 18. Therefore, the minor will still be given a first chance
in which they are admonished. However, when they commit the second
felony offense, HB 15 provides for a deterrent which is short of
sweeping them into the adult system and trying them as adults.
Hopefully, the bad habits are not being reinforced, leading the
public to wonder why they are still acting like delinquents after
age 18. By that time, in many cases the behavior has been
reinforced.
Number 1486
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT continued that he was expecting a
research report from the Legislative Research Agency which will
show that so far about 12 states have taken steps in this
direction. He thinks the HESS Committee members will hear from the
agency that this action will seriously jeopardize federal funding,
but he does not necessarily believe that is true. Representative
Therriault hoped that the HESS Committee members will consider the
policy call of the legislation, and he assured them that he would
address the potential loss of federal funding before the bill is
heard before the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is the
bill's third committee of referral.
Number 1515
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT assured HESS Committee members that he
was conducting research in respect to the federal law, as to what
is happening in other states which have enacted similar
legislation, and how other states have dealt with the potential
loss of federal funding. He would have this information by the
time the bill is to be heard in the Judiciary Committee, the bill's
second committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT had a copy of the Illinois legislation,
and he read a portion which was put into the Illinois statutes:
The general public may have access to the name and
address of a minor who is adjudicated a delinquent minor
under this act based on the minor's commission of an act
and furtherance of a criminal activity, breaking a
controlled substance act, participating in gang
activities, or violating Illinois weapons statutes.
Number 1558
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT commended the Illinois legislation, and
stated that he spoke with members of the Illinois state government
this morning and he was not able find any evidence that they have
jeopardized their federal funds.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT concluded by reading part of Governor
Knowles' State of the State address, in which the Governor speaks
on dealing with the crime problem in Alaska. The Governor
identified four different things which he planned to attack.
Number One on the list was:
Crack down on youth violence. We have laws from the
`Leave it to Beaver' era for thugs from the `Terminator'
age. We must get police and prosecutors the tools to
attack gangs and youth violence and increase parental
accountability.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT stated that he was pleased to introduce
legislation which is in furtherance of the Governor's legislative
aims for this year.
Number 1605
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Representative Therriault if the zero fiscal
note represents the cost of implementing HB 15 if federal funding
is not lost. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT answered "yes."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked about the effectiveness of other states'
similar legislation. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT responded that he
was trying to get that information. He thought the Illinois
legislation was recently passed in 1993, although he could not be
sure, and he did not think that there has been time for them to
compile data to indicate success or failure. Representative Brice
said, therefore, HESS Committee members do not know whether
publishing names will be a crime deterrent.
Number 1664
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that his interest in this issue was
sparked by incidents in Fairbanks. He showed a color photo,
printed in the Fairbanks News Miner, which showed a vandalized
classroom. This photo was published the day after two schools were
vandalized. The resulting damage was estimated at $50,000.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT and his staff, therefore, began working
on putting deterrents into the juvenile crime system without
generating a large fiscal note. The result is HB 15. He would
love to have some sort of statewide detention hall system, but he
admitted that he did not know how it would be paid for considering
that it is a struggle to pay for the current system.
Representative Therriault also said he realizes that he will have
to answer the question concerning the potential loss of federal
funding.
Number 1707
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Representative Therriault to explain the
difference between filing a delinquency petition under AS
47.10.02(a)(2) and adjudicated delinquency. REPRESENTATIVE
THERRIAULT responded that the actual adjudication consists of the
judge making the determination that the charges are legitimate.
Representative Brice summarized that it was just upon accusation
that information about the minor would be released to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that information about the minor and
offenses would be released upon accusation of the second offense.
The minor would have to be adjudicated of one offense prior to the
current arrest.
Number 1755
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted what has been done in the past is not
working. She urged HESS Committee members and the audience to get
a copy of this weeks' Newsweek magazine, which deals with putting
the shame back into children in order to avoid anti-social
behavior. She said she thinks that HB 15 is a step in the right
direction and supports it. She also thinks that HB 15 may make the
parents more likely to address a problem with their child.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that he can clearly remember in the
eighth grade deciding what path he would take. He chose against
the path that would bring disgrace on himself and his family.
Maybe many children do not come to a clear realization of their
choices. Representative Therriault said he believes that HB 15
would be a deterrent, however, maybe society has moved along far
enough that it will not deter some kids. He agreed with Co-Chair
Toohey that the system which has been in place is not working and
changes are necessary.
