Legislature(1993 - 1994)

02/23/1994 01:15 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                        February 23, 1994                                      
                            1:15 p.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman                                                  
  Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair                                             
  Rep. Pete Kott                                                               
  Rep. Gail Phillips                                                           
  Rep. Joe Green                                                               
  Rep. Jim Nordlund (arrived 2:10 p.m.)                                        
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  Rep. Cliff Davidson                                                          
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  *HB 505:  "An Act making appropriations to and from the                      
            constitutional budget reserve fund under art. IX,                  
            sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State of Alaska,                   
            for operating and capital expenses of state                        
            government for fiscal year 1994; and providing for                 
            an effective date."                                                
            MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  *HB 442:  "An Act relating to criminal justice information;                  
            providing procedural requirements for obtaining                    
            certain criminal justice information; and                          
            providing for an effective date."                                  
            MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  (* First public hearing.)                                                    
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  SHELBY STASNEY, Director                                                     
  Office of Management & Budget                                                
  Office of the Governor                                                       
  P.O. Box 110020                                                              
  Juneau, AK  99811                                                            
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB  505                         
  JAMES L. BALDWIN                                                             
  Assistant Attorney General                                                   
  General Civil Section                                                        
  Department of Law                                                            
  P.O. Box 110300                                                              
  Juneau, AK 99811                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 505                          
  DEAN GUANELI, Chief                                                          
  Assistant Attorney General                                                   
  Legal Services Section                                                       
  Criminal Division                                                            
  Department of Law                                                            
  P.O. Box 110300                                                              
  Juneau, AK  99811                                                            
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 442                          
  CHIP THOMA                                                                   
  2 Marine Way, Suite 204                                                      
  Juneau, AK 99801                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 442                          
  DUNCAN FOWLER                                                                
  P.O. Box 113000                                                              
  Juneau, AK  99811                                                            
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 442                          
  BILL COTTON                                                                  
  Alaska Judicial Council                                                      
  1029 W. 3rd St., No. 201                                                     
  Anchorage, AK  99501                                                         
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 442                          
  KEN BISCHOFF, Director                                                       
  Division of Administrative Services                                          
  Department of Public Safety                                                  
  P.O. Box 111200                                                              
  Juneau, AK                                                                   
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 442                          
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  HB 505                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  02/16/94      2415    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/16/94      2415    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  02/16/94      2415    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  02/23/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  BILL:  HB 442                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION                                    
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  02/04/94      2257    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/04/94      2257    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  02/04/94      2257    (H)   -3 ZERO FNS (LAW, DHSS, DPS)                     
  02/04/94      2257    (H)   -FISCAL NOTE (CORR) 2/4/94                       
  02/04/94      2257    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  02/23/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 94-28, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order                   
  at 1:25 p.m. on February 23, 1994.  A quorum was present.                    
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  HB 505 first.  CHAIRMAN PORTER welcomed SHELBY STASNEY to                    
  begin discussion of the bill.                                                
  HB 505 - APPROP: BUDGET RESERVE FUND TO GEN.FUND                             
  CSHB 505(JUD):  "An Act making appropriations to the                         
  constitutional budget reserve fund established under art.                    
  IX, sec. 17, Constitution of the State of Alaska; and                        
  providing for an effective date."                                            
  Number 022                                                                   
  SHELBY STASNEY, Director, Office of Management & Budget                      
  (OMB), Office of the Governor, thanked CHAIRMAN PORTER for                   
  placing the bill on the committee's agenda so quickly and                    
  expressed appreciation for the opportunity to explain the                    
  bill and its reason for introduction.  He stated:                            
  "House Bill 505 was introduced by the Governor as a result                   
  of the Superior Court decision and later the Supreme Court                   
  decision that concluded that certain monies that were                        
  received from informal conferences were deposited into the                   
  General Fund erroneously and should have been deposited into                 
  the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund.  The deposits, as                    
  all of you know, were made under an Attorney General's                       
  opinion, an opinion that was asked for in good faith and for                 
  good reason.  An Attorney General's opinion that concluded                   
  to deposit the informal conference money into the                            
  Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund would be beyond what was                  
  envisioned by that constitutional amendment when it was                      
  passed by the voters of the state.  And, as I'm sure you                     
  know, the Administration is bound by the Attorney General's                  
  opinion as long as there is an Attorney General's opinion in                 
  place.  And so, pursuant to that opinion, we did deposit the                 
  money into the General Fund.  Later, the Superior Court, and                 
  then later still, the Supreme Court, decided that the                        
  Attorney General's opinion was incorrect and that the money                  
  should have been deposited into the Constitutional Budget                    
  Reserve Fund.  The Superior Court directed that defendants,                  
  who were the Administration, the Governor and the                            
  Commissioner of Revenue, should deposit that money before                    
  the end of this legislative session.  And this bill is a                     
  bill that attempts to do that.                                               
  "In connection with that lawsuit, there was also a request                   
  for -- I'm not a lawyer, so I might use the wrong words --                   
  an injunction that, in effect, demanded immediate repayment                  
  of that money.  There was a supplemental opinion issued by                   
  the same Judge Reese [phon.] in answering that demand.  In                   
  that demand, and in the supplemental opinion, the judge said                 
  a couple of things.  One, that because this money, when it                   
  was put into the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund, it was                  
  apparent and with full knowledge of the legislature, and                     
  that the legislature also appropriated some of the funds                     
  during their regular session, that it was clear that the                     
  solution to this, the repayment of the money, was [inaudible                 
  due to background noise - going?] to be a joint effort                       
  between the Administration and the legislature.  Also, he                    
  said, in that same supplemental opinion, that it wasn't                      
  clear to him that the Administration could unilaterally                      
  transfer the money in, because of this same interface with                   
  the legislature, knowledge of the legislature, and the                       
  legislature having appropriated some of those funds.  And                    
  so, it's really out of those statements by the judge that we                 
  felt it was necessary that we submit a bill, to make it                      
  abundantly clear that the legislature was part of this                       
  process along with the Administration.  And part of the                      
  reason for this -- we wrestled long and hard with this, and                  
  many of the members of this committee know that we had                       
  discussions with you and with your groups about what the                     
  right solution to this problem was -- and the Governor                       
  finally came to the conclusion that he wanted this problem                   
  taken care of.  He wanted the money redeposited in a manner                  
  that would bring finality during this legislative session to                 
  the fiscal -- not only the budget that we're going to work                   
  on and pass in fiscal year l995, but also the fiscal year                    
  1994 budget.  And his Attorney General and others who work                   
  with him have given him the opinion that the only way you                    
  can have finality to this is by a 3/4 vote to, in effect,                    
  approve the actions of the last legislature in utilizing                     
  monies, some of which came out of the Constitutional Budget                  
  "As a result of all these -- of the court decision, and of                   
  these discussions -- the Administration introduced a bill                    
  which is now HB 505.  Fundamentally, what that bill does is                  
  -the legislature appropriates money out of the General Fund                  
  into the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund.  The amount of                  
  money that's appropriated is $945 million plus interest.                     
  $945 million plus interest is appropriated into the                          
  Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund out of the General Fund.                  
  This is generally the amount of money that had been                          
  deposited in the wrong account through the end of last                       
  calendar year, through December 31.  In addition to that,                    
  there will be interest which will have to be calculated.                     
  Our latest calculation shows that brings the total amount                    
  that's going to have to be paid in to about $978 million,                    
  when the interest is added.  That gets the money back into                   
  the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund.  The difficulty is,                  
  the amount of money that was appropriated by the last                        
  legislature, plus the decline in our resources available                     
  because of the decline in the price of oil between the time                  
  of the last legislative session and now, it requires that                    
  have all of that money left in the General Fund in order to                  
  meet the expenditures that were appropriated in the last                     
  legislative session, plus there would be a couple of hundred                 
  million dollars more in addition to this that would be                       
  required to just balance the l994 budget.                                    
