Legislature(1999 - 2000)

04/28/1999 01:20 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
         HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                   April 28, 1999                                                                                               
                     1:20 p.m.                                                                                                  
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                                 
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman                                                                                              
Representative Joe Green                                                                                                        
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                                                                  
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative Lisa Murkowski                                                                                                   
Representative Eric Croft                                                                                                       
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                  
Representative Beth Kerttula                                                                                                    
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                              
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18                                                                                                   
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska                                                               
relating to an office of administrative hearings.                                                                               
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3                                                                                                   
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska                                                               
relating to the repeal of regulations by the legislature.                                                                       
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
HOUSE BILL NO. 177                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to foster parents; relating to the right of foster                                                             
parents to have notice of, and testify at, delinquency hearings and                                                             
to the disclosure of minors' records to foster parents; and                                                                     
amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 12, 21, 23, and 25, Alaska Delinquency                                                                 
     - MOVED CSHB 177(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
* SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 33                                                                                      
"An Act relating to arrests."                                                                                                   
     - MOVED CSSSHB 33(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                    
(* First public hearing)                                                                                                        
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                                 
BILL: HJR 18                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS                                                                                 
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) OGAN, Foster, Dyson, Rokeberg                                                                    
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 2/24/99       300     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 2/24/99       300     (H)  STA, JUD, FIN                                                                                       
 2/26/99       328     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER                                                                                
 3/04/99               (H)  STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                         
 3/04/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 3/04/99               (H)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 3/05/99       377     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): DYSON, ROKEBERG                                                                       
 3/09/99               (H)  STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                         
 3/09/99               (H)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 3/16/99               (H)  STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                         
 3/16/99               (H)  MOVED CSHJR 18(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                
 3/16/99               (H)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 3/17/99       489     (H)  STA RPT  CS(STA) NT 4DP 2DNP                                                                        
 3/17/99       489     (H)  DP: JAMES, COGHILL, WHITAKER, OGAN;                                                                 
 3/17/99       489     (H)  DNP: SMALLEY, KERTTULA                                                                              
 3/17/99       490     (H)  FISCAL NOTE (GOV)                                                                                   
 3/17/99       490     (H)  REFERRED TO JUD                                                                                     
 3/24/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/24/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 3/24/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/29/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/29/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD SUBCMTE APPOINTED                                                                    
 3/29/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/28/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
BILL: SJR  3                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE                                                                               
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Kelly Tim, Phillips;                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Harris                                                                                                        
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/21/99        43     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 1/21/99        44     (S)  STA, FIN                                                                                            
 1/28/99               (S)  STA AT  3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                                                                      
 1/28/99               (S)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 1/28/99               (S)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 2/01/99       125     (S)  STA RPT  3DP 1DNP                                                                                   
 2/01/99       125     (S)  DP: WARD, PHILLIPS, MACKIE; DNP:                                                                    
 2/01/99       125     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S. STA)                                                                           
 2/05/99       164     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)                                                                              
 2/11/99               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 2/11/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 2/11/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 2/11/99       227     (S)  FISCAL NOTE (GOV)                                                                                   
 2/16/99               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 2/16/99               (S)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 2/16/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 2/16/99       256     (S)  FIN RPT  2DP 4NR 1DNP                                                                               
 2/16/99       256     (S)  DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL; NR: GREEN,                                                                  
 2/16/99       256     (S)  PETE KELLY, WILKEN, LEMAN; DNP: ADAMS                                                               
 2/16/99       256     (S)  PREVIOUS FN (GOV)                                                                                   
 3/15/99               (S)  RLS AT  1:40 PM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 3/15/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 3/16/99       564     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/16/99                                                                  
 3/16/99       570     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 3/16/99       571     (S)  ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y14 N4                                                                 
 3/16/99       571     (S)  THIRD READING 3/17 CALENDAR                                                                         
 3/17/99       585     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  SJR 3                                                                          
 3/17/99       585     (S)  COSPONSOR(S): TIM KELLY, PHILLIPS                                                                   
 3/17/99       586     (S)  PASSED Y14 N4 E2                                                                                    
 3/17/99       586     (S)  ELLIS  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                    
 3/17/99       587     (S)  RECON TAKEN UP SAME DAY  UNAN CONSENT                                                               
 3/17/99       587     (S)  HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 3/23                                                                     
 3/23/99       650     (S)  BEFORE THE SENATE ON RECONSIDERATION                                                                
 3/23/99       651     (S)  PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N5                                                                    
 3/23/99       652     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 3/24/99       544     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/24/99       544     (H)  STA, JUD, FINANCE                                                                                   
 3/24/99       562     (H)  CROSS SPONSOR(S): HARRIS                                                                            
 4/08/99               (H)  STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                         
 4/08/99               (H)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 4/08/99               (H)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 4/08/99       687     (H)  STA RPT 4DP 2DNP 1NR                                                                                
 4/08/99       687     (H)  DP: JAMES, COGHILL, WHITAKER, OGAN;                                                                 
 4/08/99       687     (H)  DNP: SMALLEY, KERTTULA; NR: HUDSON                                                                  
 4/08/99       687     (H)  SENATE FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/11/99                                                                    
 4/08/99       687     (H)  REFERRED TO JUD                                                                                     
 4/26/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/26/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 4/28/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
BILL: HB 177                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: FOSTER CARE & DELINQUENT MINORS                                                                                    
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DYSON, Croft, Smalley, Ogan,                                                                     
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 4/07/99       670     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 4/07/99       670     (H)  HES, JUD                                                                                            
 4/15/99               (H)  HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                         
 4/15/99               (H)  MOVED CSHB 177(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                
 4/15/99               (H)  MINUTE(HES)                                                                                         
 4/19/99       864     (H)  HES RPT  CS(HES) 3DP 1NR                                                                            
 4/19/99       865     (H)  DP: DYSON, COGHILL, BRICE; NR:                                                                      
 4/19/99       865     (H)  2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADMINISTRATION,                                                                
 4/28/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
BILL: SSHB  33                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: ARRESTS BY PRIVATE PERSONS                                                                                         
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DYSON, Green, James, Kott                                                                        
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/19/99        26     (H)  PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99                                                                             
 1/19/99        26     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 1/19/99        26     (H)  JUDICIARY                                                                                           
 3/05/99       367     (H)  SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED                                                                       
 3/05/99       367     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/05/99       367     (H)  JUDICIARY                                                                                           
 4/28/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                                
JOHN KIMMEL, Legislative Administrative Assistant                                                                               
  to Senator Robin Taylor                                                                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 30                                                                                                       
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-3922                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented sponsor statement on SJR 3.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON                                                                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 104                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-2199                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 177 and SSHB 33.                                                                             
LISA TORKELSON, Legislative Assistant                                                                                           
   to Representative Fred Dyson                                                                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 104                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-2199                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Explained HB 177.                                                                                          
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer                                                                                     
Youth Corrections                                                                                                               
Division of Family and Youth Services                                                                                           
Department of Health and Social Services                                                                                        
P.O. Box 110630                                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-2212                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HB 177.                                                                              
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director                                                                                                   
Central Office                                                                                                                  
Public Defender Agency                                                                                                          
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200                                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090                                                                                                    
Telephone:  (907) 264-4400                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HB 177 and SSHB 33.                                                                  
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney                                                                                          
Administrative Staff                                                                                                            
Office of the Administrative Director                                                                                           
Alaska Court System                                                                                                             
820 West 4th Avenue                                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2005                                                                                                    
Telephone:  (907) 264-8265                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 177.                                                                                       
DAVID HUDSON, First Sergeant                                                                                                    
Division of Alaska State Troopers                                                                                               
Department of Public Safety                                                                                                     
5700 East Tudor Road                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225                                                                                                    
Telephone:  (Not provided)                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SSHB 33.                                                                                      