Number 1822
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the release of information was at
the court's discretion. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied that
unless the court, at the time of the filing of the delinquency
petition, for good cause shows reason why the information should
not be released, then the information will be released. The court
has some discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT continued that the way the old statute
read was that the court had to show good reason to release
information, and HB 15 changes this so the court must show good
reason not to release information. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it
appears to him that HB 15 is more restrictive than the Illinois
legislation. Representative Rokeberg's main concern was with the
fact that public awareness was still at the court's discretion. He
was also concerned about the ability of the press to react to this
type of information.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt that the intent of the legislation is
to make information available to the public, and he strongly
supports this bill. However, he expressed concern because if it
passed from the HESS Committee, he wanted it to have a speedy
journey through the other committees. He asked Representative
Therriault why he worded the bill the way he did versus making the
bill more like the Illinois version, which makes the information
public record.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said he worded the bill to facilitate its
passage through the House.
Number 1908
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that his understanding what that the
information was not at the discretion of the courts, but it was
discretionary to keep the name out of public knowledge. The fact
that there is a perception that there is no downside to breaking
the law as a juvenile is wholly due to the fact that the Division
of Youth and Family Services (DFYS) is continually under attack in
terms of funding. The youth facility is crowded. In Fairbanks, to
be placed in the youth facility, a person must meet the same
requirements as those individuals who are being placed in
McLaughlin, a youth facility in Anchorage. In Anchorage, however,
the law is being interpreted more to the benefit of juveniles
because of overcrowding. This treatment is not applicable in
Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE continued that in order to make sure that
juveniles get more than a slap on the wrist, adequate funding
should be given to programs in which just punishment is received
after the first offense. In addition, the juvenile should be put
into funded programs which deter them from continuing their anti-
social behavior.
Number 1983
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that last year, a juvenile waiver bill
was passed. People have recently seen how that is being used in
Juneau. She recommended that time be taken to see how Juneau's
program is working. In this program, a lot of juveniles are going
to be waived to the adult facilities and their names will be
published in the paper. She asked why another step (HB 15) is
being taken when a similar step was taken last year.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reported that there has already been a 200
percent increase of juveniles in the adult facility population
because of the previously passed legislation.
Number 2010
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT felt that the program to which
Representative Robinson referred looked at only one end of the
spectrum, children that have perpetrated a heinous crime and were
placed into adult status. He was aiming for something in which
children are still treated in the juvenile system, but they are
given more of a deterrent other than punishment as a adult,
including the sentencing and jail time involved in the adult
system.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT worried that the current system
unwittingly reinforces bad habits while individuals are juveniles,
and then expects them to behave like adults after their 18th
birthday. When they don't, the system is shocked by the number of
young adults in the adult system.
Number 2040
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that in her experience, juveniles did
get some level of punishment. Juneau's correctional institution
began as a 21 bed facility for juveniles and women. Due to the
fact that there were so many young people that were being locked
up, the facility became overcrowded. Part of the system is to try
to work with the parents and children to get the young person on
the right track before their name is published. Representative
Robinson was confused as to which of the kids would end up in the
adult institutions if they committed a felony offense.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that most people thought that last
year the only children being waived to the adult facility were
those that had committed manslaughter or murder. In actuality,
there is a very large group of young people who had committed
felony offenses who are going to be waived to adult treatment.
Number 2096
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT mentioned that a series of memos were in
the HESS Committee members' packets. These were sent to and from
Representative Therriault and the Legal Department. The memos were
an attempt to distinguish what implications HB 15 would have on
federal funding. The memo to Deborah Wing, Director of the DFYS,
from the Region X (ten) office, talks about its concern about the
release of information from Title IV-B and IV-E case files.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that is specifically why HB 15
stipulates that the courts release information, and not the agency.
The agencies still keep their files private.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT wondered if there was a federal law which
forbid anyone from publishing information on juvenile offenders.
He spoke to reporters and they said if they receive information on
a juvenile taken into the system, they can print the name, address
and photo of the child if they desire to do so. It only depends on
where they get the information. They clearly cannot get the
information from the agency files. But if a reporter has that
information, there is nothing that stops them from releasing it.
Number 2159
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented to Representative Robinson about
her statements concerning the urgency in dealing with juvenile
crime and violent crime throughout the state. Perhaps she has the
good fortune to live in a lovely community like Juneau, but
unfortunately in the more urban areas of the state, there is a
large cry to deal with these problems. That is one reason why
Representative Rokeberg strongly supports HB 15.
Number 2188
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT commented that a number of years ago, he
worked with a volunteer police officer from the city of North Pole.
