Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/21/1995 01:05 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 21, 1995
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 217: "An Act relating to employment of teachers."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 104: "An Act relating to disclosures of information
about certain minors."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CSSB 46(RLS): "An Act revising the provision of law under which
a minor may be charged, prosecuted, and sentenced
as an adult in the district court, and adding to
the list of offenses for which a minor may be
prosecuted as an adult in the district court;
amending the criminal jurisdiction of the
district court to provide for the disposition of
certain offenses relating to possession, control,
or consumption of alcoholic beverages by a person
under 21 years of age and possession of tobacco
by a person under 19 years of age; allowing a
person under age 21 to be arrested by a peace
officer without a warrant for acts relating to
illegal possession, consumption, or control of
alcohol; and amending the penalty applicable to
persons under 21 years of age who possess,
control, or consume alcoholic beverages."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 295: "An Act relating to the custody and disposition
of property in the custody of municipal law
enforcement agencies."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 255: "An Act creating the crime of negligent vehicular
homicide."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SSSB 27: "An Act relating to child visitation rights of
grandparents and other persons who are not the
parents of the child."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CSSB 85(JUD) am: "An Act making corrective amendments to the
Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of
statutes; and providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SB 7: "An Act relating to bail after conviction for
various felonies if the defendant has certain
previous felony convictions."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HB 293: "An Act relating to the use of force in defense
of persons or property."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 503
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsored HB 217
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
316 West 11th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217
WILLIE ANDERSON
National Education Association (NEA)
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 217
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education
P.O. Box 110500
Juneau, AK 99811-0500
Telephone: (907) 465-2800
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 217
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Ivan Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 503
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217
ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide
House Judiciary Committee
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4990
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 217
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 432
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 104
LIEUTENANT TED BACHMAN
Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99507
Telephone: (907) 269-5412
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 104
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 104 and HB 295
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 30
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3873
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 46
JOHN NEWELL, President
Alaska Chiefs Association
Address unavailable
Anchorage, AK
Telephone: (907) 747-3349
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 295
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 217
SHORT TITLE: TEACHER EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS & RETIREMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/29/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/01/95 531 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 531 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
03/07/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/07/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/29/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/11/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/11/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/13/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/13/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/18/95 1344 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 2DP 1NR 1AM
04/18/95 1344 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY
04/18/95 1345 (H) NR: G.DAVIS
04/18/95 1345 (H) AM: ROBINSON
04/18/95 1345 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
04/19/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/20/95 1408 (H) L&C REFERRAL ADDED
04/21/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 104
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE RECORDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT, Bunde, Green, Ogan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/20/95 101 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/20/95 101 (H) HES, JUD
01/25/95 136 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
02/10/95 301 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/10/95 301 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/10/95 301 (H) HES, JUD
02/23/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/23/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/23/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/04/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/04/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/06/95 1048 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 3DP 1NR
04/06/95 1048 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY, VEZEY
04/06/95 1048 (H) NR: BRICE
04/06/95 1048 (H) 3 ZERO FNS (DPS, COURT, DHSS)
04/19/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 46
SHORT TITLE: PROSECUTE JUVENILE AS ADULT IN DIST. CT.
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Kelly, Pearce, R.Phillips,
Leman; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Williams
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/25/95 81 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/25/95 82 (S) JUDICIARY
02/15/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/22/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/27/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/01/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/06/95 491 (S) JUD RPT W/ AM 3DP 1NR (NEW TITLE)
03/06/95 493 (S) FISCAL NOTES TO SB (COURT, LAW)
03/06/95 493 (S) FN TO SB W/AM (COURT)
03/06/95 493 (S) ZERO FNS TO SB & SB W/AM (DHSS-3)
03/06/95 493 (S) ZERO FN TO SB W/AMENDMENT (LAW)
03/06/95 493 (S) ADDITIONAL REFERRAL TO FIN
03/22/95 742 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/22/95 743 (S) ZERO FN TO CS (ADM)
03/22/95 743 (S) PREVIOUS FN (COURT)
03/22/95 743 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LAW)
03/22/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/27/95 (S) RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
03/27/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/28/95 (S) RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
03/28/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/07/95 915 (S) RULES RPT CS AND CAL 4/7 NEW TITLE
04/07/95 916 (S) PREVIOUS FN (COURT)
04/07/95 916 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (LAW, ADM)
04/07/95 921 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/07/95 921 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/07/95 921 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y6 N13 E1
04/07/95 922 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
04/07/95 922 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 46(RLS)
04/07/95 922 (S) COSPONSOR(S) PHILLIPS, LEMAN
04/07/95 922 (S) PASSED Y18 N1 E1
04/07/95 923 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/10/95 964 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/10/95 965 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/11/95 1233 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/11/95 1233 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/19/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 295
SHORT TITLE: PROPERTY HELD BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER, Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/05/95 1027 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/05/95 1027 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/19/95 1390 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
04/19/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 255
SHORT TITLE: NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE BY AUTOMOBILE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OGAN, Kohring, Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/15/95 742 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/15/95 742 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/05/95 1039 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING, BUNDE
04/12/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/12/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 27
SHORT TITLE: MISC. GRANDPARENT VISITATION RIGHTS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY, Ellis, Lincoln, Pearce;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Willis, Robinson, Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/95 21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/13/95
01/16/95 21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 21 (S) HES, JUD
02/02/95 146 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/02/95 146 (S) HES, JUD
03/01/95 436 (S) HES RPT 3DP 2NR
03/01/95 436 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COURT)
03/01/95 (S) HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/01/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/15/95 (S) JUD AT 02:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/17/95 (S) JUD AT 03:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/17/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/20/95 696 (S) JUD RPT 4DP 1NR
03/20/95 696 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (COURT)
03/22/95 (S) RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
03/22/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/23/95 766 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/23/95
03/23/95 768 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/23/95 768 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
03/23/95 768 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SSSB 27
03/23/95 768 (S) COSPONSOR: PEARCE
03/23/95 768 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
03/23/95 772 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/24/95 879 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/24/95 879 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
03/24/95 920 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): WILLIS, ROBINSON
04/04/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/04/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/05/95 1022 (H) HES RPT 4DP
04/05/95 1022 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY, VEZEY, BRICE
04/05/95 1022 (H) SENATE ZERO FN (COURT) 3/1/95
04/10/95 1228 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
04/21/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 85
SHORT TITLE: 1995 REVISOR BILL
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/14/95 269 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/14/95 269 (S) STA, JUD
02/14/95 269 (S) SECTIONAL ANALYSIS - (S) JOURNAL
SUPP #3
03/07/95 (S) STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/07/95 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/95 536 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP SAME TITLE
03/08/95 536 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAA/ALL DEPTS)
03/17/95 (S) JUD AT 03:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/17/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/22/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/23/95 764 (S) JUD RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
03/23/95 765 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LAA)
03/27/95 (S) RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
03/27/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/30/95 845 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/30/05
03/30/95 847 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/30/95 848 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/30/95 848 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/30/95 848 (S) THIRD READING 4/5 CALENDAR
04/05/95 875 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 85(JUD) AM
04/05/95 875 (S) PASSED Y17 N1 E2
04/05/95 875 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/05/95 879 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/06/95 1046 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/06/95 1046 (H) JUDICIARY
04/21/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 7
SHORT TITLE: NO BAIL FOR FELONS W/PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SALO, Halford, Green, Taylor, Miller, Leman,
Kelly, Donley R.Phillips, Pearce; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Navarre
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 14 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/6/95
01/16/95 14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 14 (S) STA,JUD, FIN
01/23/95 73 (S) STA REFERRAL WAIVED
03/08/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/08/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/09/95 553 (S) JUD RPT 4DP 1NR
03/09/95 553 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM, DPS-2,
03/23/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/23/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/24/95 553 (S) LAW, CORR)
03/23/95 764 (S) FIN RPT 5DP 2NR
03/23/95 764 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM, DPS-2,
03/24/95 764 (S) LAW, CORR)
03/27/95 (S) RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
03/27/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/30/95 845 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/30/95
03/30/95 847 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/30/95 847 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/30/95 847 (S) COSPONSOR(S): HALFORD, GREEN,
TAYLOR, MILLER, LEMAN, KELLY, DONLEY,
PHILLIPS, PEARCE
03/30/95 847 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 7
03/30/95 847 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
03/30/95 850 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/05/95 1014 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/05/95 1015 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/05/95 1040 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): NAVARRE
04/21/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 293
SHORT TITLE: USE OF FORCE DEFENDING PERSON OR PROPERTY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/05/95 1026 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/05/95 1026 (H) JUDICIARY
04/21/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-47, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:05
p.m. on Friday, April 21, 1995. All members were present except
for Representative Bettye Davis. CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER stated that
the following bills were scheduled: CSHB 217(HES), CSSSHB 104,
CSSB 46, HB 295, HB 255, SB 27, HB 85, SB 7, and HB 293. It was
not his intention to hear all of the bills today, but to take a
recess at a reasonable hour, and return to hear the remaining bills
on Saturday, April 22, at 11:00 a.m. He called Representative Ivan
forward to introduce HB 217.
HB 217 - EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF TEACHERS
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN, sponsor of the bill, introduced HB 217.
He thanked the members of the Health, Education and Social Services
(HESS) Committee for the work they did on the bill. He stated that
he was introducing House Bill 217 to allow our school districts
some flexibility when dealing with rising enrollments and increased
costs associated with our educational system. Should, we, the
Legislature, decide not to increase educational funding, he
believed the policy questions such as the ones proposed in House
Bill 217 need to be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN continued, saying that House Bill 217 would
allow school districts to lay off teachers who have acquired tenure
rights, but only if the school district finds it necessary to
reduce the number of teachers due to declining enrollment or
declining revenues. The bill also increases tenure from two to
four years and removes the costly trial de novo portion of our
statutes which allows a school district employee who, if not
satisfied with a district's investigation, may demand that the case
be retried. The deletion of the trial de novo provides our
educators the same protections as provided to other state
employees. The bill does allow for mandatory, advisory arbitration
if the school board reaches a decision unfavorable to a teacher
prior to appealing to Superior Court.
Number 110
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards
(AASB), spoke in support of the committee substitute (CS) for HB
217. They were in support of the compromise language that the HESS
Committee came up with. They also support the companion bill on
the Senate side. He said they have asked for five years, but will
accept four, in terms of changing from two to four years. We have
accepted the compromise offered by the subcommittee to allow us to
review secondary as well as primary, as a starting point. We also
have a portion in the bill that addresses a concern for peer review
and to address the issue of in-service professional development and
mentoring. We have agreed to that proposal as well. The felt it
important to provide another process that would provide a measure
of security for employees, and that was viewed as mandatory
advisory arbitration. The record can still be subject to judicial
review. They agreed with the idea of having teachers involved in
peer review and mentorships. They look favorably upon the bill.
Number 190
WILLIE ANDERSON, National Education Association (NEA). He focused
some of his reservations on the judicial review section, which is
Section 7. Their attorneys have brought three concerns to their
attention. One, the question of whether or not the board is bound
to the arbiter's award if the arbiter says that the board has
failed in terms of proving its case against a tenured teacher, if
the arbiter says the teacher should be reinstated. Is the board
bound to that award? His understanding of an advisory decision is
that it is simply that, advisory, and not binding, and the board
still has the final decision.
MR. ANDERSON'S second question was, "Whose record will be reviewed?
Will it be the arbiter's record, or the board's record?" If the
arbiter's record, if different from the board's decision, will be
clearly different than the board's record. We would like an answer
to whose record will be reviewed.
MR. ANDERSON asked a third question. They understood the drafter
of the CS to be saying that this will be a fresh trial by an
impartial party. The theory we have is that if it is indeed a
fresh trial in that regard, how then does that prevailing party
enforce that decision? If it is indeed a fresh trial, it should be
an enforceable decision. Our reservations about those three areas
in the judiciary review are causing us concern and we are still
unable to support that section of this bill because of those
concerns. They submitted recommendations in the previous
committee. They will accept the fact that the cost of going to
court and having a new trial is an expensive process, but they do
not accept the idea that it is too expensive to end a person's
career. We are not going to object to arbitration, but let us make
it binding. In a binding arbitration award, the decision is
enforceable which will reduce the cost. The cost is the outcry we
hear from the School Board Association. This is a $200,000 event
every time we try to fight a tenured teacher. Arbitration would
not be $200,000, it would probably be less than $10,000, unless
they hire a battery of attorneys to carry the case for them. If
cost is an issue, let us address the cost. Let us have binding
arbitration on the matter, and let us have that be a decision that
binds both parties.
MR. ANDERSON felt the real issue was not cost, it is actually a
free hand to deal with their employees as they see fit. If the
real issue is cost, let us fix the cost, and move on with this
process. We are pleased with the process of peer review. They
would suggest rather than doing this from two to four years, you
can make that decision in two years. This way we would have a
quicker decision about a person that is not competent to be in the
field of teaching, and that person is excluded from the field
earlier, versus later. Also, this evaluation process would provide
reasons for why the person is not qualified. Most importantly, our
children will get a better quality of education if we preclude
these people from the education profession earlier on. This will
give us a better product in terms of our education system.
MR. ANDERSON also thought that layoffs needed to have provable
reasons, such as reduced enrollment.
Number 350
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education, related the State Board of Education's
concern on this bill, and their interest. The state board's
strongest concern is the threat to the quality of education as a
result of decreased funding. We anticipate that in our future
meetings, we will take up this issue, as well as the issue of the
foundation formula, and involvement of parents and families in the
children's education. At this time, the state board does not have
an official position on these issues, but is very concerned about
them. Dialogue has been initiated between the three associations
involved in these issues, and attempted to come up with some common
ground, which is very difficult to do. The state board would like
you to keep in mind full funding of education as you make your
further deliberations.
CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded the public hearing and offered Amendment
Number 1, which would indicate that the idea that it is not
retroactive, but only effects Sections 1 - 3. Amendment Number 1:
Page 4, line 19, after "made by":
Insert "secs. 1 - 3 of"
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to move the amendment.
Hearing no objection, Amendment Number 1 passed.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to move Amendment Number
2:
Page 1, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "to review of decisions of school boards concerning
teachers"
Insert "teacher arbitration rights"
Page 4, lines 11 - 18:
Delete all material.
Insert new bill sections to read:
"Sec. 7. AS 14.20.180(b) is amended to read:
(b) The tenured teacher may, within 15 days
immediately following receipt of the notification, notify
the employer in writing that arbitration under AS
09.43.010 - 09.43.180 [A HEARING BEFORE THE SCHOOL
BOARD] is requested. The tenured teacher may require in
the notification that the arbitration hearing be either
public or private [AND THAT THE HEARING BE UNDER OATH OR
AFFIRMATION. THE NOTIFICATION MAY ALSO REQUIRE THAT THE
RIGHT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION BE PROVIDED AND THAT THE
TENURED TEACHER BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND HAVE THE
RIGHT TO SUBPOENA A PERSON WHO HAS MADE ALLEGATIONS THAT
ARE USED AS A BASIS FOR THE DECISION OF THE EMPLOYER].
Sec. 8. AS 14.20.180(c) is amended to read:
(c) Upon receipt of the notification requesting an
arbitration [A] hearing, the employer and the employee
shall immediately arrange for a hearing [, AND SHALL
NOTIFY THE TENURED TEACHER OR ADMINISTRATOR IN WRITING OF
THE DATE, TIME, AND PLACE OF THE HEARING. A WRITTEN
TRANSCRIPT, TAPE, OR SIMILAR RECORDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS
SHALL BE KEPT; TRANSCRIBED COPIES SHALL BE FURNISHED TO
THE TENURED TEACHER FOR COST UPON REQUEST OF THE TENURED
TEACHER. A FINAL DECISION OF THE SCHOOL BOARD REQUIRES
A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP. THE VOTE SHALL BE BY
ROLL CALL. THE FINAL DECISION SHALL BE WRITTEN AND
CONTAIN SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW.] A written notification of the arbitration decision
shall be furnished to the tenured teacher and the
employer within 10 days after [OF] the date of the
decision. Either party may apply to the court to
confirm, vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration
decision in accordance with AS 09.43.110 - 09.43.130.
Sec. 9. AS 14.20.205 is repealed and reenacted to read:
Sec. 14.20.205. JUDICIAL REVIEW. Judicial
review of a decision or award in arbitration
under AS 14.20.180 shall be as provided in AS
09.43.010 - 09.43.180."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained that his problem with the
arbitration that is in the bill is that he does not really see it
as arbitration, but more as internal review. Arbitration
generally involves an independent party coming up with a decision.
This amendment refers to the Uniform Arbitration Act, which allows
a decision to be made. Adoption of this amendment would give us a
more true arbitration procedure rather than just another internal
review.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Finkelstein voted yes.
Representatives Toohey, Bunde, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.
Amendment Number 2 failed, five to one.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment Number 3 which would
move the teacher tenure up to three years, from the existing two.
Amendment Number 3:
Page 1, line 12:
Delete "four"
Insert "three"
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "four"
Insert "three"
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "four"
Insert "three"
Page 2, line 12:
Delete "four"
Insert "three"
Page 2, line 16:
Delete "three of the four"
Insert "two of the three"
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected and a roll call vote was taken.
Representative Finkelstein voted yes. Representatives Bunde,
Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no. Amendment Number 3
failed, five to one.
Number 550
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment Number 4:
Page 3, line 12, through page 4, line 3:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 6. AS 14.20 is amended by adding a new section to
read:
Sec. 14.20.177. LAYOFFS AND REHIRE. (a) A tenured
or nontenured teacher is subject to layoff for the next
fiscal year if the school district has
(1) an unanticipated financial exigency that
interferes with the normal operations of the school district
and that cannot be resolved through other reasonable and
usual budgetary processes, including normal staff attrition,
reduction of unnecessary expenditures, and administrative
layoffs; or
(2) a decrease in school attendance that makes a
reduction in staff necessary.
(b) A neutral third party selected by mutual agreement
between the school district and the bargaining organization
representing teachers must verify the unanticipated
financial exigency or the need to reduce staff because of a
decrease in school attendance before the school district may
lay off teachers.
(c) A school district shall notify tenured teachers of
a layoff no later than March 15 of the fiscal year preceding
the year of layoff. Layoffs shall occur in reverse order of
seniority of employment within the district.
(d) A school district and the bargaining organization
representing teachers shall negotiate a provision concerning
the rehire or recall rights of teachers who have been laid
off under this section before the district lays off teachers
under this section.
(e) A teacher who is laid off under this section has
recall rights based on seniority for five years after the
date of layoff. A school district may not employ a new
teacher so long as there are laid off teachers on the recall
list."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained that his amendment is trying
to get to the point of what is really a financial necessity. The
most critical factor is not just a change in attendance, but the
most critical issue is what the money situation is. He felt that
budget reductions and attrition approaches should be tried first,
so that this is not the first recourse. You should at least have
a longer period for the teachers who are laid off. The amendment
would change the three years to five years.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Finkelstein voted yes.
Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.
Amendment Number 4 failed, five to one.
Number 630
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered Amendment Number 5:
Page 3, line 16, after ".":
Insert: "This section does not apply to a teacher who has
not acquired tenure rights."
Page 3, lines 25 - 26:
Delete: "lay off or fail to rehire a secondary school
teacher who has more seniority than a primary school
teacher in order to give preference to a teacher skilled
at teaching at the primary school level"
Insert: "give preference to a primary school teacher who
has less seniority than a secondary school teacher in
order to preserve the primary school program"
Page 4, lines 5 - 6:
Delete: "Time spent on layoff status does not count
toward the acquisition of tenure rights."
Page 4, line 8:
Delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected for discussion, and asked about the
first portion of the amendment, which would change Page 3, line 16.
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that in checking with the sponsor, that
was the intent of those sections, and it just did not specifically
say it. Down in Section (c), it refers to nontenure teachers, so
the first part actually does refer to tenure teachers, though it
did not specifically say it. This is just clarifying language.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied that with that explanation, he would
remove his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN did not understand the reason for
amending page 4, line 8, regarding a teacher on layoff status not
being entitled to accrue leave, and layoff status does not
constitute eligibility for tenure.
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that they are not tenured in the first
place under this section. He asked if there was any objection to
Amendment Number 5. Hearing none, the amendment was adopted.
CHAIRMAN PORTER then offered Amendment Number 6:
Page 3, lines 15 - 16:
Delete: "because of a substantial decrease in school
district revenue"
Insert "because the basic need of a school district
determined under AS 14.17.021(b) and adjusted under
AS 14.17.225(b) decreases by three percent or more from
the previous year"
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Ivan Ivan,
described the amendment. We tried to go back and define
"substantial," and after discussion with Duane Giley from the
Department of Education, this is language they suggested after
researching the statutes. As stated in AS 14.17.021(b), the basic
need of a school district is determined by multiplying the area
cost differential of the district, under AS 14.17.051, by the
number of instructional units in the district, AS 14.17.031, and
then multiplying that product by the instructional unit value in AS
14.17.056, where it describes basic need for each school district.
Where it says, "and adjusted under AS 14.17.325(b)," that is the
section that defines "pro rata." If a school district does not
receive full funding, they will receive a pro rate share of
whatever is distributed to each school district, and decreases by
three percent or more from the previous year. That was probably
the easiest and most efficient definition of "substantial" that we
could come up with, after talking with Legal Services and the
Department of Education.
Number 700
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if we were to fund schools, as has been
discussed, at a flat dollar amount, would that, in any areas of the
state, constitute a 3 percent decrease.
MR. WRIGHT understood that it would, but he would have to confirm
that with Mr. Rose.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked why they chose to use the word
"need."
MR. WRIGHT answered that under AS 14.17.021(b), they use the words
"basic need" and then describe how that is determined.
MS. PETERSON explained how the formula for "need" is determined.
You multiply the state dollars by area cost differential, times the
unit value. That is the formula for "basic need."
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was objection to Amendment Number 6.
Seeing none, the amendment was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment Number 7. If we are
not going to go to actual independent or binding arbitration, we
should at least make sure that the judicial review occurs based on
the merits of the record. By putting the word "independent" before
"judicial review", his intent is to include the actual merits of
the issue before them, not solely on purely procedural grounds.
CHAIRMAN PORTER objected for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE believed that was the intention he had in mind
when this was crafted. It was a judicial review of the whole case,
not just whether or not you received a fair hearing before the
school board. He certainly did not object to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN'S intention of an independent
arbitration is that they are going to look at the law and the
contract and whatever provisions are out there and make an
independent decision, rather than just saying that this decision
has already been made, and it was not arbitrary and capricious, so
we are not going to look at the case.
CHAIRMAN PORTER spoke against the amendment. He could see this as
being interpreted to mean that you are back to a de novo trial.
That certainly is not the intent of this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN did not see how one could read that into
the legislation.
CHAIRMAN PORTER argued that he could make a better case that it
means that than anything else.
ANNE CARPENETI said if you are talking about the basis for review,
you might consider making it more clear by saying judicial review
"based on the entire record," so that it would include both the
school board record and the record from the arbitrator.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE felt that the existing language "based on the
record" connotes that you are not going to part of the record and
not the other part of the record.
CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed. He stated that the arbitrator's record and
the school board's record are both public, and anyone petitioning
a court for judicial review would be the teacher. It would
certainly be the teacher who would submit the request for that
record review. He then requested a roll call vote be taken.
Representatives Finkelstein and Bunde voted yes. Representatives
Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no. Amendment Number 7
failed, four to two.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 217(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. Hearing an objection, a roll call vote was taken.
Representative Finkelstein voted no. Representatives Bunde, Vezey,
Toohey, Green and Porter voted yes. CSHB 217(JUD) passed out of
committee.
TAPE 95-47, SIDE B
Number 000
HB 104 - DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE RECORDS
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott,
bill sponsor, introduced CSSSHB 104. Juvenile crime is pervasive
in modern society. House bill 104 would (indisc.) communities and
teachers (indisc.). This legislation allows the arresting entity
to release the identity of an individual juvenile if the offense
they were charged with would have been a felony, had it been
committed by an adult. The information released would also include
the date, and place of the offense, and the description and nature
of the offense. When juveniles know that their identity will be
revealed to their teachers, friends, and neighbors, when they
commit a serious crime, it should act as a deterrent toward their
actions. This is a small effort to help reverse a growing trend.
LIEUTENANT TED BACHMAN, Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public
Safety, just wanted to make himself available for questions. His
only concern with this legislation is the inability in some cases
to come back where a mistake has been made and readdress the issue
if the wrong person was identified. That is the only point of
contention the State Troopers would have with this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked how long it takes before these
cases are turned over to DFYS.
LT. BACHMAN answered that in an arrest situation, it is practically
immediate, by the next day or so.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN pointed out that the information would
only be available for that day or so, as when it gets to DFYS, that
same information becomes unavailable.
LT. BACHMAN understood that to be correct.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, confirmed that no information can be disclosed
once DFYS has taken the case, and if there is a dismissal, that is
not to be disclosed anymore than if there were an adjudication.
The only disclosure you could have is if there were a waiver to
adult court, at which point it becomes public. But as long as
whatever happens is a juvenile proceeding, then those federal funds
are at risk if there is publication of the information. That means
we are treating juveniles differently than we are treating adults
where when we arrest adults, what happens to them ultimately, is
public information, and it will not be for juveniles. You will not
find out if the juvenile were or were not convicted, acquitted, if
it was a lesser offense, mistaken identity, or if other charges
were added to it that were more serious. There are provisions for
disclosure on a need to know basis. What we are talking about here
is general disclosure to the public. If there is a victim who is
interested in what is going on in the case, AS 47.10.093 authorizes
the disclosure to victims, probably to some extent.
Number 250
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that in viewing the bill, he and his
committee Aide agreed that it was a bit inappropriate and somewhat
misleading to leave the bill in Title 9, when all of the other
information about what you can and cannot release on a juvenile is
in Title 47. Someone would look in Title 47 for that information
and not see that there was this exception. Consequently, with the
permission of the sponsor, we drafted this CS that does the same
thing, but places it where all of the other information is on
juveniles, which is Title 47. This way, someone interested in this
subject can go to one place and find all of the answers.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to adopt the CS for SSHB
104, Version O, as the working draft. Hearing no objection, it was
so ordered.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Knuth if this was clear that this allows
a permissive release by law enforcement agencies, and not a
mandatory release.
MS. KNUTH agreed that was correct, and the other disclosures that
are authorized by this section are clearly permissive and in the
discretion of the agency, and a much stronger argument can be made
with the placement in "093" than can be made in Title 9, because to
say that you may, in Title 9 is to say it is public information,
and if it is public information, it is to be disclosed; so this is
an improvement.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked why we want to publish these
youth's names in the paper.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said his general philosophy about that is we have
tried for a number of years the approach that in all cases, in all
circumstances, children should be treated totally differently from
adult offenders because they are younger, more salvageable. If you
publicize what they did, there is more likely to be a stigma that
you are what everybody is telling you are, and consequently, you
may become an adult criminal, when you may otherwise not have.
That has not worked. There are increasingly more and more children
who use that protection as a manipulative device as opposed to what
it was designed for. With that in mind, he would like more kids to
realize that they and their parents' names will become public if
they mess up in the first degree. This bill would take away that
protection to hide behind.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE felt that people's behaviors are more
exemplary when they are open to scrutiny. True honesty is what we
do when no one else is looking. According to the notion that it
takes a whole village to raise a child, the village has to know
what that child is doing, both to protect itself and to perhaps be
able to rehabilitate the child. Parents may be inclined to be more
"hands on" if they know their child's behaviors are open to the
public.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN did see some logic in the community
protection side of that, to let people know who is a danger to
society. He was not convinced on the deterrent factor. He
remembered being in grade school and junior high school, and he was
the hero when he was called to the principal's office, because he
had gotten attention. Part of being a trouble maker is being an
acknowledged trouble maker. It is a great thing when a kid gets
his name in the paper for an election to the school board, but it
is sort of the same thing when the kid gets his name in the paper
for robbing the store. Vandals usually brag about it. That is how
they catch them. It is not enough to just break all the windows in
the school. You have to tell everybody it was you who did it,
because you get credit out of it. All of this is to lead up to an
amendment. He felt the number one focus ought to be on crimes
which were committed against people, not property.
Amendment Number 1:
Page 1, line 10, after "offense":
Insert "set out in AS 11.41"
CHAIRMAN PORTER objected for discussion. He did not think this
provision would be used in a 14-year-old's first burglary, but it
could be an appropriate release mechanism for cases where a
community had had a long series of house burglaries, or vandalism
or some other property offense that had really reached a level of
intense concern. A roll call vote was taken. Representative
Finkelstein voted yes. Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Green, and
Porter voted no. Representative Vezey had stepped out. Amendment
number one failed, four to one.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN wondered why we worked on a whole bill
on the disclosure to schools, when we give complete release of the
same information with this bill. Why were we so particular about
what information could be given to the schools, if it has already
been released to the media?
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that all of the information has not been
released to the media. The only thing this bill allows is the
release by law enforcement of the fact that a certain minor was
arrested for a certain offense at a certain place. What happened
after that, from adjudication to treatment, is of interest to
schools, but are not public information. That is why the other
bill had to be carefully crafted. This bill gets more at the
public's right to know if dangerous juveniles are out there.
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSSSHB 104(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes.
There was an objection and a roll call vote was taken.
Representatives Toohey, Bunde, Green, and Porter voted yes.
Representative Finkelstein voted no. Representative Vezey had
stepped out. CSSSHB 104(JUD) passed out of committee with a four
to one vote.
SB 46 - PROSECUTE JUVENILE AS ADULT IN DISTRICT COURT
Number 620
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Taylor, bill sponsor,
introduced CSSB 46(RLS). This bill was introduced at the urging of
parents concerned over the lack of consequences within the juvenile
justice system when a minor is arrested for an alcohol related
offense. Most of CSSB 46(RLS) is a rewrite of existing law. The
drafter took the occasion of complying with the Senator's request
for a draft to address alcohol issues by also reordering the
material that was already in AS 47.10.010(b). Juveniles are
already exempt from juvenile delinquency rules for traffic
offenses, tobacco related offenses, fish and game statutes, and
vandalism in a recreation area. SB 46 would add alcohol and
controlled substance related offenses to that list, and provide
that such cases be handled in district court. The parent,
guardian, or individual with legal custody would have to be present
at all proceedings. The bill was amended in the Judiciary and
Finance Committees of the Senate to change minor consuming from its
current misdemeanor status to that of an infraction, punishable by
a fine of not less than $100. More importantly, by moving the
jurisdiction in these cases to district court, a judge would be
able to intervene in alcohol abuse cases, which are currently
falling through the cracks in the juvenile justice system. Often,
a minor must commit a serious crime in conjunction with alcohol use
before intervention takes place.
MR. AMBROSE explained that the Finance CS included a provision that
would add minor consuming to the list of situations where a law
enforcement officer could make an arrest without a warrant. This
is intended to address a problem in the First Judicial District
which still exists, where the court has ruled that an officer must
actually witness the consumption before an intoxicated minor can be
arrested. The Senate Rules Committee added language which appears
on page 2, line 27 of the Rules CS, which makes it clear that the
intent of this provision is protective and not punitive. The new
language requires that a person under age 18 subjected to a
warrantless arrest under this provision be cited and then released
to a responsible adult. The number of phone calls we receive
regarding kids and alcohol are increasing. Virtually nothing
happens when a kid is picked up for alcohol consumption, unless
they actually do something else that is of a serious nature. These
kids are not referred to the Division of Family and Youth Services
(DFYS). Those folks are swamped.
MR. AMBROSE said this bill has two effects. To a certain extent
it decriminalizes the offense. The law enforcement officer is more
likely to issue a citation, because it is not going to create a
criminal record for the youngster. Secondly, it gives a district
court judge the opportunity to intervene in those cases where
necessary. He works with teenage alcoholics and sees the problem
growing. He believes that if these juveniles had had intervention
at an earlier point, they never would have gotten to the point
where they are working with folks like himself.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked how this differs from the "use it, lose
it" bill.
MR. AMBROSE said that the "use it, lose it" bill provides for an
automatic revocation of a driver's license. SB 46 simply changes
minor consuming from the current misdemeanor to an infraction, and
moves it out of the juvenile justice system into the district
court. It is a fine of not less than $100, and somebody, a mom or
dad, has to show up in court with the juvenile. He believed that
SB 46 was complimentary to the House "use it, lose it" bill.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, stated that the department favors reducing minor
consuming to a violation, because those can be presented to the
court with just a police officer and they will no longer require a
district attorney to screen and prosecute them. There will no
longer be a right to a jury trial on the offense. That certainly
is a plus for the Criminal Division because, as our resources are
becoming even more finite, and as crime rates are going up, this is
one easy of lessening our burden in one area.
MS. KNUTH said there is also a down side to it. As a violation the
court will not have the ability to order treatment for these
individuals, because you can only do that if you are suspending
jail time and basically time in inpatient treatment is the same as
incarceration time. "Use it, lose it" does allow you that option
to make treatment a condition of getting your license back.
Reducing minor consuming to a violation, and then making it an
offense for all juveniles, there is the advantage for many kids out
there who would be going to DFYS, where because of their limited
resources nothing is happening, and instead, these juveniles will
at least on one occasion go before a judge who we hope can impress
them with the seriousness of the matter, even though the
consequences are not going to be very great. Still, having to go
to court with a parent may do something. Minor consuming is an
offense that just stays at a high level in this state. We keep
trying to find an answer to that problem, so this is yet another
creative approach to it.
MS. KNUTH mentioned that they would like to keep the opportunity
there for rehabilitation of juveniles, including the option of
going into the Army. If they have a conviction, it will keep them
from going into the Army. The Army is sometimes the best thing
that happens to some of these kids, and we would not want to keep
them out of it as a result of one adult conviction. They wanted to
ask the Legislature to think twice before putting these juveniles
into the category which would allow them to receive an adult
conviction, with respect to these offenses. She specifically asked
that they include only number 5(b) on this list, relating to
possession or consumption, and drop the rest of the offenses listed
on page 4.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if this would provide for a double
jeopardy, in conjunction with the "use it, lose it" provision.
MS. KNUTH answered that right now, if there is a conviction for
minor consuming, it does serve as a basis for administrative
revocation. We have not been hearing about the double jeopardy
claims. The criminal prosecution comes first and then you have the
administrative revocation. The only place we are having problems
with the double jeopardy argument is with the DWI context. That
argument has been won by states across the country, and they feel
that appellate courts will do right by us in this state as well.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to adopt Amendment Number
1, which would strike sections (a), (c), (d), and 6, on page 4.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained that he felt these parts to be
unnecessary because (a) is minor on premises, not necessarily
consuming, but just being present. He did not think this is the
problem. He did not feel these categories would require an
automatic elevation of offense level.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE felt this was related to the rampant false
I.D. problem, which is almost a rite of passage, to have a false
I.D. So if you first walk in, they can get you for access to a
licensed premise, and after that, they get you for possession or
consumption. He felt there was a problem there, but also thought
that these kids felt that having a phoney I.D. is almost their
right now, certainly a rite of passage.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt that the refusal for admission into
the army is a compelling reason in itself to not have these
particular crimes included. There is also the stigma you carry in
job opportunities when you receive these adult considerations in
charging the offenses. He would venture to say that 20 to 30
percent of people fit into these various categories. Is that the
number of people we want to preclude from future options in their
lives? He did not feel that is what this bill was about, and did
not think it to be what our experience tells us is necessary.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Knuth if a conviction for a misdemeanor
is a permissive bar or an absolute bar.
MS. KNUTH thought it was a permissive bar, and felonies are
absolute.
MR. AMBROSE said on the other hand, if someone is committing these
crimes, they are also threatening the business licenses of the
businesses who have liquor licenses. That was Senator Taylor's
argument.
TAPE 95-48, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said we are not dealing with kids throwing
water balloons; society has changed, and this is a bad day for
juveniles. If we can stop these kids, she is all for it.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said to take the two instances where
someone is either smoking marijuana or using a fake I.D. to enter
the premises, statistics would probably show that 1/4 to 1/2 of our
youth population fall into one of those two categories. This is
not some minor amount, this is a very prevalent thing, so we have
decided there is a penalty for it. We have kept them at this lower
level of offense. Now the question is, to arrest them for small
amounts of marijuana or for being on the premises, if those kinds
of things will be on their record when they go in for a job, they
will have a hard time getting a job. These things are lower
offenses. They just are. He does not believe that smoking
marijuana deserves the elevation of offense.
CHAIRMAN PORTER did not support Representative Finkelstein's
amendment. These offenses are part and parcel of minor consuming,
and if you are going to do it for minor consuming, to be
consistent, we should do it for the other related offenses. He did
not think that most kids are on a licensed premise because they
made a mistake and did not realize that they walked into a liquor
store or into a bar. The intent was ultimately, minor consuming,
so to be consistent, those should stay in there. If it is that 25
to 50 percent of kids have smoked marijuana, he suspected that it
is probably because, if they get caught, they get a no-no letter
from DFYS three months later, and that is it. That is not a
sanction, that is ridiculous. That is the level of capability that
DFYS has right now. There is a fiscal note he intended to support
that would put these kids in court. He would not support the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if Representative Porter felt that
in the case of marijuana, this was really going to serve as a
deterrent.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said he absolutely does. He has more history in
this area than you want to hear about.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN did not agree, but respected
Representative Porter's experience.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for a roll call vote. Representative
Finkelstein voted yes. Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Green and
Porter voted no. Amendment Number 1 failed, four to one.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move the bill from committee.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN objected and a roll call vote was taken.
Representative Finkelstein voted no. Representatives Toohey,
Bunde, Green, and Porter voted yes. CSSB 46(RLS) moved out of
committee with individual recommendations and fiscal notes as
attached.
HB 295 - PROPERTY HELD BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Number 280
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that Lieutenant Bachman from the Alaska
State Troopers was present to answer questions. He stated that
this bill deals with a statute that has been on the books for a
long time unbeknownst to many. It requires that property coming in
to possession of law enforcement agencies throughout the state, be
held, different properties for different lengths of time, and then
be returned to the state in some cases. In Anchorage there was a
recent audit of the Anchorage Police Department's property room.
Part of the problem was that they were failing to follow state law,
unbeknownst to them and almost everybody else. When they tried to
figure out what it was they were supposed to do, they called the
department that administered the statute and the Department asked,
"What statute?" So basically, this is something that needs fixing
only because nobody is doing it. What this bill provides is that
if a municipality provides itself with an ordinance dealing with
the disposition of property that its law enforcement agency
receives, that they may do so notwithstanding this obscure state
law.
JOHN NEWELL, President, Alaska Chiefs Association, testified via
teleconference. He agreed with Chairman Porter's opening comments.
Sitka, as well as many other cities have existing laws or
ordinances that provide for a local manner of dealing with the same
property that is discussed in this statute. He totally supports HB
295, to make all of us on a more equal basis.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Mr. Newell how it worked in
Anchorage. Does it occur on a 15 day basis? If someone had a
bicycle, and they were out of town for a couple of weeks, when they
come back, the bicycle has been stolen. Under the municipal
ordinance, could it have been disposed of already by the time they
return home and report the theft?
MR. NEWELL answered that he saw that as a possibility with the 15
day holding period. He thought the period in Sitka was longer than
that. We get into the due process issue when dealing with the
Division of Motor Vehicles. They have other steps and hoops we
have to jump through.
CHAIRMAN PORTER clarified that the 15 day requirement states that
property be kept for at least 15 days after the final disposition
of a criminal case in which that property had been evidence.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if the disposition of property not
involved in a criminal case, as unclaimed property, is that
governed by the state statute as well?
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that it includes any property.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if this is the same statute that
governs bank accounts that people do not acclaim.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said no, that property is not turned over to law
enforcement agencies.
Number 300
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, stated that the Department of Law supports the
purpose of the bill and the concept, but they do have pretty
serious concerns about the way it is done, which is simply to
exempt municipalities from AS 12.36 and AS 34.45. We are concerned
that this may do more than the purposes that law enforcement has
identified, for example, the question that was just raised. The
bill would require that municipalities adopt ordinances, but there
is no specifications as to what these ordinances shall provide, and
you could have communities setting up ordinances that have what we
might consider too short of a time period. Within that, it seems
to be dealing with more than simply the abandoned property such as
bicycles, or property used in evidence. Section 4 proposed that
checks, drafts, currency, and tangible property recovered by a law
enforcement agency will go to municipalities now instead of to the
State of Alaska. She was not sure what impact that might have but
it could have a significant one. If there is any chance that this
is interpreted as impacting forfeitures, then we have touched
another whole gnarly mess of problems. There is not anything that
says forfeitures are not brought up in this context. She felt that
the time lines in AS 12.36.030 should simply be changed from one
year to 30 days, and in AS 12.36.040 it would read six months
instead of two years. She and a staff member of the committee as
well as the municipal attorney in Anchorage, all felt much more
comfortable just changing those time deadlines, and exempting
municipalities from the mandatory reporting requirements. She felt
the bill may have some unintended consequences, given its breadth.
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that those suggestions were not
incorporated because of the obstinacy of the sponsor. He sees
nothing in here that would indicate that forfeitures would be
handled any differently. A forfeiture is a court order which law
enforcement abides by. This is just property that is clogging
every property room throughout the state, and now that we have
found it, there is concern, but up until about a week ago, nobody
in the state knew that anybody was supposed to be turning this
property over to the state, nobody has received it. The Department
of Revenue never heard of it until we pointed it out to them. The
effect on the state is going to be taking them out of the loop they
did not know they were in, and received nothing from in the first
place. He did not think it was appropriate to have a statute on
the books that everybody is violating. Nobody is turning any
property over to the state. His obstinacy comes into effect by
saying, "Why is the state involved in this in the first place, it
seems this is a local matter, of local property being dealt with by
local law enforcement, local government. Why should this function
go through the state?
Number 370
MS. KNUTH said that in terms of what happens to the property, the
concern the state has is that it is property that is used as
evidence in state prosecuting cases. That type of property is
dealt with in AS 12.36.030 and it does require the property be kept
as long as necessary for prosecution. The concern she would like
to express is we need municipalities if they are going to handle
this property through their ordinances, to require that the
property be kept long enough for prosecution purposes.
CHAIRMAN PORTER argued that is why the bill states that property
having been collected as evidence in children's court proceedings,
criminal proceedings, or an official investigation, is to be held
until at least 15 days after final disposition of the case to which
the evidence pertains.
MARGOT KNUTH said the committee staff member has just provided her
with a draft of the CS, which she had not seen.
CHAIRMAN PORTER apologized, and stated that it goes on to say that
the municipality will make a reasonable attempt towards locating
and identifying the owner of the property that is unclaimed. There
are some standards.
Number 400
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked what would happen if a municipality
came into possession of a local drug deal, involving a house which
is confiscated, and it is tried under state statute. Who gets the
benefit when that house is sold?
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that is under the forfeiture that the
District Attorney's Office administers, and he believed any
revenues from those forfeitures are divided.
MS. KNUTH stated there is a specific provision for divvying it up
under federal forfeiture provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the CS, Version F. Hearing no
objection, the CS was adopted as the working draft.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made amotion to move CSHB 295(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes.
Hearing no objection, the bill was moved.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the remaining scheduled bills would
be heard the next day, Saturday, at 11:00 a.m. The House Judiciary
Committee adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|