Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/04/1995 02:05 PM HES
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE April 4, 1995 2:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair Representative Al Vezey Representative Caren Robinson Representative Tom Brice MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Gary Davis Representative Norman Rokeberg COMMITTEE CALENDAR SB 68: "An Act relating to the donation to a food bank of hatchery salmon, to the donation of food by meat processors, seafood processors, manufacturers, packers, processors, bottlers, and similar entities, and to who qualifies as a food bank." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE SB 39: "An Act relating to memorial scholarship loans; and providing for an effective date." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE SB 27: "An Act relating to child visitation rights of grandparents and other persons who are not parents of the child." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE * HB 222: "An Act allowing a local bidder preference in certain contracts for school construction." SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD HB 104: "An Act relating to disclosures of information about certain minors." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) WITNESS REGISTER JANET OGAN, Legislative Secretary Senator Loren Leman's Office Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Building, Room 113 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2095 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SB 68. JACK DOYLE, Executive Director Food Bank of Alaska 2121 Spar Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 272-3663 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 68. RAY GILLESPIE, Lobbyist Representing four aquaculture associations and hatcheries 2 Marine Way Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 463-3375 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 68. JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant Senator Robin Taylor's Office Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Building, Room 30 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3873 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SB 39. THOMAS PANAMAROFF, Legislative Assistant Senator Fred Zharoff's Office Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Building, Room 121 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3472 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 39. JAMES ARMSTRONG, Legislative Researcher Senator David Donley's Office Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Building, Room 11 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3892 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SB 27. REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Building, Room 400 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2199 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 27. ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant Representative Pete Kott's Office Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Building, Room 432 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3777 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 104. MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General Criminal Law Division Department of Law Court Building, Room 717 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3428 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 104. MARGARET BERCK, Attorney Representative of the American Civil Liberties Union 227 7th Street Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-0384 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 104. DENNIS GREGORY, Teacher Butte Elementary School; and Member, Juvenile Violence Task Force, Mat-Su Valley P.O. Box 3804 Palmer, AK 99645 Telephone: (907) 746-0199 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 104. LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant to Commissioner Otte Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 111200 Juneau, AK 99811-1200 Telephone: (907) 465-4322 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 104. ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to Commissioner Perdue Department of Health and Social Services Alaska Office Building, Room 229 350 Main Street Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3030 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 104. PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 68 SHORT TITLE: FOOD BANKS;MEAT & SEAFOOD PROCESSORS SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN,Ellis,Kelly,Pearce JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/06/95 182 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/06/95 182 (S) HES 02/09/95 225 (S) COSPONSOR(S): ELLIS 02/15/95 (S) HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205 02/15/95 (S) MINUTE(HES) 02/16/95 315 (S) HES RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE 02/16/95 315 (S) ZERO FN (DEC #1) 02/20/95 (S) RLS AT 11:25 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 02/20/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 02/21/95 349 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/21/95 02/21/95 354 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 02/21/95 354 (S) HES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 02/21/95 354 (S) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY, PEARCE 02/21/95 355 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 02/21/95 355 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 68(HES) 02/21/95 355 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E1 A1 02/21/95 355 (S) LEMAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 02/22/95 370 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 02/22/95 370 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN CONSENT 02/22/95 371 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 02/22/95 371 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING 02/22/95 372 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y19 A1 02/22/95 374 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 02/27/95 479 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/27/95 480 (H) FISHERIES & HES 03/06/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/06/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH) 03/13/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/20/95 824 (H) FSH REFERRAL WAIVED 04/04/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: SB 39 SHORT TITLE: MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP LOANS SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR,Zharoff JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/19/95 50 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/19/95 50 (S) HES, FIN 02/08/95 204 (S) HES RPT 2DP 2NR 02/08/95 204 (S) ZERO FNS (DPS #1, DOE #2) 02/08/95 (S) HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 02/08/95 (S) MINUTE(HES) 03/08/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 03/08/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 03/09/95 554 (S) FIN RPT CS 7DP NEW TITLE 03/09/95 555 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (DPS #1,DOE #2) 03/09/95 561 (S) COSPONSOR(S): ZHAROFF 03/09/95 (S) RLS AT 04:15 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 03/09/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/10/95 577 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/10/95 03/10/95 579 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/10/95 580 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 03/10/95 580 (S) THIRD READING 3/14 CALENDAR 03/14/95 603 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 39(FIN) 03/14/95 603 (S) PASSED Y14 N- E3 A3 03/14/95 604 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 03/14/95 606 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/15/95 734 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 03/15/95 734 (H) HES, FINANCE 04/04/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: SB 27 SHORT TITLE: MISC. GRANDPARENT VISITATION RIGHTS SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY,Ellis,Lincoln,Pearce; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Willis, Robinson JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/13/95 21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/13/95 01/16/95 21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/16/95 21 (S) HES, JUD 02/02/95 146 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED- REFERRALS 02/02/95 146 (S) HES, JUD 03/01/95 436 (S) HES RPT 3DP 2NR 03/01/95 436 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COURT #1) 03/01/95 (S) HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 03/01/95 (S) MINUTE(HES) 03/15/95 (S) JUD AT 02:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 03/17/95 (S) JUD AT 03:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 03/17/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 03/20/95 696 (S) JUD RPT 4DP 1NR 03/20/95 696 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (COURT #1) 03/22/95 (S) RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 03/23/95 766 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/23/95 03/23/95 768 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/23/95 768 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 03/23/95 768 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SSSB 27 03/23/95 768 (S) COSPONSOR: PEARCE 03/23/95 768 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2 03/23/95 772 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/24/95 879 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/24/95 879 (H) HES, JUDICIARY 03/24/95 920 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): WILLIS, ROBINSON 04/04/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 222 SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL CONST: ALASKA BIDDER PREFERENCE SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/03/95 564 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/03/95 564 (H) HEALTH,EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES, L&C 04/04/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 104 SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE RECORDS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT,Bunde,Green JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/20/95 101 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/20/95 101 (H) HES, JUD 01/25/95 136 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN 02/10/95 301 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED- REFERRALS 02/10/95 301 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/10/95 301 (H) HES, JUD 02/23/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/23/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/23/95 (H) MINUTE(HES) 04/04/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-34, SIDE A Number 000 CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the meeting of the House Health, Education and Social Services standing committee to order at 2:05 p.m. Present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey and Brice. A quorum was present to conduct business. Co-Chair Bunde read the calendar and announced the order of the bills. He also announced that he and Co-Chair Toohey would alternate chairing the meeting. SB 68 - FOOD BANKS;MEAT & SEAFOOD PROCESSORS CO-CHAIR BUNDE turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Toohey. Number 113 JANET OGAN, Legislative Secretary for Senator Loren Leman, presented the sponsor statement on his behalf. She said Senator Leman introduced SB 68 at the request of the Food Bank of Alaska. The purpose of this bill is to encourage more entities to donate food to food banks and nonprofit agencies that serve the needy. It provides salmon hatcheries and meat and seafood processors with the same protection under the state law they have under the Federal Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (FGSFD). MS. OGAN explained the FGSFD relieves food donors from certain liability for death or injury resulting from the death of donated food. To qualify for protection under the Act as a donor, the person must donate the food for free distribution by a food bank. Current state law protects donors and food banks from civil and criminal liability arising from injury or death attributable to the condition of the donated food. MS. OGAN said however, the donating party remains liable if the injury or death results from gross negligence or recklessness, or intentional misconduct of the donor. Salmon hatcheries, and meat and seafood processors are not specifically listed as donors covered by this protection under existing state law. Number 207 MS. OGAN said upon the passage of this bill, the Food Bank of Alaska (FBA) expects thousands of pounds of seafood and meat to be contributed and distributed to the needy. The bill also clarifies to whom and how the FBA distributes goods. MS. OGAN introduced an amendment that provides for an effective date for SB 68. Basically, the amendment pertains to the fishing industry, so the industry will be able to contribute goods they have received. Number 258 CO-CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged the presence of Representative Robinson at 2:08 p.m., and invited Representative Ed Willis, who was observing the meeting, to sit at the committee table. Co-Chair Bunde also moved the committee accept CSSB 68(HESS). CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY found no objection, and the CS was adopted. She asked if there was a list of entities to which salmon hatcheries and meat and seafood processors could donate. MS. OGAN said there was not. The bill speaks specifically of the FBA, for distribution to the needy. CO-CHAIR BUNDE moved amendment one, K.1 dated 3/9/95. There were no objections, and the amendment was adopted. Number 385 JACK DOYLE, Executive Director of the FBA, said he has served in that position since late 1987. The FBA is an umbrella of over 200 nonprofit agencies all over Alaska. The FBA was chartered in 1979 as a nonprofit corporation in the state of Alaska. It is a member of Second Harvest, a national umbrella for 188 food banks scattered across the United States. MR. DOYLE said the role of the FBA in Alaska is unique. The FBA solicits, receives, sorts, inspects, stores, ships, delivers or provides food and household product donations through a network of soup kitchens, food pantries, emergency shelters, youth and adult day care centers, and youth agencies. Products come to the FBA from many sources: Purchased food, national donations, food drives, day-old products, U.S. Government commodities, and locally donated products within the state of Alaska. MR. DOYLE continued that persons or companies who donate products need the protection of the Alaska Good Samaritan Act, so if they donate in good faith, they will not be held responsible should something go wrong. Number 492 MR. DOYLE said currently such protection is excluded in Alaska's Good Samaritan Act for meat and fish processors, and bottlers. The proposed amendments would extend protection to potential donors who process meat, fish or bottled goods, and would allow the FBA to recover some of its overhead costs. The goal of the FBA is unique in that it accepts these large donations, sometimes in van-loads of products, from the Lower 48. When the food comes in to the FBA, it is stored, sometimes for several months, until the many agencies in the network can access that food. MR. DOYLE said the FBA is, by comparison, kind of the "J.B. Gottstein" of reusable food and household products. The FBA distributes not to people, but to the agencies which then provide the products at no cost to clients. MR. DOYLE thanked the HESS Committee members for the opportunity to testify in favor of the proposed amendments to Alaska's Good Samaritan Act, contained in SB 86. Number 567 CO-CHAIR BUNDE supports the Good Samaritan bills to protect people who are trying to do a good turn. However, he asked if there has been recent incidences in the FBA, or if Mr. Doyle knows of any incidences in which someone who has been a Good Samaritan has been the recipient