Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/29/1996 03:26 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 29, 1996
3:26 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
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 387
"An Act relating to minors and to offenses committed by minors, and
to programs relating to minors; relating to the use of citations
for offenses when the offenses are committed by minors, and
authorizing disposition of those offenses by citations that require
performance of community service in lieu of a court appearance;
establishing a curfew for minors, and authorizing municipalities to
establish curfews by ordinance; relating to the detention of
minors, defining certain conduct by minors as violations, and
amending the criminal jurisdiction of the district court to provide
for the disposition of certain offenses involving minors; and
amending Rules 3(b) and 23(d), Alaska Delinquency Rules."
- PASSED CSSSHB 387 (am) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 523
"An Act expressing the state's policy with respect to sobriety."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 26
Relating to creation of the Public Inebriate Task Force.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 515
"An Act relating to grants for residential services for certain
minors for whom the state has assumed responsibility; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 451
"An Act prohibiting persons from receiving or attempting to receive
duplicate assistance; directing the Department of Health and Social
Services to establish a pilot project relating to identification of
recipients of public assistance; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 387
SHORT TITLE: JUVENILE CODE REVISION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY,THERRIAULT,Rokeberg,Kohring
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/05/96 2367 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2367 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2368 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/19/96 2483 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-
REFERRALS
01/19/96 2484 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/19/96 2484 (H) REFERRED TO HES
01/24/96 2528 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
01/26/96 2548 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
01/30/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/30/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/22/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/22/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/29/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 523
SHORT TITLE: STATE'S POLICY ON SOBRIETY
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/19/96 2805 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/19/96 2805 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
02/29/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HCR 26
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC INEBRIATE TASK FORCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/09/96 2685 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/09/96 2685 (H) HES, FINANCE
02/29/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 515
SHORT TITLE: USE OF YOUTH SERVICES GRANTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIAMS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/96 2729 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2729 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/29/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 387
STEVEN GRUNSTEIN, Representative
Guardians for Parents Rights
P.O. Box 32604
Juneau, Alaska 9803
Telephone: (907) 789-7131
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of CSSSHB 387
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 100300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSSHB 387
JANINE REEP, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division, Human Services Section
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSSHB 387
AL NEAR
P.O. Box 80847
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-4090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSSHB 387
PAUL WORMAN
P.O. Box 83774
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-0885
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSSHB 387
PAM WORMAN
P.O. Box 83774
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 47900885
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSSHB 387
CAM CARLSON
P.O. Box 90234
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: Not Available
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSSHB 387
DIANE WORLEY, Director
Division of Family & Youth Services
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Telephone: (907) 465-3191
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSSHB 387
DANIELLA LOPER, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Brian Porter
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4930
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on HB 523
GREG NOTHSTINE, Coordinator
Alaska Federation of Natives Sobriety Movement
Anchorage, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 274-1775
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 523
STEVE HAMILTON, Research Analyst
Advisory Board on Alcoholism & Drug Abuse
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110608
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0608
Telephone: (907) 465-5114
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 523
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 523 and HCR 26
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Ivan Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 503
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HCR 26
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 515
TOM LANE, Juneau Facilities Manager
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110650
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0650
Telephone: (907) 465-3037
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 515
JACKIE DAMON, Social Service Program Officer
Division of Family & Youth Services
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Telephone: (907) 465-5114
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 515
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-18, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
was called to order by Co-Chair Bunde at 3:26 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Brice,
Rokeberg and Davis. Members absent were Representatives Robinson
and Vezey. A quorum was present to conduct business. He announced
the calendar was HB 387, HB 523, HCR 26, HB 515 and HB 451.
HB 387 - JUVENILE CODE REVISION
Number 085
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced the first order of business to come before
the committee was HB 387. He asked Representative Kelly to come
forward and present his bill.
Number 106
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, Sponsor, noted he had provided a
committee substitute to the committee.
Number 154
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to adopt CSSSHB 387, Work Draft 9-LS1276\R,
Chenoweth, for discussion purposes. Hearing no objection, it was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON arrived at 3:32 p.m.
Number 190
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said one of the most difficult things in
dealing with the juvenile crime problem, is that juveniles who are
delinquent and juveniles who are in need of aid are mixed together.
Committee Substitute for Sponsor Substitute for HB 387 attempts to
split in law those two classes of individuals so they can start
being looked at separately. He believed this would be a great
asset to the Governor's Conference on Juvenile Justice that has
been going on in Anchorage. He said there are some policy changes
in HB 387 which give direction to the courts and to the Department
of Health & Social Services on how to treat juvenile delinquents
versus children in need of aid. There are some other collateral
issues dealing with school boards and truancy.
Number 279
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY began the sectional analysis. He referenced
the Truancy Section on page 3 and said it was his intention to
offer an amendment which would simplify the language and give the
responsibility for procedures to the school board to develop their
own truancy policies rather than having to deal with the current
cumbersome statutes.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Kelly if he was aware of any
controversy surrounding this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded he didn't think there was any
controversy.
Number 425
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS moved to adopt Amendment R.4. Hearing no
objection, the amendment was adopted.