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant                                                                                         
   to Representative Pete Kott                                                                                                  
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 118                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-3777                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SSHB 33.                                                                                      
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-43, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                
meeting to order at 1:20 p.m.  Members present at the call to order                                                             
were Representatives Kott, Rokeberg, James, Murkowski and Croft.                                                                
Representative Green arrived at 2:45 p.m.                                                                                       
HJR 18 - CONST. AM:  ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS                                                                                    
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is House Joint                                                              
Resolution 18, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the                                                                  
State of Alaska relating to an office of administrative hearings.                                                               
Number 0137                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said the subcommittee met and made some                                                                
changes to the resolution.  She indicated that Subsection C was                                                                 
added on page 1, beginning on line 14, and reads as follows:                                                                    
     The legislature may exempt any agency of the State from                                                                    
     (a) of this section by law.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI further stated that this was added to                                                                  
address the concerns that were in the initial resolution where it                                                               
appeared that the legislature, in fact, did not have the authority                                                              
to decide who may or may not be in or out with regards to the full                                                              
centralized office of administrative hearings.  She said there had                                                              
been some discussion over language that would have specifically                                                                 
exempted boards and commissions.  She feels, as do those on the                                                                 
subcommittee, that this legislation is far from perfect, and that                                                               
it needs review during the interim.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he is satisfied with the                                                                    
stipulation, regarding an agency and the ability to include or                                                                  
exclude, to include the boards and the commissions.  He believes                                                                
this will help the success of this resolution.                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "What change does this make in our                                                                  
power to do anything in this area?"                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated that she understood that the                                                                    
testimony indicates that the public needs to basically provide the                                                              
direction to the legislature that "you shall create an office of                                                                
administrative hearing that is your centralized office."  She said                                                              
if this is not put before the people then this legislature would                                                                
not do it.                                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that it does not change the legal                                                                
authority in this area.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI replied that she does not believe it                                                                   
changes the legal authority in this area.                                                                                       
Number 0430                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she was happy to see the inclusion                                                             
of Subsection C because she feels, without it, the issue is dead.                                                               
She said, "I think this is probably one of the best things that we                                                              
could do.  It couldn't have been done by statute, but we couldn't                                                               
pass it by statute.  We might have a little problem getting a                                                                   
constitutional amendment passed.  I'd be happy to talk to anybody                                                               
about this issue.  From a practical standpoint, I know that what                                                                
happens with us when we have a system, and you get used to the                                                                  
system, we don't want change, and we think that what we're doing                                                                
works perfectly fine.  We can find all kinds of excuses, from the                                                               
fact that no one else would know how to do this.  No one else would                                                             
have the expertise.  All of those kinds of excuses are not valid                                                                
excuses.  It's to say that, 'I'm the only one that smart, and no                                                                
one else is smart, so no one else can do this besides me.'  So, I                                                               
think ... in the regulation process, where the regulations are                                                                  
written by the agency, they are enforced by the agency, and, if you                                                             
want to appeal any of those actions, you appeal to the same agency.                                                             
That is not democracy.  So, I think this is a really good plan to                                                               
have innocent, third-party decision-makers in the appeal process."                                                              
Number 0584                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he would also prefer to have                                                                
this done by statute.  He said, "But that would require that the                                                                
administration would cooperate (indisc.)."                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said no and stated, "We have a veto-proof                                                                  
majority.  We can do it anytime we want."                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that it is his preference that                                                                
the administration and legislature work jointly on this.  He thinks                                                             
it is an excellent model for reducing costs and providing better                                                                
service to the people of Alaska.  He made a motion to adopt  the                                                                
proposed committee substitute [Version I, Cook, 4/27/99].  There                                                                
being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move Version I, with                                                                   
individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes, out of the                                                                    
CHAIRMAN KOTT objected, noting that they did not have the votes.                                                                
He asked Representative Rokeberg to withdraw his motion.                                                                        
Number 0666                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his motion.                                                                                    
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Murkowski to comment on her                                                                  
concerns regarding the resolution.                                                                                              
Number 0685                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated that it is her understanding that                                                               
the attempt the sponsor made, in terms of getting the resolution                                                                
through statutorily, was rather tortuous, and ended up with a                                                                   
product that was not feasible.  She noted that there was some                                                                   
concern expressed that it cannot be done statutorily because there                                                              
was  some opposition from those within the department and the                                                                   
administration.  Her indication is that the administration                                                                      
recognize the benefits and merits of pursuing this and are willing                                                              
to work with the sponsor and subcommittee to make it happen.  She                                                               
said, "Because it is such a major step, though, in terms of how we                                                              
handle our administrative hearings, it wasn't something that my                                                                 
subcommittee is able to do at this point in time.  I don't think,                                                               
though, that that same resistance, if you will, or perceived                                                                    
resistance is there now.  I think that there is a recognition that                                                              
perhaps the system does not work as it should. ... I think that it                                                              
deserves more scrutiny and more work."                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she appreciates what                                                                           
Representative Murkowski said.  She believes that if the                                                                        
administration cooperated, there is no reason that this could not                                                               
be done by statute.  She indicated that she is encouraged by the                                                                
tone reported from the administration by Representative Murkowski.                                                              
She thinks that maybe having a constitutional amendment has made                                                                
them look a little harder, or maybe they have been persuaded in                                                                 
some other way.                                                                                                                 
Number 0876                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that from his discussion with the                                                                           
administration it was suggested that they were more than willing to                                                             
sit down and craft some legislation that would attempt to satisfy                                                               
the intent of the resolution.  He is concerned about "entrenching                                                               
our Constitution."  He stated that a statute would have to be                                                                   
passed to make this work, and he does not think putting the cart                                                                
before the horse is the way to go.  It is his intent to hold the                                                                
resolution in the committee and work on the resolution during the                                                               
interim.  He commented that it is not the intent to let the                                                                     
resolution sit in committee without subsequent legislation going                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she would be willing to offer her                                                              
expertise on this issue.                                                                                                        
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that he does not want anyone in the                                                                     
administration to think that the resolution is "D.O.A" [dead on                                                                 
arrival] to this committee.  He stated that he would like to have                                                               
one shot to work on the resolution in order to give it a legitimate                                                             
chance to pass.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "I was here when the statutory version                                                               
by the same sponsor as this resolution came before us.  And, I                                                                  
mean, it was this committee, in its prior form, saw enough problems                                                             
with it that we didn't think it should go forward.  It has serious                                                              
flaws that the sponsor never rectified, never corrected.  I've                                                                  
before had the experience of driving down the road and rolling down                                                             
the window and telling somebody they've got a flat tire and having                                                              
them be pissed off at me.  I mean, the administration just pointed                                                              
out the problems that were in the bill, and that's their job.  It                                                               
is not the administration that killed this bill, the Judiciary                                                                  
Committee killed this bill because it had-last year's                                                                           
bill-[be]cause it had serious flaws that were never corrected, and                                                              
this year I think the Judiciary Committee has appropriate concerns                                                              
about this all-or-nothing approach. ... There's never been a                                                                    
governor's veto of a statute, it's never gotten that far [be]cause                                                              
it's never been put in any kind of form that approached reasonable.                                                             
It is an extremely time-consuming process to do this right, to try                                                              
and do it in a blanket approach.  You end up with huge, unintended                                                              
consequences; some of which are obvious, some which take a long                                                                 
time to figure out. ... We may end up, after doing this all                                                                     
session, or all interim, with the conclusion that there isn't any                                                               
significant savings to be had [be]cause the numbers of places that                                                              
we do this are so small that you're accumulating small. ... Putting                                                             
in our constitution, a directive to do what we have the power to do                                                             
now, but allowing us to not do it if we decide not to, is simply,                                                               
in my mind, ridiculous."                                                                                                        
Number 1271                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that maybe no savings will be found.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she was glad that the committee is                                                                
willing to undertake this throughout the interim and look at just                                                               
those issues.  She stated that the items Representative Croft                                                                   
mentioned are exactly accurate.  It is her opinion that there are                                                               
very serious and substantial flaws with the resolution.  She hopes                                                              
the committee considers the concept during the interim, not whether                                                             
or not there is a joint resolution coming forward.  She appreciates                                                             
that Representative Ogan has kept the issue in the forefront.                                                                   
