Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/21/1995 01:05 PM House JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
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.