Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/17/1996 01:15 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
January 17, 1996
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative Al Vezey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation hearing to reinstate Joseph Donahue and Edith
Vorderstrasse to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 2
"Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to redistricting and to the length of a regular session,
and establishing a unicameral legislature; and providing for an
effective date for each amendment."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE BILL 379
"An Act authorizing establishment of alternative dispute resolution
centers to foster the resolution of disputes between juvenile
offenders and their victims."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 2
SHORT TITLE: UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE/SESSION LIMIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN,Navarre
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 16 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 16 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/27/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/95 1611 (H) STA RPT 1DP 4NR
04/28/95 1612 (H) DP: GREEN
04/28/95 1612 (H) NR: JAMES, ROBINSON, OGAN, WILLIS
04/28/95 1612 (H) 3 FNS (2-GOV, LAA)
04/28/95 1612 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)
10/16/95 (H) JUD AT 09:00 AM JUNEAU LIO
01/17/96 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 379
SHORT TITLE: VICTIM/JUVENILE OFFENDER MEDIATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER,Green,Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2365 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2365 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2365 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/17/96 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. ROBERT SITTIG, Professor of Political Science
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0328
Telephone: (402) 472-2344
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HJR 2
PATRICK O'DONNELL
Clerk of the Legislature
Nebraska State Legislature, Room 2018
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Telephone: (402) 471-2271
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HJR 2
MIKE NIEMEYER, Executive Director
Victim/Offender Reconciliation in California
777 South Main Street, Suite 200
Orange, California 99628
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 379
SUSAN DIPIETRO, Staff Attorney
Juvenile Law, Alaska Judicial Council
1029 West 3rd Avenue, Suite 201
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 279-2526
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 379
GARY R. SCHWARTZ, Juvenile Intake Probation Officer
Anchorage Corrections
2600 Providence Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 562-2285
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 379
NIKISHKA STEWART, Project Coordinator
Community Dispute Resolution Center
505 West Northern Lights, Suite 210
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 379
KATHY TIBBLES, Social Services Program Officer
Division of Family & Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
350 Main Street, Room 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 645-32191
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 379
ARTHUR SNOWDEN II, Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
303 "K" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2084
Telephone: (907) 264-0547
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 379
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-1, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER called the House Judiciary committee meeting
to order at 1:15 P.M. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Joseph Green, Con Bunde, Bettye Davis and David
Finkelstein. Members absent were Representatives Cynthia Toohey
and Al Vezey.
Number 099
CHAIRMAN PORTER opened the meeting by pointing out there were three
things of importance to address. First, was the consideration of
two reappointments to the Legislative Ethics Committee of Mr.
Joseph Donahue and Ms. Edith Vorderstrasse. Chairman Porter
pointed out that the Judiciary Committee members had a chance to
review these individual's resumes and having received no
indications of concern, he asked that the Judiciary Committee
consider the recommendation of reinstating Mr. Donahue on the
Ethics Committee.
Number 173
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a motion to approve the reappointment
of Joseph Donahue to serve on the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics.
Number 216
CHAIRMAN PORTER said the intent of the motion is to send forward a
recommendation from the committee that the members believe he
should be considered by the entire body for reappointment to the
Ethics Committee. He asked if there is an objection to the motion.
Hearing none, the name would be advanced forward.
Number 235
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN made a motion to forward the name
of Edith Vorderstrasse to the body.
Number 252
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was an objection to the motion.
There being none, Ms. Vorderstrasse's was forwarded.
HJR 2 - UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE/SESSION LIMIT
Number 368
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced the next order of business would be HJR
2, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to redistricting and to the length of a regular session,
and establishing a unicameral legislature; and providing for an
effective date for each amendment. He added that the bill had been
discussed during the interim.
Number 448
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HJR 2. Hearing no objection, it was
so ordered.
Number 485
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN, sponsor of the resolution, opened his remarks
by stating that the CS was a result of an interim hearing which
suggests some small suggestive changes. He proposed outlining a
few points he felt were important for discussion. Unicameral
government is not a new concept. This system consists of only one
house, therefore a bill does not have to move through an additional
house. This eliminates the bill's movement through less committee
hearings as well. This could also affect the period of time the
legislature meets. Nebraska adopted the unicameral system during
the depression as a cost-cutting measure. Because of it's success,
the State of Nebraska has kept this system in place ever since.
Most states mimic the federal government system in the spirit of
equal representation.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEEN added that the State of Alaska, in 1976,
proposed the unicameral system as an amendment to the constitution,
but the legislature turned it down even though it was the will of
the people. He pointed out that it's a misconception to think that
this system eliminates jobs for legislators. He quoted Dr. Robert
Sittig as background, "The legislature itself is the proscribed
starting place for constitutional amendments, however, legislators
are disinclined to approve proposals which would alter
substantially the body in which they serve."
Number 825
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked for clarification concerning this
reduction misconception. It was his understanding that there would
be none.
Number 841
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded that Representative Bunde was
absolutely right. HJR 2 calls for the existing sixty legislators
and the state would be divided into sixty different units. Within
these units each representative or senator would be responsible to
their electorate directly.
Number 850
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how many constituents would be comprised
in a district.
Number 896
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN answered 9,000 generally as a number. He
pointed out that this was far less than some of the larger states
and greater compared to places like Wyoming. A poll taken within
the State of Nebraska reflected that it's citizens are very to
wildly supportive of the unicameral system. The Nebraska members
of the legislature feel it's a more efficient, less contentious,
and a more responsive tool to the constituency.
Number 1073
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if there had been an informal polling of
the Alaska legislature undertaken.
Number 1099
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded that he hoped as the bill moved
through committee the concept would gain support. He envisioned
that this concept would pass the house, but he didn't know if the
senate would go along with it. Representative Green added that a
unicameral system is a cost saving measure.
Number 1148
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked about the impacts this system would have
on staff, the local economy effects, et cetera.
Number 1161
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN answered yes, there would be various impacts.
The length of the legislative session would probably be shortened,
but the number of legislators would not change and they'd still
need staff. Whether they would retain the same amount of staff or
a compromise amount, Representative Green supposed that there would
be some cost savings in this area. If the legislative session was
shortened, Representative Green said staff might be increased since
legislation would be moving through one house at a greater speed.
A lot of frivolous legislation would fall by the way-side.
Number 1228
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if this change would mean some members
of the legislature would not be seated on a committee.
Number 1250
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stressed that because so many of the
legislators are on so many committees now, they could cut back
their membership and do a better job of serving on one or two
committees, rather than four or five committees at one time. He
felt as though there was enough committee work to go around.
Number 1326
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN outlined his suggested amendment to the
HJR 2 legislation. He felt as though the unicameral system was a
great idea. If the proposed legislation was to be introduced
through a constitutional amendment, he felt as though they should
try to solve as many of the problems that currently exist with the
formation of the legislature as possible. He proceeded to outline
what he saw as a problem with deciding legislator's salaries.
Because legislators are required to set their own salaries, they
suffer severe criticism anytime an increase is suggested. This has
become a major political football. He generally outlined how these
legislative salaries have fluctuated over the years.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said a committee now exists, which sets
salary policy and recommends proper compensation for legislators.
They assess the legislative work load and look at comparable
salaries in order to make recommendations, but the legislature
doesn't usually act on these suggestions because of the perceived
conflict. Representative Finkelstein suggested the formulation of
a constitutional amendment which allows for a citizen's committee
much like the one that exists now. When recommendations are made
they would go into effect automatically, unless the legislature
overrides them. This system would eliminate the issue of what and
how the assembly members get paid. Although this amendment is not
integral to a unicameral legislature, Representative Finkelstein
feels as though it's an issue that will haunt future legislators
who are forced into the position of approving their own salaries.
With that, Representative Finkelstein asked to move the amendment.
Number 1541
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for the purposes of discussion.
Assuming that there isn't any legal problem with this amendment,
Representative Green submitted that at line seven, of paragraph b,
"it may prevent," he suggested changing the tenor of the sentence
to say, "a proposed change is considered disapproved unless acted
on by a resolution concurred in by at least a majority of the
senate members within 45 days after it is presented."
Number 1614
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified that in the event a proposal
wasn't accepted, then the status quo would stay in effect.
Representative Green said yes. Representative Finkelstein
reiterated that the concept of this amendment was that the
legislature would turn over the decision of compensation to an
impartial committee. If the legislature took no action and
salaries were automatically generated, the committee's proposal to
stand goes to the heart of this proposal.
Number 1721
CHAIRMAN PORTER then welcomed Dr. Robert Sittig and Patrick
O'Donnell from the State of Nebraska, who were both standing by on
teleconference, to testify about the unicameral concept.
Number 1744
DR. ROBERT SITTIG, Professor of Political Science, University of
Nebraska, spoke first with a factual outline of how the Nebraska
Legislature is configured. There are 49 seats, four year staggered
terms, all members are called senators, and are paid 12,000 dollars
per session. The session lengths run 60 days one year, 90 the
other. The state recently adopted a two year budget cycle. The
members are non-partisan which means the members are nominated and
elected without an identification on the ballot. The Lieutenant
Governor presides over the Legislature. To accommodate outsiders,
there are mandatory public hearings on all bills by the committees.
Time constraints to enact a bill are enforced. There are very few
related officer positions. The opportunity for the media to attend
closed door proceedings of the standing committees during mark up
proceedings exists.
Number 1820
DR. SITTIG then gave an overview of the advantages to the
unicameral system. The Nebraska legislature is a small body, which
adds to public accessibility. This also adds to the legislature's
accountability. The members appreciate this format because it's
unstructured and simple. This maximizes the impact that each of
the members has in the legislative process. In addition, the
committees are more accommodating which aids to moving legislation
through the system. The negatives to this system is that it's
becoming more centralized and more complicated. This decreases
public input. The non-partisan factor of the Nebraska Legislature
has caused more consternation than anything else. It leads to less
candidate competition in the nominating and electing process. This
also contributes to less public awareness and involvement than
there would be if the system was partisan. The chief executive
officers seem less engaged and distant from the policy making
process. It's almost impossible for non-urban legislators to spend
a career in the legislature. The average amount of service by a
legislator is between only five or six years. Participation has
been flat over the decade. Generally, service in the legislature
is not attractive.
Number 1943
DR. SITTIG then outlined a program Nebraska has initiated which
allows for a rotation of leaders after serving longer than one
year. This helps with stability. Even though Nebraska has a non-
partisan system, the governor appoints members to committees who
are actually partisan. Because there are a lot of vacancies on
committees, the governor appoints in many instances, four or five
individuals of choice. Even though the system is non-partisan,
Republicans and Democrats will square off on the floor in house
debates or in campaigns. Nebraska legislators are not rewarded for
their diligent service and that puts a damper on the process.
Number 2026
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that the negatives Dr. Sittig
outlined were more related to Nebraska's non-partisanship
structure. If a bi-partisanship was maintained, would that make a
difference?
Number 2048
DR. SITTIG thought that it would add to more recruitment of
candidates. He thought the public would identify more strongly
with party affiliation.
Number 2087
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if Nebraska's legislature has term
limits and Dr. Sittig responded no, but that this question was in
litigation now. Representative Green then asked how non-
partisanship affects the structuring of legislative committees.
Number 2127
DR. SITTIG responded that anyone can run for any leadership
position, including committees. A person can nominate themselves.
The votes are conducted secretly. If anyone runs for a committee
they usually have some experience regarding that committee's
subject matter jurisdiction.
Number 2172
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if the position of Lieutenant Governor
in Nebraska was non-partisan and if so, was there a presiding
officer with a defacto influence over the legislature as well?
Number 2184
DR. SITTIG responded that the Lieutenant Governor is non-partisan
and doesn't always preside over the house. Sometimes they will,
but the Speaker of the House or others will do so as well.
Number 2225
PATRICK O'DONNELL, Clerk of the Legislature, Nebraska State
Legislature, testified to a few points Dr. Sittig made. He felt as
though the members of the legislature would resist change to a
partisan system. The Nebraska Legislature does not caucus per se
and there are no partisan caucuses. The legislature's leadership
is voted on by secret ballot on the opening day of session.
Presently there are 26 non-partisan Republicans and 22 non-partisan
Democrats. The speaker is a Democrat and half of the committee
chairs are Democrat. The Lieutenant Governor's work is tolerated,
but they have very little influence. Often times, if there's a
controversial bill before the house, the Lieutenant Governor is
encouraged not to attend. In regards to how legislation moves
through the unicameral house, there are four readings of each bill.
The fourth reading is designed as a checks and balance. It allows
the bill to be debated on two separate occasions. The process is
fairly decentralized. The speaker is somewhat limited in their
authority. They have the ability to set the daily agenda, but any
member has the ability to offer amendments and there's no
limitation on the length of debate.
Number 2461
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. O'Donnell what types of problems
Alaska could anticipate in their change to a unicameral system.
Number 2473
MR. O'DONNELL couldn't say specifically since he hadn't seen the
Alaskan proposal. He thought there would be some reservations if
the plan called for a reduction of legislators.
Mr. O'DONNELL added that if a special session of the Nebraska
legislature was convened they're required to meet a minimum of
seven legislative days. Other than mechanical, the change-over to
a unicameral system may not affect how legislation is enacted.
TAPE 96-1, SIDE B
Number 077
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if caucuses did grow out the non-
partisan system regardless of like-minded people establishing
agendas.
Number 101
MR. O'DONNELL responded by saying that it does happen informally
and not as often as someone would think. The ebbs and flows of
coalitions change rather quickly. Usually when caucuses do form
they're issue related rather than agenda specific.
Number 144
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were any state statutes or
legislative rules which limit the ability of caucuses having
confidential conversations.
Number 148
MR. O'DONNELL said no, but Nebraska does have an open meetings law.
People gathering in caucuses don't take action per se and these are
not considered meetings of the legislature in any meaning of the
term. Dr. Sittig pointed out that Nebraska has regional caucuses
to accommodate and facilitate assignment of committees. Committees
are formed along geographical lines.
Number 207
CHAIRMAN PORTER then asked if the "mark-up" process as mentioned
earlier, wasn't the process of putting the final touches on a bill
out of the full session before it's presented for the full body's
consideration. Would this be the same as an Alaska caucus
situation?
Number 216
MR. O'DONNELL responded by saying bills are referred out to their
standing committees based on subject matter jurisdiction. The
committee then conducts their public hearing and has the ability to
modify proposals in any way deemed appropriate. This is the
process of mark-up. Often times when a bill reaches the floor the
first thing considered are the amendments proposed by the
committee. Bills can also be amended on the floor.
Number 252
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked who assigns the sequence of committee
referrals and whether there is a sequence a bill goes through
before it gets to the house, rather than it being worked through
two committees at one time such as in Alaska.
Number 272
MR. O'DONNELL responded. Nebraska has a management committee
consisting of regional representatives, the speaker of the house,
and a chairman and vice-chairman who are elected on the floor by
secret ballot. It is a nine member committee and they're
responsible for assigning the different pieces of legislation to
the appropriate committee.
Number 315
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the problem of Nebraska's high
rate of turnover and asked how this has affected the legislature's
activities.
Number 341
MR. O'DONNELL answered yes, this does affect the legislature.
There are situations where they're forced to reinvent the wheel,
especially in their rules discussions revolving around process
orientation. The floor is affected as well. Members who have not
been exposed to particular issues have to be re-educated. It takes
time to get people up to speed. Dr. Sittig agreed. Turn over is
very rapid in the lower ranks.
Number 415
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this turn over might not improve if
a bi-partisan system was installed.
Number 427
MR. O'DONNELL said he did not honestly know. Dr. Sittig didn't
think it would make that much of a difference, although he felt the
political party vehicle does provide a bit more opportunity for
advancement.
Number 466
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN then continued his discussion regarding
the proposed amendment to HJR 2. He reiterated what he said about
the legislature's requirement to approve their own compensation,
which is an untenable situation. He pointed out that to require
the legislature to act on a salary committee's recommendation would
not the change the status quo.
Number 550
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he understood what Representative
Finkelstein was trying to achieve, but he also recalled a situation
in Congress where a pay raise was to take effect unless the
Congress voted it down. They were taken to task by the public.
Representative Bunde was concerned that the Alaska Legislature
might be damned if they did and damned if they didn't. The concept
of a commission making a salary recommendation and the legislature
being required to endorses it, was a compromise he could live with.
Number 608
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced his concern about this commission being
appointed by the governor. He used a hypothetical situation where
there's a governor of one party and a legislature of another. If
the governor suggested a percentage decrease and the legislature
didn't go along with that, the legislature would look bad.
Number 661
CHAIRMAN PORTER spoke to the amendment and said that he agreed with
Representative Finkelstein's suggestion the legislature should not
vote on their salary increases, because that would put the issue
right back at square one. Regardless of this, Chairman Porter said
he couldn't support the amendment because it would cloud the issue
of establishing a unicameral legislature.
Number 708
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS appreciated what Chairman Porter said,
but felt that if this issue wasn't addressed now, it would be too
hard to form a commission such as this one at a later time. She
said this commission concept works well in Anchorage. A commission
such as the one suggested sets the salaries for the Anchorage
assembly and if the assembly doesn't take any related action, the
suggested salaries automatically go into effect. The public never
comes down on the commission for the amount of salary suggested.
Number 753
CHAIRMAN PORTER, moving onto a different subject, agreed that
establishing a non-partisan system in Alaska would be ideal. It
would be easier to be a legislator in this type of environment.
The Alaskan legislature would not necessarily become a non-partisan
system as a result of enacting unicameral legislation. This would
become a constitutional issue.
Number 820
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt as though it would be very unlikely
that the governor would penalize the legislature in the way
suggested by Representative Green. This type of situation rarely
happens if ever because the legislature appropriates monies to the
governmental administration. Once this type of feud is undertaken,
it would only get worse.
Number 937
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he is generally supportive of the
amendment, but is hesitant to designate a single person who in turn
appoints all the commission's members. He added that he would be
interested in seeing an amendment which addresses this salary
appropriations concern further through the legislative committee
process.
Number 950
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for an amendment roll call. Voting for the
amendment were Representatives Davis and Finkelstein. Voting
against the amendment were Representatives Bunde, Green and Porter.
Representatives Toohey and Vezey were not present. Chairman Porter
declared that the amendment had failed.
Number 990
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked the committee to then consider HJR 2.
Number 996
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked a question of the sponsor, Joe Green
regarding HJR 2. It was her understanding while listening to the
testimony from Nebraska that the reasons why the unicameral system
was so successful had more to do with the fact that their form of
government was non-partisan.
Number 1045
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN added that this was not what he heard. The
disadvantages of the unicameral legislature outlined had more to do
with the system being non-partisan. Representative Green then re-
defined what these already discussed disadvantages were.
Number 1006
CHAIRMAN PORTER understood from the non-partisan discussion that
the legislators appreciate this system as it is established. Both
witnesses thought the system would be better served with more
public involvement and more tenure for the legislators under a
partisan partnership.
Number 1137
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS added that the witnesses said if the system
was partisan this might allow legislators to move to higher
offices. Her impression of the Alaska legislature is that their
members don't move up respectively in it's bi-partisan system
either.
Number 1166
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he couldn't imagine this
unicameral system proposal could be implemented under a non-
partisan banner. He stated that change is hard for people. He
also asked the sponsor if he envisioned that the Lieutenant
Governor would preside over the Alaska legislature within this
unicameral framework. Chairman Porter first recognized the
presence of Representative Vezey.
Number 1240
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN thought that a presiding Lieutenant Governor
would not be part of the proposed legislation. He felt this would
ensure the separation of power.
Number 1281
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE thought the advantages of establishing a
unicameral system was the overall efficiency, including the
establishment of smaller constituencies to serve. He then made a
motion to move HJR 2 from the Judiciary Committee with individual
recommendations.
Number 1328
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were any objections. Hearing none,
HJR 2 was moved out of committee.
HB 379 - VICTIM/JUVENILE OFFENDER MEDIATION
Number 1348
CHAIRMAN PORTER then gave a short synopsis of a proposed CS to HB
379. Chairman Porter stated that CSHB 379 is legislation which he
firmly believes in. The Municipality of Anchorage, as a model for
this legislature, on a city level is trying to deal with minor
offenses of juveniles through early intervention. This should help
ward off these juveniles from becoming increasingly involved in
additional crimes.
Number 1463
MIKE NIEMEYER, Executive Director, Victim/Offender Reconciliation,
Orange County, California, said his program is sponsored through
St. Vincent De Paul and that they also receive public money from a
surcharge on civil court filing fees. Last year 1,200 cases were
processed using the victim offender mediation approach. This
program actually began in 1974 in Canada and in Elkhart Indiana in
1979. The values of this program has been around for a while and
are well established. The Orange County Program is seven and 1/2
years old and is based on the old concept that it is important for
the perpetrator to meet their victim. This provides for more
victim input rather than the standard criminal justice process
which tends to be a offender oriented system. The Orange County
program has three areas of mission purposes: The victims should
have a chance to confront their perpetrators, the legislation
provides for the victim being compensated by their perpetrators,
and it provides an opportunity for the victim to be involved with
their perpetrator's future. This last element enhances the
victim's sense of restitution. Mr. Niemeyer added that this
reconciliation concept has been endorsed by the American Bar
Association and a resolution was adopted in August of 1994
supporting the program. The Orange County program finds that when
a victim is given an opportunity to meet with their offender, over
70 percent of the victims are willing to participate and will meet
with the offending party. The agreements which come out of this
program are very durable. Over 95 percent of their restitution
agreements have been completely fulfilled.
Number 1804
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked what percentage of the money to support
this program comes from the public?
Number 1822
MR. NIEMEYER answered that funded money is matched through
volunteer contributions and the additional public money comes from
community development and local money revenues. California has a
(indisc.) program tax which provides for a eight dollar surcharge
on their civil court filing fees. Some of this money goes to the
Orange County program.
Number 1889
SUSAN DIPIETRO, Staff Attorney, Juvenile Law, Alaska Judicial
Council, testified to CSHB 379. She also noted that she is Vice
President of the Board of Directors for CERC (Community (indisc.)
Resolution Center) and is also a volunteer mediator for the
Juvenile Victim Offender Mediation program. Much of what Ms.
DiPietro does to evaluate programs is to see that they help to
improve the administration of justice. From her three perspectives
as staff attorney, board member and volunteer, she is very much in
favor of this legislation. It would strengthen the work of the
victim offender mediation program already in place. Ms. DiPietro
mentioned in addition the benefits of this mediation concept to
it's volunteers. The feeling that they can make a difference or
have an impact is very important. This project has a ripple
effect. It touches all levels of society.
Number 2062
GARY SCHWARTZ, Juvenile Intake Probation Officer, Anchorage
Corrections, testified to the statistics of how many cases are
being processed through the corrections department per year, not
all of which are worked through the victim offender mediation
program. Mr. Schwartz's contact with this program in Anchorage
within the last year and 1/2 has been extremely positive. Several
of the cases he dealt with have had outstanding results. He used
an example of cases he deals with fairly regularly.
Two 12 year old youths threw rocks and broke someone's windshield
and were charged with reckless endangerment. These youths did not
fully understand the complications of their actions. It gave the
victim a chance to voice their opinion and it gave the juveniles a
learning experience, not to mention the restitution which will be
instituted.
Number 2200
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Schwartz what kinds of serious offense
cases go through this mediation process?
Number 2214
MR. SCHWARTZ replied that petty theft burglary was probably the
most serious crime. For example, a thirteen year old went through
an unopened door and took an older citizen's money from a jar under
her bed. The offender was forced to give the victim an explanation
of his actions. There were very good results in this case.
Number 2273
NIKISHKA STEWART, Project Coordinator, Community Dispute Resolution
Center, attempted to tie together some of the information already
presented. This mediation type of program maximizes the use of
limited resources and is also a community level response to crime.
It is a pro-active program. She also stressed the importance of
restitution as a concept. Ms. Stewart noted the flexibility of the
contracts instituted. No two contracts have been alike and this
adds to the victim's satisfaction. This uniqueness enhances the
victim's input.
From February of 1994 to date the center has seen over 6,000
dollars of restitution paid back to victims and over 100 hours of
work service by the perpetrators served. Out of 66 referred cases
48 reached a contract.
Number 2474
KATHY TIBBLES, Social Services Program Officer, Division of Family
and Youth Services, Department of Health and Social Services,
testified that the division is in support of CSHB 397.
TAPE 96-2, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. TIBBLES said one concern the Division of Youth and Family
Services had was in regard to language about the centers being
established by municipalities or non-profits and organized
exclusively for resolution. This might exclude people they might
otherwise work with. The department was also confused with the
statements about obtaining referrals from public and private bodies
and the discussion about educating the community and encouraging
the use of the services. It appeared that the centers and
referrals were tied pretty closely to the jurisdictional statute
47.10 and Juveniles Alleged to have Committed Delinquent Acts.
They weren't sure where the private referrals would come from,
although this is not problematic for the department.
Number 110
CHAIRMAN PORTER offered that it wasn't their intent to exclude
someone. On those occasions if the court felt it were appropriate
under the District Court jurisdiction to refer a misdemeanor
offense they would have the power to do so, as well as the
Commissioner.
Number 188
MS. TIBBLES pointed out their remaining concern dealt with what was
previously section (f) now (e) of CSHB 397, seemed to limit the
information allowed released under the confidentiality clause.
Under the circumstances where a referral might be made by the
department through an informal disposition they might not receive
any information back. They wouldn't know whether or not the
offender satisfactorily completed the dispute resolution process in
order to close their case. If the department felt the nature of
the offense required petitioning the court, it appears they would
not have access to that information or would not be able to take
further action if the offender did in fact derail the process.
Number 270
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that this language would be resolved before
moving the bill out of the Judiciary Committee.
Number 300
ART SNOWDEN, Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, came to
the committee in full support of the concept of this legislation.
Mr. Snowden pointed out that this legislation dealt with a
prosecutorial referral program, a process by which a problem is
taken care of before it comes to court (in the Department of Health
and Social Services normally.) This legislation relieves a huge
problem that the courts presently deal with. He noted that from
1992 to 1995 in Anchorage, children case filings have increased by
36 percent; Fairbanks, 34 percent; Juneau, 22 percent; Kenai, 36
percent; Palmer, 28 percent. Children cases are increasing at an
unprecedented rate, over 30 percent on average, while funding has
not increased. Any program which ensures restitution is a positive
version, while at the same time Mr. Snowden confirmed that the
juvenile offenders understand the severity and gravity of their
acts is something Snowden applauds. The committee has the full
support of the court system on this legislation.
Number 448
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why this legislation is necessary to
accomplish the problem of juvenile offenses. He interprets this
legislation as offering mediation services for a property claim.
This is not the type of crime where the state would automatically
take charge of the prosecution. What is to prevent any party to
agree to mediation?
Number 516
MR. SNOWDEN offered that Representative Vezey was correct. At this
time any prosecuting agency can defer prosecution, however, this
legislation codifies these mediation centers and the concepts of
their inception to hear juvenile offenses. He believes this will
gain them publicity in light of present prosecution. The courts
have locked arms over the youth court prospects in Anchorage, as
citing an example. While this is a deferral program, publicity has
brought a lot of credibility to the process. Mr. Snowden's
personal view of the juvenile court system is that it doesn't work.
If the juvenile is not made accountable for their actions, there
will be widespread problems in the existing prosecutorial system.
This legislation will institutionalize this mediation program and
sets forth standards to be followed. To involve all levels of
society in this juvenile crime problem, including private
mediators, the executive branch, and the courts is a positive step.
Some of these juvenile crimes may be deemed too insignificant with
the crush of business in the standard court system as it stands
now.
Number 672
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY reiterated his first point about mediation and
asked if this legislation is about publicity.
Number 684
MR. SNOWDEN answered that yes it was a publicity issue so that kids
will know about it, victims will know about it, Health and Social
Services might use it more, etcetera. Again he reiterated that
publicity was a plus and he saw no cost associated with this
legislation. He noted the rising juvenile crime statistics again.
Number 722
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referred to the section of the legislation
which addressed disclosure. He cautioned against codifying the
process of mediation which might make this process less flexible to
encompass other crimes. He also noted the concept of mediation
disclosure and understood that participants in mediation are
required to agree to the process.
Number 810
Mr. Snowden pointed out that you can require someone to participate
in mediation, but you can't force them to agree with the results.
Even though it does not presently exist, subject specific
legislation could be passed that states, before a law suit is
filed, the participants must first attend mediation. People cannot
be forced into binding mediation. It has to be voluntary.
Number 853
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that there are distinct differences
between mediation and arbitration. He noted that arbitration is
binding on the parties once a decision is made.
Number 883
CHAIRMAN PORTER clarified for the purposes of this legislation that
the mediation outlined was voluntary. Either party can drop out of
the procedures at any time and both parties are required to agree
to the resulting contract of the settlement reached. If either
party does not agree to the mediation results, the case is then
referred to the regular court system.
Number 952
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY again pointed out that his main concern was
that codifying this mediation process in legislation now could mean
limiting the options available to a claimant.
Number 976
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked to speak to the question of codifying
this mediation process. She added that the reason is to allow
municipalities and non-profits the opportunity to establish the
mediation centers whenever they have the need to do so.
Number 1004
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said once again that he was concerned the were
legislation was closing doors, which don't need to be closed.
Number 1023
MR. SNOWDEN understood that this legislation strengthens a tool,
which already exists. To write into law, a system that already
exists, does not preclude a person from pursing other forms of
resolution to a crime.
Number 1106
CHAIRMAN PORTER spoke to Representative Vezey's concerns regarding
codification. Chairman Porter felt that if the present system can
be enhanced and expanded in use with formal recognition through
legislation, he supports that. If this legislation can be utilized
by more judges and persons in the Division of Youth and Family
Services because of this formal recognition, he is also supportive.
It is appropriate to set down minimal guidelines and standards in
the bill, which are provided for. One of the only reasons he has
heard for not utilizing this type of service is concern on the part
of parents and their respective council that there are no
guarantees of confidentiality.
Number 1222
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if there would be more interest in this
issue if the juvenile code was rewritten to allow for a bigger
hammer to fall on those who choose not to use the mediation
process.
Number 1235
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered most definitely. He especially foresees
the juvenile hearings becoming more public on the felony levels.
This kind of a juvenile mediation program is conducive to
preventing further crimes by juveniles. This legislation is not an
indictment of the system in place, but an indictment of the ability
to fund the standard system. To wrap up the discussion related to
CSHB 379, Chairman Porter exclaimed that this legislation has five
zero fiscal notes.
Number 1325
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved that CSHB 379(JUD) be adopted.
Number 1362
CHAIRMAN PORTER pointed out that changes suggested by Ms. Tibbles
to the CS version will need to be completed before the committee is
able to move the bill out of their purview.
Number 1402
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|