CHAIRMAN KOTT added that he also applauds Representative Ogan's                                                                 
attempt.  He believes it is a great concept that needs to be                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agrees that this is the way to go.  She feels,                                                             
without cooperation and help from the administration, that changes                                                              
cannot be made.  She would also like to fit dispute resolution into                                                             
the process in order to have it as the first opportunity, and, if                                                               
that does not resolve anything, then have it go on to a hearing                                                                 
officer.  She stated that her goal is to create a better                                                                        
relationship between the agencies and the public, and what the                                                                  
public does.                                                                                                                    
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that it would be taken into consideration.                                                                 
Number 1481                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he does not entirely agree with                                                             
the diagnoses of the "death" of this resolution last year.  He                                                                  
believes from discussions with the sponsor that it was as much the                                                              
administration's reluctance to further work on the issue as much as                                                             
anything else.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "The administration has no seat on this                                                              
committee.  I mean, the committee decided from the (indisc.), and                                                               
I asked the sponsor then and I'll ask him again this, 'What                                                                     
questions hasn't the administration, ... or whoever, answered on                                                                
behalf?'  Last year when I asked him that, it was,  'None, but we                                                               
just don't think they like it.'  Of course they didn't like it.  We                                                             
didn't like it.  It didn't work, but that's not their fault.  I                                                                 
guess he wanted them to rewrite the bill, ... They didn't do that,                                                              
but they did say, I mean, clearly on the record, where the problems                                                             
areas were, and what to do with it. ... I will ask again,  'What                                                                
questions haven't been answered?'  I think they have been, and I                                                                
think it's just, it's a very difficult, time-consuming area to do                                                               
right, and it has not been done right to date."                                                                                 
Number 1562                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT said if the resolution had ended up in the House                                                                  
Judiciary Standing Committee they could have moved it out if the                                                                
votes were there.  He is not sure about the details, but it is                                                                  
obvious to him that there must have been a problem or some concerns                                                             
by some of the committee members.                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the best way to provide a working                                                              
piece of legislation is for "us to sit on the committee, and have                                                               
the administration out there, and we have this interchange."  She                                                               
indicated that this did not happen last year, and that this year                                                                
the administration was not interested in having anything move                                                                   
forward.  She feels that if there is a change of heart now, she is                                                              
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that the bill would be held over for                                                                    
further consideration.                                                                                                          
SJR 3 - REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE                                                                                    
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated the next order of business is Senate Joint                                                                 
Resolution No. 3, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the                                                             
State of Alaska relating to the repeal of regulations by the                                                                    
Number 1680                                                                                                                     
JOHN KIMMEL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Robin                                                              
Taylor, came forward to speak on behalf of Senator Taylor, sponsor                                                              
of SJR 3.  He stated that SJR 3 is a proposed amendment to the                                                                  
Constitution of the State of Alaska which would grant the                                                                       
legislature the authority to repeal a regulation adopted by a state                                                             
agency that is inconsistent with its enabling statute.  It would                                                                
also allow the people of Alaska to provide the legislature with the                                                             
authority to repeal regulations through a simple resolution.  He                                                                
indicated that the most onerous portions of state government are                                                                
the application of regulations to our lives.                                                                                    
MR. KIMMEL believes that if the legislature can make those                                                                      
regulations more attuned to legislative intent, the public would be                                                             
more pleased with their government and may understand it better.                                                                
The public would also know that the policy makers could quickly and                                                             
efficiently amend those regulations that they find onerous.  He                                                                 
stated that this issue has come before the voters in the past, and                                                              
now the time has come again for the voters to reduce the amount of                                                              
time and money spent in legislation.  The voters would have a                                                                   
chance to speak out about the proposed amendment in the next                                                                    
general election.                                                                                                               
Number 1746                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked how many times this issue has been presented to                                                             
the voters.                                                                                                                     
MR. KIMMEL replied that it has been presented to the voters three                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "Once very narrowly (indisc.)."                                                                   
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether it was the first time or the last time.                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he believed it was the middle time                                                                 
[laughter].  He asked whether the Senate changed the language                                                                   
versus the resolution that was presented to the voters before.                                                                  
MR. KIMMEL believes the Senate did.  He believes the original had                                                               
administrative regulations included somehow.  He does not know the                                                              
entire history of that.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that it seemed to him that the                                                                   
language was slightly different and that was one of the concerns.                                                               
Number 1808                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that it is important to know the                                                                    
distinction of the language from the last three times "we've asked                                                              
and been rejected."  He said,  "If we're asking them to do the same                                                             
thing, it's one thing, to the extent that there's a material                                                                    
difference that would be important, but I'd like to see the last                                                                
three ones that failed if you have copies of them."                                                                             
MR. KIMMEL replied that he does not have copies now, but could get                                                              
copies for the committee.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that it seems to be important if there                                                              
is any difference from what has been tried three times previously.                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that what was in the voter pamphlet                                                              
also needs to be seen.  She stated that there was no effort on                                                                  
anyone's part to pass or not pass that, and it was difficult for                                                                
people to understand.  She said the other issue is that "it's a                                                                 
little out of synch with the rest of the things that we do in                                                                   
government where the first, second and third reading of issues and                                                              
where the separation of powers, and, this, to do a resolution to                                                                
overturn administrative law is a reach."                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that we do have the right to undo                                                                
regulation by pieces of legislation, but it is difficult to do if                                                               
the reason it is being undone is because of the onerous intent that                                                             
was not the intent of the legislation.  She blames the legislature                                                              
for that because they make very bland statements in their                                                                       
legislation which have to sometimes be characterized by the                                                                     
administration who sometimes guess wrong.  She feels "a hammer" is                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that some of the states that have                                                                   
passed this resolution never have to use it is because they have a                                                              
hammer.  This helps to have the negotiation between the                                                                         
administration and the legislature in order to solve the problem.                                                               
Number 1932                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT agrees that the problem, to a large extent, has been                                                              
brought about by themselves.  He said, "It amazes me that if you're                                                             
sponsoring a piece of legislation and it passes, and ultimately                                                                 
signs into law, there's going to be regulations out there.  And                                                                 
then, as the sponsor of your piece of legislation, you should at                                                                
least take some interest in the regulations to ensure that they                                                                 
meet your intent, and then work with the department to clarify                                                                  
anything that, perhaps, is incorrectly stated in the regulatory                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that he believes the                                                             
questions Representative Croft raised earlier can be found in the                                                               
file on HJR 1, a bill sponsored by Representatives Rokeberg and                                                                 
James during the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature.  He stated, "I                                                             
think one reason we felt very strongly about this last time, we                                                                 
felt that there was a change in attitude in the interest,                                                                       
particularly in a business community; as the amount of regulations                                                              
has grown over the years because of these problems we just                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG believes there is a recognition among the                                                               
public now that there has to be a simpler way to rectify some of                                                                
those laws by regulation that are promulgated by the bureaucracy                                                                
and the administration.  He thinks a sound case can be made, and                                                                
that the business community is in a position now to get behind                                                                  
that.  He indicated that a point of frustration for he and                                                                      
Representative James has been airport regulations in which they                                                                 
tried to change four or five sentences in the leasing law to                                                                    
correct the commercial leasing activities at the international                                                                  
airports in the state.  He stated that they are still waiting, four                                                             
years later, for the regulations which became over 200 pages.  He                                                               
feels that if this "hammer" had been available back then the                                                                    
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities could have been                                                              
a little more receptive to what the public wanted.                                                                              
Number 2045                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to the enactment of a statute by                                                              
way of an initiative with regard to the medical use of marijuana.                                                               
She stated that the regulations are being worked on now and will                                                                
take effect in June.  She said there are many who believe the                                                                   
regulations and the statute are not necessarily consistent with the                                                             
intent.  She asked whether the ability to repeal the regulation                                                                 
changes when a statute has been enacted by initiative.                                                                          
MR. KIMMEL replied that he has not looked at that part of it.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated, by law, a statute that has been                                                                
enacted by initiative cannot be repealed.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES believes that the same thing might apply in                                                                
the case of an initiative as it would in a statutory change.  The                                                               
reason they would utilize this resolution process is because the                                                                
regulations do not implement the intent of the law.  She said if                                                                
the regulations on the medical marijuana bill do not implement the                                                              
