Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/16/1993 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
April 16, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cliff Davidson
Representative Gail Phillips
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Sitton
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 188 "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain
property; and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 188 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 222 "An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to
termination of tenancies and recovery of rental
premises, to tenant responsibilities, to the civil
remedies of forcible entry and detainer and
nuisance abatement, and to the duties of peace
officers to notify landlords of arrests involving
certain illegal activity on rental premises."
CSHB 222 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
SB 54 "An Act relating to violations of laws by
juveniles, to the remedies for offenses and
activities committed by juveniles and to records
of those offenses, and to incarceration of
juveniles who have been charged, prosecuted, or
convicted as adults; and providing for an
effective date."
CSSB 54 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION AND A LETTER OF INTENT
HB 195 "An Act authorizing youth courts by which to
provide for peer adjudication of minors who have
allegedly committed violations of state or
municipal laws, renaming the community legal
assistance grant fund and amending the purposes
for which grants may be made from that fund in
order to provide financial assistance for
organization and initial operation of youth
courts, and relating to young adult advisory
panels in the superior court."
CSHB 195 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 132 "An Act extending the time period of all permits
issued by the state relating to the extraction or
removal of resources if the holder of the permits
is involved in litigation concerning the issuance
or validity of any permit related to the
extraction or removal."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
HB 187 "An Act authorizing the interception of private
communications related to the commission of
certain criminal offenses; making related
amendments to statutes relating to eavesdropping
and wiretapping; relating to the penalty for
violation of statutes relating to eavesdropping
and unauthorized interception, publication, or use
of private communications; and providing for an
effective date."
NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
GAYLE HORETSKI, Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-6841
Position Statement: Reviewed changes in CSHB 188 (JUD),
CSHB 222 (JUD), CSSB 54 (JUD); answered
questions related to HB 132
CAPTAIN GLENN FLOTHE
Alaska State Troopers
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Phone: 269-5655
Position Statement: Supported SB 54
JAY PAGE
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, Crime Committee
8150 Clearhaven Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Phone: 265-3860
Position Statement: Supported SB 54
MARGOT KNUTH
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Criminal Division
P. O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Supported CSSB 54 (JUD)
RANDALL HINES
Youth Corrections Specialist
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P. O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-3187
Position Statement: Answered questions related to SB 54;
supported HB 195
JOHN SHEPHERD, Legislative Aide
to Senator Rick Halford
State Capitol, Room 111
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4958
Position Statement: Discussed SB 54
REPRESENTATIVE JOE SITTON
Alaska State Legislature
Court Building, Room 609
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-2327
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 195
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN
Staff Counsel
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 264-8228
Position Statement: Suggested changes to CSHB 195 (JUD)
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE
Alaska State Legislature
Court Building, Room 605
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-3466
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 132
EVANS MCMILLION
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P. O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 463-3366
Position Statement: Opposed HB 132
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 188
SHORT TITLE: FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain property;
and providing for a effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/93 489 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/01/93 490 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/01/93 490 (H) -4 ZERO FNS (ADM, ADM, DPS,
LAW) 3/1/93
03/01/93 490 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/14/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/16/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 222
SHORT TITLE: USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW VIOLATIONS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES,Porter
TITLE: "An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to
termination of tenancies and recovery of rental premises, to
tenant responsibilities, to the civil remedies of forcible
entry and detainer and nuisance abatement, and to the duties
of peace officers to notify landlords of arrests involving
certain illegal activity on rental premises."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/12/93 619 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/12/93 619 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
04/01/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/02/93 932 (H) L&C RPT 3DP 4NR
04/02/93 932 (H) DP: WILLIAMS, MULDER, PORTER
04/02/93 932 (H) NR: GREEN, MACKIE, SITTON,
HUDSON
04/02/93 932 (H) -2 FISCAL NOTES (DPS, LAW)
4/2/93
04/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/13/93 1188 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
04/14/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/16/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 54
SHORT TITLE: OFFENSES BY JUVENILE OFFENDERS
BILL VERSION: CSSB 54(FIN)
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD,Phillips,Leman,Taylor,
Miller; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Porter,Bunde
TITLE: "An Act relating to violations of laws by juveniles,
to the remedies for offenses and activities committed by
juveniles and to records of those offenses, and to
incarceration of juveniles who have been charged,
prosecuted, or convicted as adults; and providing for an
effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 122 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 122 (S) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/08/93 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/08/93 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/17/93 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/17/93 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/19/93 408 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 1DNP NEW
TITLE
02/19/93 408 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES TO SB (LAW,
DPS, CORR)
02/19/93 408 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB (ADM - 2)
02/24/93 461 (S) FISCAL NOTES TO CS (COURT,
CORR)
02/24/93 461 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES TO CS (DHSS,
LAW)
