Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/10/1995 01:06 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
March 10, 1995
1:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HJR 1: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to repeal of regulations by the
legislature."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 188: "An Act creating the crime of indecent viewing
and photography."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 32: "An Act relating to administrative proceedings involving
a determination of eligibility for a permanent fund
dividend or authority to claim a dividend on behalf of
another."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 90: "An Act changing the date that the legislature convenes in
the years following a gubernatorial election."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 28: "An Act relating to the possession of weapons within the
grounds of or on the parking lot of preschools,
elementary, junior high, and secondary schools or while
participating in a school-sponsored event; requiring the
expulsion or suspension of students possessing deadly
weapons on school grounds; and relating to school lockers
and other containers provided in a public or private
school by the school or the school district."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 200: "An Act reassigning responsibility for the custody of
persons pending their arraignments, commitment to the
custody of the commissioner of corrections, or admission
to a state correctional facility, and authorizing the
commissioner of corrections to employ guards for
emergencies on the same basis as the commissioner of
public safety, as partially exempt service employees; and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HJUD - 03/10/95
HB 25: "An Act revising Rule 16, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, relating to discovery and inspection in criminal
proceedings, to adopt the comparable federal rule."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS
Speaker of the House
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 208
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2689
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 1
CHUCK ACHBERGER, Executive Director
Juneau Chamber of Commerce
124 West 5th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6420
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HJR 1
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE
House of Representatives
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 404
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4925
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of CSHB 188
MELINDA GRUENING, Aide
Representative Green
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of CSHB 32
DEBORAH VOGT, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110400
Juneau, AK 99811-0400
Telephone: (907) 465-2300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of CSHB 32
WENDY HUGHES, Permanent Fund Dividend Specialist
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110400
Juneau, AK 99811-0400
Telephone: (907) 465-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of CSHB 32
DOROTHY GARRETT, Aide
Representative Bettye Davis
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 430
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3875
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 90
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant
Commissioner's Office
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-2803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of CSHB 28
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
National Education Association
114 2nd Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of CSHB 28
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on CSHB 28
JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant
Commissioner's Office
Department of Corrections
240 Main Street, Suite 700
Telephone: (07) 465-4640
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 200
LEUITENANT TED BACHMAN, Manager
Community Jails, Department of Public Safety
117 West 4th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99502
Telephone: (907) 258-8892
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 200
DENNY DEWITT, Aide
Representative Eldon Mulder
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 411
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 200
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER
State Capitol, Room 411
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 200
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 1
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS, Rokeberg, Brice, Green,
Williams, Therriault, G.Davis, Ogan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 16 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 16 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/18/95 73 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
02/07/95 (H) MINUTE(ARR)
02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/28/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/28/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/95 519 (H) STA RPT 3DP 2NR
03/01/95 519 (H) DP: JAMES, PORTER, GREEN
03/01/95 519 (H) NR: ROBINSON, WILLIS
03/01/95 520 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
03/01/95 520 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)
03/01/95 546 (H) FINANCE REFERRAL ADDED
03/08/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/08/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/10/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 188
SHORT TITLE: INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACKIE, Porter, Phillips, Robinson,
Navarre, Green, James, Kubina, Elton
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/20/95 419 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/20/95 419 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/22/95 456 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KUBINA
02/23/95 469 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ELTON
02/27/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/27/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/06/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/06/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/10/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 32
SHORT TITLE: PFD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 29 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 29 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 29 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/09/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/95 333 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 5DP 2NR
02/13/95 333 (H) DP: JAMES, PORTER, GREEN, ROBINSON,
OGAN
02/13/95 333 (H) DP: IVAN, WILLIS
02/13/95 333 (H) FISCAL NOTE (REV)
03/10/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 90
SHORT TITLE: CONVENING LEGISLATURE AFTER GOV ELECTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS, Foster, MacLean, Mackie,
Nicholia, Elton, Finkelstein, Robinson, Davies, Kubina,
James, Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/17/95 51 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/17/95 52 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/27/95 163 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER, MACLEAN
01/30/95 180 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MACKIE, NICHOLIA
01/30/95 180 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ELTON, FINKELSTEIN
02/01/95 210 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROBINSON, DAVIES
02/01/95 210 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KUBINA, JAMES
02/03/95 242 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/09/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/22/95 443 (H) STA RPT 7DP
02/22/95 444 (H) DP: PORTER, GREEN, IVAN, ROBINSON
02/22/95 444 (H) DP: WILLIS, OGAN, JAMES
02/22/95 444 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAA)
03/10/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 28
SHORT TITLE: POSSESSION OF GUNS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE, Rokeberg, Green, Toohey, Kott,
Elton
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 28 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 28 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 28 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
01/18/95 75 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
01/20/95 104 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
01/27/95 161 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT, ELTON
02/14/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/21/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/21/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/22/95 440 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NEW TITLE 4DP 2NR
02/22/95 440 (H) DP: ROKEBERG, G.DAVIS, BUNDE, TOOHEY
02/22/95 440 (H) NR: ROBINSON, BRICE
02/22/95 440 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS, DOE)
03/10/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 200
SHORT TITLE: CUSTODY OF PRISONERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER BY REQUEST, Foster, Kott
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/27/95 488 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/95 488 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/10/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 25
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL DISCOVERY RULES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PARNELL, Porter, Green, Bunde, Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 27 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 27 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 27 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/18/95 75 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
01/19/95 89 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
01/27/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/27/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/30/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/30/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/01/95 (H) FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/06/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/06/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/08/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/08/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/13/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/13/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/15/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/17/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/22/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/22/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/27/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/10/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-28, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:06
p.m. on Friday, March 10, 1995. A quorum was present. CHAIRMAN
BRIAN PORTER stated that the following bills would be heard: HJR
1, CSHB 188, CSHB 32, HB 90, CSHB 28, and HB 200.
HJUD - 03/10/95
HJR 1 - REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS, bill sponsor, introduced HJR 1. She
explained that this joint resolution is a proposal to place a
constitutional amendment before the voters of the State of Alaska
on the 1996 general election ballot. The amendment would permit
the legislature to repeal regulations promulgated by state agencies
that do not properly implement state statutes. Although many
resolutions do conform to, and accurately implement the laws passed
by the legislature, there are an increasing number of situations
where regulations imposed on the citizens of this state do not. In
many cases, legislative directives are ignored, or regulations are
promulgated that go far beyond the scope of what the legislature
intended. As you know, once regulations go into effect, they have
all the full force and effect of law. This is the case, even
though regulations are promulgated by agency bureaucrats who do not
have to answer to the voters. The Alaska Constitution provides a
system of checks and balances among the three branches of
government. The people of Alaska have their own check on
government through the voting booth, the initiative process, and
final authority over amendments to the constitution. However, one
area that is beyond access to the people's voice, is the tremendous
volume of administrative regulations which are developed by the
state agencies. These regulations affect every aspect of our
people's lives, yet the people are virtually powerless to change
them. This constitutional amendment proposed in HJR 1 will provide
people a reasonable avenue to seek the repeal of improper
regulations. This issue has been before the voters three different
times, and prior efforts to persuade the voters to support similar
amendments have failed. Nevertheless, a better campaign
presentation, clear ballot language, and the current popular
support for regulatory reform will allow us to bring this
constitutional amendment, and make it a reality. Now, more than
ever, Alaskans understand how regulations affect their daily lives,
and the support of this ballot proposition brings state regulations
closer to the people.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked what has happened since
1986. He remembered this being on the ballot since 1986.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said it has not been on the ballot since
1986. It has been on the ballot three times, 1986 being the last
time.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what happened to this in the last
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS answered that it went all the way through
and died on the Senate floor on the last day of session. It
received a vote of 14 to five, but needed 15 votes, because it is
a constitutional amendment.
Number 100
CHUCK ACHBERGER, Executive Director, Juneau Chamber of Commerce,
was also representing the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce. He
said they support HJR 1. The cost of regulations in Alaska is
becoming one of the biggest costs of doing business. While
regulations are necessary, some make no sense; or worse yet, are
being used by regulatory agencies as blunt instruments against
business. The act of writing regulations is often without public
input, with an eye to making life easier for the regulator than for
the citizen. This is just human nature. What is truly disturbing
is that when regulatory agencies set out to protect you, me and the
environment, an individual's bias often takes the regulation away
from the intent of the law that was passed. In doing so, they
become the lawmakers. HJR 1 would provide some recourse for both
you, the lawmakers, and myself, as well as to the business
community, to correct some of these digressions; and in doing so,
return the making of the laws to those who are elected.
CHAIRMAN PORTER read a resolution from the State Chamber of
Commerce into the record:
"Whereas Alaska is competing in a global economy in increasingly
competitive areas working to attract industry and business
worldwide, and whereas the perception of Alaska as a favorable
place to do business is vital to its success in this competitive
arena, and whereas excessive and burdensome regulation constrains
and discourages business; therefore be it resolved that the Alaska
State Chamber of Commerce asks the Administration and the State
Legislature to focus its efforts toward creating a regulatory,
economic environment, supportive of business development which
encourages business to locate and grow in Alaska.
"And be it further resolved that the Alaska State Chamber also asks
the Legislature and the Administration to provide for oversight to
assure that regulations are producing effective results which
follow legislative intent."
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was anyone else who wished to
provide testimony. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing on
HJR 1.
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to pass the resolution
out of committee with individual recommendations. Seeing no
objection, HJR 1 was moved.
HJUD - 03/10/95
HB 188 - INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHY
Number 180
CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that HB 188 had been previously heard by
the Judiciary Committee on Monday, March 6. They had discussed
rules for security surveillance systems. He felt the committee
substitute would address everyone's concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE, bill sponsor, described the changes
made in the committee substitute. The first change is on page 1,
line 5. The word "and" was changed to "or", making it read,
"...the viewing or photography..." The second change was on lines
7 and 8, adding the words, "...notice of the viewing or photography
was posted." That met Representative Mackie's concern about the
dressing room situation, because if Nordstrom posted a sign warning
that customers were being viewed in the dressing rooms, public
outcry would probably get rid of the viewing altogether. At least
there is opportunity for somebody to be aware in those situations.
It is good compromise language.
CHAIRMAN PORTER added that the "and" being changed to "or"
addressed a concern voiced by Randall Burns of the Alaska Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU). Mr. Burns felt this would make it clear we
were not intending to prohibit someone's viewing of a picture for
crime prevention purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to adopt the committee
substitute, Version 20-G, dated 3/8/95. Seeing no objection the
committee substitute was adopted.
Number 225
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked if this wording would force a bank or
liquor store to post notice of a surveillance system in the lobby.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said no, because the only thing this bill
addresses are instances where a person has the expectation of
privacy.
Number 270
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN'S only problem with this bill was
in making a portion of the violation a felony. He did not object,
though, understanding there are a lot of different views on
punishments.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move the bill with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. Seeing no
objection, it was so ordered.
HJUD - 03/10/95
CSHB 32 - PFD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Number 340
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN, bill sponsor, introduced CSHB 32. Sponsor
statement:
"HB 32 addresses a serious problem with the number of appeals filed
after an applicant is denied a Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), and
the length of time that it takes to process those appeals. As of
January 1, 1995 there were approximately 9,740 appeals pending, the
highest number since the PFD program's inception. One district 10
resident is still waiting to be heard almost 2 years after filing,
and there are people who have waited even longer for their appeals
to be processed and resolved. Processing such a large number of
appeals is costly as well as being unfair to those who have a
legitimate claim. Currently there are 10 permanent full time
employees in the PFD Division and one appeals officer in the
commissioner's office working on processing the appeals, yet there
are still almost 10,000 appeals pending, with no end in sight.
Part of the problem is that it only costs a 32 cent stamp to file
an appeal. Many people who clearly do not meet the qualifications
for receiving a dividend protest their denial simply because they
have the opportunity to do so at no risk to themselves. The 1994
denial rate was 64%. In years prior to 1994 the percentage rate of
denials has been significantly higher.
"HB 32 would implement a $25 filing fee for individuals protesting
the denial of their PFD application (the department will adopt a
regulation to allow indigent individuals to be exempt from the
fee). The filing fee would be refundable if their appeal is
successful, and non-refundable if the denial is upheld. It is
anticipated that the implementation of a filing fee would
discourage clearly unqualified individuals from appealing, thereby
reducing costs which are deducted from the amount of the dividend,
and making the appeals process significantly shorter for legitimate
claims."
MELINDA GRUENING, Aide to Representative Green was called forward
to answer questions on CSHB 32.
Number 415
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked for clarification on the definition of
indigent. He himself did not know it until he was actually well
along in his career, but he had fallen below the poverty line for
a large portion of his life, and nobody had told him. For that
reason, he questioned whether or not the indigent clause would be
a reasonable guideline.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated they wanted to get away from an
arbitrary application of the cost. Having an established
definition would suffice. It certainly eliminates any question
about whether or not you are indigent or not.
CHAIRMAN PORTER felt that including the indigent qualification was
probably a requirement.
MS. GRUENING answered that was correct. The Supreme Court has
ruled that any fee the state has, has to include an indigent
clause. Initially, in the bill, we left it up to the department to
define indigent. In the last committee of referral, which was
State Affairs, they felt very strongly that we should establish
what the criteria would be, and not leave it up to the department.
Working with the department, they said they needed something that
was very nonsubjective, and easy to verify. These federal
guidelines are put out by the Department of Health and Human
Services once a year and are published in the Federal Register in
April. They have a special adjustment for Alaska, taking our
higher cost of living into account. This standard is also used in
determining eligibility for Public Defenders, Fish and Game
reduction of fees, and for Public Assistance benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked if the $25 fee came close to the
cost of processing, or if the cost was more of an attempt to
discourage people from appealing.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied they felt the amount was high enough
to act as a discouragement for frivolous appeals, but not so high
as to eliminate people who were thinking they had a borderline
legitimate appeal.
Number 500
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN thought it would be helpful to know the
amount of money spent on appeals by the department.
DEBORAH VOGT, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue, did not
have the figures, but could say that the department has employed at
least one hearing officer full time to handle PFD appeals. They
have employed a number of hearing officers, all of whom had spent
a portion of their time on PFD appeals. Those people have been at
a range 25 in the past. We are in the process of restructuring the
section so that they will now be range 22's. She stated that $25
would be minimal in comparison to the actual cost of handling an
appeal through review and informal hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN was concerned about the cost being that
low.
Number 550
WENDY HUGHES, Permanent Fund Dividend Specialist III, Department of
Revenue, explained that she is a range 18 who overlooks all of the
cases. There are two PFD Specialist II's, at range 16, who present
appeals in formal hearings in front of the hearing officer for the
division, and they also carry an informal case load. There are six
PFD Specialist I's, at range 13, who hold informal conferences.
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked if it would be harmful to raise
the cost to $50.
Number 570
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN answered that when they had a higher fee in
the bill, they experienced negative feedback from people, saying
the amount was too high to pay. The idea was to exclude people who
might be in that small percentage who had been denied a PFD in
error. That is why we lowered the fee to $25. That amount was
basically given to us by the department itself.
There was a short discussion on whether or not people would be
inclined to try and declare themselves as indigent, if the cost of
appeal was any higher than $25.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt that raising the cost would be
helpful to weed out people who were not actually Alaska residents.
He offered an amendment changing the amount from $25 to $50. There
was an objection and a roll call vote was taken. Representatives
Finkelstein and Vezey voted yes. Representatives Bunde, Toohey,
Green and Porter voted no. Amendment Number 1 failed, four to two.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN then offered Amendment Number 2, which
would not limit the appeal cost, but would leave the amount of the
cost up to the discretion of the department. There was an
objection, and a roll call vote was taken. Representatives
Finkelstein and Bunde voted yes. Representatives Toohey, Vezey,
Green and Porter voted no. Amendment Number 2 failed, four to two.
Number 800
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move CSHB 32 out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.
TAPE 95-28, SIDE B
HJUD - 03/10/95
HB 90 - CONVENING LEGISLATURE AFTER GOV. ELECTION
Number 000
DOROTHY GARRETT, Aide to Representative Davis, introduced the bill.
Sponsor Statement:
"It is now nine years since the President and Congress of the
United States declared Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birthday a
National Holiday.
"Ironically, in Alaska, this holiday falls on the opening day of
the Session in the year following a gubernatorial election. This
not only means that the Alaskan Legislators are not able to pay
proper homage to this great leader, but the hundreds of state
workers who act as back-up staff are impacted as well.
"I propose that this particular Session day be changed to the
following Tuesday. This would bring Alaska into line with the
other 48 states that observe this Holiday.
"I would like to quote the Executive Proclamation issued by
Governor Walter J. Hickel,:
"Dr. King is remembered for his tireless dedication to
achieving, through peaceful means, freedom and equal rights
for all people, and for making the promise of democracy truly
an inalienable right for all members of society."
"Surely as elected legislators it is our responsibility to set an
example to the millions of people who have benefited from the
dreams and promises of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."
MS. GARRETT noted that this bill would actually save the state
money.
There was a discussion on whether or not Martin Luther King, Jr.'s
birthday was a paid holiday, or one of those holidays that
employees receive flex time for.
MS. GARRETT clarified that it is a state holiday.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the problem is, this holiday is not
recognized by the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY offered Amendment Number 1, which would have
the legislature start meeting on the second Monday of January,
every year.
There was an objection, and a roll call vote was taken.
Representative Vezey voted yes. Representatives Finkelstein,
Bunde, Toohey, Green and Porter voted no. Amendment Number 1
failed, five to one.
Number 240
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move HB 90 out of committee.
Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.
HJUD - 03/10/95
HB 28 - POSSESSION OF GUNS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY
Number 250
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, sponsor of HB 28, introduced the bill.
Sponsor statement:
"The increasing trend towards violence and guns in schools across
the nation is the reason the Federal Gun Free Schools Act was
passed by Congress. This act requires a school system, as a
condition of receiving federal education funds, to implement a
program for the control of guns and weapons in schools. HB 28 will
put Alaska into compliance with the mandates of the Federal Gun
Free Schools Act.
"The possession of deadly weapons and defensive weapons on school
grounds, in parking lots adjacent to public or private schools, and
while participating in school events is prohibited by HB 28.
However, a person can obtain permission from the chief
administrative officer of a school to carry a prohibited weapon
into a school. This provision will allow a school to use an
existing gun range or continue functions within a school that
require the legal use of a deadly or defensive weapon.
"HB 28 provides for a one year expulsion or suspension of a student
that possesses a weapon on school grounds. However, in instances
of disabled or special education students the school administrator
is granted the ability to modify the mandatory expulsion or
suspension. Additionally, this legislation requires an annual
statistical report to the Department of Education regarding the
number of students expelled and the types of weapons involved.
This provision will improve the way many school districts keep
weapons reports. Both of these provisions are for compliance with
the Gun Free Schools Act.
"This legislation allows school locker searches in order to
determine compliance with school regulations and state laws. The
policy of locker searches must be posted in prominent locations
throughout the school.
"Alaska must comply with the Federal Gun Free Schools Act by
passing this legislation, or our schools will lose needed federal
dollars. However, the most important reason for passing this
legislation is, schools cannot work well when students and teachers
are concerned about their safety. The educational process stops
when people are afraid. Although a wide range of underlying social
ills contribute to violent incidents, children with guns and
weapons in our schools is a strong catalyst for governmental
action. I urge your favorable consideration of HB 28."
Number 300
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how this differs from existing statute,
and also wondered what was wrong with existing statute.
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered there was someone from the Department of
Law who could answer that shortly, but he called the witnesses in
the order they had signed in.
Number 325
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant, Commissioner's Office,
Department of Education, endorsed what Representative Bunde
indicated is the Gun Free School Act that was passed in federal
law. It does require each state to have a statute by October 20,
which would expel a student if it is determined the student has
brought a gun to school. If we do not have a state law in place at
that time, 99 million dollars of federal funds will be in jeopardy.
Section 6 of HB 28 does address this and she urged the passage of
this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if she would like to attempt to answer
his question.
MS. PETERSON stated that as far as the expulsion of students goes,
currently, school boards can adopt a policy, and several school
boards have done so, to expel a student for up to a year for
bringing a gun to school. This bill puts it into state law that
schools must have this policy.
CHAIRMAN PORTER added, "As is the federal mandate."
MS. PETERSON said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that school policies vary throughout
the state, and this would make the policy consistent statewide.
Number 375
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education
Association, made a short statement in support of the bill. They
believe it is important for Alaska to make a statement that we
expect our schools to be safe, gun-free zones, and that children
need not be fearful of what may take place in a hall or classroom,
as far as weapons are concerned, during the course of the day. He
also believed those who originated the bill had exhibited foresight
in the area of locker searches. If this becomes law, the school
would have the opportunity to look into those lockers and see what
is in them.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated the locker search provision would beat
the constitutional challenge, as signs would be posted, and
searched would be conducted randomly. These searches could not be
misinterpreted as being arbitrary and capricious.
Number 455
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
Criminal Division, answered various questions. Right now,
possessing weapons on school grounds is a class B misdemeanor.
What this bill does is elevate that act to a class A misdemeanor.
On page 2 of the bill, subsection (7)(c), allows a person 21 years
of age or older to possess an unloaded firearm if the person is
traversing school premises in a rural area for the purpose of
entering public or private land that is open to hunting. She
believed this was the result of an amendment request in an earlier
committee. She added that while officials have the right to search
lockers, they do not have the right to search day packs, without
just cause.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if schools would be allowed to use
metal detectors.
MS. KNUTH answered that yes, they would. Metal detectors have been
held to be a reasonable search, because they do not identify what
is in the pack, only that there is metal, which is the weapon that
you are looking for.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what hearing and appeal process
would be required prior to expulsion.
MS. KNUTH answered that due process does apply. Requirements
include that there be notice, and an opportunity to be heard. She
was not sure what standard of evidence is used in the hearing.
Number 560
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if you could suspend them in the
mean time.
MS. KNUTH was not familiar with that area.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Ms. Peterson if leaving the section in
that allows for a person 21 years of age or older to cross the
school grounds, in order to get to a hunting ground, as would be
the case in some rural areas; would still keep the state in
compliance with federal law.
MS. PETERSON said the federal law requires the states to have a law
on the books that will expel a student for up to one year, if that
student brought a gun to school.
MS. PETERSON added that the federal definition of a weapon does
exclude a rifle that is used for recreational or cultural purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked again, for the record, if would be in
compliance with the federal law if we kept this section in.
MS. PETERSON confirmed that we would be in compliance with federal
law as long as we kept Section 6 in, which provides for expulsion.
CHAIRMAN PORTER offered an amendment. On page 2, line 15, after,
"within the" add "building". After the second "of", add a comma.
Add the same conforming amendment on Page 3, line 2. Seeing no
objection, the amendment was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY offered Amendment Number 2. This would delete
Section 3.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the effect would be to leave existing
statute in place, which would make the possession of a weapon on
school grounds, to be a misconduct involving weapons in the fifth
degree, as opposed to being classified as misconduct in the fourth
degree.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE observed that under current law, it is a
greater offense to take a pair of brass knuckles into a bar, than
it is to take a gun onto school grounds. Somehow, he felt that was
backwards of what it should be. He argued against the amendment.
He would rather see it raised to a higher level of concern.
CHAIRMAN PORTER requested a roll call vote. Representative Vezey
voted yes. Representatives Bunde and Toohey voted no.
Representative Finkelstein passed. Representatives Green and
Porter voted no. Representative Finkelstein voted no. Amendment
Number 2 failed, five to one.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made the motion to move CSHB 28 (JUD), as
amended, from committee, with individual recommendations. Seeing
no objection, the bill passed.
HJUD - 03/10/95
HB 200 - CUSTODY OF PRISONERS
Number 700
CHAIRMAN PORTER read the title of the bill and announced that since
the bill sponsor had stepped out of the meeting, they would start
taking testimony.
JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant, Commissioner's Office, Department
of Corrections, explained that the effect of this bill would be to
transfer the operation of community jails, of which there are 15
across the state, to the Department of Corrections for their
operation management under contract with the municipalities that
had these jails. There are no fiscal notes attached to this bill.
The department would speak on behalf of it. They feel that the
Department of Corrections is an appropriate place for the operation
of these facilities. He was not yet familiar with the details.
Although there is no fiscal note showing operating funds for these
contract jails in the FY 96 budget, that amount would be the same
whether they were operated by the Department of Corrections, or by
the Department of Public Safety. The only extra costs would be
39.3 thousand dollars for start up costs to assist in negotiating
the contracts which would take effect July 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this would impact the problem the
Department of Corrections has with jail space.
MR. SHRINER said it would not affect the amount of space. The
people who are in these facilities are in there for relatively
short periods of time, generally pending transfer, either to a
larger holding facility, or to serve a short sentence for a DWI, or
something like that.
Number 825
LEUITENANT TED BACHMAN, Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public
Safety, manages the community jails. He gave an overview of the
functions of the operation. There are currently 15 facilities
throughout the state which are all owned and operated individually
by local communities. They are contracted by the state to provide
jail services, not only for the communities for which they are in,
but for the surrounding communities as well. They are utilized by
local police departments, the State Troopers, and everyone who has
a need to care for prisoners. The current program is being
operated at fiscal year 93 levels. About two years ago, there was
a task force formed by the Governor which was made up of all groups
of people who deal with the programs; from the legislature, to the
contractors, to members of all the departments affected by this
program. This task force took a comprehensive look at the entire
program and made recommendations as to how it should be operated.
The program has been in existence for over 20 years. It originated
in the, then, Division of Corrections, within the Department of
Health and Social Services, and was originally designed to provide
pre-arraignment or first-24-hour holding facilities for rural
areas. Once persons were arraigned, they could be transferred into
the major areas into a state owned institution. As the years went
by, the courts and every other part of the criminal justice system
moved out into those rural areas, and those facilities then became
pretrial, post-trial, and sometimes even facilities that held
sentenced people. They have evolved much further than just pre-
arraignment facilities. During the late 70's the Department of Law
reviewed the program, and made the recommendation that facilities
that were used for pre-arraignment only, should be transferred to
DPS. And those facilities used beyond the pre-arraignment
situations should be maintained by the Division of Corrections,
which is now the Department of Corrections. At that time we
inherited all of the facilities that existed, but they have changed
dramatically since then.
Number 850
DENNY DEWITT, Aide to Representative Eldon Mulder, said, as it has
been explained, the purpose of HB 200 is to implement the
recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Community Jails.
What is happening, is that the administrative structure of who
operates community jails is being moved from DPS to Corrections.
This bill simply enables that.
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER arrived and also provided information
on his bill.
TAPE 95-29, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if this might be a window of opportunity
to initiate a privatization of a portion of our corrections
industry.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that was a good question which they had
been discussing in their subcommittee, and planned to continue
spending a lot more time on. Privatization has proven to be a
possibility, and a cost saving measure throughout the country. Our
contract in Arizona is for $59 a day, per person. That includes
making a profit and amortization of their debt. When you compare
apples to apples in Alaska, we are well over $150. Privatization
outside works, but you have to have some factors built in there.
One factor is scale. The institution down there is a 500 bed
facility. In Alaska, he believed we only have one facility nearing
that magnitude, so the scale does not fit. The second thing that
plays into it is the health care costs. The individuals sent to
Arizona were picked partially for the fact that they did not pose
any outstanding major medical problems. We are keeping most of the
high maintenance prisoners.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER continued, stating that in the interest of
where we go from where we are at; he had a go ahead from the
Commissioner and the Governor to continue looking at privatization
of certain facilities within the state. As you know, institutions
are bulging at the seams, so we are going to look at the
possibility of private facilities. He felt communities should be
willing and able to pick up some of the cost for incarceration in
their villages. This is something they plan to pursue through AML
and through their committee. A good number of people like the idea
of "three strikes, you're out" and bringing adolescents up into
adult court for heinous crimes. They like getting tough with
crime. But getting tough with crime has a cost. Right now, some
of us are paying for that cost, and others are not. It is worthy
of discussion.
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that these facilities were built with
state funds and given to the municipalities. The people staffing
these facilities are municipal employees who often have other
municipal duties, besides the guard or matron duties at the jail.
So the state is subsidizing that a little bit. They do not adopt
their own municipal crime codes, so all prisoners are charged under
state code, which makes them the state's responsibility, rather
than the communities' responsibility. The communities are not
contributing a dime. This has to stop.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HB 200 out of committee
with individual recommendations and fiscal notes. Seeing no
objection, the bill moved.
ADJOURNMENT
The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|