Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120

04/10/2007 01:00 PM JUDICIARY


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ HB 90 BAIL TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
*+ HCR 5 2007 NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK TELECONFERENCED
Moved Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 159 STILLBIRTH CERTIFICATE TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 159(JUD) Out of Committee
+= HB 196 HANDLING MATTERS AFTER A PERSON'S DEATH TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 196(JUD) Out of Committee
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 10, 2007                                                                                         
                           1:02 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair                                                                                                
Representative John Coghill                                                                                                     
Representative Bob Lynn                                                                                                         
Representative Ralph Samuels                                                                                                    
Representative Max Gruenberg                                                                                                    
Representative Lindsey Holmes                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 196                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to the handling of matters after a person's                                                                    
death."                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 196(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 5                                                                                               
Supporting the 2007 National Crime Victims' Rights Week.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCR 5 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 90                                                                                                               
"An Act relating to bail."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 159                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to the issuance of a certificate of birth                                                                      
resulting in a stillbirth."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 159(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 196                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: HANDLING MATTERS AFTER A PERSON'S DEATH                                                                            
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
03/14/07       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/14/07       (H)       JUD                                                                                                    
04/04/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
04/04/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/04/07       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/10/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HCR 5                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: 2007 NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK                                                                           
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) STOLTZE                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
03/27/07       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/27/07       (H)       JUD                                                                                                    
04/10/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 90                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: BAIL                                                                                                               
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SAMUELS, STOLTZE                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
01/16/07       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/07                                                                               
01/16/07       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/16/07       (H)       JUD                                                                                                    
02/05/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
02/05/07       (H)       <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 02/08/07>                                                                 
02/08/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
02/08/07       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
02/12/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
02/12/07       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
03/28/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
03/28/07       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
03/30/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
03/30/07       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
04/10/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 159                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: STILLBIRTH CERTIFICATE                                                                                             
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GATTO                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
02/28/07       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/28/07       (H)       HES, JUD                                                                                               
03/06/07       (H)       HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/06/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/06/07       (H)       MINUTE(HES)                                                                                            
03/15/07       (H)       HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/15/07       (H)       Moved CSHB 159(HES) Out of Committee                                                                   
03/15/07       (H)       MINUTE(HES)                                                                                            
03/16/07       (H)       HES RPT CS(HES) 3DP 3NR                                                                                
03/16/07       (H)       DP: FAIRCLOUGH, ROSES, WILSON                                                                          
03/16/07       (H)       NR: NEUMAN, GARDNER, SEATON                                                                            
03/16/07       (H)       FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD                                                                           
03/30/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
03/30/07       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
04/10/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
STEPHEN E. GREER, Attorney at Law                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Responded to questions during discussion of                                                                
HB 196.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE                                                                                                     
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HCR 5.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                      
Legal Services Section-Juneau                                                                                                   
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented the provisions of HB 90,                                                                         
Version K, on behalf of the joint prime sponsors.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
TAMARA LIENHART                                                                                                                 
(No address provided)                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 90.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
KATHERINE J. HANSEN, Interim Director                                                                                           
Office of Victims' Rights (OVR)                                                                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided comments on Section 5 of HB 90,                                                                   
Version K.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
PATRICIA HAAG                                                                                                                   
(No address provided)                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided comments during discussion of                                                                     
HB 90.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MARTI GREESON, Alaska Monitoring Services, LLC;                                                                                 
Executive Director                                                                                                              
Anchorage Chapter                                                                                                               
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided  comments on Section  6 of  HB 90,                                                               
Version K.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
STEVE CHRISTOPHER, Chief Operations Manager                                                                                     
Alaska Monitoring Services, LLC                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided  comments on Section  6 of  HB 90,                                                               
Version K.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner                                                                                             
Office of the Commissioner - Juneau                                                                                             
Department of Corrections (DOC)                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Responded to  questions during discussion of                                                               
HB 90, Version K.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
QUINLAN G. STEINER, Director                                                                                                    
Central Office                                                                                                                  
Public Defender Agency (PDA)                                                                                                    
Department of Administration (DOA)                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Expressed  concerns  during discussion  of                                                               
HB 90, Version K.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
JOSHUA FINK, Director                                                                                                           
Anchorage Office                                                                                                                
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)                                                                                                 
Department of Administration (DOA)                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Provided comments  during  discussion  of                                                               
HB 90, Version K.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SANDRA WILSON, Intern                                                                                                           
to Representative Carl Gatto                                                                                                    
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Presented HB 159 on behalf  of the sponsor,                                                               
Representative Gatto.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD OLSEN                                                                                                                   
Phoenix, Arizona                                                                                                                
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Provided comments  during  discussion  of                                                               
HB 159.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
PHILLIP MITCHELL, Chief                                                                                                         
Vital Statistics                                                                                                                
Division of Public Health (DPH)                                                                                                 
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:     Responded  to  questions   and  provided                                                               
comments during discussion of HB 159.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO                                                                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 159.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR JAY  RAMRAS called the  House Judiciary  Standing Committee                                                             
meeting  to  order at  1:02:57  PM.   Representatives  Gruenberg,                                                             
Coghill, Samuels,  Lynn, and Ramras  were present at the  call to                                                               
order.   Representative  Holmes  arrived as  the  meeting was  in                                                               
progress.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HB 196 - HANDLING MATTERS AFTER A PERSON'S DEATH                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:03:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO.  196, "An Act relating to the  handling of matters                                                               
after a person's death."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 1, which read:                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 5, following "estate":                                                                                        
          Insert ", except that if the decedent owes money                                                                      
     for  child  support  arrearages,  for  spousal  support                                                                    
     arrearages, or  under AS  47.07.055, the  provisions of                                                                    
     (d) of this section do not apply"                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 7, following "will":                                                                                          
          Insert ", except that if the decedent owes money                                                                      
     for  child  support  arrearages,  for  spousal  support                                                                    
     arrearages, or  under AS  47.07.055, the  provisions of                                                                    
     (d) of this section do not apply"                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG   offered   his   understanding   that                                                               
Amendment 1 will  preclude people from using  this legislation to                                                               
avoid  paying child  support arrearages,  paying spousal  support                                                               
arrearages,  or   -  under  AS  47.07.055   -  repaying  Medicaid                                                               
overpayments.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  1.                                                               
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:05:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS  began a  motion  to  move the  bill,  as                                                               
amended, from committee.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  interjected.   He referred to  the term                                                               
"value"  as used  on  page 2,  line 4,  and  characterized it  as                                                               
ambiguous  because it  is not  clear  whether it  refers to  fair                                                               
market  value or  ownership  equity  and thus  might  be used  by                                                               
someone to avoid probate.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:07:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
STEPHEN  E.  GREER,  Attorney at  Law,  indicated  that  existing                                                               
Alaska   law  -   specifically   the  phrase   "less  liens   and                                                               
encumbrances," found  in AS 13.16.680(a)  - addresses  that point                                                               
already.     In   response  to   a  question,   he  offered   his                                                               
understanding that the term "value" means "equitable interest".                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:08:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  moved to report  HB 196, as  amended, out                                                               
of   committee   with    individual   recommendations   and   the                                                               
accompanying  fiscal  notes.   There  being  no  objection,  CSHB                                                               
196(JUD)  was   reported  from   the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HCR 5 - 2007 NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:08:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE CONCURRENT  RESOLUTION NO. 5, Supporting  the 2007 National                                                               
Crime Victims' Rights Week.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:08:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BILL  STOLTZE, Alaska State  Legislature, sponsor,                                                               
offered  that  HCR  5  is   important  because  Alaskan  agencies                                                               
responsible for  assisting victims of  violent crimes need  to be                                                               
reminded  of the  rights  of  crime victims  as  outlined in  the                                                               
Alaska  State Constitution.   In  addition, [adoption  of] HCR  5                                                               
will coincide with the 2007  National Crime Victims' Rights Week.                                                               
The resolution  contains boilerplate language with  the exception                                                               
that  it  references  Alaska's  constitutional  rights  of  crime                                                               
victims.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS, after  ascertaining that no one  wished to testify,                                                               
closed public testimony on HCR 5.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:10:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  moved to  report HCR  5 out  of committee                                                               
with individual recommendations and  the accompanying zero fiscal                                                               
notes.   There being no  objection, HCR  5 was reported  from the                                                               
House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HB 90 - BAIL                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:11:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 90, "An Act relating to bail."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, speaking as  a joint prime sponsor, moved                                                               
to adopt  the proposed  committee substitute  for HB  90, Version                                                               
25-LS0331\K, Luckhaupt, 3/7/07,  as the work draft.   There being                                                               
no objection, Version K was before the committee.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS mentioned  that HB 90 has  many parts, and                                                               
that department representatives would explain the bill.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:13:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ANNE  CARPENETI,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department  of Law (DOL), said                                                               
that the  provisions of the bill  that were suggested by  the DOL                                                               
are  intended to  fine tune  legislation  passed in  the last  10                                                               
years;  for example,  legislation passed  last year,  Senate Bill                                                               
218, addressed sentences for sex  offenders and mandatory minimum                                                               
terms  of  probation  for  sex offenders,  and  other  pieces  of                                                               
legislation  funded  a cold  case  prosecutor  and addressed  the                                                               
electronic  distribution  of indecent  material  to  minors.   In                                                               
addition to fine tuning such  legislation, HB 90 also proposes to                                                               
insert into  statute standards regarding  when a court  can order                                                               
credit against sentences for time spent in treatment facilities.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI indicated  that Section 1 of Version K  can best be                                                               
explained in terms of last year's  Senate Bill 218, which in part                                                               
established   mandatory   probation   periods  for   felony   sex                                                               
offenders, but which neglected to  change the mandatory probation                                                               
period for rape from 10 years to  15 years.  Section 1 makes it a                                                               
crime  for  a  sex  offender to  violate  certain  provisions  of                                                               
probation/parole, and  does so  for two  reasons, one  being that                                                               
one main way of delaying  or preventing recidivism is to maintain                                                               
a pretty aggressive  supervision program while an  offender is on                                                               
probation/parole.  However, because  the current mandatory period                                                               
of probation  for rape was not  altered by Senate Bill  218, rape                                                               
offenders  may run  out of  "time  hanging over  their heads"  in                                                               
terms  of  doing a  revocation  of  probation procedure  if,  for                                                               
example, they  don't show  up for a  polygraph or  are committing                                                               
other  behavior indicative  of recidivism.   The  change proposed                                                               
via  Section 1  will establish  another tool  for prosecutors  to                                                               
supervise sex offenders and perhaps delay recidivism.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:17:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked  whether  there  are  any  other                                                               
crimes that fall into that category as well.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Representative Coghill.]                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  said she is  not aware  of any but  would research                                                               
that issue  further.  She  went on to  explain that Section  2 of                                                               
the   bill   fine   tunes  previously-passed   legislation   that                                                               
prohibited  an adult  from  electronically distributing  indecent                                                               
material to  minors; that legislation arguably  only pertained to                                                               
electronic  distribution   by  an  adult  of   indecent  material                                                               
depicting minors  to children, and  Section 2  would specifically                                                               
prohibit an  adult from distributing indecent  material - whether                                                               
it depicted  adults or minors  - to children.   Section 3  adds a                                                               
reference  to the  statute  being  changed via  Section  2 to  AS                                                               
11.61.129, which pertains to the  forfeiture of equipment used in                                                               
the  commission of  the crimes  referenced  therein; this  change                                                               
will allow forfeiture  of the equipment used  in the distribution                                                               
of indecent material to children.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  explained that  Section 4  changes the  statute of                                                               
limitations  for   the  crime   of  "attempt,   solicitation,  or                                                               
conspiracy  to commit  murder" from  five years  to indefinitely.                                                               
The concept of this change came  to the DOL's attention after the                                                               
legislature   funded  the   DOL's   cold   case  prosecutor;   in                                                               
investigating/reinvestigating certain old  murder cases, the cold                                                               
case prosecutor found that it would  be helpful, when there are a                                                               
series  of possible  defendants, to  be able  to charge  not only                                                               
murder but  also attempt, solicitation,  or conspiracy  to commit                                                               
murder.   Doing  so, however,  is not  currently possible  with a                                                               
five-year statute of limitations on those crimes.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked why  currently only the  crime of                                                               
murder has no statute of limitations.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI surmised  that it is because of  the seriousness of                                                               
the  crime of  murder, but  said  she would  research that  issue                                                               
further.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
[Representative Coghill returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked  whether   Section  4  ought  to                                                               
include crimes such as "accessory after the fact to a murder."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:23:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI characterized  that  as  a reasonable  suggestion;                                                               
although Alaska's  statutes don't  specifically list  that crime,                                                               
current  statute  does make  it  a  felony  crime to  hinder  the                                                               
prosecution of another felony.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  posited that  an indefinite  statute of                                                               
limitations should apply just to situations involving murder.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN  said he  is  surprised  that the  crime  of                                                               
kidnapping  doesn't have  an indefinite  statute of  limitations,                                                               
since it does in most other states.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said she would research that issue further.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  said he  would be  reluctant to  have the                                                               
crime of  kidnapping have an  indefinite statute  of limitations,                                                               
offering his belief that most  cases of kidnapping originate from                                                               
family disputes.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI  remarked  that  there  are  different  levels  of                                                               
kidnapping.  She  then noted that Section 5 is  intended to limit                                                               
what she  termed "serial" bail hearings,  which are disconcerting                                                               
to  the  victims;  Section 5  would  require  those  representing                                                               
offenders  to  get  all information  supporting  a  bail  release                                                               
presented at one  time, rather than piecemeal over  the course of                                                               
several bail hearings - in  essence limiting what information may                                                               
be  considered  to   be  new  information  for   the  purpose  of                                                               
justifying a new bail hearing.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:26:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  remarked   that  a  "newly  discovered                                                               
evidence" standard has been established  via the court in Salinas                                                             
v. State, and  suggested that Section 5  will engender litigation                                                             
regarding what  constitutes new evidence.   He questioned whether                                                               
the committee  ought to "engraft  the Salinas-type  contours onto                                                             
this" provision.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI went  on to  explain  that Section  6 would  enact                                                               
standards  that  the courts  must  follow  in deciding  how  much                                                               
credit and whether to give  credit against a term of imprisonment                                                               
for time spent  in a treatment facility.   These standards follow                                                               
"decisional law"  to a great  degree, and the rationale  for this                                                               
provision is that the DOL  would like judges throughout the state                                                               
to be reasonably  consistent when granting credit  against a term                                                               
of  imprisonment, since  right now  there is  some inconsistency.                                                               
Section  6 proposes  to assist  judges  in granting  credit in  a                                                               
reasonably fair  way by  requiring three  things:   the treatment                                                               
must be ordered by the court;  the program must meet the standard                                                               
set out in Section 6 -  which pretty much mirrors what the courts                                                               
have set  out in  Nygren, that being  that the  treatment program                                                             
has to  be pretty  similar to incarceration  and the  person must                                                               
participate  fully  in the  program;  [and  the director  of  the                                                               
treatment  program must  inform  the court  in  writing that  the                                                               
person  has  participated  in and  complied  with  the  program's                                                               
requirements].                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI, in  response to a question, noted  that in Section                                                               
6, proposed AS 12.55.027(c) stipulates:                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     (c)  To  qualify  for  credit  against  a  sentence  of                                                                    
     imprisonment  for time  spent in  a treatment  program,                                                                    
     the  treatment   program  and   the  facility   of  the                                                                    
     treatment program must  impose substantial restrictions                                                                    
     on   a  person's   liberty  that   are  equivalent   to                                                                    
     incarceration,   including  the   requirement  that   a                                                                    
     participant in the program                                                                                                 
          (1) must live in a residential facility operated                                                                      
     by the program;                                                                                                            
          (2) must be confined at all times to the grounds                                                                      
     of the  facility or  be in the  physical custody  of an                                                                    
     employee of the facility;                                                                                                  
          (3) is subject to disciplinary sanctions by the                                                                       
     program  if  the  participant  violates  rules  of  the                                                                    
     program and facility; sanctions  must be in writing and                                                                    
     available for court review;                                                                                                
          (4) is subject to immediate arrest, without                                                                           
        warrant, if the participant leaves the facility                                                                         
     without permission.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS, referring  to  a situation  he  was familiar  with                                                               
wherein  a  young woman  attended  and  successfully completed  a                                                               
treatment  program in  the Lower  48, characterized  the criteria                                                               
outlined in proposed  subsection (c) as being  too specific given                                                               
what the state currently has to offer.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  remarked that Section  6 doesn't limit  or address                                                               
the original sentence imposed by the  court.  For example, if the                                                               
best thing  would be for a  person to attend a  treatment program                                                               
that  doesn't fit  the aforementioned  criteria,  the court  does                                                               
have discretion  to fashion  the sentence  based on  a particular                                                               
program.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:33:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG,   referring  to   proposed  subsection                                                               
(c)(4),  suggested  that  the  words,  ",  without  warrant,"  be                                                               
deleted since "the normal body  of law" determines when a warrant                                                               
is necessary.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI pointed  out, however,  that if  one wants  credit                                                               
against a  sentence for time  spent in a treatment  program, that                                                               
program has  to be similar  to incarceration, and  since escaping                                                               
from  jail  results  in  the  person  being  arrested  without  a                                                               
warrant, the same ought to hold true for the treatment program.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS remarked that if  a person is able to come                                                               
and go  from a particular  treatment program, then time  spent in                                                               
that program shouldn't be credited towards a jail sentence.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a  question, said that the point of                                                               
putting these standards into statute  is that the court will then                                                               
be  required to  look  at  and comply  with  this statute  before                                                               
granting someone credit  towards a sentence of  imprisonment.  It                                                               
should provide judges with the  incentive to actually investigate                                                               
whether time  spent in a  particular treatment program  is worthy                                                               
of credit.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES   referred  to  Section   6,  specifically                                                               
proposed AS  12.55.027(d) -  which says, "A  court may  not grant                                                               
credit against  a sentence of  imprisonment for time spent  in an                                                               
private  residence or  under electronic  monitoring" -  and noted                                                               
that the  words, "in an  private residence" should  instead read,                                                               
"in a private residence".   She asked whether anyone is currently                                                               
being given credit for time served under electronic monitoring.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said that that  issue was recently litigated in the                                                               
Alaska Court of  Appeals case, Matthew v. State;  the court ruled                                                             
that  a  person's time  under  electronic  monitoring should  not                                                               
qualify  for credit  against  a sentence  of  imprisonment.   She                                                               
offered  her understanding  that there  have been  some cases  in                                                               
which  credit  has been  awarded  for  time  spent in  a  private                                                               
residence.  The DOL wanted to  clarify that point, and so brought                                                               
forth the language in proposed subsection  (d).  In response to a                                                               
question, she  acknowledged that  Section 6  only applies  to the                                                               
courts, not to the Department of Corrections (DOC).                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether a person  must comply with all four of                                                               
the requirements outlined in proposed AS 12.55.027(c)(1)-(4).                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  said yes,  noting that the  word, "and"  should be                                                               
added to the end of subsection (c)(3) to clarify that point.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed interest in  hearing from the court system                                                               
regarding how it will interpret  this provision given the lack of                                                               
state resources.   He indicated that  he is concerned that  HB 90                                                               
will  be applied  in situations  where the  person is  more of  a                                                               
danger to himself/herself than to society.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI offered  her understanding  that  Section 6  won't                                                               
apply to such people, and merely reflects past court rulings.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:43:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  explained that  Section 7  expressly deals  with a                                                               
problem raised by  Senate Bill 218 wherein  the mandatory maximum                                                               
period of probation outlined in  AS 12.55.090(c) should have been                                                               
extended but wasn't.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Representative Coghill.]                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  how  the proposed  period of  25                                                               
years was arrived at.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said that given  that the current mandatory minimum                                                               
period  of  probation is  now  15  years, the  mandatory  maximum                                                               
period of probation should exceed that  amount.  In response to a                                                               
comment,  she  said that  this  provision  pertains to  probation                                                               
periods,  and that  electronic monitoring  could  be imposed  for                                                               
probation.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  whether,  under  Section 7,  one                                                               
might be subject to electronic monitoring for the full 25 years.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said  that such seems really  unlikely, but offered                                                               
to research the  issue further.  She then relayed  that Section 8                                                               
pertains  to the  crime of  electronic  distribution of  indecent                                                               
material  to  minors,  which, when  originally  established,  was                                                               
inadvertently not included  as a sex offense,  which requires sex                                                               
offender  registration.   The behavior  outlined  in proposed  AS                                                               
11.61.128,  which   is  being  added   and  referred  to   in  AS                                                               
12.63.100(6)  via Section  8, is  classic  grooming behavior  and                                                               
should be considered a sex offense for registration purposes.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  noted that there  is no section 126  in AS                                                               
11.61, and  yet Section 8  of the  bill proposes to  reference AS                                                               
11.61.125 - 11.61.128.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI  explained  that   such  references  are  commonly                                                               
drafted  that way,  and surmised  that should  future legislation                                                               
propose to  insert a section  126, it too  will pertain to  a sex                                                               
offense.   She went on to  explain that Section 9  addresses post                                                               
conviction relief  applications.   Under Section  9, applications                                                               
based on a claim of ineffective  counsel must be filed within one                                                               
year after the  court's final decision on  the prior application.                                                               
This provision  is important for  victims and the  whole judicial                                                               
system  because  it  will  provide an  end  date  for  litigation                                                               
pertaining to post conviction relief.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:51:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TAMARA LIENHART relayed that on  April 22, 1985, her grandmother,                                                               
grandfather, and great aunt were  murdered by Winona Fletcher and                                                               
Cordell Boyd.  She said  that she feels strongly about supporting                                                               
HB  90, adding  that she  and her  remaining family  members were                                                               
surprised to learn that Ms.  Fletcher's case was reopened and had                                                               
been open for several months and  yet they were not notified even                                                               
though such notification is required by law.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[Representative Coghill returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. LIENHART said that all the  pain and suffering her family was                                                               
subjected  to  at  the  time  of the  murders  was  relived  upon                                                               
discovering  that  Ms.  Fletcher   is  pursuing  post  conviction                                                               
relief; the first  petition was filed on August 9,  2005, and for                                                               
the last  year the district  attorney's office and the  Office of                                                               
Victims' Rights (OVR) have repeatedly  said that Ms. Lienhart and                                                               
her family  needn't worry,  "this will  all go  away," but  as of                                                               
today,  April  10,  2007,  Ms.   Fletcher's  case  is  still  not                                                               
resolved.  Ms.  Lienhart said that over the last  year and a half                                                               
she and  her family  have seen  newspaper articles  featuring Ms.                                                               
Fletcher and a  television interview with Mr.  Boyd; Ms. Fletcher                                                               
has  gone through  several attorneys  and her  case remains  open                                                               
though   technically,  legally,   nothing  has   changed.     The                                                               
possibility remains that something  could happen and Ms. Fletcher                                                               
could be set free.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. LIENHART  said she  and her  family have  been told  that Ms.                                                               
Fletcher's case  was reopened on  the basis that there  was "new"                                                               
information submitted after sentencing,  but this so-called "new"                                                               
information was  actually submitted  into the  case file  over 20                                                               
years ago.   How can such  a situation be possible,  Ms. Lienhart                                                               
asked.  Over  20 years have gone  by and there still  are no laws                                                               
to   keep  such   requests  for   post  conviction   relief  from                                                               
resurfacing.   This has  been a  difficult process,  Ms. Lienhart                                                               
remarked,  given that  Ms. Fletcher  was originally  sentenced to                                                               
298  consecutive years  -  99  years given  for  each person  she                                                               
murdered -  but then had her  sentence reduced to 99  years to be                                                               
served concurrently;  22 years later,  Ms. Fletcher is  trying to                                                               
get yet  another reduction  in her  sentence via  post conviction                                                               
relief.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  LIENHART said  that the  language  in HB  90 regarding  post                                                               
conviction relief  is a start, adding  her hope that no  one else                                                               
will ever have to go through  the same ordeal that her family has                                                               
had  to go  through when  her  grandparents and  great aunt  were                                                               
murdered.  She also offered her  hope that HB 90 will be expanded                                                               
to address situations such as the  one she and her family are now                                                               
being  subjected  to;  the  bill  should  set  a  time  limit  on                                                               
information submitted as "new" and  a time limit on open requests                                                               
for post  conviction relief.   One  year and  seven months  is an                                                               
excessive  period of  time for  victims to  have to  relive their                                                               
ordeal.   She concluded by  saying that  she knows it's  too late                                                               
for her family  to see relief in this area;  instead, with regard                                                               
to post  conviction relief, they  will have to continue  to wait,                                                               
watch, hope, and  pray that nothing further  transpires to reopen                                                               
this case.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS  remarked  that without  the  passage  of                                                               
[HB 90], even the great grandchildren  of a victim could be faced                                                               
with an  ordeal similar to what  Ms. Lienhart and her  family are                                                               
currently undergoing.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI went on to explain  that Section 10 pertains to the                                                               
DOC  and says  that a  prisoner may  not be  awarded a  good time                                                               
deduction  in  his/her  sentence  for time  he/she  spends  in  a                                                               
treatment  program,   in  a  private   residence,  or   while  on                                                               
electronic  monitoring.   Section 11  contains applicability  and                                                               
effective date clauses.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:00:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KATHERINE J. HANSEN, Interim Director,  Office of Victims' Rights                                                               
(OVR),  Alaska  State Legislature,  said  her  comments would  be                                                               
focused on  Section 5 of Version  K.  She relayed  that since the                                                               
enactment last  year of AS  12.30.020(j), crime victims  have had                                                               
continuing problems with  having to come to  court multiple times                                                               
on short  or no notice  for repeat bail  hearings.  She  said she                                                               
has had  several victims tell her  that they felt as  though they                                                               
were equally or  more so victimized through the  bail process and                                                               
criminal justice  process in  addition to  what they  suffered at                                                               
the hands of  their perpetrator.  One of her  clients, Ms. Hansen                                                               
explained, whose  partner had  made three  attempts on  her life,                                                               
has had to  face 14 bail hearings,  and each time she  has had to                                                               
decide whether she  would be able to face the  person who'd tried                                                               
to kill her and make a  statement against him, knowing that there                                                               
was a chance that he would be released.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. HANSEN  said she has  had more than  one client who's  had to                                                               
face  a similar  situation.    She offered  her  belief that  the                                                               
change proposed  by Section  5 is necessary  in order  to protect                                                               
the constitutional rights of victims  to be treated with dignity,                                                               
respect, and fairness, and to  fairly balance those rights with a                                                               
defendant's rights to reasonable bail.   She relayed that she has                                                               
attended  bar   bench  conferences   in  which   private  defense                                                               
attorneys have requested that judges  start a process whereby the                                                               
attorneys  don't have  to submit  written information  to make  a                                                               
subsequent bail hearing  request to change from  asking for third                                                               
party  custodians  that have  been  denied  to later  asking  for                                                               
electronic monitoring;  to justify this request,  these attorneys                                                               
cited strategic  benefits for  the defendants.   Section  5 would                                                               
reduce  the  trauma  and unfairness  experienced  by  victims  in                                                               
having to repeatedly come back  to court for bail hearings, often                                                               
on very short notice.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES asked  whether an  exception to  Section 5                                                               
could be carved out for those in jail on minor charges.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. HANSEN  opined that the  two legal questions that  a judicial                                                               
officer has  to answer  in considering whether  and what  bail is                                                               
appropriate  are whether  reasonable  conditions  to protect  the                                                               
public and the  victim can be set and whether  the defendant will                                                               
make his/her court  appearance, not whether the crime  is a major                                                               
or a minor one.   She said her focus is on  the crime victim, and                                                               
so her concern  is that these victims are  being treated unfairly                                                               
by the system  and are being hurt, day after  day, without anyone                                                               
being there to  speak up for them.   Realistically, she remarked,                                                               
tightening  bail  provisions  will  promote  fair  settlement  of                                                               
cases, even  minor ones.   Currently  there are  numerous options                                                               
available to  defendants seeking bail,  and the OVR  simply wants                                                               
defendants to raise  all those points at one  hearing rather than                                                               
piecemeal at several hearings simply  for strategic reasons.  The                                                               
problem currently,  she remarked,  is that [the  judicial system]                                                               
is not  looking at how  the victim is  being affected by  all the                                                               
options currently available to a defendant.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:05:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PATRICIA  HAAG relayed  that more  than once  her ex-husband  has                                                               
tried to kill her, and seemingly  he has all the rights while she                                                               
has very  few.  She  offered her belief  that the bill  should be                                                               
passed because  the laws need  to be changed.   This man  who has                                                               
repeatedly attempted to kill her  currently gets to pull her into                                                               
court  without  appearing  himself,  thereby keeping  her  -  the                                                               
victim  - wrapped  up  with  legal issues.    This situation  has                                                               
affected her and her entire  family, she relayed, remarking again                                                               
that the current laws need to  be tightened in order to help both                                                               
the public and the victims.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:10:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARTI  GREESON,   Alaska  Monitoring  Services,   LLC;  Executive                                                               
Director,  Anchorage  Chapter,   Mothers  Against  Drunk  Driving                                                               
(MADD),  relayed  that  she  has   also  been  involved  with  an                                                               
Anchorage community action  group that is looking  at how alcohol                                                               
abuse and  underage drinking is harming  families and communities                                                               
and at  what can  be done  to increase safety  and health  in the                                                               
communities.   A goal,  she remarked,  is to be  able to  look at                                                               
criminal prosecution and  sentencing in a holistic  manner and in                                                               
an individual manner, identifying  the difference between violent                                                               
crimes and  other crimes, and  to look  at how the  provisions of                                                               
Version  K  will  impact  the DOC.    Specifically,  she  opined,                                                               
Section 6 will have  a fiscal impact on the DOC;  the cost to the                                                               
DOC for  incarceration is approximately  $120 per day,  while the                                                               
cost for  electronic monitoring is approximately  $12-$15 per day                                                               
and this  cost is borne  by the offender.   Heavy case  loads for                                                               
correctional and  probation officers  make it unlikely  that they                                                               
will  engage in  random electronic  monitoring and  drug testing,                                                               
and must  instead perform such monitoring  and testing regularly,                                                               
thus allowing defendants  to know when they will  be monitored or                                                               
tested.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  GREESON said  that with  regard to  what impact  taking away                                                               
credit will  have on the  doc's electronic monitoring  program, a                                                               
tremendous  point  of  consideration  is, what  is  the  ultimate                                                               
impact  on  the  community;  the focus,  hopefully,  will  be  on                                                               
changing  behaviors.   The majority  of those  serving jail  time                                                               
will be  returning to the community  and so the DOC  must do more                                                               
than  simply  warehouse them.    Cognitive  thinking classes  and                                                               
victim impact classes  were once offered but  budgetary cuts have                                                               
eliminated  them.    Life  skills  classes  are  currently  being                                                               
planned,    but   they    won't   address    responsibility   and                                                               
accountability for  behaviors or learning new  tools for behavior                                                               
change once offenders return to  the community.  Alaska does have                                                               
options  in  terms  of  new   technology;  for  example,  alcohol                                                               
monitoring  and Global  Positioning System  (GPS) monitoring  are                                                               
available,  thereby allowing  alcohol consumption  monitoring and                                                               
the  establishment  of  inclusion  and  exclusion  zones.    Each                                                               
offender  under   electronic  monitoring  [by  her   company]  is                                                               
assigned  a  case  manager  who   will  immediately  contact  and                                                               
confront violators and addresses their violations.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  GREESON  mentioned  that  she has  also  been  working  with                                                               
Anchorage's [Anti-Gang  & Youth Violence Policy  Team], which has                                                               
discussed the  fact that offender/criminal behavior  is resulting                                                               
from disenfranchisement.  She referred  to the cultural diversity                                                               
of Anchorage's  residents, and  remarked that  the aforementioned                                                               
policy team  is noticing that  there are fewer  opportunities and                                                               
less  knowledge  available  that   would  allow  people  to  find                                                               
appropriate  representation  or  understanding  of  the  criminal                                                               
justice system or programs that could provide assistance.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:17:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
STEVE  CHRISTOPHER, Chief  Operations Manager,  Alaska Monitoring                                                               
Services, LLC,  after noting that  he, too, would be  speaking to                                                               
Section 6  of Version K, referred  to the Matthew case,  and said                                                             
that  there is  currently another  Alaska Court  of Appeals  case                                                               
wherein  the   argument  is  being   made  that  the   intent  of                                                               
legislation  enacted in  1998 -  House Bill  272 -  was for  time                                                               
spent under electronic monitoring  when used by private providers                                                               
to be awarded credit as if it were  time served in jail.  He also                                                               
mentioned  that  a  study  [conducted]  by  the  Alaska  Judicial                                                               
Council (AJC)  shows a 66  percent recidivism rate in  the state.                                                               
Section 6  of HB  90, he opined,  doesn't address  how tightening                                                               
down  on preventing  those seeking  treatment  from getting  jail                                                               
credit is  going to  reduce the recidivism  rate since  they will                                                               
instead simply  be sitting in a  jail cell, or address  where the                                                               
money will come  from for incarcerating them, and  won't ease the                                                               
current overcrowding of Alaska's jails.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CHRISTOPHER   opined  that  the  language   of  proposed  AS                                                               
12.55.027(c)(2)  - located  on page  4, lines  24-25 -  creates a                                                               
double  standard because  it requires  employees  of a  treatment                                                               
facility to  escort defendants whenever they  leave the facility;                                                               
currently  many treatment  programs allow  defendants to  work in                                                               
the community  without escort, and  time spent in  these programs                                                               
does count  for jail credit.   He also suggested that  the zoning                                                               
requirements for residential  facilities need to be  looked at if                                                               
those facilities are to meet the standards set out in Section 6.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  argued that  not adopting Section  6 will                                                               
result in a double standard because  - for the exact same crime -                                                               
those who  can afford  a treatment  program won't  have to  go to                                                               
jail  whereas those  who can't  afford a  treatment program  will                                                               
have  to  spend time  in  jail.   With  regard  to  the issue  of                                                               
recidivism, he  pointed out that  those who  are in jail  are not                                                               
committing crimes  while there,  and remarked that  if recidivism                                                               
rates are  as high as has  been suggested, it is  imperative that                                                               
the legislature ensure that those  treatment programs for which a                                                               
person can receive jail credit actually work.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. CHRISTOPHER concurred with the  latter point, but argued that                                                               
treatment programs must address  a person's behavior while he/she                                                               
is out in the community rather than while sitting in jail.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS,  referring  to  the  aforementioned  AJC                                                               
study,  opined  that  the  recidivism   rates  for  those  who've                                                               
undergone treatment look the same as for those who haven't.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS asked  whether the  language  in subsection  (c)(2)                                                               
will affect the halfway house in Fairbanks.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CHRISTOPHER said  he is  not able  to address  that specific                                                               
issue, but pointed out that  that facility currently doesn't have                                                               
enough  staff to  escort its  cliental  out in  the community  as                                                               
would be required by subsection (c)(2).                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:23:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DWAYNE PEEPLES,  Deputy Commissioner, Office of  the Commissioner                                                               
-  Juneau, Department  of  Corrections (DOC),  in  response to  a                                                               
question, offered  his understanding that Section  6 applies only                                                               
when the court has ordered  someone to attend a specific facility                                                               
for  treatment, and  he is  not aware  of the  court ever  having                                                               
ordered someone  to attend the  halfway house in Fairbanks.   The                                                               
DOC  contracts  with  that  facility would  not  be  affected  by                                                               
Section 6.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   HOLMES  asked   Mr.   Peebles   to  comment   on                                                               
Section 10.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. PEEBLES relayed  that the DOC's interpretation  of Section 10                                                               
is that  it will significantly  impact its  electronic monitoring                                                               
programs  - reducing  the number  of participants  - but  the DOC                                                               
will be discussing this point further  with the DOL.  In response                                                               
to  a question,  he  said  that there  is  a  difference in  cost                                                               
between an offender  being on electronic monitoring  and being in                                                               
jail.  If  this provision adversely affects  the DOC's electronic                                                               
monitoring  program significantly,  a  greater  number of  people                                                               
will be spending time in  DOC facilities or moved to out-of-state                                                               
institutions.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  suggested instead that it  will result in                                                               
more people  being on electronic  monitoring for a  longer period                                                               
of time  because all that is  being altered is that  those people                                                               
won't be earning credit against their jail sentences.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. PEEBLES argued  that a person may simply choose  not to go on                                                               
electronic monitoring to begin with.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  asked, "Why would  we let them  make that                                                               
choice."                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PEEBLES said  offenders  are  in part  helping  pay for  the                                                               
electronic  monitoring program;  again,  the  DOC anticipates  an                                                               
impact on  the number of  participants on  electronic monitoring.                                                               
He  offered his  understanding that  such an  impact has  already                                                               
occurred with regard to court assigned electronic monitoring.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  asked of  Ms. Carpeneti, "A  prisoner may                                                               
not  be  awarded  'good  time'   for  any  time  done  under  any                                                               
circumstances    after   they've    been   offered    [electronic                                                               
monitoring]?"                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI acknowledged  that as a possibility.   She surmised                                                               
that the  philosophical question  is, does the  legislature think                                                               
somebody  on electronic  monitoring -  after being  released from                                                               
prison and  put on electronic  monitoring - should be  granted an                                                               
additional one-third  reduction in his/her overall  jail sentence                                                               
for  that period  when  he/she  is out,  living  at home,  eating                                                               
dinner with  his/her family,  and watching TV.   She  offered her                                                               
belief that the DOL will be able to address the DOC's concerns.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:29:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  - remarking that  he is interested in  the public's                                                               
wellbeing,  the   number  of  people  who   are  in  correctional                                                               
facilities,  and the  offender's welfare  - asked  what kinds  of                                                               
offenses does  a person commit  that would qualify him/her  to be                                                               
on electronic monitoring.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. PEEBLES offered to get that information to the committee.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL surmised  that Ms.  Carpeneti is  raising                                                               
the question  of why should  someone be granted both  the ability                                                               
to be  at home under electronic  monitoring and a reduction  in a                                                               
prison sentence  that is earned  simply because he/she  was first                                                               
granted the  ability to be  at home under  electronic monitoring.                                                               
Granting good  time is  meant to  be a reward  for being  a model                                                               
citizen while  in jail, and it  is not necessarily the  case that                                                               
someone who is granted the  ability to stay home under electronic                                                               
monitoring is going to be behaving  like a model citizen while at                                                               
home.  He noted that there  is a difference between being a model                                                               
citizen and simply refraining from acting badly.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  argued, though,  that  simply  because one  has  a                                                               
higher quality of  life while being on  electronic monitoring, it                                                               
doesn't equate with being free  altogether.  In one instance that                                                               
he knew of,  he relayed, the person behaved  better while wearing                                                               
an  electronic  monitor  and was  ultimately  released  for  time                                                               
served while on electronic monitoring.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI   remarked  that   the  DOL   supports  electronic                                                               
monitoring  in many  situations  because it's  a wonderful  tool;                                                               
however,  the  question, again,  is  whether,  when a  person  is                                                               
sentenced, is serving a term  of imprisonment, and is released on                                                               
electronic  monitoring, that  person  should also  get good  time                                                               
credit for  that time they've  been released.   In response  to a                                                               
question,  she   explained  that  Section  10   only  applies  to                                                               
electronic monitoring by the DOC;  it doesn't apply to the courts                                                               
because the courts don't give good time.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:35:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS,  referring  to the  provision  regarding                                                               
post conviction relief,  asked what could be done  to ensure that                                                               
the  descendants of  a victim  don't  have to  face repeat  court                                                               
hearings as has Ms. Lienhart.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI offered her belief that  it is not possible to tell                                                               
a person  that he/she  can't file a  lawsuit regardless  that the                                                               
lawsuit may have  no basis and will be thrown  out.  She surmised                                                               
that an  application for post  conviction relief as  described in                                                               
the bill  would ultimately be  dismissed, but a person  can still                                                               
file such an  application.  In response to  another question, she                                                               
said that  legislation passed in  1995 has  had a huge  affect on                                                               
post conviction relief and litigation  by prisoners, though there                                                               
was a period,  right after passage of  that legislation, wherein,                                                               
because  the legislation  included  time  limits, people  brought                                                               
suits  in an  effort to  meet those  time limits;  however, after                                                               
that particular period,  there has been a steady  decrease in the                                                               
amount  of post  conviction  relief  litigation and  applications                                                               
that  have  been  granted.   She  opined,  therefore,  that  that                                                               
legislation has really  had a good affect  on limiting litigation                                                               
by  prisoners  who've  been  convicted.   She  also  offered  her                                                               
understanding that Ms. Fletcher  filed her latest application for                                                               
post  conviction  relief  pro  se,  though  it  may  be  that  an                                                               
[attorney from the  Public Defender Agency (PDA)]  has since been                                                               
assigned to her case.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  questioned whether the  defendant's right                                                               
to counsel applies to post conviction relief litigation.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  said it does  for a defendant's  first application                                                               
for  post conviction  relief,  and for  presenting  a claim  that                                                               
one's first lawyer was ineffective.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS asked  whether  proposed  AS 12.55.027(c)(4)  would                                                               
have an affect on someone seeking out-of-state treatment.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  remarked that it  wouldn't have a  negative effect                                                               
on people  attending out-of-state treatment programs,  though any                                                               
such program  would have to  comply with the standards  set forth                                                               
in [Section 6].  In  response to further questions, she indicated                                                               
that people  will still be  able to seek  out-of-state treatment,                                                               
though  under  proposed AS  12.55.027(c)(4),  a  person could  be                                                               
subject to arrest in the jurisdiction of the treatment program.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:41:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
QUINLAN  G. STEINER,  Director, Central  Office, Public  Defender                                                               
Agency (PDA),  Department of  Administration (DOA),  relayed that                                                               
he would be commenting on  some unintended consequences of HB 90.                                                               
For example,  Section 5 could  result in someone sitting  in jail                                                               
beyond  his/her potential  maximum  jail time  without getting  a                                                               
bail hearing; he suggested that  a release valve could be crafted                                                               
for this provision, particularly for "smaller" offenses.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to  the fiscal note provided by                                                               
the  Office  of  Public  Advocacy   (OPA)  and  read  the  second                                                               
paragraph of the analysis.   He too suggested that language could                                                               
be  added to  Section 5,  and perhaps  some of  the bill's  other                                                               
sections, to eliminate  the problem expressed by  Mr. Steiner and                                                               
the OPA's  fiscal note analysis.   He  asked Mr. Steiner  to work                                                               
with  the OPA  and review  Section 5  and craft  some alternative                                                               
language.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. STEINER  offered his understanding  that at least one  of the                                                               
concerns  expressed  in the  OPA's  fiscal  note analysis  -  the                                                               
concern regarding  third-party custodians - has  been resolved in                                                               
Version K.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that the  bill be held over in                                                               
order  to give  the OPA  and the  PDA an  opportunity to  provide                                                               
alternative language.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS remarked that perhaps  Section 5 may unfairly affect                                                               
those people that seem to do  more harm to themselves than to the                                                               
community.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  surmised that  Section 6 may  be unfair                                                               
because only some can afford treatment.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  STEINER acknowledged  that  treatment is  something that  is                                                               
available for those that  can afford it.  He went  on to say that                                                               
one  other  unintended  consequence   of  the  bill  pertains  to                                                               
proposed AS  12.55.027(c)(2) - the  requirement that  a defendant                                                               
be  in  the  physical  custody  of an  employee  of  a  treatment                                                               
facility when  not in the  facility; this requirement  might make                                                               
it difficult  for a  person to visit  his/her attorney  or attend                                                               
court hearings because of a  lack of sufficient staff.  Sometimes                                                               
such circumstances  are addressed via  the court wherein  it will                                                               
order that  a person may  not leave  a facility except  for court                                                               
hearings and visitation to counsel.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:48:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG    asked   whether   Section    6   is                                                               
unconstitutional because only some can afford treatment.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI pointed  out  that Section  6  merely attempts  to                                                               
address the  [fact] that  one person  gets to  go to  a treatment                                                               
program because  he/she can afford  it while another  person goes                                                               
to  jail  because  he/she  can't  afford to  go  to  a  treatment                                                               
program.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG clarified  that  he  is concerned  that                                                               
Section 6 might violate a person's right to treatment.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI assured  the  committee that  Section  6 does  not                                                               
violate  that   right;  instead  it  simply   ensures  that  when                                                               
attending a treatment  program, the time spent  in that treatment                                                               
facility  must be  similar  to time  spent in  jail  in order  to                                                               
qualify for credit.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS  opined that  if  Section  6 is  deleted,                                                               
judges   will  continue   to  award   credit   for  time   served                                                               
inconsistently  because there  will  be  no criteria  established                                                               
regarding  what type  of treatment  programs  qualify; Section  6                                                               
establishes qualifying criteria.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  argued that only  some will be  able to                                                               
afford to take advantage of Section 6.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI  remarked  that  the   issue  of  who  can  afford                                                               
treatment  is broader  than  the issues  addressed  in the  bill;                                                               
again, Section 6 merely tries  to equalize the criteria regarding                                                               
the awarding of credit towards one's sentence.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  again  questioned whether,  under  the                                                               
criteria  established   in  the   bill,  the  state   is  denying                                                               
financially poor felons equal protection  under the law when only                                                               
some people  can afford treatment  and the state does  nothing to                                                               
provide treatment to those who can't.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  said she  would research the  issue of  a person's                                                               
right to treatment.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed  out that all persons  are subject to                                                               
inequities   in   life   due   to   their   differing   financial                                                               
circumstances.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that  he is simply questioning                                                               
whether allowing  some people  - those  that can  afford it  - to                                                               
attend  a treatment  program will  strengthen the  constitutional                                                               
argument made  by those that  can't afford to attend  a treatment                                                               
program at all if the state provides no treatment.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:57:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOSHUA  FINK,  Director,  Anchorage   Office,  Office  of  Public                                                               
Advocacy  (OPA), Department  of Administration  (DOA), said  that                                                               
there may  be an  unintended consequence  of Section  6 regarding                                                               
Nygren  credit.   In the  past, he  relayed, back  when he  still                                                             
represented clients,  he sent a  number of them to  the Salvation                                                               
Army  program, which  is available  to low-income  defendants; as                                                               
part of the year-long rehabilitative  program, the Salvation Army                                                               
requires clients to  get a job after a certain  number of months.                                                               
Therefore,  under Section  6, he  opined, a  low-income defendant                                                               
may  be precluded  from attending  such  a program  if he/she  is                                                               
going  to be  denied credit  when complying  with a  program that                                                               
requires  him/her to  hold  a  job.   It  may  be worthwhile,  he                                                               
remarked, for the committee to  speak to some treatment providers                                                               
to  see   what  they  require  in   their  residential  treatment                                                               
programs.   He also mentioned  that the Akeela  House Residential                                                               
Substance Abuse Recovery Center  is another treatment center that                                                               
requires its clients to find  employment as part of its treatment                                                               
program.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. FINK,  in response to  a question regarding the  OPA's fiscal                                                               
note, relayed  that it pertained  to the original bill,  and that                                                               
[Section  5  of  Version  K]   addresses  the  OPA's  concern  as                                                               
expressed in the fiscal note  somewhat though not completely.  He                                                               
indicated that should  Section 5 be adopted  as currently written                                                               
the  OPA  would  still  be   able  to  use  a  different,  though                                                               
cumbersome,  process  to ensure  that  a  defendant is  not  held                                                               
longer  than his/her  potential maximum  sentence without  a bail                                                               
hearing.   There  is a  constitutional problem,  he opined,  with                                                               
holding  someone  pretrial  beyond   any  possible  maximum  jail                                                               
sentence for what he/she might be convicted of.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  indicated that he would  be researching                                                               
the issue  raised about treatment programs  further, particularly                                                               
given that  certain treatment programs  require their  clients to                                                               
hold down a job.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  closed public  testimony, and  relayed that  HB 90,                                                               
Version K, would  be held over so that the  concerns raised could                                                               
be addressed.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HB 159 - STILLBIRTH CERTIFICATE                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:04:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  159,  "An  Act relating  to  the  issuance of  a                                                               
certificate of  birth resulting  in a  stillbirth."   [Before the                                                               
committee was CSHB 159(HES).]                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:04:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SANDRA WILSON, Intern to Representative  Carl Gatto, Alaska State                                                               
Legislature, sponsor,  relayed on behalf of  Representative Gatto                                                               
that  HB  159  is  intended  to give  closure  to  parents  of  a                                                               
stillborn  child,  which  [will  be  defined  as  a  fetal  death                                                               
occurring  after  a  gestational  age  of  20  completed  weeks].                                                               
Currently  15  states  offer a  certificate  of  stillbirth,  and                                                               
HB 159 proposes to  give parents of a stillborn  child the option                                                               
of  receiving a  stillborn  birth certificate  in  addition to  a                                                               
death  certificate.   Members'  packets,  she indicated,  contain                                                               
[copies of a "Certificate of  Birth Resulting in Stillbirth" from                                                               
Texas  and   Indiana].    She  offered   her  understanding  that                                                               
approximately 1 percent  of all births are  stillbirths, and that                                                               
an  average  of 30,000  fetuses  die  of Sudden  Antenatal  Death                                                               
Syndrome (SADS).   House Bill 159 is intended to  give parents of                                                               
a stillborn child the recognition that they had a child.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:06:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD  OLSEN relayed  that on  August 17,  2000, he  became the                                                               
father  of a  stillborn child.   After  describing his  stillborn                                                               
child, he  mentioned that after  the stillbirth, he and  his wife                                                               
were  left with  no record  that the  birth event  occurred.   He                                                               
offered his  understanding that a certificate  of birth currently                                                               
specifies that  it pertains  to a  live birth,  and characterized                                                               
this as recognition of another type  of birth - a stillbirth.  He                                                               
also offered  his understanding that  it is  virtually impossible                                                               
for  a  pregnant  woman  to  cause her  child  to  be  stillborn.                                                               
Stillbirths are naturally  occurring events, and the  mother of a                                                               
stillborn baby goes  through the same processes as  one who gives                                                               
birth to a live baby, and  so the certificate being authorized by                                                               
HB  159 would  recognize  that the  mother did  give  birth.   He                                                               
opined that  parents of  a stillborn child  are entitled  to that                                                               
recognition.     In  conclusion,  he  attempted   to  assure  the                                                               
committee that  proponents of such certificates  are not claiming                                                               
personhood for the stillborn child.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG referred  to  the language  on page  1,                                                               
lines 4-8 - which says, "(a)  The person required to file a fetal                                                               
death registration under AS 18.50.240(b)  shall advise the mother                                                               
and, if  the father is present,  the father of a  stillborn child                                                               
(1) that the parent may  request the preparation of a certificate                                                               
of  birth resulting  in  stillbirth;" -  and  suggested that  the                                                               
committee  insert  language  stipulating  that  the  notification                                                               
referred  to therein  be written  notification  rather than  just                                                               
oral   notification.     He  asked   whether  providing   written                                                               
notification would be a difficult process.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:12:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PHILLIP  MITCHELL, Chief,  Vital Statistics,  Division of  Public                                                               
Health (DPH),  Department of Health  and Social  Services (DHSS),                                                               
said it would  not be impossible to do, adding  that the division                                                               
has considered providing hospitals  with some form of information                                                               
card that  they could  distribute to parents  of stillborns.   He                                                               
also mentioned that  information could put on  the division's web                                                               
site.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  suggested  that the  words,  ",if  the                                                               
father is present," be changed to, ", the father if known,".                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN suggested  instead using  the words,  ", the                                                               
father if available,".                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that that would be fine.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MITCHELL  indicated that  such  a  change would  not  create                                                               
difficulties.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG referred  to the  language in  proposed                                                               
subsection  (b), which  in part  stipulates that  the certificate                                                               
shall  include the  last  name  of the  parent  who requests  the                                                               
certificate, and  asked what would  happen in  situations wherein                                                               
the  parents  have different  last  names  and both  request  the                                                               
certificate.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MITCHELL said  that  on  a live  birth  certificate, if  the                                                               
mother is not married, the father's  name is not allowed to go on                                                               
the   certificate   regardless   of   parental   acknowledgement;                                                               
therefore,  under HB  159, he  surmised, the  father wouldn't  be                                                               
able to request the certificate.   He mentioned that currently if                                                               
the mother and father are  married but have different last names,                                                               
the  division requires  them to  come to  an agreement  regarding                                                               
which last  name to use  on the  certificate.  He  also mentioned                                                               
that he would research these issues further.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG opined  that  these issues  need to  be                                                               
addressed in the  legislation itself.  He then  asked whether the                                                               
legislation would  apply to  stillbirths that  took place  in the                                                               
past.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON explained  that proposed subsection (g) says:   "(g) A                                                               
parent may request  that the bureau issue a  certificate of birth                                                               
resulting  in still  birth regardless  of the  date on  which the                                                               
certificate of fetal death was issued."                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. OLSEN, with  regard to the earlier question  about which last                                                               
name  to  use  on  the   certificate,  suggested  that  the  same                                                               
procedures used  for certificates  of live  birth should  be used                                                               
for certificates of stillbirth.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. MITCHELL, in  response to a question, said  that the division                                                               
plans on  charging the same  fee for a certificate  of stillbirth                                                               
as it currently does for a certificate of live birth - $20.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON, in  response to a question,  indicated that [proposed                                                               
subsection (h)  says, "(h) The  department may  adopt regulations                                                               
needed to implement this section.]".                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. MITCHELL  added that the  division already has  the statutory                                                               
authority to charge fees for its services.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:19:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS, after  ascertaining  that no  one  else wished  to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony on HB 159.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. MITCHELL relayed that [the  division] supports HB 159, though                                                               
he suggested that proposed subsection  (f) be deleted because the                                                               
fetal death  record already  contains all  necessary information.                                                               
In every real sense, he  remarked, the division already registers                                                               
stillbirth  events and  could  start  issuing certificates  right                                                               
away.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  questioned whether the bill  needs to have                                                               
language  added that  would  allow the  division  to conform  its                                                               
procedure  for  issuing  a certificate  of  stillbirth  with  its                                                               
procedure for issuing a certificate of live birth.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. MITCHELL said  he would check on that point,  but offered his                                                               
understanding that the fetal death record  would be the same as a                                                               
record of live  birth, and so it would contain  the mother's last                                                               
name if  she is unmarried.   He  mentioned that the  division may                                                               
need  to   establish  a  procedure   whereby  paternity   can  be                                                               
established  for  the purpose  of  including  it in  fetal  death                                                               
records.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE    GRUENBERG   remarked    that   some    of   the                                                               
aforementioned  issues  of  concern  could  be  resolved  by  the                                                               
division  via regulation  if the  bill were  amended to  give the                                                               
division the necessary regulatory authority.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:22:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made  a motion to adopt  Amendment 1, to                                                               
change the language  on page 1, lines 5-6, to  read, "required to                                                               
file a fetal  death registration under AS  18.50.240(b) shall, if                                                               
possible, in  writing, advise  the mother and,  if the  father is                                                               
available, the father of a stillborn child".                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  objected.  She  said that she  is assuming                                                               
that this notification would be  occurring in the hospital at the                                                               
time  of delivery,  and  opined  that the  term,  "the father  is                                                               
available" is ambiguous and could  place an unnecessary burden on                                                               
the division  to go hunting down  fathers who are not  present at                                                               
time of delivery.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG suggested  that the  language could  be                                                               
changed, to "if known".                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN suggested  instead using  the words,  "makes                                                               
himself known".                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would accept that wording.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  said she doesn't  want to put a  burden on                                                               
the division to round people up.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated Amendment  1 such that it would                                                               
instead  change the  language  on  page 1,  lines  5-6, to  read:                                                               
"shall, if  possible, in writing,  advise the mother and,  if the                                                               
father makes himself known, the father of a stillborn child".                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. MITCHELL  pointed out  that any burden  would be  on hospital                                                               
personnel  because they  are  the persons  required  to file  the                                                               
fetal death record.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again restated  Amendment 1 such that it                                                               
would now  instead change the language  on page 1, lines  5-6, to                                                               
read:   "shall, if possible,  in writing, advise the  mother and,                                                               
if the father  has made himself known, the father  of a stillborn                                                               
child".                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  after  ascertaining  that there  were  no  further                                                               
objections, announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:28:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made  a motion to adopt  Amendment 2, to                                                               
delete subsection (f).                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected  for the purpose of  discussion.  He                                                               
said he is not sure why this deletion is necessary.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MITCHELL   remarked  that  other  states   that  issue  such                                                               
certificates do not create a  special record as would be required                                                               
by subsection (f); instead, those  other states just use the same                                                               
information  that is  already  on  the fetal  death  record.   In                                                               
response  to  a  question,  he indicated  that  the  deletion  of                                                               
subsection  (f)  would  result  in   the  language  of  the  bill                                                               
reflecting best  practices as they  are known in the  states that                                                               
currently issue certificates of stillbirth.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CARL GATTO,  Alaska  State Legislature,  sponsor,                                                               
relayed that he has no objection to Amendment 2.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS,  after ascertaining  that  there  were no  further                                                               
objections, announced that Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   asked  whether  the   division  would                                                               
currently  be  able  to  resolve -  via  regulation  -  potential                                                               
disputes  wherein both  parents  request  that their  [different]                                                               
last names be included on the certificate.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MITCHELL said  he  would research  that  issue further,  but                                                               
remarked that the  division may currently be able  to resolve any                                                               
such  disputes given  that  for certificates  of  live birth  the                                                               
division is  already able to require  parents to agree on  a last                                                               
name.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO  offered  his belief  that  the  division's                                                               
current regulations already address this point.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG  suggested   that  an   administrative                                                               
procedure could also  be used deal with disputes.   He then asked                                                               
Mr. Mitchell to check on the issue of fees.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. MITCHELL agreed to do so.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:32:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  moved  to  report  CSHB  159(HES),  as                                                               
amended,  out of  committee with  individual recommendations  and                                                               
the accompanying  fiscal notes.   There being no  objection, CSHB                                                               
159(JUD) reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:32 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects