Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/21/1995 01:05 PM JUD

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

Document Name Date/Time Subjects