Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/05/1995 01:10 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE May 5, 1995 1:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Brian Porter, Chairman Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman Representative Con Bunde Representative Bettye Davis Representative Al Vezey Representative Cynthia Toohey Representative David Finkelstein MEMBERS ABSENT None COMMITTEE CALENDAR CSSB 79(CRA): "An Act relating to errors in surveys of land and amending Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 4 and 12." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE CONFIRMATION HEARING: JUDICIAL CONDUCT Patrick T. Brown - Fairbanks Joann Holmes - Ivanoff Bay Arthur H. Peterson - Juneau CSSB 26(FIN): "An Act providing for automatic waiver of juvenile jurisdiction and prosecution of minors as adults for certain violations of laws by minors who use deadly weapons to commit offenses that are crimes against a person, and relating to the sealing of the records of those minors." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE CSSB 87(FIN): "An Act relating to the membership of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; relating to community local options for control of alcoholic beverages; prohibiting persons from being on premises involving alcoholic beverages under certain circumstances; relating to the definition of `alcoholic beverage'; relating to purchase and sale of alcoholic beverages; relating to alcohol server education courses; and providing for an effective date." PASSED HCS CSSB 87(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE SB 6 AM: "An Act relating to suspension of a driver's license for failure to appear in court or failure to pay a fine; relating to court and collection costs for traffic offenses; and relating to citations and court procedures for municipal traffic and parking offenses." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE * HB 327: "An Act eliminating 'monte carlo' nights as an authorized form of charitable gaming; and providing for an effective date." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE (*First public hearing) WITNESS REGISTER PATRICIA HAGGERTY, Administrative Assistant to Senator Dave Donley Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 11 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Telephone; (907) 465-3892 POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 26 GREG MCDONALD, Secretary-Treasurer Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA) 1569 South Bragaw, No. 201 Anchorage, AK 99508 Telephone: (907) 337-1979 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 26 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811-0300 Telephone: (907) 465-3428 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 26 ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant Office of the Commissioner Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 111200 Juneau, AK 99811-1200 Telephone: (907) 465-3030 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 26 KATHY TIBBLES Division of Family and Youth Services Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110600 Juneau, AK 99811-0600 Telephone: (907) 465-3191 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 26 LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant Office of the Commissioner Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 111200 Juneau, AK 99811-1200 Telephone: (907) 465-4322 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 26 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 HCS CSSB 87 and SB 6 PATRICK SHARROCK, Director Alcoholic Beverage Control Board 550 West 9th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 277-8638 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 87 EDITH NASHOALOOK, Assistant Health Educator North Slope Borough P.O. Box 638 Barrow, AK 99723 Telephone: (907) 852-2064 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding SB 87 TOM NICOLOS P.O. Box 385 Barrow, AK 99723 Telephone: (907) 852-2162 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 87 REVEREND JUDITH MCQUISTON P.O. Box 730 Barrow, AK 99723 Telephone: (907) 852-6566 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 87 FRED KOPACZ, Coordinator Mental Health General Delivery Barrow, AK 99723 Telephone: (907) 852-2869 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 87 REVEREND JAMES ROGHAIR Presbyterian Church P.O. Box 730 Barrow, AK 99723 Telephone: (907) 852-6566 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 87 MARK HAMLIN P.O. Box 952 Barrow, AK 99723 Telephone: (907) 852-6916 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding SB 87 GREG T. DANJIN, Patriot P.O. Box 125 Barrow, AK 99723 Telephone: (907) 852-2277 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding SB 87 TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General Department of Law 1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 269-5225 POSITION STATEMENT: Bill drafter for SB 87 SHARON M. NETH P.O. Box 1872 Bethel, AK 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-2426 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding SB 87 ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide House Judiciary Committee State Capitol, Room 120 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4990 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 87 KAREN BRAND, Legislative Assistant Senator Dave Donley Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 11 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Telephone; (907) 465-3892 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 6 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 79 SHORT TITLE: ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEFECTIVE SURVEY SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) RIEGER JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/09/95 222 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/09/95 222 (S) CRA 04/12/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205 04/19/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205 04/20/95 1101 (S) CRA RPT CS 1DP 2NR NEW TITLE 04/20/95 1102 (S) ZERO FNS (DNR, DCRA) 04/22/95 (S) RLS AT 02:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 04/25/95 1227 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/25/95 04/25/95 1231 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 04/25/95 1231 (S) CRA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 04/25/95 1231 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 04/25/95 1231 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 79(CRA) 04/25/95 1231 (S) PASSED Y20 N- 04/25/95 1232 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 04/25/95 1232 (S) Halford NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 04/26/95 1259 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 04/26/95 1259 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/27 CALENDAR 04/27/95 1297 (S) BEFORE THE SENATE ON RECONSIDERATION 04/27/95 1297 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y20 N- 04/27/95 1297 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 04/27/95 1302 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 04/28/95 1609 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/28/95 1609 (H) JUDICIARY 05/04/95 (H) JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120 05/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 26 SHORT TITLE: DEADLY WEAPON OFFENSES BY JUVENILES SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY, Kelly, Pearce, Leman, Green, Miller, Taylor,R.Phillips, Halford JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/13/95 20 (S) PREFILE INTRODUCED - 1/13/95 01/16/95 20 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/16/95 20 (S) JUD, FIN 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 3DP 2DNP 03/20/95 696 (S) ZERO FNS (LAW #1, DPS #2, DHSS #3) 04/11/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 04/11/95 (S) FIN AT 02:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532 04/12/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 04/12/95 994 (S) FIN RPT CS 6DP NEW TITLE 04/12/95 995 (S) ZERO FNS (DHSS-2, ADM) 04/12/95 995 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (LAW, DPS, DHSS) 04/13/95 (S) RLS AT 01:15 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 04/20/95 1103 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/19/95 04/19/95 1087 (S) HELD TO 4/20/95 04/20/95 1109 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 04/20/95 1109 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 04/20/95 1109 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 04/20/95 1109 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 26(FIN) 04/20/95 1109 (S) COSPONSOR(S): PEARCE,LEMAN,GREEN, 04/20/95 1109 (S) MILLER, TAYLOR, PHILLIPS, HALFORD 04/20/95 1110 (S) PASSED Y18 N1 A1 04/20/95 1126 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 04/21/95 1416 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/21/95 1416 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 05/02/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 05/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 05/04/95 (H) JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120 05/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 87 SHORT TITLE: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES: LOCAL OPTION & MISC. SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/14/95 270 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/14/95 270 (S) CRA, JUD, FIN 03/08/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 03/08/95 (S) MINUTE(CRA) 03/17/95 (S) CRA AT 03:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 03/17/95 (S) MINUTE(CRA) 03/20/95 696 (S) CRA RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE 03/20/95 697 (S) FISCAL NOTE (REV) 03/22/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 03/22/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 03/27/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 03/27/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 03/28/95 808 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 4NR SAME TITLE 03/28/95 808 (S) PREVIOUS FN (REV) 04/06/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 04/07/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 04/11/95 977 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 3NR NEW TITLE 04/11/95 977 (S) PREVIOUS FN (REV) 04/11/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 04/12/95 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 04/18/95 1058 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/18/95 04/18/95 1059 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 04/18/95 1059 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 04/18/95 1060 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED Y12 N7 E1 04/18/95 1060 (S) AM NO 2 WITHDRAWN 04/18/95 1063 (S) AM NO 3 ADOPTED Y10 N9 E1 04/18/95 1063 (S) RESCINDED ACTION WITHDRAWING AM 2 UN CON 04/18/95 1060 (S) AM NO 2 OFFERED BY DONLEY 04/18/95 1063 (S) AM NO 2 ADOPTED Y10 N9 E1 04/18/95 1064 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 04/18/95 1064 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 87(FIN) AM 04/18/95 1064 (S) PASSED Y12 N7 E1 04/18/95 1065 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y19 N- E1 04/18/95 1065 (S) PEARCE NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 04/19/95 1089 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/20 04/20/95 1114 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 04/20/95 1115 (S) RETURN TO 2ND RESCIND ACTION AM 1 Y18 N2 04/20/95 1115 (S) RESCINDED ACTION IN ADOPTING AM 1 Y11 N9 04/20/95 1116 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y10 N10 04/20/95 1116 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING 04/20/95 1116 (S) RETURN TO 2ND RESCIND ACTION AM 2 Y17 N3 04/20/95 1117 (S) RESCINDED ACTION IN ADOPTING AM 2 Y11 N9 04/20/95 1117 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y7 N13 04/20/95 1117 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING 04/20/95 1118 (S) RETURN TO 2ND RESCIND ACTION AM 3 Y17 N3 04/20/95 1118 (S) RESCINDED ACTION IN ADOPTING AM 3 Y11 N9 04/20/95 1119 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y8 N12 04/20/95 1119 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING 04/20/95 1119 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y13 N7 04/20/95 1120 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y17 N3 04/20/95 1127 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 04/21/95 1417 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/21/95 1418 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY 04/27/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124 04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 04/29/95 1663 (H) CRA RPT HCS(CRA) 1DP 3NR 04/29/95 1663 (H) DP: VEZEY 04/29/95 1663 (H) NR: AUSTERMAN, IVAN, KOTT 04/29/95 1663 (H) SENATE FISCAL NOTE (REV) 3/20/95 05/02/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 05/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 05/04/95 (H) JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120 05/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 6 SHORT TITLE: SUSPEND DRIVERS LIC./ TRAFFIC OFFENSES SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR,Sharp 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 02/02/95 (S) STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 02/02/95 (S) MINUTE(STA) 02/03/95 160 (S) STA RPT 4DP 02/03/95 160 (S) FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 02/03/95 160 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 02/08/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 02/08/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 02/09/95 217 (S) JUD RPT 1DP 2DNP 2NR 02/09/95 217 (S) FN (COURT) 02/09/95 217 (S) PREVIOUS FN (DPS) 02/09/95 217 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS) 02/09/95 217 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED 03/15/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 03/15/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 03/17/95 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 03/27/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 03/30/95 839 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 4NR NEW TITLE 03/30/95 839 (S) FNS (DPS #4, CORR) 03/30/95 839 (S) PREVIOUS FN (COURT) 03/30/95 839 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS) 03/30/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 04/11/95 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 04/11/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 04/12/95 996 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/12/95 04/12/95 1000 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 04/12/95 1001 (S) FAILED TO ADOPT FIN CS Y10 N10 04/12/95 1001 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FLD Y12 N8 04/12/95 1001 (S) THIRD READING 4/13 CALENDAR 04/13/95 1030 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 6 04/13/95 1030 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN CONSENT 04/13/95 1030 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED BY TAYLOR 04/13/95 1032 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED Y10 N9 E1 04/13/95 1033 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING SB 6 AM 04/13/95 1033 (S) FAILED PASSAGE Y10 N9 E1 04/13/95 1033 (S) KELLY NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 04/18/95 1069 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 04/18/95 1069 (S) MOTION: RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2 04/18/95 1070 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2 Y15 N3 E1 A1 04/18/95 1070 (S) AM NO 2 OFFERED BY DONLEY 04/18/95 1071 (S) AM NO 2 ADOPTED Y15 N4 E1 04/18/95 1071 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING 04/18/95 1072 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y17 N2 E1 04/18/95 1077 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 04/19/95 1364 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/19/95 1365 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 04/25/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124 04/27/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124 04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 04/28/95 1628 (H) CRA RPT HCS(CRA) 3DP 2NR 04/28/95 1628 (H) DP: VEZEY, KOTT, IVAN 04/28/95 1628 (H) NR: ELTON, AUSTERMAN 04/28/95 1629 (H) 2 SENATE FNS (CORR, DPS) 3/30/95 04/28/95 1629 (H) SENATE FISCAL NOTE (COURT) 2/9/95 04/28/95 1629 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 2/3/95 05/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 05/04/95 (H) JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120 05/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 327 SHORT TITLE: ELIMINATE MONTE CARLO NIGHTS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS,Mulder JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 05/01/95 1695 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 05/01/95 1695 (H) JUDICIARY 05/02/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 05/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 05/04/95 (H) JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120 05/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-57, SIDE A Number 000 The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:10 p.m. on Friday, May 5, 1995. All members were present. CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER stated the following bills would be heard: CSSB 79, Appointment hearings for the confirmation to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, CSSB 26, HCS CSSB 87, SB 6, and HB 327. The hearing was teleconferenced to Anchorage, Barrow and Bethel. CSSB 79(CRA) - ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEFECTIVE SURVEYS CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER explained that this is the identical bill to the House Bill we passed out of committee last week. He felt they could just hear the bill, and eliminate the necessity for a waiver, based on the fact that they heard an identical bill. Number 070 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to move CSSB 79(CRA) out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. Seeing no objection, it was so ordered. CONFIRMATION HEARING: JUDICIAL CONDUCT CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that having polled the committee, he was given to understand that there was no objection to holding the hearing on the recommendations for the appointments of three people to the Commission on Judicial Conduct without them being here in person. We have those three names in front of us and he entertained a motion. REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE recommended that they move Patrick Brown, Joann Holmes and Arthur Peterson's names forward to the House floor for consideration on the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. CSSB 26(FIN) - DEADLY WEAPON OFFENSES BY JUVENILES Number 140 PATRICIA HAGGERTY, Administrative Assistant, Senator Dave Donley, introduced the bill. Senate Bill 26 treats minors who are over 14 as adults when they commit a second violent offense using a deadly weapon. The bill provides for an automatic waiver of juvenile jurisdiction and prosecution of minors 14 and over into adult court. SB 26 does not require any specified punishment or mandatory sentence. The sentence is at the discretion of the judge. A minor sentenced in adult court through this means will have the ability to petition the superior court to seal the record of all criminal proceedings, if provisions of the court are fulfilled, but a minor convicted in Sections 1 or 2 of this bill will never have the opportunity to have records sealed. MS. HAGGERTY stated there is a clear problem with juveniles bringing guns and weapons to schools and public places. School employees and the police are concerned that the juvenile process does not offer a deterrent to this dangerous behavior. Students can be expelled for one year for having a firearm on school property, but we are finding that they re-enroll in the same district, in another school. SB 26 will create a strong deterrent to the repeated use of deadly weapons by juveniles. SB 26 is supported by the National Education Association, the National Rifle Association, the Juneau Police Department, Fairbanks Police Department, Anchorage Police Department, the Public Safety Employees Association, and the Spenard Community Council. GREG MCDONALD, Secretary-Treasurer, Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA), stated that the people he represents are looking at this bill to help them with the growing problem of juvenile violent crime. While we recognize that this is a strong measure for the treatment of juveniles, we feel that the bill is being fair and that it (indisc.) the 14-year-old that is for the second crime involving weapons, and we feel strongly that we need to do something to deter this. This is for the second offense. These kids have been tried and convicted of their first offense under the juvenile system. Obviously it has failed if they are back again with a second crime involving a weapon, and it is limited to the felony charges. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if she heard the testimony correctly that this will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Is that correct? MS. HAGGERTY answered that if the juvenile is convicted under Section 1 or 2, it will stay on their record. Number 240 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, stated that the Administration is opposed to this bill because of the 14- and 15-year-olds that would be automatically waived, treated as adults and left with convictions on their adult records. Last year, SB 54 went through the legislature, and in fact, took two years to do it, and it addressed the issue of juvenile waiver. There was, at one time, a provision for automatic waiver, for 14 years of age and older. Ultimately, what was passed was an automatic waiver for 16 years and older for unclassified felonies or class A felonies or arson. This bill has been before the legislature before and did not pass last session. An offense against a person could be either the class A misdemeanor of reckless endangerment. The fact that it is not limited to serious felony offense but can include even the most minor misdemeanor and the fact that it does bring in 14- and 15-year- olds, the Administration does not support the bill. MS. KNUTH also noted that she has spoken with the Juneau Police Department and the Anchorage Police Department, and they do not support the automatic waiver of 14- and 15-year-olds, and they, like the Administration, are concerned about juvenile violent crime, and they believe it should be responded to, as does the Administration, but automatic waiver that goes this far is something that people do not believe is appropriate at this time. The Administration does believe that we need to look wholesale at juvenile justice, that we have got a problem that has leaked to the forefront, and needs to be addressed. But instead of a patchwork approach where we look at joyriding, we look at offenses involving guns, and there is one other automatic waiver pending this session. Instead of doing it just one issue at a time, we believe that a group of people should get together and come up with a more uniform and more considered policy direction to go with for juvenile justice. CHAIRMAN PORTER said the first time he read this, he thought it was only narrowed to felonies. It requires a crime against a person committed with a deadly weapon, having been previously adjudicated, but would a misdemeanor be confined to that category? MS. KNUTH answered that all that is required is for it to be a crime committed against a person, and that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the offense, not that that be an element of it, and therefore, for reckless endangerment. The crime is committed if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person, waiving a gun around would constitute the offense of reckless endangerment, and obviously is not a felony offense. ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services, stated that Margot has given the Administration's testimony, and we were very much involved in the debate on SB 54, the juvenile waiver bill last year, and we are consistently opposed to the automatic waiver provisions for children under 16. We feel comfortable with that position today, and therefore go on record as being opposed to this bill. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said we do automatically waive 16-year-olds, but it is the 14- and 15-year-olds that we are objecting to. We do not just slap their hands and put them back out on the street do we? CHAIRMAN PORTER said, yes, just about. MR. LINDSTROM explained that there are existing provisions where a 14- or 15-year-old could be waived into adult court through existing procedures that have been on the books for a long time. He was not suggesting for one moment that there could not be a situation where that was appropriate. It is the automatic aspect of this bill that is troubling to the Department of Health and Social Services. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how many 14- and 15-year-olds have actually been waived. MR. LINDSTROM asked his staff, Kathy Tibbles, to come forward and answer that. KATHY TIBBLES, Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health and Social Services, said they are not able to provide data about how many kids would fall under this particular provision. Our system will record prior adjudications, but for the major offense that the juvenile was adjudicated for at that time, perhaps burglary, or whatever, not whether it involved use of a deadly weapon. We have a new system we are working on and eventually we can answer that, but right now we cannot even tell how many juveniles would fall under this. We do not think there are very many, but we do not have the combination of the deadly weapons use along with the charge. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, without referring to statistics, if she knew of any. MS. TIBBLES said she did not personally know of any. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY hoped somebody in this room had somewhat of an answer. Number 370 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that being a longstanding proponent of peer evaluation, he wanted to invite the committee's attention to the letter from Nicolette Davis, a senior from Lathrop. She does not want concealed weapons allowed. She says that if you are held accountable for your behavior, maybe your behavior will change. "Out of the mouths of babes" might apply here. LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, stated the department's position. They do share the concern with the Departments of Law and Health and Social Services. For automatic waiver of 14-and 15-year-olds, we feel provisions are present that were implemented through SB 54 last year, provides for waiving of those 14- and 15-year-olds on a case-by-case basis. Number 400 MS. HAGGERTY wanted to clarify, in response to the question earlier about sealing of records. A case sent to adult court under this bill would strictly be a case of a second offense of a minor 14 and over. In adult court, the judge would have discretion of the sentence or possible treatment, or waiver of all punishments, depending on the decision of the court in that case. All cases coming to court will not become a matter of public record, only those classified under Sections 1 and 2. MR. MACDONALD differed with the Department of Law. We also represent the Juneau Police Department. The police officers of the Juneau Police Department support this. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the fiscal note is zero, so they must anticipate this to include a relatively small group of people. He felt the message to be worth the price. He then made a motion to move CSSB 26(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, the bill moved. HCS CSSB 87 - ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES: LOCAL OPTION & MISC. Number 450 JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, bill sponsor, introduced HCS CSSB 87. This bill is an old friend that has been through the process twice. Last session it was known as SB 372, and was prompted by concerns over a lack of clarity in how local option elections are conducted, and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) asked for legislation to clarify the process. Senate Bill 87 as you see it today is substantially the same as last year's legislation. The bill addresses the shortcomings in the current statute dealing with local option elections for which no provision is made for moving from one type of option to another. Under the current law, a community must first move to remove all restrictions on the sale or importation of alcoholic beverages, and then conduct a second vote on a new option. This burdensome process can cause confusion from municipalities and unincorporated villages alike. SB 87 was amended in the Community and Regional Affairs Committee and the Judiciary Committee to address specific concerns that were raised by local option communities. This bill has the support of the ABC Board and the chairman of the sponsoring committee. PATRICK SHARROCK, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, wanted to confirm that Teresa Williams of the Attorney Generals Office was on the teleconference, which she was. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Version R of the CS as the working document. Seeing no objection, it was so ordered. Number 510 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if it would be helpful if he described the difference between the CS and the bill that was transmitted to this committee. CHAIRMAN PORTER answered sure. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that the only change in this lengthy CS, Version R, is that we have added a new section 1 which is similar to the section 1 that came over in the Senate. It provides that, talking about the makeup of the board, that it leaves three members of the board to represent the general public. "A board member representing the general public or immediate family member of a board member representing the general public may not have any financial interest in the alcoholic beverage industry." In this section, "immediate family member" means a spouse, child, or parent." The only reason for that change was a concern by the sponsor of the bill that without a reference to the board, that the title would be incorrect, and we would have to go through a concurrent resolution to do a title change. He did not concur with that conclusion but he did not want to hold the bill up by trying to fight that battle at this time. MR. SHARROCK mentioned that the reason he asked if Teresa Williams was on the teleconference is because she was the assistant attorney general assigned to the board and she drafted this legislation, so she is a good reference. It is hard to believe that almost a year ago today, May 10, he was sitting before Representative Vezey's committee, the final committee of referral on this same piece of legislation. In that light, it would be fair to say that the difference between that and the version you have before you now, is the version that you have just accepted with the proposed amendment in it, and six other amendments that have found their way through the committee system on the Senate side, and two additional new provisions that the board requested be included in the bill in its current form. Substantially recognizing those things, this bill is identical to the legislation that was before the Senate and the House last year. The reason it is so thick is because when Teresa rewrote the local option provisions and the descriptions of those, and so forth, the citations were changed. With that, there was a necessity throughout current law to change those citations, so that makes up the bulk of why there are so many pages. MR. SHARROCK explained that the reason the board requested that the local option sections of the law be clarified, is because at one point, about a year and a half ago, the City of St. Mary's was trying to change from its current local option to another one, and there was litigation between the traditional council and the city as to how the elections should be handled and how it should proceed, and more currently, the same situation exists in Barrow. The judge there had determined that it is appropriate that the community wait for a year after it adopted the prohibition on (indisc.) importation that it adopted last October. That is not exactly the way it is described in the law, that they shall wait one year, but the intent was certainly there and that is what we had promoted all along, or understood the law to mean, and the judge upheld that. So there is that correction and provision in there too, to clarify for certain that after an election, either to remove it or to go to a lesser restrictive prohibition that the community must wait a minimum of 12 months and not hold an election more than once in 18 months. The whole idea of rewriting the local option provision was to clarify things like that and to put them in a form that is more understandable by the people who vote on those kinds of options in incorporated cities and villages, so they only have to hold one election to change or remove or adopt an option they want. MR. SHARROCK said there are other technical amendments, a few of which are somewhat new, that the board also suggested or desired. Those are insignificant in his mind, except maybe one that they had asked to be included in this version of the bill, which is a provision to convert restaurant licenses in the community if that restaurant business person wants to have entertainment. It does not create a new class of license, but allows a person to convert a beer and wine or restaurant license into what he refers to as a semi-tavern license. The reason the bill chose not to create a new license by regulation is because if it did, then that many more licenses would be available under the population limitation provisions and the board did not want to do that at all. The board thought it would be easier to address it under one class of license already. You may recall the Ciranos case the board had a year or so ago, and this is the board's proposed solution to that kind of thing, to help people out that run into that problem, that run a different sort of business that is not a full-fledged restaurant. He said the sectional analysis addresses the different things the board felt was appropriate. Number 600 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the outcome was of the Ciranos case. MR. SHARROCK answered that the proprietor submitted to the board what he believed was a sufficient menu for food to be served at the restaurant, which was somewhat expanded from what the board had looked at before, and the board accepted it. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the current composition of the board was. MR. SHARROCK answered that, as required by law, there are two members from the industry. Number 650 EDITH NASHOALOOK, Assistant Health Educator, North Slope Borough (NSB), testified via teleconference from Barrow. She submitted written testimony as well: "My employment with the NSB started in 1983 as an advocate in the Arctic Women-in-Crisis. We dealt with a lot of alcohol related domestic violence, sexual abuse, elder abuse. In 1985, I transferred to Senior Citizens Program and I saw elder abuse due to alcohol and drug abuse. I transferred to Health Education in 1987 and have been there since. "I support amendments for making alcohol possession and importation a crime, a felony. "When the alcohol ban, making possession and importation illegal, first went into effect last year, I felt a sense of peace in our community. Children were happier and the domestic violence and other abuses were less evident in the Public Safety and also in the hospital. "Barrow residents voted to ban alcohol because it affects their way of life. Alcohol use in Barrow has been highly correlated with an increased domestic violence, crimes, accidents, mortality, suicides and job absenteeism. You wouldn't want your child, spouse or family member to be involved in domestic violence, in crimes, or have a serious accident or commit suicide - we do not want that for our families. We now know why those things happened in the past. The people of the NSB voted to ban alcohol because they did not want to increase the statistics that were already outrageously higher than the rest of the U.S. We want those statistics lower and nonexistent. "Residents that are not substance abusers are affected by these things too because we live in an isolated area. We are in close contact with each other on a daily basis at work and at school. We see co-workers who do not come in at all because of drinking, or co-workers who are victims of domestic violence related to substance abuse. This makes our jobs and our days hard. We do not want that anymore. "We need stiffer laws that make alcohol procession and importation a serious crime. Please support us in our efforts." Number 730 TOM NICOLOS testified via teleconference. He does not believe the problem with alcohol is alcohol itself. The problem with alcohol is the people who abuse alcohol. He felt it was taking a big step forward to increase laws for people who do just that, abuse alcohol. This legislation is needed, but portions of it are unfair and unjust, because they are heavily slanted toward one person's view. He was one of the ten people involved in the lawsuit regarding the Barrow election laws. As he recalled, the reason the judge ruled that Barrow could not have an election for a year was not because of the way the statute was written, but because the city council failed to overturn it. It did not fly in the face of common sense to have an election within less than a year, even though federal interpretation of the law said that we could. MR. NICOLOS brought up his bone of contention in the State Affairs Committee, and that is that an election would be held once a month to impose a restriction. But an election can only be held once a year through a restriction, and not more than once. He asked for clarification because he did not read the law that way. When it says you can have an election whenever, even though that may not fly in the face of common sense. That should be addressed. The people in this community who are opposed to prohibition worked very hard to submit a petition to the municipality to bring about another election. In Section 7, those petitions are swept aside needlessly. He asked the committee to please consider this bill carefully, that it be made fair and just to everyone, not just one group of people. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Mr. Nicolos if he would like to see alcohol back in Barrow. MR. NICOLOS said absolutely. He does not consider himself an abuser of alcohol. His consumption is not great, but he is extremely opposed to his freedom being restricted because of the actions of other people. Number 780 REVEREND JUDITH MCQUISTON testified via teleconference. She is a relatively new resident of Barrow. When she learned that importation and possession of alcohol is illegal on the North Slope, she wondered if it would work. She was really skeptical. After watching this community for the last few months, and hearing the comments of the helping professionals, she is impressed with what is happening. She believed it is a beginning, not an ending. She felt it to be an encouragement to the people of Barrow that needs to be supported. Importation of alcohol should be a felony crime. Today she sees the community having hope. We have seen some of the best and brightest young people having real problems because of alcohol consumption, and yet there is a prevailing hope that things can change and that our young people must have a better future. We need to continue that process. This is a long process, and not just something that is automatically resolved because they no longer have alcohol. The end result is that the penalty for possession and importation of alcohol is merely a slap on the wrist. She encouraged the possibility of creating a penalty that will make people think about whether or not they really want to do that. It is time to do some healing and provide some hope for our young people. Number 800 FRED KOPACZ, Coordinator, Mental Health Services, North Slope Borough, testified via teleconference. He has spent some time dealing with the effects of alcohol and alcohol abuse. He is surprised and pleased to see the effects of what this prohibition has done on the North Slope. He started off quite skeptical about whether or not we could achieve much by doing this. He is overwhelmed with the results of this. He felt that people gave up alcohol for the good of the community and we have seen an overwhelming community good. More families are coming to deal with the real issues. There is more attention being paid to our young people, and we are seeing more and more use of the professionals on the North Slope doing what they are trained at - getting people healed, rather than patching them up after bad episodes of drinking. He applauded the committee and hoped they would support the CS, because one of the things happening in Barrow is that the sanctions for not following the law are really too light. Hopefully, this bill will address some of that. When a community takes a step like this, we do no want that effort thwarted. The community of Barrow deserves to have this law enforced. REVEREND JAMES ROGHAIR, Presbyterian Church, testified via teleconference. He has been a pastor for eight years in Barrow and has seen some of the devastation that has come about from alcohol, and accidents, suicides, domestic violence, and people freezing to death. He is pleased with the changes that have taken place in Barrow since the alcohol ban took effect a few months ago. He has had the opportunity to read the whole draft and hoped that they had all read it more carefully than he had. He agreed with the idea of making bootlegging into a felony. When a community makes the decision to be alcohol free, then the community needs to have the tools to enforce that. If the fines for people disobeying the law are about the same price as the street value of a bottle of booze, then we would have the same... (tape ended) TAPE 95-57, SIDE B Number 000 REVEREND ROGHAIR continued, ... strengthen that a bit. He believed it would give the community a stronger hand because this is a community that is struggling as others are, for community health. There is a value to community decisions over individual freedom. That is something we in Alaska have to help the rest of the nation understand, especially in the small villages that have strong Native traditions where tribal values of community are very important. These communities need to be strengthened and some of the previous speakers are thinking about their own individual freedoms of course. They are speaking about another polarity, but it is important that we try to support community decision making. Number 040 MARK HAMLIN testified via teleconference. He is a 16 year resident of Barrow. His comments are focused on the fairness to all sides of the prohibition issue, and are not intended to speak to whether or not prohibition is good, but merely that all sides of the issue should have an equal shot about which way a community will go. He was concerned about the provisions in Title IV, which gives politicians with prohibition beliefs an unfair and unequitable advantage over voters, and sometimes even the majority who believes otherwise. SB 87 would take Title IV, which is already somewhat unfair, to the abuse of those whose rights are being restricted. Title IV does not provide equal treatment. It is abused by politicians who choose to promote their personal views over the majority. The current law allows prohibitionists to attempt to impose prohibition as often as the wish, but restricts those who wish to remove prohibition by trying to do so more than once every 12 months. This section of the law is unfair to the views of half of the voters in Alaska. He asked the committee to hold the bill over until next session, and make it fair to all of the voters. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. Hamlin if he is involved in the alcohol industry at all. MR. HAMLIN answered that he is not. He is a North Slope Borough employee. GREG DANJIN, 22 year Alaska resident, testified via teleconference. He has had dealings with alcohol as an individual and as a law enforcement officer. He dealt with more alcohol related deaths in Kotzebue than he ever did in Barrow. Trying to take the issue of possession of alcohol from a misdemeanor to a felony, everyone sees alcohol as the guy with the black hat sitting on the black horse out in front because he is the (indisc.) of the drug of choice, so to speak. They do not look at what is standing behind him. That is the guy in the white hat, the (indisc.) drugs. If you want to make possession a felony, then he suggested making the changes in the law for a misconduct involving a controlled substance 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. That (indisc.) should also be considered a felony. Why is it they have a choice on drugs when they are already controlled, and alcohol is not? REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if we are imposing laws on the North Slope Borough, and Adak, et cetera, without their consent? Is any of this valid unless a community votes for this? A community must vote for this in order for it to become law, correct? CHAIRMAN PORTER said a community must vote for a repeal of alcohol from there. Number 280 MR. AMBROSE pointed out that in the packet there is a 1986 memo addressed to Governor Sheffield from the Attorney General. It deals with many of the issues in Barrow today. The local option provisions were questionable as far as the constitutionality, and the legislature at that time, chose not to go to a criminal offense for possession, because it is a serious constitutional question. This bill affects not just Barrow, but 115 local option communities in this state. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if there was a deterrent for bootlegging. TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, testified via teleconference. She said bootlegging is a class C felony under the current law. This could give you more than a year's prison term. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE wanted to refresh his memory as to what the maximum fine was for a class C felony. ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide, House Judiciary Committee, stated that a fine for a C felony is $50,000 for an individual, and $500,000 for an organization. SHARON M. NETH, Bethel, testified via teleconference. She had a question on page 21, Section 29 (b) and (c). It seems to be a contradiction, and she would like to see part (c) amended to be the same as part (b). CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Teresa Williams if she could answer that. MS. WILLIAMS answered that it had been a year since she had drafted the language. The distinction is between a municipality and an established village. In an established village, you would not necessarily have regular elections, and in a municipality, of course, you do. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment Number 1: Page 2, line 7, following "industry.": Insert "A person who is employed in a program providing alcohol or substance abuse counseling or related services is not considered to have a financial interest in the alcoholic beverage industry." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected and said that was not reasonable or necessary. We should not be adjudicating statutes as fine as this. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN withdrew his amendment, and then offered Amendment Number 2, which just clarifies that you now have three public members and two members of the industry, and that in order to have a quorum you have to have at least two of those three public members. Otherwise you would have the circumstance where you would have a quorum which is actually made up of a majority of industry members. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected. CHAIRMAN PORTER said he could not support the amendment because under this scenario, two members of the board could control the board by not being there. He requested a roll call vote. Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes. Representatives Bunde, Vezey, Toohey, Green, and Porter voted no. Amendment Number 2 failed, two to five. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to move Amendment Number 3: Page 2, line 4, after "public.": Insert "One board member representing the general public shall also be or have been employed in the field of law enforcement or public safety." Page 37, line 8: Delete "sec. 79" Insert "sec. 80" Page 37, after line 15: Insert a new bill section to read: "Sec. 77. TRANSITION: BOARD MEMBERS. The amendments to AS 04.06.020 made by sec. 1 of this Act do not prevent a person who is serving as a member of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board on the effective date of this section from continuing to serve until the person's term expires. The Governor shall implement AS 04.06.020, as amended by sec. 1 of this Act, in making appointments after the effective date of this section." Page 37, line 18: Delete "secs. 77 and 78" Insert "secs. 78 and 79" There was objection and a roll call vote was taken. Representatives Finkelstein, Davis and Green voted yes. Representatives Toohey, Vezey, Bunde and Porter voted no. Amendment Number 3 failed three to four. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment Number 4: Page 2, line 4, after "public.": Insert "One board member representing the general public shall also be employed in the field of public health." Page 37, line 8: Delete "sec. 79" Insert "sec. 80" Page 37, after line 15: Insert a new bill section to read: "Sec. 77 TRANSITION: BOARD MEMBERS. The amendments to AS 04.06.020 made by sec. 1 of this Act do not prevent a person who is serving as a member of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board on the effective date of this section from continuing to serve until the person's term expires. The Governor shall implement AS 04.06.020, as amended by sec. 1 of this Act, in making appointments after the effective date of this section." Page 3, line 18: Delete "secs. 77 and 78" Insert "secs. 78 and 79" There was objection and a roll call vote was taken. Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes. Representatives Bunde, Vezey, Toohey, Green, and Porter voted no. Amendment Number 4 failed two to five. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move HCS CSSB 87(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and fiscal notes as attached. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. SB 6 AM - SUSPEND DRIVERS LIC./TRAFFIC OFFENSES Number 700 JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, introduced SB 6. The intent of this legislation is to encourage individuals to pay some of the 25,000 traffic citations for moving violations that go uncollected each year. SB 6 is designed to provide the court system with additional leverage in collecting fines. It would also apply to an individual who fails to appear in court. SB 6 would be a valuable tool for use by the courts addressing problems created by those who choose to ignore the law, especially those who fail to make court ordered appearances, or pay fines. The bill is based on statutes from other states. The experience in the state of Washington indicates that over 50 percent of those who receive notice for possible sanctions clear up outstanding matters within one week. SB 6 allows the courts to suspend the driver's license of anyone who fails to make an appearance or pay a fine. It also includes the provision for putting an offender on notice, that under existing law, their permanent fund dividend could also be attached. The bill would actually generate revenue from some of these outstanding fines. Secondly, by the reinstatement of fees that would be collected by the Division of Motor Vehicles. This does have a positive fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if this is a problem in Wrangell. MR. AMBROSE answered that the problem generating the bill actually came out of Ketchikan. While there is not supposed to be communication between the two branches of government, he assured him that in the time it has taken to get the bill this far, the (indisc.) retire from the bench. It seems to keep running into a small problem in Anchorage with the Parking Authority. It has nothing to do at this moment with parking. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered an amendment for discussion, described by Karen Brand below. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought the implications are more than the motion indicates. It seems this would make it somewhere between difficult and impossible for privatization of this service, which is a very laudable goal in management of our municipal services. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what Amendment Number 1 does. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Senator Donley's staff member could describe it. KAREN BRAND, Legislative Assistant to Senator Donley, explained that Amendment Number 1 does three things. It simply requires the municipality, the Anchorage Parking Authority to comply with state citation forms set out in AS 12.25. It requires them to adopt a similar appeals process for people who get a traffic citation and want to appeal the process. Three, it requires that non-peace officers, in other words, Parking Authority employees, when they issue citations, they can only fine up to one half of the amount set by that municipality. Peace Officers can still write full fine tickets. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if this was not mandating to a municipality. CHAIRMAN PORTER answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if the offense is the offense, then why would the fine vary, depending upon who writes the ticket? That sounds a little bit punitive of the parking authority. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if this amendment was offered in the Senate. MS. BRAND answered that yes it was discussed at quite length in Senate Finance, and was adopted. It was incorporated into the Senate Finance version, and then taken out in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee version. To address Representative Bunde's question, the Parking Authority personnel have often times had a lot less training than a police officer. CHAIRMAN PORTER said he has no knowledge of this particular subject, and wished he had, but he used to be in charge of parking enforcement in Anchorage as a sergeant. When you get to a point of having enough people to do a good job, then all of a sudden you are the most hated individual or entity in the world. That is where the parking authority is right now. They have finally organized, gotten funding, and gotten an ordinance to the extent that they do a darn good job. And guess who is complaining? Those people who are getting those tickets. He does not have any sympathy for that or for this amendment, quite frankly. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN withdrew the amendment because he agrees with Chairman Porter's comments. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move SB 6 (AM) out of committee with individual recommendations and its positive fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. HB 327 - ELIMINATE MONTE CARLO NIGHTS Number 850 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that in communication through the Speaker with the Attorney General who says we need this bill, so we will consider it. This bill eliminates monte carlo nights. He stated that he could be the reason we have monte carlo. Back in the 60s he came to visit his mother in Anchorage and found her having a monte carlo day with her Soroptomist Club, and he had to close her down. It is gambling. They asked what they needed to do in order to do this, and he told her she needed to go to Juneau and get a permit or a change in the law to allow you to do this, and they did. TAPE 95-58, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the question is, "Why do we want to shut down monte carlo nights?" The answer is that monte carlo is a procedure in our law that allows the following to happen: A charity may operate a virtual casino for one night a year with craps and roulette and "21", and those kinds of things for members who wish to contribute to this charity, but do have the opportunity through this process to actually win something or their investment. They buy chips with real money, play games all night, and those who have won and end up with more chips than they started with, can go and redeem the chips for prizes that have been donated. It is a very nice function for charity. The Indian Gaming Commission has gained through court decisions, that people who allow certain kinds of gaming permitted in their state, also have to allow Indian tribes within the definition of Indian country may then negotiate with the state, so that little innocuous monte carlo, provides the opportunity for casino gambling in Alaska. Number 090 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if in keeping monte carlo nights, we allow Indian gaming, if the reverse would also be true. If we get rid of monte carlo, will we not have the full fledged casino? Can we be assured of that? CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that there are assumptions you have to make. The assumption most of us are running with here, and perhaps not correctly, but at least, in his opinion, that is not something we would like to see happen in this state. Assuming that is the policy of the Administration, they would be negotiating with the Indian tribes to try to avoid full fledged casino operations in Alaska. With the assumption that they would take that position, their position on being able to successfully negotiate that position is enhanced tremendously if this is not in the law. Conversely, it is almost guaranteed to fail if the compact cannot be reached and is appealed, if it stays in the law. The cruise ship bill fell into that same category and that is why we are sunsetting the thing, so that they can negotiate in good faith saying that will not occur after September 1 in this state. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that brings him to his next question. If we did that for the cruise ships, he did not know that it would make a difference. He has heard from a number of charities, most notably, Greater Anchorage, Incorporated, where they have monte carlo night not only as a money generating thing, but as a part of the festival, where people are out having a good time, and that makes donating a little more comfortable. Could we put a sunset date in this of December 31, 1995? Would it still accomplish what we are trying to accomplish? CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that was a great idea. As a matter of fact, if you read Section 6... REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said "January 1996. Obviously this bill is hot off of the presses." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that is not Representative Bunde's question. His question was a sunset clause. What you have here is an effective date clause. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that is essentially the same thing. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY argued they are not at all the same. This Act takes effect January 1, 1996. That is not in any aspect, a sunset clause. CHAIRMAN PORTER said he thought the bill would eliminate monte carlo nights as of January 1, 1996. It has the same effect. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said, "He wants to sunset the prohibition." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, that, no, he wanted to give monte carlo and the charities a time to phase out, and now they have until the end of the year, if this were to pass. CHAIRMAN PORTER said he did not know how Representative Bunde had said it, but knew what he meant. Number 170 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt the problem here is a gross error in federal law, and that is really where the matter needs to be addressed. CHAIRMAN PORTER did not disagree. REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS asked if we had information on what has happened in other states where they have full fledged gambling on Indian reservations. They do not necessarily comply with state law, and are still doing it. How is this law going to keep it from happening in our state? CHAIRMAN PORTER said one reason he went to the NCSL conference was to get the full day Indian gaming seminar the day before. The states that have this are kind of all over the board, because they have developed this case law, and been guided by different kinds of decisions throughout the last couple of years when they have engaged in these negotiations with their individual Indian tribes. Some governors and legislatures have come from different positions of policy, too. What they have negotiated in the compacts that exist are a gambit of some allowing it, and others not allowing it. Those who have tried to revisit totally, have had mixed case and federal court reviews, too. The most relevant one is under review again at the Ninth Circuit, which is our Federal Court of Appeals for the state. Unfortunately it is kind of unsettled for us as to just exactly where we are. What you try to do is build the best hand that you can hold while sitting down in these negotiations. Having these things off of our books would provide a much better position to argue from. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he attended the same conference, and while he does not have any personal heartburn with gambling of many kinds, it became very apparent that for Alaska, any casino operation, no matter what entity ran it, would be a disaster financially. Obviously money had to come from out of your local community, out of your state, and even out of your country, if you will, because it involves disposable income, and if all the local people take their disposable income to the casino, then the hamburger joints, bowling alleys, and all of these other places that survive on disposable income go away. It is just not good for the local community. CHAIRMAN PORTER added that sometimes the income is not disposable. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt the most likely scenario, if it were going to be allowed in Alaska, under the status quo, would only be relatively few areas that are deemed Indian land. He felt the most likely areas were remote villages. There are very few villages who, under the 1971 Settlement Act, chose to hold their own reservations. CHAIRMAN PORTER said that once it is allowed, there will be other communities trying. Tyonek is already making noises like they want to try. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said his point is that first of all, they have to ask why it has not occurred already. All over the rest of the country under the exact same law, and the exact same circumstances, these casinos exist. This is not just some discussion that is going on. He said Indian casinos are all over the place. The reason it has not happened here is that areas that the entities they just described have no interest in it, or are in lousy locations, and the point that was made by Representative Bunde is true. They do not have very many people to hit. The ones most likely to do it, are the ones who are on some sort of tourist route. This is going to tend to be a Southeast place that can somehow get ferries or cruise ships to come by. He thought this was a far fetched reason to get rid of monte carlo nights, and he has nothing against monte carlo nights. Also he does not see anything wrong with Indian gaming. He felt it should be regulated, and they do not necessarily want it near our large populations, but this is a self-determination issue. He is affected by the fact that two of his brothers are Indians, one whose tribe has chosen to pursue this avenue. They are very poor down in Arizona, as are many of our Natives in Alaska. He found it hard to imagine that we would decide that the Indian entities that want to pursue this do not have enough self-determination to make that decision for themselves, and that we are so anti-gambling that we are going to preclude that, but at the same time, we just passed a law saying that cruise ships can have all out casinos while they are in Alaska waters. Why would we preclude one and then allow another? He does not see a strong reason to do this. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Are you going to get him, Mr. Chairman? I will." Number 330 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he, too, attended the gambling seminar in San Diego. The stories they told from the states that had gambling were horrendous, but the bottom line was that if you do not have an outside source of people to come and gamble, you are doomed to failure. The reason the cruise ship gambling works is because they take their people with them. They pick them up in some foreign port and they bring them in, and they are not allowed to gamble within three miles of a port here. They have got their gamblers, but when you go to some place like Metlakatla, you really do not have a large draw area, so even if for some reason that would become some sort of a Mecca for people to swing by and be able to say they played cards at Metlakatla, is not going to get it done for the rest of the year. There is tourist season, and then there are nine other months when they would have to depend on their local people. We know it is not just disposable income that goes into gambling, and the state ends up holding the bag for people who have somehow been lured into this thing repeatedly. Statistically, they showed that if you were not in an area where you could draw in business from outside of your community, you were doomed to failure. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY was concerned about people using their Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) checks to gamble, so the state would always be feeding that whole gambling group. It is bad news. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that in response to Representative Finkelstein's concerns, it is just now coming into the light up here because of ANCSA. We are the only state in that situation. Most of the land that might have been categorized that way was signed off of that category and we still dispute as to whether that is or is not Indian country. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered why we were allowing this to continue through the fall until January. CHAIRMAN PORTER guessed it was probably because there are some monte carlo functions already scheduled for the fall. He really did not know. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated the reason for his concern is that the longer this continues, the worse the situation gets as far as the federal government observing what the state is doing. Unless there is some strong reason or some major thing that comes up before the end of the year, he thought this time period should be shortened. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY hoped that after the state has settled its position on gambling and gaming, that they could come back and visit a way for the charities to raise funds, because we have put so much effort into making them responsible for their monies, and now we are taking it away from them. It is a very harsh treatment, and we really need to revisit that. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought the only communities possibly pursuing this include Metlakatla, Angoon, Klawock and Kake. He did not see how it could be possible for any kind of gambling casino to be economically feasible in those communities. He thought they were trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The problem does lie with the federal law, and if we try to take the burden on ourselves, we are really not addressing the problem. We need to be addressing this with our Congressional Delegation. A Resolution would be more appropriate than a statute. CHAIRMAN PORTER could not disagree that the problem is at the federal level, but he did not know if it would be solvable in the period of time during which we are required to negotiate with tribes. There is a chance that at some point in time, the presumption of good faith negotiations goes away and it could be turned around, but we do not even have the right to appeal this final decision of the Gaming Commission. He does not like this solution, but what it does is give us six or seven months to work on it, and we would not be devastating any charities if they found the solution between now and then, and they would only be without the ability to have monte carlo for a month until we got geared up next January. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said they have no evidence before us that there is anything wrong with monte carlo nights. He thought monte carlo nights were great and were one of the most charitable, social occasions, and all of the ones he has ever been to have been very nice events that serve a very good cause. They are also one of the very few options people have in that realm, because the same crowd is not going to come and play bingo. Those are two different crowds. The people who put on monte carlo nights put in tons of time, and they turn volunteer effort into money. It takes a hundred volunteers to run a monte carlo night. What we are doing is getting rid of something that is definitely good to make our hand somewhat stronger over something that we are not even sure how bad it is. These small communities could already be doing this, but if not, the reason they are not is because they will not make money. It is the tribal authority or whatever entity they have who is in charge. It is not some outside entity trying to make money off of the small community. So the money they make from their people all goes into a pool that is used for their people. All they are doing is putting money into the community funds that is often used for community good. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that the issue here that we are not really talking about is Indian self-determination, and these folks made the decision not to opt into the Native Claims Settlement Act. Tetlin was in that same circumstance. They chose to remain in control of their own communities, and for the main reason of self-determination. Gambling is not that popular and does not have the support of all of our citizens, but he felt that was what Indian self-determination comes down to. We sometimes have to decide that we cannot control what goes on in their communities. Number 500 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move HB 327 out of committee. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to amend the bill first. Amendment Number 1 would move the date from January to March. The legislature can never act within a month, the way things work around here. He thought they should allow two more months, so that if this all works out, there does not have to be a period where this is made illegal, because it would only preclude activities during that one month, these activities involve months and months of planning and so it would probably preclude it over the first half of the year. CHAIRMAN PORTER objected to the amendment. He did not know what the schedule of negotiations were or what it was that drove this particular date. If this goes to the floor of the House, he will know by then what the reason for that particular effective date is. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said in light of that, he would withdraw his amendment. He then offered a conceptual amendment that would give a two year sunset date from the end of this fiscal year. This would sunset the effect of this prohibition. CHAIRMAN PORTER said this would take two cards out of the state's hand in negotiations, because then they would not be able to say that we are not going to have this. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he would not offer the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if it would be reasonable to say January 30 instead of January 1. Number 530 CHAIRMAN PORTER would really resist changing the date at all, because he did not know much about the bill, since he just got it. He then said that we have had a motion to move, and asked if there was any further discussion. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected, just for the record, but would not keep the bill from moving out of committee. That is not an indication of how he would vote on the floor. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was objection to moving the bill. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representative Finkelstein voted no. Representatives Toohey, Bunde, Davis, Vezey, Green and Porter voted yes. The bill passed with a six to one vote. The following persons submitted testimony for the record, in opposition to eliminating monte carlo nights: Ms. Margaret E, Webber, Anchorage Susan M. Sullivan, State Director of the Alaska Chapter of March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation Joanne Lovitz-Edmiston, Board Member, apparently of a handicap charity group Jennifer McGrady, Kenai Frank Miller, Diamond Rose Bingo Hall for Multiple Charities Co-op ADJOURNMENT The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 3:35 p.m.