In their discussions the officer said that it was very frustrating
to pick up a juvenile after he or she had committed some type of
crime, and have the child tell the officer, "I don't know why you
are wasting your time, I am going to be out on the street before
the ink is dry on your report."
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that there are some very savvy kids
who know how to work the system to their advantage. They do not
see any deterrents in the current system. Representative
Therriault said he did not know how to identify those kids, but he
is looking for something that is a bit more of a deterrent without
sweeping the juveniles into the adult system at no cost to the
state.
Number 2220
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated that an additional public safety concern is
the awareness of public schools about which children have committed
serious crimes.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education Association
(NEA) of Alaska, said that last session NEA indicated concern over
kids who had violent tendencies and were currently in the court
system, and the issue of informing school districts about the
situation. The outcome of last session's legislation was to make
that information available to the administrative officer.
MR. MARSHALL said that NEA receives many reports from teachers and
other school employees concerning students with violent tendencies
who are sitting in classrooms, and the teacher is unaware of this.
Mr. Marshall stated that the purpose of informing the teacher is
two-fold, one involves the need to know, and the other involves the
structuring of a program in which the teacher can deal with the
problem and not the symptoms of the problem.
MR. MARSHALL said he did not know if HB 15 strengthens those
purposes. He wondered if a child, in Juneau, is dealt with under
HB 15, and the child then moves to another school district, does
that information move with the child? He also wondered if teachers
and school employees are informed so they can hopefully structure
a program that is inclined to help young people deal with the issue
of violence. Mr. Marshall said curriculum should be investigated
which helps children deal with the whole issue of violence.
Tape 95-5, Side B
Number 000
MR. MARSHALL stressed that he was not speaking against HB 15. He
was simply raising the question to the HESS Committee members and
Representative Therriault whether the bill increases the window of
understanding so that systems and teachers are aware that they have
potentially difficult children in a classroom that need special
attention.
Number 042
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated that HB 15 provides for the information being
published, and if teachers and districts find out that information
and want to do something with it, they can. The information will
not be specifically sent to school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that part of last year's SB 54
specifically says that information shall be made available from the
agency to school officials as deemed necessary to protect the
safety of school students and staff. The fact that in this case,
information shall be made available from the agency is an
exception. He said he spoke to a judge many years ago, and he
indicated that the information should be disseminated because part
of the basic language in adjudicating delinquents allows for the
sharing of that information.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT was not sure whether that important
information actually makes it down to the principal's level.
Certainly, a principal would like to know which students have been
caught on offenses such as weapons offenses. A principal may be
more mindful of that child. However, Representative Therriault
also expressed an understanding of the need to balance that
watchful behavior, so the child does not become stigmatized.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that not only should the information be
disseminated to the principal's level, but also to the teacher's
level.
Number 173
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Vernon if he felt HB 15 was a start in
the right direction, and if he supported the placing of a further
burden on the juvenile and the family if they have indeed done
something wrong.
MR. MARSHALL said "yes," and he felt that generally teachers have
a decent view of potentially violent kids as early as the
kindergarten years. Mr. Marshall was careful not to discount a
teenager who suddenly finds him or herself in trouble. Society is
definitely changing, and eight and nine year olds are committing
felony crimes. Mr. Marshall said that a serious look should be
taken at Alaska's children, and attention should be given to
teacher's views of these children. Mr. Marshall strongly believes
that violent behavior can be seen at an early age.
MR. MARSHALL continued that he was not trying to add another burden
to the public education system. The school is one of the few
settings left in which to deal with the issue of student violence,
but the schools are going to need help in order to do this.
Alternatives can be developed which are designed to keep kids in
schools, in addition to condemning violence and disruption in the
classroom.
Number 325
MR. MARSHALL said families exist, in society, that have different
value systems from the norm, it is difficult to change those value
systems. HB 15 is one step, but it will not correct the problem.
The problem will still exist, HB 15 will just have the public know
about the problem. Mr. Marshall asked, can a program be designed
to intervene at early ages so families and children are brought
together to help the child overcome potential anti-social behavior?
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that she left New York City in 1957, and they
were in the middle of a ten year study on children in the New York
public school system. At the end of that study, they determined
that by the second grade they could tell what the child was going
to turn out to be. The study was killed because people did not
want their children to be labeled as a delinquent. But the point
was that the child was labeled a delinquent unless there was
intervention.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY continued that what society must do is intervene in
the first and second grades.
Number 423
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he did not know if public condemnation will
work. However, years ago he was stationed in Europe with the U.S.
