Legislature(2001 - 2002)

02/11/2002 01:04 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                       February 11, 2002                                                                                        
                           1:04 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair                                                                                           
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair                                                                                           
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative John Coghill                                                                                                     
Representative Kevin Meyer                                                                                                      
Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Albert Kookesh                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 321                                                                                       
"An Act relating to the  purpose for crime victims' compensation;                                                               
and  limiting the  factors that  may  be considered  in making  a                                                               
crime victims' compensation  award in cases of  sexual assault or                                                               
sexual abuse of a minor."                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSSSHB 321(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 330                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to  providing alcoholic  beverages to  a person                                                               
under 21 years of age."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 330(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 332                                                                                                              
"An  Act  extending  the  termination  date  of  the  Council  on                                                               
Domestic  Violence  and  Sexual  Assault; and  providing  for  an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 332(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 375                                                                                                              
"An Act  making corrective amendments  to the Alaska  Statutes as                                                               
recommended  by the  revisor of  statutes; and  providing for  an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - BILL HEARING POSTPONED                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 384                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to submission of  civil litigation information;                                                               
and  amending  Rules   41(a)  and  58,  Alaska   Rules  of  Civil                                                               
Procedure,  Rule  511(c)  and  (e),  Alaska  Rules  of  Appellate                                                               
Procedure, and Rule 503(d), Alaska Rules of Evidence."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 2/13/02                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 321                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:CRIME VICTIMS' COMPENSATION                                                                                         
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GUESS                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
01/14/02     1959       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
01/14/02     1959       (H)        JUD, FIN                                                                                     
01/16/02     1993       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): MEYER                                                                          
01/30/02     2094       (H)        SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED                                                                
01/30/02     2094       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
01/30/02     2094       (H)        JUD, FIN                                                                                     
02/04/02     2152       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): DYSON                                                                          
02/08/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
02/08/02                (H)        Bill Postponed To 2/11/02                                                                    
02/11/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 330                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:PROVIDING ALCOHOL TO PERSONS UNDER 21                                                                               
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
01/16/02     1980       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
01/16/02     1980       (H)        JUD, FIN                                                                                     
02/11/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 332                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:EXTENDING COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE                                                                              
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)BUNDE                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
01/16/02     1981       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
01/16/02     1981       (H)        JUD, FIN                                                                                     
02/08/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
02/08/02                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
                                   MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
02/11/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRETCHEN GUESS                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 112                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of SSHB 321.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner                                                                                                  
Office of the Commissioner                                                                                                      
Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                                                               
PO Box 111200                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-1200                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Assisted with the presentation of SSHB 321,                                                                
stated support for its current language, and responded to                                                                       
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
KAREN BITZER, Executive Director                                                                                                
Standing Together Against Rape (STAR)                                                                                           
1057 West Fireweed Lane, Suite 230                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska  99503                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of SSHB 321 and                                                                       
responded to questions.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff                                                                                                       
to Representative Rokeberg                                                                                                      
House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                                              
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 118                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 330 on behalf of the House                                                                    
Judiciary Standing Committee, sponsor.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MARTI GREESON, Executive Director                                                                                               
Anchorage Chapter                                                                                                               
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)                                                                                            
3600 Arctic Boulevard, Suite 3                                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska  99503                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided testimony during discussion of HB                                                                 
330.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
PAMELA WATTS, Executive Director                                                                                                
Governor's Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse                                                                          
Office of the Commissioner                                                                                                      
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)                                                                                 
3290 Nowell Avenue                                                                                                              
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 330 and                                                                         
responded to questions.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CINDY CASHEN                                                                                                                    
Juneau Chapter                                                                                                                  
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)                                                                                            
211 4th Street, Suite 102                                                                                                       
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 330.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director                                                                                                   
Public Defender Agency (PDA)                                                                                                    
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200                                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska  99501-2090                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion of HB 330 expressed the                                                                  
PDA's concerns.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                      
Legal Services Section-Juneau                                                                                                   
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
PO Box 110300                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-0300                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 330 and                                                                         
responded to questions.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
PATTI SWENSON, Staff                                                                                                            
to Representative Con Bunde                                                                                                     
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 501                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  On behalf of the sponsor, Representative                                                                   
Con Bunde, responded to questions regarding the proposed                                                                        
committee substitute (CS) to HB 332.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 02-15, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  NORMAN  ROKEBERG  called   the  House  Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee  meeting  to  order  at   1:04  p.m.    Representatives                                                               
Rokeberg, Ogan,  Coghill, and Meyer  were present at the  call to                                                               
order.    Representatives  James  and Berkowitz  arrived  as  the                                                               
meeting was in progress.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HB 321 - CRIME VICTIMS' COMPENSATION                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 0096                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced  that the first order  of business would                                                               
be SPONSOR  SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE  BILL NO. 321, "An  Act relating                                                               
to the purpose for crime  victims' compensation; and limiting the                                                               
factors  that  may  be  considered in  making  a  crime  victims'                                                               
compensation award in cases of  sexual assault or sexual abuse of                                                               
a minor."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0105                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRETCHEN   GUESS,  Alaska   State   Legislature,                                                               
sponsor, explained  that the Victims' Compensation  Board and the                                                               
statutory language that governs it  were established in 1971, and                                                               
she  posited that  this entity  and its  governing language  were                                                               
created at a time when sexual  assault and sexual abuse of minors                                                               
was not  discussed in depth.   She  offered her belief  that SSHB                                                               
321 would  bring the statute in  line with what "we  believe as a                                                               
community."    She added  that  SSHB  321  would not  change  the                                                               
criteria  for  any other  victims,  only  for victims  of  sexual                                                               