Number 449
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referenced page 5, and said CSSSHB 387 does
not establish a state curfew, it merely allows municipalities,
through Title 29, to establish curfews. He pointed out that even
though different municipalities are establishing curfews currently,
the authority is not found in Title 29. He didn't believe there
was any controversy regarding this issue, and added it was not an
amendment, just a policy change.
Number 467
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY directed the committee's attention to pages 8
and 9, and said Amendment R.3 which was at the request of the
Department of Health & Social Services moves the delinquency policy
into the new Chapter 12 in Title 47.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked for further explanation on Amendment
R.3.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referred to page 9, and said this creates new
policy. Subsections (b)(2) and (3) are a derivation of the
California law where the responsibility of the juvenile's crime is
placed on the parents in the form of fines. Subsection (b)(3) will
do that in the form of time, whereby the parent can be brought into
the supervision of the child. He said that subsection (b)(2)
refers to sanctions and it is a policy that will allow and give the
courts and the department direction that sanctions are appropriate
for delinquent behavior. Currently there is no language on
sanctions for delinquent behavior. Amendment R.3 moves this
section into the new chapter, where it is more appropriate.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE verified there was no change to the verbiage, it was
simply moving it to another chapter.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied the policy language before the
committee would remain intact and be moved to the new Chapter 12,
Delinquent Behavior, on page 27 of the Work Draft.
Number 754
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE referenced Amendment R.3 and asked if it
would be inserted at the end of page 27, line 23.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied it would be the Purpose and Policy
Section for the new Chapter and would be inserted between Sec.
47.12.020, Jurisdiction, and Sec. 47.12.015, Provisions
Inapplicable.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE verified that it would fall under the
Jurisdiction Section; it would not be a new section, for example
Sec. 012.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said that was correct.
Number 825
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved to adopt Amendment R.3. Hearing no
objection, Amendment R.3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY directed the committee's attention to page 23
of the Work Draft R and said Amendment R.5 moves Section 48,
Detention of Minors, and Section 49, Youth Counselors, into the new
chapter. This amendment is at the request of the Departments of
Health & Social Services and Law.
Number 970
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved to adopt Amendment R.5. Hearing no
objection, Amendment R.5 was adopted.
Number 992
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY explained that Amendment R.1 removes the
language dealing with sex offenders. He had discussed this with
the Department of Law and everyone agreed that it would be a
cleaner bill if it was removed from this draft, but not from
current statute.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified the amendment removes the language from
the committee substitute and allows the language to remain intact
in the current statute.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if it deleted Section 4 on page 3.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded affirmatively. Also, lines 19-29,
page 37, would be deleted from the committee substitute, but not
from current statute.
Number 1266
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved to adopt Amendment R.1. Hearing no
objection, Amendment R.1 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the committee now had a complete document
before them and opened the meeting to public testimony.
Number 1306
STEVEN GRUNSTEIN, Representative, Guardians for Parents Rights,
testified that the current juvenile justice system is a farce; it
does not work. There are kids that are willful and there is no way
of controlling them. When parents do seek assistance, the fault is
usually placed on the parents which gets to be very frustrating and
aggravating. He referenced a Letter to the Editor which he had
written and said it basically highlights all the problems that
parents encounter with teen-agers. He stated this legislation is
the first thing he's come across in a long time that appears to
address the issue. He acknowledged that it would probably go
through many changes in the legislative process, but it is
supported.
Number 1410
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, said the department has found some technical
issues that arise from trying to divide one chapter into two
chapters which she would be happy to discuss with the committee or
with the sponsors.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would prefer that she just discuss the bill
in a general, philosophical way with this committee and the
technical issues could be addressed in the Judiciary Committee and
with the sponsor.
MS. CARPENETI said she didn't believe there was any objection from
the Department of Law with dividing Title 47, Chapter 10, into two
chapters; one dealing with child in need of aid cases and the other
dealing with delinquent cases. She had some substantive issues she
wanted to address before the committee. She referenced page 9,
line 11, and said although the department supports the possibility
of a minor's family contributing and participating in counseling
and rehabilitation of the child, it was their position it should be
discretionary. She wasn't sure the word "should" was discretionary
and suggested inserting "if appropriate" if the sponsor wanted to
leave it in the bill. In the department's judgment, there are some
cases when it is simply not appropriate and it shouldn't be
mandatory.
MS. CARPENETI said the next substantive issue was on page 19, line
28. Present law provides that a police officer should return a
child to his/her home unless the officer has reasonable cause to
suspect that at the home the child is being subject to physical or
sexual abuse. This legislation changes it to "reasonable cause to
believe" which is a higher level of information. The Department of
Law opposes that. It is their belief the police officer should be
able to not return the child home if there is reasonable cause to
suspect there is child abuse in the home.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Ms. Carpeneti could give a hypothetical
example of the difference between believe and suspect.
MS. CARPENETI was unable to give an immediate response to that
question.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE questioned how that would be reviewed in court.
MS. CARPENETI responded that police officers apply these standards
in their job all the time, so they are accustomed to applying
different standards. She didn't believe that a police officer
would have a problem making a distinction. She feels a suspicion
is a lower level of information than a belief and it is best to
allow police officers the ability to not return a child home if
there is a suspicion based on reason.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Carpeneti if a reasonable suspicion is
probable cause.
MS. CARPENETI said no and added that probable cause to believe is
a standard that police officers and prosecutors apply when they are
deciding whether there is enough evidence to make an arrest.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that current language would be at the
level of arrest rather than something less than a level (indisc.).
MS. CARPENETI further explained that reasonable cause to suspect
does not rise to enough information for an arrest; it is a lower
amount of information.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if reasonable cause to believe rises to
that level?
MS. CARPENETI replied that reasonable cause to believe is closer to
probable cause. Some people think that reasonable cause to believe
is almost at the probable cause for an arrest level. She commented
that she had researched this last year and there is not agreement
among all attorneys or judges, but she thinks that reasonable cause
to believe is a lot closer to probable cause to arrest.
MS. CARPENETI stated the third substantive issue was on page 38,
beginning on line 12, which is a new section to the code. She said
present law provides the court shall consider the best interests of
the child and the public. The rest of the material in this section
47.12.120 is new to existing law. She had some questions relating
to paragraphs (1) and (2) under subsection (a). Subsection (b)
adds considerations that are referred to in criminal law as "Cheney
(ph) criteria" which is the case where the court adopted similar
criteria for sentencing adults. She felt this section needed more
consideration in terms of order. Also, she thought it might be
conflicting when looking at the best interest of the minor and how
that plays against the seriousness of the minor's delinquent act.
The department had some questions regarding the substance of that
section. She concluded that those were the only substantive issues
the department had with this draft.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to the first substantive issue on page 9
and asked if there were any questions regarding the addition of "if
appropriate" on page 9, line 11.
Number 1790
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked for clarification of the department's
recommendation.
MS. CARPENETI said it is the department's position it should be
discretionary rather than mandatory. She pointed out that it could
read "may include" or "should include, if appropriate" to provide
that discretion to a court. She reiterated her belief that it was
not a good idea that it be required because there are some cases
where parental counseling isn't appropriate.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY departed at 4:00 p.m. to attend another meeting.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that "may include" sounded a little broader in
its permissiveness than "should include, if appropriate."
MS. CARPENETI said it's close, but the department is concerned
about having that discretion available.
Number 1790
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she felt strongly that if a young
person has reached the point of getting in trouble with the law,
the parents do need to be involved at some level of their
treatment. She thought that a judge should at least recognize the
importance of a young person's therapy in connection with their
family.
MS. CARPENETI responded that is why she felt that "should include,
if appropriate" is stronger than "may include."
Number 1871
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS thought that "may" is perhaps too weak and
agreed with the addition of "if appropriate." "Should" implies
that is the avenue that should be taken, but if there are
extenuating circumstances that would make it inappropriate, then
"if appropriate" gives the judge that discretion.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page 19, line 28, regarding usage of
"suspect" versus "believe." He explained that "believe" is a
higher level of probable cause, and "suspect" is a lower level of
probable cause.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Kelly if he had any comments on
the addition of "if appropriate."
Number 1944
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he had no objection. He added this was
a policy statement.
Number 1955
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved to adopt Amendment 6 which inserts "if
appropriate" after the word "should" on page 9, line 11. Hearing
no objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
Number 2000
CO-CHAIR BUNDE again referred to page 19, line 28, regarding the
use of "suspect" versus "believe". He asked Representative Kelly
if he would like to comment.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said "What we were trying to accomplish here
is when the officer picks up the child, and the child knows that
all he has to do is say `I'm being abused and the officer then
doesn't need to take him home, and that may not be true." If the
officer has reason to suspect, that is an extremely low standard.
If the officer has reason to believe based on prior experiences
with the family or familiarity with the child's parents, then the
officer can take the child to the shelter. If on the other hand,
the officer has reason to suspect, he is duty bound to report that
he suspects child abuse. He asked Ms. Carpeneti if that was
correct.
MS. CARPENETI said she thought this subparagraph deals with what
the officer does with the child.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that in another statute, the
officer, as a person of responsibility, is duty bound to report
child abuse for a kid who just doesn't want to go home. That was
what Representative Kelly was trying to achieve. He said AS 47.17
deals with people, such as counselors, teachers, etc., who are
required to report child abuse and it is a misdemeanor if they
suspect and don't report it. He added that is a low standard and
it's a bit of a problem, but it still exists. The police have much
more interaction and Representative Kelly wanted to raise that
standard so every time they pick up a child who doesn't want to go
home, they don't have to report suspected child abuse.
Number 2079
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it was his belief that teachers are required to
report suspected child abuse. He asked if this change would have
any impact on teachers.
MS. CARPENETI replied she didn't believe so.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked to correct a prior statement. He said
the police officer would still be required to report that he
suspected child abuse, he just wouldn't necessarily have to take
the child home.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if it was the standard that anyone dealing
with children in an official capacity who suspects child abuse is
required to report it?
Number 2122
JANINE REEP, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Human
Services Section, Department of Law, said that is the reporting
standard in the statute. The idea is that teachers and other
people don't have to make that determination of believing it or did
it really happen. She added that it is intentionally a lower
standard so that the job of determining whether there really had
been abuse was referred to the department.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified the proposed change by presenting a
hypothetical example of a police officer picking a child up and if
he suspects child abuse, he is required by law to report it, but he
is not required to take the child to the shelter unless he believes
there has been child abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he thought the difference was with this
low standard the police officer automatically has to take the child
to the shelter when the child says "I am abused," even if the
officer knows the child is not being abused.
Number 2190
CO-CHAIR BUNDE inquired if a police officer is told by a child that
he/she is being abused, does that constitute the legal level of
"suspect" and is the officer required to report that parent?
MS. CARPENETI responded in her judgment, no. It has to be a
suspicion based on reason and if the child is saying things to the
police officer that are not credible, she didn't believe the
officer would be required to report it.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Carpeneti to take it to the level of
"believe."
MS. CARPENETI responded that the suspicion has to be reasonable
under present law and the belief has to be reasonable under the
proposed language.
MS. REEP pointed out one problem the change presents is that there
would be dual standards. The reporting standard would still exist
- reason to suspect, and there would be a different standard for
whether the child is returned. She commented that it was
difficult to conceptualize, let alone put into practice.
Number 2257
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG thought the amendment should be dealt with
by the Judiciary Committee because it was clearly a legal
definition of standard.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE directed the committee's attention to page 38, line
12 and asked Ms. Carpeneti to explain the Department of Law's
concern.
Number 2300
MS. CARPENETI said there were a couple of concerns and added this
is new language, not part of splitting the code. She commented the
drafting is unusual in that it has two subsections: the court shall
consider one set of considerations and then another. She explained
that in the past, the tradition has been to focus on the best
interests of the minor and the public. Now there are other things
like the seriousness of the delinquent's act. They may actually
relate to each other, but she wanted the opportunity to give it
some additional thought.
TAPE 96-18, SIDE B
Number 001
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were other questions for the
representatives from the Department of Law. Hearing none, he
advised that testimony would be taken via teleconference.
Number 007
AL NEAR testified from Fairbanks that he didn't have a copy of the
current work draft, but he had been following the legislation and
wholeheartedly supported what he believed was the primary goal of
returning the offender to accountability in the juvenile justice
formula. He first learned of the accountability gap when his
daughter refused to come home from school because he and his wife
had threatened to impose grounding sanctions in response to her
cutting classes. He was informed by the school counselor that he
should try to persuade her to return, but he could face serious
consequences if he attempted any physical solution, such as putting
her in the car and driving her home. He ended up negotiating with
his daughter through the vice principal, the counselor and nurse.
In the end, his daughter had her way in that she went home with a
classmate for the weekend, thereby avoiding any consequences for
her actions. That incident occurred in December 1994, and since
then she has been in a dozen or more foster settings from which she
either ran away or was asked to leave, still no consequences. His
daughter has lived on the streets for up to six weeks at a time,
and when she has been picked up as a runaway, she refuses to go
home, so she is delivered to the local youth shelter where it's
been a revolving door and she soon returns to the unsavory
situation from which she had just been rescued, and still no
consequences. His daughter was an attractive, intelligent and
talented, 15-year-old girl who held the world in her hands before
she was pulled into a negative peer group. She was destined for
college and a responsible, productive future. Now he doubts that
she will even finish high school and she has self-predicted that
she will end up in jail, but quickly points out she will be with
her friends. He asked how something like this could happen.
Before it happened to their family, he would have blamed it on the
family, but he and his wife have enjoyed 32 years of a loving
partnership and their son is a well-liked 19-year-old college
student. He remarked that their situation is not an isolated case.
During the past year, there have been families from all walks of
life who have similar stories. He pointed out the one continuing
theme that runs through all these cases is the absence of
accountability. When a child refuses to follow the standards of
behavior set forth by the family and society, it seems that the
legal system also refuses to uphold them, what should be expected?
The earliest intervention is what is needed. He believes that if
his daughter had been sent home when she first began experimenting
with the system, she might have been saved. But after scores of
episodes to which the system responded by rewarding these
misadventures with ever greater freedoms, what are the odds that
she can ever be turned around? There needs to be appropriate
consequences at the beginning or even before, when the kids start
talking about running away with their peers. He feels that many of
those kids would never take that first step if they knew with
certainty there would be appropriate and meaningful consequences.
He concluded with "let's show our children that we care by revising
our laws to set and maintain reasonable boundaries for them."
Number 153
PAUL WORMAN testified from Fairbanks in support of HB 387. He
believes that profit businesses should compete with nonprofit
corporations.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he thought Mr. Worman was addressing an old
version of the bill and pointed out the section relating to for
profit or nonprofit organizations had been deleted from the current
work draft. He advised Mr. Worman that a copy of the new version
would be faxed to the Fairbanks Legislative Information Office.
MR. WORMAN asked if the sections regarding sex offenders were still
included in the current work draft?
CO-CHAIR BUNDE responded that had been deleted from this work draft
and the language would go back to where it resides in current
statute.
