Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/02/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 2, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cliff Davidson
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kay Brown
Representative Eileen Maclean
Representative Ed Willis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 54: "An Act relating to eavesdropping, telephone
caller identification, and telephone directory
listings and solicitations."
CSHB 54 (L&C) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 217: "An Act relating to Native corporation dividends
and other distributions due to minors in state
custody."
CSHB 217 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
*HJR 27: Relating to an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States prohibiting desecration of the
Flag of the United States.
PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
*HB 231: "An Act relating to aggravating and mitigating
factors at sentencing."
CSHB 231 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
*HB 212: "An Act relating to a factor in aggravation of the
presumptive term of a criminal sentence, and
prohibiting the referral of a sentence based on
application of that factor to a three-judge
sentencing panel as an extraordinary
circumstance."
CSHB 212 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
*HB 214: "An Act allowing the parent or legal guardian of a
minor to disclose certain records and information
about the minor to certain state officials and
state employees; prohibiting further disclosure of
the records and information to unauthorized
persons; and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 214 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 517
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4998
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 54
MARCIA MCKENZIE, Program Coordinator
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-4356
Position Statement: Supported HB 54
CINDY SMITH, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
419 Sixth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-3650
Position Statement: Supported HB 54; Voiced concerns about
HB 231
REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 507
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4833
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 217
RANDALL HINES
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Phone: 465-3187
Position Statement: Supported HB 217
GAYLE HORETSKI
Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-6841
Position Statement: Reviewed amendment to HB 217; answered a
question related to HJR 27; reviewed the
changes in CSHB 231 (JUD); commented on
changes made to HB 214
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS
Alaska State Legislature
Court Building, Room 614
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-2199
Position Statement: Reviewed HJR 27
WARREN CULVER
The American Legion
Department of Alaska
519 West Eighth Avenue, Suite 208
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 276-8211
Position Statement: Supported HJR 27
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3777
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 231
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Supported and answered questions on
HB 231; suggested amendments to HB 212
JERRY LUCKHAUPT
Legislative Legal Counsel
Division of Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Phone: 465-2450
Position Statement: Answered questions related to HB 231
MARTHA STEWART, Legislative Aide
to Senator Al Adams
State Capitol, Room 417
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3707
Position Statement: Gave an overview of HB 212
DUNCAN FOWLER, Ombudsman
P. O. Box 113000
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-4970
Position Statement: Supported HB 214
JANINE REEP, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3603
Position Statement: Answered questions on HB 214
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 54
SHORT TITLE: TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION
BILL VERSION: CSHB 54(L&C)
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BROWN,Navarre,Mulder,Hudson
TITLE: "An Act relating to telephone caller identification;
and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/14/93 60 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/14/93 60 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
03/11/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/11/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/16/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/17/93 678 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NEW TITLE
6DP
03/17/93 678 (H) DP: PORTER, MACKIE, MULDER,
WILLIAMS
03/17/93 678 (H) DP: GREEN, HUDSON
03/17/93 678 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
3/17/93
03/17/93 691 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MULDER
03/19/93 716 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HUDSON
03/26/93 (H) JUD AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 120
04/02/93 955 (H) JUD RPT CS(L&C) NEW TITLE 4DP
2NR
04/02/93 955 (H) DP: GREEN, PORTER, PHILLIPS,
NORDLUND
04/02/93 955 (H) NR: KOTT, JAMES
04/02/93 956 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED)
3/17/93
04/02/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 217
SHORT TITLE: NATIVE CORPORATION DIVIDENDS TO MINORS
BILL VERSION: CSHB 217(JUD)
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACLEAN
TITLE: "An Act relating to Native corporation dividends and
other distribution due to minors in the custody of a state."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/10/93 592 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/10/93 592 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
03/24/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/24/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/26/93 789 (H) HES RPT 5DP 1DNP 2NR
03/26/93 789 (H) DP:G.DAVIS,TOOHEY,B.DAVIS,
NICHOLIA,BRICE
03/26/93 789 (H) DNP: VEZEY
03/26/93 789 (H) NR: BUNDE, OLBERG
03/26/93 789 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DHSS)
3/26/93
04/02/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 27
SHORT TITLE: DESECRATION OF U.S. FLAG
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL CMTE MILITARY & VETERANS AFFAIRS
TITLE: Relating to an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States prohibiting desecration of the Flag of the
United States.
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/11/93 321 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/11/93 321 (H) JUDICIARY
04/02/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 231
SHORT TITLE: AGGRAVATING/MITIGATING FACTORS:SEX CRIMES
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT
TITLE: "An Act relating to aggravating and mitigating
factors at sentencing."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/16/93 663 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/16/93 663 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/02/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 212
SHORT TITLE: SENTENCING:AGGRAVATING FACTORS
BILL VERSION: CSHB 212(JUD)
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACLEAN
TITLE: "An Act relating to a factor in aggravation of the
presumptive term of criminal sentence, and prohibiting the
referral of a sentence based on application of that factor
to a three-judge sentencing panel as an extraordinary
circumstance."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/10/93 590 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/10/93 590 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/02/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 214
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF MINOR'S RECORDS BY PARENT
BILL VERSION: CSHB 214(JUD)
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
TITLE: "An Act allowing the parent or legal guardian of a
minor to disclose information about the minor to certain
state officials and state employees; prohibiting further
disclosure of the information to unauthorized persons;
amending Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rule 22; and providing
for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/10/93 591 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/10/93 591 (H) JUDICIARY
04/02/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-49, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN PORTER called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m.,
noted members present, and announced the calendar. He
brought HB 54 to the table.
HB 54: TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION
Number 031
REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 54, noted that
some provisions of the bill had been dropped in the House
Labor and Commerce Committee, and that the only provisions
remaining in the bill related to caller identification
service, a service soon to be available in Alaska. The bill
required that customers have the option to block out calls
either permanently or on a per-call basis, at no charge, she
said.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN said that the caller ID service
divulged the identity of the caller to the callee, which
raised serious privacy issues, and questions of protection
for victims' shelters, law enforcement, doctors, or public
servants. She said that the Alaska Telephone Association
had voiced objection in the Labor and Commerce Committee,
and wanted to delete permanent line blocking requirements,
found on line 9 of the bill, but leave intact the call-by-
call blocking option. She considered the loss of the
permanent block a serious change, and recommended against
the change.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN said further that telephone companies
wanted to charge for the blocking service, but she said that
Pacific Telecom Inc. (PTI) offered the service for free in
the State of Washington and still made a profit. She said
that people had the right to opt out of caller ID, and that
telephone companies were regulated monopolies. She said
that there were other technologies available to deal with
harassing phone calls. The purpose of caller ID was to
allow telemarketers to capture the number of potential
customers, and that impinged on the constitutional right to
privacy, she concluded.
Number 207
MARCIA MCKENZIE, PROGRAM COORDINATOR FOR THE COUNCIL ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, testified in support
of HB 54. She said that caller ID could place a domestic
violence shelter client's confidentiality in jeopardy, and
could also place a victim in physical danger. She said that
call-by-call blocking could pose a problem during crisis
situations. She said that the Council supported the Labor
and Commerce Committee version of the bill, as written.
Number 262
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked about the cost to a
customer of having the call blocking service.
Number 271
CINDY SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ALASKA NETWORK ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, testified in support
of HB 54. She referred the committee to the Network's
position paper on the bill. She said that, as about twelve
other states required free call-by-call blocking, the
request for such a service in Alaska was not unusual, and
providing the service for free could be economically
feasible. She said that people generally did not stay in
shelters long, but privacy was also important when people
returned to their permanent homes.
Number 300
MS. SMITH said that many shelters employed volunteers, who
used their home telephone lines in their service to
shelters, and who sometimes sheltered people in their homes
and therefore needed secure telephones. She said that the
Network did not oppose telemarketers, but said that Alaskans
should have a choice as to whether they wanted to have
caller ID services, and those who wanted the service should
bear the cost, not those who did not. She said that the
cost would be from $6 to $9 per month.
Number 351
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Representative Brown whether
HB 54 would allow a telephone subscriber not to have the
caller ID service, and not to have his or her number
displayed to another caller who had the service.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN answered that HB 54 would allow
telephone subscribers to opt out of the caller ID service
for free.
Number 376
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER asked if the three-digit number that
people would have to dial in for call-by-call blocking would
be the same for all telephones.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN answered that some states had toggle
switches to turn the blocking on or off, that some telephone
companies had the same numbers, and that in some places the
same three digits both activated and de-activated the call
blocking feature.
Number 410
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was anyone else who wanted to
testify on HB 54. He supported the bill, and said that line
and call blockage was important, especially in Alaska, which
had constitutionally guaranteed privacy rights. He said
that he would entertain a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN MOVED PASSAGE OF CS HB54 (L&C) with
individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objections, and hearing none,
declared CSHB 54 (L&C) PASSED from committee with individual
recommendations. He then brought HB 217 to the table.
Number 450
HB 217: NATIVE CORPORATION DIVIDENDS TO MINORS
REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 217, said
that the legal guardians or parents of some Native children
in state custody did not always use the dividends
distributed to Native children by Native corporations for
the good of their charges. The bill would address this
situation by directing that Native corporation dividends for
minors in the custody of any state would go to a bank, not
the parent or guardian, until the child reached the age of
majority.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that it was a good bill, and
she assumed that all the regional Native corporations
supported HB 217.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN answered that they did.
Number 492
RANDALL HINES, DIVISION OF FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (DHSS), testified
in support of HB 217. He said that the DHSS had issued a
position paper strongly supporting the bill. He also noted
a zero fiscal note. He offered to take questions.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that there was one technical amendment
to HB 217.
Number 505
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, noted a letter from Cook Inlet Regional Inc.,
which said that while the corporation supported HB 217, some
minor shareholders eligible for dividends lived outside
Alaska. She said that the amendment to which Chairman
Porter had referred was drafted to extend the bill's
provisions to minors living outside Alaska.
Number 531
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED the AMENDMENT.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the amendment was the only one
yet proposed. He asked for objections and, hearing none,
declared the MOTION PASSED.
Number 535
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED PASSAGE of HB 217 from the
committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was a fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS answered that her motion included
acceptance of a zero fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objections, declared HB 217
PASSED from the committee with individual recommendations.
He then brought HJR 27 to the table.
HJR 27: DESECRATION OF U.S. FLAG
Number 553
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS testified on behalf of the HOUSE
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS regarding
HJR 27. He said that the committee had introduced the
resolution at the request of various veterans' organizations
around the state. An identical measure, SJR 9, was
introduced in the Senate, he said. The resolution asked the
U.S. Congress to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting
desecration of the U.S. flag, a step which would have to be
ratified by a two-thirds majority of states, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS supported HJR 27, but had some
questions regarding the language on page 2, starting with
line 24. She asked why the bill referred to the "several
states," instead of all the states.
Number 596
WARREN CULVER, from the AMERICAN LEGION, said that the
language matched language in a national resolution
concerning flag desecration.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that the phrase "several
states" did not to her connote all the states, and that
while she did not want to hold HJR 27 up, it would be
clearer simply to say "all states."
There followed general discussion on the relative merits and
meanings of the words "several states" and "all states."
Number 603
MR. CULVER testified in support of HJR 27. He said that the
resolution did not interfere with constitutionally protected
free speech. He said that the flag was a living, unifying
symbol, representing freedom and hope. He said that burning
and desecrating the flag slandered the service of people who
had fought under it. He answered critics who opposed
amending the Constitution by pointing out that the
Constitution had been amended 46 times already. He cited an
artistic display in Anchorage which had encouraged people to
walk on a flag on the floor, which shocked veterans.
MR. CULVER said that a national poll indicated that 70
percent of Americans believed that a flag amendment would
not place freedom of speech in jeopardy. He said that so
far, 28 or 29 states had asked Congress for a constitutional
amendment on flag desecration and that Congress could act on
the amendment if nine more states asked for the amendment.
He cited Alaska's historical ties to the military.
Number 711
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Mr. Culver to repeat the
history of previous attempts to get similar legislation
passed.
MR. CULVER explained that the legislation had first been
introduced last session as SJR 29 by Senator Zharoff, and
passed through three or four committees, but died in the
House.
Number 732
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked whether the bill had been
introduced in only one previous legislative session.
MR. CULVER answered in the affirmative.
Number 735
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN MOVED PASSAGE of HJR 27 from the
committee with individual recommendations, but said that he
did not see a fiscal note for the resolution.
MS. HORETSKI said that it had not been decided if HJR 27
needed a fiscal note. She said that it might be possible to
have the Legislative Affairs Agency prepare a fiscal note.
Number 752
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that he would consider as part of the
motion that HJR 27 would have a zero fiscal note. He asked
for objection and, hearing none, declared HJR 27 PASSED with
individual recommendations. He then brought HB 231 to the
table.
HB 231: AGGRAVATING/MITIGATING FACTORS: SEX CRIMES
Number 761
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 231, said that
the bill was recommended by the Alaska Sentencing
Commission. He said that AS 12.55.155 contained a series of
aggravating and mitigating factors that were applied by the
court in presumptive sentencing of felony offenders. He
said that HB 231 modified the aggravating factors, and added
a new mitigating factor. He said that at present, there
were no aggravating factors for conviction of sexual abuse
of a minor, or for previous convictions for sexual assault
of an adult.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that section 1 of HB 231 filled the
gap by creating an aggravating factor. He said that section
2 established as a new mitigating factor that the prior
conviction was for a less serious class of offense. He said
that section 3 was a housekeeping provision, maintaining the
status quo regarding the types of cases that could be
referred to a three-judge panel. He said that the bill
would have no fiscal impact.
Number 801
MS. SMITH expressed concerns about the bill's section 2,
asking why the previous commission of a lesser felony should
be a mitigating factor in the sentencing for another, more
serious felony conviction.
TAPE 93-49, SIDE B
Number 000
MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
testified regarding HB 231. She said that the state's
present presumptive sentencing system assumed that the
subject had at least one prior conviction for a felony of
approximately the same level. She said that if the prior
conviction was a more serious offense, that would be an
aggravating factor. A less serious offense could be a
factor in mitigation, she said.
MS. KNUTH said that it was important to remember that a
presumptive sentence was assumed to be the right sentence,
and that judges could vary from that sentence only if they
decided that there was a very good reason to do so. She
said that the bill allowed some increased flexibility in
sentencing.
Number 025
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that under present law the mitigating
or aggravating factors had more to do with the fact that a
person had a previous conviction, and not so much with the
relative seriousness of the felonies. He asked if this
approach made sense.
MS. SMITH replied, "Not in my field."
Number 049
MS. KNUTH said that the Department of Law supported HB 231,
as recommended by the Sentencing Commission.
CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the committee adopt CSHB 231
(JUD).
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES MOVED that the committee
ADOPT CSHB 231 (JUD), dated April 2, 1993.
Number 061
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED for the purpose of discussing
CSHB 231 (JUD).
MS. HORETSKI said that the committee members had a draft CS
dated 4/2/93. She said that she had talked with Ms. Knuth,
members of Representative Kott's staff, and with the
legislative drafters several times regarding HB 231. She
described the changes in the CS. On page 1, line 4, the
term "crime" was changed to the word "felony." She said that
the CS combined existing language describing aggravators for
prior crimes of rape and sexual abuse of a minor. She said
that the main change in the CS version deleted section 3 of
the original bill.
MS. HORETSKI said that the CS did not change the thrust of
HB 231, but improved it slightly.
Number 140
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT had no questions, but added that it was
not his intent to tamper with the three-judge panel.
Number 144
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that it was a bad idea for
amendments to be made without the sponsor's knowledge. She
said that it was important to involve the sponsor in any
amendment to his or her bill.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that was a good point, and that while
there had been discussions with the sponsor's staff, that
did not overcome the obligation to consult with the sponsor.
Number 161
MS. HORETSKI asked that the record reflect that she had had
extensive discussions with the sponsor's staff as well as
agency representatives regarding CSHB 231 (JUD).
Number 170
MS. KNUTH said that the amendments made sense to her, and
that it was up to the legislature to decide sentencing
parameters.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that HB 231 made an appropriate
distinction regarding a sexual offender based on the
victims. He invited the drafter of the bill to comment.
Number 188
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL COUNSEL, DIVISION OF
LEGAL SERVICES, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, testified on
HB 231, saying that he agreed with Ms. Knuth, Ms. Horetski
and Chairman Porter, that it was up to the legislature to
fashion aggravating factors as it saw fit. He said that
early on in his work, the sponsor did not want to make any
changes regarding what cases could go before the three-judge
panel. He had no legal concerns regarding the changes made
in CSHB 231 (JUD), however.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that the changes were acceptable to
him. He asked if there was a need for a title change,
because CSHB 231 (JUD) would prevent some cases from being
referred to the three-judge panel.
Number 213
MR. LUCKHAUPT did not think so, but said that the committee
could ask him to change the title. He offered to consult
with the revisor of statutes as to the need for a title
change. He said that the committee could conceptually adopt
CSHB 231 (JUD), then allow him to change the title if
necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objections and, hearing none,
declared that the committee had adopted CSHB 231 (JUD).
Number 233
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN MOVED PASSAGE of CSHB 231 (JUD) with
individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note, and if
necessary, a title change.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objections and, hearing none,
declared CS HB 231 (JUD) PASSED with individual
recommendations He then brought to the table HB 212, and
noted that the sponsor, Representative Maclean, had had to
leave the committee meeting to return to work in another
committee.
HB 212: SENTENCING: AGGRAVATING FACTORS
Number 257
MARTHA STEWART, LEGISLATIVE AIDE to SENATOR AL ADAMS,
testified on behalf of Representative Maclean, the prime
sponsor of HB 212. She said that the bill was intended to
provide the most serious sentences for the sexual assault of
a minor by a person who lived with or was in a position of
authority over the minor, as children were less able to
defend themselves against assaults from such people. The
bill accomplished that by adding such factors to the list of
possible aggravating factors in sentencing, she said.
MS. STEWART said HB 212 would also add such crimes to the
list of crimes which could not be referred to the three-
judge panel.
Number 295
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND noted that the three-judge panel
was supposed to make sentencing decisions based on a
convict's chances for rehabilitation. He asked what
difference it would make to such a panel whether a person
convicted of sexual assault of a minor knew the child or
not.
Number 317
MS. STEWART could not give a good argument. She commented
that the intent of the section was to prevent the three-
judge panel from having latitude in differing from
presumptive sentencing requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND wondered how frequently it happened
that a three-judge panel would reduce a sentence.
MS. STEWART commented that Ms. Horetski had recommended that
some changes be made on page 3 of the bill. She stated that
the sponsor would concur with the proposed changes.
Number 345
MS. KNUTH said that she first thought that the bill was not
necessary, because the legislature in 1990 created new
offenses of sexual abuse of a minor in the first, second and
third degrees, which related to the perpetrator's being in a
position of authority over the minor. Upon further
analysis, however, she concluded that the aggravating factor
proposed in HB 212 would have some use.
Number 365
MS. KNUTH said that sexual abuse of a minor in the first
degree could be committed in several different ways,
including sexual penetration of a victim under the age of 13
and sexual penetration of a victim under the age of 15 and
over which the defendant had a position of authority. She
said that HB 212 would create an aggravating factor which
could apply if a defendant was accused of first-degree
sexual penetration of a minor, but then had the charge
reduced by one degree to spare the victim the trauma of a
trial.
Number 395
MS. KNUTH said further that her analysis showed that it was
impossible to have as an aggravating factor an element of
the crime which was already inherent in that crime. She
said that it was appropriate to remove the misdemeanor from
the bill. She said that removing language on lines 17-18,
page 3, concerning an offender's sharing living space with
the victim "will keep some clarity in the law." She said
that whether such crimes should be referred to the three-
judge panel was up to the legislature to decide. She said
that some three-judge panels were very active, and others
were not.
Number 451
CHAIRMAN PORTER invited further testimony on HB 212, but
hearing none, said he would entertain a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1 to HB 212.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objections and, hearing none,
declared that the committee had ADOPTED the AMENDMENT. He
said that the committee had CSHB 212 (JUD) before it.
Number 459
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT MOVED PASSAGE of CSHB 212 (JUD) with
individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objections and, hearing none,
declared CSHB 212 (JUD) PASSED with individual
recommendations and a zero fiscal note. He then brought
HB 214 to the table.
HB 214: DISCLOSURE OF MINOR'S RECORD BY PARENT
DUNCAN FOWLER, OMBUDSMAN, STATE OF ALASKA, testified in
support of HB 214. He said that the bill was submitted at
the request of the Legislative Council, based on a case
involving the Ombudsman's office. He said that a legislator
had called the Ombudsman's office regarding a problem. He
said that, shortly after the Ombudsman's office had held
interviews with the child, the parent and the legislator,
the court had issued an order barring the parents from
talking to any legislators or to the Ombudsman's office.
MR. FOWLER said that the court eventually amended the order
to allow the parent to talk to the Ombudsman's office, as
that office operated under confidentiality rules. The case
was now before the state Supreme Court. The bill would
correct the problem which came up, he said, and addressed an
important point of legislative oversight over the executive
branch. He thought that the original bill might limit a
parent's ability to discuss issues they already knew about
which were not confidential. The amendment addressed that
problem, he said. He said that his office supported the
bill, although it would not affect his office.
Number 519
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why the amended version of
HB 214 deleted the word "records" from the title of the
bill.
MR. FOWLER did not know, but said that perhaps the committee
staff could answer the question.
Number 532
JANINE REEP, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
testified on HB 214. She said that she had not seen the
amendment. She was then provided a copy of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS repeated her question.
MS. REEP said that there was a good reason for the change.
She said that there was concern over the automatic release
of records to certain people. She said that, as the statute
was set up, the court had to authorize release of any
records. She noted that in the case to which Mr. Fowler had
referred, the parents and the child had the right to be
represented by an attorney. She said that records could
include highly sensitive and potentially damaging
information.
MS. REEP said further that parents might request the release
of information to their attorneys, but that did not
automatically mean the release of records to an attorney.
She was not aware of the case which Mr. Fowler had
described. She was surprised to hear that some parties felt
a parent could not talk to the Department of Law, as they
frequently did, she said.
Number 575
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that the explanation seemed to
mitigate the intent of HB 214. She said that section 2 of
the amended bill, on page 2, line 15, gave parents the right
to disclose any information. She said that there was
conflict between the purpose of the original bill and the
amended version.
MS. REEP was uncertain as to the intent of HB 214. She said
that it was a policy question as to whether legislators
should have access to a child's records.
Number 601
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that the new section 2 gave
legislators the power and authority to have records, and
disclose information from those records.
CHAIRMAN PORTER disagreed, saying that the section gave such
power over information, not records.
There followed some discussion over the meaning of the terms
"information" and "records."
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Horetski to comment.
Number 622
MS. HORETSKI said that the original bill (HB 214), was
proposed by the Ombudsman's office. She said that the first
draft was not well drafted. She discussed the CS dated
April 2, 1993, and the process followed in drafting the
bill. She said that the CS had been received only shortly
before the start of the meeting. She believed that the
title should use the term "information." She said that the
CS did not restrict parents' right to talk about their
child, but that their existing rights were expanded.
Number 665
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS interrupted to note that HB 214 had
its roots in the court telling the parents that they did not
have the right to share information about their child. She
said that the bill clarified that the parents did have that
right. She asked why the court would assume that the
parents did not have that right.
MS. HORETSKI said that records regarding the minor in
children's proceedings were confidential, under AS
47.10.090.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that the court in the case
under discussion apparently had issued a blanket prohibition
against the parents even speaking to legislators.
Number 678
MS. HORETSKI made further comments on the CS regarding
penalties for violation of the records statute. She said
that section 3 made it plain that there was a change in
court rules. She said that it was acceptable to remove the
word "records" from the title, and that most parents would
not have the records, but would get from social workers or
others the information contained in those records.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that often more than one person was
included in the same record.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the case was to occur
again, and courts issued an order barring parents from
talking to legislators, would the court be in violation of
subsection (c), the penalty section.
MS. HORETSKI said that the courts were absolutely immune.
TAPE 93-50, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. HORETSKI suggested an amendment on page 2, line 16 of
the CS to change the word "records" in the title to the word
"information."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED the AMENDMENT.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objection to the amendment. He
then asked the will of the committee.
Number 019
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether the committee had the CS
version as its working document.
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered in the negative.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES then MOVED that the committee ADOPT the
CS version of HB 214, as amended, as its working draft.
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection, declared that the
committee had ADOPTED as its working draft the CS version of
HB 214, dated April 2, 1993.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN MOVED an AMENDMENT to page 2, line 16
of CSHB 214 to change the word "records" in the title to the
word "information."
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objection and, hearing none,
declared that the committee had before it CSHB 214, AS
AMENDED.
Number 045
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MOVED PASSAGE of CSHB 214 AS AMENDED,
with individual recommendations, unanimous consent and a
zero fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objections, and hearing none,
declared CSHB 214 (JUD) MOVED from committee with individual
recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 2:39 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|