assault and sexual abuse of a minor.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS explained  that SSHB  321 deletes  from the                                                               
purpose statement in  AS 18.67.010 what she  calls the antiquated                                                               
language  of "innocent  persons";  instead, it  refers simply  to                                                               
"persons".   It also  adds language specifying  that in  cases of                                                               
sexual assault  or sexual abuse  of a  minor, the board  [may not                                                               
deny an order based on  considerations of provocation, the use of                                                               
alcohol or  drugs by the victim,  or the prior social  history of                                                               
the victim].   She  noted that  SSHB 321 has  the support  of the                                                               
administration,  "the network,"  Standing  Together Against  Rape                                                               
(STAR), the Alaska Native Justice  Center, [and the Alaska Native                                                               
Women's Sexual Assault Committee].                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  asked why "innocent"  is being  deleted from                                                               
the description of who will be compensated.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS  posited that  it is redundant  language; in                                                               
Section  2, she  pointed  out, there  is  language directing  the                                                               
board, "when ... dealing with  any other crimes," to consider all                                                               
circumstances determined  to be relevant,  including provocation,                                                               
consent, or  any other  behavior of the  victim that  directly or                                                               
indirectly contributed.  Therefore, she  opined, there is no real                                                               
reason to  have "innocent" in  the purpose statement;  "I believe                                                               
it  is   old  language,  and   I  also  believe  it   provides  a                                                               
subjectivity in  cases of sexual  assault, where the  board could                                                               
say the  victim wasn't innocent  because, for example,  they used                                                               
alcohol  or  drugs."     She  added  that   she  thinks  removing                                                               
"innocent" makes the statute clearer.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0348                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DEL  SMITH,  Deputy  Commissioner, Office  of  the  Commissioner,                                                               
Department  of  Public  Safety  (DPS),  offered  support  of  the                                                               
language in SSHB 321; "I don't  think anybody's any less a victim                                                               
based upon what  they might have consumed in the  way of alcohol,                                                               
and I believe that that is  no license for anybody to do anything                                                               
[harmful  to another  person]."   He said  that according  to his                                                               
understanding,  the  Violent  Crimes Compensation  Board  (VCCB),                                                               
which   is   located  within   the   DPS,   already  makes   it's                                                               
determinations using the guidelines  proposed in SSHB 321, which,                                                               
he  added, is  the reason  for  a zero  fiscal note.   He  noted,                                                               
however,  that although  the current  VCCB  operates under  these                                                               
proposed guidelines,  there is the  potential that  future boards                                                               
may  approach the  claims differently  and  not compensate  those                                                               
victims.  He  urged the committee to support  the language change                                                               
proposed  by  SSHB  321,  which,   he  reiterated,  is  simply  a                                                               
reflection of the VCCB's current practice.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that he  has some concerns regarding the                                                               
issues  of negligence  and culpability.   He  mentioned the  term                                                               
"comparative negligence,"  and asked whether excluding  the prior                                                               
social  history of  the victim,  for example,  "wouldn't that  be                                                               
like excluding the prior criminal record of a criminal?"                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SMITH  acknowledged  that  "if   you  picked  a  fight  with                                                               
somebody, Mr.  Chairman, and then  were injured in  that [fight],                                                               
that is  the kind of  thing that I  would say would  mitigate the                                                               
compensation that  you might  have."   "But if  you chose  to get                                                               
intoxicated,  and  passed  out  on  the  street,"  he  countered,                                                               
pointing out that it is now a  crime to have sex with someone who                                                               
is passed out, "I am not sure that  you chose to be a victim."  A                                                               
person  might  make some  bad  choices  regarding alcohol  and/or                                                               
drugs, he  noted, and while  that behavior should  be discouraged                                                               
to the extent possible, when that  person becomes the victim of a                                                               
crime  because he/she  appeared  vulnerable, then  "that makes  a                                                               
difference to me, as a law enforcement officer."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  noted that minors  do not have  the maturity                                                               
to make certain  choices, and so with regard to  crimes against a                                                               
minor, not  as much  culpability could  be attributed  to someone                                                               
who is not an adult.  He asked whether the sponsor agreed.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0644                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said that in  general terms, she agrees, but                                                               
added that when  it comes to cases of sexual  assault, she has to                                                               
disagree; "provocation, the use of  alcohol or drugs, past social                                                               
history, I don't believe fall  under culpability when it comes to                                                               
rape," whether of a minor or an  adult, which is what SSHB 321 is                                                               
addressing.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG asked  whether she  had taken  into consideration                                                               
the varying degrees of sexual-abuse-of-a-minor crimes.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said she had not.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  asked whether there  is a degree of  sexual abuse                                                               
of a minor that might just involve contact.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  said  he  did  not  recall  the  exact                                                               
distinction, but  surmised that what  SSHB 321 does is  make sure                                                               
that  victims  of crimes  receive  compensation.   Therefore,  he                                                               
opined, the type of crime  wouldn't really be material to whether                                                               
someone is entitled to that compensation.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked, "If it's  the Satch Carlson contact, I'm                                                               
not sure  why it would  even [be]  before the board  unless there                                                               
was mental health problems."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS interjected  to  say that  as  SSHB 321  is                                                               
currently written,  it is excluding  three things but  leaving in                                                               
everything  else;  it's leaving  in  consent  and other  relevant                                                               
matters, and is just stating  that provocation, use of alcohol or                                                               
drugs,   or  the   victim's  prior   social  history   cannot  be                                                               
considered.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ suggested  that [this  issue] "goes  to                                                               
the 'No  means no,' regardless of  anything else.  He  noted that                                                               
in  the  "evidentiary code,"  we  have  what's called  the  'rape                                                               
shield  law,'" offering  that it  basically  says that  character                                                               
evidence  cannot be  used  to  prove conduct.    To further  this                                                               
point, he  paraphrased from the Commentary  section, Alaska Rules                                                             
of Court, which read:                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     There is a current trend,  especially in rape cases, to                                                                    
     exclude all or much  character evidence that relates to                                                                    
     the  victim.   ...   Total  exclusion  may protect  the                                                                    
     victim  against  the  introduction of  deeply  personal                                                                    
     facts  in cases  where  introduction of  such facts  is                                                                    
     intended to  embarrass the victim rather  than help the                                                                    
     defendant, but  it does so  at the expense  of allowing                                                                    
     such  evidence  to  come  in for  the  benefit  of  the                                                                    
     accused when it would substantially improve his case."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ offered  the  interpretation that  this                                                               
says, "we're not going into  the victim's character, because that                                                               
doesn't matter  to the  crime; that's  irrelevant."   He surmised                                                               
that  this  kind of  thinking,  which,  he opined,  is  generally                                                               
accepted in the  criminal code, is carried forward  by "this sort                                                               
of legislation" when dealing in the  area of victims' rights.  He                                                               
added that this is a  well-established line of thinking and would                                                               
not raise "even a legal eyebrow."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0900                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS, in  response  to questions,  said that  in                                                               
most  of  the   cases  she  has  looked  at,   the  victims  were                                                               
compensated for health reasons.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. SMITH  added that a person  could file a claim  with the VCCB                                                               
for  medical   treatment,  for   counseling,  and   possibly  for                                                               
compensation  due  to  loss  of  work,  and  the  claim  is  then                                                               
evaluated with regard to what is compensable and what is not.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked to  what degree provocation "counts"                                                               
with regard to other criminal proceedings.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS,  after  offering the  interpretation  that                                                               
Representative  Coghill is  perhaps  referring to  the fine  line                                                               
between provocation  and consent,  noted that  this fine  line is                                                               
one of  the reasons why  consent was  left out of  the exclusions                                                               
proposed  by  SSHB  321.     She  indicated  her  agreement  with                                                               
Representative  Berkowitz that  the victim  of sexual  assault or                                                               
sexual abuse  of a  minor does not,  by definition,  provoke that                                                               
type of crime.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL asked  whether trying  to prove  guilt or                                                               
innocence in a court of law  is linked with getting funds through                                                               
the VCCB.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  explained that when the  VCCB processes                                                               
a  victim's claim,  it is  an entirely  separate proceeding.   He                                                               
said that in a courtroom,  the general rule in admitting evidence                                                               
is that  the judge  will weigh whether  the prejudicial  value of                                                               
the  evidence  is greater  than  the  probative value;  in  other                                                               
words, whether something is more  likely to inflame the jury than                                                               
it  is to  enlighten the  jury.   For  the most  part, he  added,                                                               
evidence  related to  the victim's  character is  inadmissible in                                                               
sexual assault  cases because it  is deemed,  almost universally,                                                               
irrelevant.   He suggested that any  hypothetical situation where                                                               
this is  not so  would be  so extreme that  he could  not imagine                                                               
[drafting] a law just for that extreme example.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1150                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
KAREN BITZER, Executive Director,  Standing Together Against Rape                                                               
(STAR), testified via teleconference in  support of SSHB 321, and                                                               
said that  she is  speaking on  behalf of  the victims  and loved                                                               
ones that STAR  serves everyday.  She noted that  last year, STAR                                                               
advocates responded to 279 new  adult cases of sexual assault and                                                               
almost 300 new cases of sexual  assault of minors.  She explained                                                               
that  STAR is  an advocacy  agency  working to  help victims  and                                                               
ensuring that they have access to  tools for recovery.  She noted                                                               
that STAR's  messages are constant  and consistent:   "We believe                                                               
you; it was not your fault."   One of the goals of victim's crime                                                               
compensation, she  said, is  to help make  the victims  whole for                                                               
their loss as a  result of crime.  While victims  may not be made                                                               
completely  whole because  of the  physical and  emotional damage                                                               
they sustain, she  explained that advocacy agencies  such as STAR                                                               
can reinforce  their ability  to regain  control of  their lives.                                                               
"As one  victim so aptly put  it, 'It's not enough  to survive; I                                                               
want to thrive,'" she relayed.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BITZER said,  "I can  appreciate the  struggle that  we have                                                               
with contributing concepts regarding all  victims of crime, and I                                                               
know it's  one way that  we protect  ourselves."  She  noted that                                                               
sexual assault  truly challenges one's sense  of personal safety.                                                               
She said:                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Do you  ever compare your  behavior to that  of someone                                                                    
     else  and say,  "Well, I  don't do  that so  this won't                                                                    
     happen  to  me";  "I  don't  eat  at  McDonalds  so  my                                                                    
     arteries won't clog"; or "I  always wear my seatbelt so                                                                    
     I  won't   be  that  injured  in   an  auto  accident"?                                                                    
     Unfortunately we  can't say that about  sexual assault.                                                                    
     You can do  all the "right things" - not  go out alone,                                                                    
     not drink  - and still  be a victim of  sexual assault.                                                                    
     Are they any  more or less a victim  than, say, someone                                                                    
     who was out walking alone in the dark?                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BITZER  said  that  [the  language in  SSHB  321]  puts  the                                                               
responsibility for the crime where  it belongs:  on the offender.                                                               
She noted that  it provides victims access to services  - such as                                                               
therapeutic  services, intervention  services, and  services that                                                               
meet  other  needs  -  when  no other  resources  for  funds  are                                                               
available.   She explained that  over the years, STAR  has helped                                                               
victims  secure dental  work and  glasses replacements  when they                                                               
were not  able to access  "victims'-of-crime compensation."   She                                                               
said that  STAR believes  that SSHB 321  will bring  the statutes                                                               
into  line  with  current  practice  as well  as  into  the  21st                                                               
century's view of  the victim.  In conclusion,  she applauded the                                                               
sponsors "for helping to make  government work for its citizens,"                                                               
and applauded the  committee for reviewing SSHB 321  early in the                                                               
session.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BITZER,  in  response  to   questions,  said  that  victims'                                                               
advocates at  STAR do assist  clients with filling  out paperwork                                                               
requesting victims'  crime compensation,  and that  the advocates                                                               
have  written  letters on  behalf  of  clients.   She  said  that                                                               
usually,  compensation covers  the cost  of counseling,  for both                                                               
victims and  their families, and  therapeutic intervention.   She                                                               
also recounted  that STAR has  assisted victims  of sexual-abuse-                                                               
of-a-minor crimes in applying to  the VCCB for compensation.  She                                                               
added that oftentimes, it is  the teenagers that have the hardest                                                               
time receiving  compensation from  the VCCB;  they may  have been                                                               
drinking  and  so may  be  more  likely  to  be turned  down  for                                                               
benefits.  She explained that  they, too, need intervention - not                                                               
just the small children who are  victims - so, in order for those                                                               
teenagers to access those services,  it is important for the VCCB                                                               
to reach out to them as well.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1446                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  expressed the  concern that the  language in                                                               
SSHB 321 is  ambiguous.  He indicated that he  was not sure which                                                               
crimes were being discussed.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS  explained that the language  being added in                                                               
Section  2 refers  to  crimes  of sexual  assault  and crimes  of                                                               
sexual  abuse  of  a  minor.    In  response  to  questions,  she                                                               
reiterated her  comments that the  word "innocent"  is redundant,                                                               
that it  hurts in cases of  sexual assault and sexual  abuse of a                                                               
minor, and  that it should no  longer be included in  the purpose                                                               
statement of  AS 18.67.  To  elaborate, she pointed out  that the                                                               
language change  to AS  18.67.080(c), as  proposed by  Section 2,                                                               
still allows the board to  consider all circumstances - including                                                               
provocation, consent,  or any other  behavior of the  victim that                                                               
directly  or indirectly  contributes -  for claims  based on  all                                                               
other  crimes; the  language being  added  only addresses  claims                                                               
based  on the  crime of  sexual assault  or the  crime of  sexual                                                               
abuse of  a minor.   She  suggested that  the change  proposed by                                                               
SSHB  321  still  allows  the  board  to  consider  the  supposed                                                               
innocence of  a person who, for  example, starts a bar  brawl and                                                               
gets his/her teeth kicked in.   In response to further questions,                                                               
she  opined  that claims  for  compensation  are subject  to  all                                                               
subsections  of AS  18.67.080 -  (a) through  (d) -  so a  person                                                               
could not get paid under AS.67.080(a) alone, for example.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  noted  that  AS  18.67.080(c)  does  say:    "In                                                               
determining whether to make an order under this section ...."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS  posited that  it is  the inclusion  of that                                                               
language  in AS  18.67.080(c)  that  makes the  use  of the  word                                                               
"innocent" in AS 18.67.010 redundant.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  asked  how  many  claims  based  on  sexual                                                               
assault have been denied by the VCCB.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS   said  that  because   of  confidentiality                                                               
restrictions, reports  from the  VCCB do not  include information                                                               
pertaining  to why  claims  are  denied, so  it  is difficult  to                                                               
provide statistical data.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ asked  whether there  is any  anecdotal                                                               
evidence.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS  confirmed that there is  anecdotal evidence                                                               
"from the community"  showing that there are some  cases that are                                                               
questionable and which  could be clarified by the  removal of the                                                               
word "innocent" from the purpose  language.  She mentioned a case                                                               
in  which  a 14-year-old  was  gang  raped  but the  VCCB  denied                                                               
compensation because there  was alcohol involved.   She said that                                                               
she did not know whether  the appeals process altered the outcome                                                               
of  that  [claim],  but suggested  that  removing  "innocent"  as                                                               
proposed by SSHB 321 would clarify the statute on this issue.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG closed the public hearing on SSHB 321.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1699                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  made a motion  to adopt Amendment 1,  to reinsert                                                               