Number 268
PAM WORMAN testified via teleconference from Fairbanks and said she
didn't understand what Co-Chair Bunde had said about the portion of
the bill that addressed sexual offenders.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted this current work draft does not address
sexual offenders. The sexual offender language would remain where
it resided in current law.
Number 298
CAM CARLSON testified from Fairbanks and thanked Representative
Kelly and Senator Steve Frank for this legislation. She said she
had been following the issue of runaways for about 15 years, which
is closely entwined with juveniles delinquents. She said her three
children fortunately grew to adults without getting into these
problems, but she has experienced them through friends of
neighbors. She has seen perfectly good families where the
government has gotten involved, destroyed parental authority and
created problems that shouldn't exist. She said she had followed
SB 269, CSSB 289 and CSSSHB 387 and had three points to offer: 1)
It is essential to keep the family as the point of authority, not
the government. The government is taking children out of families
with no real proof that insurmountable problems exist and place the
children in situations that are worse; 2) anonymity for juvenile
delinquents has to be done away with; it's not working. The
juvenile needs to know from the very beginning that he/she is going
to be held responsible for their actions and no one is going to
hide them; and 3) once a child crosses that line, there has to be
consequences and they must be severe.
Number 384
DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family & Youth Services,
Department of Health & Social Services, thanked Representative
Kelly and his staff for working so diligently with the department
and they feel this draft is much more workable than the original
version. As Representative Kelly stated earlier, what is being
done is separating the two codes: The child in need of aid code
and the juvenile delinquent code. The department supports the
effort and will assist with the Governor's Conference on Juvenile
Justice as their work related to the juvenile code continues and
the eventual rewrite of that code. She felt this legislation
should provide a clear separation and some ease to that process.
She said now that the separation has been done, she hoped the
division would be given the opportunity to go through the bill line
by line to ensure the separation had been done in a thoughtful way
or language had been left where it shouldn't be.
Number 454
CO-CHAIR BUNDE offered an anecdotal note that he had recently
attended a town meeting in Anchorage on juvenile justice where
there was a bright, articulate, young man about 22 years of age who
had just gotten out of jail. This young man said if there had only
been consequences that he believed when he was 14 or 15 years old,
it would have saved him four or five years of his life.
Number 508
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass CSSSHB 387, Version R, as
amended, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes
out of the House HESS Committee. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
HB 523 - STATE'S POLICY ON SOBRIETY
Number 546
DANIELLA LOPER, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Brian Porter, said HB 523 concerns expressing the
state's policy with respect to sobriety. House Bill 523 changes AS
47.37.010, Declaration of Policy, regarding the treatment of
alcoholism and drug abuse. She said Representative Porter believes
that sobriety can be an alternative into the treatment of alcohol
and drug abuse - sobriety, meaning a positive, healthy and
productive way of life, free from the devastating effects of
alcohol and drugs. The sobriety language established an additional
solution to the policy set forth by the Uniform Alcoholism and
Intoxication Treatment Act. In fact, the Division of Alcoholism
and Drug Abuse has placed the definition of "sobriety" in their
strategic plan "Meeting the Challenge" adopted by the division and
the Governor. Also, the Governor has declared the month of March
as Sobriety Month.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this particular section,
Declaration of Policy, was actually set forth in statute or was it
intent or purpose language?
MS. LOPER replied it was actually in statute and it is the
Declaration of Policy for the Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication
Treatment Act, which is followed by the division.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if it was a fair characterization to say that
previously the bill said if someone was intoxicated, it wasn't a
criminal offense, but was allowing intoxication. House Bill 523
emphasizes not the intoxication, but the need for sobriety.
MS. LOPER responded that was correct and added it simply says it is
the policy of the state to recognize, appreciate and reinforce the
examples set by citizens who believe in and support a life of
sobriety.
Number 686
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said above and beyond that, he thought the
last sentence was very important. It's the idea of sobriety being
not only a preventive measure, but a rehabilitative measure as
well. Also, he mentioned the importance of breaking through the
barriers of alcoholism and other addictions by learning new life
skills and social skills to help and maintain sobriety.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked to clarify that it was the intention
of the sponsor, the Judiciary Committee, to bring forward the
concept and idea of sobriety as an articulated state policy in the
state and to boost the education.
MS. LOPER said that was correct in one form. She said there had
been some discussion about having to rewrite policy, etc. However,
according to the division and the Department of Law, that will not
have to be done because in 1994 it was declared a part of their
strategic plan. She reiterated this is simply a declaration in
acknowledging that sobriety is a solution to the treatment of
alcohol and drug abuse.
Number 771
GREG NOTHSTINE, Coordinator, Alaska Federation of Natives Sobriety
Movement, testified as the coordinator for the Alaska Federation of
Natives Sobriety Movement Council and on behalf of the Alaska
Federation of Natives, in support of House Bill 523. He said it
was a foregone conclusion that alcohol and drug abuse present an
immediate danger to the lives, health and well-being of all
Alaskans. The Alaska Federation of Natives supports the passage of
House Bill 523 because it represents a positive paradigm shift in
the state's policy for preventing alcohol and drug abuse in Alaska.
MR. NOTHSTINE stated HB 523 speaks to the legitimate recognition by
the state of Alaska for a preferred lifestyle now being practiced
by thousands of Alaskans and commonly referred to as sobriety. For
the Alaska Federation of Natives and 58 other local, regional and
statewide organizations, sobriety is understood as a positive,
healthy and productive way of life, free from the devastating
effects of alcohol and drugs. What is interesting is that the
history of sobriety has been a concept and lifestyle, pursued and
practiced by millions of Americans, longer than Alaska has been
with the Union. Indisputably, our state court system has since
dealt with many alcohol and drug abuse related cases.
Consequently, many criminals have been remanded to receive
education and treatment services, which are regulated by statute.
MR. NOTHSTINE reiterated HB 523 represents a positive paradigm
shift in the state's policy for preventing alcohol and drug abuse.
It favors and follows the conventional wisdom for reinforcing
socially appropriate behaviors and choices that are conducive to:
a) helping improve the quality of life and health for
individuals, families and communities;
b) helping reduce the incidence of alcohol and drug
related crimes;
c) helping reduce the burden on government in exhausting
its resources and having to pay for the many social
ills and problems caused by alcohol and drug abuse.
MR. NOTHSTINE pointed out that committee members had been provided
a copy of Governor Tony Knowles' second Executive Proclamation
declaring the month of March 1996 as Sobriety Awareness Month.
Last year, both Governor Knowles and the Alaska State Legislature,
declared March 1995 as Sobriety Awareness Month. This set a
precedent in not only state history, but U.S. history, because it
made Alaska the first state in the nation to recognize sobriety as
a lifestyle; the merits of which are deserving of support from
every local, state and federal agency in the field of prevention.
MR. NOTHSTINE concluded that on the eve of the second proclaimed
Sobriety Awareness Month in our state's history and on behalf of
the AFN Board of Directors and the AFN Sobriety Movement Council,
he urged and supported the passage of HB 523.
Number 934
STEVE HAMILTON, Research Analyst, Advisory Board on Alcoholism &
Drug Abuse, Department of Health & Social Services, testified on
behalf of the director and also represented the board members. He
conveyed to the committee the support of the Advisory Board for the
concept of sobriety as expressed in HB 523. They were particularly
pleased that it is an inclusive measure - that it includes all
Alaskans who have made the choice to live a life of sobriety rather
than singling out those people who are living a life of sobriety in
recovery from alcohol. He noted there were a number of pieces of
legislation dealing with alcoholism and drug abuse, addressing
financial aspects with legal repercussions for use. He stated the
Advisory Board on Alcoholism & Drug Abuse applauded this because it
represents a positive effort to include all Alaskans and celebrate
the life of sobriety.
Number 984
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Health & Social Services, testified in support of the
sobriety movement. He said the department has no objection to
adding this as an addition to the policy under the division's
statute.
Number 1015
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 523 out of the House HESS
Committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection,
it was so ordered.
HCR 26 - PUBLIC INEBRIATE TASK FORCE
Number 1050
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Ivan Ivan
presented the sponsor statement for HCR 26. He said Representative
Ivan introduced this resolution because of a growing problem in
Alaska that will undoubtedly need to be addressed by future
legislatures. The resolution establishes a task force to develop
and recommend to the legislature a plan for treatment and services
for intoxicated persons and persons incapacitated by alcohol who
are affected by Title 47. As many are aware, under AS 47.37.170,
local police take into protective custody a person who appears to
be intoxicated and incapacitated in a public place and place that
person in an approved public treatment or detention facility. A
licensed physician or other qualified health practitioner must then
examine the inebriate as soon as possible. If the person is found
to be incapacitated by alcohol or drugs, he or she is detained for
no more than 48 hours in a health facility or for no more than 12
hours in a detention facility. Treatment costs, of course, accrue
to municipalities and public health facilities due to this program.
However, the costs, all affected programs, and other aspects of the
Title 47 equation are unknown or sketchy at best. He said that's
why Representative Ivan believes it is necessary to form a task
force and look into this problem from all angles. Those who are
listed as participants have a vested interest in finding a
resolution and Representative Ivan believes they will be
instrumental in tackling this problem.
Number 1137
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to page 3, line 1, and noted that the
task force would include a member of the Advisory Council on
Alcohol and Drug Abuse. He questioned why the Advisory Council
wasn't undertaking this project instead of establishing a task
force.
MR. WRIGHT said he couldn't respond on behalf of the Advisory
Council. He pointed out there have been a number of task forces in
the past which have touched on this issue, but no one had really
gotten a firm grasp on the whole problem.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if Mr. Wright was aware of any task
force in the past that had specifically looked into this issue.
MR. WRIGHT responded he was not aware of any. He noted the
Department of Health & Social Services had requested, with the
sponsor's concurrence, that an official of the department be
included on the task force rather than a member of the Division of
Alcohol and Drug Abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted the proposed task force would consist
of 17 members and said she had always favored a smaller number of
members. She acknowledged that the sponsor was trying to bring in
all the affected parties, but it increases the cost. Her concern
is the end result will be similar to a commission that was
established last year whereby little or no action was taken on the
commission's recommendations. She questioned why the division
wasn't undertaking the task set out in the resolution.
MR. WRIGHT replied the Advisory Council or division would need to
speak to that issue. He said Representative Ivan was trying to
include the agencies affected by this. He referred to testimony
given on another bill regarding reimbursement to municipalities for
public inebriate costs, and said every time one step is taken, it
appears there are three or four other steps that need to be looked
at. He admitted it was a large task force, but it was
Representative Ivan's hope to get as much of the problem addressed
as possible from all the different angles.
Number 1375
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Health & Social Services, testified the department
would request consideration of an amendment on page 3, lines 4 and
5, to simply specify a member from the Department of Health &
Social Services rather than a member of the Division of Alcoholism
and Drug Abuse within the Department of Health & Social Services.
Commissioner Perdue had alluded that she may wish to participate.
In any event, he assured the full cooperation of the staff from the
division. Mr. Lindstrom did not believe there had ever been a task
force or a working group within the department who had looked
specifically at this issue, but as Mr. Wright had indicated there
had been a number of task forces and commissions that have
addressed one or more aspects of this issue. He believed currently
there is a Municipality of Anchorage task force looking at this
issue. The department had worked with them, but Mr. Lindstrom had
not seen a final report or recommendations from that group. He
said the issue of involuntary commitment had come to the
department's attention, which ultimately resulted in legislation
sponsored by Representative Ivan. Mr. Lindstrom said the
department had been working with the board and the sponsor and that
is the one discreet piece of the problem the department feels they
would like to move forward with. However, the department is sure
there will be other issues that would come forward from the
proposed task force.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated HCR 26 would be held in committee to allow
time for the Department of Health & Social Services to address the
amendment with the sponsor.
MR. LINDSTROM addressed the concern about the size of the task
force, and said it was a real concern but he knew that each and
everyone of the groups did have a legitimate interest and
involvement in this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said reducing the size of the task force
may not save a lot of money, recognizing that all these groups need
to be involved. She asked if it was possible to involve them
through the teleconferencing system rather than having to bring 17
people together at a specific location.
Number 1647
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referenced HB 523 which just passed out of the
House HESS Committee, cited the policy in the first "Whereas" in
the resolution, and suggested that language be incorporated in HCR
26.
HB 515 - USE OF YOUTH SERVICES GRANTS
Number 1760
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS, Sponsor of HB 515, read the following
sponsor statement: "House Bill 515 allows the recipient of an
operating grant for residential services to use grant money to pay
for the purchase of a building. Residential services are defined
in statute as `24-hour care and supervision of minors in
residential child care facilities that are commonly known as group
homes or institutions' (AS 47.40.091).
"Currently recipients of these grants may not use grant money to
pay the principal of a mortgage loan. They may, however, use the
money for rent and least payments. Today recipients pay rent/lease
payments year after year with no chance of building equity. The
residential youth home in Ketchikan has spent over $200,000 in rent
over the last six years. They could own their facility today had
it not been for the present statute.
"By changing this statute these residential centers can, in many
cases, lower monthly payments and eventually own their own
facility. In the long run this will lessen their dependency on the
state and allow more money for the programs that help our troubled
youth.
"During these times of fiscal responsibility, we need to get the
most out of every dollar the state spends. I believe this
legislation will give these homes flexibility toward bettering
their programs. I urge you to support this legislation."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked what prompted Representative Williams to
introduce this legislation?
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said individuals who are in charge of the
homes in Ketchikan brought it to his attention. He also thought it
was something that needed to be looked at, especially when an
agency spends that kind of money for lease/rent over a six year
period.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Representative Williams knew why the
statute was written as it currently exists?
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said he didn't know, but perhaps someone
from the Department of Health & Social Services could respond to
that question.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said this bill focuses on residential
services for certain minors and asked Representative Williams if he
had given any thought to including adult treatment programs,
battered women's shelters and other programs available for adults.
It was her belief that any nonprofit organization receiving state
grants should be able to use the money to actually purchase the
facility, if they could show good cause.
Number 2017
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked where the assets would go if one of
these homes had been in existence for 20 years, the state had paid
off the mortgage on the facility, and the facility closed down
after the mortgage is paid off.
TAPE 96-19, SIDE A
Number 039
TOM LANE, Juneau Facilities Manager, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Health & Social Services, referred to
Representative Brice's question and said in any of their capital
grants, normally the department would have a deed of trust or some
other covenants or restrictions for a 20-year period. The
department normally assumes a 20-year period as the depreciation
period. After that, the property would revert to the grantee.
Number 120
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked about a situation where the grantee closes
down the program after 25 years.
MR. LANE responded the 20-year period is somewhat arbitrary, but it
is based on federal guidelines the department uses for
depreciation. During the 20-year period, it is the assumption that
the state does have some interest in the building and it is put in
the deed of trust or covenants and restrictions, so the purpose is
specifically granted for a public purpose after negotiation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked who owns that building if the nonprofit agency
that has used it for 25 years goes out of business for some reason
and the state no longer has the covenant.
MR. LANE replied the nonprofit agency legally would own that
building after 20 years. The assumption is the building has
essentially depreciated and the state no longer has any right to
that building. Prior to the end of that 20-year period, the normal
practice is that the state would have some right to the building.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the maintenance was paid by the nonprofit
or by the state?
MR. LANE responded it was paid by the grantee.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS pointed out the grantee could also utilize
grant monies or state dollars for maintenance and upkeep, so in a
sense the state would continually be upgrading to keep the value of
the asset, so at the end of the 20 years it was possible the state
still could have an asset.
Number 220
JACKIE DAMON, Social Service Program Officer, Division of Family &
Youth Services, Department of Health & Social Services, said she
was the grants administrator for the residential facilities. She
said it is true that in the grant process money is allocated to
cover expenses for the building, but one of the provisions of all
the grants is that at the end of a grant period, when the grantee
is no longer a grantee of the department, any of the assets
purchased during that time need to be distributed to another
grantee providing like services or at least another social service
type facility. Ms. Damon commented that she is aware of one or two
buildings that had been purchased with state money over a period of
20 years or longer, and are no longer providing services to the
Division of Family & Youth Services, but they are being used to
provide social services to a group that is also served by the
department.
MS. DAMON pointed out this particular statute speaks only to the
residential child care grants, but department grants speak to all
of the grantees. Grant money is allowed to be used for the
purchase of a building under the department grants, but it is not
allowed under the residential grants. The residential grants take
precedent, if there is something in the department's regulations,
but not in the residential grant regulations, then the department
grant regulations take precedent. In this case, it is only the
residential provider grantees who cannot purchase buildings.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE summarized that the property doesn't go into limbo,
it remains of use to nonprofit agencies who provide social
services. In other words, the property is not going to be sold,
and the money will end up in someone's pocket.
MS. DAMON responded no, because the grant awards specify that it
must be used for like services in case of no longer being funded.
Number 398
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG verified these were grants to private
nonprofit corporations and asked what occurred if the funding was
cut off after a period of years, but prior to the satisfaction of
the note on the deed of trust. Where is the title vested?
MR. LANE replied the state would have some right to that building.
He said this is a general problem that works with all the state's
capital grants, whatever they are. He explained that in any
facility, the state doesn't necessarily own the right for
perpetuity, but they try to maintain that it has a public purpose,
and then if there is a problem in the future, the state would
negotiate with that grantee, possibly even foreclose on the
building. He added it's rarely done, but the state does have the
legal right to foreclose if they have a deed of trust.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it was his understanding there are
provisions in those leases that allow the state to terminate their
lease/own interest if funding is not approved by the legislature.
He commented that accounts for the lease/own interest situation,
but he thought it also applied to policy as to purchase (indisc.)
fee about what is going to occur with that asset. If there is not
a future income stream to service the debt on the promissory under
the deed of trust, then there is going to be an automatic default
if the funding is cut off by the legislature. He commented that
when the federal government does things of this nature, they do it
with cash. He said that Representative Robinson's suggestion to
include adult programs sounds like a great concept, but the state
could have numerous obligations to other deed of trust holders or
beneficiaries if the funding was cut back.
Number 585
MR. LANG remarked the state wouldn't have any obligation. The
obligation would be all on the grantee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that Mr. Lang was alluding to "some
state of Alaska right here that (indisc.) law when you're
depreciating this and then there's no reversionary interest in the
fee afterwards. So, the state would pay for the physical asset and
at the end of the satisfaction of the promissory note, then title
would revert to the nonprofit organization?"
MR. LANG replied it is their general practice that the title is
always with the organization, but the state has a deed of trust on
the title; it's basically a mortgage like a bank would do. If that
property is not being used correctly or is in danger of default,
the state could step in and foreclose on that property.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would like to hold HB 515 in committee so
Representative Rokeberg could work with the department and discuss
the real estate implications.
Number 661
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out there is a request from the
Department of Health & Social Services for revision in the fiscal
note.
MR. LANG informed the committee that this particular statute is
unique. The department has a lot of grant programs that allow the
department to give capital grants, but this is the only grant
program that he is aware of that has any restriction. He said this
is an anomalous situation and the department is going along with it
because it brings this program in line with the other grant
practices.
Number 784
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked these were tax exempt facilities under
the current system of leasing and renting?
MS. DAMON replied the nonprofits are tax exempt. She felt this
issue had been raised because many of the nonprofit agencies pay
hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of time to some
landlord for property, and this legislation would allow them to own
the building and the money could then be used for services. She
added this particular regulation went into effect in about 1983 and
a lot of the nonprofits who provided residential care services to
children in the department's custody, were able to get their
buildings through capital projects.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would like to hold HB 515 over until
Thursday, March 7, to allow time for the department to work with
the sponsor and Representative Rokeberg regarding the technical
issues.
MR. LANG added the department feels that rather than just limiting
the change to building-related, he whole clause in question should
be deleted.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE suggested the department work with the sponsor on
that issue.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting of the House HESS Committee at
5:14 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|