02/22/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/24/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
518
02/25/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
518
02/26/93 499 (S) FIN RPT CS 6DP 1NR NEW
TITLE
02/26/93 500 (S) FN TO FIN CS (ADM-2, COURT)
02/26/93 500 (S) PREVIOUS CS ZERO FNS APPLY
(LAW, DHSS)
02/26/93 500 (S) PREVIOUS SB ZERO FN APPLIES
(DPS)
02/26/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
518
02/26/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/26/93 (S) RLS AT 01:15 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM
203
02/26/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/01/93 538 (S) PREVIOUS FN APPLIES TO CS
(CORR)
03/01/93 540 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/1/93
03/01/93 541 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/01/93 542 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED Y11 N8 E1
03/01/93 543 (S) THIRD READING 3/2 CALENDAR
03/02/93 561 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 54
(FIN)
03/02/93 562 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 1 FLD Y9
N10 E1
03/02/93 567 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 2 FLD Y9
N10 E1
03/02/93 568 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 3 FLD Y9
N10 E1
03/02/93 568 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 4 FLD Y9
N10 E1
03/02/93 569 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 5 FLD Y9
N10 E1
03/02/93 570 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 6 FLD Y9
N10 E1
03/02/93 571 (S) (S) ADOPTED LETTER OF INTENT
03/02/93 571 (S) PASSED Y12 N7 E1
03/02/93 571 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y14 N5 E1
03/02/93 572 (S) Kerttula NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
03/03/93 595 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
03/03/93 596 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/05/93 538 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/05/93 538 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/12/93 629 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): PORTER
03/16/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/24/93 765 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): BUNDE
03/26/93 (H) JUD AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 120
03/26/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/26/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/16/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 195
SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZING YOUTH COURTS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SITTON,Ulmer,Willis,Foster,
Brown,B.Davis,Olberg,Porter
TITLE: "An Act authorizing youth courts by which to provide
for peer adjudication of minors who have allegedly committed
violations of state or municipal laws, renaming the
community legal assistance grant fund and amending the
purposes for which grants may be made from that fund in
order to provide financial assistance for organization and
initial operation of youth courts, and relating to young
adult advisory panels in the superior court."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/03/93 519 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/03/93 519 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/12/93 628 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILLIS, FOSTER,
BROWN
03/12/93 628 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B.DAVIS, OLBERG
03/19/93 716 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PORTER
03/24/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/31/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/01/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/02/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/05/93 974 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NEW TITLE 5DP
2NR 1AM
04/05/93 974 (H) DP:BUNDE,G.DAVIS,TOOHEY,
B.DAVIS,NICHOLIA
04/05/93 974 (H) NR: VEZEY, OLBERG
04/05/93 974 (H) AM: KOTT
04/05/93 974 (H) -2 ZERO FNS(DCRA, DHSS) 4/5/93
04/14/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/16/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 132
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND RESOURCE EXTRACTION PERMIT/LEASE
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BRICE,Kott,James
TITLE: "An Act extending the time period of all permits
issued by the state relating to the extraction or removal of
resources if the holder of the permit is involved in
litigation concerning the issuance or validity of any permit
related to the extraction or removal."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/05/93 236 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/05/93 236 (H) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/22/93 739 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT
03/29/93 838 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
03/23/93 (H) MINUTE(ARR)
03/26/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/29/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/30/93 848 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) NEW TITLE 5DP
2NR
03/30/93 848 (H) DP: HUDSON, CARNEY, JAMES,BUNDE,
WILLIAMS
03/30/93 848 (H) NR: FINKELSTEIN, DAVIES
03/30/93 848 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR)
3/30/93
04/16/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 187
SHORT TITLE: INTERCEPTION OF PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS
BILL VERSION: CSHB 187(FIN) AM
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act authorizing the interception of private
communications related to the commission of certain criminal
offenses; relating to pen registers, trade devices, and
communications in electronic storage; amending statutes
relating to eavesdropping and wiretapping; relating to the
penalty for violation of statutes relating to eavesdropping
and unauthorized interception, publication, or use of
private communications; and providing for an effective
date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/93 488 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/01/93 488 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
03/01/93 488 (H) -3 ZERO FNS(ADM, DPS, LAW)
3/1/93
03/01/93 488 (H) -INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE
(ADM) 3/1/93
03/01/93 488 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/01/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/02/93 929 (H) L&C RPT 3DP 1DNP 2NR
04/02/93 929 (H) DP: PORTER, GREEN, HUDSON
04/02/93 929 (H) DNP: SITTON
04/02/93 929 (H) NR: MACKIE, WILLIAMS
04/02/93 929 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 4/2/93
04/02/93 929 (H) -PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN(ADM)
3/1/93
04/02/93 929 (H) -2 PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM,LAW)
3/19/93
04/16/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-62, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to
order at 3:30 p.m., on April 16, 1993. A quorum was
present. Chairman Porter announced that the committee would
take up HB 188 first.
HB 188: FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, called the committee's attention to a draft
committee substitute for HB 188, dated April 15, 1993
(CSHB 188 (JUD)), which contained four changes from the
original version of HB 188. She said that the first
difference appeared on page 3, line 13, and required the
state to prove that real property was subject to forfeiture
by "clear and convincing evidence." She noted that the
state had to prove that other types of property were subject
to forfeiture by a showing of "a preponderance of the
evidence."
Number 070
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER clarified that the existing state
forfeiture law imposed the standard of a "preponderance of
the evidence." House Bill 188 added the standard of "clear
and convincing evidence" for forfeiture of real property.
Number 076
MS. HORETSKI commented that the next change was on page 3,
line 20. A sentence pertaining to notice had been deleted,
she said, at the recommendation of Ms. Margot Knuth from the
Department of Law (DOL). The next change appeared on page 3
as well, she said, and added a new subsection (c) on lines
21-23. The new subsection recognized a constitutional
requirement that forfeiture proceedings be held in abeyance
in the event that a criminal case was pending, so that a
defendant would not be forced to incriminate him- or herself
in the forfeiture case.
CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that if a person was charged with
a crime, and also had his or her property subject to
forfeiture in connection with that crime, he or she might be
forced to testify against his or her own interests in a
forfeiture hearing, thereby negating his or her Fifth
Amendment rights. The change which Ms. Horetski had just
mentioned addressed that concern. Either the state or the
defendant could request that forfeiture proceedings be
postponed until after the criminal case had come to a close.
Number 129
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if the forfeiture itself
would also be postponed.
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied in the affirmative.
Number 132
MS. HORETSKI said that the final change which appeared in
CSHB 188 (JUD) was the deletion of some language which had
been contained in the original HB 188. She noted that the
phrase "or have reasonable cause to believe" had been
omitted from page 7, line 2 of CSHB 188 (JUD), at the
suggestion of the attorney general.
Number 151
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the deletion to which Ms.
Horetski had just referred resulted in strengthened
protection for innocent property-owners.
Number 172
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to ADOPT
CSHB 188 (JUD), dated April 15, 1993. There being no
objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
Number 186
CHAIRMAN PORTER briefly explained the changes which Ms.
Horetski had just discussed, for the benefit of
Representative Nordlund who had just arrived.
Number 199
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 188 (JUD)
out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
Number 210
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 222 next.
HB 222: USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW VIOLATIONS
Number 214
MS. HORETSKI called the committee's attention to a draft
committee substitute for HB 222, dated April 13, 1993
(CSHB 222 (JUD)). She outlined changes made in the bill,
which were amendments adopted by the committee at the last
hearing on HB 222. The first change appeared on page 5,
line 6, and added to the list of activities which
constituted a nuisance "illegal activity involving a place
of prostitution." She stated that language on lines 14 and
15 cross-referenced that change.
MS. HORETSKI stated that new language also appeared on page
5, line 21, new subsection (2), and provided that if a
person had been sued repeatedly over a nuisance, the court
would be able to review court records detailing that
history. She pointed out another change, located on page
10, lines 6-7 of CSHB 222 (JUD). The phrase "prostitution,
an illegal activity involving a place of prostitution" had
been added, she stated. She commented that language
beginning on page 10, line 23, and continuing through page
11, line 4 was also new.
MS. HORETSKI explained the effect of the new language was to
describe which acts or omissions would constitute sufficient
breach of the lease to trigger the 24-hour notice
provisions. She stated that under current law, a landlord
had to give a tenant at least ten days' notice for eviction.
Under certain specified circumstances in the committee
substitute, she said, a tenant could be given 24 hours'
notice. The new language set out those circumstances in
which a landlord could give a tenant 24 hours' notice.
Those circumstances pertained to damage, she said, and not
to non-payment of rent.
MS. HORETSKI stated that new language on lines 18-20, and
line 26 of page 12 cross referenced other changes. The
final change appeared on page 13, lines 7-8, and represented
a conforming amendment, she said. She again explained that
the changes which she had just described were the result of
amendments adopted by the committee at the last hearing on
HB 222.
MS. HORETSKI explained further that there were two general
civil court rules about effective dates of court orders.
She stated that questions had been raised as to whether or
not HB 222 changed those rules, and if so, whether the title
needed to be altered to reflect those court rule changes.
She commented that the court had the authority to adopt
rules of procedure, and the legislature had the authority to
set substantive laws. Unfortunately, she said, the line
between procedure and substance was not always clearly
drawn.
MS. HORETSKI expressed an opinion that there was a
legitimate argument that HB 222's provisions made
substantive changes in a landlord's rights regarding his or
her property, and were, therefore, within the legislature's
purview. If the court concluded that it needed to adopt new
rules as a result of HB 222's passage, she said, then the
court was free to do so. She noted that if the committee
felt that HB 222 represented a substantive change, then no
title amendment was necessary, and the bill would not
require a 2/3 floor vote.
Number 369
CHAIRMAN PORTER believed that HB 222 represented a
substantive change, not a procedural one.
Number 378
MS. HORETSKI explained that all bills which passed the
legislature were presumed to include a clause which said
that if any portion of a statute failed, the rest of the
statute was severable and was to be given effect to the
extent that the court could do so.
Number 385
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that concerns had been expressed
about shortening notice periods from ten days to five days,
in instances of non-payment of rent. She said that she
would not be opposed to changing the notice period back to
ten days in such instances.
Number 401
MS. HORETSKI responded that the change which Representative
James had suggested could easily be accomplished in CSHB 222
(JUD).
Number 404
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND echoed Ms. Horetski's remarks,
and was supportive of such a change.
Number 410
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to AMEND section 21 of
CSHB 222 (JUD), to change the notice period from five days
to ten days in instances of non-payment of rent, as was
provided in current law.
Number 417
MS. HORETSKI mentioned that the committee had not yet
adopted CSHB 222 (JUD).
Number 420
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 222
(JUD), dated April 13, 1993. There being no objection, IT
WAS ADOPTED.
Number 423
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MOVED the AMENDMENT changing the five-
day notice period back to a ten-day period.
Number 426
MS. HORETSKI commented that section 21 of CSHB 222 (JUD)
could simply be struck, as existing law provided for a ten-
day notice period. But, she said, a conforming amendment
also would be required in section 2 of the bill. She
suggested removing "within five days" on line 14 and "within
five" on line 16 of page 2.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she considered Ms. Horetski's
suggestion a FRIENDLY AMENDMENT to her amendment. There
being no objection to Representative James' amendment, IT
WAS ADOPTED.
Number 444
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 222
(JUD), as amended, out of committee, with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no
objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
SB 54. He mentioned that the committee had before it a
proposed Judiciary Committee substitute (CSSB 54 (JUD)), and
said that the bill's sponsor, Senator Rick Halford,
concurred with the changes included in CSSB 54 (JUD).
SB 54: OFFENSES BY JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Number 472
MS. HORETSKI stated that CSSB 54 (JUD), dated April 16,
1993, was the product resulting from numerous discussions
among the DOL representatives, Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) officials, the sponsor's staff, the
legislative drafters, and herself. She noted that SB 54
addressed many public policy issues. She outlined changes
incorporated into CSSB 54 (JUD). The first change, she
said, appeared on the bottom of page 3, in section 4.
MS. HORETSKI noted that section 4 in SB 54, as passed by the
Senate, dealt with "automatic waivers" into adult court for
youths aged 16 and older charged with any unclassified or
class A felony. The entire section 4, she noted, had been
replaced with language which provided that minors aged 16 or
older, who were arraigned and charged with murder in the
first degree, attempted murder in the first degree, or
murder in the second degree would be automatically waived
into adult court. She mentioned that the new section 4
language mirrored language in the governor's juvenile waiver
bill (HB 189).
MS. HORETSKI said that CSSB 54 (JUD) was a more narrowly-
drafted juvenile waiver bill. She called the members'
attention to page 5, section 7 of CSSB 54 (JUD). Regarding
crimes other than those she had already mentioned, new
language appeared on lines 16-18, and provided that when a
petition for waiver was filed, the minor had the burden of
proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that he or she was
"amenable to treatment" within the juvenile court system.
MS. HORETSKI noted that under existing law, the District
Attorney or an intake worker filed a petition for waiver;
CSSB 54 (JUD) would not change that. Nor, she said, did
CSSB 54 (JUD) change the fact that a hearing was held once a
petition was filed. The standard for whether a juvenile
stayed in juvenile court or was waived to adult court,
amenability to treatment, was not changed in CSSB 54 (JUD)
either, she said.
MS. HORETSKI said further that the court was the entity
which ultimately decided whether a juvenile was waived to
adult court, under both the current law and that proposed in
CSSB 54 (JUD). The only factor changed in CSSB 54 (JUD),
she said, was that the burden of proof on the treatment
issue was shifted to the juvenile, instead of being on the
state, as in current law.
Number 573
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked which court would make the
determination as to whether a juvenile should be waived to
adult court.
MS. HORETSKI replied that a superior court judge, acting as
a children's court judge, would make that determination.
Number 583
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked to which crimes the new burden
of proof applied.
Number 586
MS. HORETSKI responded that, as in existing law, the
"amenability to treatment" standard applied to all petitions
for waiver for all crimes, and to juveniles of all ages.
She mentioned that petitions for delinquency were filed in
approximately 18% of cases which were accepted and on which
action was taken. In most instances, she said, petitions
were not filed. She said that the number of cases, under
existing law, in which petitions for waiver were filed was
so small that they did not even appear on the DHSS' pie
charts.
MS. HORETSKI noted that section 5 on page 4 of CSSB 54 (JUD)
was also new, and had been included at the request of the
sponsor. Because the vast majority of cases did not involve
the filing of a petition, she said, section 5, in
conjunction with section 6, would allow for restitution in a
matter which was "informally adjusted" by the DHSS.
Number 637
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the restitution provisions
would apply primarily to situations in which property had
been damaged. He also asked what would happen in a rape
case.
Number 642
MS. HORETSKI stated that section 5 proposed to amend
AS 47.10.020, which dealt with informally adjusted cases.
She stated that whether or not a petition for waiver into
adult court was filed for a sexual assault case would depend
on the facts of the case, but the cases which were
informally adjusted were usually minor offenses, she added.
She stated that the next change in CSSB 54 (JUD) appeared on
page 6, and pertained to sealing records.
MS. HORETSKI commented that under current law, if a juvenile
was tried as an adult and convicted, there was a provision
under which a juvenile could request that his or her records
be sealed. Language in CSSB 54 (JUD) stated that the court
could not seal a juvenile's records under certain
circumstances. A conforming amendment appeared on lines 12-
13, she added. The new language provided that if a juvenile
was waived into adult court and convicted, records of the
conviction could not be sealed unless the juvenile was
convicted of an offense which would not have transferred him
or her into adult court in the first place.
Number 655
MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to page 8,
section 10. She said that existing law, AS 47.10.090, dealt
with juvenile records, but was very poorly written and
difficult to understand. The drafter had rewritten the
section, she said, in order to make it easier to interpret.
She stated that new language appeared on page 8, lines 19-
27. She noted that the general rule was that records
involving juveniles were confidential. Subsection (b)
created an exception to that rule, she said.
MS. HORETSKI explained that if a minor was at least 16 years
old and was adjudicated delinquent, then the following would
be public records: petitions filed to have the juvenile
declared a delinquent, petitions filed to revoke probation,
petitions filed to waive the juvenile into adult court, and
judgments related to any of those petitions. Many juvenile
court records would remain confidential, she noted,
including educational and psychological records.
Number 713
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Ms. Horetski to explain how
section 1 of CSSB 54 (JUD) related to the section which she
had just described.
Number 716
MS. HORETSKI explained that section 1 provided that every
person had the right to inspect public records, except in
certain cases, including the records of juveniles. A
further exception to that exception, she said, was when
certain juvenile records were deemed public records. She
said that language in section 1 cross-referenced language on
page 8.
MS. HORETSKI commented that there was new conforming
language on page 9, line 5. She stated that subsection (2)
on page 9, lines 10-12 was new, and provided that state or
city law enforcement agencies could disclose to school
officials information regarding cases that was needed by the
school officials to protect the safety and well-being of the
school's students and staff.
Number 752
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that there had been two recent
cases in Anchorage in which police had taken action against
students for firearms' offenses, but later could not
disclose to school officials which students had been
involved and what the nature of the illegal activity was.
Current law precluded law enforcement officials from
disclosing certain information about students to school
officials, resulting in possible threats to the safety of
students and staff.
Number 768
MS. HORETSKI said that new language also appeared on page
10, lines 18-26. She noted that subsection (i) was included
in the Senate-passed version of SB 54, and provided that
victims who wanted to file civil suits against a juvenile
offender were included in the group of persons with
legitimate interest in the inspection of records. She said
that this section would apply to all offenses, and to
juveniles of all ages.
MS. HORETSKI commented that the final change in CSSB 54
(JUD) was the deletion of conforming language on page 11.
It was brought to MS. HORETSKI's attention that some
committee members did not have page 11 of the draft
committee substitute; an "at ease" was called at 4:14 p.m.
in order to have copies made and distributed. The meeting
was called back to order at 4:15 p.m.
MS. HORETSKI pointed out that certain applicability language
on page 11 had been deleted, as it was no longer needed
because of other changes made to the bill. She noted that
the present applicability section mentioned civil actions
and criminal offenses which took place on or after the
effective date of SB 54; therefore, she said, the bill was
not retroactive.
Number 808
CAPTAIN GLENN FLOTHE, from the ALASKA STATE TROOPERS,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of
automatic waivers for juvenile offenders who committed
serious or violent crimes. He deemed it important to hold
juvenile offenders responsible for their actions by imposing
sentences commensurate with the crime committed. He urged
the committee to support SB 54.
TAPE 93-62, SIDE B
Number 015
JAY PAGE, representing the ANCHORAGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S
CRIME COMMITTEE, testified via teleconference from Anchorage
in support of SB 54. He said that he had sent a U. S.
Department of Justice report to the committee members, and
summarized the findings of the report for the committee.
The report found that there had been a dramatic increase in
juvenile violent crime. He said that the report also found
that the most effective response to first and second
offenders was to impose sanctions which were carefully
designed to instill values of discipline and responsibility.
MR. PAGE added that the report found that such sanctions
benefited juveniles more than leniency did. He commented
that Title 47 of the Alaska Statutes held as a basic premise
that juveniles were incapable of understanding their
actions. Therefore, rehabilitation, not punishment, was the
answer. He said that juvenile rehabilitation was passive in
nature, and enabled juveniles to shift responsibility away
from themselves, and onto substance abuse or family
problems.
Number 130
MR. PAGE stated that the recidivism rate at McLaughlin Youth
Center was 48%. That, he said, was an indication that the
state's juvenile rehabilitation program was not working. He
expressed his support for SB 54, especially the shift in the
burden of proof regarding amenability to treatment onto the
juvenile. He commented that SB 54 was badly needed and
urged the committee to pass it out.
Number 143
MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW (DOL), expressed her strong support for
CSSB 54 (JUD). She said that it closely tracked the
governor's juvenile waiver bill by having automatic waiver
provisions for 16- and 17-year-olds who committed first-
degree murder, second-degree murder, and first-degree
attempted murder. She also applauded the shift in the
burden of proof regarding treatability. She commented that
the juvenile was in a far better position to carry that
burden, given a recent court ruling regarding psychological
evaluations.
Number 173
RANDALL HINES, YOUTH CORRECTIONS SPECIALIST, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (DHSS), DIVISION OF FAMILY AND
YOUTH SERVICES, mentioned that the state's juvenile justice
laws were somewhat dated. Trends in juvenile justice
procedures emerging in other states indicated that Alaska's
juvenile justice laws could use some changes, he said. He
asserted that currently, the DHSS held juveniles accountable
for their behavior, and did not take a passive approach to
juvenile offenders. He stated that SB 54 would change
statutes so that the DHSS could hold kids more accountable
for serious offenses.
MR. HINES mentioned that the DHSS' previous concerns
regarding SB 54 had been addressed in CSSB 54 (JUD). He
asked a question about the last lines of section 6,
regarding restitution. His interpretation was that the DHSS
would be setting the terms and conditions of restitution.
That, he said, was somewhat different from what his agency
currently did. He said that currently, the DHSS had a
policy of entering into voluntary restitution agreements
with juveniles who had not been adjudicated delinquent for
offenses.
MR. HINES said putting that policy into statute would put
the DHSS into the position of having to enforce the
restitution agreements at a different level than it now did.
He stated that this might be a problem.
Number 242
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND expressed his opinion that CSSB 54
(JUD) was an improvement over earlier versions of SB 54.
However, he said that he still had concerns about
incarcerating juveniles charged with offenses in adult court
with adult offenders.
Number 267
MR. HINES replied that the DHSS shared Representative
Nordlund's concern. He said that "sight and sound
separation" of juvenile offenders and adult offenders could
vary by facility. He commented that it was the Department
of Corrections' (DOC's) intent to separate juvenile and
adult offenders, both in order to protect juveniles and to
facilitate management.
Number 286
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that no DOC representative was
present. He commented that although the DOC might intend to
separate juvenile offenders from adult offenders, that might
not be possible, due to prison crowding. He was concerned
about placing a juvenile who was simply charged with a
particular offense into an adult facility. He wanted to see
CSSB 54 (JUD) amended to include a requirement that
juveniles and adults be separated, at least under some
circumstances.
Number 301
MS. HORETSKI mentioned that existing statutes regarding
sight and sound separation were not clear, and she agreed
that practices differed among facilities. She understood
that the DOL had advised the DOC that present sight and
sound restrictions did not apply to juveniles who had been
waived into adult court. She said that CSSB 54 (JUD) would
continue that present practice.
Number 327
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if a problem would occur if
certain juvenile offenders were treated as adults in the
justice system, but were still considered juveniles by
society when they were released from the justice system.
Number 339
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that automatic waivers only applied
to 16-and 17-year-olds and, therefore, those juveniles would
be over 18 years old when released from incarceration.
Number 347
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this was also true for crimes
and juveniles to which automatic waivers did not apply.
Number 350
MR. HINES replied that, in his eighteen years of experience,
he only knew of one case in which a juvenile was waived into
adult court, served time, was released while still a
juvenile, and was arrested again. That juvenile was waived
into adult court a second time, he said.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the answer to Representative
Green's question was "no." He said that if a juvenile was
deemed an adult once, for a particular criminal offense,
that did not give the juvenile emancipation or any other
rights as an adult. He added that it would not create any
legal problems.
Number 380
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSSB 54 (JUD),
dated April 16, 1993. There being no objection, IT WAS SO
ORDERED.
Number 389
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND OFFERED AMENDMENT NO. 1, which would
allow for "reverse waivers" for certain juveniles who might
have committed first- or second-degree murder, or first-
degree attempted murder, but where mitigating circumstances
applied. He gave an example of a juvenile who had been
sexually abused by his or her parents for years, and ended
up killing the parents. He expressed his opinion that
enacting an ironclad requirement that juveniles who had
committed murder be tried in adult court would be too
strict.
Number 439
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that Representative Nordlund's
amendment would defeat the purpose of SB 54.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1.
CHAIRMAN PORTER OBJECTED for the purpose of discussing the
amendment. He agreed with Representative James. He noted
that the committee had already reduced the scope of SB 54.
He expressed an opinion that the least a juvenile waiver
bill should accomplish was to waive into adult court those
juveniles who had intentionally taken a life or attempted to
take a life.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that there could be situations that
would require an adult court to look at mitigating
circumstances, but said that did not mean the state should
provide for a "reverse" waiver of the offender back into
juvenile court.
Number 461
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that the adult court would
take into account mitigating circumstances.
Number 472
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that a court could, through a variety
of means, consider mitigating circumstances.
Number 477
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND expressed an opinion that his
amendment would not gut the bill, as Representative James
had asserted.
A roll call vote on amendment no. 1 was taken.
Representative Nordlund voted "YEA." Representatives Green,
Kott, James, and Porter voted "NAY." And so, AMENDMENT NO.
1 FAILED.
Number 491
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked to hear from Senator Halford's
aide.
Number 498
JOHN SHEPHERD, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO SENATOR RICK HALFORD,
commented that there were strong philosophical differences
between the Senate-passed version of SB 54 and CSSB 54
(JUD). But, he said, the Judiciary Committee's bill was a
giant step in the right direction. He said that concerns
had been raised that the courts would view the transfer of
the burden of proof as a procedural change, not a
substantive one. He mentioned that Senator Halford saw the
transfer as a substantive change.
MR. SHEPHERD said that if the court viewed the transfer as a
procedural change, and the bill did not pass the legislature
by a 2/3 margin, then that part of the bill would not stand.
However, he said, other components of SB 54 would be given
effect.
Number 547
CHAIRMAN PORTER called the members' attention to a draft
letter of intent in their bill packets. He noted that the
legislature had the authority to enact substantive law, and
the courts adopted rules of procedure. He said that the
change in the burden of proof fell into the gray area
between substantive and procedural changes. He noted that
the letter of intent asserted that changes made in SB 54
were substantive, and not procedural.
Number 584
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT the letter of
intent. There being no objection, IT WAS ADOPTED.
Number 591
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSSB 54 (JUD) out
of committee, with attached fiscal notes and letter of
intent, and with individual recommendations. There being no
objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
Number 607
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 195 next.
HB 195: AUTHORIZING YOUTH COURTS
Number 612
REPRESENTATIVE JOE SITTON, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 195,
commented that his bill enjoyed bipartisan and statewide
support. He said that the bill would authorize the creation
of a program under the DHSS in which youths under the age of
18 who had allegedly committed an offense could choose to go
through a youth court proceeding, instead of through the
regular court system. In order to go through the youth
court, he said, the juvenile, his or her parents, juvenile
intake authorities, and the youth court would have to agree
to have the case heard in the youth court.
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON commented that other states had youth
courts, but in Alaska, only Anchorage had such a program.
The Anchorage program had proved successful since its
inception in 1989, he said, showing a dramatic decrease in
recidivism, as compared to other courts. He commented that
one reason the Anchorage youth court was so successful was
because it relied on volunteers. He said that the Anchorage
youth court program relied on the DHSS, the court system,
the Alaska Bar Association, the school district, and law
enforcement agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON stated that cases were referred to the
youth court by juvenile probation officers or other
entities. He noted that the youth court had the same
provisions protecting an individual's rights as the adult
court system had. He commented that the very youth that
could be a problem to society could also be part of the
solution. He said that the court was composed of students
under the age of 18 who volunteered as bailiffs, judges,
jurors, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and clerks.
Additionally, he said, the students were required to undergo
intensive training and pass a youth court bar examination.
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON stated that HB 195 would allow a youth
court program to be implemented in areas of the state other
than Anchorage. He said that HB 195 contained a match
requirement for grants. He stated that the Health,
Education, and Social Services (HESS) Committee substitute
for HB 195 contained two changes from the original bill.
One change was that the term "nonprofit corporations" had
been replaced with "persons." That change allowed for
individuals, governmental bodies, and corporations to be
eligible for youth court grants.
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON said that the HESS Committee had also
omitted a section relating to grant funds, in order to
create two separate funds. He noted that a draft committee
substitute dated April 13, 1993, before the committee,
reversed both changes made by the HESS Committee. He said
that the youth court program was a proven success and should
be expanded to other areas of the state. He urged the
committee to support HB 195.
Number 689
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated his wholehearted support for
HB 195. He asked Representative Sitton how youth court
sentences compared to juvenile court sentences.
Additionally, he asked what percentage of people who could
use the youth court chose to do so. He asked if perhaps the
low recidivism rate was attributable to the type of people
who chose to use the youth court system.
Number 706
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON responded that students involved in
the Anchorage youth court program took their involvement
very seriously, and tended to be "hanging judges." He cited
one instance in which an offender being tried by the youth
court was caught in a lie. The recommended sentence was for
that youth to walk the streets wearing a sign saying that he
was a liar. He noted that the youth court received
supervision from adults, so that it did not impose sentences
which were too strict. He stated that the program's
recidivism rate was admirable.
Number 724
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN restated his question regarding the
type of people who elected to go to youth court, and its
effect on the recidivism rate.
Number 728
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON replied that Representative Green
might be correct. He commented that if, instead of a
juvenile offender being able to strut before his or her
peers after committing an offense, he or she were made by
those same peers to perform community service, they received
condemnation, not approbation.
TAPE 93-63, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. HINES stated that the DHSS had submitted a zero fiscal
note for HB 195, and added that the department strongly
supported the bill. He cited the excellent results of the
Anchorage youth court program. He commented that youth
courts generally dealt with younger juveniles who committed
first-time property offenses.
Number 027
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
stated that the changes incorporated in CSHB 195 (JUD) were
technical in nature. He suggested that CSHB 195 (JUD) be
AMENDED on page 2, lines 4-5 to DELETE the phrase "use of
`pre-petition diversion programs'." He stated that the
amendment would make the language of the bill more accurate,
as the present court rules did not specifically authorize
the use of pre-petition diversion programs.
Number 083
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1. There being no
objection, IT WAS ADOPTED. However, it was discovered that
CSHB 195 (JUD) was not properly before the committee.
Number 100
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 195 (JUD),
dated April 13, 1993. There being no objection, IT WAS SO
ORDERED.
Number 104
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN again MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1. There
being no objection, AMENDMENT NO. 1 WAS ADOPTED.
Number 111
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 195 (JUD)
out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED. He pointed out possibly
conflicting language on page 4, line 21, regarding matching
grants.
Number 170
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the language provided that if a
nonprofit corporation wanted to apply for a grant, then it
was required to match that grant, unless that requirement
was waived.
Number 177
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that the use of "must" and
"may" in the same section appeared to be contradictory.
Number 180
CHAIRMAN PORTER understood Representative Kott's concern,
but noted that in order for a waiver to occur, a condition
must be required in the first place.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being no
further objection to moving CSHB 195 (JUD) out of committee,
IT WAS SO ORDERED.
An "at ease" was called at 5:10 p.m.
Number 203
The committee meeting was called back to order at 5:12 p.m.,
and began its consideration of HB 132.
HB 132: EXTEND RESOURCE EXTRACTION PERMIT/LEASE
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 132, stated
that the bill would allow for the extension of a resource
extraction permit in cases in which the permit could not be
exercised due to legal action enjoining the permitted
activity and in which the final judgment was in the
permittee's favor. Also, he said, HB 132 would allow an
automatic extension, upon application by the permit holder,
for the time lost on the permit due to the legal action.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that the House Resources
Committee had made a couple of amendments which had
questionable effects. He called the members' attention to a
memorandum from Jerry Luckhaupt of the Legislative Affairs
Agency's Division of Legal Services which addressed the
effect of one of the House Resources Committee's amendments.
On page 2, line 24 of CSHB 132 (RES), he said, the
definition of permits would result in negating the bill,
because it made reference to an obsolete statute.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that members had in their
bill packets an amendment which would delete that reference,
and instead use the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR's)
broad definition of "permit."
CHAIRMAN PORTER identified that particular amendment as
AMENDMENT NO. 1.
Number 332
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that AMENDMENT NO. 2 pertained to
page 2, line 2 of CSHB 132 (RES), and deleted the phrase "a
substantial extent," which the House Resources Committee had
added. Discussions with the Legislative Affairs Agency's
Division of Legal Services attorneys and the DNR officials
resulted in the recommendation that the phrase be deleted.
He stated that the Alaska Miners' Association, the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, and the
Usibelli Coal Mine had all endorsed HB 132.
Number 338
EVANS MCMILLION, representing the Alaska Environmental
Lobby, testified in opposition to HB 132. She said that the
bill was overly broad and contained ambiguous language. She
noted that the bill did not give credence to unforeseen
consequences which could lead to additional court cases.
Additionally, she said, the bill assumed clear-cut
litigation outcomes by the use of the term "successful" on
page 2, lines 5-6. She stated that courts often granted a
plaintiff part, but not all, of what he or she wanted.
MS. MCMILLION questioned who would decide if a permittee was
in fact successful, and what criteria would be used to make
that determination.
Number 358
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the section to which Ms.
McMillion was referring went on to say, "and the suit is
dismissed with prejudice or judgment is granted to the
holder of the permits..."
Number 364
MS. MCMILLION replied that she was not an attorney, but
noted that attorneys with whom she had spoken had informed
her that the language was still troublesome. She expressed
her opinion that HB 132 did not take into account external
factors that could change during the time of litigation,
including changes in federal laws or scientific information.
Number 393
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that a quorum was not present.
Number 398
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Ms. Horetski to comment on the
language on page 2, line 5 of the bill.
Number 405
MS. HORETSKI mentioned that Civil Rule 82 provided that
courts should estimate attorneys' fees and award them to the
prevailing party in a lawsuit. Many times, she said, it was
difficult for a court to decide which party had prevailed.
She commented that the bill's reference to a "successful"
litigant made it a very high standard to meet. She did not
have any language prepared which would tighten that
provision, but stated that the drafting attorneys might be
able to come up with some appropriate language.
Number 434
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee would prepare
language pertaining to "successful" litigants and bring
HB 132 back before the committee at a time uncertain. He
noted that the idea behind HB 132 was to prevent an existing
situation in which suits designed solely to obstruct
resource extraction could have the effect of requiring a
permit holder to go through a time-consuming, expensive
permit process more than once. He said that HB 132 could
bar specious litigation and he expressed his support for the
bill for that reason.
CHAIRMAN PORTER thanked Representatives Kott and Nordlund
for being present throughout the meeting. He stated that,
due to time constraints, HB 187, Interception of Private
Communications, would not be heard that day.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|