Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/17/1996 01:12 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         April 17, 1996                                        
                           1:12 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                                                                
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 "An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue of capital                
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
 HOUSE BILL 481                                                                
 "An Act authorizing capital punishment, classifying murder in the             
 first degree as a capital felony, and allowing the imposition of              
 the death penalty when certain of those murders are committed                 
 against children; establishing sentencing procedures for capital              
 felonies; and amending Rules 32, 32.1, and 32.3, Alaska Rules of              
 Criminal Procedure, and Rules 204, 209, 210, and 212, Alaska Rules            
 of Appellate Procedure."                                                      
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
 HOUSE BILL 414                                                                
 "An Act requiring conciliation panel review in a civil action                 
 against a architect, engineer, or land surveyor; and providing for            
 an effective date."                                                           
      - PASSED CSHB 414(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                  
 HOUSE BILL 154                                                                
 "An Act requiring the Department of Law to provide guidelines                 
 regarding unconstitutional state and municipal takings of private             
 real property; relating to the taxation of private real property              
 taken unconstitutionally by state or municipal action; establishing           
 a time limit for bringing an action for an unconstitutional state             
 or municipal taking of private real property; and providing for an            
 effective date."                                                              
      - PASSED CSHB 154(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                  
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 289(FIN) am                                            
 "An Act relating to runaways, other minors, and their families or             
 legal custodians; and amending Rule 7, Alaska Delinquency Rules."             
      - PASSED HCSCSSB 289(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                               
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  SB  52                                                               
 BILL VERSION: CSSSSB 52(JUD)                                                  
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Pearce; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Rokeberg             
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 01/25/95        83    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/25/95        83    (S)   JUD, FIN                                          
 02/09/95       222    (S)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS           
 02/09/95       222    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/09/95       222    (S)   JUD, FIN                                          
 02/07/96              (S)   JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 02/07/96              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/06/96              (S)   JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 03/06/96              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/12/96      2706    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  3DP 1DNP     NEW TITLE               
 03/12/96      2707    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (GOV)                      
 03/26/96              (S)   FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 03/28/96      2939    (S)   FIN RPT  4DP 2NR  (JUD) CS                        
 03/28/96      2939    (S)   ZERO FNS (DPS, COURT)                             
 03/28/96      2939    (S)   PREVIOUS FN (GOV)                                 
 03/29/96              (S)   RLS AT 12:05 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/29/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/09/96      3092    (S)   RULES RPT  3CAL 2NR   4/9/96                      
 04/09/96      3093    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/09/96      3093    (S)   JUD  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/09/96      3093    (S)   ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y11 N5 E4            
 04/09/96      3094    (S)   THIRD READING 4/10 CALENDAR                       
 04/10/96      3123    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSSSB 52(JUD)               
 04/10/96      3124    (S)   MOTION TO RETURN TO 2ND RDG FOR AM 1              
 04/10/96      3124    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1  Y14 N6                 
 04/10/96      3124    (S)   AM NO  1     FAILED  Y9 N11                       
 04/10/96      3125    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 04/10/96      3126    (S)   PASSED Y12 N8                                     
 04/10/96      3126    (S)   DUNCAN  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 04/11/96      3175    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/12/96      3689    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/12/96      3689    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                
 04/15/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 04/15/96      3784    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG                        
 BILL:  HB 481                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK, Kohring, Ogan                            
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG             ACTION                                        
 02/09/96      2686    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/09/96      2686    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY                          
 02/29/96      2972    (H)   STA REFERRAL WAIVED                               
 02/29/96      2972    (H)   REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                             
 04/15/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 04/15/96              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 BILL:  HB 414                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN                                           
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG             ACTION                                        
 01/12/96      2428    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/12/96      2429    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY                       
 01/29/96              (H)   L&C AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 01/29/96              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 01/31/96              (H)   L&C AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 01/31/96              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 02/07/96              (H)   L&C AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 02/07/96              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 02/21/96              (H)   L&C AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 02/21/96              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 03/06/96              (H)   L&C AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 03/06/96              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 03/08/96      3023    (H)   L&C RPT  CS(L&C) NT 4NR                           
 03/08/96      3023    (H)   DP: KOTT, SANDERS, PORTER, ROKEBERG               
 03/08/96      3023    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                           
 03/22/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 03/22/96              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/17/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB 154                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)                                                 
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG             ACTION                                        
 02/03/95       237    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/03/95       237    (H)   CRA, JUD, FIN                                     
 02/16/95              (H)   CRA AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 02/16/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 02/21/95              (H)   CRA AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 02/21/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 03/01/95       550    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG                            
 03/09/95              (H)   CRA AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/09/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 03/16/95              (H)   CRA AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/16/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 03/24/95       919    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): KOTT                                
 03/25/95              (H)   CRA AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/25/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 04/20/95              (H)   CRA AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/20/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 04/21/95      1421    (H)   CRA RPT  CS(CRA) NT 1DP 1DNP 2NR 1AM              
 04/21/95      1421    (H)   DP: VEZEY                                         
 04/21/95      1422    (H)   DNP: ELTON                                        
 04/21/95      1422    (H)   NR: AUSTERMAN, IVAN                               
 04/21/95      1422    (H)   AM: KOTT                                          
 04/21/95      1422    (H)   INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                   
 04/21/95      1422    (H)   2 FISCAL NOTES (CRA, DNR)                         
 04/21/95      1422    (H)   REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                             
 11/21/95              (H)   JUD AT 10:00 AM JUNEAU LIO                        
 01/08/96      2382    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): KELLY, VEZEY, MARTIN                
 01/09/96      2396    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): BARNES                              
 01/10/96      2404    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): OGAN, G.DAVIS                       
 01/11/96      2418    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): JAMES, MULDER                       
 01/19/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 01/19/96              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 01/31/96      2586    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER                              
 02/02/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 02/02/96              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/16/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 02/16/96              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/17/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  SB 289                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) FRANK, Miller, R.Phillips, Halford, Green,             
 Taylor, Leman, Kelly, Torgerson, Hoffman, Pearce, Rieger;                     
 REPRESENTATIVE(S) Kelly                                                       
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG             ACTION                                        
 02/12/96      2382    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/12/96      2382    (S)   JUDICIARY                                         
 02/26/96              (S)   JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 02/26/96              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/26/96              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/28/96              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/28/96      2578    (S)   COSPONSOR(S): GREEN, TAYLOR                       
 02/29/96      2597    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  3DP 1NR      SAME TITLE              
 02/29/96      2597    (S)   INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE  SB & CS                
 02/29/96      2597    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTES SB & CS (ADM-2, LAW)            
 03/06/96              (S)   RLS AT 12:45 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/06/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 03/06/96      2636    (S)   FIN REFERRAL ADDED-MOVED FROM RLS TO              
 03/12/96              (S)   FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 03/19/96              (S)   FIN AT  9:30 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 03/27/96              (S)   FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 03/28/96              (S)   FIN AT  8:30 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 04/03/96              (S)   RLS AT  1:15 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 04/03/96      3043    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  5DP 2NR       NEW TITLE              
 04/03/96      3043    (S)   FISCAL NOTES TO CS (DHSS-5)                       
 04/03/96      3043    (S)   INDETERMINATE FN TO CS (DPS)                      
 04/03/96      3043    (S)   ZERO FN TO CS (LAW)                               
 04/03/96      3043    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM-2)                         
 04/04/96      3065    (S)   FN TO FIN CS REPLACES 4/3 ZERO FN (LAW)           
 04/09/96      3093    (S)   FISCAL NOTE (COURT)                               
 04/09/96      3092    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/9/96                         
 04/09/96      3096    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/09/96      3096    (S)   FIN  CS ADOPTED Y11 N5 E4                         
 04/09/96      3096    (S)   ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y11 N5 E4            
 04/09/96      3097    (S)   THIRD READING 4/10 CALENDAR                       
 04/09/96      3096    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  LEMAN, KELLY,                      
 04/09/96      3096    (S)   TORGERSON, HOFFMAN, PEARCE, RIEGER                
 04/10/96      3128    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 289(FIN)                
 04/10/96      3128    (S)   PASSED Y14 N6                                     
 04/10/96      3129    (S)   COURT RULE FAILED Y13 N7                          
 04/10/96      3129    (S)   DUNCAN  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 04/11/96      3159    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                 
 04/11/96      3160    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1  UNAN CONSENT           
 04/11/96      3160    (S)   AM NO  1     ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                 
 04/11/96      3160    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 04/11/96      3160    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y20 N-                  
 04/11/96      3160    (S)   COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                     
 04/11/96      3176    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/12/96      3690    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/12/96      3690    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                
 04/12/96      3720    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S): KELLY                           
 04/17/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant                                             
  to Representative Joseph Green                                               
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 24                                                     
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4931                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified to HB 414 as sponsor                           
 STEVE CONN, Executive Director                                                
 Alaska Public Interest Research Group                                         
 P.O. Box 101093                                                               
 Anchorage, Alaska  99510                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 278-3661                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 414 and HB 154                           
 COLIN MAYNARD                                                                 
 Alaska Professional Design Council                                            
 510 L Street, Suite 200                                                       
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 27402236                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 414                                      
 RUSS WINNER, Trial Lawyer's Representative                                    
 900 West 5th, Suite 700                                                       
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 272-9522                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 144                                      
 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel                                            
 Office of Administrative Director                                             
 Alaska Court System                                                           
 303 K Street                                                                  
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501-2084                                                 
 Telephone:  (907) 264-8228                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 144                                      
 MIKE FORD, Attorney                                                           
 Legislative Legal Counsel                                                     
 Legislative Affairs Agency                                                    
 130 Seward Street, Suite 409                                                  
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-2105                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2450                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 144                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING                                                    
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 428                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-1182                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2186                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 DOUG YATES                                                                    
 P.O. Box 221                                                                  
 Ester, Alaska  99725                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 479-8300                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 STAN THOMPSON                                                                 
 P.O. Box 217                                                                  
 Kenai, Alaska  99611                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 776-8721                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 ANTHONY CRUPI, Volunteer                                                      
 Alaska Environmental Lobby                                                    
 4106 MacInnes Street                                                          
 Anchorage, Alaska  99500                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 463-3366                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 TOM BOUTIN, State Forester                                                    
 Division of Forestry                                                          
 Department of Natural Resources                                               
 400 Willoughby Avenue, 3rd Floor                                              
 Juneau, Alaska   99801-1724                                                   
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3379                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 PAM LABEAU, President                                                         
 Alaska State Chamber of Commerce                                              
 217 Second Street                                                             
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 586-2323                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 ALLISON GORDON, Legislative Assistant                                         
 Senator Steve Frank                                                           
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capital Building, Room 518                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-1182                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3709                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 289                                      
 L. DIANE WORLEY, Director                                                     
 Division of Family & Youth Services                                           
 Department of Health & Social Services                                        
 P.O. Box 110630                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-0630                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3191                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 289                                      
 BRUCE RUBLE                                                                   
 1221 Third Avenue                                                             
 Fairbanks, Alaska  99701                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 452-2345                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 289                                      
 SAM HAYWOOD                                                                   
 Muldoon Road, Number 561                                                      
 Anchorage, Alaska  99504                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 272-9522                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 289                                      
 AL NEAR                                                                       
 P.O. Box 80847                                                                
 Fairbanks, Alaska  99708                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 479-4090                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 289                                      
 DEIDRE PHAYER, Executive Director                                             
 Covenant House Alaska                                                         
 609 F Street                                                                  
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 272-1255                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 289                                      
 LORI BACKES                                                                   
 1608 Scenic Loop                                                              
 Fairbanks, Alaska  99709                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 479-4723                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 289                                      
 TOM BEGICH, Chairman                                                          
 State Student Justice Legislative Committee and                               
 National Coalition of Juvenile Justice                                        
 7540 Huckleberry Circle                                                       
 Anchorage, Alaska  99502                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 243-7713                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 289                                      
 LESLIE DRUMHILLER                                                             
 1906 Southern                                                                 
 Fairbanks, Alaska  99709                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 479-6104                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 289                                      
 JUDY SHIFFLER                                                                 
 929 Reindeer Drive                                                            
 Fairbanks, Alaska  99709                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 479-6104                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 289                                      
 CANDY CARROLL                                                                 
 1221 3rd Avenue                                                               
 Fairbanks, Alaska  99701                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 452-2345                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 289                                      
 ROBIN RANDALL                                                                 
 1743 Willow Street                                                            
 Fairbanks, Alaska  99709                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 479-9123                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 289                                      
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 96-54, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER called the House Judiciary committee meeting            
 to order at 1:12 p.m.  Members present at the call to order were              
 Representatives Green, Bunde and Toohey.  Representatives                     
 Finkelstein and Vezey arrived at their respective times, 1:13 p.m.            
 and 1:30 p.m.  Representative Bettye Davis was absent.                        
 SB 52 - ADVISORY VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT                                  
 HB 481 - CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR CHILD MURDER                                 
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the committee had heard the two bills              
 concerning the death penalty on Monday, April 15, 1996.  The public           
 hearing related to this legislation was completed.  Chairman Porter           
 said the fiscal notes on both bills were wanting.  Neither bill has           
 a fiscal note from the Office of the Public Defender or the Office            
 of Public Advocacy.  The fiscal notes on the advisory vote                    
 legislation only address the cost of the election.  He thought it             
 was the wish of the committee to get a better feel for what the               
 implication would be of the cost to implement the death penalty if            
 the advisory vote was successful.                                             
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that for this reason he had notified Senator           
 Taylor's office and Representative Masek's office and asked them to           
 comply with this request to get complete fiscal notes into the                
 Judiciary Committee before they proceed further.  He said they                
 would bring both these bills up again once this information is                
 HB 414 - MANDATORY MEDIATION/DESIGN PROF LAWSUITS                           
 Number 100                                                                    
 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant for Representative Green came               
 forward to testify on HB 414.  Mr. Logan thanked Chairman Porter              
 for his indulgence with this bill.  The original version of this              
 bill, through all it's incantations and presently, has had as it's            
 goal to relieve the burden of design professionals from civil                 
 actions.  In the Labor and Commerce Committee there were a number             
 of issues raised and Chairman Porter had asked that these issues be           
 addressed before it's referral to the Judiciary Committee.  In the            
 meantime, there have been a number of time constraints, both on the           
 sponsor's part and on the parties affected, the trial attorneys and           
 professional designers.  Finally, he felt as though they had a                
 committee substitute which could be submitted to the committee,               
 which is version R, dated April 2, 1996.  In addition, the trial              
 attorneys and the professional designers have continued to work to            
 come to a compromise.  Yesterday at 9:31 a.m. he received a                   
 facsimile with four additional points.  He took these to the legal            
 division.  Mike Ford worked very quickly to put these concerns into           
 amendment form.  Mr. Logan disseminated these to committee members            
 and the Anchorage LIO so that witnesses could have them.  He wasn't           
 sure the sponsor will move these amendments or not.   He felt as              
 though there would be somebody on line to speak to these                      
 MR. LOGAN noted that what the present committee substitute does is            
 use the civil rules of procedure which are already in place and               
 simply stated, makes mediation mandatory for a civil action against           
 a design professional.  If a suit is filed against an architect or            
 engineer the parties have to go to mediation.  Discovery is allowed           
 under the auspices of a civil rule already in place.  This is                 
 mandatory and there is a time line to do it.  He then outlined                
 amendments R.1,2, & 3.  The first one stated that not only are                
 architects, engineers and land surveyors covered under this                   
 legislation, but also all design professionals.  R.2 allows a                 
 waiver option.  If both parties agree that mediation will not                 
 result in any benefit, they can waive this procedure and go                   
 straight to court.  R.3 allows that if the costs of mediation are             
 to be born by the defendant because the judge has decided that the            
 plaintiff is indigent, the defendant can waive this process to                
 avoid having to pay for the entire mediation.                                 
 Number 556                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH GREEN added to what Mr. Logan had stated.               
 The first version of this legislation was a little over eight pages           
 long, modeled after Hawaii's version and the present committee                
 is presently only about a page and a half long.  He lauded the                
 parties who came together and worked on it.                                   
 Number 626                                                                    
 STEVE CONN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest Research               
 Group, testified on HB 414.  He felt as though the consumer should            
 fill a seat, as well as the design professionals and the attorneys            
 in arrangements of re-working legal procedure such as this.  He was           
 concerned about this and wanted to talk briefly from the consumer's           
 perspective.  He is a proponent of mediation, but he is concerned             
 when certain professionals are given these types of procedural                
 advantages.  It's critical to be aware of the relevant power                  
 equation such this when it appears to be ideally a situation where            
 people can resolve their differences.  Usually these types of                 
 situations turn out best when the alternatives to this are                    
 relatively equal for both.                                                    
 MR. CONN stated that he was concerned about home owners and                   
 consumers who may have a legal claim and have a limited amount of             
 resources, not particularly indigent, but simply middle class                 
 people pursuing a legal claim.  Certainly they should be encouraged           
 to sit down and settle their differences, but under this                      
 legislation they'd would be impelled to move into this situation,             
 akin to the type of thing that some people find fault with in the             
 bureaucratic realm when exhausting one's administrative remedies.             
 Perhaps the only way this thing could be resolved is through                  
 litigation, but here a further pressure is placed upon the would be           
 plaintiff.  Not in all cases.                                                 
 MR. CONN noted that he was concerned about how the rules of                   
 evidence would apply to information of necessity which emerges as             
 this mediation occurs.  Is that realm of compromise seeking and the           
 information drawn therefrom going to be in litigation, will a                 
 record be kept, many complications arise in this area.  He noted              
 that the capacity for waiver is guided and controlled by the                  
 defendant who might be in a situation where they're dealing with              
 ordinary, middle-class people and have the "deeper pockets."  He              
 wondered if they should consider arbitration instead.  Mr. Conn               
 offered that this has been a well discussed, well worked out bill,            
 but the consumers seat at the table has been left empty.                      
 Number 900                                                                    
 COLIN MAYNARD, Alaska Professional Design Council testified by                
 teleconference from Anchorage on HB 414.  He stated that for over             
 the last three or four months they have attempted to reduce the               
 number of frivolous suits which their profession sees.  At most of            
 the hearings the trial attorneys have said they agree with the                
 goal.  They finally came to agree with the concept of mandatory               
 mediation.  He went into further detail of these negotiations.                
 MR. MAYNARD responded to Mr. Conn's comment.  This bill relates to            
 all civil actions, not just design professionals.  The trial                  
 attorneys did not want to have special interest legislation.                  
 Basically this legislation allows for a discovery process to last             
 no more than 60 days, then mediation takes place.  Cases could                
 potentially be settled within 60 to 90 days, rather than six months           
 to two years dragging the whole process out.  This procedure will             
 cut down on costs and (indisc. - paper shuffling.)                            
 Number 1038                                                                   
 RUSS WINNER, Trial Lawyers Representative testified by                        
 teleconference from Anchorage on HB 414.  He said he had just a few           
 minutes ago been handed the amendments to version R of this                   
 legislation.  The Trial Lawyer's view is that mandatory mediation             
 shortly after what's required of the new Civil Rule 26 which is an            
 automatic and mandatory exchange of discovery and calling for                 
 mediation of the parties after this time would be a good idea.                
 They support this idea and feel that it may help to resolve                   
 litigation sooner.  If it doesn't resolve the litigation, it may              
 help the parties to focus their thinking and allow for at least a             
 partial settlement of the defendants who might not be significant             
 to the case.                                                                  
 MR. WINNER added that the Trial Lawyers feel this is an idea which            
 ought to apply across the board and not just to one type of                   
 defendant.  They support the idea of mediation occurring after the            
 exchange of discovery rather than before the initiation of a                  
 lawsuit because after exchange of discovery the parties will know             
 much of what they need to know in regards to settling the case.               
 What is contemplated here is that mediation will occur before                 
 depositions, but after the exchange of written discovery which is             
 required by the rule.  This is not an inappropriate time for                  
 parties to think about what the case really holds in store.  The              
 deposition phase is the next major phase of a lawsuit.  If the case           
 can be settled, or partially settled, simplified before depositions           
 start is a good idea.  He felt as though all the parties could                
 agree to this.                                                                
 MR. WINNER noted that there were some "what if" questions which he            
 felt needed to be thought through.  What if for example, one of the           
 litigants is indigent and can't afford a mediator?  This is                   
 something which needs to be considered.  The procedure for                    
 selecting a mediator needs to be considered.  He felt as though the           
 bill should be written so that the parties can engage in mediation            
 at any time, as long as they've done so within a specified time               
 period, this would satisfy the requirements.                                  
 MR. WINNER added that he saw in the amendments that it's allowed              
 for all the parties to waive mediation.  His experience with                  
 mediation in lawsuits, is that the Rules of Evidence do not play a            
 role.  The parties come before a retired judge or sometimes an                
 attorney and information is exchanged to the extent that it already           
 hasn't been done.  This "judge" shuttles back and forth between the           
 parties often ensconced in two different rooms.  They try to talk             
 the parties towards middle ground.  What's said on the record in              
 mediation is not admissible as evidence in a subsequent trial.                
 Number 1339                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to adopt the CS for HB            
 414, version R as the committee's working document.  There being no           
 objection it was so moved.                                                    
 Number 1374                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to move amendment number one           
 labeled R.1 for consideration by the committee.  Chairman Porter              
 objected for the purposes of discussion.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN as sponsor explained.  This amendment number             
 one would have a tendency to broaden the title significantly from             
 the original title which dealt primarily with architects, engineers           
 and land surveyors.  This amendment would expand to include certain           
 civil actions.  The amendment in it's entirety is as follows:                 
 Page 1, line 1 - 2:                                                           
 Delete "a civil action against an architect, engineer, or land                
 Insert "civil actions"                                                        
 Page 1, line 2, after "Procedure;":                                           
 Insert "repealing Rule 72.1, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure;"                
 Page 1, line 6:                                                               
 Delete "AGAINST DESIGN PROFESSIONAL"                                          
 Page 1, lines 7 - 8:                                                          
 Delete "(a) A civil action against a design professional seeking              
 damages resulting from professional"                                          
 Insert "A civil action seeking damages resulting from"                        
 Page 1, line 11, through page 2, line 4:                                      
 Delete all material.                                                          
 Page 2, after line 4:                                                         
 Insert new bill sections to read:                                             
 "*Sec. 2.  AS 08.64.326(a)(12); AS 08.68.270(10); AS 09.55.535,               
 09.55.536, 09.55.560(2), and 09.55.560(3) are repealed.                       
 *Sec. 3.  Rule 72.1, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, is repealed."           
 Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                             
 Page 2, line 7:                                                               
 Delate "against a design professional"                                        
 Insert "seeking damages resulting from negligence"                            
 Number 1431                                                                   
 MIKE FORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Affairs           
 Agency, testified by speaker phone on HB 414 and offered to run               
 through some of the key points related to this amendment.  The                
 change to the title is necessary to reflect the contents of the               
 bill as amended.  Lines 4 and 5 reflect the change to the title               
 which indicates the repeal of a court rule, a rule which is one               
 regarding medical malpractice panels.  If they were going to                  
 require mandatory mediation, this amendment would repeal provisions           
 of law which impose arbitration in medical malpractice actions.               
 Arbitration is not needed in medical malpractice if mandatory                 
 mediation is allowed for in all of these civil actions resulting              
 from negligence.                                                              
 MR. FORD continued that these changes are reflected on line 16 and            
 17 as a series of repealers and these repealers are all related to            
 medical malpractice arbitration.  They've made necessary changes              
 whereas necessary to eliminate language that limits the bill to               
 design professionals and to broaden the language to allow it to               
 apply to any civil action where someone is seeking damages                    
 resulting from negligence.  As a result of this a definition of               
 design professionals is not needed, as in subsection (b) of the CS            
 adopted.  He stated that this was it in a nutshell.                           
 Number 1555                                                                   
 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel, Alaska Court System testified             
 on HB 414.  He noted that he'd only had a brief chance to review              
 these amendments and he was still trying to ascertain what their              
 effect might be.  As a general rule, the Alaska Supreme Court does            
 support the concept of alternative dispute resolution.  They think            
 that it's generally a good idea to get people together in order to            
 solve their problems in a non-adversarial way.  This being said,              
 there are some parts of their civil law in which alternative                  
 dispute resolution can be very successful, for example, with                  
 contract claims.  Many contract claims are resolved by arbitration            
 or mediation and never come to the court system because people seem           
 to only have money at stake rather than tort type problems, such as           
 MR. CHRISTENSEN stated that another area is family law.  Probably             
 the worst use of the adversarial system is to try to divide up                
 children and assets in a divorce.  Most people would be better                
 served if they had this handled by a psychologist rather than a               
 judge.  One area of the law in which the court does not believe               
 alternative dispute resolution is as effective is in the tort area.           
 Right now better than 95 percent of all tort cases settle without             
 ever going to trial.  This is a tremendously high percentage.  The            
 court doesn't believe that mandatory arbitration or in this case              
 mediation for tort claims will save the state any money.  In the              
 sense that these cases which go to trial are going to go to trial             
 anyway, this smaller percentage is made up of three or four                   
 percent.  These are the cases where the attorneys just do not flat            
 agree on the issues to be settled.   Some other cases might settle            
 earlier, this primarily is an advantage to the litigants, not to              
 the state.  Mediation make help litigants, but it won't really save           
 the state money.                                                              
 MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that the CS before the committee                  
 affects about dozen cases a year.  This CS would dramatically                 
 expand the case load which the department did not put a cost on               
 when originally proposed.  Administrative costs may have to be                
 included.  He noted that there was no clear exemption for small               
 claims in this amendment.  He pointed out that there are thousands            
 of small claims cases which are tort related.  Small claims is an             
 expensive court for the state, it costs the state more to handle a            
 $2000 case in small claims court than it does in District court,              
 because of the extra assistance the state gives to litigants and              
 help with all the forms, etc.  The state provides small claim court           
 because a lot of people can't afford general adjudication.  The               
 process of mediation will price people out of small claims court.             
 The committee might want to consider this limitation.                         
 MR. CHRISTENSEN further stated that a tort reform bill sponsored by           
 Chairman Porter was in the senate which provides for mandatory                
 arbitration.  This has produced a fabulously expensive fiscal note            
 because of the state mandating arbitration or mediation.  If a                
 person has to do this as a condition of exercising their rights               
 before a judge or jury, the state will have to pay for the cost of            
 the mediator or the arbitrator if one of the parties cannot pay for           
 it.  Mediation as it's done is substantially less expensive than              
 the arbitration in the tort reform bill.  This does not mandate the           
 use of a retired judge or a lawyer.  These individuals normally               
 charge twice as much as a non-attorney mediator in Anchorage.                 
 MR. CHRISTENSEN also noted that if it's the legislatures intention            
 that judges be allowed to order a non-indigent party to pay for               
 both the parties involved expenses, it would be well advised for              
 the legislature to specifically say this instead of relying on                
 existing court rules.                                                         
 Number 1767                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER spoke against the amendment for a number of                   
 reasons.  The first, as it's been mentioned, this brings into                 
 consideration for this process a multitude of additional cases                
 which were not anticipated during the lengthy discussions and                 
 crafting of the present Committee Substitute.  He felt as though it           
 would be grossly unfair for them to whisk this Committee Substitute           
 out of committee without the input from the professions affected by           
 this amendment, especially the medical profession when they're                
 deleting a practice which they support.  Additionally, from a self-           
 serving, political point of view, he would never let this title out           
 of the Judiciary Committee.  With this in mind he asked if there              
 was further discussion of this amendment.  He noted that the                  
 objection was maintained and asked for a roll call vote.                      
 Representatives Toohey, Bunde, Green, Vezey and Porter voted no.              
 Representative Finkelstein voted yes.  Amendment number one failed.           
 Number 1865                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move amendment number two               
 outlined as follows:                                                          
 Page 1, line 9, following "mediation":                                        
 Insert ", unless all the parties to the civil action agree to waive           
 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that this amendment would allow if both             
 parties agree, a waiver of the automatic mediation process.  There            
 being no objection it was so moved.                                           
 Number 1887                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move amendment number three             
 outlined as follows:                                                          
 Page, line 10, following "Procedure":                                         
 Insert ", except that if the court requires the costs of mediation            
 be paid by the party defending against the civil action, the                  
 provisions of this section may be waived at the election of the               
 party defending against the civil action.  If more than one party             
 is defending against the civil action, waiver of mediation is not             
 allowed unless all defending parties agree to the waiver.  For                
 purposes a waiver allowed under this subsection, "civil action"               
 does not include a counterclaim, third-party claim, or cross claim"           
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Christensen if he had any comments                  
 concerning this amendment.                                                    
 MR. CHRISTENSEN stated that if this amendment was adopted he would            
 like to see conceptually language added which would generally say             
 if one of the parties to the litigation is indigent the court may             
 order the other party to bear the costs.  Arguably the judge can              
 already do this under court rules, but he didn't think most judges            
 would do so quite frankly.  Even if the legislature said that this            
 was their intention this doesn't mean the judge will always follow            
 CHAIRMAN PORTER reiterated this concept with the following                    
 language, "If one of the parties were indigent the court may order            
 the non-indigent party to bear the entire cost of the mediation."             
 This was offered as a friendly amendment.  There being no                     
 objection, this conceptual amendment to amendment number three                
 passed.  The other participants did not have any objections to this           
 change.  Amendment number three also passed.                                  
 Number 2030                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked for a brief observation from           
 both Mr. Maynard and Mr. Winter on the bill as amended.                       
 Number 2045                                                                   
 MR. MAYNARD felt as though the changes as amended would be fine and           
 would be a good procedure to reduce the length of cases, hence                
 saving money for the courts.                                                  
 Number 2060                                                                   
 MR. WINNER stated that the trial lawyers do object to a bill which            
 is tailored to just architects, engineers and land surveyors.  They           
 believe that the court system should be even handed in it's                   
 treatment of cases irrespective of the character or type of claim             
 or defendant.  He said it would be appropriate to hear testimony              
 from other professions, such as doctors, etc.  He urged the                   
 committee to consider this alternative to the rejection of                    
 expansion of the bill.                                                        
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if it would be within the realm of                      
 consideration to think of this legislation as perhaps a test                  
 program to see if after a couple of years it could then be applied            
 to other professions.                                                         
 Number 2118                                                                   
 MR. WINNER felt as though this might be a worthwhile idea to think            
 about.  He submitted that the way to do this would have it apply              
 across the board with a sunset clause.                                        
 Number 2130                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he was going to suggest the same             
 thing.  The concern he had though was in the interest of time in              
 this legislature.  He didn't think they would be able to adequately           
 address this issue, but were they able to give it at least the                
 interim and as Chairman Porter suggested a year or two and then               
 come back during the interim and talk to the other professions to             
 see if in fact this is what they do want.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 414, version R as             
 amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.            
 There being no objection it was so moved.                                     
 HB 154 - REGULATORY TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY                              
 REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING gave a brief overview as reiteration of            
 what this bill encompasses.  Generally HB 154 requires that                   
 government compensates private property owners if the property                
 owner has experienced a loss in economic value as a result of a               
 restriction imposed on this private property.  He referred to a               
 work draft in front of the committee which contains changes which             
 were the result of previous testimony heard.  In the spirit of                
 compromise they have tried to work with those parties who expressed           
 concerns.  There were numerous points of contention on this bill by           
 individuals, representatives and regulatory agencies.  He felt as             
 though these concerns have been sufficiently addressed in the work            
 draft before the committee and asked the committee to adopt it as             
 the new Committee Substitute.                                                 
 Number 2210                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING outlined nine specific changes to this                 
 legislation and reviewed them for the committee.  First, they                 
 replaced "governmental entities," with "state regulatory agency,              
 which removed boroughs, municipalities and cities from the                    
 government agencies to which this legislation would apply.  Second,           
 they replaced "government action" and inserted "permit,                       
 certification, approval, or other authorization required for                  
 proposed land use."  The original language was too vague.  Third,             
 they changed the "time for bringing action" from five years to                
 three years.  Fourth, they changed the compensation value to fair             
 market value.  They felt as though determining the issue of                   
 property value and the resulting loss of compensation should be               
 settled in the courts, rather than a person simply having an                  
 appraisal done.  Fifth, they removed "forest products" from the               
 definition of real property.  This would remove the annual                    
 permitting for timber buffer zones from being affected.  They also            
 removed the language, "interest in real property," which dealt with           
 a situation with limited entry permits.  This clause wouldn't                 
 necessarily deal with an actual, physical piece of property which             
 someone has lost value in.                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING continued.  Sixth, they changed the loss in            
 value threshold from 20 percent to 30 percent.  Seventh, the                  
 section entitled, "Principles for Government Action" was removed.             
 This section said that assertions of threats to public health and             
 safety were not enough to justify a taking.  Eighth, the section              
 entitled, "Inaccessible Property" was removed.  This section said             
 that compensation had to be paid for a loss of access that created            
 a loss in value of more than 20 percent.  Ninth, and lastly, the              
 section entitled, "Adjustment of Value for Property Tax," was                 
 removed.  This section said that municipalities must adjust the               
 valuation of the property for taxation purposes.  Under the new               
 version, a person will be allowed to appeal the tax valuation using           
 existing methods.                                                             
 Number 2499                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY made a motion to move CSHB 154 as the                 
 committee's working document.  There being no objection it was so             
 TAPE 96-54, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 030                                                                    
 DOUG YATES testified by teleconference from Anchorage on HB 154.              
 He stated that in his opinion this legislation was an effort to               
 dismantle basic community protections, however, the sponsor's wish            
 to (indisc. - poor transmission) with a single purpose to turn back           
 the clock on decades of vital health, safety and environmental                
 protections.  The underlying rational for this bill is found in               
 business and private interest who have deemed protection                      
 inconvenient with their economic bottom line.  He pointed out that            
 this radical interpretation of property rights has been                       
 consistently rejected by the courts.  He reminded the committee               
 that before a "takings" bill in Colorado went down to defeat, the             
 Denver Post warned that the measure "may appear innocuous, but it's           
 actually an attempt to negate the conduct of health, safety and               
 environmental regulations by saddling the enforcement agencies with           
 untenable costs."                                                             
 MR. YATES stated that this bill is not needed, over-reaching and              
 very costly to implement.  He asked the sponsor why there is not a            
 fiscal note attached to it.  On the federal side, SB 605, a                   
 "takings " proposal has been estimated to cost the public $28                 
 billion dollars over seven years.  HB 154 is a crass and nutty                
 attempt which threatens the ability of a community to engage in               
 responsible government and to successfully conserve it's resources,           
 protect it's heritage, develop it's economy and protect it's                  
 property.  He urged the committee to hold this bill, it's a waste             
 of the legislature's time and an affront to the citizens of Alaska.           
 Number 100                                                                    
 STAN THOMPSON testified by teleconference from Kenai on HB 154.  He           
 stated that he came to speak in favor of this legislation and had             
 with him a work copy dated 1/25/96 and he thought this was a great            
 bill.  Today, however, he received the work draft dated 4/31/96 now           
 before the committee and found an entirely different bill with most           
 of it's value gone.  As he understood it, the bill only relates to            
 state government takings with no effect on municipal takings, in              
 other words no longer affecting takings of cities and boroughs.  It           
 has no teeth.  He felt as though this legislation should address              
 both these entities.  Mr. Thompson said he'd still testify in favor           
 of this legislation since an eighth of a loaf is better than none             
 at all.                                                                       
 STEVE CONN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest Research               
 Group testified on HB 154.  He stated that this group deals with              
 the problems of consumers throughout the state.  He did note the              
 substantial work that was done on this legislation from it's                  
 original draft.  It has moved clearly from a broad ideological                
 statement regarding the subject of "takings" and the fifth                    
 amendment to an attempt to drive it's concepts forward in                     
 instrumental form.  However, this legislation is still loaded with            
 problems.  He asked the committee to reflect on these even as they            
 sponsor this legislation.                                                     
 MR. CONN suggested that this legislation will be a fundamental drag           
 on the ability of the state to do the right job, even a job that              
 everybody could agree that they should be doing.  On a day to day             
 basis his conception of state government is not that it's overly              
 intrusive, but that it's essentially non-functional when it comes             
 to consumer protection.  He suggested that this bill is an error              
 and it should not go forward because largely the fundamental                  
 problem with state government is non-functional.  This being the              
 case, he went further to say that, words in this draft are left               
 undefined that would be fodder for the attorneys and the board                
 system, such as "substantial evidence."  If the bill is an attempt            
 to ham string government in the performance of it's duties he felt            
 as though it will succeed in this.                                            
 Number 550                                                                    
 ANTHONY CRUPI, Alaska Environmental Lobby testified on HB 154.  He            
 stated that the Alaska Environmental Lobby has already presented              
 their testimony in opposition to this legislation.   The Lobby                
 feels as though the recent changes to the bill is an attempt to               
 address the important concerns with this legislation, but they                
 still believe that this legislation itself is fatally ill.  No                
 matter how big the band-aid they put on it, the Lobby felt as                 
 though they wouldn't be able to save the patient.                             
 MR. CRUPI noted that instead of improving government, "takings"               
 legislation such as this bill threatens to cost the state of Alaska           
 many millions of dollars by making government less efficient and              
 more costly.  There will also be assessment costs, litigation fees            
 and staggering costs of compensating property owners who claim a              
 "taking."  Who will fund these costs?  The taxpayers money will be            
 used to fund legions of attorneys and pay thousands of claims.                
 Under the fifth amendment of the constitution property owners have            
 the right to seek just compensation through judicial process if               
 they feel as though their property has been unjustly taken by the             
 government.  The lobby feels as though courts are the proper places           
 for such claims to be heard on their individual merits.                       
 MR. CRUPI added that no legislative blanket can cover the entire              
 spectrum of individual possibilities envisioned by this                       
 legislation.  Modern Democratic government has protected the rights           
 of property owners throughout time.  This bill would destroy the              
 careful balance between rights and responsibilities.  It would                
 undermine regulations which protect public health and safety and              
 the environment.  For these reasons the lobby opposes HB 154.                 
 Number 560                                                                    
 TOM BOUTIN, State Forester, Division of Forestry, Department of               
 Natural Resources testified on HB 154.  He stated that he had just            
 had a chance to read the Committee Substitute and noted that it is            
 a much changed bill from the original.  Based on this, the fiscal             
 note from the department would be much smaller as well.  He said he           
 still had questions of the sponsor, such as the issue with the                
 removal of "forest products," and related language used such as               
 "crop" to describe forest products.  He mentioned the Forest                  
 Practices Act which the state has the test of "significant harm"              
 incorporated in it.  If any part of the act would not cause                   
 significant harm the land owner has the right to come to the state            
 and demand that the Forest Practices Act, any part of it be waived            
 if significant harm won't be caused.  The State Forester has to               
 grant this if significant harm can't be shown.                                
 MR. BOUTIN noted that how this significant harm fits with the                 
 phrase in the Committee Substitute of significant, irrefutable harm           
 he truly didn't know.  Another question which came to mind in                 
 Section 5, "this Act does not apply to statutes, regulations,                 
 ordinances in effect, on the date before the effective date of the            
 Act."  He noted that this clearly does get to the issue of the                
 Forest Practices Act with it's regulations which have already been            
 enacted, however, the department does having on-going regulations.            
 For instance, the Forest Practices Act exempts land owners                    
 including the state, but especially private land owners in having             
 to do re-forestation in the case of a salvage sale.  Land owners              
 have now asked the state what this means.  They have gone through             
 the public testimony.  He explained that they are about ready to              
 finalize some regulations which would define one, what a salvage              
 sale is for purposes of a private land owner not wanting to do re-            
 forestation and two, how in the notification the landowner has to             
 submit to the state that it would have to have substantial evidence           
 submitted to the state to show that it is a salvage sale.  It                 
 seemed to him that this regulation may run into a problem if this             
 Committee Substitute was already law.  He said he would talk to the           
 Department of Law.                                                            
 Number 550                                                                    
 PAM LABEAU, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce testified             
 on HB 154.  Ms. LaBeau stated that the Chamber supported the                  
 original version of this legislation and they are disappointed that           
 it's been weakened to the extent that it has.  She stated that they           
 were part of the idealogy that an eighth of a loaf is better than             
 none.  She urged the committee to pass this legislation.                      
 Number 309                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to move amendment number             
 1 as follows:                                                                 
      Page 5, line 5:                                                          
           Delete "30"                                                         
           Insert "60"                                                         
 He explained that this was the threshold where the provision takes            
 affect.  Representative Vezey objected for discussion purposes.               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt as though an individual would have            
 to loose over the majority of the value of some property.  "This is           
 only in cases where we're talking about a law that we've passed               
 that we sat and weighed, we, meaning legislative history, which we            
 didn't pass them all.  The decisions been made with public input,             
 public testimony on what to be done.  The balances of government              
 have already been used.  If we find out there that there's, we                
 don't believe that public interest is being served that the public            
 goal being reached is not worthy of any impact it might have on any           
 individual person we can change the law.  We can go and re-write              
 the law, we can set it up in some way that impact doesn't exist,              
 but the whole basic point of this kind of governmental action is to           
 try to balance the needs of all people.  There is going to be some            
 loss.  This is just a matter of you think that loss ought to                  
 register.  I think that the impact on the community as a whole is             
 much more important than the impact on the individual.  This is the           
 90 percent that gets used sometimes.  This is an attempt to be in             
 the middle."                                                                  
 Number 700                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING voiced his objections to what Representative           
 Finkelstein suggested.  He felt as though the amount of 60 percent            
 is too large.  They went from an initial no threshold to 20 percent           
 and now it's set at 30 percent.  He felt as though this was                   
 reasonable.  He also spoke to the individual who owns the piece of            
 property which is the subject of regulatory restrictions and many             
 times individuals who put their life investment into this property,           
 to extent this was set on a 60 percent loss would be unfair.                  
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was any further discussion regarding           
 this amendment.  He then asked for a roll call vote.                          
 Representatives Bunde, Green, Vezey, Toohey and Porter voted no.              
 Representative Finkelstein voted yes.  Amendment number one failed.           
 Number 750                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN then presented amendment number two as             
 Page 5, line 4 after "property"                                               
 Insert ", unless the action is necessary to avoid or correct a                
 public or private nuisance"                                                   
 Page 5, line 7 after "property"                                               
 Insert ", unless the action is necessary to avoid or correct a                
 public or private nuisance"                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained that this related to the issue           
 of public and private nuisance.  There's been a long history as to            
 what a nuisance is and this standard pre-dates all of the state and           
 federal laws.  The concept is that someone's in a neighborhood                
 who's smelting slag iron.  This amendment doesn't empower anymore             
 someone to establish a party as a nuisance, but if they're                    
 established as a nuisance they shouldn't be awarded for any loss of           
 the use of their property.  They've already been found to be a                
 nuisance and one that needs to be abated.  He used the example of             
 shutting down someone's drug house and possibly having to                     
 compensate them.  This type of activity is a nuisance just as ones            
 related to fouling up the smells, sounds or activities in the                 
 Number 835                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected for purposes of discussion.                     
 Number 840                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that he didn't have any particular              
 opposition to this amendment.                                                 
 CHAIRMAN PORTER spoke against the amendment, especially to the idea           
 that this would provide an avenue for getting rid of crack houses.            
 He stated that there are provisions for this type of thing and it             
 has been enhanced recently by the legislature.  About the slag                
 business.  If they put an investment on their property and meet all           
 the required permitting, one of the ways they are additionally                
 harassed is for them to receive and deal with nuisance suits.  With           
 this in mind he didn't feel as though he could support this                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that if it's in the public's interest             
 to eliminate any sort of nuisance by requiring the taking of                  
 someone's property, he felt as though the public should be willing            
 to compensate the owner for the loss.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered that this amendment doesn't                
 affect whether a nuisance suit will be filed or what the outcome of           
 the suit will be.  The point Representative Vezey makes is in                 
 regards to the existing concept of a nuisance suit.  He has never             
 heard of anyone who's been found to be a nuisance and then gets               
 compensated even under existing law.  If someone is found to be a             
 nuisance they shouldn't be receiving compensation for this                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were any other discussion regarding            
 this amendment and then asked for a roll call vote.                           
 Representatives Green, Vezey, Toohey, Bunde and Porter voted no.              
 Representative Finkelstein voted yes.  Amendment number two failed.           
 Number 1007                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move CSHB 154 for the House             
 Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached              
 fiscal note.                                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN objected.  To restate his concerns, he             
 pointed out that there was a lot of discussion during the previous            
 hearing.  He felt as though the sponsor has made a serious effort             
 to reduce some of the concerns by various parties.  Some concerns             
 still exist, but in a slightly smaller arena.  Although he                    
 appreciated the efforts taken he still felt as though this                    
 legislation wouldn't be in the public interest.  He felt as though            
 this blanket approach to every law, circumstance and resource is so           
 far reaching they have no idea of what the impacts fiscally would             
 be and no idea what the effect would be on the common good.                   
 Number 1115                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER requested a roll call vote.  Representatives Vezey,           
 Toohey, Bunde, Green and Porter voted yes.  Representative                    
 Finkelstein voted no.  CSHB 154 was moved from the House Judiciary            
 Committee as noted.  Chairman Porter asked the sponsor in light of            
 the amendments to provide new fiscal notes for presentation to the            
 finance committee.                                                            
 SB 289 - MINORS, ESP. RUNAWAYS, & THEIR FAMILIES                            
 Number 1184                                                                   
 ALLISON GORDON, Legislative Assistant, Senator Steve Frank                    
 testified on SB 289.  She read the sponsor statement into the                 
 "This legislation was introduced to address the growing concern               
 among parents for the safety of their runaway children.  The                  
 runaway epidemic is a significant problem in our communities that             
 needs serious consideration.                                                  
 "SB 289 will strengthen the language within AS 11.51.130 regarding            
 contributing to the delinquency of a minor.  By discouraging people           
 from harboring runaways, it will compel these children to take                
 advantage of available services that are necessary for assessing              
 the individual's situation and beginning the process of                       
 reconciliation with the child's family.                                       
 "This legislation will also make clear that a police officer's                
 first course of action, after picking up a runaway, will be to take           
 that child back to his or her parents unless the officer believes             
 that there has been abuse to the minor.  If that parent will not              
 accept the child, then the second course of action will be to take            
 the minor to a safe place agreed to by the parent.  If this cannot            
 be accomplished either, then the police officer must take the child           
 to a semi-secure shelter for assessment of the child's situation              
 and determination of the course of action that is in the best                 
 interest of the child.                                                        
 "SB 289 creates a second tier of consequences for those runaways              
 who run from semi-secure shelters after they have been placed there           
 by law enforcement and instructed to remain in that facility.  This           
 bill makes it a violation to run from a semi-secure placement,                
 thereby giving discretion to law enforcement officials to pick up             
 the minor and detain him or her in a secure environment pending a             
 detention hearing within 48 hours under AS 47.10.140.  If there are           
 no other reasons for detaining the minor, such as a delinquency               
 petition based on violating other laws, the minor would be released           
 to the legal custodian at the detention hearing.  If the judge                
 finds probable cause to determine that the minor is a child in need           
 of aid it should proceed under AS 47.10.142 (e).                              
 'I feel this legislation is an important step in dealing with this            
 continuing problem and I would appreciate your support."                      
 Number 1350                                                                   
 L. DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family & Youth Services,               
 Department of Health & Social Services testified on SB 289.  She              
 stated that the department is certainly concerned with the issue of           
 runaways.  They also recognize that this is a serious problem and             
 they deal with these types of issues every day within the work that           
 they do.  The department did strongly support the Senate Judiciary            
 version of this legislation.  At this point with the current                  
 version they do have some concerns.                                           
 MS. WORLEY stated that they strongly support the sections which               
 increase penalties for those adults who harbor runaways.  Many of             
 the problems which they have with youth leaving the runaway                   
 facilities is because these youths have some place to go other than           
 the facilities which are available to them.  The department felt as           
 if they could strengthen these laws and eliminate the ability for             
 these kids to stay with these adults who in many cases are not                
 always the most healthy role models for these children, they will             
 go a long way to having kids remain in the runaway facilities which           
 currently exist.                                                              
 MS. WORLEY noted the department does not have a problem with semi-            
 secure facilities.  Semi-secure means that there would be a system            
 set up so that if a child left a runaway facility the staff would             
 know this immediately and make contact with the parents, the                  
 department or law enforcement.  They are concerned with a provision           
 in this legislation which allows runaways to be detained in a lock            
 up facility.  Currently in the state there are no secure facilities           
 for runaways other than the ones run by the state, which there are            
 five of these run by the division.  These facilities are for                  
 delinquent youth who have committed some type of offense which has            
 made them delinquent and gotten them into the system to be detained           
 in either detention or a treatment facility.  These facilities are            
 at maximum capacity and in most cases are at over capacity.  She              
 cited an example of this.                                                     
 MS. WORLEY stated that when keeping this in mind they are going to            
 have to first of all development regulations on how to run these              
 facilities.  They would then have to have money available to grant            
 dollars to make these facilities available, go through a Request              
 for Proposal (RFP) process for granting and monitoring.  This is a            
 time consuming process.  They have concern that if this bill went             
 into effect and these facilities outside the state's jurisdiction             
 are not available, then they would be forced to be housed in the              
 state facilities which are already full.                                      
 MR. WORLEY stated if these runaway children were housed in these              
 state facilities, they would be housed in the same facilities to              
 mingle with the detention population consisting of experienced                
 street kids who have committed various crimes such as, assault,               
 armed robbery, rape, etc.  She also noted that there was a                    
 revolving door system with runaways where they go to these shelters           
 and they go right back out the other side.  This legislation would            
 just slow this process down.  A detention in many cases is only               
 going to be up to 48 hours and these children are released back to            
 their parents and it is still up to the parent to retain their                
 child at home.  Many of these children are not going to stay home.            
 MS. WORLEY offered that the department is still concerned that                
 there will still be a revolving door system, it will just be a more           
 expensive and more elaborate one.  One of her concerns particularly           
 is that they are going to set up the impression that this bill will           
 solve the problem and the reality is that the runaway problem is              
 always going to exist.  The problem of runaways will never be                 
 MS. WORLEY brought up another concern and that was the on-going               
 debate as to whether detaining kids deter them from running away.             
 The department's fear is that there will be a handful of kids that            
 this will deter, but this will be the handful of kids who have run            
 away once, tested their limits and then gone back home.  The other            
 kids might stop using the facilities currently available and go               
 further underground.  Instead of avoiding running away, they will             
 avoid getting caught, which will potentially put them in a more               
 dangerous situation.                                                          
 MS. WORLEY presented their final concern which has been discussed             
 in depth.  The department currently receives federal dollars from             
 the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),            
 which is around $700,000.  She admitted that this wasn't a hugh               
 amount of money, but by enacting this legislation the state will              
 loose this money.  Personally, it's not so much the dollars as the            
 programs which are served by these dollars.  This money funds over            
 30 local programs, in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Nome, etc.  All of                
 these programs are helping these kids they are trying to work with.           
 If they eliminate these funds and programs then they have less                
 resources to begin dealing with the problem with why kids are                 
 running away.  She stated that the department would continue                  
 supporting this legislation in it's Senate Judiciary form.  The               
 department cannot support the lock up concept of the newest version           
 and she responded to Chairman Porter's question that yes, this was            
 the primary difference between that version and this present one.             
 Number 1815                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if it was this provision which               
 would lead to the loss of federal funds.                                      
 MS. WORLEY stated that yes, this would be correct.  The OJJDP funds           
 are available to the state, but one of the conditions is that they            
 cannot lock up (indisc.) offenses.                                            
 Number 1886                                                                   
 BRUCE RUBLE testified by teleconference from Fairbanks on SB 289.             
 Mr. Ruble stated that he was a student at West Valley with a 3.0              
 average, he also works and he's a runaway.  He stated that this law           
 won't do anything because people like him will hide more and they             
 will try to be prevent being caught.  He said he would not                    
 voluntarily join a semi-secure facility.  Mr. Ruble ran away from             
 an abusive family and said he would not go back.  If this meant               
 having to keep running away, he said he would.                                
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if he had reported the abuse mentioned            
 to the authorities.                                                           
 MR. RUBLE said he reported it to the Division of Youth and Family             
 Services (DYFS) and the police.  They basically said there was                
 nothing they could do.                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY suggested he report it again.                           
 Number 1983                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that if either of these agencies did                
 respond, maybe their definition of abuse may not have been the same           
 as Mr. Ruble's, but he stated that Mr. Ruble was obviously going to           
 school which would make him more visible to these agencies.                   
 Representative Bunde asked if he had a choice between running away            
 and going to jail, which would he choose.                                     
 MR. RUBLE said he would run away.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that if this bill passes then Mr. Ruble           
 would go to a lock up.                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that Mr. Ruble would just make sure           
 he wouldn't get caught.                                                       
 MR. RUBLE agreed.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said there are a lot of people in jail who               
 thought the same thing.                                                       
 Number 2046                                                                   
 SAM HAYWOOD testified by teleconference from Anchorage on SB 289.             
 He stated that he was somewhat active in state politics.  He and              
 his wife run a small Christian school.  He said that he was mainly            
 testifying as a parent with a runaway son.  Mr. Haywood appreciated           
 the strong language in the bill concerning reunification of                   
 families.  He echoed some of the same concerns that Ms. Worley had.           
 Mr. Haywood's son was at McLaughlin Youth Center and became more              
 street wise and alienated once he came out.  In regards to semi-              
 secure facilities, he didn't know of one.  Mr. Haywood's son walked           
 away from quite a few places.                                                 
 MR. HAYWOOD said that facilities such as McLaughlin were bad places           
 for these types of kids.  They don't belong there.  He also                   
 mentioned the overcrowding in these facilities and noted that the             
 "slap on the wrist" mentality of placing them back in the home when           
 these children don't get any re-direction or change in their                  
 purpose.  This is something they need to address.  If there was a             
 good semi-secure facility to prevent this that would be a good                
 thing.  Secondly, as the legislature looks at this problem the idea           
 of money comes to light.  He suggested that the legislature look at           
 the options of private industry to operate these types of                     
 Number 2320                                                                   
 AL NEAR testified by teleconference from Fairbanks on SB 289.  Mr.            
 Near said he completely supported this bill and he urged that they            
 pass it out of committee.  He said he liked how it upheld the                 
 authority of parents by directing law enforcement to return run               
 always to their homes.  In these instances when a shelter is a                
 necessary choice, this bill would put to an end to the revolving              
 door policy.  He mentioned the specific situation with his daughter           
 who was a run away.  He was told that run always are a low priority           
 because they will not stay at youth shelters.  Mr. Near stated that           
 this was true with his daughter.                                              
 TAPE 96-55, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 053                                                                    
 DEIDRE PHAYER, Executive Director, Covenant House Alaska testified            
 by teleconference from Anchorage on SB 289.  She stated that in               
 it's current form this piece of legislation would put Covenant                
 House Alaska out of business.  The definition of semi-secure is               
 quite vague and might be in conflict with their philosophy that               
 voluntary care is the best way to work with kids who are highly at            
 risk.  Alaska asked Covenant House to come here back in 1988 to               
 work with run away and homeless youth.  There was an obvious                  
 respect for their philosophy of voluntary care.                               
 MS. PHAYER continued to note that they have had just under 7,000              
 admissions to their program since 1988 and 72 percent of those                
 admissions have been with kids between 13 and 17 years old.  These            
 kids stay at their facility an average of eight days at a time                
 which gives them adequate time to intervene and work with family              
 reunification.  She believed that the key to their success is that            
 they are a voluntary program.  Kids chose to come in when they need           
 assistance.  By locking kids up they will dissuade them from                  
 disclosing many of the complex issues which lead them to run away             
 in the first place.  These are issues of emotional, sexual and                
 physical abuse.                                                               
 MS. PHAYER stated that this will perpetuate the fear and mistrust             
 that many of these kids have of adults.  She added that they do not           
 certainly want to go out of business.  Ms. Phayer felt as though              
 they were providing a service for this community.                             
 Number 226                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted for Ms. Phayer that while she was testifying            
 the sponsor's staff gave a head nod that they didn't think she                
 should be concerned and DYFS said that she should be concerned.  He           
 asked that the sponsor, DYFS and the Department of Law get together           
 to come up with a solution to this before Friday when they could              
 look at this issue again.                                                     
 Number 249                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Ms. Phayer about the 7,000 young persons           
 they serve, he wondered how many out of this number were repeats.             
 MS. PHAYER said that about 51 percent are recidivists.  Very often            
 kids come in, check them out for a night or two, look at staff to             
 see if they can trust them.  Very often they need to come back in             
 again.  Of this 7,000 this represents 3,329 individuals of un-                
 duplicated use.                                                               
 Number 291                                                                    
 LORI BACKES testified by teleconference from Fairbanks on SB 289.             
 In their efforts to make sure run always are not forced to return             
 to an abusive situation or safe jail, they must not neglect the               
 young people who run away simply to avoid the responsibilities and            
 restrictions of family life.  It's clear that children run away               
 from abusive and unsafe homes.  They must do everything they can to           
 protect them.  Ms. Backes mentioned her young, run away daughter.             
 Under the current law she had no support from the Alaska State                
 Troopers or the Fairbanks city police to protect her daughter.                
 When her daughter was gone there was no method to bring her home.             
 MS. BACKES said that no one wants to lock up kids that have been              
 victimized, but when it comes to run always there are two choices.            
 They can be taken into custody or they can be let go.  This bill              
 finally allows a safety officer to take these children into                   
 custody, not to prison like a criminal, but into protective custody           
 where their situation will be evaluated.  She doesn't ask the state           
 to take care of her children for her, but she needs to protect her            
 children and this must not be interfered with.                                
 Number 490                                                                    
 TOM BEGICH, Chairman, State Student Justice Legislative Committee             
 and Chairman, National Coalition of Juvenile Justice and                      
 Delinquency Prevention testified by teleconference from Anchorage             
 on HB 289.  The Juvenile Justice Committee has a position paper               
 which specifically addresses this bill and issue.  They were                  
 supportive of the earlier version of this legislation.  The mission           
 paper reinforces the concern of dealing with those who harbor run             
 always.  Secondly, it recognizes that in some instances semi-secure           
 facilities may be the answer and finally it absolutely opposes                
 locking children up.                                                          
 MR. BEGICH stated that if the issue is one of appropriate                     
 consequences to use, this is an issue of law enforcement related to           
 any kind of misdemeanor, criminal activity which may be taken.  He            
 understood that there have been a number of efforts in Anchorage              
 and other places to provide specific consequences to any criminal             
 activity.  If it's a question of more parental involvement then               
 absolutely, the provisions of the earlier version provide this.               
 Finally, if it's an issue of law enforcement not following the law            
 or going after those who perpetrate a crime on a fourteen year old            
 of sexual molestation or sexual statutory rape, then this is an               
 issue which has to be brought up with law enforcement and does not            
 come under the purview of this legislation.                                   
 MR. BEGICH referred to the cost issue noted by Ms. Worley.  The               
 federal $700,000 which would cease coming to the state.  This would           
 impact over 30 programs which rely on this money and keep 600 to              
 700 individuals out of the system.                                            
 Number 674                                                                    
 LESLIE DRUMHILLER testified by teleconference from Fairbanks on SB            
 289.  She and her husband strongly support SB 289.  They are                  
 parents of a 16 year old run away.  This legislation is strong and            
 it needs to be.  They are not the only parents who suffer from weak           
 laws.  Too long have their hands been tied.  They support the                 
 section dealing with semi-security.  Fairbanks run always have a              
 very strong underground network since they know they are immune               
 from the law, so they keep running.                                           
 Number 789                                                                    
 JUDY SHIFFLER testified by teleconference from Fairbanks on SB 289.           
 She was gratified to see the inclusion of the authorization of                
 temporary, secure detention of a minor who has previously left the            
 semi-secure program without permission.  She felt as though this              
 was the most viable provision in SB 289.  Without it the run away             
 would have no consequence and the revolving door syndrome stays               
 intact.  Ms. Shiffler said she too was concerned about the negative           
 influences of places like the McLaughlin facility, but there must             
 be a next consequence after leaving a semi-secure facility.  She              
 was pleased with the consistent focus of this bill of immediately             
 informing and consulting with a parent or guardian.  She was also             
 pleased with trying to reunited the family unit through counseling.           
 Number 898                                                                    
 CANDY CARROLL testified by teleconference from Fairbanks on SB 289.           
 She stated that Bruce Ruble had been living in her home for the               
 past two years.  As a result she was charged under the law and                
 summoned to court.  The charges were dismissed once they realized             
 the circumstances.  Mr. Ruble continues to go to school, keeps his            
 grades up and holds down a job.  She has several run away children            
 who live with her and are allowed to do so with the permission of             
 their parents and that they work for re-unification.  All of the              
 run always which have stayed with her have returned to their homes            
 and are currently living there, although these children needed a              
 time out away from their parents.  Her philosophy is that the run             
 away problem is not a problem with teenagers, but with families.              
 Usually there are family problems which need to be dealt with as a            
 MS. CARROLL said she didn't believe in locking up children.  She              
 didn't have a problem with semi-secure facilities.  One of the                
 things which could help these situations, if the bill was extended            
 to allow for these matters to be entered into civil trial and if              
 the judge was given the authority to mandate that there be family             
 counseling.  The run always are used as scape goats, although this            
 is a family problem.  Rather than semi-secure facilities, have DYFS           
 license safe houses for these children where there is neutrality.             
 Number 1060                                                                   
 ROBIN RANDALL testified by teleconference from Fairbanks on SB 289.           
 She supports this legislation and feels as though it could remedy             
 some of the heart breaking stories of run always.  There have to be           
 some concrete consequences to follow, especially to harborers.  She           
 thought it was imperative to notify authorities that harborer are             
 accountable to the court and that especially the parents are                  
 informed about where their child is.  A clause which does concern             
 her regarding this issue is the use of the words, "reasonable                 
 efforts."  She referred to an instance with her teenage son.  She             
 felt as though this legislation would decrease the amounts of run             
 always and supports its passage.                                              
 Number 1184                                                                   
 MS. GORDON, Legislative Assistant to Senator Frank asked to make              
 one thing clear and that was when discussing the fiscal note from             
 the DYFS with them and the monies provided in their fiscal note               
 regarding the secure facilities.  What was conveyed to her was the            
 fact that they didn't want to put these run always in already over-           
 crowded detention centers.  These are not appropriate places for              
 children who have not committed a crime.  DYFS conveyed that they             
 wanted to use this money as grants for residential treatment                  
 facilities who would upgrade some of their beds to a secure                   
 environment as opposed to a detention center, keeping in mind that            
 there will have to be some money spent and federal funding might be           
 lost.  This legislation deals with those situations where if                  
 children are not in school, they're not being educated or receiving           
 the proper care are going to end up being cared for by the state              
 ultimately by welfare, Department of Corrections, or otherwise.               
 This bill passed unanimously in the Senate.                                   
 Number 1259                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that they would hold this over until Friday,           
 and it will be the first business on the agenda.  He asked that the           
 issues regarding the Covenant House be addressed and presented                
 CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:05 p.m.                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects