Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/12/1993 01:00 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
March 12, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Cliff Davidson
Rep. Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 58: "An Act relating to the budget reserve fund
established under art. IX, sec. 17, Constitution
of the State of Alaska."
CS PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
HB 152: "An Act relating to magistrate jurisdiction."
CS PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
HB 79: "An Act relating to recovery from a parent or
legal guardian of wilful or malicious destruction
of property by a minor."
PASSED OUT WITH NO RECOMMENDATION
*HB 86: "An Act relating to sanctions for property-related
offenses, to remedies for property-related
offenses committed by juveniles, and to certain
records of those offenses."
NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
REP. KAY BROWN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 517
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4998
Position Statement: Discussed HB 58
GAYLE HORETSKI
Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
Capitol Building, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-6841
Position Statement: Discussed HB 58
JIM BALDWIN
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3600
Position Statement: Discussed HB 58
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN
Staff Counsel
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 264-8228
Position Statement: Supported HB 152
JAY FRANK
State Farm/Allstate
431 North Franklin Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-5777
Position Statement: Opposed HB 79
REP. CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4843
Position Statement: Supported HB 79
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: 465-3187
Position Statement: Discussed HB 79
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 58
SHORT TITLE: ADMINISTRATION OF BUDGET RESERVE FUND
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
TITLE: "An Act relating to the budget reserve fund
established under art. IX, sec. 17, Constitution of the
State of Alaska."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/15/93 71 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/15/93 71 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/01/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/01/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 152
SHORT TITLE: JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
TITLE: "An Act relating to magistrate jurisdiction."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/15/93 345 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/15/93 345 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/25/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/93 481 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 7DP
03/01/93 481 (H) DP: VEZEY,ULMER,B.DAVIS,OLBERG,
03/01/93 481 (H) DP: G.DAVIS, SANDERS, KOTT
03/01/93 481 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COURT)
3/1/93
03/10/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/10/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 79
SHORT TITLE: DAMAGE TO PROPERTY BY MINORS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE,Toohey,Porter,Olberg,
Green
TITLE: "An Act relating to recovery from a parent or legal
guardian of wilful or malicious destruction of property by a
minor."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 130 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 130 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/29/93 184 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PORTER
02/03/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/03/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/05/93 240 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OLBERG, GREEN
02/08/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/10/93 288 (H) HES RPT 3DP 2DNP 4NR
02/10/93 288 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY, OLBERG
02/10/93 288 (H) DNP: NICHOLIA, B.DAVIS
02/10/93 288 (H) NR: KOTT,VEZEY,G.DAVIS,BRICE
02/10/93 288 (H) -3 ZERO FNS (LAW,ADM,DHSS)
2/10/93
03/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 86
SHORT TITLE: SANCTIONS FOR PROPERTY-RELATED OFFENSES
BILL VERSION: 2D SSHB 86
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE,Green
TITLE: "An Act relating to sanctions for property-related
offenses, to remedies for property-related offenses
committed by juveniles, and to certain records of those
offenses."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 141 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 141 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/29/93 177 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-
NEW TITLE
01/29/93 177 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/03/93 223 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
02/25/93 455 (H) 2D SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/25/93 455 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-32, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to
order at 1:33 p.m. on March 12, 1993. A quorum was present.
Chairman Porter announced that the committee would address
HB 58 first.
HB 58 ADMINISTRATION OF BUDGET RESERVE FUND
Number 043
REP. KAY BROWN commented that she had been working with Rep.
James and members of the Senate in crafting the draft
committee substitute for HB 58, dated March 10, 1993.
Number 050
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL for the HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, noted that the committee substitute now in front
of the committee members was identical to the Senate version
of the bill.
Number 096
REP. BROWN stated that in the past, prospective application
of HB 58 had been addressed; however, she the large amounts
of money that had recently come in to the state government
had prompted interest in making HB 58 retroactive.
REP. BROWN noted that some of the issues that had been
discussed during the Judiciary Committee's last hearing on
HB 58 had also been dealt with in the Senate State Affairs
Committee. She said the Senate State Affairs committee
substitute was identical to the House Judiciary Committee's
substitute. She said that she had tried to clarify
provisions in subsection (a) by specifically delineating
which monies were not to be considered for the purposes of
determining what was "available."
REP. BROWN mentioned that some of the changes incorporated
in the committee substitute were made in response to
specific issues which committee members had raised, such as
including penalties and interest, or at the request of the
administration.
Number 147
JIM BALDWIN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
noted that the constitutional amendment took effect on July
2, 1991, but it applied to all monies received after July 1,
1990.
Number 161
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Baldwin, if the committee wanted
to make the bill retroactive to the point of applicability
of the constitutional amendment, should July 1, 1990, be the
date used in the bill?
MR. BALDWIN indicated that the Chairman was correct.
Number 166
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the committee members had
before them CSHB 58(JUD), which was identical to the current
Senate version of the bill. He asked Mr. Baldwin if he
wished to comment on the committee substitute.
Number 173
MR. BALDWIN said the Department of Law had some reservations
about the language on page 2, lines 7 through 18. He said
his department was currently working on an amendment which
would address their concerns. He stated that the amendment
was not yet ready, but he hoped to have it ready in time for
the House Finance Committee to consider it. He added that
the current language was workable, but he was concerned that
it might be over-inclusive and not meet the intent of the
framers of the constitutional amendment. In particular, he
said that he was concerned about the bill's effect on Mental
Health Trust money.
Number 241
REP. JAMES asked if the committee could incorporate language
specifically stating that Mental Health Trust monies were
not included.
Number 249
MR. BALDWIN stated that the problem lay in deciding the
philosophy that the legislature wanted to reflect in the
bill's language. He said the philosophy he wanted to
project was that only amounts fully within the discretion of
the legislature should be counted for the purposes of
availability to the budget reserve fund. He said if the
legislature added in amounts over which it did not have
complete discretion, the constitutional amendment would
probably not function as the legislature intended.
MR. BALDWIN commented that it was unclear whether or not the
legislature had complete discretion over the Mental Health
Trust monies. He added that a judgment call had to be made
by one committee or the other as to whether or not the
Mental Health Trust monies would be counted.
Number 288
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that rather than attempt to settle the
Mental Health Trust issue at the table, the committee should
proceed with the language currently in the draft committee
substitute.
MR. BALDWIN indicated that he was comfortable with the
committee moving the bill on to the House Finance Committee
with the language as currently drafted.
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the current committee
substitute tightened up the definition of "informal
procedure."
Number 304
REP. JAMES made a motion to adopt the Judiciary committee
substitute for HB 58, dated March 10, 1993 (/E version).
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 319
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the intent of HB 58 was to send a
message regarding the intent of the legislature when it
adopted the language that later became the constitutional
amendment creating the budget reserve account. He said
that, in his interpretation, the intent of the amendment was
to include any settlement monies, whether the result of a
formal process, an informal process, or a court proceeding.
He noted that if the committee did not make HB 58
retroactive to the effective date of the constitutional
amendment, the legislature would lose credibility in trying
to establish its intent.
Number 330
CHAIRMAN PORTER recommended that the committee adopt an
amendment to the committee substitute making the effective
date of HB 58 July 1, 1990, instead of 1993.
Number 352
REP. JAMES moved to amend the committee substitute by
deleting the dates on lines 26 and 27 and inserting the word
"immediately."
Number 366
REP. GREEN asked if the proposed retroactivity changes would
result in any legal problems.
Number 370
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that there was a possibility of
legal problems no matter what actions the committee took.
However, he said it was his hope that what the committee was
doing would minimize the likelihood of legal difficulties.
Number 376
REP. JAMES commented that if there was opposition to making
HB 58 retroactive, it would be because there were funds
currently held in the settlement account which were
presumably available for expenditure. She said there was
concern that if all of those monies in the settlement
account were placed in the budget reserve fund, capital and
operating budgets might suffer.
REP. JAMES stated that her response to that concern was that
the legislature had no other choice. She noted that if the
legislature were going to delineate the intent behind
establishment of the budget reserve fund they could not pick
and choose. She said that as far as she was concerned, no
budget problem would result from the adoption of HB 58
because there was a procedure via which money could be taken
from the budget reserve account to cover revenue shortfalls.
REP. JAMES commented that for expenditures other than budget
shortfalls, 3/4 of the legislature could vote to take funds
from the budget reserve account. She cited the possibility
of a class-action lawsuit by members of the public, claiming
that the legislature was not spending the money the way that
the voters had intended when voting to approve the
constitutional budget reserve fund. She said that in her
opinion, putting money into the budget reserve account and
then appropriating it back out if needed, was the
legislature's best defense against a lawsuit on this matter.