  "So, while it has been suggested that the Administration                     
  could just put that money into the Constitutional Budget                     
  Reserve Fund and wait for a legislative appropriation                        
  appropriating it back out, our concern is that it would not                  
  be possible for state government to continue to operate if                   
  the condition existed very long.  So we wanted the                           
  appropriate -- the transfer into the Fund and the transfer                   
  out of the Fund -- to be in the same bill, so that, the term                 
  I use is, there'll be no more than a `nanosecond' without                    
  having that money in the General Fund, where it's really                     
  needed to meet our obligations.  Once the money, then, is                    
  appropriated by the legislature into the Constitutional                      
  Budget Reserve Fund, the next couple of sections appropriate                 
  the money back out of the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund                 
  and into the General Fund.                                                   
  "That's done in two sections.  There are two parts of                        
  section four.  The first part appropriates the $416,600,000                  
  out of the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund and into the                   
  General Fund.  That's the amount of the misdeposited money                   
  that was actually appropriated during the last legislative                   
  session.  The way that number was arrived at was merely a                    
  calculation of how much money we have received through the                   
  end of last legislative session on these kinds of                            
  settlements, which was about $825 million.  From that we                     
  subtracted the amount of reserves we had in our spending                     
  plan at the end of the last legislative session, the                         
  difference then being the amount of the Constitutional                       
  Budget Reserve Money that no longer existed because it had                   
  been appropriated by the legislature.  That's how the                        
  $416,600,000...  You can't point at any project and say,                     
  `This is what we spent that money on.'  It's just a                          
  mathematical calculation.  And the reason for this was to                    
  make it clear to the legislature and to the public, frankly,                 
  that this is the amount of the Constitutional Budget Reserve                 
  Fund money that really was appropriated by the legislature                   
  during the last session.                                                     
  "Now, the next section, or subsection, transfers the rest of                 
  the money, which is about $529 million, into the General                     
  Fund.  And that money needs to be transferred because of the                 
  decline in oil prices.  If it weren't for the decline in oil                 
  prices, we would have been able to make it through the rest                  
  of the year with just the $416 million which had actually                    
  been appropriated by the last legislative session.  But, the                 
  decline in oil prices calculates out to about $600 million                   
  less than we have available when you look at the price of                    
  oil at the time the last legislative session ended and now.                  
  "Now, when you go to section five, section five is the                       
  section that tells us which subparagraph of the                              
  Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund we'll use to transfer --                  
  we're suggesting in this bill be used to transfer the money                  
  out of the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund back to the                    
  General Fund.  As you remember, when money is in the                         
  Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund, there are two ways to                    
  get it out.  One way, subsection (c) of the Constitutional                   
  Budget Reserve, or the constitutional amendment, says that                   
  upon a 3/4 vote of both houses of the legislature, the money                 
  can be utilized for any public purpose.  Subsection (b) was                  
  the subsection that talks about money being transferred out                  
  of the Constitutional Budget Review Fund with a simple                       
  majority if the amount available for appropriation in the                    
  current year is less than the amount that was actually spent                 
  in the prior year.  That's, as you know, some terms that                     
  need some defining.  Anyway, subsection (b) is the                           
  subsection that would say, `you can take it out with a 50%                   
  majority.'  Subsection (c) is the subsection that says, `you                 
  need a 3/4 majority.'  As we suggest in this bill, out of an                 
  abundance of caution because of the Governor's desire to                     
  have this thing done and behind us at the end of this                        
  session, [inaudible due to background noise - we have used?]                 
  subsection (c), which requires a 3/4 vote.                                   
  "We're very confident that if the money is taken out under                   
  subsection (b) because of the disagreement over the term,                    
  `available for appropriation,' that there would certainly be                 
  a lawsuit, and we think the people of Alaska need to know                    
  that the money that's been appropriated for capital                          
  projects, and for other projects, for a lot of different                     
  reasons, in the 1994 session and the 1995 session, the 1994                  
  budget and the 1994 budget -- the people of Alaska need to                   
  have some certainty that those funds are really going to be                  
  forthcoming and it could have a significant impact on the                    
  economy if there was still some question as to whether or                    
  not those appropriations were valid.  So, for that reason,                   
  we think that we need to step out to the plate and take a                    
  3/4 vote, and that's what this bill suggests."                               
  Number 314                                                                   
  REP. JAMES asked, "This is presuming that our choice of                      
  spending is the Constitutional Budget Reserve?"                              
  MR. STASNEY replied that this was true.                                      
  REP. JAMES then inquired, "What happens if you don't get 3/4                 
  vote?  What's the alternative?"                                              
  Number 324                                                                   
  MR. STASNEY replied, "I'm sure that's something that the                     
  legislature is going to have to determine and something that                 
  we're going to have work [on] with you.  The only other                      
  alternative, in my opinion, is to transfer money -- I guess                  
  we could break the law in order to do it, but I guess the                    
  other alternative is to transfer money from the Earning's                    
  Reserve of the Permanent Fund into the Constitutional Budget                 
  Reserve Fund.  If that were done, then this transfer in and                  
  transfer out wouldn't be necessary.  It's possible --                        
  because all the money that's currently in the General Fund                   
  is needed in the General Fund to meet the appropriations                     
  that we made last year.  So, that's the other option."                       
  Number 332                                                                   
  REP. JAMES added, "I just have one follow-up, and that has                   
  to do with HB 58 and the definition that we tried to give on                 
  money available for appropriation.  Are you saying that you                  
  don't want a court decision as to what `available for                        
  appropriation' means?  Or don't -- do you think we should be                 
  trying get a court determination of that, or are we willing                  
  to just kind of go by the seat of our pants?"                                
  Number 341                                                                   
  MR. STASNEY replied, "Well, in my opinion, we're going to                    
  need a court determination.  I think our solution is that we                 
  don't want a court determination to be standing over, if you                 
  will, this fix to what the court has asked us to do.  I                      
  don't think there's any question that HB 58 is going to                      
  require a court determination.  We believe that we'd like to                 
  get l994 taken care of.  We've already had one lawsuit over                  
  1994, and we'd like to have the people of Alaska have some                   
  finality and certainty, and we're concerned it may take some                 
  time before we have this other court suit out of the way."                   
  Number 353                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "I have one or two, Shelby.  As                        
  addresses HB 58, is it a fair statement that the                             
  Administration believes that that's a fair interpretation of                 
  the constitutional amendment?"                                               
  Number 356                                                                   
  MR. STASNEY replied that this was so, but he wished for MR.                  
  BALDWIN to address that question for the Administration                      
  "because he's been following it and doing the testimony for                  
  the Administration."                                                         
  Number 360                                                                   
  JAMES BALDWIN of the Attorney General's Office introduced                    
  himself to the committee.  He stated, "We believe that the                   
  interpretation set out in HB 58 is a fair interpretation and                 
  in fact is consistent with how the voters were advised at                    
  the time that they voted on the resolution that ultimately                   
  became the constitutional amendment.  I think, as MR.                        
  STASNEY has testified, this is an area where we anticipate                   
  will be challenged in court.  It's an interpretation that,                   
  just because of the high visibility of the subject matter,                   
  will more than likely be litigated.                                          
  "Our intention of assisting the legislature in its efforts                   
  to enact HB 58 has been to encourage the legislature to come                 
  up with a good, common sense interpretation from the statute                 
  that can be used as a tool to defend the appropriations that                 
  are ultimately enacted for fiscal year 1994, 1995 and                        
  thereafter.  With that statute being enacted we have a                       
  better chance of defending what the legislature does than if                 
  it is not enacted, and I have so testified in the House                      
  Finance Committee.  There is a range of possible                             
  interpretations that can be applied to the words of the                      
  amendment.  That's why people have referred to it as being                   
  ambiguous, which means it is subject to more than one                        
  interpretation.  It's been our testimony that we believe a                   
  court will give great weight to an interpretation embodied                   
  in the statute that is proved by the legislature, since it                   
  is the legislature that possesses the appropriation power.                   