"innocent"  on page  1, line  7; Amendment  1 has  the effect  of                                                               
keeping  that language  in  the purpose  statement  of AS  18.67,                                                               
which governs the VCCB.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1715                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG, to  clarify, pointed out that the  purpose of the                                                               
VCCB  is to  only award  funds to  people who  are innocent.   He                                                               
noted that  SSHB 321 "carves  out ... an exception",  and posited                                                               
that the addition of the language  in Section 2 is sufficient for                                                               
that purpose.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  agreed.  She,  too, noted that  the purpose                                                               
statement pertains  to the  entirety of AS  18.67 rather  than to                                                               
just  the provision  that would  be altered  by Section  2.   She                                                               
opined that leaving the word  "innocent" in the purpose statement                                                               
would  not  affect  the  changes  proposed by  Section  2  to  AS                                                               
18.67.080(c).                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 1:34 p.m. to 1:35 p.m.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ,   in  defense  of  his   objection  to                                                               
Amendment 1, said:                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     A lot of times you hear  on the news that someone "pled                                                                    
     innocent" to a charge.   Nobody pleads innocent; that's                                                                    
     never  what happens  in a  criminal case.   People  are                                                                    
     judged "not  guilty."  And  when you try  and introduce                                                                    
     the  concept  of  innocence, ...  I  think  it  implies                                                                    
     complete purity.   What we're  doing in  subsection (c)                                                                    
     is saying  ... that  the totality of  circumstances are                                                                    
     what are  to be  evaluated, because  assessing complete                                                                    
     innocence  is  --  you've  got   to  disprove  all  the                                                                    
     negatives.    I  think  it's  clear  without  the  term                                                                    
     "innocent"  in there;  it's an  adjective that  doesn't                                                                    
     add much to the statute.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  asked  if  Representative  Berkowitz  would                                                               
prefer to replace "innocent" with "not guilty".                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said  no; "I just think  you withdraw it                                                               
and you  pay compensation to  persons injured."  He  offered that                                                               
there is a tension between  "innocent persons" and looking at the                                                               
totality of  circumstances.  He  opined that by getting  into the                                                               
issue of  what innocence is, it  introduces a whole other  set of                                                               
issues that the  VCCB must then evaluate, which,  he surmised, is                                                               
potentially problematic.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1896                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL, although  acknowledging that  that is  a                                                               
good  point,  noted that  the  VCCB  is  being  asked to  make  a                                                               
determination based  on provocation, consent, and  other behavior                                                               
-  to  perform  kind of  a  triage.    He  opined that  the  term                                                               
"innocent" merely acts as a guiding factor.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  remarked  that  when  reading  the  entire                                                               
paragraph, it  makes sense to  retain "innocent".   She suggested                                                               
that it clarifies  that payments won't be made to  the people who                                                               
are guilty of the crimes that the claims are based on.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  said  he  is offering  Amendment  1  because  he                                                               
believes that "the  degree of contributory negligence  ... can be                                                               
measured by the board as to the  amount of the award."  He opined                                                               
that  this is  reflected  currently in  AS  18.67.080(c), and  he                                                               
surmised that SSHB 321 proposes  to exclude that consideration in                                                               
cases of sexual assault and sexual abuse of a minor.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER   asked  for   the  sponsor's   opinion  of                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS  said that she did  not think it is  a "deal                                                               
breaker"; it  just shows  that after 30  years, maybe  the entire                                                               
statute needs to  be reviewed at some point.   She noted that the                                                               
Department of  Law has a  different opinion than  the Legislative                                                               
Legal  and Research  Services Division.   She  surmised that  her                                                               
goal could still be accomplished even if Amendment 1 is adopted.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he  is maintaining his objection to                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2058                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote was  taken.   Representatives Coghill,  James,                                                               
Ogan, and Rokeberg voted for  Amendment 1.  Representatives Meyer                                                               
and  Berkowitz voted  against  it.   Therefore,  Amendment 1  was                                                               
adopted by a vote of 4-2.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said  he would be more  comfortable with SSHB                                                               
321  if  it only  pertained  to  sexual abuse  of  a  minor.   He                                                               
expressed concern  that if it  becomes mandatory for the  VCCB to                                                               
award compensation  to victims  of sexual  abuse, there  might be                                                               
people who  will take advantage of  the system if, due  to mental                                                               
illness  or   chronic  substance   abuse,  they   repeatedly  put                                                               
themselves in situations where they are sexually assaulted.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ asked  whether  Representative Ogan  is                                                               
suggesting  that   some  women   deliberately  go  out   and  get                                                               
themselves drunk and then raped in order to get compensation?                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said no.  He  said that what he is suggesting                                                               
is that  there are probably  some people who, because  of serious                                                               
social problems,  are far  more subject to  sexual assault  - not                                                               
that they  purposely seek to be  raped - but then,  when they are                                                               
raped,  they discover  a  system that  they  can repeatedly  take                                                               
advantage of.   He said he  would like to know  whether there are                                                               
people  who "have  shown  up" time  and time  again  and, if  so,                                                               
whether they are being denied.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   JAMES    said   that   she    could   understand                                                               
Representative Ogan's point but opined  that there are few people                                                               
who would abuse  the system in that fashion.   She suggested that                                                               
the  benefits of  the change  proposed by  SSHB 321  outweigh the                                                               
potential for abuse.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  remarked that the  VCCB has a  tough job,                                                               
"resources being what  they are," and then having  to decide whom                                                               
to  help and  whom  to deny.    He asked  whether  the fact  that                                                               
someone  receives compensation  could affect  either the  ongoing                                                               
court proceeding  or any forthcoming  appeal.  He also  noted his                                                               
concern that the  VCCB is having its  discretion curtailed, given                                                               
that SSHB 321  would prohibit a denial based on  the items listed                                                               
in Section 2.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he, too,  has concerns about taking away                                                               
the VCCB's  discretion regarding cases of  sexual assault, noting                                                               
that he  did not  have any  problem doing so  in cases  of sexual                                                               
abuse of a minor.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said  he supports SSHB 321  and posited that                                                               
the concerns  expressed at  this meeting  would be  considered by                                                               
the VCCB.   He opined  that if anyone  does attempt to  abuse the                                                               
system in the  manner suggested by Representative  Ogan, the VCCB                                                               
will simply deny those claims.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 2377                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  moved to  report SSHB 321,  as amended,                                                               
out  of   committee  with  individual  recommendations   and  the                                                               
accompanying zero fiscal note.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  objected for  purpose  of  discussion.   He                                                               
opined that passage  of SSHB 321 would mandate  payment of claims                                                               
based on  sexual assault,  regardless of  how often  the claimant                                                               
seeks  compensation.    Representative   Ogan  then  removed  his                                                               
objection.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2416                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether there  were any further objection to                                                               
reporting SSHB  321, as amended,  out of committee.   There being                                                               
no  objection,  CSSSHB  321(JUD)  was  reported  from  the  House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 1:50 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 330 - PROVIDING ALCOHOL TO PERSONS UNDER 21                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2423                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that the  next order of  business would                                                               
be HOUSE  BILL NO. 330,  "An Act relating to  providing alcoholic                                                               
beverages to a person under 21 years of age."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 2435                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  moved  to   adopt  the  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute (CS)  for HB 330, version  22-LS1178\O, Ford, 2/11/02,                                                               
as a work draft.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2461                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HEATHER  M.  NOBREGA,  Staff to  Representative  Rokeberg,  House                                                               
Judiciary  Standing  Committee,   Alaska  State  Legislature,  on                                                               
behalf  of  the  House  Judiciary  Standing  Committee,  sponsor,                                                               
explained that after the accident  last summer in which Anchorage                                                               
police officer  Justin Wollam was  killed, Mothers  Against Drunk                                                               
Driving  (MADD) requested  that  the penalties  be increased  for                                                               
adults who  provide alcohol to minors  who then go on  to hurt or                                                               
kill someone.   She noted  that currently, a person  who provides                                                               
alcohol to  a minor  could be  charged with  a misdemeanor.   She                                                               
relayed  that the  original version  of HB  330 would  make it  a                                                               
class C  felony for a  person to provide  alcohol to a  minor who                                                               
then,  while under  the  influence of  that  alcohol, injures  or                                                               
kills  someone.    She  pointed  out  that  Version  O  adds  the                                                               
stipulations that the minor act  with "civil negligence" and that                                                               
the injury be a "serious physical injury".                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 02-15, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 2500                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. NOBREGA explained  that the Department of  Law suggested that                                                               
there be a  negligence standard included in  this legislation, so                                                               
she had  first researched the  different standards of  conduct at                                                               
the   criminal  level,   which  include   "knowingly",  "criminal                                                               
negligence",   and  "recklessly".     She   mentioned  that   the                                                               
definitions  for   those  standards  are  included   in  members'                                                               
packets.   After  first  considering use  of  the term  "criminal                                                               
negligence",  she said  it was  determined that  proving criminal                                                               
negligence  requires proof  beyond  a reasonable  doubt, and  so,                                                               
instead,  opted to  use the  lowest standard  possible, which  is                                                               
civil negligence.   She noted  that another reason  for including                                                               
this standard  is to prevent a  minor who has done  nothing wrong                                                               
but who  is in  an accident  from being used  as the  impetus for                                                               
charging an adult with a felony.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ said:    "I  appreciate the  conceptual                                                               
changes but  I have  an alternative  way of  getting there."   He                                                               
asked members  to turn  to the  original version  of HB  330, and                                                               
suggested that [paragraph 2] should be altered to say:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     the  person under  21  years of  age  who receives  the                                                                    
     alcoholic  beverage  seriously  injures or  causes  the                                                                    
     death of another person and  the injury or death occurs                                                                    
     because the person under 21  years of age was under the                                                                    
     influence  of   the  alcoholic  beverage   received  in                                                                    
     violation of this section.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  offered that this change  maintains the                                                               
simplicity of the original version of HB 330.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG argued that such  a change makes a huge difference                                                               
in the  bill and "raises  the standard  completely above --  to a                                                               
.08 or impairment standard of being under the influence."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded:  "Not at all."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG said:  "Yes it  does; if he's under the influence,                                                               
he's  got to  be  at  least meeting  the  criminal definition  of                                                               
impairment."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied:   "No, ... the  .08 standard --                                                               
it's  merely a  presumption  ... [and]  those  are all  arguable;                                                               
arguably, an  individual can  be under the  influence at  .001 or                                                               
.002.   What the statutes have  are presumptions that have  to be                                                               
rebutted."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2351                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ,  in response  to questions, said  he is                                                               
maintaining his objection to the adoption  of Version O as a work                                                               
draft and opined that it would  be much more complicated to amend                                                               
than the original version of HB 330.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  asked  whether,  with  a  civil  negligence                                                               
standard,  someone  causing  serious  physical  injury  could  be                                                               
convicted  using  the  "civil  standard of  proof  of  clear  and                                                               
convincing."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  NOBREGA  said  she  thinks  so,  adding  that  the  DOL  has                                                               
indicated  that civil  negligence  requires a  lower standard  of                                                               
proof, perhaps even simply by a preponderance of the evidence.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said his concern  is whether someone could be                                                               
criminally convicted,  using a civil standard  of negligence, for                                                               
the behavior of somebody else.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. NOBREGA  said that  according to  her understanding,  that is                                                               
possible.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ added  that it  seems to  him that  the                                                               
criminal  conduct  for which  the  defendant  would be  convicted                                                               
would  be  the  supplying  of alcohol,  and  once  the  defendant                                                               
supplies the alcohol,  then, in essence, he/she  assumes the risk                                                               
that  the  alcohol  will  result in  death  or  serious  physical                                                               
injury.  He  noted that this is just his  initial assumption, and                                                               
that they could check with the DOL.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2183                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was taken.    Representatives  James,  Ogan,                                                               
Coghill, and  Rokeberg voted for the  adoption of Version O  as a                                                               
work draft.   Representatives Meyer  and Berkowitz  voted against                                                               
it.  Therefore,  Version O was before the committee  by a vote of                                                               
4-2.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2171                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MARTI  GREESON, Executive  Director,  Anchorage Chapter,  Mothers                                                               
Against Drunk  Driving (MADD),  testified via  teleconference and                                                               
indicated  that  one  of  the  primary  reasons  that  the  legal                                                               
drinking age  is 21  is because young  people make  bad decisions                                                               
when  they drink.   She  suggested  that when  an adult  provides                                                               
alcohol  to  someone  under  the legal  drinking  age,  a  higher                                                               
standard  of responsibility  and culpability  should be  imposed.                                                               
She mentioned the issue of possibly  adding a provision to HB 330                                                               
requiring the naming of victims,  and briefly relayed some of the                                                               
details  of  the accident  that  killed  Officer Wollam  and  the                                                               
ensuing court case.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2052                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
PAMELA WATTS,  Executive Director,  Governor's Advisory  Board on                                                               
Alcoholism   and  Drug   Abuse,  Office   of  the   Commissioner,                                                               
Department of  Health and Social  Services (DHSS), said  that the                                                               
advisory  board appreciates  the committee's  recognition of  the                                                               
seriousness  of  adults providing  alcohol  to  persons under  21                                                               
years of  age, and  supports the  passage of HB  330.   She noted                                                               
that many  adults fail to  realize how serious  providing alcohol                                                               
to underage individuals is,  and how potentially life-threatening                                                               
this  behavior is.    She relayed  that  research indicates  that                                                               
drinking  is associated  with  risk-taking and  sensation-seeking                                                               
behaviors among  adolescents, and  that it has  a "disinhibiting"                                                               
effect  that may  increase the  likelihood of  unsafe activities.                                                               
In  1997, nationally,  21 percent  of young  drivers -  15 to  21                                                               
years  old -  who  were  killed in  crashes  were intoxicated;  a                                                               
further  breakdown indicated  that  that was  25  percent of  the                                                               
young males and 12 percent of the young female drivers.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. WATTS relayed  that people who begin drinking  before the age                                                               
of 15  are four times  more likely to develop  alcohol dependence                                                               
than  those who  wait  until age  21.   Each  additional year  of                                                               
"delayed  drinking  onset"  reduces the  probability  of  alcohol                                                               
dependence  by  14  percent.    Family  and  peers  can  actively                                                               
influence underage-drinking  behavior by  explicitly discouraging                                                               
use  or, passively,  by providing  models  of drinking  behavior.                                                               
She noted, for example, that  a Columbia University study reports                                                               
that adolescents  whose fathers have  more than two drinks  a day                                                               
have a  71 percent  greater risk  of substance  abuse themselves.                                                               
She  also relayed  that 95  percent of  violent crime  on college                                                               
campuses  is alcohol-related  and 90  percent of  "college rapes"                                                               
involve alcohol use by the victim and/or the assailant.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WATTS,  after  acknowledging that  prevention  programs  are                                                               
working, also stated:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     They  need  your  continued  support  and  advocacy  to                                                                    
     encourage activities  and initiatives that  will change                                                                    
     community standards  and emphasize  healthy lifestyles.                                                                    
     We  need  to  develop   sufficient  resources  to  meet                                                                    
     community needs for  appropriate levels of intervention                                                                    
     and  treatment  for  the underage  population  who  are                                                                    
     identified as  having alcohol  or other  drug problems.                                                                    
     But  the bottom  line  here is  that  those adults  who                                                                    
     provide  alcohol to  underage drinkers  assume a  heavy                                                                    
     responsibility, and  this legislation makes  clear what                                                                    
     that responsibility is  and the consequences associated                                                                    
     with it.   The  Advisory Board  on Alcoholism  and Drug                                                                    
     Abuse encourages your support of this bill.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  relayed   that  after  the  aforementioned                                                               
accident,  he, too,  wanted to  see  the penalty  increased to  a                                                               
felony; however,  his research indicated  that most of  the time,                                                               
the adults  who furnish  alcohol to minors  are, for  example, an                                                               
older brother who  is 21 buying a six-pack of  beer for a younger                                                               
brother who is  19.  He opined that HB  330 would exclude persons                                                               
in this  type of example unless  they had a prior  conviction for                                                               
this  crime.   He  asked Ms.  Watts who,  in  her experience,  is                                                               
contributing [alcohol] to minors.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE     BERKOWITZ    disagreed,     indicating    that                                                               
Representative Meyer  is incorrect in his  interpretation that HB                                                               
330 would not apply in the aforementioned example.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1870                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  and MS. WATTS  confirmed this, pointing  out that                                                               
the language says "; or".                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  asked Ms. Watts  whether she wanted  HB 330                                                               
to apply in  cases where it is merely an  older sibling providing                                                               
alcohol to a younger one.   He acknowledged that in the situation                                                               
in which  Officer Wollam was killed,  someone who was 31  and who                                                               
should have "known better" provided the alcohol.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. WATTS,  after noting  that she did  not have  any statistical                                                               
information regarding  who, in most  cases, is  providing alcohol                                                               
to minors, added that during the  course of her work in the field                                                               
for over ten  years, she has seen a cross  section of individuals                                                               
purchase alcohol  for underage drinkers.   She said that  in some                                                               
instances, parents provide alcohol in  a misguided effort to help                                                               
their children  "learn how to drink,"  without really recognizing                                                               
what  the implications  might be.    She concurred  that in  some                                                               
instances,  alcohol is  provided by  the minor's  peers or  older                                                               
siblings.  She surmised, however,  that because the law does have                                                               
a cut-off  age of 21,  it might not  be possible to  refrain from                                                               
holding someone  accountable simply because he/she  is a relative                                                               
or merely a year older.   She also pointed out that regardless of                                                               
the relationship  or age differential  between the minor  and the                                                               
person providing,  the end  result could  be the  same -  loss of                                                               
life, serious injury, or damage to property.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER agreed.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1761                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CINDY  CASHEN,  Juneau  Chapter, Mothers  Against  Drunk  Driving                                                               
(MADD),  indicated that  she agreed  with Ms.  Greeson's comments                                                               
regarding  naming the  victims.   She said  MADD supports  HB 330                                                               
because it  will act as  a deterrent.   Referring to  the example                                                               
posed  by   Representative  Meyer,  that  of   an  older  sibling                                                               
providing alcohol to  a minor, she opined  that almost certainly,                                                               
the older sibling  is a "habitual purchaser" and is  not doing it                                                               
for  the  first  time;  it  will  have  been  many  times,  until                                                               
something tragic happens.   In light of this, she  said, "Yes, we                                                               
do need to  make it a felony."  "Because  we have given ourselves                                                               
so many  rights," she added, "we  are now a state  of victims ...                                                               
and we  now need to  send a message out  that we need  to protect                                                               
ourselves from ourselves."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1647                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LINDA  WILSON, Deputy  Director,  Public  Defender Agency  (PDA),                                                               
Department  of Administration,  testified via  teleconference and                                                               
said  that the  PDA  is  encouraged by  the  "amendments made  or                                                               
suggested towards" Version O.  She  noted that since she does not                                                               
yet have a copy of Version O,  she is not sure where the language                                                               
pertaining  to   negligence  would   go.    She   mentioned  that                                                               
originally, she  was going  to comment  on the  use of  the broad                                                               
term "injures", but Version O has addressed those concerns.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON pointed out, however,  that the PDA still has concerns                                                               
about causation.   When HB  330 requires that the  person provide                                                               
alcohol  and  that  the  minor  be  under  the  influence  of  an                                                               
alcoholic   beverage,  causation   becomes   a  problem   because                                                               
determining or  tracking what alcohol  that person is  under [the                                                               
influence  of]  may  be  very  difficult.    "If  somebody  gives                                                               
somebody else  a beer,  another person  gives them  another beer,                                                               
four hours  later they get  another beer, well, what  alcohol are                                                               
they  under the  influence of?"  she asked.   She  predicted that                                                               
that would be a difficult question to answer.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON,  referring to  that same  scenario, noted  that there                                                               
are also time  factors that could come into question.   "How long                                                               
is the person  who provides the alcohol  exposed [to] liability,"                                                               
she asked.  And with regard  to the injury, she asked "what about                                                               
intervening causes,"  and "what  about superseding causes  if the                                                               
person is  involved in something where  self-defense is required:                                                               
they leave,  they get  into a  scuffle, there's  serious physical                                                               
injury,  but it's  in self-defense?"    "What if  the person  who                                                               
caused  the  injury  was not  expected/anticipated,"  she  asked,                                                               
pointing out  that there might  be "renegade actions" of  a minor                                                               
that aren't related.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON remarked  that the PDA has  submitted an indeterminate                                                               
fiscal note because  it's very difficult to  tell what percentage                                                               
of the  cases that the  PDA handles regarding  furnishing alcohol                                                               
to minors  might involve  a situation  where the  minor seriously                                                               
physically  injures  or kills  somebody.    The PDA  tracks  what                                                               
happens to the  person who furnishes the  alcohol, she explained,                                                               
noting that in many situations, that  is the only charge; the PDA                                                               
does   not  currently   have  the   capability  of   tracking  or                                                               
correlating information  about a  separate offense or  some other                                                               
incident involving the minor.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON surmised  that making the crime  of furnishing alcohol                                                               
a felony  as proposed  by HB  330 could very  well have  a fiscal                                                               
impact.   She pointed  out that statewide,  the PDA  handled over                                                               
100 cases of  furnishing alcohol to minors, and she  did not know                                                               
what  percentage of  those cases  might be  charged as  felonies,                                                               
which require more time and  effort than misdemeanor charges.  To                                                               
illustrate,  she recounted,  "You have  a larger  jury pool;  you                                                               
have  indictments, more  court hearings;  if they  are convicted,                                                               
you  have  pre-sentence  reports;  aggravators  [and]  mitigators                                                               
apply.  So felonies take more time; they increase the workload."                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1436                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON  concluded by  saying that  narrowing the  language to                                                               
"serious physical  injury" is  an improvement  because that  is a                                                               
term already  defined in Title  11.   In response to  a question,                                                               
she said  that she did not  believe that the term  "furnished" is                                                               
defined in statute.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said:                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     One  of   the  questions   I  have  is   whether  we're                                                                    
     prescribing  conduct.   For  example,  if  you have  an                                                                    
     alcohol  company that  knows  that a  lot  of kids  are                                                                    
     getting  a hold  of its  booze, and  one of  those kids                                                                    
     then  goes  out  and seriously  physically  injures  or                                                                    
     kills  somebody  while under  the  influence.   Do  you                                                                    
     think this statute would  reach the corporate furnisher                                                                    
     or deliverer?                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WILSON surmised  that  the crime  of  furnishing alcohol  to                                                               
minors by a licensee is  covered by another statute; AS 04.16.052                                                               
covers a licensee,  or an agent or an employee  of a licensee who                                                               
furnishes alcohol.   In response  to the question of  whether the                                                               
two  [statutes]  are exclusive,  she  said  probably not  because                                                               
"sometimes this particular statute could apply to a bartender."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it seems  to him that under Version                                                               
O, if a company that  makes an alcoholic beverage has information                                                               
that a lot  of underage kids are drinking its  product, then "you                                                               
could go  out and prosecute  the corporation or its  officers for                                                               
furnishing" if,  one day, one  of those  kids goes out  and kills                                                               
someone while under the influence of that product.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON  said she  did not  have an answer  to that  but noted                                                               
that since HB  330 says "person", she is assuming  that it has to                                                               
be  the  "person"  furnishing or  delivering;  which  could,  for                                                               
example, be a bartender or a bar owner.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said:                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     But  if the  bar owner  knew that  there was  a pattern                                                                    
     where there was a lot  of underage drinking at that bar                                                                    
     and  didn't take  the steps  to clean  it up,  then you                                                                    
     could go back  and reach the bar  owner for feloniously                                                                    
     providing.   I'd  be  willing  to take  the  case as  a                                                                    
     prosecutor."                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1261                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested  that there is a  separate statute under                                                               
Title 4 that "is against the license, not the criminality."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ noted  that  the two  statutes are  not                                                               
exclusive; both could apply.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG offered that one is  a "license action" and one is                                                               
a criminal action.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER,  after noting that the  Sullivan Arena, for                                                               
example,  provides alcohol  at  its events,  asked  who would  be                                                               
responsible if  a minor  was supplied with  alcohol and  then got                                                               
into  an accident  on  the way  home,  would it  be  the City  of                                                               
Anchorage or whoever has the license, or both?                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG suggested  that  the bartender  could be  charged                                                               
with the  criminal offense under  HB 330, and the  licensee could                                                               
have his/her  license suspended/revoked  under the  other statute                                                               
that applied.  Thus the single  occurrence could result in both a                                                               
civil action and a criminal action.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  noted that  a single course  of conduct                                                               
could result in more than one criminal charge.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
[The  Department  of Law  provided  a  proposed amendment,  which                                                               
would later  become Amendment 1,  and which read as  follows with                                                               
original punctuation provided:]                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     (2)  the person  who  receives  the alcoholic  beverage                                                                  
     negligently causes death or  serious physical injury to                                                                  
     another  while under  the  influence  of the  alcoholic                                                                  
     beverage  received in  violation  of  this section;  in                                                                  
     this  paragraph  "serious   physical  injury"  has  the                                                                  
     meaning given in AS  11.81.900, and "negligently" means                                                                  
     acting with civil negligence.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1148                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ANNE  CARPENETI,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department  of Law (DOL), said                                                               
that  both  the  language  in  Version  O  and  the  language  in                                                               
[Amendment  1] "get  you  to  the same  place";  it  is merely  a                                                               
question of  which language style  is preferred.  She  noted that                                                               
the DOL  supports HB 330  and agrees  with the PDA  regarding the                                                               
two additions:   "serious physical  injury" and the  reference to                                                               
wrongdoing on  the part  of the  child.   She explained  that the                                                               
latter  point would  insure that  a person  could not  be charged                                                               
with a felony if the child goes  out and gets in an accident that                                                               
was  not  his/her  fault.     She  acknowledged  that  there  are                                                               
causation  problems   [with  HB  330]  and   surmised  that  [any                                                               
resulting cases] will be difficult to prove.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  mentioned that  he  has  some concern  with  Ms.                                                               
Wilson's  point that  there could  be some  question as  to which                                                               
alcohol contributed to any resulting accident.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI  agreed  that  that  issue  could  pose  problems;                                                               
nevertheless,  [adoption of  this type  of legislation]  is still                                                               
worth  doing even  if such  cases are  difficult to  prove.   She                                                               
noted, for example,  that there might be cases  where someone has                                                               
been at a party that has "several furnishers."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES suggested  that there  could also  be cases                                                               
where someone has been drinking  before arriving at such a party,                                                               
does not drink  anything at the party, and then  later gets in an                                                               
accident.  She mentioned that she  is having a struggle with this                                                               
whole issue  because she sees  a lot  of loopholes and  because a                                                               
felony charge is  a serious charge.  She asked  Ms. Carpeneti for                                                               
her thoughts on Ms. Cashen's testimony.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI   indicated  her   agreement  with   Ms.  Cashen's                                                               
statement that people should simply  not be furnishing alcohol to                                                               
minors; it is  a very serious thing  to do, and people  who do so                                                               
should  take [responsibility  for] the  consequences.   She noted                                                               
that although she,  too, has some concerns, both she  and the DOL                                                               
support HB 330.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0920                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES said  she has  concern about  situations in                                                               
which the alcohol is provided by a spouse.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  clarified  that  AS 04.16.051(b)  says:    "This                                                               
section  does  not prohibit  the  furnishing  or delivery  of  an                                                               
alcoholic beverage  (1) by a parent  to the parent's child,  by a                                                               
guardian to  the guardian's  ward, or  by a  person to  the legal                                                               
spouse of  that person  if the furnishing  or deliver  occurs off                                                               
licensed   premises".     And,   in   an   effort  to   alleviate                                                               
Representative  James's  concern  about providing  for  a  felony                                                               
charge,  he  noted  that  it  is  currently  a  felony  under  AS                                                               
04.16.051 if  the person  has been  previously convicted  of this                                                               
same  crime   within  the  five   years  preceding   the  current                                                               
violation.   In response to  questions, he confirmed that  HB 330                                                               
would make  it a felony for  a first-time conviction but  only if                                                               
the underage drinker  goes on to cause a  serious physical injury                                                               
or a death while acting in a negligent manner.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI suggested that if  the committee is concerned about                                                               
the legislation including cases in  which persons who are over 21                                                               
years old furnish  alcohol to persons who are 18,  19 or 20 years                                                               
old, language could be inserted to  the effect that it would only                                                               
become a felony  if the alcohol is provided to  a minor - someone                                                               
under  the age  of  18.   She reiterated,  though,  that the  DOL                                                               
supports HB  330 as  is.   In response to  a question,  she noted                                                               
that even if such  a change were made, the person  who was 18, 19                                                               
or 20 years old would still be charged with minor in possession.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI, in  response to questions, explained  that a class                                                               
C  felony  can  result  in  a  sentence  of  up  to  five  years'                                                               
incarceration,  whereas a  class A  misdemeanor can  result in  a                                                               
sentence of  up to one year,  and that this difference,  in part,                                                               
results  in the  increased cost  associated with  prosecuting and                                                               
defending felony charges.   In response to a  question of whether                                                               
a felony  charge might be  negotiated down to a  misdemeanor, she                                                               
noted  that  there is  always  the  possibility of  negotiations,                                                               
depending on the facts, regardless  of whether the initial charge                                                               
is a felony or a misdemeanor.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0578                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  asked whether there  is any mens  rea -                                                               
culpable mental state  - associated with knowing  that the person                                                               
was [under 21].                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI replied:   "The  culpable mental  state is  acting                                                               
with  criminal  negligence,  [which] violates  this  section,  so                                                               
you'd have to be criminally negligent about that."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  surmised, then,  that "we're  not going                                                               
to have to check anyone's ID or anything like that."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said, "Well, if it were me, I would."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned  that there would have to be  a death or                                                               
a serious injury "preceding this whole charge."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI said,  "I  think  you have  to  act with  criminal                                                               
negligence."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  asked what  sort of sentence  range are                                                               
first-  and second-time  offenders subject  to under  the current                                                               
statutory scheme.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI posited  that it would depend on  the facts, adding                                                               
that she would  have to research that information  and provide it                                                               
later.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, referring to  his earlier example about                                                               
a  hypothetical   company  that   knew  underage   drinkers  were                                                               
accessing  its product,  asked whether  HB 330  could be  used to                                                               
prosecute that company.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  said that she  reads [HB  330] to be  more limited                                                               
than  that;  she  posited  that  it applies  to  the  person  who                                                               
actually  provides the  alcohol.   She  remarked  that, as  Chair                                                               
Rokeberg has already stated, there  are other statutes that would                                                               
apply in Representative Berkowitz's example.   She added that she                                                               
would  research  the  issue  to  see whether  the  DOL  has  ever                                                               
attempted to  prosecute such a case  or whether it has  been done                                                               
in another jurisdiction under a similar statute.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ encouraged  the DOL  to look  into that                                                               
possibility,  saying that  it  seems to  him  that an  aggressive                                                               
prosecution could, under the current  statutory scheme, reach the                                                               
corporate  executives  of  his hypothetical  example  and,  under                                                               
certain circumstances, might indeed be warranted.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0383                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  closed the public  hearing on  HB 330.   He noted                                                               
that one  of the issues the  committee must decide is  whether to                                                               
use the  language proposed  by the  DOL [via  Amendment 1]  or to                                                               
retain the language in Version O.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  said that  it did not  matter that  much to                                                               
her  which language  is used.   She  mentioned, however,  that it                                                               
seems  to  her, during  attempts  to  increase penalties  because                                                               
something  horrible has  happened, that  the consistent  argument                                                               
for  doing  so is  that  raising  the  penalties  will act  as  a                                                               
deterrent, but in  her experience, such has not proved  to be the                                                               
case.   She  added that  she has  a problem  with the  concept of                                                               
trying  to create,  via laws  and  penalties, a  perfect life  on                                                               
earth; it's just not ever going to happen.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER indicated that he  is not too concerned over                                                               
which language  is used either.   And while HB 330  may not deter                                                               
everyone from providing alcohol to  underage drinkers, he said he                                                               
feels that HB  330 is "a victim's-rights bill" in  the sense that                                                               
at least  there will  be a serious  penalty associated  with this                                                               
offense  in  instances when  an  underage  drinker goes  out  and                                                               
causes the death of someone.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ opined  that the  simpler language  [in                                                               
Amendment 1] would  be preferable; "it's clearer,  it's easier to                                                               
prosecute,  people  know what  the  rules  are, and,  when  we're                                                               
sending  messages  with  our  legislation, it  ought  not  to  be                                                               
cryptic."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that he is not "wedded to either one."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  1.                                                               
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  commented that word  of this type of  a law,                                                               
which could make it  a felony to provide alcohol to  a minor if a                                                               
serious accident results, will quickly spread.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 02-16, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN also  mentioned  that in  "the valley,"  the                                                               
problem of adults buying alcohol for minors is epidemic.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0048                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  moved  to  report  the  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute (CS)  for HB 330, version  22-LS1178\O, Ford, 2/11/02,                                                               
as amended, out of committee  with individual recommendations and                                                               
the accompanying  fiscal notes.   There being no  objection, CSHB                                                               
330(JUD)  was   reported  from   the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HB 332 - EXTENDING COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0074                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that the  last order of  business would                                                               
be HOUSE BILL NO. 332, "An  Act extending the termination date of                                                               
the  Council  on  Domestic  Violence   and  Sexual  Assault;  and                                                               
providing for  an effective date."   He noted that  the committee                                                               
has received a proposed committee  substitute (CS) that addresses                                                               
a concern discussed at the prior hearing on HB 332.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0116                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
PATTI SWENSON,  Staff to Representative  Con Bunde,  Alaska State                                                               
Legislature, sponsor,  on behalf  of the sponsor,  confirmed that                                                               
the  proposed  CS  does  address  that  concern,  and  asked  the                                                               
committee to also consider amending  the proposed CS to say "may"                                                               
instead of "shall" on page 1, line  6.  She explained that such a                                                               
change would give the executive  director flexibility with regard                                                               
to  hiring  staff;  for  example, if  there  are  ten  authorized                                                               
positions, the executive  director would not have to  fill all of                                                               
those  positions  if  budget constraints  prevailed.    She  also                                                               
suggested deleting  from page 1,  lines 7-8, "that  is authorized                                                           
by  the  legislature in  the  budget  documents relating  to  the                                                           
council".  She  opined that this change would  give the executive                                                           
director  the  flexibility "to  change  the  office around";  for                                                               
example, if  a grant  writer was  needed, the  executive director                                                               
could fill that need instead of hiring two clerical staff.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0240                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  moved to  adopt the  proposed committee                                                               
substitute  (CS) for  HB  332,  version 22-LS1290\C,  Lauterbach,                                                               
2/8/02, as  a work draft.   There  being no objection,  Version C                                                               
was before the committee.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0297                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  1,                                                               
which would replace "shall" with "may"  on page 1, line 6.  There                                                               
being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0324                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  2,                                                               
which would delete "that is  authorized by the legislature in the                                                           
budget documents relating  to the council" from page  1, lines 7-                                                           
8.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVES JAMES and OGAN objected.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  opined that  the executive  director should                                                               
only hire  staff as  authorized by  the legislature,  adding that                                                               
this may mean that the council might still have empty positions.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   BERKOWITZ    said   that   according    to   his                                                               
understanding of  Ms. Swenson's testimony, "if  we require hiring                                                               
and staff decisions to be  made according to budget documents, it                                                               
precludes hiring  decisions being made,  say, if there's  a grant                                                               
or other source [of funds] that comes to the council."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SWENSON clarified  that that  is not  exactly what  she said                                                               
although  it is  also true.   She  said that  by taking  out that                                                               
language, it  would give the  executive director  the flexibility                                                               
to  change the  office  makeup  around, and  still  hire what  is                                                               
authorized within  the budget; authorized funds  for two clerical                                                               
staff, for example, could be used instead for one grant writer.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 2:49 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. SWENSON, in  an effort to alleviate  concerns, suggested that                                                               
instead  of the  change  proposed by  Amendment  2, the  language                                                               
could be altered to say:   "the executive director may hire staff                                                               
not to exceed the budget authorization".                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  also objected, and said  that "that assumes                                                               
that  everyone's  going   to  go  out  and   exceed  the  [budget                                                               
authorization]."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG proposed leaving the  language on page 1, lines 7-                                                               
8, as  is, and suggested that  if the sponsor wants  to propose a                                                               
further  change to  the authorization  language, he  could do  so                                                               
before the House Finance Committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew Amendment 2.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0609                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  moved to report the  proposed committee                                                               
substitute  (CS) for  HB  332,  version 22-LS1290\C,  Lauterbach,                                                               
2/8/02,   as   amended,   out  of   committee   with   individual                                                               
recommendations and  the accompanying fiscal notes.   There being                                                               
no  objection,   CSHB  332(JUD)  was  reported   from  the  House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0613                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:53 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects