02/02/1998 01:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 2, 1998
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Jeannette James
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 231
"An Act relating to regulation of snowmobiles."
- MOVED CSHB 231(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 267
"An Act relating to domestic violence and sexual assault; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 12
"An Act relating to civil liability for injuries or death resulting
from equine activities."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 231
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF SNOWMOBILES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) MASEK
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/04/97 990 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/04/97 990 (H) JUDICIARY
04/30/97 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
04/30/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/07/97 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
05/07/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/08/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/08/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/02/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 267
SHORT TITLE: DOMESTIC VIOL. & SEXUAL ASSAULT DISCLOSUR
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KELLY, Dyson
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/30/97 1409 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/30/97 1409 (H) JUDICIARY
02/02/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 12
SHORT TITLE: IMMUNITY FOR EQUINE ACTIVITIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DAVIS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/13/97 30 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 30 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 30 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/30/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/30/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/02/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 231.
EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Beverly Masek
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 231.
MAX LOWE
Alaska Snowmobile Representatives Alliance
4800 Spenard Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 243-2300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 231.
JAMES DAY, Arctic Cat Representative
Arctic Recreational Distributors
3074 Commercial Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 272-5351
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 231.
KEVIN HITE, President
Anchorage Snowmobile Club
8050 Summerset Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 522-6373
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 231.
LEE JOHNSON, Member
Fairbanks Snow Travelers Snowmobile Club
2650 Dale Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 452-2897
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 231.
SCOTT HEIDORN
P.O. Box 84591
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 474-8711
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 231; suggested
amendment.
MICHAEL EASTHAM
Snomads Snow Machine Club
P.O. Box 475
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-2603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 231.
TIM BORGSTROM, Special Projects Director
Anchorage Economic Development Corporation
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1400
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 258-3700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 231.
JIM STRATTON, Director
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1200
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5921
Telephone: (907) 269-8700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 231.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief
Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
Telephone: (907) 465-4361
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 231.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 267.
CANDICE LIMMER, Victims' Advocate
Valley Women's Resource Center
403 South Alaska Street
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 746-4080
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 267.
BRENDA WIEFFERING, Executive Director
Kenai-Soldotna Women's Resource and Crisis Center
325 South Spruce Street
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-9479
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 267.
ROBIN F. LOWN, Vice President
Alaska Peace Officers Association
P.O. Box 33885
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 463-7188
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 267.
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
130 Seward, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3650
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 267.
SANDRA M. STONE, Project Coordinator
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4356
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 267.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-7, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:10 p.m., acknowledging there was not yet a
quorum. Members present at the call to order were Representatives
Green, Porter and Berkowitz. Representatives Rokeberg and Croft
arrived at 1:14 p.m. and 1:15 p.m., respectively. Representatives
Bunde and James were excused.
HB 231 - REGULATION OF SNOWMOBILES
Number 0068
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would first hear HB 231, "An
Act relating to regulation of snowmobiles." The bill had been
heard the previous year by the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK, sponsor, advised members that more
than 50 organizations have endorsed HB 231, including all the major
snowmobile clubs, businesses in the tourism industry, snowmobile
dealers and manufacturers, and support agencies such as the
Anchorage Economic Development Corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK pointed out that HB 231 does not impose a new
fee for registering snowmobiles. The statute requiring snowmobile
registration has been on the books since 1968. There are two
changes proposed in HB 231: It will require snowmobiles to be
registered at the time of purchase, and it will place the
registration provisions in Title 28 [misstated as Title 8] under
the Division of Motor Vehicles.
Number 0190
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said reasons for enacting point-of-sale
registration include establishing a reliable count of machines,
creating a better opportunity to successfully participate in
current funding programs for trails, and creating a better
opportunity for authorities to recover stolen machines. The
established number of registered machines appears to be
substantially lower than the actual number out there. Therefore,
the snowmobile community and the state may be missing out on grant
monies for trail acquisitions and maintenance that are based on the
number of registered machines.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK noted the increase in snowmobile thefts over
the past few years. Many machines are not registered, making it
more difficult to identify and recover stolen machines; point-of-sale registrat
and it may deter some theft. In addition, establishing and
maintaining trails for snowmobile use may help to build winter
tourism businesses. Representative Masek advised members that
Eddie Grasser could answer technical questions.
Number 0352
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that there was a quorum, as Representatives
Croft and Rokeberg had joined the meeting. He said he would
entertain a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (0-LS0501\F, Ford
Title 28.
Number 0378
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked whether by adopting Version F they
would be removing the regulation portion, leaving just the
registration portion.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that is essentially it.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what the difficulty was with the
regulation portion, and who had the difficulty.
Number 0412
EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Beverly
Masek, Alaska State Legislature, explained that in discussing this
issue with the snow machine community, the Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation, and the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), they
decided the regulatory authority for actual snow machine use on
state lands or park lands would be better addressed in a separate
piece of legislation. What they want to do here is establish the
registration process. The next piece of the puzzle, a separate
legislative package, would address the regulation of the use of
snow machines on public lands, including park lands, and,
hopefully, some kind of fee structure to help acquire and maintain
trails for that.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he had understood it was a collaborative
process, that the snow machine community was at the table and there
wasn't significant opposition to the regulatory part. He asked,
"So, it isn't that they've changed their mind, necessarily, it's
just better tactics to move it into two separate bills?"
MR. GRASSER said that is correct.
Number 0509
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked why, if they are switching
from regulation to registration, there is no title change.
MR. GRASSER said he had talked to Juanita Hensley from the DMV that
day, and to Jim Stratton of the Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation. Mr. Grasser said he believes that was a drafting
oversight; it was supposed to be an Act relating to the
registration of snowmobiles.
Number 0556
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER made a motion to adopt 0-LS0501\F,
Ford, 5/5/97, as a work draft. He asked to incorporate in that
motion an amendment, which he believed to be technical in nature,
changing in the title the word "regulation" to "registration".
Number 0593
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG objected for discussion purposes.
He pointed out that AS 28.39.060 is "Regulations authorized."
Therefore, regulatory authority goes with this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that doesn't affect the title.
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection.
Number 0681
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether this bill provides the ability
to go as far as they want to, in terms of registering all the
machines that must be registered. As he read the statutes,
machines off the highway system, or not intended to do anything but
drive across a highway going from private property to private
property, are not required to be registered. He asked whether that
is the sponsor's take. If so, what would stop people who buy snow
machines from saying they don't intend to do anything but go from
private property to private property across a highway, and
therefore they don't have to register?
Number 0760
MR. GRASSER replied that it is their presumption that the dealers
would automatically register new snowmobiles, as is done when
buying a new car now. However, the question was well-taken as far
as existing snow machines out there that aren't registered. He
suggested that in addressing that, they can look to improvements
Commissioner Boyer made in the Department of Administration for the
ability of people to access DMV registration through a 1-800
telephone number or the Internet, which should make it much easier
to register these machines.
MR. GRASSER said Commissioner Boyer had indicated the $5 fee would
cover a mail-out to people to renew their registration. Mr.
Grasser added, "Of course, he also pointed out that would also
require the legislature to fund that with the proceeds from that $5
registration, which I guess he claims they haven't done; so, I
haven't looked into that."
Number 0830
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted that Section 1 says, "Registration
under this section is not required for a snowmobile ... exempt from
motor vehicle registration under AS 28.10.011." He paraphrased
subsection (11) as "you don't have to register if you're ... rural
and not connected to a highway," and he paraphrased another,
unspecified, subsection as "if you're just going to private
property to private property across a highway." He stated, "So, if
that's the case, I don't think that you can say I have to buy one,
unless you change that."
Number 0889
MR. GRASSER responded that certain factions in the snowmobile
community would rather not have that in there. He thought the
discussion when they put that in was about the rural situation,
especially villages where they aren't required to register their
vehicles now; that was the intent of that exception. He suggested
the sponsors were probably not hung up on that. "I think the
snowmobile community wants these machines registered," he
concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK concurred.
Number 0932
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested if they intend to get all snow
machines sold in the state registered, there is a technical hang-up, but if the
registered than the law now requires, that is what they have.
Number 0973
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said if he understood Representative
Porter's argument, there would be a discriminatory consequence to
this, in that rural Alaskans would not have to pay the same
registration fees that urban Alaskans would have to pay. He asked
whether that is a fair assessment.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK noted that it says the dealer shall register
the snowmobiles at the point of sale. She said they would be sold
in rural areas as well as in urban areas. She then indicated she
wouldn't have a problem if that were stricken from the bill.
Number 1030
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said AS 28.10.011 is written for cars and has
a couple of different places where it may be too broad for
snowmobiles. The applicable language is not all in subsection (11)
of that statute. Subsection (1) says, "driven or moved on a
highway only for the purpose of crossing the highway from one
private property to another, including an implement of husbandry as
defined by regulation". In addition, subsection (7) says, "driven
or parked only on private property", which Representative Croft
suggested is kind of repetitive.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said subsection (11) may be repetitive of
subsection (1) as well. Subsection (11) is the rural one, relating
to being driven or moved on a highway where there is not a regular
road system. He concluded, "So, there's private property, only
crossing a highway, and then not connected to the highway system."
He said each, it would seem, is inapplicable to this and more
applicable to cars.
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that he thinks the language in question
can be excluded, but he believes there is a conflict the way it is
drafted. He referred to page 2, lines 4 and 5, which requires the
seller of the new or used machine - the dealer - to take action.
Referring to Representative Porter's comments, Chairman Green
stated, "You're exempt on page 1, but on page 2, you're required.
And so, one of the two. I don't know that he's particularly caring
which way we go, but we ought to go consistently."
Number 1110
MR. GRASSER reported that last year the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) spent $800,000 in
Northwest Alaska on trail improvements and so forth for snow
machines. The intent of this legislation eventually is to get to
the point that Representative Croft addressed, with this moving out
of the regulatory arena into just registration, and the intent is
eventually to have a fund for trail maintenance and acquisition.
He said Representative Porter's point is well-taken, and that
language should probably be stricken.
Number 1172
CHAIRMAN GREEN made a motion to strike lines 10 and 11, page 1.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested they would need to renumber
accordingly.
CHAIRMAN GREEN included that as a friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated it also required punctuation
changes.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection to the
amendment. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1214
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for confirmation that the
registration is also for used vehicles, that re-registration would
be required whenever there is a change of ownership.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK affirmed that.
Number 1231
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked where the $5 fee is in the bill, and
whether it is in reference to another statute.
MR. GRASSER referred members to page 2, line 12, subsection (e),
which says, "The original and each renewal registration fee for a
snowmobile is as provided under AS 28.10.421."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that is a $5 fee.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said currently it is, yes.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that it is subject to change by regulation.
Number 1302
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT read from AS 28.10.421(d)(7), which discusses
a $10 biennial fee for a snowmobile or off-highway vehicle. He
then stated his understanding that the intent is both to collect
federal funds that might exist and to create this pool of Alaska's
own registration funds. He asked how much federal money might be
obtained from this.
MR. GRASSER said they are not sure of the exact share because they
don't have an accurate count of snow machines. Under the Symms
grant program and the trails program, there are nonmotorized
trails, motorized trails and multiple-use trails; each segment gets
a portion of that funding. The current state snowmobile
registration shows approximately 11,000 machines; that segment of
the trail-using community doesn't really get much of the grant
money. But if they could show there are 40,000 machines, for
example, they could increase the share significantly.
Number 1384
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what the costs of enforcement might be.
MR. GRASSER said they don't know. He commented, "I assume that
would be the same as in fish and game, where we have all these
regulations and no enforcement out there right now also."
Number 1428
MAX LOWE, Alaska Snowmobile Representatives Alliance (ASRA),
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. The ASRA represents
160 dealers, 50 member businesses and a board of directors of 16
people based in Anchorage. Having just completed a trip to the
International Association of Snowmobile Administrators conference
in California, where 11 Western states including Alaska were
represented, he said he has every reason to be in full support of
HB 231, the point-of-sale registration.
MR. LOWE stated the belief that this bill will deter theft and aid
in recovery of stolen snowmobiles; provide a mechanism for funding
to enhance winter trail development, grooming, provision of signs,
safety and enforcement. This will increase snowmobiling enjoyment
by residents and tourists, "by providing a higher quality of safer
snowmobiling experience in Alaska."
MR. LOWE advised members he had a copy of a proposed amendment by
Jim Stratton, Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
("State Parks"), which contains intent language. He asked to hear
the committee's feelings about that amendment.
Number 1503
MR. LOWE stated, "I would also like to clarify that the intent of
the discussion earlier on regarding the registration of snowmobiles
was rural, not private-property-to-private-property on a railway or
roadbelt, and that ... it's not connected to any concern other than
that, that I think the rural communities may not be in favor where
they're using snowmobiles on a day-to-day work-type basis, rather
than a recreational basis. We certainly didn't want to slow down
or stop the bill, because we feel that the lion's share of
recreational users are not in the outlying communities but in
Anchorage, Wasilla, Fairbanks and so forth."
MR. LOWE said having just come from the conference, he could assure
listeners that counterparts in the Lower 48 have much enforcement
done by the club members themselves; he offered to elaborate.
CHAIRMAN GREEN, noting that the sponsor had a copy of Mr.
Stratton's proposed amendment, had copies made for members.
Number 1575
JAMES DAY, Arctic Cat Representative, Arctic Recreational
Distributors, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying
he fully supports HB 231, which is needed to build their numbers
and to support snow machining in Alaska. He said he thinks "the
bottom line takes it to the economic base of what we need to happen
throughout Alaska."
Number 1605
KEVIN HITE, President, Anchorage Snowmobile Club, testified via
teleconference from Prudhoe Bay, saying the club supports HB 231 in
its entirety. He stated, "The volunteer efforts of most of the
clubs in the state are getting stretched thinner and thinner. And
as a result, some of the good grooming and some of the trail
development programs are falling way behind. We see HB 231 as a
good way to fund a mechanism that will help develop trails." Mr.
Hite said they also support all of the rural exemptions that
Representative Masek had in the beginning.
Number 1655
LEE JOHNSON, Member, Fairbanks Snow Travelers Snowmobile Club,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he is also a
representative on the Governor's citizen advisory board. He
indicated he supports HB 231, registration of snowmobiles, largely
as a means of generating funds for trail maintenance and
development, public education programs and safety measures. He
said throughout the United States, snowmobilers have directly paid
their own way with registration fees and trail user fees. The fund
developed from a portion of the federal gas tax is divided
according to a count of the machines in each state, which is a
source of funding that has been used for trails.
MR. JOHNSON said the $10 biennial fee currently in statute isn't
adequate to fund this kind of program. Other states have
significantly higher registration fees. He suggested the many
benefits of a higher fee may need to be addressed another time.
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed they would leave that for another day.
Number 1770
SCOTT HEIDORN testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying
he supports HB 231 and is glad to see the amendments made to lines
10 and 11 of page 1. He suggested there may be a bit of a conflict
between page 1, line 9, and page 2, line 25. He recommended that
all political subdivisions register their machines but not have to
pay the fee.
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that they would take care of it.
Number 1815
MICHAEL EASTHAM, Snomads Snow Machine Club, testified via
teleconference from Homer, where he had lived approximately 25
years. He has been a snowmobiler in Alaska for approximately 29
years. A retired police officer, he had served 23 years and is
familiar with what the lack of registration does to the law
enforcement community with regards to recovery of snow machines and
enforcement. He said he would address both.
MR. EASTHAM advised members he is past-president of the Snomads and
current chairman of the trails committee; registration of snow
machines has been discussed in his club over the past several
meetings. The club supports this bill. They encourage members to
register their machines. However, some owners hesitate because of
the way the registration fee money is spent. He stated the belief
that HB 231 will increase state revenues, as thousands of dollars
in state revenues are lost yearly from lack of snow machine
registration.
MR. EASTHAM advised members he had a letter from the Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation; according to their survey,
approximately 6,000 new snow machines have been sold yearly in
Alaska since 1993, which amounts to 30,000 snow machines in the
last five years.
Number 1893
MR. EASTHAM noted that money spent on registration doesn't come
back to work for trails or snowmobilers; rather, it goes to the
general fund. There is a lot of talk in the snowmobile community
about wanting to see something done so that registration money goes
directly to work for trails enhancement and development of lands
for the public use; Mr. Eastham suggested that should be looked
into.
MR. EASTHAM said registering snow machines to obtain accurate
numbers will directly correlate with federal matching funds; this
"head count" is a starting point. From a law enforcement
standpoint, when machines aren't registered it is almost impossible
to track those recovered by law enforcement agencies; not only is
there no license, but the owner often hasn't recorded a serial
number. Mr. Eastham concluded by indicating a lot of state funds
are spent on roadways and trails, from which rural users receive a
benefit.
Number 1983
TIM BORGSTROM, Special Projects Director, Anchorage Economic
Development Corporation (AEDC), testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He said they obviously have more than one reason for
being in support of the bill; number one is winter tourism. He
stated, "We believe that if we can - to a certain extent - mirror
some of our lower 48 states on how they developed winter tourism,
certainly snowmobiling is a big component of that."
MR. BORGSTROM advised members that the AEDC has done a lot of
research and compiled a lot of data. There were 15,817 new
snowmobiles sold in Alaska in the 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 winter
seasons, with only 3,800 of those sold or registered in the
Municipality of Anchorage. He stated, "Therefore, we know that
with this point-of-sale registration, that what -- everybody-else's-data-we-con
source and pretty much a self-supporting system ... of recreation
for the state of Alaska, which then we can complement the
Governor's initiative over the statewide trail system of offering
a map of guide services, rental agencies and so forth to out-of-state tourists
winter."
MR. BORGSTROM said the mechanism used in all the other states is
point-of-sale registration, along with user fees for the trail
systems. Alaska is the last state "in the continental United
States and all the provinces of Canada" to adopt a point-of-sale
registration law; he suggested it is time to do that and to develop
a new revenue stream for this particular industry, which he
characterized as self-supporting. Mr. Borgstrom concluded, "The
snowmobilers want it, the dealers certainly want it, our law
enforcement here in town would really appreciate it because of the
high rate of snowmobile thefts, and I think it would benefit not
just ... the major metropolitan areas but the whole state of Alaska
as well. It'd be nice if we could send out eventually a statewide
snowmobile trail map, and this is a ... funding mechanism by which
we could do that."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether Mr. Borgstrom is a snowmobile
dealer.
MR. BORGSTROM said no.
Number 2103
JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
("State Parks"), Department of Natural Resources, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage, advising members he had attended the
same International Association of Snowmobile Administrators
meetings that Max Lowe had. He said they had also spent some time
with friends in Washington State and Montana, learning how they
manage their snowmobile programs.
MR. STRATTON stated, "And it's the intent of State Parks to begin
establishing a process this spring by which this registration money
could be used for trail work, in a method that the decisions will
be made with the snowmobile community. So, our intent is to move
forward in beginning to put together this structure, that we can
get some money disseminated, and our hope is that through this
bill, we'll begin to see some significant money come into winter
trail work."
Number 2137
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that the committee now had copies of Mr.
Stratton's proposed six-line amendment.
Number 2154
MR. STRATTON explained that he had drafted it in response to
snowmobilers' concerns that the bill doesn't emphasize enough that
- in addition to law enforcement and theft benefits - the intent is
to have the funds generated go into doing a trail system. Although
there aren't dedicated funds, Mr. Stratton had drafted this to
provide intent language, so that persons learning about the reasons
behind point-of-sale registration and the bill would have some
comfort that the legislature's intent is indeed to see that the
money would go to trail work.
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that he doesn't like to clutter the
statutes with a lot of intent language. He said he would prefer,
with the concurrence of Mr. Stratton and the committee, to perhaps
accompany the bill with a letter of intent that would incorporate
this language but not actually make it part of the statute.
MR. STRATTON replied, "That's great; that's wonderful."
Number 2214
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV), Department of Administration, came forward to answer
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the committee had adopted an
amendment which deleted the references to AS 28.10.011; subsection
(2) of that statute says, "driven or moved on a highway under a
dealer's plate or temporary permit as provided for in AS 28.10.031
and 28.10.181(j)." He asked Ms. Hensley whether snowmobile dealers
use temporary permits or dealer plates.
Number 2251
MS. HENSLEY replied no, the DMV does not issue dealer plates to
snowmobile dealers; that is only for automobile or motorcycle
dealers.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether it is the DMV's intention to
authorize dealers to issue plates at the time of sale.
MS. HENSLEY responded that just as they do now with automobile
dealers in the state, yes, it would be the DMV's wish to have the
dealers issue the decals. This bill does not allow them to issue
plates; they will issue a registration decal that will go on the
cowling of the snowmobile.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether that is provided for in this.
MS. HENSLEY replied yes, it will be similar to that. She indicated
the DMV's wish to have dealers go ahead and register and put the
decal straight on that snow machine at the time of sale, as happens
with car dealers now. There is no plate, just a decal.
Number 2310
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Ms. Hensley sees any conflict with the
exclusions on page 1, lines 8 and 9, and the reference to the
exclusion on page 2, line 25, with the fact that the registration
will be done at the time of sale by the dealer.
MS. HENSLEY replied, "On line 8 on page 1, if you start paragraph
(b) as saying, 'The registration fee under this section is not
required for a snowmobile' and then put 'owned by an agency', that
would take care of it. I don't see that there would be a problem."
She said currently a city or municipality "is exempt from
registering those cars; they do register them, but they're not
(indisc.--simult. speech.)."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether as far as administration of this, Ms.
Hensley sees any problem.
MS. HENSLEY said no.
Number 2374
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he had come around to thinking there is
not a conflict. He explained, "This says everyone has to register,
including municipalities; the only people that can't are the state
and the United States. And then on (b), the department may issue
a registration, without a payment of a fee, to a political
subdivision. So, political subdivisions have to register, but ...
we can waive the fee."
MS. HENSLEY concurred.
Number 2411
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted that they would have a legal problem
taxing the United States. However, registration would be
appropriate for state agencies, political subdivisions and other
states, in order to know who they are. He commented, "And if
they're the ones that violated a 'no trespassing' area, we want to
be able to get them just as much as we want to get the private
sector." Representative Porter said somehow he would like this to
say that the registration fee is not required for the United
States, but registration is required for anyone else, and fees may
be waived for state agencies and other political subdivisions.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, "Well, or as they had indicated, if they
just said the registration fee under this section is not required
for state agencies, the United States or another state, I think
[it] would accomplish what you're saying."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thought so.
TAPE 98-7, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested that on page 2, line 26, the
language, "owned by an agency of the state, or another state, or by
a political subdivision of the state," would cover everyone's
concerns and let the federal government off the hook. He said
essentially everyone must register, but they are waiving the fee
for political groups.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "May waive it."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ acknowledged that.
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested it is simpler to put, "The registration
fee under this section is not required," on page 1.
Number 0069
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested a possible amendment, specifying he
wasn't making a motion yet. He said, "If on page 1, line 8, we
said, 'A registration fee under this section is not require for a
snowmobile (1) owned by the United States,' comma, and eliminate
everything else, then go to page 2, line 25, and say, 'The
department shall' - not may - 'issue a registration without a
payment of a fee if the snowmobile is owned by a state agency,
comma, political subdivision of the state, comma, or another state,
comma - or no comma.'"
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted it requires the registration but not the fee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER agreed.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that is what everyone would like.
Number 0130
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated he was troubled by introduction
of the word "fee" on page 1, line 8, which would seemingly put the
obligation to register on the U.S. government but waive the fee.
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed, adding, "And if you don't like the word
'fee,' you can just leave it the way it is and just drop those
other two and just leave it 'the United States' -- 'is not required
by a snow machine owned by the United States'."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested they shouldn't require the
registration, even if they can.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER restated that he would just as soon know if
a federal agent violated a "no trespass" area.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the point is finding a lost snow
machine, more than anything.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that he'd like to leave it the way
it is.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Okay. Now, if you don't want to exclude
them, then you'd delete lines 8 and 9 and put all three of those
people under line 25?"
Number 0153
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied no, he was talking about the word
"fee" on page 1, line 8, of the "conceptual not-motioned
amendment." Specifically, he was talking about not putting "fee"
after "Registration".
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that now they are saying perhaps they want
registration, even of federal machines. He suggested striking (b)
entirely, page 1, lines 8 and 9, and putting all three of those
over on page 2, line 25.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed and said he had no problem with it.
CHAIRMAN GREEN continued, "And then everybody that we are not going
to charge a fee to - but still get a registration from - is
covered." He asked Ms. Hensley whether she sees it that way. He
specified, "We just take the federal government, state agency and
another state, and we put those on line 25 and strike lines 8 and
9."
Number 0190
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that he doesn't know, as a point of
law, whether the state can require the federal government to
register, but they could try it.
MS. HENSLEY stated, "Under the existing statutes relating to
regular motor vehicles, it says ... vehicles are subject to
registration except - and it just says owned by the United States.
They are not subject to registration in this state." Saying, "They
register them under their federal provisions," Ms. Hensley noted
that it is strictly a federal program.
Number 0219
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he recognizes they cannot compel
registration for a federally owned snow machine. He suggested
personnel would take it, however, and put it on; it would be a
viable alternative to nothing. He pointed out that there is no
federal snow machine plate, whereas there is a federal license
plate that identifies a federally owned car.
Number 0246
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested federal employees may exempt
themselves, whether or not the state exempts them.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he agrees with Representative Porter's
"conceptual amendment not motioned," except for the word "fee."
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that it says a registration under this section
is not required, if they leave that line in there.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "For the United States. We're
deleting the other ..."
CHAIRMAN GREEN said he understood that, but now the discussion is
that perhaps they should register but not be charged. He stated,
"So, if we put all of that on line 25, instead of leaving it as it
is in lines 8 and 9, then we're doing that. We just don't have
lines 8 and 9."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that Representative Porter had
replaced the permissive "may" with "shall" on page 2, line 25. He
commented, "So, we're mandating that they not pay a fee."
Number 0303
MS. HENSLEY referred to page 1, line 8; she suggested the language,
"A registration fee under this section is not required for an
agency of the United States, period." She continued, "And then, as
Representative Porter had made his conceptual amendment, is, 'The
department shall issue a registration without payment of a fee to
a state agency -- the snowmobile is owned by a state agency,
political subdivision or another state.' That would actually clean
it up." She said that way, they don't have to change all of the
first paragraph, lines 5 through 7, because on line 5, it gives an
exception.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked the desire of the committee, noting the
existence of two concepts. He explained, "So, we either leave it
in front and not even ask them to register, or put it in the second
page and ask them to register, see what they'll do."
Number 0366
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he would support Representative
Porter's amendment now, so they could go on to other things.
Number 0369
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered Amendment 2 as follows: On page 1,
line 8, add two words, one on each side of the word "registration",
to read, "A registration fee". On page 1, line 9, strike "an
agency of the state" and also strike "or another state", which
would leave only "owned by the United States." On page 2, line 25,
strike the word "may" and replace it with "shall". And on page 2,
line 26, between the words "a" and "political", insert "state
agency,(comma)"; then after "political subdivision of the state",
add ", (comma) or another state". (Thus, page 2, line 26, would
read, "the snowmobile is owned by a state agency, political
subdivision of the state, or another state.")
Number 0425
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he had a small objection to the first
portion of Amendment 2. He stated, "I think if we even talk about
registering fees for the feds, we're proceeding under the tacit
assumption that we can require them to register."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether he wanted to drop "fee" and just say
"A registration under this".
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied that there is no fee if they are
not required to register.
Number 0445
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained that if they put in this second
section - that the federal government must register but the fee
will be waived - he doesn't know that the legislature has authority
to do that. He stated, "If we leave it here, it at least leaves it
open that the DMV can offer this to the feds and say that there's
authorization to do this without the fee. They can take it or
leave it; I think they'll take it, quite frankly. They're just as
interested in getting their machines recovered as anybody else."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection.
Number 0469
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed curiosity about the term,
"another state" and why that is in there. He noted that it applies
to a machine owned by another state. He asked whether they should
add "province" as well, in case Yukon Territory officials bring
machines in.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that is a good point. He suggested perhaps
dropping that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether anyone else knew why that is
there.
Number 0523
MR. HEIDORN spoke again via teleconference, saying it seems the
changes discussed that day would leave a lot of room for the
Department of Administration to develop regulations for
snowmobiles. He said he and Lee Johnson had also attended the
conference that Jim Stratton and Max Lowe had attended last week,
and they had talked to these other snowmobile program
administrators, who'd outlined how these regulations are developed
in other states. Oftentimes an advisory board is developed,
primarily consisting of snowmobilers.
MR. HEIDORN said, "And I'm wondering if this isn't a good time to
put something in - at least a letter of intent that goes with this
statute - outlining the makeup of a snowmobile advisory board.
This would be a real benefit to the Department of Administration.
My thoughts are something along the lines of a minimum of six, a
maximum of ten members, all of them identified by the state
snowmobile association and giving the director of, say, State Parks
an opportunity to select from that list the members of the board.
And then possibly the state trail program coordinator would be the
ex officio member of the board."
Number 0580
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that there are two reasons why he
doesn't think he'd support that. First, the discussion of whether
to have fees or registration had related to publicly owned
vehicles, not private vehicles; the need for an advisory committee
of private owners is not consistent with that. Second, and perhaps
most importantly, he said, that would basically entail the
beginning of another program. Representative Porter stated, "And
I can tell you another program is not gonna fly when this thing
gets to Finance. Right now, it's revenue-neutral or perhaps even
revenue-positive. You get ... a new program involved in it, that's
going to affect the fiscal notes and cause it problems."
Number 0618
MS. HENSLEY spoke to Amendment 2. She suggested using the phrase
"another jurisdiction" instead of "another state." That way, the
Yukon Territory is covered if they come over and do a search and
rescue, for example.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether they even need that.
MS. HENSLEY replied, "Well, then, you wouldn't even need 'another
state.'"
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested they could drop that part.
Number 0580
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER accepted, as a friendly amendment to
Amendment 2, "dropping, on line 26, 'or another state, (comma)'."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection to the
friendly amendment; there was none. He then asked whether there
was any objection to Amendment 2. There being no objection,
Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0666
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the only other issue that he believes
should be on the record - and he is in favor of it - is that they
are absolutely requiring that machines be registered at the point
of sale, whether they are in Anchorage, Fairbanks or Unalakleet.
He explained that whether a snow machine is rural or urban, it
still can get stolen, it still can have an accident, and, in fact,
rural machines are more likely than urban machines to get lost and
to require search and rescue. He concluded, "So, a $5 fee is most
certainly not exorbitant. And for all of those reasons, I support
the notion that all machines should be registered."
Number 0699
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move the proposed committee
substitute for HB 231, as amended, from committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there should be an amendment, to
accompany this with intent language without that being part of the
bill.
Number 0719
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Jim Stratton's proposed
amendment, provided earlier, which read:
"It is the intent of the legislature that the state should actively
engage in the development and maintenance of a state-wide
snowmobile trail system to be supported, at least in part, by funds
received through a snowmobile registration system and disbursed
through a community grant program to be established and
administered by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural
Resources. This level of support should be at least equal to the
net receipts of the snowmobile registration program."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was a little troubled by the last
sentence and a little uncomfortable not knowing more about what is
intended here.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Representative Rokeberg would feel
more comfortable if they dropped that, since they are saying, "It
is the intent of the legislature." He then commented that they may
be speaking a little broadly there.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that was what he was wondering.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection to deleting
that last line.
Number 0744
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "To deleting the last sentence? I
thought we were talking about 'The intent of the legislature' as
being too broad."
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated he was also concerned about that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that there had been some
testimony, but indirectly.
Number 0766
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested they would only be empowered to say
it is the intent of the committee, not the legislature. He
suggested that within the motion to move, they adopt as a letter of
intent the proposed language from Mr. Stratton, with the following
amendments: On line 1 (the first sentence), strike "legislature"
and add "Judiciary Committee"; and strike the last line (sentence)
of the paragraph.
Number 0799
MR. GRASSER indicated Representative Masek is not opposed to this
but would prefer to address the fee structure, trail acquisition
and maintenance in an additional bill, as he had mentioned earlier.
He suggested it may be preferable to include this intent language
with that future legislation, rather than with this "DMV
legislation." He concluded, "However you feel about it, that's
fine."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER withdrew the portion of his motion relating
to inclusion of a letter of intent.
Number 0843
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection to moving the
proposed committee substitute (0-LS0501\F, Ford, 5/5/97), as
amended, from committee. There being no objection, CSHB 231(JUD)
moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
CHAIRMAN GREEN called an at-ease at 2:20 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 2:26 p.m.
HB 267 - DOMESTIC VIOL. & SEXUAL ASSAULT DISCLOSURE
Number 0876
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business would be HB 267,
"An Act relating to domestic violence and sexual assault; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0876
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, sponsor of HB 267, told of incidents
where the reluctance of workers at women's shelters to communicate
with police departments has led to problems, including questions of
whether the woman is missing or is in physical danger. He cited an
example where a woman in a hospital for depression had apparently
stopped taking her medication and wandered away from the hospital;
police inquiring at the women's shelter received no information and
did not know whether the woman was in serious physical danger.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that state statutes are
somewhat vague on this topic and could easily be clarified without
any compromise to the security and safety of the residents of
women's shelters. He stated, "And I think, in fact, it may be to
the benefit of people; when missing persons searches are
instigated, there is a certain level of danger that accompanies
those. I mean, anything that a police officer does or a search and
rescue person does has some element of danger to it, and there's
certainly a lot of cost established with that, as well."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY characterized the bill as fairly simple,
saying it gives the council the ability to promulgate regulations
to further cooperation between the counselors at a domestic
violence shelter and the police department. It also stipulates
that - in fact, in statute - it is an appropriate course of action
for the shelters to communicate with those police officers.
Number 0944
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referred to a recent (unrelated) death of a
police officer in Fairbanks and concluded, "If we can trust these
guys and these women to take a bullet for us, certainly we can
trust them with a little bit of information about the very people
they're sworn to protect."
Number 0970
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented on the recent death of a police
officer in Anchorage, acknowledging that the fact pattern was
different. He noted that the last two police officers killed in
Alaska may have died under domestic violence situations, and he
suggested this type of legislation may help.
Number 0986
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER brought up two questions he had mentioned to
the sponsor, which he also intended to ask folks from the domestic
violence community: Does federal or Alaska law preclude this? And
why would we want to limit the information flowing to law
enforcement to just missing person cases? He asked whether that
information shouldn't also be available in a criminal
investigation, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER proposed a scenario where the offending
spouse dreamed up a story and "laid it on law enforcement that the
other spouse was a material witness - or any other kind of
contrived thing - and could really take law enforcement around by
the nose and ... make them run around and inadvertently get
information for the spouse, when, really, they could check that out
real quickly with a shelter and say, 'What's going on?'" Noting
that he'd been out of the business ten years, Representative Porter
said, "But when I was there, most of the residents in these
shelters were brought there by police. Why there would be a
problem letting them know about any of them that are in there is
beyond me. ... By saying they can only tell them of missing
persons, I guess we're almost saying, 'And you can't if they make
an inquiry for another reason.' And I don't know if that's
appropriate or not."
Number 1090
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked about the possibility of a police officer who
is a sporting buddy with a domestic violence perpetrator informing
his buddy that his buddy's wife is at a shelter, for example. He
asked whether officers are sworn to secrecy.
Number 1131
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded, "The only thing I could think of is
that ... we ask of professionals throughout our whole nation to
have certain levels of confidentiality. Attorneys can't violate
that, whether they're sporting buddies or not. Doctors have a code
of ethics that requires that as well. Ministers do. The list, I'm
sure, is fairly long. Police officers are sworn to protect, ...
and I think, though, that that is a very broad oath. I think we
have to trust them, to a certain level. Anyone could divulge that
information, including the person who runs the shelter."
Number 1167
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that confidence in that
confidentiality is also crucial. He suggested the need for
sensitivity to those whose confidences are in jeopardy. He had
spoken with the sponsor, troopers in Fairbanks, and representatives
from the domestic violence community. He stated his understanding
that the instances where there is a real problem, where the
troopers or law enforcement are going into a domestic violence
shelter, asking for somebody, and being given the runaround, are
extremely few and far between.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he understands, probably as much as
anyone, the need for officer safety and the need to make the best
and highest use of law enforcement resources. But he is also very
concerned about the confidentiality requirements. He said it seems
that this problem is not well-suited to legislation, and it would
be better-suited to some sort of reconciliation, on the ground, by
the people who have to make these decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he would encourage the people in the
shelters and law enforcement to make that kind of rapprochement, so
the legislature doesn't have to intervene. He stated his belief
that it isn't appropriate for the legislature to micromanage how
either law enforcement officials or domestic violence shelters do
their jobs.
Number 1261
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that he couldn't agree more. He
stated, "The genesis of this bill came from the law enforcement
community. And though the incidences are small, they may even be
regionalized." He said it had been enough of a problem that they
had come to him and asked him to do something about this
legislatively. Representative Kelly said his first response was to
ask whether they could work it out without the legislature, because
it seems to him they are overreading the statute a little bit. He
stated, "And that's appropriate for us to clarify a statute, if
it's been overread. But we did have a meeting with the Department
of Public Safety and the domestic violence shelter community, and
I said, 'Please communicate; find a way to communicate on this.'
And we waited over an interim and nothing happened. As a matter of
fact, what we got back is that ... we were in exactly the same
position; there had been no give or take on the side, particularly,
of the domestic violence shelter people."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he believed there had been a second
meeting involving the Department of Public Safety; they had come
back to him, and he had written again requesting that it be worked
out without getting into the statutes, if possible. Still nothing
had happened. Representative Kelly had then written a letter to
the council, petitioning them under AS 44.62.220 to adopt
regulations and requesting a response within 30 days, as required
under the statute. However, he never received a response, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated, "So, I guess I find myself in the
position whereas I agree very much with Representative Berkowitz,
that it doesn't appear to be happening, and I think maybe we do
need to clarify the statutes, unless we can see some real movement
in that direction ...." He said there are incidents that one can
never forget, such as a frozen woman under a rail car in Fairbanks
in 50-below weather. While domestic violence is incredibly
threatening to women, and he doesn't downplay that, he suggested
that in places like Fairbanks and Fort Yukon, a 50-below winter is
more threatening than anything they could face at home, if somebody
isn't out looking for them, or doesn't have the drive to go look
for them because they don't know whether the woman is missing or at
the shelter or at a girlfriend's house or elsewhere.
Number 1408
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said law enforcement officers have to be
sworn to a code of ethics, which requires that they not divulge
confidential information. He stated that he would have no qualms
that, having made that affirmation, law enforcement officers would
not divulge this information.
CHAIRMAN GREEN acknowledged that confidentiality issues transcend
other professions, saying there can be "rogues" who violate their
oaths. He said his own question had been more of a general nature.
"And I think you both have put that to rest," he added.
Number 1494
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Representative Kelly whether anything in
law prohibits a divulgence when confidentiality has been waived;
he then asked whether a divulgence could be made if a woman had
waived confidentiality.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested this really comes down to those rare
instances when the woman insists for some reason, whether others
believe it justified or not. Those reasons could include fear of
a buddy relationship or fear that in a small community, saying that
she isn't missing would be equivalent to saying she is at the
shelter.
Number 1538
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he thinks that is the case. He said he
doesn't know the costs or dangers involved in a full-scale missing
persons search; he mentioned possible factors such as weather in
coastal communities or the need for a helicopter. He stated, "I
don't think that when we have the protections of the oath of office
that the policemen have taken, the protections that we've built
into the laws themselves, that a woman simply making a choice that,
'I don't want to do that, and the other expenses and possible
danger associated with that are not as important,' I think we have
to make a policy call here that, in fact, ... we do have the right
to require someone to lose that confidentiality, just not because
they don't choose to."
Number 1603
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it is a difficult policy call. They
are balancing the need for law and order against a respect for
personal freedom, autonomy and privacy. He said personally, he is
hesitant to wade in to anyone's individual autonomy without some
extremely good showing. He stated, "And with just a few instances,
and with what I have recognized as the ability of people who are
working in the field on the front lines to improvise, to be
pragmatic, if there's a way short of providing legislation, I would
encourage both the domestic violence community and the law
enforcement community to figure it out before this bill becomes a
steamroller."
Number 1659
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said if he understood the problem that
generated the bill, it was not necessarily a victim who didn't want
it released but a shelter employee who felt the law wouldn't allow
it. He suggested that is what this legislation is meant to
straighten out.
Number 1711
CANDICE LIMMER, Victims' Advocate, Valley Women's Resource Center
(Palmer), testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su Legislative
Information Office (LIO). She said she feels strongly that this
legislation is totally unnecessary. This can be, and has been,
worked out at a local level, and she believes it should continue to
stay on a local level and be worked out between the shelters and
law enforcement.
MS. LIMMER said there have been hundreds of calls to the Alaska
State Troopers regarding missing persons. At their shelter,
however, they've had one call in five years regarding this kind of
situation. She restated that this can be worked out by the
shelters working with law enforcement, and they have worked it out
in Palmer. More legislation is not necessary. She feels that it
compromises the rights of the victims, and it puts the victims in
danger. Ms. Limmer concluded, "And I would agree with
Representative Berkowitz on his stand and some of the comments he's
made."
Number 1791
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "In your association, if an officer came
saying that ... a certain lady was reported missing and they were
mounting an all-out search party, would it be your practice to
inform the officer or to ignore that?"
MS. LIMMER answered, "If the officer asked if we knew if she was
safe or if we had any information as to her safety, we could say
either -- if we knew that she was safe, we wouldn't necessarily
know where she was. That wouldn't mean that she was in the
shelter; we might just know that she was safe somewhere else. Or
we would say, 'We don't know if she is safe.' And that would mean
either that we didn't know where she was, we didn't have contact
with her, and so, we really have no knowledge. And that would
satisfy it."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER confirmed that Ms. Limmer had a copy of the
bill, then said basically all the bill requires is that they
communicate whether the person is or is not missing. He suggested
this would be consistent with the policy of Ms. Limmer's shelter.
Number 1889
MS. LIMMER responded, "Well, missing to whom?" She restated that
she doesn't believe they need any more laws regarding this. She
indicated they have worked it out with the troopers and just
acknowledge whether they know the woman is safe or not, which is
all the information the troopers need to decide whether to launch
a search party. Ms. Limmer said it could be the perpetrator who is
reporting the woman missing, and he could use this to gain all
sorts of information. "It puts the woman at risk, absolutely," Ms.
Limmer concluded.
Number 1999
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Limmer whether she could think
of any instances in which she might not want to inform law
enforcement.
MS. LIMMER replied yes, if a law enforcement officer's spouse was
in the shelter, they wouldn't want to share that with the officer.
She added that it would not be an unusual situation.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that has happened.
MS. LIMMER responded, "Oh, yes."
Number 2054
BRENDA WIEFFERING, Executive Director, Kenai-Soldotna Women's
Resource and Crisis Center, testified via teleconference from
Kenai, noting that she had faxed two letters, dated January 30,
1998, and January 31, 1998, which she would like to have stand as
her formal testimony. However, she would also comment on what she
had heard in the past few minutes.
MS. WIEFFERING stated, "I have concerns that when Representative
Kelly states that law enforcement officers have a duty to protect,
that that's being interpreted as abiding by a confidentiality
statute, because I would not interpret that that they are the same.
I also wonder if, by changing Alaska's statute on confidentiality,
that it may be in violation of the federal statute, and then
agencies such as the Women's Resource and Crisis Center in Kenai,
which I represent, may not be eligible for federal funding for
providing services to victims of domestic violence and sexual
assault."
Number 2177
MS. WIEFFERING continued, "I'm concerned with what's driving the
proposed change to the law is based on one instance and isn't a
universal problem. The danger to women is real, as my letters
state. Very infrequently are we contacted regarding missing
persons reports: three times in the last two years locally. We
have satisfied three law enforcement agencies we deal with in our
response to that. We do encourage women who come to us to find a
way to let law enforcement know that they're safe, if a missing
persons report is filed. The only reason that that would not
happen would be, again, if the woman insisted it were not safe for
her to do so, and I could think of different circumstances under
which that would apply. First would be if the perpetrator were a
law enforcement officer. And I could think off the top of my head
of at least four local officers in three departments [whom] I've
had reports on in the three-plus years that I've been in this
community, that are perpetrating domestic violence. Those reports
may come from victims. They may ... come from friends and family
members who are observing it and reporting to us."
MS. WIEFFERING advised members that perpetrators often use law
enforcement for tracking victims. She recalled, clearly, she said,
one case where a local law enforcement agency had called, saying
there was a missing persons report and asking whether that woman
was safe or was at their shelter. Ms. Wieffering explained, "She
indeed was at the shelter and instructed me to let law enforcement
know that she was there, she was safe, and do not tell her family
or anyone else that she was there. Within minutes of communicating
this to law enforcement, we had a call from that woman's family,
saying that law enforcement told them she was there. Now, these
people were calling from out of state; it's not like they picked up
the local phone book and said, 'Oh, let's try this local service
agency.' The coincidence was just too astounding."
Number 2379
MS. WIEFFERING said they had a highly publicized case of alleged
sexual assault by a local police officer last year. She stated,
"So, under any of these circumstances, you can understand why a
woman would not want for us to communicate with law enforcement
where she was, whether that is in our shelter or at another place.
We do absolutely understand the seriousness and the high cost of
implementing an official search for a missing person. We work
very, very hard to maintain an excellent working relationship with
our local law enforcement agencies. We believe ... we're pretty
well-covered in that area here and think that this is dangerous
legislation."
MS. WIEFFERING referred to the end of her letter of January 30,
1998; she asked members to consider a situation where the
perpetrator is a police officer or someone close to that officer,
and the victim is the member's daughter.
TAPE 98-8, SIDE A
Number 0006
MS. WIEFFERING informed members that as soon as they are contacted
that there is a missing persons report, if they know the person and
know how to communicate with her, they will let her know that the
report has been made and talk to her about the importance of
communicating that to law enforcement because of the costs
involved, if it is safe to do so. Ms. Wieffering added, "It's her
decision, and she is the best judge of her own safety."
Number 0063
CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to an earlier question asked of Ms. Limmer
about a hypothetical situation. He asked, "In your jurisdiction
now, if a person comes and asks you the whereabouts of someone that
you have in there - who has asked you not to divulge that
information - do you feel that you have the authority to withhold
that?"
MS. WIEFFERING replied, "Yes, I do, and that's dictated by the
confidentiality statute of the state of Alaska."
Number 0113
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Would you be comforted if there
were some accompanying legislation requiring confidentiality on the
part of law enforcement officers?"
MS. WIEFFERING replied, "I would feel better about that. I don't
think that's the answer. I just think that ... this legislation
isn't necessary. But I would feel better if, indeed, you felt that
it must happen, that people within the system besides us were
mandated by law to maintain confidentiality, and that would include
all employees of law enforcement departments, not just the officers
but the dispatchers and other administrative staff as well."
Number 0178
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "You don't have to answer this next
question if you don't want; I'm just curious. If this law were to
pass, do you feel strongly enough as a victim advocate that you'd
be willing to commit an act of civil disobedience and withhold
information from law enforcement if you felt it would jeopardize
your client?"
MS. WIEFFERING replied, "Our agency policy is that we do not
violate the law. But I would feel compelled to make it very public
knowledge, to anyone who would seek services in a domestic violence
shelter, the danger and risk of doing so based on that legislation.
I don't think women would come to us if this passed."
Number 0284
ROBIN F. LOWN, Vice President, Alaska Peace Officers Association,
came forward to testify, advising members he is a retired Alaska
State Trooper who retired as commander of Southeast Alaska "A"
Detachment after 23-1/2 years of service. He discussed
circumstances of a case about which he had some personal knowledge.
It involved nondisclosure by a women's shelter and a woman reported
as missing. A search was launched; considerable time and money -
approximately $14,000 - were spent looking for the individual. Mr.
Lown stated, "Because of the circumstances, we had reason to
believe that she may have gone to the shelter. We asked the
shelter. The shelter's response was, 'We won't tell you yea or
nay, either/or,' which caused us to look further and continue our
search. Eventually, we did determine that she had been at the
shelter. At that point, we did call off the search. That search
involved helicopters, lots of people out in the bushes looking
around, it endangered people's lives. And it was just a matter of
the local shelter telling us that they knew where she was and that
she was safe. And they would not do that."
Number 0425
MR. LOWN stated, "So, law enforcement supports this bill. It asks
a pretty simple question: Do you know where this person is, and is
this person safe?" He said the only answer has to be, "We know the
person is not missing." The shelter doesn't have to say where the
person is or anything else, which in the case Mr. Lown had
described would have stopped that big search.
MR. LOWN said he had heard from several people in law enforcement,
around the state, that communication doesn't always exist, for one
reason or another, between shelters and law enforcement people.
For example, personnel at a shelter and in law enforcement may not
see eye-to-eye and communicate well, and they may not communicate
when it would be appropriate to do so. Mr. Lown concluded by
restating the belief that all this bill requires is a simple
question from law enforcement and a simple answer from the shelter.
Number 0520
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "And I appreciate what law
enforcement does, and don't get me wrong with where I'm going on
this. But you mentioned one instance. Were there other instances
where the shelters were cooperative and were able to communicate to
you that the missing person was safe or otherwise accounted for?"
MR. LOWN replied, "That is the only missing person case where it
involved a search and rescue, that I know of. There's all kinds of
other things that aren't addressed in this particular bill, as far
as trying to find victims in domestic violence shelters for other
legitimate law enforcement reasons, and shelters often will not
communicate."
Number 0585
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Some of the previous witnesses
have mentioned instances where law enforcement officers have
perpetrated domestic violence; how would you respond to their
concerns?"
MR. LOWN replied that a law enforcement officer would have to have
a legitimate reason to ask these questions. He said, "As was
stated, sworn officers have to abide by a code of ethics. They
would be responsible for their actions. If I, as a commander or as
a chief of police, found out that one of my officers was misusing
this, there would be an investigation; and if it was substantiated,
action would be taken - disciplinary action - and, depending on the
circumstances, could result in the termination of that person."
Number 0661
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that the bill addresses some very
rare instances. He asked, "In those instances where law
enforcement is the perpetrator, there would be nothing to prevent
the perpetrator from going to a domestic violence (DV) shelter and
inquiring about the whereabouts of the victim, is there?"
MR. LOWN said there would be nothing to prevent that. However, the
question under this statute would be, "Do you know where this
person is? We have a missing persons report." And the shelter
would only state knowledge - or lack of knowledge - of that
person's safety.
Number 0736
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that on page 3, line 27, it says
"may." He said this gives permission to the shelters for those
shelters that thought they could not do this. It would leave some
discretion to a counselor in a case like that presented.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Kelly whether that was
intentional, for that reason.
Number 0790
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied, "Yes, there's some thoughts about
going to a 'shall' on that, and that is not before us at this
point. But the more I look at this, the more it probably is
appropriate to have a 'may' in there, because, to answer the
counselor from Palmer, ... [Ms. Limmer], what she is doing is
exactly what we would hope all the shelters would do. This bill
simply gives the council the ability to promulgate regulations so
that they're all playing from the same sheet of music."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said this "may" gives the shelter the
discretion to address a concern, for example, about a personal
relationship involving the officer who is there. All it does is
allow everybody to do what the counselors are doing who are doing
it right. But the council has not promulgated regulations in such
a manner that everyone knows what the rules are, he concluded.
Number 0861
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault, came forward to testify. She read the following
into the record:
"Long before states enacted confidentiality statutes, and before
the federal government required confidentiality of its grantees,
women providing safety for other women knew of the importance of
confidentiality. Providing safehouses - sanctuary - for battered
women is at the heart of the shelter movement, and a fundamental
element of providing that sanctuary is practicing confidentiality.
"Often just to stay alive, a woman must give up her home, her
possessions, her job, her friends, even her identity, and go into
hiding. All ties to her past life have to be severed or she risks
being found by the person who is battering her and threatening to
kill her. Safehouses for battered women are analogous to the
Underground Railroad used to assist slaves in gaining their
freedom.
"The period of time immediately following escape is the most
dangerous. According to recent FBI [Federal Bureau of
Investigation] statistics, three-fourths of domestic violence
homicides occur during this time. Batterers use any and all means
at their disposal to track down their victims. They search
relatives' homes; they call friends; they stalk co-workers; they
call hospitals; they call transportation centers such as airports,
buses, taxes; they call the shelters. They have their female
friends call these places. And, yes, they also contact law
enforcement and file missing persons reports.
"Fortunately, this last tactic doesn't seem yet to be a tactic of
choice in Alaska. Of all the missing persons reports filed during
the last year, only twelve involved contact from law enforcement to
advocacy programs. Of those twelve, ten were handled to the
satisfaction of both of the local agencies. Unfortunately, we're
here today because of the two that were problematic to law
enforcement, and an incident that Mr. Lown spoke about briefly that
happened in Juneau some 11 years ago, in 1986. These three
incidents should not dictate a change in public policy that will,
we believe, have as its effect an increase in missing persons
reports filed by batterers as they learn of this new tool at their
disposal."
Number 1001
MS. HUGONIN continued: "Approximately ten states have an absolute
privilege [that] victims of domestic violence or sexual assault can
assert. In 1992, when Alaska enacted confidentiality provisions,
the legislature at that time decided against an absolute privilege.
The discussion focused on the balance necessary between protecting
a victim's confidentiality and the state's interest in responding
to criminal acts of child abuse, criminal acts committed by
victims, and a program's ability to defend itself from a civil suit
brought by a victim. After much thoughtful debate and compromise,
eight exceptions were added to the statute to cover these
situations. We don't believe it's in the best interest of victims
to add further exceptions to the statute.
"As Alaskans, shelter workers understand the serious nature of
searching for overdue or missing persons. Some of us have engaged
in searches ourselves. It is not the intent of anyone to cause a
needless search, and steps are taken to try and prevent such a
situation. Victims are informed of the possibility of having a
missing persons report filed by their perpetrators and are given
information about ways to address the report if the shelter were to
be contacted by law enforcement. In the few instances when
shelters have been contacted about a missing persons report, either
the victim has called law enforcement herself or she has signed a
waiver giving permission to the shelter to inform law enforcement
that she's not missing. ... In circumstances where confirmation is
not forthcoming, it's because victims believe their lives would be
forfeit if anyone knew they were not missing.
"Most areas of the state have been able to deal with these
infrequent situations locally, as they arise. We believe local
control of interactions between law enforcement and victim service
programs should be encouraged and maintained. It's the first
responders and direct service providers that must find ways to work
together with each other, so that victims can get the protection
that they need.
"Victims of domestic violence seem to be a minority of those people
who are reported missing in Alaska. They are the best judges of
the danger to which they would expose themselves if they were found
'not missing,' and that judgment should be respected. In the few
instances where a missing persons report is filed concerning a
victim of domestic violence, most local law enforcement and victim
service programs have been able to successfully resolve the
situation.
"We believe that more will be lost than gained by adding a further
exemption to the victim-victim counselor privilege, and would ask
that House Bill 267 not be advanced from the committee."
Number 1148
MS. HUGONIN referred to an earlier question from Representative
Porter about applicable federal laws; she said there are two that
go through regulation. The Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) provides
funding directly to services that provide shelter to crime victims;
in the state of Alaska, currently a little over $700,000 goes to
programs to provide those services, and they have requirements that
require programs to keep confidential information about people that
they would serve. There is also the federal Family Violence
Prevention and Service Act, which has the same sort of
confidentiality requirements. Ms. Hugonin offered to forward a
copy of the statutes to the committee.
Number 1208
MS. HUGONIN next addressed an earlier question from Chairman Green
about officer confidentiality. Asking to be corrected if she was
wrong, she stated her understanding that during an active
investigation, there is no confidentiality provision in place; if
there is an active missing persons investigation ongoing, and if
there is information received that this person is not missing, it
wouldn't fall under a particular confidentiality of law
enforcement.
Number 1236
MS. HUGONIN then addressed an earlier question from Representative
Berkowitz involving cases where domestic violence workers would not
want information divulged. Noting that several examples had been
brought forward, she said another example is that sometimes a woman
says she is going to a shelter and in fact goes elsewhere, to a
family member's house or friend's house or out of state, knowing
that will buy some time to get to this place of safety. As long as
the perpetrator believes the person is in shelter, she has the
freedom to make those other arrangement. Ms. Hugonin suggested
that if a shelter cannot confirm that a woman isn't missing, a
perpetrator may be able to guess where else the woman has gone.
Number 1292
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that as he reads it, the bill
doesn't ask that information be given about whether the victim is
or isn't in the shelter, or about her whereabouts. The only thing
being asked for is whether that person is missing or not. He
suggested if the desire of the victim is to pretend to be in the
shelter, that ruse would not be violated by this if the shelter
only confirmed that the person isn't missing.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that he knows what he would do with
an officer who violated his oath of office and divulged information
that he gained through his employment. He then stated the belief
that it wouldn't be inappropriate to put in here that when they
receive this information, law enforcement is prohibited from
releasing that outside of the agency, period.
MS. HUGONIN said that would add a degree of comfort.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether Ms. Hugonin was saying that
federal law would now disallow this bill from becoming state law.
Number 1387
MS. HUGONIN replied, "I don't think I can answer that. But what I
was saying is that there are federal regulations placed on programs
who receive federal funding, both through VOCA and through the
Family Violence Prevention and Service Act."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether it is Ms. Hugonin's
interpretation of all of those that this would be disallowed by
federal law.
MS. HUGONIN replied, "I think that if people were to follow that,
they wouldn't be able to get the federal funding. Is that what you
mean by disallow?"
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said yes.
Number 1413
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked for confirmation that it isn't a
"federal blanket requirement superseding our statutes"; rather, it
is, "If you want our money, you have to agree to keep it
confidential."
MS. HUGONIN said that is her understanding, yes.
Number 1425
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed appreciation for Representative
Porter's comments about extending the zone of confidentiality to
law enforcement. He said that was one of the things he himself was
concerned about. He asked Ms. Hugonin, "Would your complaints
about the bill be alleviated somewhat if there was no requirement
of communications if there was some suspicion that law enforcement
was somehow perpetrating the domestic violence?"
MS. HUGONIN replied, "Probably yes, although our concerns are not
limited to law enforcement officers being perpetrators."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained he was trying to narrow the zone
of concern. He then said as he recalls it, there are four areas of
confidentiality under the law: doctor-patient, spousal, attorney-client, and p
that is correct; Representative Croft nodded his assent.
Representative Berkowitz then posed a scenario where a victim of
domestic violence had gone to her priest and asked for sanctuary in
the church.
MS. HUGONIN responded, "They would not be required to report to law
enforcement whether or not someone was missing."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested that law enforcement would still
have to go through a search.
MS. HUGONIN responded, "Exactly. The same with lawyers, same with
physicians, same with psychotherapists, who are the other category
that have a privilege, who probably get more individuals coming to
them, not just victims of domestic violence but anyone who would
then go missing. So, they probably have more access to that
information."
Number 1520
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "And in those instances of
confidentiality, it can involve more than missing, it can involve
actual crime?"
MS. HUGONIN said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Which is posing an ongoing
danger?"
MS. HUGONIN replied, "Yes. The victim-victim counselor privilege
is less restrictive or stringent than the privileges you just
mentioned. They have far fewer exceptions than this one does."
Number 1536
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated his belief that Ms. Hugonin's
testimony conflicted regarding whether this bill would put in
jeopardy the federal funds. As he first heard her testimony, if
there was an ongoing investigation, their cooperation with the
police would not jeopardize those funds. Then, when Representative
Porter had asked about the potential of the funds being
jeopardized, there was a different response. Representative
Rokeberg requested clarification.
Number 1570
MS. HUGONIN explained, "If I did not separate it out into two
concepts, I apologize; the funding matter was a separate matter
from the officer confidentiality. The funding matter has to do
with two federal sources of funding: VOCA and the Family Violence
Prevention and Service Act. And it's my understanding that you
cannot receive funds from those two sources if you are going to
release confidential information. They have requirements that you
keep confidential information about victims."
MS. HUGONIN continued, "What I was trying to say about the
confidentiality with respect to an ongoing investigation had to do
with police officers and whether or not they were bound to keep
confidential information that they had received from other sources
during an active investigation. And it's my understanding that
during active investigations, they are not."
Number 1633
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said if this will cause the federal funds to
be in jeopardy, then they are already in jeopardy now from the
other domestic violence shelters that they'd heard from, because
the bill only asks them to do what they are already doing.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that he had provided the
federal law in the memorandum dated January 30, 1998, included in
bill packets.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG excused himself to chair another meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he thinks the law refers to making these
public, and he doesn't think telling a police officer is making
something public. He stated, "And later on, it talks about release
of statistical information, and I don't think this is necessarily
in the same boat."
Number 1699
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested there may be a distinction if
federal law requires confidentiality and what the shelters are
doing now is asking the owner of the privilege whether she wants
them to reveal information. He explained, "You're not violating a
federal requirement of confidentiality if you get the permission of
the person. It's still confidential. They still have those
confidential rights. If they decide to waive them, that's up to
them. This would, I think, put a new twist on it by saying, 'Even
if you don't have the permission of the person, you can go ahead
and do it.' So, I guess I'm trying to get to that aspect of the
federal law." He said "made public" may have a different meaning
than divulging to police officers, but "we could very well be under
... the [confidentiality] practice under federal law and not under
this statute."
Number 1753
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thinks under state law, that is
absolutely correct, "that that 'without appropriate consent' is in
the state law, as is listed here on this memorandum." He said his
understanding of the federal law, though, varies. He said he knows
that there are at least some confidentiality requirements in
federal law that are absolute, regardless of consent; without a lot
of research, he wouldn't know whether this is one of those or not.
However, he would be very surprised if the federal law is
inconsistent with this proposed statute; it is not asking for
information such as a name, date of birth, where the person is,
when she checked in, or any of those other kinds of things that
could put that person in jeopardy. He stated, "It's just saying,
'Do we need to cause potential harm to other people - and a lot of
resources that could well be spent protecting other folks - or
not?' And that's the only thing it's asking for."
Number 1813
MS. HUGONIN responded, "And we appreciate Representative Kelly's
efforts and attempts to try to resolve it without legislation. And
I guess what the network is interested in is seeing that happen, is
that there be more work, so that people are comfortable that local
law enforcement and local victims programs have worked out
protocols to be able to handle these rare situations when they come
forward, without legislation."
MS. HUGONIN said that certainly before there were statutes in
Alaska and other states, shelter workers unfortunately did have
occasion to be civilly disobedient because there was no protection
of confidentiality. Ms. Hugonin stated, "And although Ms.
Wieffering indicated that she would not, I don't know that that
would be a constant across the state. I think we would be asking
people, then, to make a determination about exactly that, which was
the more critical factor. And so, that would be a problem that we
would hope to avoid, and that I think in good faith we do try to
avoid."
Number 1873
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said back to the original point, there are
some shelters that will not establish protocols. This bill
encourages the council to promulgate regulations so that all the
shelters will establish protocols. He commented, "And if you are
against this bill, then you'd better shut down Palmer and Anchorage
and a few other places that are doing exactly what this bill is
asking them all to do."
Number 1892
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ disagreed, saying it seems that what
Anchorage and Palmer do, they do voluntarily. "And what we've
trusted them to do so far is to act with discretion," he stated,
suggesting that in a way, this bill is a question about how much
discretion they will endow front-line players to have. He said it
is a question of providing institutional parameters through
legislation, as opposed to endowing people who, he believes, are
genuinely of good faith to use their discretion. Representative
Berkowitz said he tends to come down on the side of letting those
who have good faith exercise their discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ emphasized that no one is saying here that
the troopers, law enforcement, or domestic violence workers are
somehow acting in bad faith. He said, "What we have here is a
collision of interests, in very few instances. And I think what we
ought to do here is let those people who have to do the job figure
out the best way of handling it, rather than institutionalizing a
response to it."
Number 1960
CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled during the Nineteenth Legislature there
were similar problems with the Division of Family and Youth
Services (DFYS) and other agencies disclosing information about
minors. While it appeared they we were up against an
insurmountable problem for a while, it then seemed to be
reconciled. He said he was wondering whether that couldn't also be
accomplished here; everybody, it seems, is looking toward the same
ultimate objective, to try to protect everyone as inexpensively as
possible, not to frivolously use resources when a simple statement
could be made that the victim is safe. He asked whether Ms.
Hugonin's understanding is similar, that maybe if they can work
through the dilemma, the objectives are the same.
MS. HUGONIN replied, "Yes. And I think that in most of the parts
of the state, it has been worked through successfully. And if we
need to provide more focused attention in one area of the state,
then ... we are certainly willing to sit down and to do that. I
think with training and protocols, it can be worked out."
Number 2022
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested that before the next hearing, the
committee should determine whether there are federal requirements
that would invalidate this bill, causing the state to lose funding
if this bill became law.
Number 2051
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER concluded by making the following statement
to everyone who had testified that day, asking that the message be
carried to anyone who was not still listening: "If there is any
shelter in any part of this state that has ever had a problem that
they were not immediately able to work out regarding the accusation
of domestic violence involving a police officer or a policy
employee, please let me know. It will be worked out."
Number 2080
SANDRA M. STONE, Project Coordinator, Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, came forward to
testify, noting that many of her comments had already been stated.
She specified that she was there to express the council's
opposition to HB 267. They do not believe it is necessary to add
this exception for missing persons.
MS. STONE explained, "As other people have stated, it feels like
this bill was introduced in response to an incident in one area of
the state, in a couple different instances that had happened there.
In the past ten years, this is the only area where we've found that
it's been an issue, other than the one incident here in Juneau back
in '86. We also believe that there has been some work done ...
between that shelter program and law enforcement, and the council
continues to check in, back with them, to try to see if there is
any suggestions how we can help with that, with that issue, with
them. It just feels like the legislation to address one problem in
one area doesn't seem to be necessary or effective."
Number 2141
MS. STONE said it also brings up serious concerns about victim
safety, as well as perhaps the victim's perceived sense of safety.
She told the following story: "I was the shelter director in
Valdez for five years, and there is an example that comes to mind
very strongly as we've talked about this issue. There was a woman
in our community who married a retired law enforcement officer.
Within less than a month after their wedding, he seriously beat her
up in front of a local restaurant. When she came into the shelter,
one of her first comments was she would not be there if someone
else had not called 911. The officer who came ... on the scene had
been at their wedding; so was every officer in the police
department when she went in ... to make her statement."
MS. STONE continued her story: "The officers there, I believed,
were all good officers, but in her mind, her batterer had already
convinced her that they were all his best buddies, never in the
world, even if there were witnesses from people in the restaurant
watching him beat her up -- that his word would hold true over
hers, and that he would not be held accountable. And, in fact, the
case was thrown out of court, unfortunately."
MS. STONE concluded, "It just feels like, again, it would be
another tool that batterers could use to manipulate their victims,
either by filing false missing persons reports or even using that
a threat with their victims, 'You leave and I'll file a missing
persons report, and then the police will be after you.'" Ms. Stone
emphasized that the issue of perceived problems, with victims who
believe the police are being used against them, had not been
mentioned that day but needs to be considered.
Number 2258
MS. WIEFFERING spoke again via teleconference. She thanked
Representative Porter for his concern about taking care of police
officers who are perpetrators; she said these are often the most
dangerous perpetrators and have the most to lose. She explained,
"They've already violated the law, and for that information to be
divulged to the police in any way, or to reveal the victim's
whereabouts, I mean sometimes that woman simply has to disappear to
save her life." Ms. Wieffering said this greatly concerns her in
terms of being able to provide a safe place for such a woman, and
it may be the only place that woman can go where the man can't
find her.
MS. WIEFFERING concluded by saying she'd had the privilege of
participating in the recent Governor's domestic violence summit.
She said much good work came out of that. One of the criteria used
to make recommendations for action in improving our state response
to domestic violence is the question: Does this action place
victims at further risk? "I believe that HB 267 does place victims
at further risk and should therefore not be passed," Ms. Wieffering
concluded.
CHAIRMAN GREEN thanked Ms. Wieffering and announced that HB 267
would be held over and heard again.
HB 12 - IMMUNITY FOR EQUINE ACTIVITIES
Number 2306
CHAIRMAN GREEN briefly brought before the committee HB 12, "An Act
relating to civil liability for injuries or death resulting from
equine activities." However, the committee was out of time.
Chairman Green indicated HB 12 would be held over and heard again
soon.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2326
CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|