Army, and he thought the U.S. Army was gathering up all the misfits
and sending them to Europe because there were so many G.I.s doing
so many bizarre crimes. It finally occurred to Co-Chair Bunde that
those G.I.s were far from home, and their families and their
communities did not know what they were doing. Public condemnation
does have an effect. The lack of it may produce more misbehavior
than the reverse.
Number 500
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to Commissioner Karen Perdue,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), reminded committee
members of Governor Knowles' promise to look at the criminal
justice system.
MR. LINDSTROM said the issue of federal funding has been studied
many times, and DHSS believes that the federal government would
sanction DFYS in FY96 if HB 15 should be passed. The amount
sanctioned would be about $6,086,700 of Title IV funds. As
recently as that afternoon, DHSS had talked to the federal
government and they said DFYS would be sanctioned if HB 15 is
passed. There is a lot of confusion and misunderstandings
concerning the complexities of the federal laws and what other
states may or may not be doing. To the best of his knowledge,
based on conversations with the federal government as recently as
this afternoon, the passage of HB 15 would result in the loss of
over $6 million in federal funds to the state.
MR. LINDSTROM said on that basis, there is a series of fiscal notes
in the HESS Committee members' packets which represents the cost to
the state should the federal funding be stopped. The federal funds
would be replaced with state general funds to maintain the current
level of services and operations in place at the division. The
Title IV funds permeate the entire division. They fund social
workers and probation officers, administrative functions,
residential care, etc. Given the magnitude of the loss that would
occur, the DFYS cannot support the bill.
Number 660
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Lindstrom if he found any problems with
the bill if funding was not lost. MR. LINDSTROM stated that his
department has not had a policy discussion. They have only focused
on the fact that they will lose funding if the bill is passed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that her understanding was that most
first time felony offenders were going to get some type of
adjudication and be placed into some type of system. She was again
referring to the large number of individuals in Juneau waived to
the adult facilities.
Number 773
MR. LINDSTROM said that HB 15 is much broader than SB 54 was in
terms of automatic waiver provisions. Those apply to children who
are juveniles who would be charged with unclassified or Class A
felonies against a person. That population of children is smaller
than those distinguished in HB 15, which simply refers to all
felonies.
KATHY TIBBLES, Acting Director, Division of Family and Youth
Services, testified that the large number of felonies covered under
HB 15 include such crimes as failure to assist a police officer.
She did not have the information, at hand, to determine numbers of
youth affected in HB 15 versus the unclassified felonies against
people that receive an automatic waiver into adult treatment and
facilities. She did not know how many names would be published.
Number 818
MS. TIBBLES felt it was a little early for the division to answer
what effectiveness SB 54 waiver possibilities have had with regard
to deterrence because it is relatively new and the youth in Juneau
are the first ones to experience what happens when you are 16 and
commit such a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked for an estimation on how many kids
end up at the Miller House or a similar juvenile detention
facility. Representative Robinson recounted a case in which a
young person honored in Juneau's Fourth of July parade for service
during the Gulf War committed a felony offense when he was 17 by
breaking out a window at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
building.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON continued that there is an opinion that
juveniles are not penalized after their first offense, and they all
just end up back in the school system. Obviously, the jails are
full and something is happening. DHSS Commissioner Perdue made a
comment at the House HESS overview that often the bad children are
focused on, and not the good children, and laws are created to deal
with the bad kids without looking at the best interests of the good
kids.
MS. TIBBLES said that her understanding is a felony crime is almost
always petitioned upon. A lot of kids that end up in detention
centers and are subsequently released had misdemeanor offenses.
There are a lot of kids who cannot be detained on their offense,
such as minor consuming offenses. But if there is a felony crime
committed, there is a petition filed. It may not result in
commitment to the McLaughlin Youth Center, but a petition is filed.
MS. TIBBLES offered to check the records and provide Representative
Robinson with statistics on the number of felony charges and the
number of petitions. Given that Johnson Youth Center is a short
term detention facility, and has been exceeding capacity
considerably all year, Ms. Tibbles would think that kids from
Southeast are ending up in detention centers.
Number 974
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Tibbles how she would work with
school districts and the impression of the school board
administrators that the school districts never hear about these
cases. Representative Robinson asked if this situation was
occurring currently.
MS. TIBBLES thought a variance exists in different parts of the
state in terms of working relationships. It is very likely with
probation officers and social workers that there is discussion
between school counselors, and there is discussion between teachers
in all the educational meetings. It is very likely the principals
are unaware of a lot of those issues.
DFYS is often criticized by teachers due to reports of harm, abuse
and neglect that are not addressed by DFYS. Given the workloads of
probation officers, social workers and teachers, communication is
difficult. There are definitely areas where DFYS can improve.
Number 1052
MS. TIBBLES continued that SB 54 gave DFYS a much larger ability to
share information. Information was being shared previously on a
need to know basis because of regulations DFYS developed that were
in conflict with state law that said only a court could release
information. DFYS has only had SB 54 in effect since September,
1994. It has been sent out to staff with the message that they
must have greater flexibility and awareness must be increased.
They are no longer so tightly bound by confidentiality. DFYS has
begun working with the Department of Law in drafting the new
regulations so they better conform with SB 54. Then policy and
procedure will be put into place.
In the interim, Ms. Tibbles is attempting to draft some temporary
policy and procedures to assist staff in being more consistent
statewide. There is work to be done, but DFYS believes it has the
ability to do this work with the regulations in place and the
policies and procedures working currently.
Number 1105
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that there is obviously a debate
whether DFYS or the Department of Law is right concerning the loss
of federal funding. She asked why the discrepancy exists.
MS. TIBBLES replied that perhaps the discussion about why some
states are releasing information and why DFYS is maintaining that
it cannot may help. The reason that Region X said that information
is protected as long as it is within the agency is that Alaska is
one of the very few states where delinquents are placed in the same
agency as children in need of aid. The Title IV-A and IV-B
requirements cover all children in the population DFYS serves,
which includes delinquents. The DFYS meets similar criteria for
delinquents in terms of trying to work with families to keep kids
at home, and trying to make sure they have the same procedural
safeguards.
Number 1179
In order to keep the Title IV-A funding, while the delinquents are
in the DFYS system, their information must be safeguarded along
with the information for all the other children DFYS serves. Most
other states do not have juvenile delinquency in the same
departments.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Ms. Tibbles if it was simply the "paperwork"
causing the problem. Ms. Tibbles said that it is the programs
which would have to be in different departments.
Number 1223
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that the wording of the bill
specifically breaks out children in need of aid. This was left so
the court would have to specifically authorize a release of
information. This is under the current statute. The old statute
allowed for the sharing of this information, and it was somewhat
problematic. The new statute says that the agency records can be
shared with school officials, not the court records. Because of
that concern over the agency records, Representative Therriault
decided that the agency's records would be left alone. HB 15 would
only deal with court record information.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT thought that a separation could be built
between the courts and the agency, although that might require a
lot of legal finesse. However, it would seem that there would have
been a problem with the old statute and there would be a continuing
problem with the new statute that was made into law last year.
Number 1289
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noticed that HB 15 has two more committees of
referral. Having had some experience with the Judiciary Committee,
Co-Chair Bunde thought the legal arguments will be highly
dissected. With that in mind, he asked for a motion to move the
bill onto the next committee of referral.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved that the bill be passed with the accompanying
fiscal notes to the next committee.
Number 1315
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected to the motion. She believed
strongly that it is the responsibility of the HESS Committee to
completely understand what HB 15 does and the effect it will have
on the budget. She did not think it was appropriate to shift the
bill to another committee to discover necessary facts. The HESS
Committee is the one that looks at the DHSS and its needs.
In addition, she would not have a problem with a law that opens up
communications with the school districts and counselors. However,
she was uncertain whether it was good to have the public know
information about juvenile offenders. In small communities, such
information may jeopardize the family and the child who is trying
to get help. There are many reasons why children commit crimes.
Sometimes the reasons are alcohol and drug abuse, sometimes the
child itself is being abused.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON concluded that HESS Committee members
should wait and see what the possibilities were for the loss of
federal funding. There is no way the operations of the juvenile
justice system can continue if $6 million are lost. It is
difficult for the agency to function on the funding it currently
has. The reason there is currently a delay in actions is because
the Anchorage office is overburdened.
Number 1419
CO-CHAIR BUNDE was sure the Finance Committee will look at those
issues very closely. He stated that another issue was whether
public information resulted in the branding of children or the
allowance of a community to protect itself from young delinquents.
His vote will reflect that he thinks the community should protect
itself rather than allow a cushion of anonymity which might
encourage further crime.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE repeated that a motion was made to pass the bill and
a roll call vote was taken. Those voting for the passage were
Representatives Toohey, Bunde, Davis and Rokeberg. Those voting
against were Representatives Robinson and Brice.
Number 1474
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that after a vote of six to two, HB 15
would be passed from the HESS Committee with individual
recommendations.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Co-Chair Bunde at 4:17 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|