intent of the law that would be a reason to turn them over.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated, "If you don't like the regulations and                                                             
you can't find something in the law that they are, I mean, the                                                                  
law's so open, many times it is, that they could do it this way or                                                              
this way, and they just chose the wrong way according to your                                                                   
opinion or according to the public, then that's a different issue.                                                              
Then what you need to do is clarify the law if it's not                                                                         
specifically enough in the law as to what was meant, what the                                                                   
intent was, and that's why they've guessed wrong and taken the                                                                  
wrong approach.  Then you need to change the law, you don't need to                                                             
use a resolution.  The only time you use a resolution is if there's                                                             
some definite evidence that the regulation does not activate the                                                                
intent of the law."                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT expressed frustration at putting in the                                                                    
Constitution of the State of Alaska various things that "we have                                                                
the power to do."  He stated that when a regulation is contrary to                                                              
statute, you can challenge it.  He indicated that sometimes it is                                                               
difficult to prove because the statute is so wide open that almost                                                              
nothing is contrary to it.  He said, "When there's a statute that                                                               
we think isn't what we meant, is contrary to the statute, ... but                                                               
the administration thinks it was and the court system thinks it was                                                             
... that's why we have this separation of powers.  That's why it                                                                
keeps getting rejected by the people, and, when we try to do it in                                                              
statute, unconstitutional.  We're saying that's not what we meant.                                                              
... We still have an option in that case, which is to change the                                                                
statute. ... That's within our power now. ... I think it's been a                                                               
consistent view of the people that that's just not, that's                                                                      
overstepping our bounds.  We have a proper role to play in this.                                                                
Right now, if the marijuana regulations don't reflect the statute,                                                              
... you can pass a law that ... changes it."                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued to say, "We've looked at three                                                                   
strikes, you're out before.  I think we're three strikes we're out                                                              
on this proposal, and that we ought to start, after being told                                                                  
three times, at a tremendous expense, 'No', we ought to take 'No'                                                               
for an answer.  And we ought to start figuring out ways that are                                                                
within our constitutional authority. ... Colorado does a sunset of                                                              
regulations without law putting them back in.  The fact that the                                                                
legislature didn't approve it, is the legislature's opinion. ...                                                                
It's an idea that is within ... our jurisdiction.  The other                                                                    
[state] ... has a shift in the burden of proof, which I think you                                                               
can do constitutionally.  If we say, 'That's not what we meant.',                                                               
then it's a much harder task to prove that it was.  [It] could                                                                  
still be, right?  God forbid, we might act out of pure partisan                                                                 
political actions in passing the resolution instead of pure public                                                              
good. ... A court could still look at it and say, 'Well, the                                                                    
legislature passed a resolution by a close vote that said that's                                                                
not what they meant, but, boy, it fits the statute just hand in                                                                 
glove', ... but the burden is now shifted.  The court is going to                                                               
force the person challenging it (indisc.) that it doesn't fit.  You                                                             
can shift that burden of proof and say,  'If the legislature said,                                                              
'That wasn't what we meant.', you, the agency, have to prove it was                                                             
before we go any further.  All of these things are at least                                                                     
arguably constitutional.  They don't violate separation of powers,                                                              
... but I don't know why we're trying to get this dead horse to                                                                 
stand up and run."                                                                                                              
Number 2346                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded,  "Because of the Alive case."                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "The Alive case told us we couldn't do                                                               
it.  And we tried three times to get the approval of the people to                                                              
do it and they keep telling us 'no.'  When are we going to take                                                                 
'no' for an answer?  He believes that there is a genuine separation                                                             
of powers argument that the people understand.  He stated, "We                                                                  
ought to take that 'No' for what it was worth and try and figure                                                                
out alternative approaches instead of just running this up again."                                                              
Number 2369                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated she heard Representative Croft say,                                                              
"It's okay.  We can do it with a two-thirds vote."  She stated the                                                              
issue is whether or not this can be done with a two-thirds vote or                                                              
a majority vote.  She specified that with this constitutional                                                                   
amendment it can be done with a majority vote, but without the                                                                  
constitutional amendment it cannot be done.  She feels that if the                                                              
administration was going to listen and change the regulation then                                                               
they would have already done it.  She said the public she has been                                                              
talking with has said they think a majority vote should do it.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that a resolution is not subject to a                                                               
veto.  She does not believe this is completely a whole separation                                                               
of powers.   She understands Representative Croft's argument and                                                                
agrees that this seems to be controverting the whole system of                                                                  
putting forth a law that has not gone through the process outlined                                                              
in the Constitution of the State of Alaska.  She said, "Once it                                                                 
becomes in law, ... then we've given that authority of regulation                                                               
writing to the administration, and, so, then we have hands-off                                                                  
without a two-thirds vote."  She thinks it is a problem and she                                                                 
would be perfectly happy to take back some of the authorization.                                                                
However, she does believe this is an option because no one wants to                                                             
have the cost of the regulations in the legislature's budget, as                                                                
opposed to the administration's budget.  She feels it is                                                                        
unrealistic to believe that a two-thirds vote could always be                                                                   
TAPE 99-43, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated, "We're overruling the executive and                                                                
the judiciary when we do this.  The executives decided this ought                                                               
to be in this way.  We've given them the authority (indisc.) to be                                                              
in that area, and there either is a judiciary case saying, 'Yeah,                                                               
this is within the purview granted by the legislature or not.'  So,                                                             
it is entirely appropriate that when we seek to overrule the ...                                                                
determination of the other two branches of government we do it with                                                             
a two-thirds vote."                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT disagreed with Representative James' comment                                                               
that the public told her they wanted it by two-thirds.  He argued,                                                              
"The people have said three times they didn't.  They wanted it by                                                               
a two-thirds, not a majority.  They wanted it the way it was."                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES disagrees about what the court said.  She                                                                  
said, "We didn't have constitutional authority to do what we did.                                                               
By putting this in as a constitutional amendment, we have                                                                       
constitutional authority."  She indicated there are several states                                                              
that have done constitutional authority this way.  She said the net                                                             
result is that those states do not have a conflict anymore.                                                                     
Number 0085                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agrees with Representative Croft that this                                                              
is a separation of powers issue.  He said, "When Monsieur                                                                       
Montesquieu articulated the theory, and our Founding Fathers here                                                               
in the state did it, ... At one point, there was not only a                                                                     
separation of powers theory, but there was even a balancing of                                                                  
powers theory ... implicit in that, and our Founding Fathers                                                                    
decided not to do that.  They gave up an abundance of power to the                                                              
executive.  But they did reserve to the legislature the right to be                                                             
the policy makers and law makers of the state."                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG believes the legislature should reserve the                                                             
right to make the law.  By granting authority to the executive                                                                  
agencies by statutory authority to adopt regulation, he feels we do                                                             
cede that power.  He stated that the point is to take back that                                                                 
power.  He said he is beguiled by Representative Croft's theory of                                                              
having a two-thirds vote to overcome two of the three branches of                                                               
Number 0143                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated it is his belief that two different                                                                 
overrulings are being discussed.  He referred to the Alive case                                                                 
that Representative James mentioned and stated that she is right                                                                
that this case indicates that constitutional authority was not yet                                                              
had.  He said other states have ruled that way, and some have not.                                                              
Other states are in agreement with the Alive case.  He said,                                                                    
"Clearly, if there's some question on the regulation, the executive                                                             
thinks that's the way to go.  That's why they put the regulation,                                                               
... If it is so out of whack with the statute, you can bring it  to                                                             
court, and, if you're right, you will win.  The court will say,                                                                 
'Yeah.  The statute says black and the reg[ulation] says white.'                                                                
And they overrule regulations on that basis. ... We're really                                                                   
saying we want a power to do that even when a court says, 'Yeah.                                                                
That looks like it fits.'  That's what I mean by overruling, ...                                                                
Not necessarily overruling the Alive case, but there's a branch of                                                              
government who [is] supposed to do these reg[ulation]s and they do,                                                             
and they disagree with us.  Then there's a branch of government                                                                 
that's supposed to decide if things are done according to law, and                                                              
they've said, 'The reg[ulation] fits.'"                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued to say, "And we're about to say                                                                  
you're all wrong. ... We should do that by two-thirds ... We know                                                               
resolutions.  We have them all the time. ... They propose                                                                       
constitutional amendments, but aside from that, they're usually of                                                              
wimpier stuff.  And we should have to go through the formal process                                                             
of a bill and have a super majority, a sizable majority, to say                                                                 
both branches were wrong in this instance.  The judiciary upheld                                                                
this reg[ulation], the executive put it in, but they're both wrong,                                                             
and we're right.  We ought to do that with some surety. ... Vetoes                                                              
are overridden."                                                                                                                
Number 0242                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that SJR 3 would be held in committee.                                                               
He requested Mr. Kimmel provide the committee with the last three                                                               
ballot propositions and the election pamphlets on this issue.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked that she be provided with                                                                        
information on the Alive case.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she agrees with the Alive case.                                                                
Number 0332                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 2:15 p.m. and called                                                                