of a lawsuit. MR. DOYLE was not aware of any lawsuits in his seven years at the FBA. The FBA has not had any donations which were tainted. The FBA watches and stores goods, and inspects goods on a regular basis. If the products look questionable, it is thrown away without hesitation. The FBA tries to exert that care. Mr. Doyle cannot respond in terms of individual food distribution centers such as the Glory Hole in Juneau. Number 642 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Mr. Doyle would say SB 68 is a proactive measure rather than a reaction to a problem. Mr. Doyle said the bill was proactive. Number 664 RAY GILLESPIE, Lobbyist, represented four regional aquaculture associations and hatcheries. One is located in Cook Inlet, one is in Prince William Sound, one is in northern and one in southern Southeast Alaska. He said the four regional aquaculture associations support SB 68. There is, in the bill, a specific provision that deals with the donation of hatchery fish to a food bank. MR. GILLESPIE noted that Co-Chair Bunde had questioned whether there has been any lawsuits. The Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association had declined in the past, based on advice from their attorney, to donate fish. This bill will facilitate donations, and relieve the association of some legal concerns. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the legal concerns arose over fresh, frozen or canned fish. MR. GILLESPIE said the concerns arose over donated fish that was at the hatchery for brood stock. The fish is typically opened, the eggs are taken, and the salmon is then transferred, if it is fit for human consumption, to a food bank for consumption by whatever agencies distribute fish. In the past, the association's attorney had advised against the donation of this fish, because there is some legal exposure there. This legislation would eliminate that impediment to those donations. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY closed the hearing to public testimony, and asked for the wish of the committee. Co-Chair Bunde motioned HCS CSSB 68(HES) be moved from the HESS Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There were no objections, and the bill was moved. SB 39 - MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP LOANS CO-CHAIR BUNDE chaired this portion of the meeting. Number 856 JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, presented the sponsor statement on Senator Taylor's behalf. He said this bill was introduced at the suggestion of the Admissions Clerk at the University of Alaska Southeast, Sitka Campus. The bill would modify the eligibility requirements for the Alaska State Troopers Michael Murphy scholarship program to include certificate programs. The wording of AS 14.43.300 currently limits the awarding of Murphy scholarship loans to students who pursue a degree program in law enforcement, law, probation, and parole, and closely related fields. MR. AMBROSE said the language prevents students in a certificate program such as the law enforcement certificate program offered at the Sitka campus from eligibility. The scholarship revolving loan fund established by the legislature includes a provision allowing forgiveness of one-fifth of the loan indebtedness for each year of full employment in Alaska in law enforcement. Department of Labor statistics show that 63 percent of Sitka program graduates are currently employed in the state as law enforcement personnel. Number 920 MR. AMBROSE noted the bill carries a zero fiscal note, and received unanimous "do-pass" recommendations from both the Senate HESS and Finance Committees last year before receiving a unanimous vote in the full Senate. SB 39 will potentially benefit Alaskan students attending an Alaskan school with an eye toward employment in Alaska. Mr. Ambrose said a representative from Senator Zharoff's office was present to explain Sections 3 through 5 of the CS from the Finance Committee. These amendments were offered by Senator Zharoff. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said the only program with forgiveness is the trooper memorial. She asked if that was correct. MR. AMBROSE said there is a forgiveness provision that applies to most of the scholarship loans that are covered by AS 14.43.300. This specific bill only changes the requirement from a graduate or degree program to a certificate program under the Michael Murphy scholarship. The provision that was amended by Senator Zharoff makes a change in the Winn Brindle memorial scholarship. CO-CHAIR BUNDE added that as a member of the Postsecondary Education Commission, he was involved in hearing an appeal where a very deserving applicant was not covered because he/she was in a certificate program, and not a degree program. Co-Chair Bunde doubted it was the original intent of the program to exclude those applicants. He certainly supports the goal of this legislation. Number 1040 THOMAS PANAMAROFF, Legislative Assistant to Senator Zharoff, explained that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of CSSB 39(FIN) apply to the Winn Brindle Memorial Scholarship Loan. Senator Zharoff had a bill, SB 36, that dealt with the Winn Brindle Memorial Scholarship Loan. It was up before Senate Finance at the same time as Senator Taylor's bill. The committee decided to meld the two bills together. MR. PANAMAROFF said several years ago the legislature established the Winn Brindle Memorial Scholarship Loan. The program's intent is to make loans to Alaskan students who are seeking degrees in fields that relate to the fishing industry, food technology, fish biology, and related fields. The program is funded by contributions from the fish processing industry. Since 1987, processors have contributed over $1.8 million to the program. MR. PANAMAROFF reported that currently, there is a balance of about $1.4 million in the Winn Brindle fund. He believes the reason for the large balance in the fund is because there has not been many students accessing the program. The reason they have not been accessing the program is because the payback provisions on the program are exactly the same as the regular student loan program. Therefore, there is no incentive for a student to access the Winn Brindle funds because they would have to be pursuing a fisheries- related field. This fund restricts their ability to change majors if they ever wanted to. MR. PANAMAROFF said in order to try to get more access to the program, Senator Zharoff introduced SB 36. The bill provides for a loan forgiveness provision similar to the old student loan program, where over a course of five years, a student can get forgiveness of up to 50 percent. It also fixes the rate of interest on the loan at 5 percent. MR. PANAMAROFF said basically the bill does not have any general fund impact. The program is funded by processors. CO-CHAIR BUNDE thinks the interest in this fund will grow, considering the new student loan interest without a payback provision will be about 9 percent. Therefore, Senator Zharoff may soon encounter more interest in fisheries. He closed public testimony, and asked for the wish of the committee. Number 1170 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY motioned to move CSSB 39(FIN) from the HESS Committee with its two zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations. There were no objections, and the bill passed. Co-Chair Toohey chaired the next bill. SB 27 - MISC. GRANDPARENT VISITATION RIGHTS Number 1203 JAMES ARMSTRONG, Legislative Researcher for Senator Donley, said SB 27 would give grandparents the legal status to petition the court for visitation rights with their grandchildren. Under existing law, the court can grant an order that provides for visitation by grandparents in divorce and separation proceedings, and in cases when one or both of the parents have died. Grandparents themselves are not allowed to initiate such an action. MR. ARMSTRONG explained that SB 27 would give grandparents the standing to ask for visitation rights if those rights were denied or not initially provided for by the court. SB 27 does not require that visitation rights be given, it is completely up to the discretion of the judge. The best interest of the child would be the primary factor for granting such rights. MR. ARMSTRONG said to his knowledge, Alaska is the only state in the Union that does not currently allow grandparents to make such petitions. This bill has a zero fiscal note, and the Senator's office has heard of no opposition to this bill. Number 1272 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY knows of grandparents who, because of current law, are not allowed to petition the courts for visitation rights. Therefore, there is no contact with the child at all. MR. ARMSTRONG said there is reference in statute, AS 25.24.150, in which the court can currently grant the action. However, if that grant is not provided for, the grandparents have no recourse with which to visit their grandchildren. This bill will allow them to petition the court. MR. ARMSTRONG said Section 1 addresses other custody disputes. Section 2 is a general provision clause, as is found in other states. This does not put any parameters on when the grandparents can petition. Section 3 of the bill deals with dissolutions. Sections 1 and 3 provide consistency with existing laws. Section 2 gives grandparents the right to petition. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said there was a similar House bill in the HESS Committee that was scheduled to be heard the following week. The sponsor of the bill, Representative Willis, was present, and Co- Chair Bunde asked if Representative Willis would like to make any comments. Number 1350 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS confirmed that he does have similar legislation, however, he would urge the committee to act on SB 27 to get it moving. He is speaking not only as a legislator, but as a grandparent. As was pointed out, this bill did pass the Senate last year, and died at the end of the last session. He urged HESS Committee members to pass SB 27. Number 1400 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked Mr. Armstrong about the wording concerning grandparents "and other persons." She asked if he would speak on who would be included in that phrase. MR. ARMSTRONG said "other persons," according to the drafter, is mentioned in AS 25.24.150, which provides for the court to grant a visitation petition to grandparents. The drafter of the bill said this language would keep SB 27 consistent with current statute. It would apply to aunts, uncles, cousins. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the only hesitation he has with this bill concerns horror stories he has read about in the newspapers where grandparents and their adult children are estranged. Therefore, the grandchildren become pawns in the acrimonious battle between adult children and the grandparents. He assumed, whether it was fair or not, the parent will probably always prevail for custody of the child. Number 1487 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Armstrong if children are adequately protected from being "pawns" in a battle between adults. MR. ARMSTRONG said that is completely up to the discretion of the judge. The primary factor is the best interest of the child. This bill does not force the judge to grant visitation. However, if the grandparents feel they have a right to interact with their grandchildren, they have the right to petition. Grandparents can petition, but the judge can deny that petition if he or she feels it is in the best interest of the child. Number 1517 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY expressed concern about the stories she has heard about horrible grandparents. She confirmed that the decision was up to the judge's discretion. Number 1553 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE moved SB 27 to the next committee of referral with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There were no objections, and the bill passed. HB 222 - SCHOOL CONST: ALASKA BIDDER PREFERENCE CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that HB 222, previously scheduled, had been pulled from the calendar. Number 1587 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she had another meeting to attend. She left the meeting at 2:36 p.m. HB 104 - DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE RECORDS CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced the bill had been heard previously in the HESS Committee, along with similar legislation. Number 1641 ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott, said at the last hearing on HB 104 the committee asked Representative Kott to work with the Department of Law (DOL) to specify what type of information was being referred to in disclosing information concerning a juvenile arrested for a crime that would have been a felony had the juvenile been an adult. MR. MOURANT said he worked with Ms. Knuth of the DOL, and now HESS Committee members will find the information in question on page 1, line 14 of version K of the bill. The information for disclosure now includes the juvenile's name, the date and place of the offense, and the description and nature of the offense. Number 1670 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked if this information was proper. He asked if Mr. Mourant was referring to the offense, or the alleged offense. MR. MOURANT said the disclosed information would include the offense with which the juvenile is charged. It is an alleged offense at that stage, and it is the offense named in the charge. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY questioned that there may be trouble with the interpretations of that. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said representatives from the DOL were available to answer questions. Number 1689 MR. MOURANT said basically, those are the only changes in the legislation that was presented previously to HESS Committee members. He pointed out, however, that changing the focus of HB 104 to what amounts to "police blotter" information should quell the concerns of the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) agencies threatened with the loss of funding because of the source of the information. He also noted that the fiscal notes should be zero. MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, said she would read the offense of line 15 to relate back to line 10, which says, "notwithstanding AS 47.10.093(a), when a juvenile has been arrested by a peace officer for commission of an offense...." She would infer that it is an alleged offense. To have or not have the word "alleged" would not make a difference, but it could certainly be added without a negative impact on the bill. MS. KNUTH said the point of the CS was to narrow the information being released by the police so it was not the full report. The CS mandates "police blotter" information. There is still the problem, however, that the police will not be able to disclose further information such as the dismissal of charges on the next day if the arrest was the result of a mistaken identity, or if the charges are reduced. That is just the inherent problem with the disclosure of juvenile information in this situation. Number 1822 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if it was therefore Ms. Knuth's testimony that HB 104 would not authorize the release of subsequent police findings. MS. KNUTH said he was correct. This is because those subsequent actions are going to be taken by the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) and by the DOL, and that is the type of information the federal government has held cannot be distributed to the public without jeopardizing federal funds. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Mourant why the legislature would want to limit the release of such information to the commission of a felony. Misdemeanors are certainly not as serious as felonies, but they are certainly offensive crimes. At this point, the policy of Alaska has been to protect minors from their own acts of irresponsibility. Representative Vezey thinks the approach of this bill is to bring public and peer pressure on board as a force in trying to get people to conform to society's rules and laws. He asked again why disclosure would be limited to felonies, when most violations will be misdemeanors, including car theft. Number 1895 MR. MOURANT said the intent of restricting the scope of disclosures to felonies was for two purposes. The first was to just disclose the nature of extremely serious crimes that fall into the felony category. The second was to not cause disclosure of minor offenses committed by juveniles. MR. MOURANT said he was not sure about Representative Vezey's juvenile history, but Mr. Mourant got arrested during spring break in Fort Lauderdale, Florida for throwing water balloons at passing cars. Co-Chair Bunde said the Chair would make a note of that. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what punishment he received. MR. MOURANT recalled that unfortunately, the police officer notified the local police, and they greeted Mr. Mourant at the door of his house with his parents. The punishment was justly rewarded by his father. Number 1930 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if Mr. Mourant did not therefore think it appropriate for that type of information to be in the police blotter. MR. MOURANT did not feel the appropriateness was the issue of the legislation. The intent of the legislation is to notify educators and the general public of extremely serious offenses, not to pass judgement on what is appropriate in the big picture of arrests and charges. Number 1964 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the disclosure was only to school records. MR. MOURANT answered no. This is police blotter information, therefore it is all crimes that would have been felonies had the offender been an adult. Number 1988 MARGARET BERCK, Attorney, Representative of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), urged the committee to not pass the bill. She asked the committee whether permanently labeling children is really the answer they seek, and if that is good public policy. MS. BERCK noted the current CS would allow for the release of arrest information with respect to juveniles to be made public. She said arrest information is the kind of information that has not been tested by a grand jury proceeding, a preliminary hearing or prosecutorial screening. In essence, arrest-type information is shaky at best. It reminds her of a very famous line in the movie "Casablanca." The movie ended with, "Round up the usual suspects." MS. BERCK asked to share with HESS Committee members a conversation she had with a respected Juneau businessman last week about the disclosure of juvenile records. As a juvenile, this man had many problems with the law. However, because juvenile records were kept confidential, he was able to put his past behind him. He became an Alaska State Trooper, a top level official in the U.S. military service, and today he is a respected businessman in Juneau. Number 2070 MS. BERCK said that man's position is that if the information about him had been released, he would not have been given many choices. Who knows where he would have ended up. However, it would not be in the position he is in today. For these reasons, the ACLU would ask the committee to consider whether or not making public juvenile arrest records is really going to resolve the problems that exist in the juvenile justice system today. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how old the trooper was. MS. BERCK said the man is probably in his early 50s. Number 2107 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY felt the world was a lot safer 35 years ago. Juveniles threw water balloons, and were spanked by their father. It was a gentler, kinder world at that time. Today, car theft or assault on a 13-year-old girl is not something that can be tolerated anymore. The world is different now, and HB 104 is addressing this different world. It is not addressing the pranks of a 12-year-old. It is addressing murder, rape, assault, car theft, and everything else committed by a 13-, 14-, or 15-year-old. MS. BERCK understand the legislature passed a bill last year that made some of the most serious felony offenses public. Ms. Berck recently represented a 16-year-old robber in juvenile court. All of that was public under the new bill. Therefore, under what the legislature did last year, some of the felonies Co-Chair Toohey just mentioned are already covered under existing laws, and subject to considerable disclosure. Those hearings are even made public. MS. BERCK said HB 104 expands disclosure even more. If someone breaks a window, more likely than not he/she has committed a felony due to the high costs of windows. Somebody who steals a car valued over $500 is committing a felony also. MS. BERCK did not know what the gentleman did when he was a youth. His position also was that he would not want his children's ability to go forward in their lives impacted by labeling such as disclosure of juvenile arrest records in felony cases. Number 2203 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if SB 54 (the juvenile waiver bill passed last year) covered what HB 104 covers. MR. MOURANT said HB 104 does touch on some of the elements, but it does not nearly encompass all the possibilities that are in HB 104. DENNIS GREGORY, Teacher, Butte Elementary School, Mat-Su Valley; and Member, Juvenile Violence Task Force; spoke in favor of HB 104. He recognizes the rights of Alaska's youth, and he wants to defend the youth just as much as everyone else. However, the world of today is very different, as Co-Chair Toohey said. As an example of that, in Mat-Su Valley this year there has been over 45 expulsions from the school district as a result of violent crime or drug use. MR. GREGORY noted that those students can go to another school district anonymously, without the teachers knowing any information about them. As a school district representative, Mr. Gregory can attest that the school district does not want to pry into the private lives of families or children. However, certain information is necessary in order to educate those children properly and completely. By the word "completely," Mr. Gregory meant knowing the students "hot buttons, cold buttons, and by knowing what they might necessarily require in terms of special help and assistance." MR. GREGORY said the task force he is on is not just a school task force. It is a community and business task force. The people who are running shopping centers do not want some of the expelled students hanging out in their shopping centers, which is what is currently happening. The task force would like to have enough funding to keep the students in the school district in alternative types of programs. Since that is not the case, the security help in the shopping areas needs to be able to go to a source to find out the child's past run-ins with the law. MR. GREGORY continued that the security people need to know if the child has a history of being a drug pusher or has a history of petty theft. The security people need to know if the child is even more dangerous than that, if he or she has violent or sexually aggressive tendencies. Mr. Gregory feels very strongly that this bill is necessary. Number 2311 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that HB 104 only relates to people being arrested, not convicted. Therefore, the public does not know whether or not these youth, who have been exposed for one reason or another, have been convicted of a crime. They might have been arrested, but maybe the law has not been able to find them guilty. Representative Brice asked if the bill should not state that the information is released upon conviction of a crime, versus the mere arrest. TAPE 95-34, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that his question was posed as consideration to the sponsor of the bill, to Mr. Gregory, and to the Chair. However, it was a rhetorical question, as he knew at the time of conviction, information could not be released without loss of federal funding. MR. GREGORY said business people would like to know if students have been arrested and are hanging out in their shopping centers. Mr. Gregory said the teachers would like to know if students are currently involved in the court system. In his opinion, the public needs to know whether students have been arrested as well as convicted. CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt what is being left unsaid by those who sit at the table with Co-Chair Bunde is that if any legislator was arrested, it would be on the front page. However, if the charges were removed, that news would be on the back page. Co-Chair Bunde said he is very aware of the different world of today. He is also very concerned about establishing and requiring personal responsibility. People who operate under a heavy cloak of anonymity are able to do things they would not do if their parents and the community knew what they were up to. Number 099 CO-CHAIR BUNDE conceded that on the other hand, he does not want anyone branded. The younger the person is, the greater the chances of rehabilitation. People do live up to or down to the expectations placed upon them. It is a balancing act. Co-Chair Bunde asked everyone to keep in mind the phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty." Co-Chair Bunde asked Mr. Mourant to speak on whether conviction would be a more appropriate time to share the information rather than the time of arrest. MR. MOURANT asked Representative Brice to recall previous hearings on HB 104. The intent of the bill was initially to display records after the court proceedings had taken place. The sponsor of the bill was informed by the DHSS that disclosure at that time would cost the state literally millions of dollars of federal funding for programs in that agency. For that reason, the legislation was changed to police blotter information. Number 189 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said the bill clearly states that in an offense that would have been a felony if committed by an adult, the following information about a juvenile may be disclosed by the entity employing the police officer. She asked how much he felt that "may" is going to be used. She also asked who is going to determine whether the name of the youth, etc., is going to be placed into the police blotter. MR. MOURANT assumed that if a publication contacts a local police department for information on police blotter arrests, this type of information would be included with that. However, it is certainly not required that the information be included. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the way he reads it, if the police department is asked, it may provide the information. However, he thinks most police departments are very busy and they would not be offering that information through press releases. MR. MOURANT felt Co-Chair Bunde was correct. His office assumes the disclosure would be in response to public inquiry. Number 272 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE assumed it would only take the filing of one Freedom of Information request to make the police departments discontinue the use of that discretion. He asked why there was no fiscal note associated with disclosure prior to conviction. There is only a fiscal note attached after conviction. While the "may" might allow permissiveness, it will become, without a doubt, a wide-open door for the disclosure of all juvenile matters. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE knows of incidences in which juveniles have been arrested, not convicted, for doing silly things. Those juveniles have since become very productive citizens. Their chances may have been hampered had their crimes been disclosed. Those juveniles were never convicted, but they were arrested. Representative Brice felt the "may" in the bill is just as good as a "shall." To say that the bill is permissive is misleading. CO-CHAIR BUNDE respectfully disagreed. He viewed the bill as stipulating if there is public interest, and the press desires the information, then the information will be requested. At that point, the police department "may" give that information. It may be that there is community outrage. In Fairbanks, the community was outraged when vandals tore up a school. If there was that much public interest, the press would go to the police department. Once the police department was asked, the department "may" give that information. CO-CHAIR BUNDE still did not feel, however, that the police department would disseminate the information without a request. Therefore, if a crime involves minor shoplifting or a window- breaking, that information would be available should the press ask. However, if the press does not ask, that information will probably not come out. Number 459 CO-CHAIR BUNDE is of the understanding that the information must be disclosed before the trial because juveniles are adjudicated in the DFYS arena. If the information is released after the child is involved with DFYS (which occurs immediately after arrest), there will be a loss of millions in federal funding. If disclosure happens before the juvenile is adjudicated, that threat does not come into play. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if she was assuming the fiscal notes in the bill packet are no longer applicable to the CS HB 104. Number 510 MR. MOURANT said he would prefer to have the agency answer that question, but he would assume the fiscal notes are no longer valid as the new bill no longer risks federal funding. He would assume DHSS fiscal notes would now be zero. Number 527 LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant to Commissioner Ronald L. Otte, Department of Public Safety (DPS), addressed Representative Brice's question. It is her understanding that currently, as a matter of course, if a juvenile is charged as an adult at the time of arrest, the troopers automatically do a press release. That press release is placed automatically on the Alaska Public Safety Information Network (APSIN). Then that press release is placed on a police blotter, so the press can glean information. She believes that is how the bill would work for the DHSS. MS. LUCAS said the DPS does not anticipate any fiscal impact. The department would simply perform the same actions it does for adults at this time. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he stood corrected. However, he asked how there could be no fiscal impact. If all the juveniles are placed into the system and then press releases are published, there are going to be many more press releases. MS. LUCAS said, as a matter of course, when a case report is done, this press release is something that is done as part of that report. It would not require any additional work than is currently performed for these felony crimes. Number 600 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the assumption is then in reality (pragmatically speaking) the bill is a "shall" disclose rather than a "may" disclose. MS. LUCAS believed the information would be handled in the same way adult information is handled. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if therefore, the information release was not discretionary. She indicated he was correct. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY submitted that there would perhaps be a reduction in cost to the state and the DPS, if the juvenile arrest did not have to be sorted out from all the other arrests before a press release was made. All the information would be available to the public, and there would be little editing. Therefore, there may be less total work involved. Number 646 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Lucas if she could see a way in which the disclosure of the information was permissive, and the juvenile information would be available upon request, but it was not offered. MS. LUCAS felt she could not respond to that at this time. She would have to check. CO-CHAIR BUNDE did not think it was as important that "Johnny broke a $500 window," as "Johnny broke into the high school and destroyed $50,000 worth of computers." MS. LUCAS felt that would be the intent of the legislation, and policies and procedures could be adopted to carry that out. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY repeated that the world is not so kind anymore. If Johnny is going to break a $500 window, there is going to have to be punishment, unless the window was broken by a softball on accident. If the police or state troopers are involved, however, Johnny's vandalism is a problem. The boy's name gets in the paper. A neighbor may call another neighbor and ask, what happened with Johnny? The neighbor would then reply, "Oh, he broke a window." CO-CHAIR TOOHEY felt these things can be explained. The state is hiding these juveniles to the point where they are killing people. She has heard many of her constituents ask why the names of juveniles are not released. The names should be released. Number 756 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE followed up on the last comment by saying, "Maybe if they are found guilty." ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to Commissioner Perdue, DHSS, believed HESS Committee members were previously provided with a set of fiscal notes from DFYS that referred to the Sponsor Substitute (SS) for HB 104. At that point in the bill's evolution, the DHSS believed the bill would jeopardize approximately $6 million in federal funding. The belief was based on an opinion from the federal government relating to disclosure (what is and is not permitted). MR. LINDSTROM said basically, as soon as a juvenile comes to the attention of the DHSS and the DHSS becomes involved in that juvenile's situation, the door slams shut on confidentiality. It would jeopardize federal funds to release information about that juvenile. The latest CS of HB 104 is constructed to attempt to identify the single point in time the DHSS can identify in which information can be shared but it is not yet in the possession of DHSS. There is no involvement of the DHSS at this time, and therefore, federal funding is not jeopardized. MR. LINDSTROM fully anticipates a zero fiscal note on CSHB 104 as it is currently presented. Having said that, he knows the DFYS shares the unease of the DOL and the DPS. He does not know how to get out of that box. Under this bill, information would be released about a juvenile who has been charged with a crime by the police. If subsequent proceedings show the juvenile did not do what was alleged, there is no opportunity to correct the record for that juvenile. It is an issue of fairness, and truly a balancing act. Number 922 CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony and opened committee discussion. He said he is torn on the balancing act. He has heard from his constituents as well--they are tired of the serious juvenile offenders hiding in the system. Co-Chair Bunde feels (acknowledging he grew up in another era) that if the juvenile's friends, peers, family members, etc., knew of the crime, they would place public pressure on the juvenile. Maybe that would save some children from the pattern of unpunished behavior which escalates to serious crime with serious consequences. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the committee felt it was possible to write intent language. Where it says "may," the police department would release information upon request, rather than release information as a matter of course. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said all that would need to be done is amend the CS to state, after "may," "upon the request of interested parties," "...be disclosed." There are a few things Representative Brice would like to bring up. First, juvenile misconduct does not necessarily go unpunished. It is not heard about because that information is sealed. However, the youth facilities are full. The social workers are quite busy keeping up with these children. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that when the persons who damaged the school in Fairbanks were apprehended, it was, as expected, a 21- year-old and a 19-year-old who were fully disclosed. Those two were leading that group. Number 1055 CO-CHAIR BUNDE understands the facilities are full. Unfortunately, he feels they are filled up with those who have committed a lot of serious crime. Co-Chair Bunde remembers testimony at a town meeting in Anchorage in which a 21-year-old said he began breaking the law when he was about 13, and he would be in and out of the youth facility before the paperwork was done. It was a challenge and a joke. Human nature tends to be such that if you get away with a little bit today, you will try a little bit more tomorrow. That individual kept getting away with crimes until finally he was placed in jail for one year. It was serious. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said whether that man would have been one in which the consequence of having his name disclosed would have affected him is open to discussion. However, that early intervention is what Co-Chair Bunde is trying to reach. Number 1117 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that HB 104 in no way addresses that. He has continually asked the sponsor of this legislation to provide some empirical proof. This type of disclosure is being done in other states. Every time Representative Brice asks if this disclosure works, the sponsor's office does not know. It would be nice, if HESS Committee members are going to make decisions of this magnitude, to at least have some understanding as to the effectiveness of the action. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said Co-Chair Bunde brings out a very important point. The system does not recognize juvenile problems until it is too late. He could not agree with Co-Chair Bunde more about the need to address that problem. However, he does not see that publishing the names of possibly innocent people could be any deterrence. CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt the committee was in agreement right up to the topic concerning whether disclosure is a deterrent, and whether more good will be accomplished through disclosure. Obviously, some people will suffer. However, will there be more good accomplished than harm? That is a question HESS Committee members must wrestle with. Number 1202 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY has a lot of faith in the police department. She does not think the police are arresting teens who have just come from a Boy Scout meeting. They are arresting teens who are in precarious positions. This bill will address those kids, and shake them up so they realize maybe they are going to be treated like adults. It is necessary. Co-Chair Toohey feels it is about time something is done, and she supports the bill. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Mourant how he felt on the proposed change in the CS, that information "may be disclosed upon request." MR. MOURANT said that would be under Co-Chair Bunde's discretion. He does not think the change is necessary because his office feels police officers are carefully conducting their role in society and their charge. However, if the committee thinks it is in the best interest of the public to put such an amendment in the bill, that is entirely up to the committee's discretion. Number 1260 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the Chair will propose just such an amendment, and see what the wisdom of the committee determines. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said on line 12, page 1, after "may" would be an appropriate place for the amendment. CO-CHAIR BUNDE agreed. He suggested, "may be disclosed upon request," or "may, upon request, be disclosed by the entity." CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said the juvenile's name, date and place of offense is going to be listed. She asked if it was going to be made clear in the police blotter that this was a juvenile. She asked how the public is going to know if the person is a juvenile. MR. MOURANT said the public will not know it is a juvenile. The age of the offender is not called for. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said therefore, a broken window is not going to be public news. A stabbing is public news, or of interest to the newspaper. A broken window would not necessarily be of interest to the newspaper. MR. MOURANT would assume she is correct. Number 1348 CO-CHAIR BUNDE moved on page 1, line 12, the line be amended to read, "...about the juvenile upon request may be disclosed by the entity employing the peace officer...." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY spoke against the amendment. He felt the amendment only adds confusion. He surmised that reporters only go to the police station and ask for the police blotter. They don't ask that people be put in or taken out. He does not feel the police will ask if the reporter wants the juvenile information also, and the reporter will say, don't give me the names of the nice children. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the reporter may, under this amendment, have to name the juvenile he or she wants the information about. The reporter would not have that information. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the reporter could, however, name the offense. He would surmise that a major felony could occur that was of interest to the community. That is where disclosure would be requested. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt unless HESS Committee members were successful in changing the law, vandalism in any degree is still a misdemeanor. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said if the damage amounted to over $500, the vandalism is a felony. Co-Chair Bunde said he has never been in the news business, but he cannot imagine a reporter asking the police to tell him/her about all the felony arrests made the previous night. He feels reporters would request specific information. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what the reporters are going to request. If there is not a police record, the reporters are not going to know there was a crime. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the police records are there, but the report is not turned out as a press release. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the bill does not allow for the police records to be released. It only allows for police blotter information to be released. He submitted police reports for juveniles are not available under current law. Number 1489 MS. KNUTH noted that police departments do prepare police blotters. That is a listing of all the arrests made in the last 24 hours. If the list contains juveniles, the names are crossed out. Reporters do go to the police and ask for lists. If the statute was changed to read, "upon request," that would be the type of request. The reporter would get the blotter that shows what all the arrests were. The reporter would then note that in certain cases of interest the names have been blocked out because the arrests involved minors. He or she would then request the names. The reporter would then get the names. MS. KNUTH said therefore, the "upon request," does not make disclosure discretionary. It simply adds a layer of work to the process. Number 1530 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Ms. Knuth if that would, in turn, add to the fiscal note. MS. KNUTH felt expense would be added, but it would most likely be municipal expense. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said the state certainly does not want to pass that cost onto the municipality. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said his goal is to allow disclosure, but to minimize the impact in instances where disclosure was not appropriate. MS. LUCAS said she cannot speak for local law enforcement as to how much more work this would require. She surmises it would result in some additional work. The additional language may slow down other tasks in order to accommodate the requests. If the information was simply part of the police blotter, the reporter could request the names of the juveniles if they were blocked out. CO-CHAIR BUNDE did not wish to have police departments "jumping through hoops." It appears that his amendment would not accomplish what he is hoping to resolve. He withdrew the amendment. Number 1600 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved CSSSHB 104(HES) be passed from the House HESS committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. He added that the new fiscal notes should be zero. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected in order to make a quick point. He asked if the bill had not been passed from committee before. He asked what the difference was between HB 104 and HB 15. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the previous bill addresses only schools. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that bill was HB 124, not HB 15. HB 15 was Representative Therriault's bill, and it was moved from committee early in the session. Representative Brice was concerned the HESS Committee was repeating tasks. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY remembered Representative Therriault's bill dealt with the release of records at a different stage in adjudication. It did not deal with this particular section of the statute. Number 1654 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said when HB 104 came to the HESS Committee, it dealt with the exact same stage of the process as Representative Therriault's bill. Representative Brice is concerned that efforts are being duplicated, and time is being wasted. He said both bills are probably going to be going to the same committee, and that would waste more time for those committees. CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt there was an important difference in the bills. Representative Therriault's bill involved court records. HB 104 involves arrest records. HB 15 would run afoul with the federal prohibitions, and would have millions of dollars of impact. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt that was the point. HB 104, in its earlier version, dealt with the exact same thing. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said HB 15 dealt with court records. That would disclose information after the adjudication. The state cannot release information after the adjudication without serious federal penalties. Number 1718 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the two bills were very close. One has been passed, and now another is going to be passed. He asked why the earlier bill cannot be changed in the committee in which it sits. CO-CHAIR BUNDE could not predict the actions of another committee. However, he did not feel these discussions wasted time. If there have been three bills about this topic by representatives reflecting the concerns of their various constituencies, this is obviously an important issue to the people of Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the problem is that one bill moves, not all three. The HESS Committee has already moved one bill. Number 1750 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that at the time when that bill was moved, the HESS Committee members thought there would be no impact on federal funds. However, because those problems cannot be addressed, the bill is, in Co-Chair Bunde's mind, moot. HB 104 has a zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE withdrew his objection. CO-CHAIR BUNDE reminded HESS Committee members there had been a motion to move CSSSHB 104(HES) from committee with accompanying fiscal notes, and the understanding that the fiscal notes will change. He expressed continuing frustration with the bill, but as there was no objection to its passage, it passed. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Mourant to provide new fiscal notes to the members of the Judiciary Committee, which is the next committee of referral. ADJOURNMENT CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m.