Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/26/1993 12:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 26, 1993
12:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Cliff Davidson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 69: "An Act relating to registration of and
information about sex offenders and amending
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c) and
32(b)."
CS MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 64: "An Act creating the crimes of stalking in the
first and second degrees and providing penalties
for their violation; providing a peace officer
with the authority to arrest without a warrant a
person the peace officer has reasonable cause to
believe has committed stalking; relating to the
release before trial of a person accused of
stalking; and prohibiting the suspension of
imposition of sentence of a person convicted of
stalking."
CS MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 100: "An Act relating to criminal charges brought
against minors."
HEARD AND HELD OVER
WITNESS REGISTER
GAYLE HORETSKI
Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4990
Position Statement: Discussed HB 69, HB 64, and HB 100
JEN TUCCI
4405 Portage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-3726
Position Statement: Supported HB 69
MARGOT KNUTH
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Discussed HB 69
RANDALL HINES
Youth Corrections Specialist
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Phone: 465-3191
Position Statement: Answered questions on HB 100
JENNY MURRAY
Legislative Aide
Rep. Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4843
Position Statement: Supported HB 100
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 69
SHORT TITLE: SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BARNES,Ulmer,Phillips,
Nordlund,Porter,Olberg,James,B.Davis,Green,Sanders,
Toohey,Mackie
TITLE: "An Act relating to registration of and information
about sex offenders and amending Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure 11(c) and 32(b)."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/15/93 89 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/15/93 90 (H) STATE AFFAIRS,JUDICIARY,FINANCE
01/27/93 169 (H) COSPONSOR(S): NORDLUND
01/29/93 183 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PORTER
02/01/93 202 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OLBERG, JAMES,
B.DAVIS
02/02/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/02/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/93 223 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN, SANDERS,
TOOHEY
02/04/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/93 250 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP
02/08/93 251 (H) DP: VEZEY,SANDERS,ULMER,G.DAVIS
02/08/93 251 (H) -2 ZERO FNS (LAW, CORR) 2/8/93
02/10/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/10/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/18/93 383 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MACKIE
02/24/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/26/93 (H) JUD AT 12:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 64
SHORT TITLE: ANTI-STALKING LAW
BILL VERSION: CSHB 64(FIN)
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) TOOHEY,Phillips,Olberg,
Ulmer,Hudson,Porter,B.Davis,Mackie,Carney,Nordlund,Parnell
TITLE: "An Act creating the crimes of stalking in the first
and second degrees and providing penalties for their
violation; providing a peace officer with the authority to
arrest without a warrant a person the peace officer has
reasonable cause to believe has committed stalking; relating
to the release before trial of a person accused of stalking;
prohibiting the suspension of imposition of sentence of a
person convicted of stalking; relating to the crime of
assault in the third degree; and providing for an effective
date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/15/93 74 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/15/93 74 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/29/93 183 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PORTER
02/01/93 201 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B.DAVIS
02/03/93 223 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MACKIE
02/15/93 351 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CARNEY
02/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/19/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/24/93 445 (H) COSPONSOR(S): NORDLUND, PARNELL
02/26/93 (H) JUD AT 12:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 100
SHORT TITLE: PROSECUTION OF JUVENILE FELONS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE,Green
TITLE: "An Act relating to criminal charges brought against
minors."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/29/93 178 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/29/93 178 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
02/03/93 224 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
02/05/93 240 (H) HES WAIVED 5-DAY HEARING
NOTICE,RULE 23
02/08/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/08/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/10/93 289 (H) HES RPT 5DP 1DNP 2NR
02/10/93 289 (H) DP: KOTT,VEZEY,BUNDE,TOOHEY,
OLBERG
02/10/93 289 (H) DNP: NICHOLIA
02/10/93 289 (H) NR: G.DAVIS, BRICE
02/10/93 289 (H) -2 FNS (ADM, ADM) 2/10/93
02/10/93 289 (H) -2 ZERO FNS (DPS, DHSS) 2/10/93
02/10/93 289 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
02/17/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/17/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/17/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/22/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/26/93 (H) JUD AT 12:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-24, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Committee meeting was called to order at
12:15 p.m. on Friday, February 26, 1993. A quorum was not
initially present; therefore, the committee meeting was
convened as a work session until a quorum was obtained.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 69 first.
HB 69 - SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
Number 039
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, outlined the changes included in the draft
committee substitute for HB 69, dated 2/26/93. She noted
that the first change appeared in section 2, at the bottom
of page 1. She said that section 2 would take effect
immediately upon passage of the bill and then be repealed on
January 1, 1997, and replaced with section 3 of the bill.
Sections 2 and 3 were identical, except that section 3
included the requirement that offenders submit a blood
sample.
Number 095
REP. PHILLIPS asked why there was not an immediate effective
date on the rest of the bill's provisions.
Number 102
MS. HORETSKI said that she did not recall any committee
members suggesting an immediate effective date before. She
said that the Department of Public Safety would need to gear
up for the sex offender registration program and adopt
regulations for its implementation.
Number 109
REP. PHILLIPS asked if the effective date of the bill could
be researched.
Number 112
MS. HORETSKI indicated that Doug Wooliver from the speaker's
office was present and could comment on that point later.
MS. HORETSKI continued to outline changes in the draft
committee substitute for HB 69. Research showed that
"municipal" was a better term than "local" when used to
refer to police departments within Alaska; therefore, she
said, all references to "local" police departments had been
changed to "municipal" police departments.
MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to page 3, line
15, of the draft committee substitute. She stated that the
biggest changes made to HB 69 were in this section of the
bill. The new draft committee substitute contained a
lifetime registration requirement for offenders convicted of
unclassified or class A felony sex offenses, a 20-year
registration requirement for offenders convicted of class B
or class C felony sex offenses, and a 10-year registration
requirement for offenders convicted of a class A misdemeanor
sex offense.
Number 139
MS. HORETSKI also noted that new language appeared on page
3, line 24. The draft committee substitute said that the
Department of Public Safety would adopt regulations
outlining the procedure by which the department would notify
offenders who were convicted of a sex offense that was a
violation of a former law, or a law outside the state of
Alaska. Ms. Horetski said that this provision was added to
the bill by the drafters, as a person convicted of a sex
offense outside of Alaska might not be aware of the Alaska
classification level to which his or her offense was
equivalent, for the purposes of registering.
Number 175
MS. HORETSKI said that she had discovered that 21 states had
adopted laws requiring offenders to provide blood samples
for DNA analysis. She added that at least seven of those
states also had constitutional rights to privacy, as Alaska
did. She said this was not a guarantee that such a
provision in HB 69 would be upheld; however, she noted that
it was encouraging to know that other states with
constitutional rights to privacy had adopted DNA sample
laws.
Number 198
REP. PHILLIPS said she had noticed another change between
the most recent committee substitute and its predecessor, in
that the sections were numbered differently.
Number 203
MS. HORETSKI indicated that because sections 2 and 3 were
now identical, except for the dates on which they would take
effect, the numbering of all subsequent sections of the bill
was altered.
Number 217
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the inclusion of both sections 2
and 3 was seen as the "cleanest" way to enact the law
without having to come back several years down the road and
enact a section relating to DNA samples.
Number 236
JEN TUCCI, from Juneau, testified in support of HB 69. She
said that sex offenders paid for their actions by serving
jail sentences, but their victims paid for the rest of their
lives. She noted the emotional upheaval, inability to
function, psychological damage, and fear were experienced by
victims of sex offenses. She added that sex offenders
tended to display predatory behavior, and violent sex
offenders often escalated the level of violence in each
subsequent offense. For those reasons, she said, HB 69
would help to protect the innocent and convey a message that
society would no longer tolerate the behavior of sex
offenders. She said there was no proof that sex offenders
could be cured.
Number 277
REP. KOTT asked Ms. Tucci if she was testifying on her own
behalf or if she was representing an organization.
Number 279
MS. TUCCI indicated that she was representing herself.
(Rep. Nordlund arrived at 12:25 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN PORTER summarized for Rep. Nordlund the changes
contained in the current committee substitute for HB 69.
Number 307
REP. NORDLUND moved to report out the Judiciary committee
substitute for HB 69, with individual recommendations and a
zero fiscal note from the Department of Public Safety.
MS. HORETSKI noted that the Department of Public Safety had
offered a fiscal note showing impact on that department's
operating costs.
REP. NORDLUND amended his motion to include the fiscal note
from the Department of Public Safety.
Number 316
MARGOT KNUTH, from the DEPARTMENT OF LAW, stated that she
had noticed a technical problem with the draft committee
substitute. She pointed out a "local" police department
reference on page 3, line 8.
Number 327
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if Rep. Nordlund would consider an
amendment changing the "local" police department language on
page 3, line 8, to be a friendly amendment.
Number 329
REP. NORDLUND said that would be a friendly amendment. He
amended his motion to ask that a new committee substitute be
prepared, including the change on page 3, line 8.
Number 340
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection, ordered that the new
committee substitute for HB 69 move out of committee.
The committee took a brief "at ease" at 12:31 p.m. The
committee resumed its business at 12:34 p.m.
Number 360
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 64 was the next item of
business before the committee.
HB 64 - ANTI-STALKING LAW
Number 364
MS. HORETSKI outlined the changes that had been made in the
new committee substitute for HB 64. She noted that the most
recent committee substitute was dated 2/26/93. She said
that the title of the bill had been changed to reflect
changes made in the body of the bill. She stated that new
language appeared on page 2, line 26, of the committee
substitute. A technical change had been made, she
indicated, to make the language less wordy.
MS. HORETSKI pointed out additional new language on page 2,
line 6. At the request of the committee, the altered
language provided that a stalker who possessed a deadly
weapon would be guilty of a felony rather than a
misdemeanor. At the bottom of page 2 and continuing on to
page 3, Ms. Horetski noted the expanded definition of
"family member." She indicated that the new language added
"uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece" to other family members
already mentioned. She noted that the language had been
taken from elsewhere in existing law.
MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to page 3, lines
4 and 5, where former spouses and past or present romantic
partners were also added to the definition of "family
member." She noted that the language changes regarding
family members were an effort to include anyone who
conceivably might be the target of a stalker.
Number 445
REP. NORDLUND asked if all of the language changes were
really necessary.
Number 448
MS. HORETSKI called Rep. Nordlund's attention to the
elements of stalking on page 2, line 21. She said that a
person committed the crime of stalking if that person
knowingly engaged in a course of conduct that placed another
person in fear for themselves or in fear of death or
physical injury to a family member. She gave an example of
a woman breaking up with her boyfriend, and the boyfriend
making threats toward her child; which would be a form of
stalking.
Number 456
REP. NORDLUND asked if in that instance the stalker would be
stalking another individual (the child) and not the child's
mother.
Number 458
CHAIRMAN PORTER clarified the point by saying that if the
action were directed at the child, then the child would be
the victim. However, in other instances, the action was
directed at a mother by making threats toward her child.
MS. HORETSKI pointed out a change on page 4, lines 3 and 4,
which she said was an alteration to the assault statutes,
not the stalking law. She said section 3 was also new,
describing what "family member" meant, in the assault
statutes. This was a technical amendment, she noted.
MS. HORETSKI pointed out that language on page 4, lines 23
to 26, was being moved to another section of the bill, on
page 4, lines 3 to 5.
Number 485
CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that there was a relationship
between the crimes of stalking, assault, and terroristic
threatening. He said the changes that Ms. Horetski was
delineating were an attempt to make the elements of all
three of the crimes logical and consistent with each other.
Number 494
MS. HORETSKI said that on the last page of the bill, section
8, there was a change to the maximum allowable probationary
period, extending it for all crimes from five to up to ten
years. Earlier versions of the bill had only changed the
maximum probationary period for the crime of stalking, she
said, and not for other crimes.
MS. HORETSKI stated that there was new language in the
applicability section stating that criminal convictions
which occurred before the effective date of HB 64 would be
considered "previous convictions" under the bill. She said
an immediate effective date had been added to the bill, in
section 11.
Number 516
REP. KOTT mentioned a Senate bill which extended the period
of probation from five to ten years. He said that if he
were opposed to the Senate bill, he would also be opposed to
HB 64. He stated that a recent report had indicated that
the majority of new correctional system clients were in the
system due to probation violations. He added that he was
not sure if he would be willing to extend probation to ten
years for every crime.
Number 540
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Rep. Kott had brought up a
legitimate point. He emphasized that the provision in the
original bill extended the potential probation period to 99
years. He noted that the idea behind that provision was
that there were people who fell into patterns of committing
this type of crime who needed to be deterred from committing
the same type of crime once released from incarceration.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said the Department of Law found the 99-year
probation period difficult to justify for stalking, in light
of the fact that other severe crimes had shorter maximum
probation periods. He said that in that light, it was
decided to change the maximum period of probation from 99
years to ten years, and to extend the change to all crimes.
Number 595
REP. PHILLIPS asked if the title of HB 64 were tight enough.
Number 602
MS. HORETSKI replied that the title was accurate, but could
be tightened.
Number 610
REP. PHILLIPS said that the title seemed all right to her,
but she had wanted to raise the issue.
Number 614
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he did not anticipate the
bill experiencing any problems in the Senate, as a result of
a non-restrictive title.
Number 621
REP. KOTT asked if the Department of Corrections had
submitted a more recent fiscal note than the one dated
February 19.
REP. PHILLIPS commented that the committee should alert the
Finance Committee that the Department of Corrections needed
to submit another fiscal note.
Number 651
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the Finance Committee would be an
appropriate place to discuss the Department of Corrections'
fiscal note. He suggested that HB 64 be held until the
Department of Corrections could address its fiscal note.
REP. NORDLUND indicated that he had to leave.
Number 661
REP. PHILLIPS moved to pass CSHB 64 out of the Judiciary
Committee with individual recommendations, and that the
committee request that the Department of Corrections submit
an amended fiscal note to the Finance Committee. She noted
that the second part of her motion could be included in a
letter of intent.
Number 671
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection, ordered that CSHB 64
(JUD) be moved out of committee with individual
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 100 was the next item of
business before the committee.
HB 100 - PROSECUTION OF JUVENILE FELONS
Number 675
MS. HORETSKI explained that a draft committee substitute for
HB 100 had been prepared for the members' discussion. She
went over changes that had been made to the original bill,
which set up a scheme to transfer juveniles into adult court
for certain offenses, but allowed for juveniles to transfer
back to the juvenile system if the juvenile could show that
she or he was "amenable to treatment." She noted that under
HB 100, the burden of proof of treatability was on the
juvenile.
MS. HORETSKI commented that the proposed committee
substitute contained an "automatic" waiver. If a juvenile
aged 16 or older were charged with an unclassified or class
A felony, he or she would be moved into adult court, she
said.
MS. HORETSKI mentioned a similar bill, SB 54, which had been
reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She noted
that the present version of SB 54 was not identical to
either HB 100 or the proposed committee substitute.
However, she noted, it was closer in content to HB 100.
Number 710
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that SB 54 had, when introduced,
looked just like the proposed committee substitute for HB
100. The chairman noted that the idea behind HB 100 was to
have juveniles of a certain age who were charged with
serious offenses treated like adults. He said it was hoped
that HB 100 would serve as a deterrent to some degree.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that two approaches could be taken to
accomplish the goal of HB 100. One approach, set out in the
proposed committee substitute, would be to automatically
waive certain juvenile offenders to adult court. Under
another approach, set out in the original HB 100, juveniles
would be automatically waived into adult court, but could
petition to have their cases moved back to juvenile court.
Number 770
REP. PHILLIPS asked the chairman if he had discussed the
approach taken in the proposed committee substitute with the
sponsor of HB 100.
Number 771
CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that HB 100's sponsor would not
object to the adoption of the committee substitute. He
speculated that the Senate bill had been amended the way
that it was to gain enough support for the committee to
report it out.
Number 785
MS. HORETSKI stated that, as originally drafted, HB 100
applied to 15- 16- and 17-year-olds who had been charged
with murder or attempted murder, or who had committed an
unclassified or class A felony and had been previously
adjudicated for a felony, or who had been charged with a
felony and had been previously adjudicated as an adult for a
felony. If any of those situations were true, she said, a
minor would be treated as an adult. However, a juvenile
could petition to be returned to juvenile court.
TAPE 93-24, SIDE B
Number 000
REP. PHILLIPS asked Ms. Horetski to clarify some of the
provisions of the proposed committee substitute.
Number 009
MS. HORETSKI responded that the proposed committee
substitute contained an automatic waiver for 16- and 17-
year-olds, whereas the original bill had an automatic waiver
for 15-, 16-and 17-year-olds. The original bill applied to
all unclassified and class A felonies, she said. The
proposed committee substitute provided that 16- and 17-year-
olds charged with murder would be waived into adult court,
where they would stay.
Number 033
REP. KOTT asked about allowing a juvenile to petition the
court to be tried in juvenile court, due to mitigating
circumstances.
Number 045
MS. HORETSKI said that the screening and charging of adult
offenders was performed by the Department of Law (DOL). The
screening and charging of juvenile offenders was conducted
by the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), she
added. She said that DHSS, in consultation with DOL,
determined the offense with which the juvenile offender
would be charged. But, she said, if a juvenile was not
charged with either an unclassified or a class A felony, HB
100 would not apply. She noted that mitigating
circumstances would be taken into consideration during the
screening and charging process. HB 100 would not affect
that process, she said.
Number 094
REP. NORDLUND noted that all of the facts of a case might
not be known until a trial occurred. However, he said, by
that time, a juvenile would already have been transferred
into the adult justice system.
Number 118
MS. HORETSKI commented that an investigation was conducted
in all criminal cases. She said that no charges would be
filed prior to an investigation.
Number 131
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked at what stage of the proceedings an
attorney was assigned to a juvenile defendant.
Number 136
MS. HORETSKI said that an attorney would be assigned at the
juvenile court's equivalent of an arraignment.
Number 143
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked, When during the process would the
decision be made to charge a juvenile with an offense? He
said that it was his assumption that law enforcement
officers would treat a juvenile as a juvenile until a
decision was made to charge the individual with an adult
offense.
MS. HORETSKI stated that the chairman's assumption was
correct.
Number 190
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the automatic waiver
procedure would not go into effect until the decision to
charge a juvenile offender with an adult offense had been
made.
Number 197
REP. KOTT commented that often criminal charges were brought
in an expeditious manner.
Number 200
REP. NORDLUND said that he had to leave the meeting, but
noted that he would be more comfortable with HB 100 if he
knew how thoroughly DHSS initially investigated crimes.
Number 206
RANDALL HINES, YOUTH CORRECTIONS SPECIALIST with the DHSS,
appeared before the committee to answer questions.
Number 209
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if juveniles would be treated as
juveniles until they were formally charged with an adult
offense.
Number 218
MR. HINES replied that when a juvenile was referred to DHSS
by law enforcement officials, a police report normally
accompanied the referral. He stated that intake personnel
screened the report and determined what information still
needed to be gathered. Once the information was complete,
he said, DHSS and DOL officials met to decide what crime the
juvenile should be charged with.
MR. HINES noted that if a juvenile was incarcerated, charges
had to be filed within 48 hours. If the juvenile was not
incarcerated, he said, there was more time to determine the
appropriate charges.
Number 247
REP. NORDLUND reiterated his contention that only during a
trial did all the facts of a case come out. He said that
DHSS' investigation was limited in scope. He noted that a
limited investigation could result in a juvenile being
improperly placed into the adult system. By the time all of
the facts were known, he said, it was too late: the
juvenile was already in the adult system.
Number 265
JENNY MURRAY, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO REP. CON BUNDE, noted
that the sponsor favored passage of the original version of
HB 100. She said that he was concerned about the high
fiscal impact of the proposed committee substitute.
MS. MURRAY noted that there was a "reverse waiver" procedure
in the original HB 100; juveniles who committed certain
crimes would automatically go into the adult justice system,
but could petition to be transferred back into juvenile
court. She noted that the role of the judge was an
important factor in the process of moving juveniles into and
out of adult court.
MS. MURRAY gave an example of a child, who had been abused
for years, murdering his stepfather. She said that under
the provisions of the committee substitute for HB 100, the
child would probably be automatically waived into adult
court. Under the original HB 100, she said, if the defense
could prove during a hearing that the juvenile were amenable
to treatment, the juvenile could be transferred back to the
juvenile system. She noted that the original HB 100
contained a "catch" provision, which was not included in the
committee substitute.
Number 329
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the original HB 100 would
probably require that more hearings be held than were
required under the committee substitute. In that light, he
asked Ms. Murray why it was felt that the committee
substitute would result in a higher cost to the state.
Number 340
MS. MURRAY noted that the committee substitute was very
similar to the original SB 54. She said that fiscal notes
accompanying the original SB 54 were much higher than the
fiscal notes for HB 100.
Number 366
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that sometimes the philosophies of
the Public Defender Agency and the Office of Public Advocacy
were reflected in their fiscal notes. He asked Ms. Murray
if it would be fair to say that the original HB 100 would
result in a heavier workload for the court system than would
the committee substitute.
MS. MURRAY said that she did not know the answer to the
chairman's question.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 100 would be held in
committee, and another hearing would be scheduled for a time
when Rep. Bunde could be present.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 1:24 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|