Number 435
REP. GREEN expressed his concern over what had occurred
between July 1, 1990, and the present day in terms of what
money went where.
Number 442
REP. JAMES called Rep. Green's attention to a memorandum
from the Department of Revenue outlining what money had gone
where since July 1, 1990.
Number 458
REP. GREEN said that his interpretation of Rep. James'
comments was that any funds which the state had received
since July 1, 1990, except for 6 percent to the Mental
Health Trust, had been allocated to some account other than
the budget reserve fund.
Number 463
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that HB 58 would require that the
administration debit the Mental Health Trust account for the
6 percent amount of remaining funds that came in.
Number 473
REP. GREEN asked if, other than to the Mental Health Trust
account, there had been any allocations of funds.
Number 475
REP. JAMES replied that there had not. She said that all of
the funds were in an administrative settlement account,
pending resolution of the matter.
Number 480
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that none of the money had been
spent.
Number 481
REP. PHILLIPS asked if interest were included in the
committee substitute for HB 58.
Number 485
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that interest was included, but
had been moved to a different location in the bill.
Number 491
REP. GREEN made a motion to pass CSHB 58(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations. However, the
committee members determined that they had yet to vote on
proposed amendments to the bill. Rep. James had moved two
amendments earlier. One would delete "June 30, 1993" on
page 2, line 26, and replace it with "July 1, 1990." The
other amendment would delete "July 1, 1993" on page 2, line
27, and replace it with "immediately." There being no
objection to the adoption of the amendments, they were
adopted.
Number 510
REP. GREEN made a motion to pass CSHB 58(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the next item of business
before the committee was HB 152.
HB 152 JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES
Number 518
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL to the ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
noted that the House Judiciary Committee had introduced
HB 152 at the request of the supreme court. He said the
bill made some technical changes to the laws regarding
magistrate jurisdiction. He explained that magistrates
presided over certain district court matters in areas of the
state where the services of a full-time district court judge
were not required. He stated that magistrates were the
highest-ranking judicial officials in approximately 40
different district court locations in Alaska.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that in major metropolitan areas,
magistrates handled routine matters to ease the workload of
the district court judges. He said that unlike other
judicial officers, magistrates were not appointed by the
governor; rather, they served at the pleasure of the
presiding judge.
MR. CHRISTENSEN mentioned that district court was the lowest
level of court and employed two types of judges:
magistrates and district court judges. He said that the
district court judges had jurisdiction over civil matters of
up to $50,000 and over all misdemeanors. Magistrates, he
said, had civil jurisdiction for matters of up to $5,000 and
had jurisdiction over certain types of criminal offenses.
Number 550
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that HB 152 proposed to modify
magistrate jurisdiction with respect to minor offenses. He
said that a minor offense was one which could not be
punished by jail time, an excessive fine, or loss of a
valuable license. He noted that, currently, magistrates
were authorized to hear certain minor offense cases, but not
others. He stated HB 152 would expand a magistrate's
jurisdiction to include all minor offenses, regardless of
where they were located in the statutes. He commented that
the change would result in some operating efficiency for the
district court.
MR. CHRISTENSEN stated that a second change proposed by
HB 152 would modify magistrate jurisdiction regarding post-
conviction relief. He said this change would correct an
oversight contained in a 1990 law. There was a common-law
right for an offender to petition the convicting court to
reconsider the case, he said. He noted that post-conviction
relief was different from the right to an appeal. He said
that sometimes new facts came to light months after a case
had been decided, past the date by which an appeal had to be
filed.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that until 1990, jurisdiction to hear
post-conviction relief petitions had always rested with the
superior court. A change in the law made in 1990, however,
provided that post-conviction relief petitions would be
handled by the court that originally imposed the sentence.
Through an oversight, he said, the 1990 law only applied to
judges within the district court and not to magistrates as
well. He stated HB 152 provided that a magistrate could
grant post-conviction relief in a case in which the
magistrate had the original jurisdiction.
MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that the committee substitute for
HB 152 contained two changes from the original bill. On
page 2, line 2, "or no contest" was added to clarify that a
magistrate had the authority to impose a sentence, whether a
defendant pleaded "guilty" or "no contest."
MR. CHRISTENSEN commented that the second change found in
the committee substitute undid a change made by the House
State Affairs Committee. The change was located on page 2,
line 5, and was technical in nature. He said the change
would cover some old statutes which held that certain
misdemeanors were also "minor offenses."
Number 669
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Christensen to clarify the second
change in the committee substitute.
Number 671
CHAIRMAN PORTER explained the change on page 2, line 5, to
Rep. Davidson.
Number 676
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Christensen if there had been any
recent changes to state or federal law regarding situations
in which a person was found innocent, but information
revealing that person's guilt later came to light.
Number 683
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that both the U.S. Constitution and
the Alaska Constitution had "double jeopardy" provisions,
providing that once a person was acquitted after trial on a
criminal offense, he or she could not be charged again for
the same offense.
Number 692
REP. JAMES made a motion to adopt the committee substitute.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 702
REP. NORDLUND made a motion to move CSHB 152(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 79 next.
HB 79 DAMAGE TO PROPERTY BY MINORS
Number 713
JAY FRANK, representing STATE FARM AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANIES, said that HB 79 made a major change in parental
"strict liability" for malicious acts committed by minors.
He said that the law currently allowed a person to recover
up to $2,000 from parents for any type of vandalism
committed by their children. He noted that HB 79 would
raise that dollar amount to $50,000.
MR. FRANK said that the insurance industry's concern about
HB 79 was two-fold. He stated that parents were already
held strictly liable, meaning that although parents might
not cause the damage, they were liable for the acts of their
children. He called the current law a rather drastic form
of remedy, and said HB 79 would make that remedy
exponentially more drastic.
MR. FRANK stated that he felt that the intent behind HB 79
was to penalize parents so that they would exercise some
supervision over their children. He said that the insurance
industry was concerned that the provisions of HB 79 would
become an item covered by a homeowner's insurance policy,
increasing the cost to the policy-holders.
MR. FRANK commented that he would like to see the bill
amended so as to exempt the types of damages addressed by
HB 79 from being covered under liability insurance policies.
Then, he said, the effect of HB 79 would be to penalize
parents and not penalize all insurance policy-holders
through premium cost increases.
Number 752
REP. JAMES asked Mr. Frank, If people could not get
insurance to cover damages done by their children, what
guarantee did victims have of compensation?
Number 761
MR. FRANK said that Rep. James had asked a good question.
He noted that it was difficult for a person to buy liability
insurance that would cover intentional acts. He commented
that the irony in HB 79 was that an intentional act
committed by a child was not covered because of its
intentionality. However, he said, because parents were
being held strictly liable, damages from the minor's
intentional act became insurable.
MR. FRANK said that there were many things that people did
that caused other parties to suffer losses, which one could
not buy insurance to cover. Whether or not a person had the
financial resources to compensate a victim for damages did
not concern insurance companies, he said.
Number 775
REP. JAMES asked how the situation addressed in HB 79 was
different from someone tripping on her sidewalk and breaking
his or her leg.
Number 781
MR. FRANK responded that the difference lay in that Rep.
James, in her example, had not done anything intentional to
cause the act.
REP. JAMES asked Mr. Frank if he were insinuating that the
parents were intentionally allowing their children to commit
crimes.
MR. FRANK replied that the act committed by the child was an
intentional act of vandalism, not covered under any
insurance policy. But, he said, the liability was being
strictly imposed upon the parents.
Number 788
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Frank if he were saying that no
insurance company would write a policy to cover a child who
engaged in mischievous behavior.
Number 792
MR. FRANK responded that he was not suggesting that. He
noted that it was questionable whether an Allstate policy
would cover children's acts of vandalism. State Farm, he
added, had always had a policy of covering those types of
acts.
Number 798
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Frank how the provisions of HB 79
would be technically incorporated into a policy.
Number 799
MR. FRANK said that if children's acts of vandalism were to
be excluded from coverage, a policy could specifically
contain an exclusion which said that the policy would not
cover liability imposed on parents for intentional acts
committed by their children.
Number 802
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that parents' strict liability for
intentional acts committed by their children was already in
place, and HB 79 was merely increasing the dollar amount of
liability.
Number 809
MR. FRANK noted that at the current $2,000 level, State Farm
did not have a problem paying for those losses. However, he
said that when the amount increased to $50,000, State Farm's
view would probably be drastically different.
Number 810
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that Mr. Frank's statement about the
intent of HB 79 might not have been entirely inclusive. He
commented that from his perspective, the intent of the bill
was to more adequately provide coverage for victims.
Number 813
REP. GREEN echoed the Chairman's concern. He asked Mr.
Frank if it was his belief that if a child could cause
$50,000 worth of damage, the victim should bear the loss for
$48,000 in damages.
Number 820
MR. FRANK commented that the insurance industry could not be
all things to all people. He added that if a person were
caused harm by a judgment-proof individual, the person would
simply have to bear the cost of the damage. He said that
the irony with HB 79 was that insurance companies could turn
around and exclude intentional acts committed by children
from coverage. He said that he did not want to see people
not "made whole." However, he noted the social cost
resulting from HB 79's losses being borne by insurers. He
said that the bill could eventually drive up premium rates.
TAPE 93-32, SIDE B
Number 005
REP. GREEN asked Mr. Frank if insurance rates would go up
across the board or just for parents of minors.
Number 008
MR. FRANK replied that insurance premiums were calculated
based on an insurance company's losses, and that HB 79 would
therefore result in increased insurance rates for everyone.
He noted that a person could obtain first-party property
insurance coverage to cover acts of vandalism to one's own
property.
Number 033
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Frank what happened now in the event
that a child committed $15,000 worth of damage to a
neighbor's property.
Number 049
MR. FRANK said that under current law, if the damaged person
wanted to recover costs from the parents of the child who
committed the act of vandalism, that person could file a
civil suit. Under current law, he added, a person could
recover up to $2,000 from the parents.
Number 059
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Frank if a damaged person could also
turn to her or his own insurance company for repayment of
the cost of the damage.
Number 062
MR. FRANK noted that a damaged person could always turn to
her or his own insurance company if the person had a "first-
party policy." He said if a person submitted a claim to her
or his own insurance company, the company would turn around
and sue the parents of the child who committed the act of
vandalism.
Number 074
REP. DAVIDSON commented that some parents were at their
wit's end in trying to deal with uncontrollable children.
He said that it was not just the parents' fault that
children were becoming more wayward.
Number 100
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that HB 79 might assist the insurance
companies, in that when they sued parents to recover
damages, HB 79 would allow them to recover up to $50,000
instead of the current limit of $2,000.
Number 114
MR. FRANK responded that the Chairman was correct in that
HB 79 would allow insurance companies to recover more money.
However, he noted that HB 79 would still increase the amount
of money that the parents' insurance company paid out,
therefore increasing losses and premiums.
Number 122
REP. CON BUNDE, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 79, called his bill
"victims' rights legislation." He commented that going to
court to recover $2,000 would result in a moral victory, but
certainly not a financial one, due to resultant legal costs.
He said HB 79 contained three steps: (1) proving that an
individual committed a crime; (2) proving that the child was
a dependent of the parent; and (3) proving actual damages.
REP. BUNDE noted that HB 79 provided that a person could
only seek recovery of actual damages caused, with an upper
limit of $50,000. He said that knowing that they could be
liable for $50,000 if their children committed crimes,
parents would be more likely to make sure that they knew
where their children were and what they were doing.
REP. BUNDE stated that in the case of good parents whose
children were simply uncontrollable, there was a process by
which the children could be adjudicated as "delinquent." In
that case, he added, the parents would not be financially
responsible for damages caused by the child.
REP. BUNDE addressed Mr. Frank's suggested amendment to HB
79. The amendment would put into statute a provision that
no insurance company could write a policy in Alaska covering
the type of liability addressed in HB 79. He said that he
opposed the proposed amendment.
REP. BUNDE said that increased liability would lead to
increased awareness among parents as to their
responsibilities toward their children. He noted that his
bill would also allow victims of vandalism a greater
opportunity to recover damages.
Number 212
REP. PHILLIPS commented that had HB 79 been in place the
year before, it might have saved the life of a Dimond High
School student shot while stealing a furniture store sign in
Anchorage.
Number 220
REP. BUNDE noted that most children were not so evil that
they would do something that would cause their parents to
lose huge sums of money. He said that his bill would cause
children to consider the consequences of their actions.
Number 237
REP. GREEN asked about a situation in which a child caused
damage and the child's parents were financially capable of
covering the cost of the damage but moved out of state.
REP. BUNDE replied that under current law, a person who
moved out of state was still responsible for her or his
debts. He noted that HB 79 would not change that.
REP. GREEN asked Rep. Bunde if he had considered penalizing
children directly for their acts of vandalism. He mentioned
revoking their driver's licenses or seizing their permanent
fund dividend checks.
Number 255
REP. BUNDE said that what Rep. Green had suggested was one
of the original thrusts of HB 79. However, he said that
because minors could not enter into contracts, the state
could not personally address those things for which a minor
had to sign. He said that HB 86, which he had also
sponsored, provided for the seizure of a minor's vehicle if
it was used in the commission of a crime.
Number 278
REP. DAVIDSON said that it seemed to him that HB 79 would
create another type of victim -- the parents. He expressed
concern over the manner in which the problem of wayward
youth was being attacked. He suggested increasing the
amount of liability from the current $2,000, but making it
lower than the $50,000 proposed in HB 79.
Number 307
REP. BUNDE said that it was not his intention to set a new
limit. He noted that he just set out the jurisdictional
amount currently allowed in the district court. He
commented that he shared Rep. Davidson's concerns about
wayward children. However, he stated that parents needed to
do all they could to be responsible for their children.
Number 323
REP. DAVIDSON asked about society's obligation toward
wayward youth.
Number 327
REP. BUNDE indicated that if a parent knew of her or his
substantial financial obligation, he or she would either
rein in the children as best they could or have them
adjudicated as delinquent.
Number 334
REP. DAVIDSON asked what tools parents could use to rein in
their children.
REP. BUNDE replied that parents could decide what tools to
use. He commented that the only legal protection parents
had against out-of-control children was to have them
adjudicated as delinquent.
Number 342
REP. DAVIDSON noted that the state could do better than to
pass legislation dumping the load back on the parents. He
reiterated his belief that parents were not the only ones at
fault when it came to wayward children.
Number 356
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he agreed with Rep.
Davidson's point that the state needed to strike a balance
between accountability and authority capability. He said he
was looking at ways to allow parents to have the authority
that they needed to maintain discipline and control over
their children. He stated that in recent years, laws
protecting children from abuse and sexual assault might have
gone overboard to the point that parental authority had been
diminished.
Number 386
CHAIRMAN PORTER spoke about a case he had once handled in
which a 15-year-old girl had run away from home because her
parents would not allow her to smoke. Under current law, he
said, the police could not take her home if she did not want
to go.
Number 409
REP. NORDLUND mentioned Rep. Bunde's HB 100, Prosecution of
Juvenile Felons, and the sponsor's comment that children
under the age of 18, in some cases, ought to be tried as
adults. Yet in HB 79, he said, the sponsor provided that
parents should be responsible for the actions of children
under the age of 18. He asked Rep. Bunde to explain this
apparent incongruity.
Number 425
REP. BUNDE said that Rep. Nordlund's point was well taken.
He said HB 79 relied somewhat on existing law in that it was
difficult to recover damages from a person under the age of
18.
Number 442
REP. NORDLUND commented that the approaches of HB 100 and
HB 79 seemed to be at cross-purposes.
Number 446
REP. BUNDE stated that he understood Rep. Nordlund's point,
but he did not entirely concur. He said he did not see his
ideas as mutually contradictory.
REP. NORDLUND clarified his point by saying that if a child
was able to make adult decisions, then the parents should be
released from responsibility for the child's actions.
Number 459
REP. BUNDE said that parents could be released from
responsibility through legal action.
Number 464
REP. JAMES stated that she viewed HB 79 and HB 100 as
addressing two entirely different issues. She said that the
issue of parental responsibility did not necessarily enter
into HB 100.
Number 479
REP. BUNDE expressed his opinion that the two bills
addressed two different issues.
REP. KOTT asked if HB 79 would result in the state being
obligated to cover damages committed by a minor. He
mentioned a case on the Kenai Peninsula in which a child in
the custody of the state and living in a foster home had
committed arson.
REP. BUNDE said that under current law, a state agency or
its agents would not be liable for the acts of a minor in
their custody. He said his bill would not change that or
increase the state's liability.
Number 514
REP. DAVIDSON asked Rep. Bunde if he had children, and if
so, what tools he employed to control the behavior of his
teenagers.
Number 515
REP. BUNDE said that he did have children and used remedies
ranging from a strong voice and spankings to "time out" and
threats of kicking the children out of the house if they did
not behave. He noted that if he had been responsible for
$50,000 in damages committed by his children, he would have
adjudicated them as delinquent as soon as he felt they might
commit damage in retaliation for being kicked out of the
house. He said that he subscribed to the theory of "Tough
Love," whereby a child was told that if he or she lived with
parents, he or she would have to abide by rules set by the
parents.
Number 531
REP. KOTT asked what happened once a child was adjudicated
as delinquent.
Number 535
REP. BUNDE replied that he believed that such children
became wards of the court.
Number 543
REP. DAVIDSON commented that a parent could not have a child
adjudicated as delinquent unless the child had committed a
crime, in his understanding.
Number 547
REP. BUNDE said that his research indicated that if a child
were out of control, a parent could have him or her
adjudicated as delinquent. He noted that the process was
not a simple one.
Number 554
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that it was his understanding that a
court had to judge whether or not a child was delinquent.
Number 560
REP. DAVIDSON said that a parent could not necessarily have
an unruly child adjudicated as delinquent.
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that Rep. Davidson was correct.
REP. NORDLUND asked about a child who committed an act of
vandalism, was caught, and was charged with a crime by the
police. At that point, he asked, would the child be
adjudicated as delinquent, and therefore not covered under
the provisions of HB 79?
Number 574
REP. BUNDE said that the child would not be considered
delinquent at the point at which the crime was committed.
He or she would be adjudicated as such after the crime was
committed.
Number 579
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that one malicious act would not
guarantee that a child would be branded "delinquent."
Number 586
REP. KOTT asked if a parent could petition the court to
adjudicate a child as delinquent if that child ran away from
home.
Number 596
RANDALL HINES, YOUTH CORRECTIONS SPECIALIST with the
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, commented that
children entered the juvenile justice system through a
number of means: petitions filed by law enforcement
agencies, school district referrals, and parental referrals.
However, he said if a child did not break the law, no
delinquent offense had occurred. He stated that a child
could not be adjudicated as delinquent just because he or
she had run away from home and was incorrigible.
Number 613
REP. KOTT asked if, under HB 79's provisions, a parent could
be liable for $50,000 worth of damage caused by a teenage
runaway.
Number 620
MR. HINES noted that parents could not "adjudicate" their
children as delinquent; only the court could do that.
Number 626
REP. KOTT commented that the committee should get a legal
opinion as to whether adjudication was the only mechanism
for alleviating parental responsibility for damage caused by
their children. He asked Mr. Hines to discuss the
emancipation process.
Number 631
MR. HINES said that in order for a child to be legally
emancipated, it had to be demonstrated to the court that the
child was recognized as an adult.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that for a child to be emancipated,
the child often had to demonstrate talents, not liabilities.
Number 639
REP. JAMES expressed her belief that if a parent could not
control a child, he or she could have the child placed in
foster care.
Number 646
MR. HINES replied that emergency foster care could be
provided for such children in some cases.
Number 654
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Hines if he felt that changing laws
so as to give parents reasons to relinquish control of their
children to the state was a good idea.
Number 663
MR. HINES said that each family was "a fingerprint," and the
issues surrounding a family's ability to care for a child
were very complex. He said that strengthening the runaway
law might be a step in the right direction. He added that
providing additional foster care might also be part of the
solution. He said that there was not one simple answer to
this complex problem.
Number 689
REP. PHILLIPS made a motion to move HB 79 out of committee
with individual recommendations.
Number 692
REP. DAVIDSON objected. He asked that the committee hear
testimony from the court system on the issue.
Number 697
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the committee had addressed
many important issues. He said that in his understanding
HB 79 was not intended to solve the whole problem of
delinquent juveniles. He said that the bill had a
relatively narrow focus in deterring some juveniles from
committing acts of vandalism.
Number 715
REP. DAVIDSON maintained his objection, as he was not
convinced that HB 79 was a good bill. He noted that bills
that the committee passed out might well become state law.
He said that the legislature needed to address all the
aspects of the problem of delinquent juveniles. He said he
appreciated the sponsor's effort, but felt that HB 79 would
result in more pressure on the family unit. He said that he
would like to hear from more agencies, more parents, and
perhaps some children.
CHAIRMAN PORTER called for a roll call vote on the motion to
move the bill from committee. Reps. Green, Kott, James and
Porter voted "yea." Reps. Davidson and Nordlund voted
"nay." And so, HB 79 was moved out of committee with
individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that, because the committee would be
meeting jointly with the Senate Judiciary Committee at 3:30
p.m., perhaps it would be best to not hear HB 86 until
another time.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|