Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/05/1995 01:10 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
May 5, 1995
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CSSB 79(CRA): "An Act relating to errors in surveys of land and
amending Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 4 and 12."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARING: JUDICIAL CONDUCT
Patrick T. Brown - Fairbanks
Joann Holmes - Ivanoff Bay
Arthur H. Peterson - Juneau
CSSB 26(FIN): "An Act providing for automatic waiver of juvenile
jurisdiction and prosecution of minors as adults for
certain violations of laws by minors who use deadly
weapons to commit offenses that are crimes against
a person, and relating to the sealing of the records
of those minors."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CSSB 87(FIN): "An Act relating to the membership of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board; relating to community local
options for control of alcoholic beverages;
prohibiting persons from being on premises involving
alcoholic beverages under certain circumstances;
relating to the definition of `alcoholic beverage';
relating to purchase and sale of alcoholic
beverages; relating to alcohol server education
courses; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED HCS CSSB 87(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SB 6 AM: "An Act relating to suspension of a driver's license
for failure to appear in court or failure to pay a
fine; relating to court and collection costs for
traffic offenses; and relating to citations and
court procedures for municipal traffic and parking
offenses."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 327: "An Act eliminating 'monte carlo' nights as an
authorized form of charitable gaming; and providing
for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(*First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
PATRICIA HAGGERTY, Administrative Assistant
to Senator Dave Donley
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 11
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone; (907) 465-3892
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 26
GREG MCDONALD, Secretary-Treasurer
Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA)
1569 South Bragaw, No. 201
Anchorage, AK 99508
Telephone: (907) 337-1979
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 26
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 26
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 26
KATHY TIBBLES
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110600
Juneau, AK 99811-0600
Telephone: (907) 465-3191
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 26
LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4322
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 26
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 HCS CSSB 87 and SB 6
PATRICK SHARROCK, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
550 West 9th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-8638
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 87
EDITH NASHOALOOK, Assistant Health Educator
North Slope Borough
P.O. Box 638
Barrow, AK 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-2064
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding SB 87
TOM NICOLOS
P.O. Box 385
Barrow, AK 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-2162
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 87
REVEREND JUDITH MCQUISTON
P.O. Box 730
Barrow, AK 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-6566
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 87
FRED KOPACZ, Coordinator
Mental Health
General Delivery
Barrow, AK 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-2869
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 87
REVEREND JAMES ROGHAIR
Presbyterian Church
P.O. Box 730
Barrow, AK 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-6566
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 87
MARK HAMLIN
P.O. Box 952
Barrow, AK 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-6916
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding SB 87
GREG T. DANJIN, Patriot
P.O. Box 125
Barrow, AK 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-2277
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding SB 87
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-5225
POSITION STATEMENT: Bill drafter for SB 87
SHARON M. NETH
P.O. Box 1872
Bethel, AK 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-2426
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding SB 87
ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide
House Judiciary Committee
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4990
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 87
KAREN BRAND, Legislative Assistant
Senator Dave Donley
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 11
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone; (907) 465-3892
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 6
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 79
SHORT TITLE: ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEFECTIVE SURVEY
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) RIEGER
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/09/95 222 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/09/95 222 (S) CRA
04/12/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
04/19/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
04/20/95 1101 (S) CRA RPT CS 1DP 2NR NEW TITLE
04/20/95 1102 (S) ZERO FNS (DNR, DCRA)
04/22/95 (S) RLS AT 02:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/25/95 1227 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/25/95
04/25/95 1231 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/25/95 1231 (S) CRA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/25/95 1231 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/25/95 1231 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 79(CRA)
04/25/95 1231 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
04/25/95 1232 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/25/95 1232 (S) Halford NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/26/95 1259 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
04/26/95 1259 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/27
CALENDAR
04/27/95 1297 (S) BEFORE THE SENATE ON
RECONSIDERATION
04/27/95 1297 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y20 N-
04/27/95 1297 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/27/95 1302 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/28/95 1609 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/28/95 1609 (H) JUDICIARY
05/04/95 (H) JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 26
SHORT TITLE: DEADLY WEAPON OFFENSES BY JUVENILES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY, Kelly, Pearce, Leman, Green, Miller,
Taylor,R.Phillips, Halford
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/95 20 (S) PREFILE INTRODUCED - 1/13/95
01/16/95 20 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 20 (S) JUD, FIN
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 3DP 2DNP
03/20/95 696 (S) ZERO FNS (LAW #1, DPS #2, DHSS #3)
04/11/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/11/95 (S) FIN AT 02:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/12/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/12/95 994 (S) FIN RPT CS 6DP NEW TITLE
04/12/95 995 (S) ZERO FNS (DHSS-2, ADM)
04/12/95 995 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (LAW, DPS, DHSS)
04/13/95 (S) RLS AT 01:15 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
04/20/95 1103 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/19/95
04/19/95 1087 (S) HELD TO 4/20/95
04/20/95 1109 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/20/95 1109 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/20/95 1109 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/20/95 1109 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 26(FIN)
04/20/95 1109 (S) COSPONSOR(S): PEARCE,LEMAN,GREEN,
04/20/95 1109 (S) MILLER, TAYLOR, PHILLIPS, HALFORD
04/20/95 1110 (S) PASSED Y18 N1 A1
04/20/95 1126 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/21/95 1416 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/21/95 1416 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
05/02/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/04/95 (H) JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 87
SHORT TITLE: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES: LOCAL OPTION & MISC.
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/14/95 270 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/14/95 270 (S) CRA, JUD, FIN
03/08/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/08/95 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/17/95 (S) CRA AT 03:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/17/95 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/20/95 696 (S) CRA RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE
03/20/95 697 (S) FISCAL NOTE (REV)
03/22/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/22/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/27/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/27/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/28/95 808 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 4NR SAME TITLE
03/28/95 808 (S) PREVIOUS FN (REV)
04/06/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/07/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/11/95 977 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 3NR NEW TITLE
04/11/95 977 (S) PREVIOUS FN (REV)
04/11/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/12/95 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
04/18/95 1058 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/18/95
04/18/95 1059 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/18/95 1059 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/18/95 1060 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED Y12 N7 E1
04/18/95 1060 (S) AM NO 2 WITHDRAWN
04/18/95 1063 (S) AM NO 3 ADOPTED Y10 N9 E1
04/18/95 1063 (S) RESCINDED ACTION WITHDRAWING
AM 2 UN CON
04/18/95 1060 (S) AM NO 2 OFFERED BY DONLEY
04/18/95 1063 (S) AM NO 2 ADOPTED Y10 N9 E1
04/18/95 1064 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/18/95 1064 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 87(FIN) AM
04/18/95 1064 (S) PASSED Y12 N7 E1
04/18/95 1065 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y19 N- E1
04/18/95 1065 (S) PEARCE NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/19/95 1089 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/20
04/20/95 1114 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
04/20/95 1115 (S) RETURN TO 2ND RESCIND ACTION
AM 1 Y18 N2
04/20/95 1115 (S) RESCINDED ACTION IN ADOPTING
AM 1 Y11 N9
04/20/95 1116 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y10 N10
04/20/95 1116 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
04/20/95 1116 (S) RETURN TO 2ND RESCIND ACTION AM
2 Y17 N3
04/20/95 1117 (S) RESCINDED ACTION IN ADOPTING AM
2 Y11 N9
04/20/95 1117 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y7 N13
04/20/95 1117 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
04/20/95 1118 (S) RETURN TO 2ND RESCIND ACTION AM
3 Y17 N3
04/20/95 1118 (S) RESCINDED ACTION IN ADOPTING AM
3 Y11 N9
04/20/95 1119 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y8 N12
04/20/95 1119 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
04/20/95 1119 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y13 N7
04/20/95 1120 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y17 N3
04/20/95 1127 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/21/95 1417 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/21/95 1418 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY
04/27/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/29/95 1663 (H) CRA RPT HCS(CRA) 1DP 3NR
04/29/95 1663 (H) DP: VEZEY
04/29/95 1663 (H) NR: AUSTERMAN, IVAN, KOTT
04/29/95 1663 (H) SENATE FISCAL NOTE (REV) 3/20/95
05/02/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/04/95 (H) JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 6
SHORT TITLE: SUSPEND DRIVERS LIC./ TRAFFIC OFFENSES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR,Sharp
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
02/02/95 (S) STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/02/95 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/95 160 (S) STA RPT 4DP
02/03/95 160 (S) FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
02/03/95 160 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
02/08/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/08/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/09/95 217 (S) JUD RPT 1DP 2DNP 2NR
02/09/95 217 (S) FN (COURT)
02/09/95 217 (S) PREVIOUS FN (DPS)
02/09/95 217 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)
02/09/95 217 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
03/15/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/15/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/17/95 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/27/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/30/95 839 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 4NR NEW TITLE
03/30/95 839 (S) FNS (DPS #4, CORR)
03/30/95 839 (S) PREVIOUS FN (COURT)
03/30/95 839 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)
03/30/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/11/95 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
04/11/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/12/95 996 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/12/95
04/12/95 1000 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/12/95 1001 (S) FAILED TO ADOPT FIN CS Y10 N10
04/12/95 1001 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FLD Y12 N8
04/12/95 1001 (S) THIRD READING 4/13 CALENDAR
04/13/95 1030 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 6
04/13/95 1030 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN
CONSENT
04/13/95 1030 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED BY TAYLOR
04/13/95 1032 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED Y10 N9 E1
04/13/95 1033 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
SB 6 AM
04/13/95 1033 (S) FAILED PASSAGE Y10 N9 E1
04/13/95 1033 (S) KELLY NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/18/95 1069 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
04/18/95 1069 (S) MOTION: RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2
04/18/95 1070 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2
Y15 N3 E1 A1
04/18/95 1070 (S) AM NO 2 OFFERED BY DONLEY
04/18/95 1071 (S) AM NO 2 ADOPTED Y15 N4 E1
04/18/95 1071 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
04/18/95 1072 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION
Y17 N2 E1
04/18/95 1077 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/19/95 1364 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/19/95 1365 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/25/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/27/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/28/95 1628 (H) CRA RPT HCS(CRA) 3DP 2NR
04/28/95 1628 (H) DP: VEZEY, KOTT, IVAN
04/28/95 1628 (H) NR: ELTON, AUSTERMAN
04/28/95 1629 (H) 2 SENATE FNS (CORR, DPS) 3/30/95
04/28/95 1629 (H) SENATE FISCAL NOTE (COURT) 2/9/95
04/28/95 1629 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
2/3/95
05/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/04/95 (H) JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 327
SHORT TITLE: ELIMINATE MONTE CARLO NIGHTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS,Mulder
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/01/95 1695 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/01/95 1695 (H) JUDICIARY
05/02/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/04/95 (H) JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-57, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:10
p.m. on Friday, May 5, 1995. All members were present. CHAIRMAN
BRIAN PORTER stated the following bills would be heard: CSSB 79,
Appointment hearings for the confirmation to the Commission on
Judicial Conduct, CSSB 26, HCS CSSB 87, SB 6, and HB 327. The
hearing was teleconferenced to Anchorage, Barrow and Bethel.
CSSB 79(CRA) - ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEFECTIVE SURVEYS
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER explained that this is the identical bill to
the House Bill we passed out of committee last week. He felt they
could just hear the bill, and eliminate the necessity for a waiver,
based on the fact that they heard an identical bill.
Number 070
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to move CSSB 79(CRA)
out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal
notes. Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.
CONFIRMATION HEARING: JUDICIAL CONDUCT
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that having polled the committee, he was
given to understand that there was no objection to holding the
hearing on the recommendations for the appointments of three people
to the Commission on Judicial Conduct without them being here in
person. We have those three names in front of us and he
entertained a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE recommended that they move Patrick Brown,
Joann Holmes and Arthur Peterson's names forward to the House floor
for consideration on the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Hearing
no objection, it was so ordered.
CSSB 26(FIN) - DEADLY WEAPON OFFENSES BY JUVENILES
Number 140
PATRICIA HAGGERTY, Administrative Assistant, Senator Dave Donley,
introduced the bill. Senate Bill 26 treats minors who are over 14
as adults when they commit a second violent offense using a deadly
weapon. The bill provides for an automatic waiver of juvenile
jurisdiction and prosecution of minors 14 and over into adult
court. SB 26 does not require any specified punishment or
mandatory sentence. The sentence is at the discretion of the
judge. A minor sentenced in adult court through this means will
have the ability to petition the superior court to seal the record
of all criminal proceedings, if provisions of the court are
fulfilled, but a minor convicted in Sections 1 or 2 of this bill
will never have the opportunity to have records sealed.
MS. HAGGERTY stated there is a clear problem with juveniles
bringing guns and weapons to schools and public places. School
employees and the police are concerned that the juvenile process
does not offer a deterrent to this dangerous behavior. Students
can be expelled for one year for having a firearm on school
property, but we are finding that they re-enroll in the same
district, in another school. SB 26 will create a strong deterrent
to the repeated use of deadly weapons by juveniles. SB 26 is
supported by the National Education Association, the National Rifle
Association, the Juneau Police Department, Fairbanks Police
Department, Anchorage Police Department, the Public Safety
Employees Association, and the Spenard Community Council.
GREG MCDONALD, Secretary-Treasurer, Public Safety Employees
Association (PSEA), stated that the people he represents are
looking at this bill to help them with the growing problem of
juvenile violent crime. While we recognize that this is a strong
measure for the treatment of juveniles, we feel that the bill is
being fair and that it (indisc.) the 14-year-old that is for the
second crime involving weapons, and we feel strongly that we need
to do something to deter this. This is for the second offense.
These kids have been tried and convicted of their first offense
under the juvenile system. Obviously it has failed if they are
back again with a second crime involving a weapon, and it is
limited to the felony charges.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if she heard the testimony correctly
that this will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Is that
correct?
MS. HAGGERTY answered that if the juvenile is convicted under
Section 1 or 2, it will stay on their record.
Number 240
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, stated that the Administration is opposed to
this bill because of the 14- and 15-year-olds that would be
automatically waived, treated as adults and left with convictions
on their adult records. Last year, SB 54 went through the
legislature, and in fact, took two years to do it, and it addressed
the issue of juvenile waiver. There was, at one time, a provision
for automatic waiver, for 14 years of age and older. Ultimately,
what was passed was an automatic waiver for 16 years and older for
unclassified felonies or class A felonies or arson. This bill has
been before the legislature before and did not pass last session.
An offense against a person could be either the class A misdemeanor
of reckless endangerment. The fact that it is not limited to
serious felony offense but can include even the most minor
misdemeanor and the fact that it does bring in 14- and 15-year-
olds, the Administration does not support the bill.
MS. KNUTH also noted that she has spoken with the Juneau Police
Department and the Anchorage Police Department, and they do not
support the automatic waiver of 14- and 15-year-olds, and they,
like the Administration, are concerned about juvenile violent
crime, and they believe it should be responded to, as does the
Administration, but automatic waiver that goes this far is
something that people do not believe is appropriate at this time.
The Administration does believe that we need to look wholesale at
juvenile justice, that we have got a problem that has leaked to the
forefront, and needs to be addressed. But instead of a patchwork
approach where we look at joyriding, we look at offenses involving
guns, and there is one other automatic waiver pending this session.
Instead of doing it just one issue at a time, we believe that a
group of people should get together and come up with a more uniform
and more considered policy direction to go with for juvenile
justice.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said the first time he read this, he thought it was
only narrowed to felonies. It requires a crime against a person
committed with a deadly weapon, having been previously adjudicated,
but would a misdemeanor be confined to that category?
MS. KNUTH answered that all that is required is for it to be a
crime committed against a person, and that a deadly weapon was used
in the commission of the offense, not that that be an element of
it, and therefore, for reckless endangerment. The crime is
committed if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates
substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person,
waiving a gun around would constitute the offense of reckless
endangerment, and obviously is not a felony offense.
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Health and Social Services, stated that Margot has
given the Administration's testimony, and we were very much
involved in the debate on SB 54, the juvenile waiver bill last
year, and we are consistently opposed to the automatic waiver
provisions for children under 16. We feel comfortable with that
position today, and therefore go on record as being opposed to this
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said we do automatically waive 16-year-olds,
but it is the 14- and 15-year-olds that we are objecting to. We do
not just slap their hands and put them back out on the street do
we?
CHAIRMAN PORTER said, yes, just about.
MR. LINDSTROM explained that there are existing provisions where a
14- or 15-year-old could be waived into adult court through
existing procedures that have been on the books for a long time.
He was not suggesting for one moment that there could not be a
situation where that was appropriate. It is the automatic aspect
of this bill that is troubling to the Department of Health and
Social Services.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how many 14- and 15-year-olds have
actually been waived.
MR. LINDSTROM asked his staff, Kathy Tibbles, to come forward and
answer that.
KATHY TIBBLES, Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of
Health and Social Services, said they are not able to provide data
about how many kids would fall under this particular provision.
Our system will record prior adjudications, but for the major
offense that the juvenile was adjudicated for at that time, perhaps
burglary, or whatever, not whether it involved use of a deadly
weapon. We have a new system we are working on and eventually we
can answer that, but right now we cannot even tell how many
juveniles would fall under this. We do not think there are very
many, but we do not have the combination of the deadly weapons use
along with the charge.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, without referring to statistics, if
she knew of any.
MS. TIBBLES said she did not personally know of any.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY hoped somebody in this room had somewhat of
an answer.
Number 370
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that being a longstanding proponent of
peer evaluation, he wanted to invite the committee's attention to
the letter from Nicolette Davis, a senior from Lathrop. She does
not want concealed weapons allowed. She says that if you are held
accountable for your behavior, maybe your behavior will change.
"Out of the mouths of babes" might apply here.
LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety, stated the department's position.
They do share the concern with the Departments of Law and Health
and Social Services. For automatic waiver of 14-and 15-year-olds,
we feel provisions are present that were implemented through SB 54
last year, provides for waiving of those 14- and 15-year-olds on a
case-by-case basis.
Number 400
MS. HAGGERTY wanted to clarify, in response to the question earlier
about sealing of records. A case sent to adult court under this
bill would strictly be a case of a second offense of a minor 14 and
over. In adult court, the judge would have discretion of the
sentence or possible treatment, or waiver of all punishments,
depending on the decision of the court in that case. All cases
coming to court will not become a matter of public record, only
those classified under Sections 1 and 2.
MR. MACDONALD differed with the Department of Law. We also
represent the Juneau Police Department. The police officers of the
Juneau Police Department support this.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the fiscal note is zero, so they must
anticipate this to include a relatively small group of people. He
felt the message to be worth the price. He then made a motion to
move CSSB 26(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations
and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, the bill moved.
HCS CSSB 87 - ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES: LOCAL OPTION & MISC.
Number 450
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, bill
sponsor, introduced HCS CSSB 87. This bill is an old friend that
has been through the process twice. Last session it was known as
SB 372, and was prompted by concerns over a lack of clarity in how
local option elections are conducted, and the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board (ABC) asked for legislation to clarify the process.
Senate Bill 87 as you see it today is substantially the same as
last year's legislation. The bill addresses the shortcomings in
the current statute dealing with local option elections for which
no provision is made for moving from one type of option to another.
Under the current law, a community must first move to remove all
restrictions on the sale or importation of alcoholic beverages, and
then conduct a second vote on a new option. This burdensome
process can cause confusion from municipalities and unincorporated
villages alike. SB 87 was amended in the Community and Regional
Affairs Committee and the Judiciary Committee to address specific
concerns that were raised by local option communities. This bill
has the support of the ABC Board and the chairman of the sponsoring
committee.
PATRICK SHARROCK, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,
wanted to confirm that Teresa Williams of the Attorney Generals
Office was on the teleconference, which she was.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Version R of the CS as
the working document. Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 510
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if it would be helpful if he described
the difference between the CS and the bill that was transmitted to
this committee.
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered sure.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that the only change in this lengthy
CS, Version R, is that we have added a new section 1 which is
similar to the section 1 that came over in the Senate. It provides
that, talking about the makeup of the board, that it leaves three
members of the board to represent the general public. "A board
member representing the general public or immediate family member
of a board member representing the general public may not have any
financial interest in the alcoholic beverage industry." In this
section, "immediate family member" means a spouse, child, or
parent." The only reason for that change was a concern by the
sponsor of the bill that without a reference to the board, that the
title would be incorrect, and we would have to go through a
concurrent resolution to do a title change. He did not concur with
that conclusion but he did not want to hold the bill up by trying
to fight that battle at this time.
MR. SHARROCK mentioned that the reason he asked if Teresa Williams
was on the teleconference is because she was the assistant attorney
general assigned to the board and she drafted this legislation, so
she is a good reference. It is hard to believe that almost a year
ago today, May 10, he was sitting before Representative Vezey's
committee, the final committee of referral on this same piece of
legislation. In that light, it would be fair to say that the
difference between that and the version you have before you now, is
the version that you have just accepted with the proposed amendment
in it, and six other amendments that have found their way through
the committee system on the Senate side, and two additional new
provisions that the board requested be included in the bill in its
current form. Substantially recognizing those things, this bill is
identical to the legislation that was before the Senate and the
House last year. The reason it is so thick is because when Teresa
rewrote the local option provisions and the descriptions of those,
and so forth, the citations were changed. With that, there was a
necessity throughout current law to change those citations, so that
makes up the bulk of why there are so many pages.
MR. SHARROCK explained that the reason the board requested that the
local option sections of the law be clarified, is because at one
point, about a year and a half ago, the City of St. Mary's was
trying to change from its current local option to another one, and
there was litigation between the traditional council and the city
as to how the elections should be handled and how it should
proceed, and more currently, the same situation exists in Barrow.
The judge there had determined that it is appropriate that the
community wait for a year after it adopted the prohibition on
(indisc.) importation that it adopted last October. That is not
exactly the way it is described in the law, that they shall wait
one year, but the intent was certainly there and that is what we
had promoted all along, or understood the law to mean, and the
judge upheld that. So there is that correction and provision in
there too, to clarify for certain that after an election, either to
remove it or to go to a lesser restrictive prohibition that the
community must wait a minimum of 12 months and not hold an election
more than once in 18 months. The whole idea of rewriting the local
option provision was to clarify things like that and to put them in
a form that is more understandable by the people who vote on those
kinds of options in incorporated cities and villages, so they only
have to hold one election to change or remove or adopt an option
they want.
MR. SHARROCK said there are other technical amendments, a few of
which are somewhat new, that the board also suggested or desired.
Those are insignificant in his mind, except maybe one that they had
asked to be included in this version of the bill, which is a
provision to convert restaurant licenses in the community if that
restaurant business person wants to have entertainment. It does
not create a new class of license, but allows a person to convert
a beer and wine or restaurant license into what he refers to as a
semi-tavern license. The reason the bill chose not to create a new
license by regulation is because if it did, then that many more
licenses would be available under the population limitation
provisions and the board did not want to do that at all. The board
thought it would be easier to address it under one class of license
already. You may recall the Ciranos case the board had a year or
so ago, and this is the board's proposed solution to that kind of
thing, to help people out that run into that problem, that run a
different sort of business that is not a full-fledged restaurant.
He said the sectional analysis addresses the different things the
board felt was appropriate.
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the outcome was of the
Ciranos case.
MR. SHARROCK answered that the proprietor submitted to the board
what he believed was a sufficient menu for food to be served at the
restaurant, which was somewhat expanded from what the board had
looked at before, and the board accepted it.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the current composition of
the board was.
MR. SHARROCK answered that, as required by law, there are two
members from the industry.
Number 650
EDITH NASHOALOOK, Assistant Health Educator, North Slope Borough
(NSB), testified via teleconference from Barrow. She submitted
written testimony as well:
"My employment with the NSB started in 1983 as an advocate in the
Arctic Women-in-Crisis. We dealt with a lot of alcohol related
domestic violence, sexual abuse, elder abuse. In 1985, I
transferred to Senior Citizens Program and I saw elder abuse due to
alcohol and drug abuse. I transferred to Health Education in 1987
and have been there since.
"I support amendments for making alcohol possession and importation
a crime, a felony.
"When the alcohol ban, making possession and importation illegal,
first went into effect last year, I felt a sense of peace in our
community. Children were happier and the domestic violence and
other abuses were less evident in the Public Safety and also in the
hospital.
"Barrow residents voted to ban alcohol because it affects their way
of life. Alcohol use in Barrow has been highly correlated with an
increased domestic violence, crimes, accidents, mortality, suicides
and job absenteeism. You wouldn't want your child, spouse or
family member to be involved in domestic violence, in crimes, or
have a serious accident or commit suicide - we do not want that for
our families. We now know why those things happened in the past.
The people of the NSB voted to ban alcohol because they did not
want to increase the statistics that were already outrageously
higher than the rest of the U.S. We want those statistics lower
and nonexistent.
"Residents that are not substance abusers are affected by these
things too because we live in an isolated area. We are in close
contact with each other on a daily basis at work and at school. We
see co-workers who do not come in at all because of drinking, or
co-workers who are victims of domestic violence related to
substance abuse. This makes our jobs and our days hard. We do not
want that anymore.
"We need stiffer laws that make alcohol procession and importation
a serious crime. Please support us in our efforts."
Number 730
TOM NICOLOS testified via teleconference. He does not believe the
problem with alcohol is alcohol itself. The problem with alcohol
is the people who abuse alcohol. He felt it was taking a big step
forward to increase laws for people who do just that, abuse
alcohol. This legislation is needed, but portions of it are unfair
and unjust, because they are heavily slanted toward one person's
view. He was one of the ten people involved in the lawsuit
regarding the Barrow election laws. As he recalled, the reason the
judge ruled that Barrow could not have an election for a year was
not because of the way the statute was written, but because the
city council failed to overturn it. It did not fly in the face of
common sense to have an election within less than a year, even
though federal interpretation of the law said that we could.
MR. NICOLOS brought up his bone of contention in the State Affairs
Committee, and that is that an election would be held once a month
to impose a restriction. But an election can only be held once a
year through a restriction, and not more than once. He asked for
clarification because he did not read the law that way. When it
says you can have an election whenever, even though that may not
fly in the face of common sense. That should be addressed. The
people in this community who are opposed to prohibition worked
very hard to submit a petition to the municipality to bring about
another election. In Section 7, those petitions are swept aside
needlessly. He asked the committee to please consider this bill
carefully, that it be made fair and just to everyone, not just one
group of people.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Mr. Nicolos if he would like to see
alcohol back in Barrow.
MR. NICOLOS said absolutely. He does not consider himself an
abuser of alcohol. His consumption is not great, but he is
extremely opposed to his freedom being restricted because of the
actions of other people.
Number 780
REVEREND JUDITH MCQUISTON testified via teleconference. She is a
relatively new resident of Barrow. When she learned that
importation and possession of alcohol is illegal on the North
Slope, she wondered if it would work. She was really skeptical.
After watching this community for the last few months, and hearing
the comments of the helping professionals, she is impressed with
what is happening. She believed it is a beginning, not an ending.
She felt it to be an encouragement to the people of Barrow that
needs to be supported. Importation of alcohol should be a felony
crime. Today she sees the community having hope. We have seen
some of the best and brightest young people having real problems
because of alcohol consumption, and yet there is a prevailing hope
that things can change and that our young people must have a better
future. We need to continue that process. This is a long process,
and not just something that is automatically resolved because they
no longer have alcohol. The end result is that the penalty for
possession and importation of alcohol is merely a slap on the
wrist. She encouraged the possibility of creating a penalty that
will make people think about whether or not they really want to do
that. It is time to do some healing and provide some hope for our
young people.
Number 800
FRED KOPACZ, Coordinator, Mental Health Services, North Slope
Borough, testified via teleconference. He has spent some time
dealing with the effects of alcohol and alcohol abuse. He is
surprised and pleased to see the effects of what this prohibition
has done on the North Slope. He started off quite skeptical about
whether or not we could achieve much by doing this. He is
overwhelmed with the results of this. He felt that people gave up
alcohol for the good of the community and we have seen an
overwhelming community good. More families are coming to deal with
the real issues. There is more attention being paid to our young
people, and we are seeing more and more use of the professionals on
the North Slope doing what they are trained at - getting people
healed, rather than patching them up after bad episodes of
drinking. He applauded the committee and hoped they would support
the CS, because one of the things happening in Barrow is that the
sanctions for not following the law are really too light.
Hopefully, this bill will address some of that. When a community
takes a step like this, we do no want that effort thwarted. The
community of Barrow deserves to have this law enforced.
REVEREND JAMES ROGHAIR, Presbyterian Church, testified via
teleconference. He has been a pastor for eight years in Barrow and
has seen some of the devastation that has come about from alcohol,
and accidents, suicides, domestic violence, and people freezing to
death. He is pleased with the changes that have taken place in
Barrow since the alcohol ban took effect a few months ago. He has
had the opportunity to read the whole draft and hoped that they had
all read it more carefully than he had. He agreed with the idea of
making bootlegging into a felony. When a community makes the
decision to be alcohol free, then the community needs to have the
tools to enforce that. If the fines for people disobeying the law
are about the same price as the street value of a bottle of booze,
then we would have the same... (tape ended)
TAPE 95-57, SIDE B
Number 000
REVEREND ROGHAIR continued, ... strengthen that a bit. He believed
it would give the community a stronger hand because this is a
community that is struggling as others are, for community health.
There is a value to community decisions over individual freedom.
That is something we in Alaska have to help the rest of the nation
understand, especially in the small villages that have strong
Native traditions where tribal values of community are very
important. These communities need to be strengthened and some of
the previous speakers are thinking about their own individual
freedoms of course. They are speaking about another polarity, but
it is important that we try to support community decision making.
Number 040
MARK HAMLIN testified via teleconference. He is a 16 year resident
of Barrow. His comments are focused on the fairness to all sides
of the prohibition issue, and are not intended to speak to whether
or not prohibition is good, but merely that all sides of the issue
should have an equal shot about which way a community will go. He
was concerned about the provisions in Title IV, which gives
politicians with prohibition beliefs an unfair and unequitable
advantage over voters, and sometimes even the majority who believes
otherwise. SB 87 would take Title IV, which is already somewhat
unfair, to the abuse of those whose rights are being restricted.
Title IV does not provide equal treatment. It is abused by
politicians who choose to promote their personal views over the
majority. The current law allows prohibitionists to attempt to
impose prohibition as often as the wish, but restricts those who
wish to remove prohibition by trying to do so more than once every
12 months. This section of the law is unfair to the views of half
of the voters in Alaska. He asked the committee to hold the bill
over until next session, and make it fair to all of the voters.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. Hamlin if he is involved in the
alcohol industry at all.
MR. HAMLIN answered that he is not. He is a North Slope Borough
employee.
GREG DANJIN, 22 year Alaska resident, testified via teleconference.
He has had dealings with alcohol as an individual and as a law
enforcement officer. He dealt with more alcohol related deaths in
Kotzebue than he ever did in Barrow. Trying to take the issue of
possession of alcohol from a misdemeanor to a felony, everyone sees
alcohol as the guy with the black hat sitting on the black horse
out in front because he is the (indisc.) of the drug of choice, so
to speak. They do not look at what is standing behind him. That
is the guy in the white hat, the (indisc.) drugs. If you want to
make possession a felony, then he suggested making the changes in
the law for a misconduct involving a controlled substance 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6. That (indisc.) should also be considered a felony. Why
is it they have a choice on drugs when they are already controlled,
and alcohol is not?
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if we are imposing laws on the North
Slope Borough, and Adak, et cetera, without their consent? Is any
of this valid unless a community votes for this? A community must
vote for this in order for it to become law, correct?
CHAIRMAN PORTER said a community must vote for a repeal of alcohol
from there.
Number 280
MR. AMBROSE pointed out that in the packet there is a 1986 memo
addressed to Governor Sheffield from the Attorney General. It
deals with many of the issues in Barrow today. The local option
provisions were questionable as far as the constitutionality, and
the legislature at that time, chose not to go to a criminal offense
for possession, because it is a serious constitutional question.
This bill affects not just Barrow, but 115 local option communities
in this state.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if there was a deterrent for
bootlegging.
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
testified via teleconference. She said bootlegging is a class C
felony under the current law. This could give you more than a
year's prison term.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE wanted to refresh his memory as to what the
maximum fine was for a class C felony.
ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide, House Judiciary Committee, stated
that a fine for a C felony is $50,000 for an individual, and
$500,000 for an organization.
SHARON M. NETH, Bethel, testified via teleconference. She had a
question on page 21, Section 29 (b) and (c). It seems to be a
contradiction, and she would like to see part (c) amended to be the
same as part (b).
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Teresa Williams if she could answer that.
MS. WILLIAMS answered that it had been a year since she had drafted
the language. The distinction is between a municipality and an
established village. In an established village, you would not
necessarily have regular elections, and in a municipality, of
course, you do.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment Number 1:
Page 2, line 7, following "industry.":
Insert "A person who is employed in a program providing
alcohol or substance abuse counseling or related services
is not considered to have a financial interest in the
alcoholic beverage industry."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected and said that was not reasonable or
necessary. We should not be adjudicating statutes as fine as this.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN withdrew his amendment, and then offered
Amendment Number 2, which just clarifies that you now have three
public members and two members of the industry, and that in order
to have a quorum you have to have at least two of those three
public members. Otherwise you would have the circumstance where
you would have a quorum which is actually made up of a majority of
industry members.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said he could not support the amendment because
under this scenario, two members of the board could control the
board by not being there. He requested a roll call vote.
Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes. Representatives
Bunde, Vezey, Toohey, Green, and Porter voted no. Amendment Number
2 failed, two to five.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to move Amendment Number
3:
Page 2, line 4, after "public.":
Insert "One board member representing the general public
shall also be or have been employed in the field of law
enforcement or public safety."
Page 37, line 8:
Delete "sec. 79"
Insert "sec. 80"
Page 37, after line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"Sec. 77. TRANSITION: BOARD MEMBERS. The amendments to
AS 04.06.020 made by sec. 1 of this Act do not prevent a
person who is serving as a member of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board on the effective date of this
section from continuing to serve until the person's term
expires. The Governor shall implement AS 04.06.020, as
amended by sec. 1 of this Act, in making appointments
after the effective date of this section."
Page 37, line 18:
Delete "secs. 77 and 78"
Insert "secs. 78 and 79"
There was objection and a roll call vote was taken. Representatives
Finkelstein, Davis and Green voted yes. Representatives Toohey,
Vezey, Bunde and Porter voted no. Amendment Number 3 failed three
to four.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment Number 4:
Page 2, line 4, after "public.":
Insert "One board member representing the general public
shall also be employed in the field of public health."
Page 37, line 8:
Delete "sec. 79"
Insert "sec. 80"
Page 37, after line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"Sec. 77 TRANSITION: BOARD MEMBERS. The amendments to AS
04.06.020 made by sec. 1 of this Act do not prevent a
person who is serving as a member of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board on the effective date of this
section from continuing to serve until the person's term
expires. The Governor shall implement AS 04.06.020, as
amended by sec. 1 of this Act, in making appointments
after the effective date of this section."
Page 3, line 18:
Delete "secs. 77 and 78"
Insert "secs. 78 and 79"
There was objection and a roll call vote was taken.
Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes. Representatives
Bunde, Vezey, Toohey, Green, and Porter voted no. Amendment Number
4 failed two to five.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move HCS CSSB 87(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and fiscal notes as
attached. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
SB 6 AM - SUSPEND DRIVERS LIC./TRAFFIC OFFENSES
Number 700
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor,
introduced SB 6. The intent of this legislation is to encourage
individuals to pay some of the 25,000 traffic citations for moving
violations that go uncollected each year. SB 6 is designed to
provide the court system with additional leverage in collecting
fines. It would also apply to an individual who fails to appear in
court. SB 6 would be a valuable tool for use by the courts
addressing problems created by those who choose to ignore the law,
especially those who fail to make court ordered appearances, or pay
fines. The bill is based on statutes from other states. The
experience in the state of Washington indicates that over 50
percent of those who receive notice for possible sanctions clear up
outstanding matters within one week. SB 6 allows the courts to
suspend the driver's license of anyone who fails to make an
appearance or pay a fine. It also includes the provision for
putting an offender on notice, that under existing law, their
permanent fund dividend could also be attached. The bill would
actually generate revenue from some of these outstanding fines.
Secondly, by the reinstatement of fees that would be collected by
the Division of Motor Vehicles. This does have a positive fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if this is a problem in Wrangell.
MR. AMBROSE answered that the problem generating the bill actually
came out of Ketchikan. While there is not supposed to be
communication between the two branches of government, he assured
him that in the time it has taken to get the bill this far, the
(indisc.) retire from the bench. It seems to keep running into a
small problem in Anchorage with the Parking Authority. It has
nothing to do at this moment with parking.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered an amendment for discussion,
described by Karen Brand below.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought the implications are more than the
motion indicates. It seems this would make it somewhere between
difficult and impossible for privatization of this service, which
is a very laudable goal in management of our municipal services.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what Amendment Number 1 does.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Senator Donley's staff member could
describe it.
KAREN BRAND, Legislative Assistant to Senator Donley, explained
that Amendment Number 1 does three things. It simply requires the
municipality, the Anchorage Parking Authority to comply with state
citation forms set out in AS 12.25. It requires them to adopt a
similar appeals process for people who get a traffic citation and
want to appeal the process. Three, it requires that non-peace
officers, in other words, Parking Authority employees, when they
issue citations, they can only fine up to one half of the amount
set by that municipality. Peace Officers can still write full fine
tickets.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if this was not mandating to a
municipality.
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if the offense is the offense, then why
would the fine vary, depending upon who writes the ticket? That
sounds a little bit punitive of the parking authority.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if this amendment was offered in the Senate.
MS. BRAND answered that yes it was discussed at quite length in
Senate Finance, and was adopted. It was incorporated into the
Senate Finance version, and then taken out in the House Community
and Regional Affairs Committee version. To address Representative
Bunde's question, the Parking Authority personnel have often times
had a lot less training than a police officer.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said he has no knowledge of this particular
subject, and wished he had, but he used to be in charge of parking
enforcement in Anchorage as a sergeant. When you get to a point of
having enough people to do a good job, then all of a sudden you are
the most hated individual or entity in the world. That is where
the parking authority is right now. They have finally organized,
gotten funding, and gotten an ordinance to the extent that they do
a darn good job. And guess who is complaining? Those people who
are getting those tickets. He does not have any sympathy for that
or for this amendment, quite frankly.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN withdrew the amendment because he agrees
with Chairman Porter's comments.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move SB 6 (AM) out of
committee with individual recommendations and its positive fiscal
notes. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 327 - ELIMINATE MONTE CARLO NIGHTS
Number 850
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that in communication through the Speaker
with the Attorney General who says we need this bill, so we will
consider it. This bill eliminates monte carlo nights. He stated
that he could be the reason we have monte carlo. Back in the 60s
he came to visit his mother in Anchorage and found her having a
monte carlo day with her Soroptomist Club, and he had to close her
down. It is gambling. They asked what they needed to do in order
to do this, and he told her she needed to go to Juneau and get a
permit or a change in the law to allow you to do this, and they
did.
TAPE 95-58, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN PORTER said the question is, "Why do we want to shut down
monte carlo nights?" The answer is that monte carlo is a procedure
in our law that allows the following to happen: A charity may
operate a virtual casino for one night a year with craps and
roulette and "21", and those kinds of things for members who wish
to contribute to this charity, but do have the opportunity through
this process to actually win something or their investment. They
buy chips with real money, play games all night, and those who have
won and end up with more chips than they started with, can go and
redeem the chips for prizes that have been donated. It is a very
nice function for charity. The Indian Gaming Commission has gained
through court decisions, that people who allow certain kinds of
gaming permitted in their state, also have to allow Indian tribes
within the definition of Indian country may then negotiate with the
state, so that little innocuous monte carlo, provides the
opportunity for casino gambling in Alaska.
Number 090
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if in keeping monte carlo nights, we
allow Indian gaming, if the reverse would also be true. If we get
rid of monte carlo, will we not have the full fledged casino? Can
we be assured of that?
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that there are assumptions you have to
make. The assumption most of us are running with here, and perhaps
not correctly, but at least, in his opinion, that is not something
we would like to see happen in this state. Assuming that is the
policy of the Administration, they would be negotiating with the
Indian tribes to try to avoid full fledged casino operations in
Alaska. With the assumption that they would take that position,
their position on being able to successfully negotiate that
position is enhanced tremendously if this is not in the law.
Conversely, it is almost guaranteed to fail if the compact cannot
be reached and is appealed, if it stays in the law. The cruise
ship bill fell into that same category and that is why we are
sunsetting the thing, so that they can negotiate in good faith
saying that will not occur after September 1 in this state.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that brings him to his next question. If
we did that for the cruise ships, he did not know that it would
make a difference. He has heard from a number of charities, most
notably, Greater Anchorage, Incorporated, where they have monte
carlo night not only as a money generating thing, but as a part of
the festival, where people are out having a good time, and that
makes donating a little more comfortable. Could we put a sunset
date in this of December 31, 1995? Would it still accomplish what
we are trying to accomplish?
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that was a great idea. As a matter of
fact, if you read Section 6...
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said "January 1996. Obviously this bill is
hot off of the presses."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that is not Representative Bunde's
question. His question was a sunset clause. What you have here is
an effective date clause.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that is essentially the same thing.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY argued they are not at all the same. This Act
takes effect January 1, 1996. That is not in any aspect, a sunset
clause.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said he thought the bill would eliminate monte
carlo nights as of January 1, 1996. It has the same effect.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said, "He wants to sunset the
prohibition."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, that, no, he wanted to give monte carlo
and the charities a time to phase out, and now they have until the
end of the year, if this were to pass.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said he did not know how Representative Bunde had
said it, but knew what he meant.
Number 170
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt the problem here is a gross error in
federal law, and that is really where the matter needs to be
addressed.
CHAIRMAN PORTER did not disagree.
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS asked if we had information on what has
happened in other states where they have full fledged gambling on
Indian reservations. They do not necessarily comply with state
law, and are still doing it. How is this law going to keep it from
happening in our state?
CHAIRMAN PORTER said one reason he went to the NCSL conference was
to get the full day Indian gaming seminar the day before. The
states that have this are kind of all over the board, because they
have developed this case law, and been guided by different kinds of
decisions throughout the last couple of years when they have
engaged in these negotiations with their individual Indian tribes.
Some governors and legislatures have come from different positions
of policy, too. What they have negotiated in the compacts that
exist are a gambit of some allowing it, and others not allowing it.
Those who have tried to revisit totally, have had mixed case and
federal court reviews, too. The most relevant one is under review
again at the Ninth Circuit, which is our Federal Court of Appeals
for the state. Unfortunately it is kind of unsettled for us as to
just exactly where we are. What you try to do is build the best
hand that you can hold while sitting down in these negotiations.
Having these things off of our books would provide a much better
position to argue from.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he attended the same conference, and
while he does not have any personal heartburn with gambling of many
kinds, it became very apparent that for Alaska, any casino
operation, no matter what entity ran it, would be a disaster
financially. Obviously money had to come from out of your local
community, out of your state, and even out of your country, if you
will, because it involves disposable income, and if all the local
people take their disposable income to the casino, then the
hamburger joints, bowling alleys, and all of these other places
that survive on disposable income go away. It is just not good for
the local community.
CHAIRMAN PORTER added that sometimes the income is not disposable.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt the most likely scenario, if it
were going to be allowed in Alaska, under the status quo, would
only be relatively few areas that are deemed Indian land. He felt
the most likely areas were remote villages. There are very few
villages who, under the 1971 Settlement Act, chose to hold their
own reservations.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that once it is allowed, there will be other
communities trying. Tyonek is already making noises like they want
to try.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said his point is that first of all,
they have to ask why it has not occurred already. All over the
rest of the country under the exact same law, and the exact same
circumstances, these casinos exist. This is not just some
discussion that is going on. He said Indian casinos are all over
the place. The reason it has not happened here is that areas that
the entities they just described have no interest in it, or are in
lousy locations, and the point that was made by Representative
Bunde is true. They do not have very many people to hit. The ones
most likely to do it, are the ones who are on some sort of tourist
route. This is going to tend to be a Southeast place that can
somehow get ferries or cruise ships to come by. He thought this
was a far fetched reason to get rid of monte carlo nights, and he
has nothing against monte carlo nights. Also he does not see
anything wrong with Indian gaming. He felt it should be regulated,
and they do not necessarily want it near our large populations, but
this is a self-determination issue. He is affected by the fact
that two of his brothers are Indians, one whose tribe has chosen to
pursue this avenue. They are very poor down in Arizona, as are
many of our Natives in Alaska. He found it hard to imagine that we
would decide that the Indian entities that want to pursue this do
not have enough self-determination to make that decision for
themselves, and that we are so anti-gambling that we are going to
preclude that, but at the same time, we just passed a law saying
that cruise ships can have all out casinos while they are in Alaska
waters. Why would we preclude one and then allow another? He does
not see a strong reason to do this.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Are you going to get him, Mr.
Chairman? I will."
Number 330
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he, too, attended the gambling seminar in
San Diego. The stories they told from the states that had gambling
were horrendous, but the bottom line was that if you do not have an
outside source of people to come and gamble, you are doomed to
failure. The reason the cruise ship gambling works is because they
take their people with them. They pick them up in some foreign
port and they bring them in, and they are not allowed to gamble
within three miles of a port here. They have got their gamblers,
but when you go to some place like Metlakatla, you really do not
have a large draw area, so even if for some reason that would
become some sort of a Mecca for people to swing by and be able to
say they played cards at Metlakatla, is not going to get it done
for the rest of the year. There is tourist season, and then there
are nine other months when they would have to depend on their local
people. We know it is not just disposable income that goes into
gambling, and the state ends up holding the bag for people who have
somehow been lured into this thing repeatedly. Statistically, they
showed that if you were not in an area where you could draw in
business from outside of your community, you were doomed to
failure.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY was concerned about people using their Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) checks to gamble, so the
state would always be feeding that whole gambling group. It is bad
news.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that in response to Representative
Finkelstein's concerns, it is just now coming into the light up
here because of ANCSA. We are the only state in that situation.
Most of the land that might have been categorized that way was
signed off of that category and we still dispute as to whether that
is or is not Indian country.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered why we were allowing this to continue
through the fall until January.
CHAIRMAN PORTER guessed it was probably because there are some
monte carlo functions already scheduled for the fall. He really
did not know.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated the reason for his concern is that the
longer this continues, the worse the situation gets as far as the
federal government observing what the state is doing. Unless there
is some strong reason or some major thing that comes up before the
end of the year, he thought this time period should be shortened.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY hoped that after the state has settled its
position on gambling and gaming, that they could come back and
visit a way for the charities to raise funds, because we have put
so much effort into making them responsible for their monies, and
now we are taking it away from them. It is a very harsh treatment,
and we really need to revisit that.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought the only communities possibly pursuing
this include Metlakatla, Angoon, Klawock and Kake. He did not see
how it could be possible for any kind of gambling casino to be
economically feasible in those communities. He thought they were
trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The problem does lie
with the federal law, and if we try to take the burden on
ourselves, we are really not addressing the problem. We need to be
addressing this with our Congressional Delegation. A Resolution
would be more appropriate than a statute.
CHAIRMAN PORTER could not disagree that the problem is at the
federal level, but he did not know if it would be solvable in the
period of time during which we are required to negotiate with
tribes. There is a chance that at some point in time, the
presumption of good faith negotiations goes away and it could be
turned around, but we do not even have the right to appeal this
final decision of the Gaming Commission. He does not like this
solution, but what it does is give us six or seven months to work
on it, and we would not be devastating any charities if they found
the solution between now and then, and they would only be without
the ability to have monte carlo for a month until we got geared up
next January.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said they have no evidence before us
that there is anything wrong with monte carlo nights. He thought
monte carlo nights were great and were one of the most charitable,
social occasions, and all of the ones he has ever been to have been
very nice events that serve a very good cause. They are also one
of the very few options people have in that realm, because the same
crowd is not going to come and play bingo. Those are two different
crowds. The people who put on monte carlo nights put in tons of
time, and they turn volunteer effort into money. It takes a
hundred volunteers to run a monte carlo night. What we are doing
is getting rid of something that is definitely good to make our
hand somewhat stronger over something that we are not even sure how
bad it is. These small communities could already be doing this,
but if not, the reason they are not is because they will not make
money. It is the tribal authority or whatever entity they have
who is in charge. It is not some outside entity trying to make
money off of the small community. So the money they make from
their people all goes into a pool that is used for their people.
All they are doing is putting money into the community funds that
is often used for community good.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that the issue here that we are
not really talking about is Indian self-determination, and these
folks made the decision not to opt into the Native Claims
Settlement Act. Tetlin was in that same circumstance. They chose
to remain in control of their own communities, and for the main
reason of self-determination. Gambling is not that popular and
does not have the support of all of our citizens, but he felt that
was what Indian self-determination comes down to. We sometimes
have to decide that we cannot control what goes on in their
communities.
Number 500
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move HB 327 out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to amend the bill first.
Amendment Number 1 would move the date from January to March. The
legislature can never act within a month, the way things work
around here. He thought they should allow two more months, so that
if this all works out, there does not have to be a period where
this is made illegal, because it would only preclude activities
during that one month, these activities involve months and months
of planning and so it would probably preclude it over the first
half of the year.
CHAIRMAN PORTER objected to the amendment. He did not know what
the schedule of negotiations were or what it was that drove this
particular date. If this goes to the floor of the House, he will
know by then what the reason for that particular effective date is.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said in light of that, he would withdraw
his amendment. He then offered a conceptual amendment that would
give a two year sunset date from the end of this fiscal year. This
would sunset the effect of this prohibition.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said this would take two cards out of the state's
hand in negotiations, because then they would not be able to say
that we are not going to have this.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he would not offer the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if it would be reasonable to say
January 30 instead of January 1.
Number 530
CHAIRMAN PORTER would really resist changing the date at all,
because he did not know much about the bill, since he just got it.
He then said that we have had a motion to move, and asked if there
was any further discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected, just for the record, but would not
keep the bill from moving out of committee. That is not an
indication of how he would vote on the floor.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was objection to moving the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN objected. A roll call vote was taken.
Representative Finkelstein voted no. Representatives Toohey,
Bunde, Davis, Vezey, Green and Porter voted yes. The bill passed
with a six to one vote.
The following persons submitted testimony for the record, in
opposition to eliminating monte carlo nights:
Ms. Margaret E, Webber, Anchorage
Susan M. Sullivan, State Director of the Alaska Chapter of
March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
Joanne Lovitz-Edmiston, Board Member, apparently of a handicap
charity group
Jennifer McGrady, Kenai
Frank Miller, Diamond Rose Bingo Hall for Multiple Charities
Co-op
ADJOURNMENT
The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|