05/10/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB145 | |
| HJR2 | |
| HB250 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 10, 2007
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Bob Buch
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 145
"An Act relating to municipal impoundment and forfeiture."
- MOVED HCS SB 145(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska requiring an affirmative vote of the people before any
form of gambling for profit may be authorized in Alaska.
- MOVED CSHJR 2(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 250
"An Act relating to children engaging in inappropriate sexual
conduct."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 145
SHORT TITLE: MUNIS IMPOUND/FORFEIT MOTOR VEHICLE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MCGUIRE
03/28/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/28/07 (S) CRA, JUD
04/24/07 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/24/07 (S) Moved CSSB 145(CRA) Out of Committee
04/24/07 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
04/25/07 (S) CRA RPT CS 4DP NEW TITLE
04/25/07 (S) DP: OLSON, WAGONER, STEVENS, KOOKESH
04/30/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/30/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/30/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/04/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
05/04/07 (S) Moved SB 145 Out of Committee
05/04/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/07/07 (S) JUD RPT 3DP
05/07/07 (S) DP: FRENCH, THERRIAULT, WIELECHOWSKI
05/08/07 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/08/07 (S) VERSION: SB 145
05/09/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/09/07 (H) JUD
05/10/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 2
SHORT TITLE: CONST.AM:NO GAMING WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRAWFORD, DAHLSTROM
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
05/03/07 (H) STA RPT 1DP 1NR 4AM
05/03/07 (H) DP: LYNN
05/03/07 (H) NR: GRUENBERG
05/03/07 (H) AM: JOHNSON, JOHANSEN, DOLL, ROSES
05/03/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
05/03/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
05/03/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/10/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 250
SHORT TITLE: YOUTH INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL CONDUCT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DOOGAN
05/02/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/02/07 (H) JUD, FIN
05/10/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR LESIL MCGUIRE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of SB 145.
DAN MOORE, Treasurer
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of SB 145, answered
questions.
JIM REEVES, Municipal Attorney
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of SB 135, answered
questions.
STEVE SMITH
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Characterized SB 145 as a tool for law
enforcement.
JOSH FREEMAN, Assistant Municipal Attorney
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of SB 145, answered
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as a joint prime sponsor of HJR 2.
LEONARD WELLS
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HJR 2, asked questions.
ED MOEGLEIN
Alaska Charitable Non Profits Organization
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 2.
PAMELA SAMASH
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 2.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 250.
SHARON ARAJI, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology
University of Alaska - Anchorage;
Chair, Task Force on Preadolescent Children with Sexual Behavior
Problems
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 250, related
information she has found through her research on the topic of
preadolescent children with sexual behavior problems.
DAVE PARKER, Lieutenant
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 250, expressed the
need to more effectively address this problem.
CYNTHIA BRADLEY, Detective
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA);
Co-Chair, Task Force on Preadolescent Children with Sexual
Behavior Problems
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 250, related her
experience with preadolescent children with sexual behavior
problems.
DENNIS MALONEY, Attorney at Law
P. Dennis Maloney P.C.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 250.
JEFFREY MAGID, Attorney at Law
P. Dennis Maloney P.C.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 250.
MARY ELAM, Program Director
Standing Together Against Rape (STAR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 250, emphasized the
need for intervention and treatment.
JOSH FINK, Director
Anchorage Office
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 250.
JAN RUTHERDALE, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Child Protection Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 250, answered
questions.
MIKE LESMANN, Program Coordinator
Office of Children's Services
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that OCS is unable to support
HB 250 at this time.
DAVID SPERBECK, Ph.D., Forensic and Clinical Psychologist
North Star Hospital
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 250.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:10:54 PM. Representatives Ramras,
Dahlstrom, Lynn, Gruenberg, and Holmes were present at the call
to order. Representatives Coghill and Samuels arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Also in attendance was Representative
Buch.
SB 145 - MUNIS IMPOUND/FORFEIT MOTOR VEHICLE
1:11:09 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 145, "An Act relating to municipal impoundment
and forfeiture."
1:11:27 PM
SENATOR LESIL MCGUIRE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that SB 145 amends Title 28, which allows local
municipalities to adopt individual ordinances for impoundment
and forfeiture of vehicles. This legislation only pertains to
motor vehicles. Under SB 145, AS 28.01.015(5) is added to allow
municipalities to adopt ordinances for impoundment of the motor
vehicle of those who have over $1,000 in delinquent traffic
fines or violations within that municipality. This legislation,
the so-called scofflaws, addresses the small group of
individuals who simply do not pay their fines. In fact, an
individual in Anchorage has over 43 citations, totaling $9,310.
Another Anchorage resident has over 70 traffic citations that
total over $7,000 in unpaid fines. The current liability in the
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) is $7.5 million. This
legislation merely provides a tool for municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES related that she is very supportive of SB
145. She then inquired as to whether the vehicles can be
impounded without a hearing or whether there needs to be a
separate charge brought at the time the individual is pulled
over.
SENATOR MCGUIRE noted that during the consideration of the
legislation on the Senate floor, there was the suggestion to
make the actual accumulation of over $1,000 in fines a crime.
Senator McGuire related that she disagreed with that suggestion
because it, she opined, makes a crime upon a crime. She
expressed her belief that vehicles can be forfeited for these
[violations] so long as notice and the opportunity for a hearing
is afforded. The process in which the government seizes
property should be a thoughtful and careful act. Senator
McGuire specified that she feels comfortable keeping the
legislation as is and asking the municipality to adopt fair
articles for notification and due process such that the seizure
can occur without making it a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if it's the sponsor's intent to
limit the legislation to moving violations or could it include
parking violations as well.
SENATOR MCGUIRE explained that when the municipality contacted
her it expressed interest in the legislation being broader [by]
making it a crime. Whether the violation is a moving violation
or a stationary violation, it's the same net effect, she noted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the term "traffic" on page 2,
line 1, includes stationary and moving violations. He expressed
the desire to use language that relates the sponsor's intent.
1:23:47 PM
DAN MOORE, Treasurer, Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), related
his understanding that the intent is that the term "traffic"
will refer to moving violations. He related his further
understanding that there's no intent to include stationary
violations.
SENATOR MCGUIRE related her impression that the municipality had
two sections of the law in which there are significant unpaid
fines, some of which are moving and some are stationary, and
thus the municipality wanted the tool in both areas. Although
Senator McGuire specified that she wanted to do what the
municipality wants, she reiterated her belief that the same net
effect results in relation to unpaid fines whether they're for
moving violations or stationary violations.
MR. MOORE the two areas in which the municipality had the
largest problem in terms of unpaid fines is related to traffic
fines, which are truly moving violations under MOA's law. The
other category was criminal fines, which deal with a host of
things that tie into moving violations with driving while under
the influence (DUI). The hope, he opined, is that through SB
145 an additional consequence can be created for the most
extreme cases. The trigger would be the amount owed. He
remarked that MOA views SB 145 as a public safety tool in trying
to change behavior rather than as a collection tool.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended that a definition of
"traffic fines" be included in the legislation in order to be
clear.
SENATOR MCGUIRE interjected that one option is to simply refer
to "moving violations". She inquired as to the rationale behind
using the term "traffic fines".
MR. MOORE explained that the cases with a long record of fines
are all judgment cases that have gone through the court,
specifically through traffic court. Therefore, these are
considered minor offenses, moving violations that are separate
from parking violations. He noted that parking violations are
adjudicated through an entirely different process. According to
MOA's law, a traffic violation is a moving violation not a
parking violation.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked if Mr. Moore would like to relate MOA's
preference for the legislation, in relation to whether it should
be broadened or left as currently before the committee.
MR. MOORE deferred to Mr. Reeves.
1:28:48 PM
JIM REEVES, Municipal Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage (MOA),
related his understanding that the term "moving violations" is a
term with a well-understood meaning that wouldn't include
parking tickets. He expressed his further understanding that
the purpose of this legislation isn't to include parking
tickets. He said that he wasn't sure that the term "traffic
fines" has the same clearly understood meaning.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said that she is comfortable with maintaining
the language "traffic fines" in light of the testimony today
regarding MOA's definition of it. Although she expressed
concern with referring to "moving violations" as there may be
violations that go through traffic court that aren't defined as
moving violations, she said that she's fine with either
terminology.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked if the language as it exists in SB 145
captures those violations that amount to $7.5 million in unpaid
fines.
SENATOR MCGUIRE related her belief that the language would cover
it, although she expressed interest in hearing from the
municipality. Again, she expressed her desire to conform to the
wishes of MOA.
CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to the best language to use.
MR. MOORE confirmed that the insertion of the term "moving"
prior to the term "violations" would be satisfactory and provide
further clarification that this legislation doesn't include
parking violations. With regard to the $7.5 million, he
clarified that's the total of all the unpaid default judgment
cases in Anchorage that have gone through the traffic court for
moving violations.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES pointed out that CSSB 145(CRA) proposes
the addition of new subsection (r), which would have the
department sharing information with the municipalities. The
aforementioned subsection isn't included in SB 145; is that
because it was deemed unnecessary, she asked.
SENATOR MCGUIRE explained that at one point the MOA had
considered requesting the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD) to share, in confidence, with the
municipality, the place of work of the individual with all these
violations. Although Senator McGuire said she felt it's a good
idea, the department ultimately chose to add a fiscal note
related to the sharing of information. Senator McGuire
disagreed that this sharing of information amounted to the
fiscal note submitted, and thus the decision was made to not
address that and return to the version that simply provides the
option for forfeiture.
1:36:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, referring to the language "motor vehicle
used", asked if an individual who lends his/her vehicle to
someone who has, unbeknownst to the vehicle owner, fines
totaling more than $1,000, could have his/her vehicle impounded.
He then inquired as to how many tickets would total $1,000.
With regard to the language "within the municipality", he asked
if the MOA could address a situation in which an individual has
fines totaling [$1,000 or more] from an area outside the
municipality.
SENATOR MCGUIRE reiterated her earlier comment that she's
uncomfortable with making this a crime due to the language
"motor vehicle used". She emphasized that the legislation asks
the municipality to follow due process in seizing property. Due
process will involve fair notice and opportunity for a hearing.
Senator McGuire then highlighted that one goal of SB 145 is
education and deterrence; the desire is to think twice about to
whom one loans a vehicle. More than one citation would be
required to reach $1,000 in fines. As the information in the
committee packet relates, this legislation addresses individuals
with multiple citations that total large sums. Studies have
shown that there is a link between the propensity to commit
these traffic violations and not pay them, she related.
Therefore, there is an interest in public safety. In regard to
the language "within the municipality", she pointed out that
statute includes a definition of "municipality".
SENATOR MCGUIRE emphasized the need for an opportunity for fair
notice because the government seizing property is a very serious
matter.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether [subsection (r) of
CSSB 145(CRA) could be included in SB 145] if there was a
delayed effective date as well as language specifying that the
cost [of sharing the information] would borne by the
municipality.
SENATOR MCGUIRE related that when that language was in the bill,
the municipality agreed that the cost of the [information
sharing] would be borne by the municipality. However, the DLWD
then provided an unfounded fiscal note, in her opinion, based on
the department's internal procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS expressed some concern with the sponsor's
suggestion to be careful to whom one lends one's vehicle.
SENATOR MCGUIRE opined that the fact that an individual who
lends his/her vehicle in good faith to another without knowing
that individual's propensity for moving violations is a factor.
1:45:25 PM
STEVE SMITH, Anchorage Police Department (APD), Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA), noted his agreement with Senator McGuire that
SB 145 is a worthwhile tool for law enforcement to use to
attempt to change the behavior of those for whom the existing
laws don't seem to matter.
MR. MOORE, in response to Representative Samuels's earlier
question, specified that on average an individual would have to
have about seven outstanding delinquent traffic tickets for this
law to apply. Mr. Moore related that although there are about
23,000 with delinquent traffic fines, this legislation only
addresses about 4-5 percent of that population, the most likely
to commit additional traffic fines and put the safety of others
at risk. With regard to the scenario of lending a vehicle, the
Municipality of Anchorage has a web site at which one can search
for individuals with unpaid traffic fines.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked if an individual with over $1,000 in unpaid
traffic fines would forfeit the entire value of the vehicle or
only the portion to pay the outstanding fines.
1:48:37 PM
JOSH FREEMAN, Assistant Municipal Attorney, Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA), related that at the municipal level this will
be a crime. As such, if there are two convictions, the vehicle
would be forfeited completely. The aforementioned is how the
DUI and suspended license ordinances are set up, and thus those
parameters would be followed.
MR. REEVES interjected that if SB 145 passes in its current
form, the municipality will have to revisit the matter with the
assembly because the assembly's approach was predicated on the
fact that it would be a criminal act for those in the scofflaw
category to operate a vehicle. If the aforementioned isn't the
case, there will be constitutional questions regarding the
forfeiture of the vehicle.
CHAIR RAMRAS related to the committee that Duane Bannock,
Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), has relayed the
DMV's support for SB 145 since he had to attend another hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if an individual would only be
impacted by this proposed legislation if he/she amasses fines of
$1,000 or more within the municipality or would those fines
outside of the municipality also be included.
MR. MOORE clarified that the intent is to only include those
traffic fines within the boundaries of a municipality.
Therefore, MOA would enforce this proposed law based on traffic
fines issued by Anchorage police officers within the bounds of
the municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised then that if the state wished to
do the same thing, then the municipality would have to have
procedures in place such that the state could also impound
vehicles.
MR. REEVES answered yes.
1:52:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that existing forfeiture
statutes refer to "a motor vehicle used by a person". He asked
if there has been a circumstance in which an individual who
doesn't own the vehicle was responsible for having a vehicle
impounded. If so, he inquired as to how the municipality has
handled that.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER said that such situations occur often
and the municipal code includes procedures to address that. He
referred to the procedures as the "innocent owner defense" by
which owners of the vehicles can provide evidence to show that
they didn't know or have reason to know that the individual
would drive the vehicle in violation of the law.
CHAIR RAMRAS, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
CHAIR RAMRAS moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment
1, to insert "moving" after the word "for" on page 2, line 1.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:53:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report SB 145, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS SB
145(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HJR 2 - CONST.AM:NO GAMING WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL
1:54:55 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska requiring an affirmative
vote of the people before any form of gambling for profit may be
authorized in Alaska.
1:55:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 2, Version 25-LS0257\E, Luckhaupt,
5/9/07, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version E was before the committee.
1:56:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature,
speaking as a joint prime sponsor, explained that HJR 2 was
introduced because the duties of the legislature were being
usurped by a citizens' initiative. That initiative forms a
commission, with members appointed by the governor. He informed
the committee that those gathering the signatures presented the
initiative as one to regulate gambling, but they rarely
mentioned that the initiative would expand gambling without a
vote of the legislature. Therefore, he [and Representative
Dahlstrom] introduced HJR 2. He expressed his horror at the
prospect of an appointed commission having the ability to rule
without the legislature's consent. Alaska is one of the last
two states that hasn't allowed for-profit gambling.
Representative Crawford said, "I just absolutely don't want to
go down this road without there being a very high bar."
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, speaking as a joint prime sponsor of
HJR 2, relayed that she and Representative Crawford have been
working on this issue and related issues over the past few
years. She related that the two share a passion for this issue
due to what happens to any state and the families in it when
that state allows gambling. She mentioned the addiction and
crime problems related to gambling. She then reminded the
committee that Alaska is usually one of the top five states in
terms of the rate of suicide, alcoholism, incest, rape, and
child abuse. Furthermore, bankruptcies are increasing. The
aforementioned have always increased when gambling has been
allowed or expanded. Representative Dahlstrom opined that it's
not a risk the state should take.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM informed the committee that studies
have indicated that for every $1 spent gambling, the cost to
society is $3. The societal cost is in terms of funding
addiction programs, welfare, and shelters. Furthermore, it's
common for the caseload of an area's office of children services
and police department to increase.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM emphasized that the most important
consideration [with allowing/expanding gambling] is the
destruction of families. She acknowledged that not everyone who
gambles becomes addicted, but statistics prove that there are
more people for which gambling becomes a habit that turns into
an addiction. Addictions are something for which society as a
whole pays. Representative Dahlstrom clarified that HJR 2 won't
affect existing law; it only address a proposal to expand [for-
profit] gambling.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS related that he, too, was approached by
the gambling initiative folks. He then related that he, too,
believes that initiatives usurp the power of the legislature.
Referring to the language "all profits" on page 1, line 13, he
pointed out that [for-profit and nonprofit] charities both take
a profit.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that this language doesn't
change the existing statutes and regulations governing
charitable gaming.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM acknowledged that there are some
businesses that are bad actors, even in the existing charitable
gaming industry. This resolution doesn't address the
aforementioned, but perhaps that could be addressed in the
future. The intent of charitable gaming is good and is allowed
in law.
2:07:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that he wasn't sure that a
constitutional amendment could require that the legislature can
make a law that has been ratified by 60 percent of [the
qualified voters in the state]. In the Alaska Constitution, the
language "by law" generally refers to the legislature or
initiative. However, this resolution would require the two
groups that have the authority to make law agree.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that it's easy to evade this
proposed law because a casino could be constructed outside of
the municipal borders.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that for any expansion for any
form of gambling there will have to be general election across
the state. Furthermore, if the gambling is located in a
municipality or borough, there will also have to be a local
election.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that he is unclear as to whom
the language "approved by the municipality" refers. He
questioned whether a city official could provide approval or
does there have to be a vote of the city council. The problem
with gambling facilities outside of municipal borders could be
cured by requiring that gambling facilities have to be in a
municipality, and therefore voters would have to approve it.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM related her understanding from the
Department of Law (DOL) and others that the language on page 1,
lines 10-11, was chosen in an effort to ensure that there will
be a statewide and local vote when gambling is considered.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated his point that the election
would only occur if the gambling facility was located within the
borders of the municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS related his belief that there's a big
difference between gaming and gambling, and asked if those terms
are defined in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said that the language on page 1, line
7, "Any form of gaming or gambling" was chosen so as not to have
to list specific types of games.
2:14:34 PM
LEONARD WELLS asked whether a super majority is required for
passage of a law at the local election. He then questioned why
anything other than a simple majority would be required. If
someone is looking to put a gambling facility outside the
municipality, would those in the city have a vote since they
aren't included in the borough, he asked.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM related that she and Representative
Crawford are amenable to discussing [whether the vote has to be
a] 60 percent vote in favor. She related the intent for the
vote to be held in the area in which the gambling facility is to
be located.
2:17:12 PM
ED MOEGLEIN, Alaska Charitable Non Profits Organization,
informed the committee that the Alaska Charitable Non Profits
Organization represents veterans and community service
organizations with affiliates throughout the state. He said
he's in favor of HJR 2 for the same reasons stated in the
sponsor statement and also because [for-profit gambling] would
be placed in competition with charitable, community, and veteran
service organizations. He opined that some forms of gambling
could cause harm to the state's communities as well as the state
as a whole. He further opined that it's each Alaskan's right to
vote on a gaming or gambling issue.
2:20:05 PM
PAMELA SAMASH encouraged the committee to address the situation
in which gambling facilities are located outside the city
limits. Ms. Samash related her support for HJR 2, which is
evidenced in her written testimony included in the committee
packet. She encouraged the committee to do what it can to keep
gambling out of Alaska or at least make it fair and allow the
voters to decide. Gambling is addicting, especially to those
with existing addictions. Drawing from her mother's experience,
Ms. Samash related that gambling is set up in a manner to allow
people to forget the cares of life. The high rate of drug and
alcohol abuse and the depression that many deal with in Alaska
would leave many in Alaska vulnerable to gambling addiction.
She emphasized the need to remember the children of the adults
who are gambling because the children "are the first in line to
pay the price of gambling" as they are powerless. Ms. Samash
said that she is proud that Alaska is one of two states without
casinos.
2:24:15 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HJR 2.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM reminded the committee that Alaska's
population is in the 600,000 range. She then offered the
following statistics per 100,000 adults. In a typical county of
$100,000 adults, the introduction of class III gambling would
create additional societal costs of $14.3 million annually with
costs for the social benefits of $4.6 million annually. In
counties with class III gambling, approximately 10 percent of
crime was due to gambling, which, in counties of 100,000, that
means 615 more larcenies, 325 more burglaries, 272 more auto
thefts, 10 more rapes, 65 more robberies, and 100 more
aggravated assaults.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reminded the committee that most of what
has been done over the years has been by a majority vote, and
thus he wasn't sure about enshrining the super majority
requirement in the constitution.
CHAIR RAMRAS related his intention to offer an amendment to
delete the language "sixty percent" in order to conform to the
constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM characterized that as a friendly
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that perhaps the language on
lines 10-11 should be changed to refer to "any municipality
where the gaming or gambling may occur" rather than "the
municipality, if any, where the gaming or gambling will occur."
He then directed attention to the term "only" on page 1, line
13, and reminded the committee that the term is exclusive to all
other things. He predicted that using the term "only" could
result in specifying that the profits could only be expended for
charitable purposes. In response to Representative Dahlstrom,
Representative Coghill said he thought the deletion of "only"
would be appropriate.
2:28:59 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment
1, to delete "sixty percent" from page 1, line 9. There being
no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, as follows:
Page 1, line 10, following "by":
Delete "the"
Insert "any"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete ", if any,"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "will"
Insert "may"
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:30:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3, to delete "only" from page 1, line 13. There being
no objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that so much money is
involved that those who might wish to [open a gambling facility]
will scrutinize this resolution. Therefore, he suggested having
an attorney who specializes in this review the resolution for
possible loopholes that could be exploited.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said that she would be happy to do so,
but expressed her desire to move the resolution from committee
today. She noted that she is working with several attorneys.
2:33:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 2, Version 25-LS0257\E, Luckhaupt,
5/9/07, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHJR 2(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
HB 250 - YOUTH INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL CONDUCT
2:33:52 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 250, "An Act relating to children engaging in
inappropriate sexual conduct."
2:35:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN, speaking as the prime sponsor, began
by informing the committee that HB 250 is unfinished. He then
informed the committee that the legislation is the result of the
Task Force on Preadolescent Children with Sexual Behavior
Problems, which produced a report.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN noted that the committee packet includes a
summary of the task force's conclusions. The task force develop
a fairly comprehensive and costly [solution], with an
approximately $10 million fiscal note. He explained that HB 250
attempts to deal with the problem of sexual assault committed by
children who are too young to be dealt with even via the
juvenile justice system. Generally the courts have held that
those younger than 12 years of age are too young to have the
requisite intent in order to be prosecuted. Therefore, in these
cases, there's no system to deal with it as the agencies of the
state are prepared and have the legal authority to address
situations in which children are the victims, not perpetrators,
of sexual assault. These agencies don't have the legal
authority, ability, or resources to address those situations in
which children are the perpetrators of sexual assault. Given
the aforementioned, Representative Doogan said that he decided
to introduce HB 250 as a way of starting what he hopes will
result in a broad and thorough conversation on this subject.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN explained that Section 1 of HB 250 adds
children who engage in inappropriate sexual conduct who aren't
supervised or treated for that to the child in need of aid
(CINA) statute. Section 2 requires that the parent, guardian,
or other individual responsible for a child to report such
activity to the Office of Children's Services (OCS). The
legislation allows the department to open a case file and
investigate the charges. Furthermore, the legislation provides
that a person who fails to report this activity is guilty of a
class A misdemeanor. The legislation defines "inappropriate
sexual conduct" as conduct that would be illegal if committed by
an adult rather than a child.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS inquired as to what occurs now in these
cases.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN answered that it depends on the
circumstances as there isn't a particularly well-developed
method that can be employed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether sexual behavior problems
(SBPs) are a recognized diagnosis in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV).
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN related his understanding that SBP is a
recently recognized phenomenon and could be referred to
differently in other states.
2:45:09 PM
SHARON ARAJI, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, University of
Alaska - Anchorage; Chair, Task Force on Preadolescent Children
with Sexual Behavior Problems, informed the committee that there
is a lot known about these children nationwide and
internationally. In fact, she noted that she started research
on this topic over 13 years ago and published a book on the
topic. At the time, she spoke with most agencies in Anchorage
as well as outside communities and discovered that almost
everyone in these agencies know of such children. However, no
[agency] in the state has the mandate or resources to deal with
these children. She noted that after writing her book, she put
this topic away until the Anchorage School District had a case a
couple of years ago in which a six-year-old sexually abused
another six-year-old. At that point, she recalled being
contacted and informed of people's experiences with this. She
recalled that during her research, she went through 102 closed
files of an agency and found that there were 21 families with
children 12 and under who were sexually abusing other children.
DR. ARAJI noted that most of that was intrafamilial. After the
case with the Anchorage School District was closed, she said she
contacted a detective with the Anchorage Police Department (APD)
and asked if anything had been done to address this, to which
the answer was no. The aforementioned was the impetus for
establishing the task force. She emphasized that if these
children aren't addressed, they will go on to have problems or
have additional victims. National longitudinal research
illustrates that identifying these children early and getting
them some form of treatment early can help resolve some of the
child's issues. In response to Representative Dahlstrom, Dr.
Araji informed the committee that her book is titled "Sexually
Aggressive Children, Coming To Understand Them".
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Dr. Araji if she has written any other
books on this subject or any other subject.
DR. ARAJI replied yes, and specified that she has written
chapters in other books on this topic and the topic of domestic
violence. In fact, just a few months ago she was asked to
update an article for a new journal regarding interpersonal
violence. She noted that she also gives workshops on this
topic. She offered to provide her vitae to anyone interested.
2:52:16 PM
DAVE PARKER, Lieutenant, Anchorage Police Department (APD),
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), informed the committee that he
is the commander of one of the detective units that deals with
crimes against children. He explained that there is no way in
which law enforcement can effectively address this issue because
these children can't be prosecuted. He related that the police
department is often contacted when sexually aggressive children
act out behaviors with other children. He noted that one must
keep in mind that often [these sexually aggressive] children are
victims themselves. Anything that can be done to assist OCS or
any other organization in the state to more effectively address
this problem and provide help to these children would be money
and effort well-sent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that Title 47 seems to have a
lot of statutes that would allow this to be addressed.
MR. PARKER said if that were so, everyone wouldn't be present
today. He opined that the proposed addition of paragraph (13)
to AS 47.10.011 is the beginning stage of assisting Title 47 in
addressing the issue. The difficulty is that OCS doesn't
address any abuse that's outside of the home. However, OCS can
address a situation that's intrafamilial. Law enforcement can
intervene if the perpetrator is over the age of 12. The
mandatory reporting requirement in HB 250 is very important
because it requires that these [sexually aggressive children
under the age of 12] be entered into the system so that a case
can be opened by OCS, a proper evaluation performed, and a
treatment plan developed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised then that HB 250, for the
first time, allows the treatment of a child through the CINA
process when the child has committed a delinquent act. This
legislation, he opined, seems to offer a different route than
the quasi criminal route.
MR. PARKER noted his agreement, and added that he struggles with
thinking of a child under the age of 12 being considered a
criminal, although the behavior could amount to criminal conduct
if he/she were older.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to why this one type of
quasi criminal activity is limited to inappropriate sexual
behavior and doesn't include assaultive behavior of other types
or cruelty to animals, which are precursors of disturbed
children.
MR. PARKER related that the problems he sees primarily focus on
the sexualized behavior of children. He opined that children
assaulting other children could be approached via a different
venue. He emphasized the need to address children exhibiting
and perpetrating sexualized behavior on other children.
2:57:50 PM
CYNTHIA BRADLEY, Detective, Anchorage Police Department (APD),
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA); Co-Chair, Task Force on
Preadolescent Children with Sexual Behavior Problems, informed
the committee that for the past five years she has been in the
Crimes Against Children Unit. She further informed the
committee that she is a 15-year veteran with the Anchorage
Police Department. She noted that she has seen and worked with
these cases. In fact, she recalled the case of which Dr. Araji
spoke and related that she had been in contact with the child
[who was sexually aggressive] at the age of five and was asked
to interview the child as a victim, although he was the
aggressor. The interview was to determine if the reason the
child was acting out was because he had been victimized. She
recalled that when the child was asked why he did what he did,
he responded by relating that his mind told him to do it. The
aforementioned seemed to be a red flag. The parents were told
the child should receive treatment, but the minimized the
situation by speaking with their physician and relaying that the
child was merely "playing doctor." Ultimately, it resulted in a
lawsuit and hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs. The
child went on to perpetrate on another child. She relayed that
she ultimately had three investigations involving the same
child, and was able to determine that he probably began acting
out at the age of 4.
MS. BRADLEY informed the committee that she currently has a case
in which a 12-year old has been perpetrated on since the age of
6. The perpetrators, cousins, are less than three years older
than the victim, and therefore they can't be charged with sexual
abuse of a minor. Perhaps this behavior wouldn't have continued
had the situation arisen earlier and there was the ability to
address the matter. The problem she identified, as a law
enforcement officer, is that the Crimes Against Children Unit
has the highest assigned caseload in the detective division and
that doesn't include these cases. Furthermore, the division is
spending resources in this area that it doesn't have.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
3:03:01 PM
DENNIS MALONEY, Attorney at Law, P. Dennis Maloney P.C., related
that he was shocked when the first case of this type surfaced.
However, after the case became public, [his office] received
over two dozen calls regarding children who have been
perpetrated upon by other children. He then explained that if
the perpetrator is under 12 years of age, the police department
doesn't charge the child. Mr. Maloney then informed the
committee that in Atlanta, Georgia, there is an institution for
children who are sexual perpetrators. The institution has a
waiting list of four-year olds. The average stay is one to two
years. In investigating this first case, it was determined that
this child, with an intelligence quotient (IQ) above 140, had
penetrated at least six other children.
MR. MALONEY informed the committee that last year in Anchorage
OCS received about 130 referrals regarding children under 12
years of age perpetrating sexually inappropriate behavior on
other children under 12 years of age. Although most of those
cases are relatively innocent, there are a few hard core cases
in which the perpetrators seem to re-offend. In some cases, the
victims become perpetrators. He related another case in which
no adult was involved and the perpetrator and victims were under
12 years of age, and therefore the perpetrator wasn't charged or
provided treatment. Mr. Maloney emphasized that currently there
is no method to address this problem, and he predicted that
these children perpetrators will be repeat offenders who will
rape and assault others and ultimately end up in the criminal
system. Alaska has the highest rate of sexual assault in the
nation, and it must be addressed, she stressed.
3:07:09 PM
MR. MALONEY related that there are 15 treatment facilities for
these children across the nation with specialists in Colorado,
Washington, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Georgia. An
individual in Anchorage has been trying to treat some of these
children, but he recently announced his retirement. Mr. Maloney
stated that this matter must be addressed with a comprehensive
approach. Although the cost to society is substantial, the cost
to victims is immeasurable. Furthermore, the cost of a life of
crime is even more substantial, amounting to almost $2 million
per offender. These children have to be identified and treated,
he opined. He related that the task force determined that in
Anchorage there are approximately 10 hard-core children sexually
assaulting other children on an active basis who would require
institutionalization.
MR. MALONEY stressed the need to review this problem, and opined
that it would be a wise use of funds to prevent and treat these
sick children. Alaska has, on average, 1,000 incarcerated sex
offenders, which cost about $355,000 a year per adult sex
offender. Therefore, $355 million in taxpayer funds is being
spent. Mr. Maloney concluded by informing the committee that
he's going to try to raise money to fund a professor who can
teach the psychologists in Anchorage how to handle this problem.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM clarified that the OCS is operating within
the bounds of the law as it is currently written. The
legislature is now reviewing what it can do to address this
problem.
MR. MALONEY noted his agreement that OCS is limited in what it
can do, not to mention that the agency is over worked.
3:12:47 PM
JEFFREY MAGID, Attorney at Law, P. Dennis Maloney P.C., informed
the committee that he has worked with Mr. Maloney on these
sexual assault cases. Referring to the case to which Ms.
Bradley spoke, Mr. Magid related that the incident was able to
occur partially because the parents of the perpetrator
transferred the perpetrator from school to school, after he had
assaulted a child in preschool. In fact, the school at which
the perpetrator attended kindergarten was preparing to handle
the child as a discipline problem in the following year, but his
parents relocated the child to another school without notifying
anyone of his sexual propensity. The testimony in the case was
instructive as to the parents' knowledge. Therefore, a portion
of HB 250 places the responsibility on parents to obtain
treatment and provides for penalties if treatment isn't sought.
Moreover, the legislation requires the parents to inform those
charged with supervision of children to protect potential
victims.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM relayed that she and Representative Doogan
have discussed these issues and are committed to working on this
issue throughout the interim.
3:15:35 PM
MARY ELAM, Program Director, Standing Together Against Rape
(STAR), informed the committee that research has shown that the
earlier the intervention and treatment, the more effective it is
and the better chance of success. Without intervention, these
children perpetrators will continue the behavior and there will
be more and more victims. In many cases, it's likely that the
perpetrators are victims themselves, she noted. Therefore, the
opportunity to receive treatment and intervention will also help
address the perpetrator in his/her status as a victim.
3:17:22 PM
JOSH FINK, Director, Anchorage Office, Office of Public Advocacy
(OPA), Department of Administration (DOA), said that although he
appreciates the efforts of the sponsors, OPA has significant
concerns with the legislation, as written. He related the
observation of Chief Justice Roberts who, when in Fairbanks last
week, expressed concern that legislatures are reacting to
isolated cases, though extreme and upsetting, and proposing
legislation that has a much broader impact on society than
simply addressing the facts of the case. He opined that the
aforementioned is the case with HB 250, which has extremely
broad implications and inserts government oversight in Alaska in
ways in which most would likely object. The aforementioned, he
opined, is harmful to children.
MR. FINK noted that Section 1 adds new jurisdictional ground
under which OCS can take children under state custody for child
abuse and neglect. While OPA finds child-on-child sex, assault,
or inappropriate conduct reprehensible and something that should
be addressed, the jurisdictional ground in HB 250, as written,
is very broad. Section 2 adds a reporting requirement for
individuals who were heretofore not required to report to OCS,
including parents, guardians, and other persons responsible for
the child. The last category is very broadly defined and vague
to the point that there would be much litigation. Furthermore,
the range of incidents that these people, who aren't mandatory
reporters, must report is quite broad because the definition of
inappropriate sexual conduct is quite broad. For instance, it
refers to situations such as a toddler exposing and touching
himself/herself in public or innocently touching an undeveloped
breast, buttocks, or genital of another child. Under the
statute referenced in Section 2, the aforementioned acts are
defined as inappropriate sexual conduct and one who doesn't
report it commits a crime.
MR. FINK reiterated that the scope of the definition of
inappropriate sexual conduct is far too broad. "OPA has
objections on a policy basis to labeling as inappropriate sexual
conduct what many know by common sense and what child experts
confirm to be preadolescent behavior," he said. The normal
curiosity of children shouldn't result in labeling or
stigmatization nor should the failure to report such behavior
result in possible criminal charges and the opening of an OCS
file. He then stated that there are also significant notice
issues in the legislation as written. The public is expected to
know the law, but in some cases courts find that it's
unreasonable to expect the public to be on notice of some duty.
This legislation expects a broad category of individuals to know
that they have a reporting requirement and know what constitutes
a crime under AS 11.41.410-11.41.470. Mr. Fink suggested that
this requirement may not be reasonable and has potential
constitutional infirmities.
MR. FINK related that he will be submitting HB 250 to some of
the child development experts with whom OPA regularly works for
evaluation and feedback. Mr. Fink noted his disagreement with
prior testimony and related that OPA sees very few of these
cases and OPA is involved in every case in which the state takes
custody. With regard to how these situations would be addressed
under current law, Mr. Fink explained that when a parent
neglects or medically neglects his/her child the state may take
that child into custody, which could include failure to
supervise or obtain treatment of the child if the parent is made
aware of behavior issues of the child. Therefore, if the matter
is brought to the parent's attention and the parent does
nothing, OCS can take custody. Another route the earlier
mentioned case could have gone would've been to report the child
to the Division of Juvenile Justice and if the agency agreed
there was concern, the division could've made a report to OCS
that could develop an action plan.
MR. FINK said that failure to meet that action plan could've
resulted in the child being taken into state custody.
Alternatively, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) could
recommend a course of treatment for the child. Therefore, Mr.
Fink said that he doesn't believe existing law is completely
unable to address these situations. He reiterated that OPA has
grave concerns about this legislation. He then offered to work
with the sponsors and committee on this legislation over the
interim. He noted that OPA wasn't asked to join the task force
and when it attempted to obtain information, it was
unsuccessful. The information it did obtain made the agency
concerned about the punitive nature in which the task force was
moving. Mr. Fink concluded by emphasizing his serious concern
with the reach of HB 250.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM said she looked forward to working with OPA
and acknowledged that the legislation needs work, particularly
in regard to the definition of "inappropriate sexual behavior"
and reporting requirements.
3:25:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to the type of civil litigation
HB 250, as written, might cause to be brought forth.
MR. FINK related his understanding that if a parent doesn't
report such behavior, it's a crime. Therefore, civil negligence
per se could be argued.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM reminded the committee that HB 250 won't be
leaving the committee as currently written.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN requested that Mr. Fink, during his
participation, point out where in AS 11.41.410-11.41.470 it
specifies that [not reporting this behavior is] a felony, which
is what's required under the current definition.
3:28:10 PM
JAN RUTHERDALE, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Child
Protection Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law
(DOL), agreed that there are some constitutional problems with
HB 250, as currently written. Ms. Rutherdale said she didn't
believe that Section 1, which expands the jurisdictional
statute, is necessary as what's sought can be achieved [with
existing law]. She noted that she shares Mr. Fink's belief that
Section 1 creates new jurisdictional ground as well as
Representative Gruenberg's concern regarding whether this would
open the door to similar grounds. Within Section 2, regarding
mandatory reporting, there are some privacy problems. In fact,
there may even be a problem related to self incrimination of a
parent, an accessory to the fact. Ms. Rutherdale opined that
"inappropriate sexual conduct" seems to be overly broad and
vague. She questioned whether the intent is to refer to any age
children, and whether the language is referring to consensual
conduct or nonconsensual conduct. The difficulty is that
children aren't old enough to legally consent to be touched.
Ms. Rutherdale said that she would be willing to work on the
legislation.
3:32:06 PM
MIKE LESMANN, Program Coordinator, Office of Children's Services
(OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), opined
that after meeting with Representative Doogan and his staff, he
is convinced that the sponsor wants to find the right solution
to a real problem. However, OCS is unable to support HB 250 at
this time, although the OCS recognizes the importance of
treating children with sexual behavioral problems, and
protecting other children from them. Mr. Lesmann acknowledged
the alarming reports of incidents involving these children in
Alaska and recognized the impressive multi-disciplinary approach
of the task force and the work it's done. Still, OCS simply
can't support legislation that would require the public to
report all the sexually inappropriate incidents between
preadolescent children to OCS, especially in the absence of any
parental culpability. This legislation seems to imply that OCS
believes parents are incapable of discussing with their children
the differences between good touch and bad touch, privacy
issues, and personal space. Furthermore, legislation of this
type seems to imply that OCS should be the first line of
defense, when the agency would rather be the last line of
defense.
MR. LESMANN informed the committee that if parents aren't
meeting their children's needs and behaviors and the problem is
brought to the parents' attention by a school official and still
the parent isn't responsive, OCS can and does get involved. Mr.
Lesmann stated that AS 47.10, child protection statutes, are
written such that OCS can intervene in these types of
situations. He asked the committee to really consider whether
it wants OCS to be more things to more people. If so, then OCS
will have to request more resources. Furthermore, if OCS is
asked to take on child welfare issues not just child protective
services issues, OCS staff will be asked to perform more work
than they are already doing. Moreover, this would be work
that's in addition to the currently mandated work of the agency.
He added that OCS doesn't believe that it can perform this extra
work well enough.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM thanked everyone for their testimony and
recognized those involved in this type of work are consumed by
it. She related that [the legislature] takes this legislation
very seriously.
3:37:57 PM
DAVID SPERBECK, Ph.D., Forensic and Clinical Psychologist, North
Star Hospital, informed the committee that he specializes in
pediatric psychology and neuropsychology. He further informed
the committee that for 24 years he was the forensic psychologist
for the State of Alaska in all criminal matters and as such
provided the majority of the court-appointed psychiatric
evaluations. During the last 20 years, Dr. Sperbeck related
that he has an outpatient private practice clinic at Northstar
Hospital. He explained that Northstar Hospital is a children
and adolescent psychiatric facility. Dr. Sperbeck testified in
support of HB 250 primarily due to having examined several
thousand adult sexual offenders and at least 1,000 children who
engaged in problematic sexual behaviors. He assured the
committee that these children aren't born misbehaving sexually,
but rather usually it's the product of abuse or neglect.
DR. SPERBECK said that typically, these children aren't picked
up, monitored, or supervised until adolescents. Rarely, if
ever, do adolescents act out, with sexual behavioral problems,
for the first time as adolescents. Almost always the problems
could have been and may have been identified at an earlier age.
Dr. Sperbeck said, "The one thing I really support about this
legislation is the mandatory evaluation and assessment." He
assured the committee that psychologically, if a child's
personality problems aren't addressed and remedied by the age of
10 or 11, there's really not much change that any therapy could
achieve, in terms of changing the course of that child's
personality. Therefore, after the age of 10 or 11, it's a
question of damage control rather than damage prevention. If a
child can be treated prior to the age of 10 or 11,
resocialization or cognitive behavior therapy can provide a
chance to slow down the epidemic of narcissistic, selfish acting
out that so many sexual offenders demonstrate later in life.
DR. SPERBECK added, "That's one of the reasons why sex offender
treatment ... has such poor outcome results in adults, is
because it's a function of their personality more than a mental
disease or defect." With regard to Mr. Lesmann's testimony, Dr.
Sperbeck concurred that adding more work to an already over
worked and beleaguered group of dedicated professionals will be
extremely difficult. However, he emphasized, "An ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure later on with these
children." Furthermore, prevention and stemming the exposure to
more abuse is extremely crucial to reducing the potential number
of perpetrators while addressing the needs of the potential
victims.
3:42:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS inquired as to the length of therapy for
children under the age of 10. He then inquired as to how many
children this would encompass in Alaska.
DR. SPERBECK answered that the length of treatment depends upon
the magnitude of the problem, the length of exposure, and the
extent to which the child has developed virtues and values in
other areas of their lives, and the type of support these
children have. He explained that if the parent is responsible
and unwilling to accept responsibility and accountability for
his/her conduct, then the child must be removed from the home.
In such a case, a child would have to be placed in either a
hospital setting for a while and then transferred to residential
treatment and then placed in a therapeutic foster home for a
period in order that the child can start developing a semblance
of normalcy and stability and value development. Dr. Sperbeck
then related that North Star Hospital usually sees 2,000 new
patients a year, of which he estimated 10 percent of the
patients have significant sexual behavior problems that would
place them in a hospital setting. Therefore, he estimated that
100-200 of the patients have very serious problems. He noted
that in Alaska North Star Hospital sees the vast majority of
children with severe behavior personality and psychiatric
problems. Perhaps half of those would need to be removed, at
least temporarily, from the home. Dr. Sperbeck reminded the
committee of the difficulty of parenting and the need not to
forget that addressing parental negligence must also be factored
into this problem.
DR. SPERBECK concluded his testimony by noting that those on the
task force are very credible, intelligent, and dedicated to
children. He related his support of their efforts to address
this problem.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM announced that HB 250 would be held over in
order to give interested parties an opportunity, over the
interim, to help craft legislation to serve and protect Alaska's
children.
3:47:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN offered his hope that everyone who
testified and anyone else who has something to offer will do so.
He requested that the public hearing be kept open on HB 250.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM relayed her intention to publicly notice
any interim meetings addressing this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN interjected that through the process of
protecting the children, parental rights must also be protected.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM concurred.
[HB 250 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:49 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|