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