  I'm not sure if there's any one right answer, but I think                    
  that a good, common sense answer, which I think is embodied                  
  in HB 58, has a good chance of being upheld by a court of                    
  Number 405                                                                   
  REP. JAMES said, "I have a question that either one of you                   
  could answer about some of the concerns that I have.  We                     
  have passed HB 58 out of the House, and it appears to me                     
  that this flies in the face of HB 58 because this just                       
  assumes that just to be safe we're going to get a 3/4 vote.                  
  It seems to me likely that if we were going to implement HB
  58, we ought to do everything else as it goes along with HB
  58.  And of course, we don't know exactly what those                         
  decisions are.  I believe the state -- the court order --                    
  says that we need to have this done before the end of the                    
  legislative session.  So mightn't it not be prudent to get a                 
  little further down the process to see whether there are                     
  funds we might be able to make available or reductions that                  
  we might be able to make that might alter these numbers and                  
  make it fall right into the line of HB 58."                                  
  Number 423                                                                   
  MR. STASNEY stated, "We were concerned about that same                       
  thing, too, REP. JAMES, and that's why in the findings we                    
  made it clear that this wasn't an attempt to say that we                     
  believe that that's the only way it could be done.  To use                   
  my own words, but it's in the findings, out of an abundance                  
  of caution, we chose this route fully understanding that an                  
  assembled majority may be the right way to go, in keeping                    
  with the Governor's directive -- and I think rightfully so -                 
  - that he wants to bring finality to this; this is the way                   
  that our attorneys advised us we can have finality in the                    
  l994 budget.  Get it done, get it out of the way.  We                        
  certainly are willing to work with you and others, REP.                      
  JAMES, regarding any potential reductions to the budget --                   
  in addition, as I said before, to this amount out of the                     
  Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund, is going to take another                 
  couple of hundred million dollars to balance the 1994                        
  budget.  This certainly isn't the end of the equation, it's                  
  just the beginning, to meet the court order."                                
  Number 444                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented, "An observation:  to get it on                    
  the table, this lawsuit that is undoubtedly going to come,                   
  is undoubtedly going to come from the minority members of                    
  the House or the Senate, or both.  I don't know if there's                   
  any correlation between that and the fact that the minority                  
  members of this committee are not here, but to that end, and                 
  recognizing that finality certainly is the goal, I guess,                    
  not rhetorically, is it appropriate to take this course                      
  when, to me at least, there is a greater likelihood of a                     
  failure to get a 3/4 vote for a whole myriad of reasons than                 
  there is to prevail in the lawsuit that says HB 58 is an                     
  appropriate interpretation.  With that in mind, I would not                  
  count on delaying the inevitable by taking this route."                      
  Number 462                                                                   
  MR. STASNEY responded, "Obviously, there is that chance.  We                 
  kind of believed, as you stated earlier, that this is                        
  getting it on the table.  We've got a vehicle to talk about.                 
  As I mentioned earlier, the judge indicated that it ought to                 
  be a joint solution between the legislative and the                          
  administrative branches, and we certainly expect to do that.                 
  Whether or not this would delay or add fuel to the fire, I                   
  guess is a judgment call.  But in our judgment, we felt like                 
  this got it on the table.  We tried to put language in the                   
  findings that would make it clear that we didn't believe                     
  that this was the only solution."                                            
  Number 475                                                                   
  REP. JAMES said, "I think that the general public and a lot                  
  of people that I've talked to think that when you've got a                   
  3/4 vote for something, that you've really got something                     
  everybody supports.  And that probably is true.  But how it                  
  got there from here was the problem.  I don't see a 3/4 vote                 
  as a real panacea in this situation because it causes you                    
  lots and lots of problems in other ways to be able to get                    
  the 3/4 vote.  From my perspective, I'd like to do this as                   
  deliberately as possible and go through all of the                           
  processes, if possible, of seeing what can be reduced, what                  
  other monies might be available.  And the general public is                  
  also saying that (1) they don't want a paper transfer in and                 
  out and (2) they don't want us to spend that money any more                  
  than we have to.  So I think that as a legislature we have a                 
  responsibility to the people to at least review all of our                   
  options and determine at least findings as to why the option                 
  that we choose is the very best option that meets the needs                  
  of the people."                                                              
  Number 494                                                                   
  MR. STASNEY responded, "And we commit to work with you                       
  toward that end, because we don't disagree with that."                       
  REP. PHILLIPS called for the committee to move the bill and                  
  then vote on the amendments.                                                 
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted a motion to move HB 505 had been                       
  entertained and it was so moved by REP. GREEN.                               
  REP. PHILLIPS proposed to move Amendment 1.                                  
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Amendment 1 was being passed out                  
  of committee and requested that REP. PHILLIPS discuss                        
  Amendment 1.                                                                 
  REP. PHILLIPS said, "Amendment 1 does something very, very                   
  simple.  It meets all of the requirements established by the                 
  court ruling.  It is very clear.  It clarifies the court                     
  ruling.  It meets the public demand that we aren't going to                  
  do a paper shuffle.  It satisfies the basic requirements                     
  that are needed.  It appropriates the money into the Budget                  
  Reserve Fund from the General Fund and leaves it at that.                    
  We will work through the rest of the issue as we can, and to                 
  that point I will say that there will be an announcement                     
  made tomorrow on the floor, under special orders, on the                     
  budget plan for this coming year.  The budget plan that                      
  we're going to announce tomorrow will address the entire                     
  issues of the sections that we are deleting.  I would move                   
  Amendment 1."                                                                
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that Amendment 1 had been moved and                   
  asked if there was any discussion.                                           
  Number 525                                                                   
  REP. JAMES commented that the Judiciary Committee generally                  
  reviewed "the legalities of everything, and I think that the                 
  proper place for that portion of this to be done would be in                 
  the Finance Committee, which is the next committee of                        
  Number 528                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed that the review of the Judiciary                      
  Committee is towards the issue of legality and                               
  constitutionality.  He said, "I know Daniella and I have                     
  reviewed the bill from that aspect, and really find no                       
  constitutional problems with the bill or for that matter                     
  with the amendment, which would basically take half of the                   
  action of the bill and leave the option of the other half to                 
  the Finance Committee where it's going next in any event, so                 
  as to coincide with the plan."                                               
  Number 539                                                                   
  REP. KOTT affirmed that "what we have got here is probably a                 
  good tool that we can use a little bit later down the road.                  
  I would just call your attention to page 4.  I'm not so sure                 
  that this shouldn't also be eliminated.  Line 19 -- this                     
  also appropriates the same amount of money from the                          
  Constitutional Budget Fund [as it does] to the General Fund.                 
  Do we want to leave that in?  Or, I think, perhaps, to                       
  confirm with this particular amendment, that should also be                  
  included as a friendly amendment."                                           
  Number 555                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER clarified, "We would then be adding to                       
  Amendment 1 on page 4, line 19, delete `this...' through 21,                 
  ending with `General Fund.'  The last word of line 19, all                   
  of line 20 and all of line 21 on page 4 would be deleted.                    