the meeting back to order at 2:17 p.m.                                                                                          
HB 177 - FOSTER CARE & DELINQUENT MINORS                                                                                        
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is House Bill                                                                
177, "An Act relating to foster parents; relating to the right of                                                               
foster parents to have notice of, and testify at, delinquency                                                                   
hearings and to the disclosure of minors' records to foster                                                                     
parents; and amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 12, 21, 23, and 25, Alaska                                                                
Delinquency Rules."                                                                                                             
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated the committee would be taking up CSHB
177(HES), Version 1-LS0760\G.                                                                                                   
Number 0344                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, came before                                                                
the committee as sponsor of HB 177.  He noted that the bill cleans                                                              
up a piece of the child protection bill from last year.  He asked                                                               
Ms. Lisa Torkelson to explain the bill.                                                                                         
Number 0366                                                                                                                     
LISA TORKELSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Fred Dyson,                                                             
Alaska State Legislature, explained last year HB 456 was introduced                                                             
which gave the right of foster parents to have notice of and                                                                    
testify at child-in-need-of-aid delinquency hearings, as well as                                                                
disclose to them some records of children in their care.  She noted                                                             
that the child-in-need-of-aid portion was put into HB 375 - the                                                                 
governor's child protection bill - and this bill would take the                                                                 
delinquency portion and make it go to the same level as a child in                                                              
need of aid.                                                                                                                    
Number 0400                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted that last year there was unanimous                                                                   
support for the need of foster parents to have information on past                                                              
criminal behavior and behavioral problems; and, that foster parents                                                             
would be a valuable asset in the treatment plans, final placement                                                               
plans, and court proceedings involving their children.  That was                                                                
included in the child-in-need-of-aid law, last year, and this bill                                                              
takes care of the children in the other category that by-en-large                                                               
have been adjudicated as delinquent.                                                                                            
Number 0428                                                                                                                     
MS. TORKELSON noted that the only reason it was not included in the                                                             
governor's child protection bill last year was because it was 64                                                                
pages long and it pretty much focused on children in need of aid.                                                               
They were not comfortable with adding section 12, which deals with                                                              
delinquency, and they requested it be done in a separate bill.                                                                  
Number 0449                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Dyson why HB 15 is not                                                             
stuck in this bill.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied they are very close.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT AND REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked                                                                         
Representative Rokeberg to explain HB 15.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied it is a bill that gives foster                                                                  
parents the right to protest the placement or removal of a child                                                                
back to his/her natural parent(s) in court.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted he is a co-sponsor of that bill, and it                                                              
is a good idea.                                                                                                                 
Number 0485                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what the material difference is between                                                              
the two bills.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied it is the right of a foster parent                                                              
to protest the placement or removal of a child back to his/her                                                                  
natural parent(s) in court.                                                                                                     
Number 0516                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that HB 15 assures the right of the                                                                 
foster parent to have a notice of and testify at delinquency                                                                    
hearings, but not necessarily ask for a hearing in a particular                                                                 
factual situation.                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that is the distinction between the                                                              
two bills.                                                                                                                      
MS. TORKELSON said it basically includes the foster parents in the                                                              
loop of the department because often times they have the most                                                                   
knowledge of the children.                                                                                                      
Number 0539                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON suggested passing HB 177 out of committee, at                                                              
which point he would look at merging the bills either on the House                                                              
floor or in the House Rules Standing Committee.  He's sorry that he                                                             
didn't think of it earlier.                                                                                                     
Number 0572                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she is happy to see this bill before the                                                              
committee.  She knows how important it is for foster parents to be                                                              
included in the loop.  She knows that when they have been left out                                                              
of the loop it has been unfortunate for them and the kids.                                                                      
Furthermore, it's not easy to keep foster parents around.  They can                                                             
get discouraged fast, and they aren't easy to come by.  She knows                                                               
of the problems, having been a foster parent herself, but she's not                                                             
sure, however, what would happen if a foster parent has erred.                                                                  
They should also have the right to speak on their own behalf.                                                                   
Number 0623                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 2:24 p.m. and called                                                                
the meeting back to order at 2:25 p.m.                                                                                          
Number 0637                                                                                                                     
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer, Youth Corrections,                                                                 
Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health and                                                                 
Social Services, came before the committee to testify in favor of                                                               
HB 177.  It is appropriate to bring parity between the two statutes                                                             
regulating delinquency proceedings and children in need of aid.  He                                                             
is concerned about HB 15, but as far as HB 177 is written, it is                                                                
appropriate.  He urged the committee to move it forward.                                                                        
Number 0666                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Buttcane what his specific concerns are                                                                 
regarding HB 15.                                                                                                                
MR. BUTTCANE replied HB 15 speaks to very specific situations that                                                              
arise in child-in-need-of-aid proceedings, and muddies the waters                                                               
by transposing those into a delinquency proceeding.  He would want                                                              
to look very carefully at that before speaking in favor of merging                                                              
the bills.  He noted that it is a sound concept and that he thinks                                                              
that foster parents should be treated as partners in dealing with                                                               
either delinquents or children in need of aid, but HB 15 is                                                                     
something that the department probably would not want in the                                                                    
delinquency statute.                                                                                                            
Number 0714                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated for clarification that it would not                                                              
be in the delinquency statute.                                                                                                  
MR. BUTTCANE noted that HB 177 really speaks to the delinquency                                                                 
Number 0751                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Buttcane to review HB 15 later                                                                   
knowing that it might be thrown together in the House Rules                                                                     
Standing Committee.  He would like to know whether or not he has                                                                
any objections before it goes to the House floor.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Buttcane how the                                                                                 
child-in-need-of-aid and delinquency statutes are distinguishable.                                                              
MR. BUTTCANE replied a child in need of aid is a person who has                                                                 
been neglected or abused, whereas a delinquent is a person who has                                                              
been a perpetrator or offender.  In one, a child is being                                                                       
protected, while in the other, a child is being regulated to                                                                    
protect the community.                                                                                                          
Number 0830                                                                                                                     
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Central Office, Public Defender                                                                  
Agency, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference                                                              
from Anchorage in favor of HB 177.  Foster parents are a real big                                                               
help in juvenile delinquency cases.  There appears to be a notice                                                               
provision in the early stage of a juvenile delinquency case whereby                                                             
a foster parent would have to be notified.  The agency is wondering                                                             
whether that means a foster parent for child in need of aid in                                                                  
which that child has done something wrong and has gotten into the                                                               
delinquency system.  Usually, the placement in a foster home                                                                    
happens after the arraignment.  He further suggested considering                                                                
the issue of safety in regards to delinquent children.  He referred                                                             
the committee members to page 7, Section 9, of the bill, and noted                                                              
that foster parents need to know before a child in placed in their                                                              
home about their prior records, incidents in that child's life, and                                                             
their issues.  It looks like the section deals with a court review,                                                             
and noted a lot of the court files have pretty confidential                                                                     
material, such as a psychotherapist's review.                                                                                   
Number 1018                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, from personal experience, foster parents                                                             
ought to know everything about a foster child in their home.  She                                                               
doesn't understand his concern about not letting them know what                                                                 
they need to know in order to parent that child and to know what to                                                             
Number 1046                                                                                                                     
MR. McCUNE replied he is thinking about a case where an adolescent                                                              
boy was sexually abused.  The particulars of that abuse would be                                                                
discussed with a therapist with a real clear understanding that the                                                             
information is kept confidential.  Foster parents have a legitimate                                                             
need to know the generals of a case, but the particulars are                                                                    
included in the court's files.  A foster parent doesn't need to                                                                 
know the details of the who, what, when and where.                                                                              
Number 1115                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated a birth parent knows all about the                                                                  
child from birth, whereas a foster parent has to jump in in the                                                                 
middle.  Foster parents need all the help that they possibly can to                                                             
understand what to anticipate and why a child does what he does.                                                                
She agrees that the sordid details don't necessarily need to be                                                                 
part of an issue, but certainly the issues would need to be made                                                                
available to the foster parent.                                                                                                 
Number 1156                                                                                                                     
MR. McCUNE agreed with Representative James.                                                                                    
Number 1164                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. McCune whether the foster parents                                                                
are considered the guardian or is the state.                                                                                    
MR. McCUNE replied, generally, the Department of Health and Social                                                              
Services has legal custody in both juvenile delinquency and                                                                     
child-in-need-of-aid cases.  In child-in-need-of-aid cases there is                                                             
a provision just for supervision, and in juvenile delinquency cases                                                             
there could be a relative placement where the department would not                                                              
have custody.                                                                                                                   
Number 1213                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. McCune whether that is the reason                                                                
for a gap when using the phrase, "parent or legal guardian."                                                                    
Foster parents fall between the two.                                                                                            
Number 1227                                                                                                                     
MR. McCUNE replied, yes, but they have been given more and more                                                                 
rights and considerations in the past several years as the result                                                               
of legislation.  The buck stops, however, with the Department of                                                                
Health and Social Services.                                                                                                     
Number 1249                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that is the way it ought to be.  A                                                               
foster parent needs a place to go for responsibility.                                                                           
Number 1278                                                                                                                     
MR. BUTTCANE referred the committee members to page 3, section 3,                                                               
of the bill, and noted that it would require the department to                                                                  
notify the foster parent of an informal action/adjustment, which is                                                             
appropriate.  A child who is in a foster home may be committing                                                                 
offenses and is asked to come in and talk with the department to                                                                
explain his/her behavior and negotiate a consequence, or be held                                                                
accountable through a delinquency petition.                                                                                     
Number 1359                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. McCune whether there are any                                                                     
qualifying words for Section 9, in the bill, that would make him                                                                
feel more comfortable.  The language matches the                                                                                
child-in-need-of-aid section.                                                                                                   
MR. McCUNE replied, he thinks, it gives the courts the authority to                                                             
hold back information of concern.  He doesn't have a proposal to                                                                
change it, however.                                                                                                             
Number 1419                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, according to his reading of the                                                                   
section, it's just granting a foster parent - the person with a                                                                 
legitimate interest - the right to look at a portion of the court's                                                             
Number 1452                                                                                                                     
MS. TORKELSON explained that this very issue was addressed last                                                                 
year, which resulted in the language in the section in order that                                                               
the court could choose what information is given to a foster                                                                    
Number 1492                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he sees the distinction, but he's not                                                                 
sure that the language accomplishes that.  The language really says                                                             
the portions relating to the child have to be released, which is                                                                
everything.  It doesn't say relating to the function or portions                                                                
relating to the safety and welfare of what a foster parent should                                                               
know.  He's not sure how to draft it, however, so that it's not                                                                 
overly intrusive.                                                                                                               
Number 1589                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the bill says with the court's                                                              
permission.  She reads it as having the courts permissions "and" a                                                              
person with a legitimate interest.                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "I think that's probably a correct                                                                   
reading, and if it is, then the court, even with people with                                                                    
legitimate interests, they don't have to do it if they decide they                                                              
don't want to."                                                                                                                 
Number 1644                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he reads it as the court giving                                                                  
permission for the portion of a record it wants the foster parent                                                               
to see.                                                                                                                         
Number 1668                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that is the way he reads it as well, and that is                                                             
the intent of the sponsor.                                                                                                      
Number 1676                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "Slap my mouth.  I am more now of the                                                                
persuasion than ever, that we need to be wary about limiting court                                                              
prerogatives.  My view is, we need to get gutter mechanics in the                                                               
court system, but allow them quite a bit of discretion.  In my                                                                  
own--the judges that I've dealt with, which are quite a few now,                                                                
in--that are dealing with children's issues are generally very                                                                  
experienced and quite perceptive about these sort of things.  My                                                                
guess is we will not err or there won't be many problems in                                                                     
allowing the judges as Representative Rokeberg says is we know the                                                              
files for those portions that are inappropriate."                                                                               
Number 1719                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she wishes that she has had the same                                                                  
Number 1730                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that the committee, if the                                                                    
sponsor wishes, could put discretionary language in relation to the                                                             
court to make it crystal clear.                                                                                                 
Number 1766                                                                                                                     
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Administrative Staff,                                                                   
Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, came                                                                
before the committee to answer questions.  The language was part of                                                             
last year's child protection bill and it should be in this portion                                                              
as well.  The judges are comfortable with it.  The concern that was                                                             
brought to him was that the foster parents get the appropriate                                                                  
information relating to the children, but not information that is                                                               
not relevant to them, such as personal information on the natural                                                               
Number 1839                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to AS 47.12.310 and read the                                                                      
     "(H) foster parent or relatives with whom the child is                                                                     
     placed by the department as may be necessary to enable                                                                     
     the foster parents or relatives to provide appropriate                                                                     
     care for the child who is the subject of the case, to                                                                      
     protect the safety of the child who is the subject of the                                                                  
     case, and to protect the safety and property of family                                                                     
     members and visitors of the foster parents or relatives."                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated, based on that provision, the committee                                                             
may have done enough by putting its concerns on the record.                                                                     
Number 1926                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Dyson whether he is comfortable                                                              
with the language the way it is.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied yes.                                                                                               
Number 1956                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move CSHB 177(HES) from the                                                               
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal                                                               
note(s).  There being no objection, it was so moved from the House                                                              
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
SSHB 33 - ARRESTS BY PRIVATE PERSONS                                                                                            
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced  the next order of business is Sponsor                                                                  
Substitute for House Bill No. 33, "An Act relating to bounty                                                                    
hunters and to capturing criminal suspects or fugitives."                                                                       
CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Representative Fred Dyson, sponsor of the                                                               
Number 2035                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, came before                                                                
the committee as sponsor of SSHB 33.  He referred to a federal law                                                              
back in the 1800s and some federal decisions that allowed for                                                                   
bounty hunters.  This bill was prompted by the unfortunate                                                                      
experience when two or three gentlemen under contract, broke into                                                               
a home in the Kenai area wearing black outfits and brandishing                                                                  
weapons, took a person out at gunpoint, and handcuffed him.  There                                                              
was quite a bit of concern.  The public safety officers are                                                                     
concerned also for the people who are contracting to provide this                                                               
service, particularly in the areas of Alaska where people take                                                                  
exception to having their homes broken into in the middle of the                                                                
night and are prepared and equipped to resist those efforts.  The                                                               
first draft just forced the bounty hunters to register with the                                                                 
local law enforcement.  The public safety officers asked them to                                                                
just prohibit it.  The public safety officers pick up any felony                                                                
warrants as soon as they know about them.  Any other jurisdiction,                                                              
as in Canada or other countries, where they are willing to                                                                      
extradite, the public safety officers are willing to go out and get                                                             
them.  The public safety officers don't want people who are ducking                                                             
warrants in other states or areas to be running around.                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON further stated he is concerned about the                                                                   
well-being of the Alaskan citizen who is in custody of some                                                                     
non-sworn folks, and how they are going to be treated.  He also                                                                 
wonders how the neighbors are supposed to respond to somebody                                                                   
getting rousted in the middle of the night at gunpoint.  It is an                                                               
area that needs to be addressed.                                                                                                
Number 2289                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether this bill just eliminates bounty                                                             
hunters or does it eliminate citizen's arrest.                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied that it not their intention to do                                                                  
anything about citizen's arrest.  Citizen's arrests are allowed.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what was the law before Section 1.                                                                   
TAPE 99-44, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "...for a crime you didn't witness                                                                   
without a warrant.  The only exception to that has been this old                                                                
federal decision that empowered bounty hunters in essence do it on                                                              
contract.  If the person employing them had a warrant or they                                                                   
themselves or they could contract for folks to go get them.  The                                                                
law expects you to call the police and report, but they would                                                                   
choose to have you as a verifying witness not an enthusiastic                                                                   
Number 0090                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether there is anything on the                                                                 
state books now that regulates bounty hunters.                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that it is his understanding that there                                                               
is not.                                                                                                                         
Number 0136                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether there is anything in federal                                                             
statute that could be used within the individual states that would                                                              
give some guidance or direction.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON didn't know the answer.  Whenever this has                                                                 
come up, it always goes back to the case in 1867 or 1878 in a                                                                   
federal court where the decision authorized it.  Several states are                                                             
moving towards regulating it.                                                                                                   
Number 0222                                                                                                                     
DAVID HUDSON, First Sergeant, Division of Alaska State Troopers,                                                                
Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference from                                                                  
Anchorage.  In regard to the situation in the Kenai area recently,                                                              
they support this bill.  By placing the onus of arrest on peace                                                                 
officers in a majority of situations in eliminating the private                                                                 
persons arrest in crimes not committed or attempted the presence of                                                             
the person making the arrest, they hope to eliminate some of the                                                                
problems which they have seen regarding bounty hunting.  National                                                               
news has been responsive to these issues of bounty hunters across                                                               
the nation, and there is national bounty hunters association where                                                              
anybody, under federal statutes dating back to the 1800s, can go                                                                
into another state, or they have no limits to what they can do in                                                               
regards to making arrests under the federal statutes of someone who                                                             
has absconded from a bail or bondsman or something of that nature.                                                              
It is a way of the bail bondsman not losing his/her money when they                                                             
put up the funds to have a person released in their community.                                                                  
They will lose those funds if the person is not brought back before                                                             
the court in a specific time.  That is what the impetus is for                                                                  
bounty hunters.  There are no particular statutes or licensing                                                                  
requirements for bounty hunters in the state of Alaska.  He doesn't                                                             
know of any in other states either.  They are in support of the                                                                 
bill and believe it will preclude situations like the previous one.                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Sergeant Hudson how many arrests have                                                                
been made by bounty hunters roughly per year, or per decade.                                                                    
SERGEANT HUDSON can think of several in his personal experience,                                                                
however he has no statistical documentation to provide today to                                                                 
answer that.                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether this is not an uncommon thing to                                                             
have people being arrested by someone coming in as a bounty hunter.                                                             
SERGEANT HUDSON said he is aware of a situation approximately a                                                                 
year ago in Homer that there was a person in that area, or believed                                                             
to be in that area, for whom bounty hunters came after.  When they                                                              
were unable to locate that individual on their own, they did                                                                    
contact the Alaska State Troopers.   The troopers then verified                                                                 
that there was a warrant for the individual, and they went out,                                                                 
located and arrested him.  He felt that if the bounty hunters had                                                               
been able to find the person in a timely manner, they would have                                                                
made the arrest and would have removed the individual from the                                                                  
state and the troopers probably would have never known about it.                                                                
As it is now, they would probably not know about these arrests if                                                               
they happened smoothly, and the law enforcement wasn't called in as                                                             
it was in the Soldotna case.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether Sergeant Hudson has any idea of                                                              
how much mischief has been caused by either false arrests or the                                                                
Kenai area situation.                                                                                                           
SERGEANT HUDSON agreed the scenario in the Kenai area could have                                                                
played out extremely different than what it had.  If he remembers                                                               
correctly, the individual was seized from the father's home, and                                                                
the father then took a gun and went looking for the bounty hunters.                                                             
There were numerous law enforcement officers who were called to the                                                             
scene into areas looking for them for the potential home invasion,                                                              
which it sounded like when the call was made for help on 911.                                                                   
There is no doubt in anybody's mind that the situation could have                                                               
turned out extremely different; however, in that case no one was                                                                
Number 0604                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how there wouldn't also be a charge                                                                  
against these folks for unlawful use of deadly force.                                                                           
SERGEANT HUDSON replied that these individuals were charged with                                                                
assault under Alaska statutes.  He is not familiar with what the                                                                
status is of the current case.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON told Representative James that the court case                                                              
is going on this week.  He asked Sergeant Hudson if he thinks that                                                              
the bail bonds industry will almost disappear if the bill does                                                                  
SERGEANT HUDSON finds that hard to believe.  People are entitled to                                                             
bail under the constitution so he suspects that they will continue                                                              
to operate no matter how this law changes.                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what the remedy will be if someone jumps                                                             
bails or fails to appear on a misdemeanor.                                                                                      
SERGEANT HUDSON answered that if a person fails to respond to                                                                   
court, the judge would then issue a bench warrant for that person                                                               
and they would eventually be arrested through the normal arrest                                                                 
system.  He is unfamiliar with the statutes in regard to bail                                                                   
bondsmen if a subject doesn't show up to court on Monday, but is                                                                
subsequently arrested and taken in front of a magistrate or judge                                                               
on Tuesday that is of the bail bondsman's fees would be, so he                                                                  
can't answer that.                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented that bail bondsmen are very                                                                      
inventive and they will find a way to look after their own                                                                      
Number 0772                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that he is still trying to                                                                       
understand the current law, AS 12.25.030, as to his ability to make                                                             
a citizen's arrest.  He interprets that he could under part (a)                                                                 
under three situations:  if the crime was committed in his                                                                      
presence, if he is right about who did it, and if it is a felony                                                                
even though it was not committed in his presence, or if he is right                                                             
about a felony having been committed, and he has reasonable cause                                                               
for believing that the person he goes out and grabs did it.                                                                     
SERGEANT HUDSON indicated that Representative Croft's                                                                           
interpretation is similar to what he also sees when he reads this                                                               
statute.  Currently under AS 12.25.030 under parts (2) and (3), it                                                              
allows citizens of the state of Alaska to make an arrest, as a law                                                              
enforcement officer could, for a felony either committed or not                                                                 
committed in their presence or with reasonable suspicion or cause.                                                              
Whereas under the amendment that is before them under 12.25.025                                                                 
which would be in Section 1, lines 6-8, a private person would now                                                              
be eliminated from making a felony arrest for a crime committed not                                                             
in their presence.                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether Sections 2 and 3, not including                                                              
bounty hunters, have been problematic for the state troopers.  He                                                               
asked whether they have a lot of vengeance arrests and some that                                                                
have been wrong.                                                                                                                
SERGEANT HUDSON answered that he is not aware of any specific                                                                   
problems across the state where a citizen has made a felony arrest,                                                             
and it has been an issue.  He doesn't have any statistical                                                                      
information to offer, just his own personal experience.                                                                         
Number 0954                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Sergeant Hudson if he is familiar with                                                               
the article where Dean Guaneli, Chief Assistant Attorney General,                                                               
was quoted about untrained people getting liquored up and kicking                                                               
in the wrong doors.  He asked whether all bounty hunters are                                                                    
licensed to carry concealed weapons.                                                                                            
SERGEANT HUDSON answered as far as carrying concealed weapons under                                                             
the Alaska concealed handgun permit program, there is no formal                                                                 
carrying concealed weapons for bounty hunters or any other                                                                      
individuals specifically other than the citizens of the state of                                                                
Alaska meeting the criteria as so deemed.  There are not any                                                                    
statutes or laws or licensing in regards to allowing any particular                                                             
business, such as a bounty hunter, to carry a concealed weapon.                                                                 
Even in their security guard licensing program, they are required                                                               
to be working for their company, and the weapons are not concealed.                                                             
The weapons are exposed, and they wear a uniform and identification                                                             
from their company.  He is not aware of any specifics in regard to                                                              
bounty hunters being legally authorized in the state of Alaska                                                                  
carrying concealed weapons.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN are these people uniformed and showing weapons                                                             
when they go after these bond jumpers.                                                                                          
SERGEANT HUDSON said in his limited experience with people who                                                                  
profess to be bounty hunters, they put on what they call a uniform,                                                             
put a sign on their back saying that they are bounty hunters or                                                                 
call themselves whatever they choose to call and wear sidearms and                                                              
go about their business.  In our state, if they are not carrying a                                                              
concealed weapon, if they are carrying a firearm exposed, that is                                                               
not against the law unless they are a felon, or there is a                                                                      
municipal code against that so they can wear some type of                                                                       
identifying marks as long as they were not impersonating a public                                                               
officer, they wouldn't be breaking the law.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she doesn't understand, under existing                                                                
laws, that private persons may arrest a person without a warrant.                                                               
That means they have to convince them that they are arrested.  She                                                              
doesn't believe they can pull their sidearm without violating the                                                               
unlawful use of deadly force, unless that person is threatening                                                                 
them in some way.  She can't imagine anybody arresting somebody                                                                 
without some power to overcome them, either physically or with a                                                                
gun, and it seems like the law is clear that they can't do that                                                                 
unless their life is being threatened.  She asked Sergeant Hudson                                                               
to respond to that.                                                                                                             
SERGEANT HUDSON said he didn't understand exactly what she is                                                                   
asking, other than the fact that he believes the law allows during                                                              
the making of an arrest, to utilize reasonable force.  If they                                                                  
could legally make an arrest, then they could use whatever would be                                                             
the justifiable minimum force.  He assumes that if a bounty hunter                                                              
or citizen had a legitimate reason to make an arrest, then they                                                                 
could utilize a level of justifiable force up to the level needed                                                               
to make that arrest.  It is not appropriate for a citizen or a law                                                              
enforcement officer to start waving firearms around and assaulting                                                              
people, even during an arrest, unless that level of force is                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned a case where someone was up on a                                                                 
ladder trying to steal something, and the homeowner took away the                                                               
ladder and held the person at gunpoint until the police came.                                                                   
SERGEANT HUDSON said it is not uncommon in Alaska for the citizens                                                              
to apprehend individuals burglarizing their homes or stealing their                                                             
property and utilizing such methods.                                                                                            
Number 1348                                                                                                                     
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete                                                                  
Kott, Alaska State Legislature, appreciates the bill and is not                                                                 
making a position on it.  The majority of the bounty hunters going                                                              
after these people have a contract.  They have been bailed out for                                                              
serious crimes, hardcore felony crimes.  They actually go in, they                                                              
have been taken into custody, and they bond out.  They sign a                                                                   
contract that basically says if I'm not showing up for these things                                                             
you have the right to go into my house, the people that come in and                                                             
sign for them actually say you can come into my house to find him                                                               
if you need to if he doesn't show up.  By that contract it is                                                                   
spelled out, we have been doing a bail type system since the                                                                    
country's inception.  All of them are those types of contracts and                                                              
then the bounty hunters actually are attached to or are employees                                                               
to for the companies that do the bailing.  You have a contract down                                                             
and say I promise to pay you guys 10 percent of this or x amount,                                                               
we're going to bail you out at ten percent of this and you are                                                                  
going to show up for every single one of your hearings and if you                                                               
don't, we are going to chase you down.  Officer Hudson did talk                                                                 
about cross-jurisdictional boundaries.  They are basically                                                                      
enforcing a contract and the situations do get sticky.  If he can                                                               
argue on behalf of Representative Dyson, there was an occurrence in                                                             
Arizona where someone actually kicked down the wrong door and there                                                             
was killing that occurred.  They killed innocent people.  So                                                                    
accidents do occur.  However, by enacting this bill they are going                                                              
to making substantial inroads into the bail system.  It is by                                                                   
contract that they do these things for the most part.  He doesn't                                                               
know any posses that say "Hey, let's go find us some felons and                                                                 
make some arrests because we can under an 1800s statutes."  It is                                                               
a contractual basis, a bail bonding basis and one concern is the                                                                
misdemeanors.  Police officers perhaps won't have the time, the                                                                 
energy, the gumption, practically speaking, if they force the                                                                   
policeman to go out and execute warrants, even if these folks are                                                               
bailed out on misdemeanor charges, practically is just might not                                                                
happen.  He spoke to Representative Dyson for amendments to placing                                                             
a registration in regard to bounty hunters, getting into their                                                                  
background, history and ensuring that they are not psychopaths, and                                                             
the second thing is for any felony warrants that they are actually                                                              
executing that they contact local law enforcement, that they make                                                               
it mandatory by statute, as to the time, whether they are under                                                                 
contract to go into that house, to ensure that the contract is                                                                  
being complied with on both ends and/or to ask for backup or have                                                               
the police do it on the more serious felony levels.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether Mr. Winchell was saying if this                                                              
is passed that the cost of bail bonding will go up or that there                                                                
will be people who will no longer serve as bail bondsmen.                                                                       
MR. WINCHELL answered no.  He said under Washington's system, the                                                               
courts themselves can offer bonding arrangements so it can be                                                                   
incorporated back into the court, and perhaps that is the flavor of                                                             
where the law is going.  They want the courts to do it and not                                                                  
private individuals.  He was only suggesting that if they can't                                                                 
private bounty hunters for bail bonding agents under contract and                                                               
if they require policemen in general to do it, they might have bail                                                             
bonding agencies that are not willing to bond out on the smaller                                                                
measures because they know they are going to fly and perhaps law                                                                
enforcement can get to it.  They have more pressing issues.  There                                                              
will be a burden on that.  There is a contract involved; they know                                                              
if they skip or run that someone will chase them.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, if the bounty hunters were to register,                                                             
would that go so far down the road that they might as well allow                                                                
the peace officer to go get them rather than the bounty hunter.                                                                 
MR. WINCHELL answered yes they have taken the felonies and placed                                                               
them into the police officer's arms and notable so in the case of                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Winchell if Washington had a                                                                 
registration for bounty hunters.                                                                                                
MR. WINCHELL said he was associated with one of the bail bonding                                                                
agencies and they would go after unclassified.  Whether they were                                                               
registered or not, he didn't have to put that within the purview.                                                               
He linked on as an associate.  He was not registered, but he                                                                    
doesn't know if they were or not.  On the weapon's issue, he does                                                               
have a concealed weapon in Washington and can carry it.                                                                         
Number 1747                                                                                                                     
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department                                                               
of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage                                                                  
saying they support the legislation.  It is better to leave this                                                                
type of thing to professional law enforcement people.  He wonders                                                               
whether the statute conditions of release on the amendment should                                                               
be AS 12.30.020 rather than AS 12.30.030.  He had a question on the                                                             
type of force allowed in making arrest or terminating his case,                                                                 
that is found in the justification statutes AS 11.81.390.  It is                                                                
important to note that they can use non-deadly force in making                                                                  
arrests that have occurred in their presence, but deadly force                                                                  
should only be used where there is a felony against the person or                                                               
involving use of force against the person involving a firearm.                                                                  
There have been cases of someone making a citizen's arrest on minor                                                             
vandalism and being charged with assault in that situation and not                                                              
have a justification defense.                                                                                                   
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that they do have an amendment to replace AS                                                                
12.30.030 with AS 12.30.020.                                                                                                    
MR. McCUNE wondered if the words "conditions of release" referred                                                               
to the conditions of release that are set by the judicial officer                                                               
and those are usually in AS 12.30.020.                                                                                          
MS. TORKELSON told them that Legislative Legal and Research                                                                     
Services explained to her that the portion on page 4, line 7, that                                                              
is taken out 12.25.030(b), they moved (b) to (a), therefore it                                                                  
should read 12.25.030.  It was a typographical error.                                                                           
Number 1990                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which                                                                  
reads as follows:                                                                                                               
     Page 4, following line 7:                                                                                                  
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
          "* Section 3.  AS 12.70.130 is amended to read:                                                                       
     Sec. 12.70.130.  Arrest without warrant.  The arrest of a                                                                  
     person may also be lawfully made by a peace officer [OR A                                                                  
     PRIVATE PERSON] without a warrant upon  reasonable information                                                             
     that the accused stands charged in the courts of another state                                                             
     with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term                                                                
     exceeding one year, When [,but when] arrested, the accused                                                                 
     must be taken before a judge or magistrate without unnecessary                                                             
     delay and, in any event, within 24 hours after arrest,                                                                     
     including Sundays and holidays.  A [, AND] complaint shall be                                                              
     made against the accused under oath setting out the ground for                                                             
     the arrest as in AS 12.70.120.  Thereafter, the answer of the                                                              
     accused shall be heard as if the accused had been arrested on                                                              
     a warrant."                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for discussion purposes.  He noted                                                                
that the amendment says Section 3, and he believes it should be                                                                 
Section 6.                                                                                                                      
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that it should read Section 6.  With that                                                                  
change noted, he asked whether there was any objection.  There                                                                  
being none, Amendment 1 was so adopted.                                                                                         
Number 2024                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move Amendment 2, which reads                                                             
as follows:                                                                                                                     
     Page 4, Line 7                                                                                                             
          Delete "AS 12.30.030"                                                                                                 
          Add "AS 12.25.030"                                                                                                    
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there is any objection.  There being                                                                
none, Amendment 2 was so adopted.                                                                                               
Number 2042                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said they have dealt with the bounty hunter                                                                
issue to his satisfaction, but he is still struggling with the                                                                  
change in the authority of a private person to do something.  He                                                                
noted that it is a fairly significant change in the law that a                                                                  
private person cannot arrest somebody who committed a felony unless                                                             
it was done in his presence.  For example, somebody breaks into his                                                             
house, he gets home and the person is outside on the street, his                                                                
wife says "That is the one," and now he is limited to calling the                                                               
police.  It may be what they want to do, but he would like more                                                                 
discussion on that issue.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded to Representative Croft that his                                                                 
wife could make the arrest with his assistance.  As long as                                                                     
somebody who witnessed the crime was there, he/she is the one                                                                   
technically making the arrest.  They don't want people without any                                                              
knowledge of the crime doing it.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move SSHB 33, Version                                                                     
1-LSO240\D, as amended, from the committee with individual                                                                      
recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note(s).  There being                                                              
no objection, CSSSHB 33(JUD) was so moved from the House Judiciary                                                              
Standing Committee.                                                                                                             
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                  
meeting at 3:38 p.m.                                                                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects