Legislature(1995 - 1996)

02/29/1996 03:26 PM HES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
          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