  Friendly amendment?"                                                         
  Number 565                                                                   
  REP. JAMES said, "I would consider that a friendly                           
  amendment...  I find more language on Amendment 4 that I                     
  think probably needs to go."  She cited line 31 on page 4                    
  for reference.  Further discussion of the language of the                    
  amendment followed.                                                          
  REP. PHILLIPS specified, "In the amendment, we're not                        
  dealing with the issue of the appropriation or the 3/4 vote                  
  or anything.  What the amendment gets to is just taking the                  
  money out of the General Fund and putting it into the Budget                 
  Reserve Fund.  Period.  [This] does two things.  It                          
  satisfies the will of the court and satisfies the will of                    
  the public."                                                                 
  REP. JAMES responded, "The problem that I have with this is                  
  that it does go on to discuss how this act, how this is                      
  going to take the money back out again, the procedure, how                   
  it is going to be done."                                                     
  REP. PHILLIPS expressed optimism that the Finance Committee                  
  would resolve procedural questions for the reinstatement of                  
  funds, saying, "When Finance gets to it, and deals with how                  
  they are going to put the funds back, they will amend the                    
  Number 595                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "With that understanding, is there                     
  further discussion of Amendment 1?  Is there objection to                    
  Amendment 1?"  There being no objection, Amendment 1 was                     
  adopted.  The committee then considered a motion to pass HB
  505 as amended out of the Judiciary Committee to the Finance                 
  Committee with individual recommendations.  There being no                   
  further discussion or objection, HB 505 was moved out of                     
  HB 442 - CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION                                        
  Number 603                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER introduced discussion of HB 442, Criminal                    
  Justice Information.  He requested an overview of the bill                   
  from representatives from the Law Department before                          
  embarking upon specific testimony and was advised that a                     
  previous hearing had not been held.  DEAN GUANELI was                        
  requested to provide an overview of the provisions of the                    
  bill and advised that he would be called back later in the                   
  hearing to testify.                                                          
  Number 615                                                                   
  DEAN GUANELI of the Criminal Division of the Department of                   
  Law explained:                                                               
  "This bill that you have before you has been in the works                    
  for a number of years.  It does a number of things relating                  
  to criminal justice information systems:                                     
  (1)  It sets up an advisory oversight committee to assist                    
       the agencies in dealing with criminal justice                           
       information systems.  Current law provided a fairly                     
       unworkable committee to oversee these systems, and as                   
       the law developed over a number of years, it turns out                  
       that some of the systems in existence don't really fall                 
       under the current law.  It's been pointed out by a                      
       number of different agencies -- Legislative Audit, for                  
       example --that there needs to be some continued                         
       oversight of criminal justice information systems.  The                 
       first section in the bill sets up an advisory committee                 
       to provide some guidance as to how agencies ought to                    
       deal with their systems.                                                
  (2)  The second section of the bill imposes duties upon the                  
       Commissioner of Public Safety regarding criminal                        
       justice information systems.  Essentially, what this                    
       does, is it sets up, within the Department of Public                    
       Safety, what's called a central depository for criminal                 
       justice information.  It basically says that we are                     
       going to have within the Department of Public Safety a                  
       place for keeping criminal history records where people                 
       can go to get accurate criminal history records.  It's                  
       one thing to -- a lot of these, particularly to the                     
       extent they are conviction records -- are public                        
       records and you can get them at the court, but the                      
       courts are scattered all across Alaska, and really                      
       across the United States, and there ought to be one                     
       central place where they are located, and that's to be                  
       Public Safety.                                                          
  (3)  The third part of this bill mandates that fingerprints                  
       be taken as part of the criminal justice process.  I                    
       think it will come as a surprise to all of you that                     
       there is no statute in Alaska that requires that                        
       fingerprints be taken when someone is arrested.  It's a                 
       fairly standard police practice, but, at times, and in                  
       certain places, it's not done uniformly, it's not done                  
       regularly, it's not done well, in other words -- the                    
       fingerprints are smudged, they can't be read.  This                     
       sets up a statutory requirement that fingerprints be                    
       taken, and that they be legible; and if they aren't                     
       legible, that they be taken over again.  Several years                  
       ago the legislature appropriated $7 million to the                      
       Department of Public Safety for an automated                            
       fingerprint system, and the only way that can work                      
       well, and the only way we can have accurate criminal                    
       history records, is if the fingerprints are taken, and                  
       taken uniformly.                                                        
  "Some of the other sections require that criminal justice                    
  agencies provide the Department of Public Safety with                        
  information; the kind of information they need to have a                     
  good central criminal justice information system.  That is                   
  something that does not exist in current law.  Among the                     
  most important provisions... starts on page 7... which                       
  basically says how, to whom these records can be released.                   
  It sets up specific statutory guidance as to when and for                    
  what purposes these records can be released.  I'll be in a                   
  position to say some more about that later.  But that is                     
  something that is needed in current law.  The remainder of                   
  the sections impose certain requirements about correcting                    
  information that is found to be inaccurate.  It allows                       
  people to get access to their own records, to be able to                     
  correct them.  It sets out ways in which people can do that.                 
  And then there are a long list of definitions.                               
  "In essence, what this bill does is, it sets up a statutory                  
  framework for bringing Alaska really into the 21st century                   
  in terms of criminal justice information systems and                         
  collecting information.  As you know, there are a wide                       
  variety of uses for this information; sentencing, certain                    
  proceedings need this information for a wide variety of                      
  licensing functions that require checks of criminal records.                 
  The Department of Health and Social Services uses these                      
  records to assess the suitability of foster parents and                      
  daycare centers, people who work with children, teachers.                    
  For better or worse, we've got the Brady bill that was                       
  enacted at the federal level, and we need accurate                           
  information to be able to do the records checks required by                  
  that, and in order for the State of Alaska to participate in                 
  a large number of interstate criminal justice systems.  In                   
  other words, in order for Alaska to get good information                     
  about criminals from other states, we are going to have to                   
  have certain procedures set up, and this bill sets out a                     
  framework for that.  So, it does a lot of things, but it                     
  basically sets up the statutory guidance for doing, really,                  
  what we have needed to do for a long period of time.  I also                 
  have, for anyone who is really interested in the details, I                  
  have a 17 page commentary and section by section description                 
  of the bill, and I will provide it to counsel for the                        
  committee.  That is available if you want to get into the                    
  CHAIRMAN PORTER thanked MR. GUANELI for the presentation and                 
  introduced CHIP THOMA.                                                       
  Number 704                                                                   
  CHIP THOMA testified on behalf of himself in support of                      
  HB 442:                                                                      
  "I strongly support HB 442 and the companion legislation                     
  SB 276.  It has been requested for over two decades,                         
  beginning with the Governor's veto of similar legislation,                   
  SB 387, in 1972, having to do with the right of privacy in                   
  public safety records, and then the subsequent passage of                    
  SJR 68, the right to privacy by a six-to-one vote of the                     
  people, which of course became the constitutional amendment                  
  also in 1972.  Additionally, the legislative audit of 1986,                  
  [the] 1991 report of the UAA Justice Center, the Ombudsman                   
  report of December 10, 1992, and the many reports of the                     
  Search group of Sacramento who have been contractors with                    
  the Department of Public Safety for over 20 years.                           
  Importantly, all these subsequent reports and concerns were                  
  generated by the lack of statutes and the regulations                        
  concerning the privacy, security, access and, importantly,                   
  the release of criminal records, and the need for controls                   
  so there would not be misuse of those records.  I am happy                   
  to see that this legislation finally attempts to address the                 
  shortcomings in state law which are present in federal law;                  
  specifically, 28 CFR, part 20.                                               
  "However, in the most sensitive area of these provisions,                    
  the release and dissemination of records, HB 442 presently                   
  fails in some ways to provide adequate protections.  The                     
  door is still open for abuse of records, both state and                      
  federal.  And I trust the committee will consider some minor                 
  but substantive amendments to the legislation.  In that                      
  vein, MR. CHAIRMAN, if I may, I have the amendments that                     
  were adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I'd be                   
  happy to hand those out to the committee, and briefly go                     
  through those, at least the ones that I'm interested in."                    
  CHAIRMAN PORTER directed MR. THOMA to provide these                          
  amendments to the Judiciary Committee counsel and to                         
  incorporate any information he desired from his own                          
  suggestions for the bill into his testimony.                                 
  MR. THOMA continued, "On page 7, line 1, after `maintain'                    
  add the word `or released by an agency' instead of `by the                   
  agency.'  For the committee's information, there are over 20                 
  state and federal agencies presently with access to APSIN,                   
  and the definition `by the agency' should not just apply to                  
  Public Safety.  The reason I am requesting `or released' in                  
  this section is that it does apply to page 6, line 17,                       
  Section 3, where the `completeness, accuracy and security of                 
  the information'... under Section 3, `to provide adequate                    
  procedures and facilities to protect criminal justice                        
  information from unauthorized access and from accidental or                  
  deliberate damage by theft, sabotage, fire...' and so on.  I                 
  believe that the addition of `released' in this section will                 
  tighten up the [indiscernible] that this information does                    
  retain security and provide completeness and accuracy.  And                  
  I would ask the committee to consider that, as an amendment.                 
  "Also, on page 9, line 23, after the word `records' add `and                 
  maintains for at least three years the name of the person or                 
  agency that is to receive the information, the date of the                   
  information if it is released' and then add `the purpose of                  
  the request and the nature of the information.'  Both of                     
  these additions tie the release of information to the audit                  
  procedures that are envisioned under page 6, line 29, of the                 
  bill, and the purpose of the request, as stated very clearly                 
  on page 9, line 27, in the next section, Section 5, where it                 
  states the purpose.  I think that those two additions to                     
  that section will go to the heart of the matter, which is                    
  the release of information.  Finally, on page 3, lines 7-9,                  
  the clause beginning `In adopting the regulations, the                       
  Commissioner shall consult with effective law enforcement                    
  agencies regarding the fiscal implications of the                            
  regulations,' I believe this clause is too strong and should                 
  not be mandatory.  Despite the fiscal impacts, Public Safety                 
  and all agencies linked to APSIN should adopt regulations                    
  that provide for the security, the accuracy and the release                  
  of this federal and state [inaud. - history?] of                             
  information.  I believe substituting the word `shall' with                   
  the word `may' allows the Commissioner the latitude to                       
  consult with them, but `shall' for this purpose is too                       
  strong.  There is an onus on the Commissioner to consult                     
  with any and every police agency, whether it be a small                      
  town... a small village... and in effect giving the chief of                 
  police or the person in charge of that information a hand in                 
  determining whether these regulations and statutes should be                 
  adopted.  I don't think that was the purpose of the                          
  legislation.  I think that `shall' should be replaced with                   
  `may'.  Those are the three main amendments that I would                     
  propose for the committee, and I hope that there will be                     
  some consideration of those, MR. CHAIRMAN."                                  
  Number 793                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER invited other individuals testifying to                      
  respond to all of MR. THOMA's recommendations save the last,                 
  which he chose to take up himself.                                           
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated, "Having been one of those police                     
  officials that this is suggesting that they should consult                   
  with, I think it is appropriate that the Commissioner should                 
  consult with them, so as to make sure that he receives any                   
  information that would be relevant.  What this provides, is                  
  that he consult -- not that he be guided by the response of                  
  -- but that he does consult.  Really what this is requiring                  
  is that he at least requests the feedback from all those who                 
  are going to be affected by this bill.  And I think that's a                 
  reasonable request.  It does not, as you suggest, indicate                   
  that he must respond to any consideration that they will                     
  Number 808                                                                   
  MR. THOMA acknowledged CHAIRMAN PORTER'S points, adding, "I                  
  feel differently.  I think that Public Safety has in effect                  
  dragged its heels on implementing these regulations, and I                   
  think that this is another [inaud. - clause?] that allows                    
  them the latitude to again drag their heels, and I think it                  
  should be just `may'."                                                       
  CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that he appreciated MR. THOMA's                    
  considerations and thanked him for testifying.                               
  Number 814                                                                   
  DUNCAN FOWLER, Ombudsman, testified in support of HB 442,                    
  "I am really pleased that you have HB 442 in front of you.                   
  It has been an issue that has been a real concern in my                      
  office for several years, and we've been anxious to have the                 
  Governor introduce this for at least the past three years,                   
  and I'm really pleased that it's here now.  I see this as                    
  being a very important piece of public policy legislation.                   
  It's one of these situations where, since the late 70's, we                  
  really haven't had any legislation that helps insure the                     
  integrity and the security of the criminal justice                           
  information in the state.  And I think this bill does that.                  
  It also provides a way that citizens can go in an and                        
  attempt to correct any errors that may appear on their                       
  records.  Obviously, we get people who complain about the                    
  fact that an error may have been made, either purposely or                   
  inadvertently, to their record, and they want to get it                      
  corrected.  And this provides a formal mechanism for them to                 
  go through and appeal the accuracy of their records and to                   
  be able to have something done about them.                                   
  "The thing I probably like the most about this bill is that                  
  it also defines the rules for the appropriate access and use                 
  of this data and also sets out penalties for the abuse of                    
  the data.  Over the years we'd get about one to two                          
  complaints a year that talks about somebody abusing this                     
  data.  There have been some cases where I think, frankly,                    
  prosecution should have been considered, but there really                    
  hasn't been a framework that the law could be able to                        
  proceed under.  This provides that.  Some of the examples of                 
  some of the kinds of things we have had over the years:  We                  
  had a Corrections employee whose daughter had a car                          
  accident.  The employee used the accident system to be able                  
  to trace the car license numbers and he eventually attempted                 
  to file a private lawsuit against the person who hit his                     
  daughter.  Now, that is not an appropriate use of this                       
  information.  He was using the state justice system for his                  
  own personal economic gain.  That is not appropriate.  If                    
  the law enforcement agency is doing an investigation, they                   
  should be able to proceed and do that.  There should not be                  
  a [personal] involvement in this.  We've had a couple of                     
  welfare fraud investigations where individuals have used                     
  APSIN data to be able to go out and, in one case, one person                 
  was watching the business associates of the ex-spouse, and                   
  calling up and harassing these people, and checking on                       
  license plates on cars, calling up and giving them a hard                    
  time -- the person was eventually dismissed, but not for                     
  lack [sic] of a good, solid legal framework within which the                 
  state could act.                                                             
  "We also had a situation where we had a complaint that the                   
  Governor's Office made inquiries and received criminal                       
  justice information about a person who was taking some                       
  issues against the Governor and that they released this                      
  information in an attempt to intimidate other people to not                  
  listen to the person involved.  We found some very strong                    
  circumstantial evidence that this really occurred.  The                      
  Governor's Office didn't disagree with it, but nobody could                  
  really put the finger on the name of the person who did it,                  
  even though we were able to find evidence of the inquiries                   
  that were made into the justice records.  And we could                       
  document those.  But we didn't know who received them.  And                  
  I think this is part of some of the logging information that                 
  will eventually occur through having a bill like this                        
  available.  I think this helps solve things like this.  My                   
  office certainly supports this.  It is a very important                      
  piece of legislation and I am just tickled that it's up                      
  Number 867                                                                   
  BILL COTTON, Director, Alaska Judicial Council, testified in                 
  support of HB 422.  He said, "The Judicial Council took the                  
  rather unusual step of voting to support this legislation.                   
  It lays the groundwork for accurate criminal history records                 
  in Alaska."                                                                  
  TAPE 94-28, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  MR. COTTON continued his discussion of HB 422:                               
  "...[We have a] bit of a unique interest... in that the                      
  legislature assigned us a task last year to work with the                    
  other criminal justice agencies to coordinate the various                    
  criminal justice computer information systems.  We have                      
  hired some consultants to work with us.  We have come to                     
  believe that this is just an essential first step for that                   
  task, also.  We are going to share information and save time                 
  by not reentering information time and time again.  We have                  
  to be able to accurately identify the criminals in the                       
  system and tie their identity to fingerprints, so it is                      
  accurate.  This is really a prerequisite for any                             
  coordination of the data in these different systems.                         
  "We did propose two minor changes before the Senate                          
  Judiciary Committee that were adopted there.  One would be                   
  to add official counsel as a member of that advisory group.                  
  I have given the exact language to your counsel.  The other                  
  was suggested by our consultants.  There is, on page 3 of                    
  the legislation down at the bottom, I believe it's on line                   
  30, a requirement that a criminal justice agency taking                      
  fingerprints required by this section send the fingerprints                  
  in to the central office within five working days.  Our                      
  consultants suggested that that be shortened to one working                  
  day.  The point there is -- not that there couldn't be                       
  extenuating circumstances -- but at least the standard                       
  should be to get those things in as quickly as possible to                   
  avoid situations where someone might be released because                     
  their real identity wasn't known.                                            
  "With or without those changes, the Council believes this is                 
  a very necessary and important piece of legislation that                     
  impacts the criminal justice system in numerous ways."                       
  Number 067                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND tendered his strong support for HB 422,                        
  saying, "I think it's very good.  I'm glad it's finally come                 
  down the pike.  I've got a letter here from University of                    
  Alaska from John Angle.  He would like a representative from                 
  the University of Alaska on this board -- is it a board? --                  
  advisory to the Department of Public Safety.  I was                          
  wondering if you had an opinion about that?"                                 
  Number 088                                                                   
  MR. COTTON replied, "No, I don't, off the top of my head.  I                 
  hadn't heard -- I hadn't seen that proposal before.  The                     
  University has worked on the statistical side of things.  I                  
  think that there's a trade off between getting more                          
  information and not having a board of an unwieldy size.  I                   
  don't think I have any opinion.  The Department of Public                    
  Safety might be in a better position to comment."                            
  Number 100                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND said, "For the information of the committee, I                 
  am going to put this amendment forward to have the director                  
  of the University of Alaska Justice Center Statistical                       
  Analysis Unit added to this group.  I have a letter here of                  
  back-up that's written to my staff that I'll distribute."                    
  Number 109                                                                   
  MR. COTTON noted, "The reason that the Judicial Council                      
  asked that it be represented at this group is not so much                    
  because we have done statistical working reports in the                      
  past, but because of the work with the Citizen Commission                    
  and this recent computer coordination project.  That was                     
  really the focus of the request by the Judicial Council."                    
  Number 116                                                                   
  REP. KOTT said, "You prefaced your remarks on the bill with                  
  an opening statement that has me somewhat puzzled.  You                      
  said, `The Council has taken a rather unusual position.'                     
  What is so unusual about [indiscernible - positioning                        
  MR. COTTON replied, "It's not an unusual position.  I think                  
  it's unusual for the Judicial Council itself to vote to urge                 
  the legislature to adopt or not adopt legislation that's                     
  really -- that doesn't have a direct impact on the Judicial                  
  Council.  And the only reason the Council is doing it in                     
  this case is because it does have a direct impact on that                    
  project which you folks assigned us.  So, it's not an                        
  unusual position; only that the Council doesn't usually                      
  endorse legislation."                                                        
  Number 139                                                                   
  DEAN GUANELI, Department of Law, and KEN BISCHOFF,                           
  Department of Public Safety, were recognized to testify                      
  further in support of HB 442.                                                
  MR. GUANELI stated, "As you can say, this bill has fairly                    
  broad support.  The House Judicial Council, the Criminal                     
  Justice Working Group, which includes members of the defense                 
  bar, the Ombudsman's Office, certainly the Departments of                    
  Law and Public Safety, and other agencies [loud and                          
  sustained paper shuffling, words inaudible].  As the other                   
  speakers have indicated, it is an important piece of                         
  legislation.  Let me just give you one example that MR.                      
  FOWLER touched on.  Right now there is no provision in                       
  Alaska law [inaud. - requiring?] fingerprinting, but there                   
  is also no provision in Alaska law that specifically makes                   
  criminal justice information like this confidential by law.                  
  There is [no?] a criminal statute that makes misuse of                       
  confidential information -- so when we get someone who has                   
  misused this information we're stuck.   If we can't do                       
  anything else to them, there is no criminal law that we are                  
  able to prosecute.  Under this legislation it clearly states                 
  that this information is confidential by law, and therefore                  
  the [inaud.] that are on the books are useable. [Paper                       
  shuffling continues to partially obscure words.]  In the                     
  past what has happened is that officials [have] disciplined                  
  them [usually] by firing them.  But when we run into                         
  situations where it is not an employee, it's somebody else                   
  who's gotten some information, it makes it difficult to take                 
  any action.                                                                  
  "This bill does an awful lot of things for the system... The                 
  idea that a criminal justice information system be available                 
  to all the agency supports and that it be accurate [inaud.]                  
  is being used more and more frequently.  I think that                        
  legislation like the sex offender registration bill, which                   
  basically says we want to know when sex offenders are in our                 
  community, I think that kind of legislation is furthered by                  
  this bill.                                                                   
  "One thing that this bill does, and I want to clearly point                  
  it out, that's a major change from the way we do things                      
  currently, is that it makes a wide variety of information                    
  more accessible to the public than it is right now.  Under                   
  this bill, anybody in the public can go in to the Department                 
  of Public Safety and say, `I want to find out information.                   
  I understand that my next door neighbor just got released                    
  from prison.  I want to find out what his conditions for                     
  probation are.'  That's something that would be very                         
  difficult to find out right now.  This bill will allow that                  
  to happen.  I think it's something that is in the public                     
  interest.  If someone has just been released from prison,                    
  the public has a right to know, `Should that person be                       
  drinking?  Should that person be dealing with children?                      
  What conditions are restricting that person's activities?'                   
  I think it's in everybody's interest that we be able to do                   
  that.  There's a limit, there's a time limit on that                         
  information.  If ten years have passed since the person was                  
  released from state supervision, then you can't get access                   
  to that information.  So at least there's some bottom line.                  
  "I know a lot of people are frustrated when they try to find                 
  information about someone's past criminal record and they're                 
  told, `Well, this is a Fairbanks case, so go to Fairbanks                    
  court and try to find it.  It's only recently that the                       
  courts have started to get automated.  Some of their old                     
  records are on microfilm, microfiche... and it's very                        
  difficult.  This is really the only practical source for                     
  them.  I think we need a good statutory framework to allow                   
  the kinds of things that Bill Cotton was talking about to                    
  occur.  That is, to allow all the systems to interact                        
  together, to make the systems efficient and effective so                     
  that the Department of Law, for example, is not entering in                  
  information about one person and the Department of                           
  Corrections is entering separate information, and the                        
  Department of Public Safety and the court system... it would                 
  be nice if at one central location the information could be                  
  coming and there could be a central spot for those records                   
  that we could be assured have some high level of accuracy.                   
  This bill sets the framework for doing all that.                             
  "It doesn't mean it's going to get done immediately.  Public                 
  Safety is working diligently to upgrade and improve their                    
  criminal justice information systems and I think even has                    
  some federal money to allow it to do that.  The FBI sets the                 
  standards for improving criminal justice information systems                 
  and these statutory requirements go along with those federal                 
  Number 280                                                                   
  KEN BISCHOFF, Director, Division of Administrative Services,                 
  Department of Public Safety, sketched in the scope of the                    
  criminal justice information issue in Alaska, saying, "In                    
  Alaska, we have approximately 330,000 conviction records,                    
  felony convictions, and approximately 135,000 record                         
  subjects.  Nationally, there are over 50,000,000 felony                      
  records.  In order to do a national search -- I might add                    
  that between 20 to 30 percent of all offenders have a record                 
  in more than one state -- in order to do a national search,                  
  you need the fingerprints in order to conduct that search.                   
  If Alaska is unable to do that search, or have the                           
  fingerprints to conduct a local search, we cannot do it with                 
  positive identification.  We can only do it on a name-check                  
  basis, and we have occurrences of up to 24 aliases on                        
  certain records.  People tend to use different names.  They                  
  tend to get different pieces of ID.  Unless we have the                      
  fingerprints we don't know who they are.  So, I'm kind of                    
  the mechanic behind the scenes.  Dean's done an excellent                    
  job of putting a bill together that will give me and my                      
  staff the ability to proceed and do a better job of                          
  maintaining a criminal history database."                                    
  Number 293                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER brought forward a motion to move Amendment 1                 
  and REP. NORDLUND moved the amendment.                                       
  REP. NORDLUND remarked, "I think that it's important, given                  
  the fact that a lot of this is an academic exercise                          
  involving analysis of statistics and information, that we                    
  have a representative from the University of Alaska on this                  
  advisory board.  I, just philosophically, believe that we                    
  need to do a better job of utilizing the resources available                 
  at the University of Alaska to help the legislature and the                  
  executive [branch?].  Other portions of the executive branch                 
  do their functions -- MR. ANGLE lays out here in the letter                  
  written to my staff person the reasons he thinks that he                     
  should be included on this advisory board.  I would note                     
  that there are eight members already.  Sometimes it's a good                 
  idea to have an odd number of people on a board anyway, in                   
  case there happens to be a tie vote.  I hope members of the                  
  committee will support this amendment."                                      
  Number 328                                                                   
  REP. JAMES affirmed REP. NORDLUND'S expressed belief                         
  concerning the inclusion of a University representative.                     
  She said, "I, too, I think that we are leaving a real                        
  deficit in our ability to function in this state by not                      
  including the ability of the people at the University of                     
  Alaska to be involved.  One question I have, though -- What                  
  would that do if anything to the fiscal note?"                               
  Number 339                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND replied, "I imagine that we would need to get                  
  a fiscal note from the University of Alaska on this.                         
  Although, given the fact that MR. ANGLE has taken the                        
  initiative upon himself to try and get on this board, I                      
  would assume that they would try to keep their fiscal costs                  
  down, if anything.  I noticed that most of the other                         
  departments that are on this board have turned in zero                       
  fiscal notes, and they're just doing it with existing                        
  resources, I imagine, except for Corrections."                               
  REP. JAMES reminded the committee that this did not include                  
  travel expenses.                                                             
  REP. NORDLUND continued, "That's a good point.  I'd be glad                  
  to ask the University to have the fiscal note available to                   
  the Finance Committee."                                                      
  Number 351                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "I understand DR. ANGLE'S request to                   
  add a representative from his program.  I have some                          
  sympathies for the University of Alaska.  At the same time,                  
  I have some sympathies for trying to make a very difficult                   
  program like this one function.  And this is now an eight                    
  member advisory board.  There are certain requirements                       
  within the bill that this advisory board must meet and every                 
  person that is added subjects the board to more potential                    
  for not being able to accomplish their tasks.                                
  "I'll speak at the same time to Bill's suggestion that the                   
  Judicial Council wants to be a member.  For the same reasons                 
  I would not support them.  The Judiciary has a slot on the                   
  Commission already, and certainly could appoint Judicial                     
  counsel if they so choose.  But, in all fairness, the                        
  University has a particular bent for interest within this                    
  piece of legislation -- statistical analysis.  That's their                  
  job.  If there is a perceived need for that, the University                  
  certainly is a resource that has been and can continue to be                 
  tapped for specific identified projects."                                    
  CHAIRMAN PORTER reiterated, however, that he felt an eight-                  
  person board was sufficient.  He noted that the board would                  
  be meeting in public and that other entities could                           
  participate "as may be relevant to their particular                          
  interests," whilst perhaps those interests might not be                      
  "relevant on an on-going basis."                                             
  Number 392                                                                   
  REP. JAMES, while acknowledging the virtues of a smaller                     
  board, enjoined the committee to be mindful of many past                     
  opportunities that had not been seized to engage the                         
  resources of the University.  She remarked, "Through my                      
  evaluation of what this group is going to do, I believe that                 
  what they are going to do is implement this system of                        
  statistical information... I believe that someone with                       
  statistical information skills should certainly be a part of                 
  this group."  She further marked the need to cease sending                   
  chronically negative messages to the University which                        
  demonstrate an absence of faith in the University's work and                 
  Number 417                                                                   
  MR. BISCHOFF responded that statistics, while important, are                 
  "not anywhere close to the primary purpose of the criminal                   
  history record database.  The criminal history database                      
  exists to base criminal justice decisions.  Police use it to                 
  investigate crimes, identify individuals.  Examples include                  
  taking latent fingerprints off a phone in a phone booth from                 
  an offense in Anchorage; running that latent print through                   
  our system and making an identification.  Having the                         
  person's criminal history record available so that we can                    
  make the identification; find out what kind of a person that                 
  is and is it a possible subject, a probable subject and make                 
  an arrest.  To have a complete criminal history database, we                 
  need the fingerprint, we need the police to cooperate to                     
  make the arrest entry in APSIN, we need Corrections to take                  
  the fingerprints and submit quality fingerprints to Public                   
  Safety for verification of that person's ID, and if that                     
  person has criminal information under another name, then we                  
  also need to contribute to that police officer and for the                   
  prosecutors in the court to consider upon that case.  We                     
  need the courts to submit judgments which are the results of                 
  whether the person is guilty or not guilty.  We need the                     
  prosecutors to [advise] us whether a decline to prosecute is                 
  a budgetary issue or whether it is not a good case... so we                  
  have a complete criminal history.                                            
  "Statistics are important for public policy decisions, but                   
  that is five percent of this issue.  I am reading from                       
  Dave's commentary which was provided in the packet to the                    
       In order to keep the board to a manageable size, the                    
       board's membership is limited to commissioners from                     
       five state departments most directly involved in                        
       criminal justice matters.  The Chief Justice, the                       
       Municipal Police Chief, as well as a public member                      
       appointed by the Governor."                                             
  MR. BISCHOFF itemized cooperative ventures between the                       
  University and the Department of Public Safety, including,                   
  among others, preliminary efforts to prepare for the Brady                   
  bill.  He affirmed the vitality of past and present                          
  cooperation.  He cautioned, however, that "to the extent we                  
  put additional non-line agencies on this board, it's going                   
  to take away from the direct functional purpose, in my                       
  Number 471                                                                   
  REP. KOTT stated, "I am going to speak out against this                      
  amendment.  For the most part, for very similar reasons as                   
  you spoke against it.  I think that a membership of eight is                 
  certainly a justifiable number.  I really don't think we                     
  need to have an odd number.  If you look at the function of                  
  the board, it's an advisory board only.  For that reason, I                  
  don't think we need to have an odd number.  Certainly there                  
  a number of other entities that could be included in this                    
  board.  I think it's a policy question as to how big a board                 
  we want.  I think we have a good number right now, and I'd                   
  be open to striking out one or two of these entities that                    
  we've already identified and replacing one or two of those                   
  with perhaps some of the ideas being circulated at the                       
  present time.  But I think the present number, the entities                  
  we've identified, are certainly supportive of the board                      
  membership that we've addressed here."                                       
  Number 489                                                                   
  REP. JAMES said, "I tend to agree that too many is too many,                 
  and I'd like a smaller number, too.  But, just in response                   
  to the information that I understand this is all about, it                   
  is gathering information and making it readily available                     
  when you need it.  To me, that is the same as statistical                    
  information, and maybe it's because I'm using the word                       
  `statistics' as a general term -- but being able to put that                 
  information in and get it out in a timely manner certainly                   
  does take some expertise in that area.  I believe there                      
  could be some assistance from someone in that area.  I am                    
  willing to concede that nine is too many.  I don't think we                  
  need that many people to make decisions and to be on an                      
  advisory board, but I believe that I do understand exactly                   
  what it is that we're planning to put together here, and to                  
  be able to retrieve."                                                        
  Number 503                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER sated, "I guess, one of the two members of                   
  the Criminal Justice Working Group that hasn't been                          
  mentioned yet is the Chair of the House and Senate Judiciary                 
  Committee, who are also members of that group that has                       
  supported this bill.  From that position in my previous                      
  life, I know that this bill and other renditions of it have                  
  been under discussion, and this particular bill has been                     
  under development, for four years... and discussion for a                    
  lot longer than that.  There is an awful lot of requirement                  
  for interagency within the state and intergovernmental                       
  intrastate cooperation to make this thing work -- and an                     
  awful lot of that negotiation process, if you will, has gone                 
  into the bill that's in front of us.  With that in mind, I                   
  would suggest that we should have overwhelming need to alter                 
  that, as its effects we may not know."                                       
  Number 524                                                                   
  MR. GUANELI commented that of the eight proposed board                       
  members, one of whom was a member of the public, seven were                  
  the heads of agencies with "the most direct involvement in                   
  getting the system to work on a day-to-day, on-going basis                   
  where operation of the system is really, if you will,                        
  necessary to their functions.  [These agencies] all have on-                 
  going criminal justice information systems and they're                       
  trying to make them all work right now."  MR. GUANELI                        
  delineated the key functions and significance of each                        
  proposed board member and the agency he or she represents in                 
  developing an optimally designed criminal justice                            
  information system.  He noted the existence of a trans-                      
  agency "technical users group" focusing on the technical                     
  issues involved in computer systems and the effective                        
  generation of statistics.                                                    
  Number 564                                                                   
  REP. JAMES said, "I want to let you know that I certainly                    
  support technical information and getting on the technical                   
  track.  One of the things that has distressed me about the                   
  state is all the fragmented amounts of material that we                      
  have, and no one can get [to them].  So I am very supportive                 
  of this bill for that reason, because it is going to make                    
  those things come together in a single source where                          
  information can be gotten back.  I think we need that very                   
  Number 574                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND commented, "Not to belabor this amendment any                  
  more... my intent [in suggesting] this person be on the                      
  advisory board was to assist, not to be cumbersome, to the                   
  board.  If it is the best judgment of this committee that it                 
  may be more cumbersome, then so be it.  But I hope the board                 
  will certainly employ the resources of the University as you                 
  go through this effort, as well as the Judicial Council.  I                  
  think we've probably had enough discussion about this."                      
  Number 597                                                                   
  MR. GUANELI said, "MR. CHAIRMAN, I'd be more than willing to                 
  discuss some of the other amendments if that is the                          
  Chairman's wish."  He continued at the request of CHAIRMAN                   
  PORTER.  "There was a suggestion by MR. COTTON that the time                 
  frame for submitting fingerprint information from local                      
  police departments to the Department of Public Safety be                     
  changed from five days to one day.  The five day                             
  provision... came from consultants that the Department of                    
  Public Safety had contracted with, members of an                             
  organization called `Search Incorporated,' a nationally                      
  known consulting firm that works with police agencies all                    
  across the country.  Probably the most common time frame for                 
  submitting fingerprints to a central agency is three days,                   
  across the country.  It ranges from a minimum of about 24                    
  hours to a maximum, I think, seven to ten days.  It was the                  
  feeling that five days is appropriate for Alaska.  This is                   
  not New York City where at the press of a button you can                     
  have something delivered across town, or with a courier.  I                  
  think that some flexibility is needed, particularly for                      
  small police departments that may want to just gather up a                   
  number of fingerprint cards, send them in once a week to the                 
  Department of Public Safety, or because they are such a                      
  small police department they simply don't have the staff                     
  available to do things on a daily basis.  So there was a                     
  feeling that five days is something that is workable for                     
  Alaska.  Now, if other consultants had come in and said that                 
  24 hours is workable for Alaska, that's fine, but I think,                   
  the Department of Public Safety thinks, that five days is                    
  appropriate.  I would hope that the committee might confer                   
  with somebody from a small police department and find out                    
  how it's going to affect their operations.  I think that                     
  paperwork tends to drown small police departments, and I                     
  think that this is another example of that. I think we would                 
  feel more comfortable that the records would be submitted on                 
  a regular basis... 24 hours may not be manageable."                          
  Number 632                                                                   
  REP. KOTT said, "Since you have the expertise here, it would                 
  stand to reason, I think, that most departments would supply                 
  this information as readily as possible within their means.                  
  I certainly am not willing to make it mandatory to provide                   
  the information within 24 hours if it's going to impair                      
  their operations.  I am sure that they are going to give                     
  this their utmost attention and not sit on it, understanding                 
  the importance of fingerprinting."                                           
  Number 645                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated, "The agencies that will be dealing                   
  with the vast majority of these records will be submitting                   
  them within a day.  The problem of making it mandatory on                    
  everybody is that the Department of -- I always say Iggigik,                 
  I am sure there is not a Department in Iggigik, and I've                     
  never been to Iggigik, so no offense to Iggigik, but that's                  
  my typical village -- that's a one-person operation.  And if                 
  there is an arrest there, there might be something that                      
  person has to do right after that, and it doesn't involve                    
  sitting down at a typewriter and typing up the necessary                     
  forms to submit... that person is going to get at it just as                 
  soon as he or she can, but a one day turnaround or something                 
  like that is just not reasonable."                                           
  Number 658                                                                   
  MR. GUANELI said, "And I think the other practical                           
  consideration is that a lot of the people who are arrested                   
  are intoxicated.  It may not be practical to take                            
  fingerprints right away.  They may be struggling with you,                   
  they may be fighting.  If you get them at all they're going                  
  to be smudged and you'll have to do it again.  It may be                     
  better to wait 24 hours or 36 hours or until the person's                    
  been to court -- there are just a lot of practical                           
  considerations [involved]."                                                  
  Number 664                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER, assessing committee member sentiments on                    
  Amendment 1, formally objected to the motion and called for                  
  a role call vote unless there was further discussion.                        
  Number 689                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND said, "I'm not sure just what all the dialogue                 
  was, but if we were going to interject a member from the                     
  University of Alaska, I would think that we should remove                    
  someone else.  And since that's already there, I think                       
  probably I would be opposed to this."                                        
  REP. NORDLUND withdrew Amendment 1.                                          
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced the withdrawal of Amendment 1.                     
  Number 695                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked MR. GUANELI if he had the opportunity                  
  to consider MR. THOMA's suggestions.                                         
  MR. GUANELI responded, "I did.  He made these same                           
  suggestions at the Senate Judiciary Committee.  To a large                   
  extent, we didn't have a problem with them.  The Senate                      
  Judiciary Committee made a slight wording change to one of                   
  them.  So, if you want to go over them, I can state our                      
  position on these.  I think it's fair to say that we would                   
  not have an objection to the amendments made in the Senate                   
  Judiciary Committee.  I think counsel for your committee has                 
  a copy of those amendments."  He referred to page 3, line 8,                 
  and the suggestion by MR. THOMA that the word "shall" be                     
  changed to the word "may" and discussed its possible                         
  implications, concluding that substitution of the word "may"                 
  would not hinder or impede interagency communications or                     
  consultations.  He said, "I think that having an advisory                    
  group that includes all the affected agencies means that as                  
  a matter of course [relevant matters] will be discussed with                 
  them.  So, that was the basis on which we did not have any                   
  objection in the Senate Judiciary committee on the changing                  
  of `shall' to `may'."                                                        
  Number 720                                                                   
  COMMISSIONER BURTON tendered the opinion that "shall" was                    
  preferable to "may" and that the word "shall" was not                        
  CHAIRMAN PORTER added that communicating would not in any                    
  case be a cumbersome duty given that all involved would be                   
  present on the same computer network.                                        
  Number 745                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "In front of us is Amendment 2 which                   
  that incorporates two of the things that were incorporated                   
  in the Senate version."                                                      
  REP. JAMES moved Amendment 2.  There being no further                        
  discussion, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                         
  Number 765                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "I believe we have dealt with all of                   
  the concerns.  We have then in front of us HB 442 as                         
  REP. JAMES moved that HB 442 be sent out of committee as                     
  amended with individual recommendations and fiscal notes as                  
  attached.  There being no objection, HB 442 was moved out of                 
  The meeting of the House Judiciary Standing Committee was                    
  adjourned at 2:55 p.m.                                                       

Document Name Date/Time Subjects