02/14/2001 01:13 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 14, 2001
1:13 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jeannette James
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 13
"An Act relating to municipal service areas and providing for
voter approval of the formation, alteration, or abolishment of
certain service areas."
- MOVED CSSSHB 13(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 52
"An Act relating to the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender
Supervision and the State Council for Interstate Adult Offender
Supervision; amending Rules 4 and 24, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 13
SHORT TITLE:SERVICE AREAS:VOTER APPROVAL/TAX ZONES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)BUNDE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0027 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0027 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0027 (H) CRA, FIN
01/10/01 0056 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
01/12/01 0066 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
01/12/01 0066 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/12/01 0066 (H) CRA, FIN
01/25/01 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
01/25/01 (H) Heard & Held
01/25/01 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
01/30/01 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
01/30/01 (H) Moved SSHB 13 Out of
Committee
MINUTES(CRA)
01/31/01 0209 (H) CRA RPT 2DP 1DNP 4NR
01/31/01 0209 (H) DP: SCALZI, MORGAN; DNP:
KERTTULA;
01/31/01 0209 (H) NR: HALCRO, MURKOWSKI, GUESS,
MEYER
01/31/01 0209 (H) FN1: ZERO (CED)
01/31/01 0209 (H) ADDITIONAL REFERRAL TO JUD
01/31/01 0209 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED AFTER CRA
01/31/01 0209 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
02/05/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/05/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTES(JUD)
02/14/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 52
SHORT TITLE:COMPACT FOR ADULT OFFENDER SUPERVISION
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/10/01 0053 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/10/01 0053 (H) JUD, FIN
01/10/01 0054 (H) FN1: (COR)
01/10/01 0054 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
01/10/01 0054 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
02/05/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/05/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/14/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SSHB 13.
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff
to Representative Rokeberg
House Judiciary Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on the constitutional
aspects of SSHB 13.
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator
Office of the Commissioner - Juneau
Department of Corrections
240 Main Street, Suite 700
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 52 on behalf of the department
and answered questions.
MICHAEL J. STARK, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 52 on behalf of the department
and answered questions.
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 52.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-18, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:13 p.m. Representatives
Rokeberg, Ogan, Coghill, and Meyer were present at the call to
order. Representatives Berkowitz and Kookesh arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 13 - SERVICE AREAS:VOTER APPROVAL/TAX ZONES
Number 0029
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would
be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 13, "An Act relating to
municipal service areas and providing for voter approval of the
formation, alteration, or abolishment of certain service areas."
[Adopted as a work draft at the previous hearing was version 22-
LS0164\F, Cook, 2/3/01.]
Number 0147
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
began his opening remarks by acknowledging the presence, at the
last hearing on the proposed CS, of one of the members of the
Constitutional [Convention, former Senator Fischer]. He felt
sure that all of the members of the Constitutional Convention
would have agreed that the Alaska State Constitution was a
living document, and that it spoke very strongly to checks and
balances. In his view, the proposed CS was about checks and
balances; it would allow local folks to check the power of local
government if they wish. Power should lie with the voter and
not with local government. The key issue in the proposed CS was
local government and local control, and how to define local
control. He noted that the committee had already heard dueling
legal opinions, but he put far more faith in the opinion of the
legislature's attorney. He added that nothing was
unconstitutional until it was found to be so by the Alaska
Supreme Court. He commented that legislative will should be
taken into account, and that the legislature was responsive to
its constituency. He reminded the committee that this was not
just a parochial issue - people in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-
Su) valley and in Fairbanks also had a very strong interest.
CHAIR ROKEBERG observed that the committee had recently received
a letter from Mr. Gatti, attorney for the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, and a letter from Larry DeVilbiss.
Number 0513
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Rokeberg, House
Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, provided
comments on the constitutional aspects of the proposed CS. It
was her belief that the proposed CS was constitutionally sound.
In 1974, the Alaska Supreme Court found, with regard to Article
X, Section 11, of the state constitution, that while home rule
powers were intended to be broadly applied, they were not
intended to be preeminent; the legislature could dictate how
they wanted it done. [The legislature] could bring forth rules
that limit those powers.
Number 0590
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to Alaska's Constitutional
Convention, page 121, regarding the structure of government that
reads as follows: "In all cases, however, service areas were to
be creatures of boroughs and function under borough fiscal
control." He asked Ms. Nobrega how this fits under her
analysis.
MS. NOBREGA offered that Article X, Section 5, of the
constitution, states that [a service area] is subject to the
provisions of law or charter, and that is what the proposed CS
is doing. It creates a law that would rule how the service
areas were implemented. She said she would agree, however, with
Representative Berkowitz, that it is possible for something to
be constitutionally permissible, yet contrary to the spirit of
the drafters [of the Alaska State Constitution].
Number 0704
CHAIR ROKEBERG confirmed that this was a very difficult issue,
it was not a clear-cut case and there were splits of opinion.
He was taken with the message from Mr. DeVilbiss that stated:
"HB 13 is good for the little guys in service areas who have at
least a little control over what is good for them. That is
good," and felt the statement encapsulated the whole issue. He
agreed with Representative Berkowitz that there was not a clear-
cut area from which to interpret this constitutionally.
However, from the preponderance of evidence heard, coupled with
the opinion of Legislative Legal Services, he believed it
indicated that [the proposed CS] was constitutional.
Furthermore, the legislature had a responsibility, and certainly
the right, to enact legislation in areas that may be gray.
Number 0764
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
which read:
Page 1, line 4 through page 2, line 23
Delete all material
Renumber following sections accordingly
Number 0821
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. During the following
discussion, he said Amendment 1 would be contrary to what they
were trying to enact in the title and would also go against the
sponsor's recommendations. In addition, service districts in
the Fairbanks area would no longer have assistance in obtaining
some degree of authority.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned that it was his understanding
that Amendment 1 would receive widespread support in Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL countered that he did not think anyone in
his district had had the opportunity to address what would be
left of the proposed CS, should Amendment 1 be adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE added that he had spoken with a road area
supervisor from the Fairbanks area, Mr. Frank, who was adamant
that, for their needs, the proposed CS needed to include the
provisions that Amendment 1 would remove.
Number 1069
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Meyer, Berkowitz,
and Kookesh voted for Amendment 1. Representatives Rokeberg,
Ogan, and Coghill voted against Amendment 1. [Representative
James was absent.] Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of
3-3.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER explained that while the bill was before
the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee,
many of the same discussions took place. He acknowledged that
some members of his constituency were opposed to the proposed
CS. However, because he felt that ultimately, the courts would
have to resolve the constitutional issues, he would be voting to
move the proposed CS out of committee.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that it would be a very difficult vote for
him. Despite this, he was going to support moving the proposed
CS out of committee. He believed it did have the constitutional
foundation to be passed. He had voted for similar legislation
in the past, but it was still a difficult decision because he
understood the municipality's concerns.
Number 1163
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report the proposed CS for SSHB
13, version 22-LS0164\F, Cook, 2/3/01, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
Number 1175
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN acknowledged that while there were
conflicting opinions on the constitutionality of the proposed
CS, he had confidence in his own ability to sense constitutional
problems. In addition, he said he put great faith in the
opinion of Tam Cook, the legislature's legal counsel.
Number 1252
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rokeberg, Ogan,
Meyer, and Coghill voted in favor of moving the proposed CS for
SSHB 13, version 22-LS0164\F, Cook, 2/3/01. Representatives
Berkowitz and Kookesh voted against it. [Representative James
was absent.] Therefore, CSSSHB 13(JUD) was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
HB 52 - COMPACT FOR ADULT OFFENDER SUPERVISION
Number 1291
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 52, "An Act relating to the Interstate Compact
for Adult Offender Supervision and the State Council for
Interstate Adult Offender Supervision; amending Rules 4 and 24,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
Number 1312
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner
- Juneau, Department of Corrections, presented HB 52. She
explained that HB 52 was an effort to repeal the current
interstate compact [Interstate Compact for the Supervision of
Parolees and Probationers (ICSPP)] that was enacted in 1937 and
replace it with the new Interstate Compact for Adult Offender
Supervision (ICAOS). The ICSPP governed the state-to-state
transfer and supervision of parolees and probationers. It was a
reciprocal agreement between states to exchange parolees and
probationers, and to continue their needed supervision. The
current compact is outdated. In addition, nationally, there
were now approximately 250,000 probationers and parolees
crossing state borders. Thus, this outdated system had become
overwhelmed.
MS. BROWER informed the committee that the Council of State
Governments (CSG) and the National Institute of Corrections
(NIC) had made an effort to update the current ICSPP; however,
they determined that was not feasible because it was just too
far out of date. Instead, the new ICAOS was created, and to
date, nine states had enacted legislation to adopt it. In order
for the ICAOS to take effect, it would have to be adopted by 35
states. She noted that an advantage to being amongst the first
states to adopt the ICAOS would be the opportunity to help set
the national regulations regarding how the ICAOS operated.
Number 1406
MS. BROWER expressed concern that there should be enforceable
regulations regarding the transfer and supervision of parolees
and probationers, but the current ICSPP was basically a
gentlemen's agreement that allowed offenders to fall between the
cracks. The adoption of the new ICAOS would establish a
mechanism for all states, and offenders, to be held accountable
through monitoring, data tracking systems, and increased
required victim notification. Under the current ICSPP, there
were times when states didn't come to an agreement on
supervision of a released offender, yet the offender was
released and sent to the other state anyway, without any
accountability. The adoption of the new ICAOS would ensure that
the sending state and the receiving state came to an agreement
before the offender was released. In addition, the new ICAOS
provided for the formation of an Interstate Commission (IC) that
would resolve disputes between states.
MS. BROWER mentioned that because Alaska exported more offenders
than it imported, it would benefit a great deal from the
adoption of the new ICAOS. She gave an example of someone who
had served his or her sentence after committing a crime in
Alaska, and was eligible for supervised release. If that person
felt his or her chances and opportunity of success were greater
in another state because family and friends resided there, that
person could apply to be supervised by officials in another
state. In order to do that, that person would first apply to
Alaska's interstate compact office. The application would then
be reviewed by the receiving state and sent to the area where
the offender planned to go. That area's supervising office
would investigate the application and ensure that the offender
had a job and family or suitable placement. If approved, the
offender would also be responsible for abiding by conditions set
by both the sending state and receiving state.
Number 1600
MS. BROWER, in response to questions by Representative
Berkowitz, estimated that Alaska had sent approximately 400
probationers out of state. She did not anticipate the number
going up under the new ICAOS, but she believed it would provide
for better supervision and enforcement of Alaska's offenders in
other states. And under the new ICAOS, extradition would become
easier.
Number 1653
MICHAEL J. STARK, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, added that
there might be a receiving state that unreasonably denied a
request to transfer interstate supervision. The new ICAOS would
be enacting rules that would allow the sending state to enforce
the compact and require the receiving state to take the person
if he or she met the criteria. The new ICAOS would also prevent
one state from "dumping" an offender in another state when there
was a legitimate reason to refuse the request to transfer
interstate supervision. In instances where an offender was
transferred without permission from the receiving state, which
has happened under the current ICSPP, that person did not
receive supervision from either the sending or receiving state.
The new ICAOS would provide for revenues to deal with enforcing
supervision and, where needed, to enforce the sending state to
take the offender back and continue supervision. The new ICAOS
provided for accountability of all people that moved between
states, which did not adequately exist under the current ICSPP.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the state would have a part in
the IC, or would the state establish a member body in Alaska
that would interact with the IC.
MR. STARK clarified that the ICAOS would be adopted as is. The
ICAOS could not be modified because it was a contract with other
states. What the ICAOS provided for was an IC, and all
compacting states would have a voting member in the IC. That
voting member would become the compact administrator for the
state. Most states have independent county probation
departments, so those states would have a number of compact
administrators and must select one of them to represent their
state on the IC. In Alaska, which had only one Department of
Corrections, there would be only one compact administrator.
That person would sit on Alaska's state council and would also
represent Alaska on the IC. The state council would be a body
of seven persons with five voting members, one nonvoting member
from the legislature, and one nonvoting member from the
judiciary; the compact requires that all three branches of
government be represented on the state council. The state
council would advise the legislature, make recommendations, and
implement the provisions of the compact in so far as ensuring
compliance with rules the IC adopted.
Number 1839
MS. BROWER verified for Representative Coghill that the fiscal
note reflected travel costs for members of the state council, as
well as for the person who would represent Alaska in the IC.
MR. STARK clarified for Representative Coghill that language in
Article III of the ICAOS created the IC and spoke about the
state council, and that language regarding the powers and duties
of the IC was found in Article IV. He explained that the state
council was created outside of the ICAOS, through Section 3 of
HB 52, which set out the membership and responsibilities of the
state council.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, with regard to the nonvoting
member from the judiciary on the state council, if [the
language] had been vetted through the defense bar.
Number 1990
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency, Department of Administration, testified via
teleconference. He answered Representative Berkowitz's
questions by saying that [the Public Defender Agency] had not
asked to be on a council like this because of potential conflict
of interest, for example, if the council made regulations that
denied somebody the chance to go out of state, and [the Public
Defender Agency] was representing that person. He said,
however, that [the Public Defender Agency] hoped to have input
if they had particular concerns.
Number 2058
MR. STARK, in response to Representative Rokeberg, said that
though the ICAOS required all three branches of government to be
involved in the state council, Section 3 of HB 52 was drafted to
ensure separation of powers; thus the members from the
legislature and judiciary were nonvoting members. He emphasized
that all branches of government needed to stay involved because
of the pervasive problems associated with having so many
offenders crossing state lines. He said concerns about such
things as Megan's Law and sex offender registration were taking
[the country] in the direction of national data systems that
would keep track of offenders wherever they were. He added that
the ICAOS required that the IC file an annual report that would
keep all the state legislatures and governors apprised of the
business of the ICAOS. He did not anticipate adversarial issues
arising in the state council.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Brower to provide a short
narrative analysis of what the existing circumstances were, and
what the new ICAOS would do for the state. The analysis should
show why the State of Alaska should enter into a compact with
other states. He also asked what is done now in terms of
interstate intercourse with other jurisdictions, and how the
state currently speaks to those jurisdictions.
MS. BROWER answered that currently there was an interstate
office that had a compact administrator who processed all
applications.
MR. STARK clarified that the position of compact administrator
already existed; HB 52 would simply repeal the existing ICSPP
and replace it with the new ICAOS.
Number 2186
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH commented that he saw they had two
choices: to join the new ICAOS or stay with the old 1937 ICSPP.
He said he felt that if every other state adopted the new ICAOS
and Alaska maintained the old ICSPP, then Alaska would look
pretty ridiculous. He also said that they must recognize that
[Alaska] had to join modern society, and they should just go
forward with [the adoption of the ICAOS].
Number 2225
MR. STARK explained for Representative Ogan that the ICAOS was
drafted so that 35 states must enact the ICAOS before it becomes
effective. He supposed it was a somewhat arbitrary number - it
was simply the number chosen by the body that drafted the ICAOS.
He said that currently there are 9 or 10 states that have
enacted the ICAOS, and many other states have similar
legislation before them. He confirmed that it is federal
authority that allows for the compact, as well as for states to
enter into interstate compacts.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the ICAOS was an
agreement between the states, not an agreement mandated by the
federal government and then imposed on the states. Also, this
is considered normal commerce between states.
CHAIR ROKEBERG added that the action of a compact is provided
for in the United States Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN voiced concern over language he felt gave
the ICAOS the ability to pass laws that the state must abide by.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that the ICAOS had the force of
law only because it was essentially a contract that the state
entered into.
Number 2384
MR. STARK added that also, should the legislature adopt the
ICAOS, it would become part of state statute, and thereby
require Alaska to follow any rules adopted by the IC. He
pointed out that this was one of the enforcement mechanisms that
dealt with states when they did not follow the rules. The IC
could go into court and get a court order that forces a state to
abide by the rules the IC set. He pointed out that the language
regarding the binding effects of the ICAOS is found on page 19,
Article XIII. He added that the ICAOS did provide for states to
ask for legal interpretations from the IC. In an effort to
allay Representative Ogan's concerns, Mr. Stark referred to
language on page 20 that allowed a state to disregard any
provision of the ICAOS, should it exceed that state's
constitutional limits. Further, should the state find it
untenable to abide by a rule adopted by the IC, the state could
simply withdraw from the ICAOS.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wanted clarification that under the ICAOS,
the legislature would delegate its legislative power to an
interstate compact that had the ability to [make rules that] had
the force of law in Alaska.
Number 2450
MR. STARK countered that the legislature would only delegate
rule-making authority to the IC. The IC would then adopt rules
through the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which included
public notice and an opportunity for public input. In addition,
Alaska would have a member on the IC while it adopted rules.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested that this was akin to, but
not just like, executive branch regulation authority.
CHAIR ROKEBERG added that the ability of the various states to
enter into compacts, and to create rules between them, was what
in large part kept the federal government out of the issue.
TAPE 01-18, SIDE B
Number 2510
MR. STARK noted that the ICAOS would not have any federal
government representation on it.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked what would happen if the minimum of
35 states enacting the ICAOS was not reached.
MR. STARK reiterated that the ICAOS would not take effect unless
a minimum of 35 states ratified it. He directed attention to
page 22, Section 9, which had the language pertaining to the
effective date. If this minimum was never reached, or until it
was reached, the existing ICSPP would still be in effect.
However, he fully expected all the states to adopt the ICAOS at
some point. As Ms. Brower noted before, Mr. Stark felt it was
very important to be amongst the first of the 35 states because,
after the first 12 months of reaching the minimum number of
states, the initial rules of the IC would be adopted. His
concern was that with Alaska being a small rural state, some of
the more populous states might adopt rules that would adversely
impact Alaska. He wanted to ensure that Alaska would have input
as the IC was adopting the initial rules. He also clarified for
Representative Meyer that the costs outlined in the fiscal note
might be lessened after the first year if the IC adopted a rule
permitting participation of members via teleconference.
Number 2427
MS. BROWER commented that the fiscal note also reflected a fee,
based on offender population, that the ICAOS assessed member
states. She did not anticipate any further costs.
MR. STARK outlined some of the criteria used in the formulation
of the fee, and noted that Alaska was in a group of states that
were being assessed the lowest amount. He also emphasized that
ICAOS only applied to persons under supervision for criminal
convictions, not civil convictions. In response to questions by
Representative Coghill, Mr. Stark said that under the existing
ICSPP, there was already an organization of compact
administrators that met annually and, because they felt they
lacked enforcement mechanisms, were the driving force behind the
creation of the new ICAOS. He also noted that many of the rules
under the current ICSPP would be readopted under the new ICAOS,
and that the primary changes would be with the enforcement
provisions of those rules. He did anticipate increased
accountability and tracking. On the point of being amongst the
first 35 states, he expressed a concern that Alaska needed to
initially address a provision that would allow states that don't
have their own misdemeanant supervision to refrain from
supervising another state's transferred misdemeanants. For
example, under the new ICAOS, Alaska would be forced to
supervise transferred misdemeanants if the sending state
normally supervises them, even though Alaska doesn't supervise
its own misdemeanants under formal probation.
Number 2163
MR. STARK expanded on transfer procedures by saying that
currently the sending state sets its own probation conditions
for its offender, who then comes to our state to be supervised.
The receiving state can also impose additional conditions, which
must be reasonable, and the offender must comply with both sets
of conditions. He clarified that in cases of conflict, the
compact administrators resolve the differences. In any case,
the offender and both states are notified of all conditions that
the offender must comply with.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG directed attention to page 5, lines 20-
23. He felt that the language in the ICAOS regarding the
appointment of the compact administrator was ambiguous.
Number 2042
MR. STARK explained that that language was meant to give states
the option of appointing the compact administrator through
either the state council or the governor in consultation with
the legislature and the judiciary. He referred to page 20, line
9, which contained language specific to Alaska, whereby the
governor in consultation with the legislature and the judiciary
shall make the appointment. He noted this was not a
confirmation process; instead, the governor would notify the
legislature and the judiciary of his choice and solicit comments
before finalizing the appointment. He clarified that the
compact administrator was not in a political position; that
person simply enforced interstate supervision rather than made
policy.
MR. STARK defined for Representative Coghill the court rule
language located on page 22. He said it meant that if there was
any litigation anywhere in the country in which the powers and
responsibilities of the IC were raised, the IC had the right to
be served with process and be part of that lawsuit.
Number 1930
MR. McCUNE added that [the Public Defender Agency] saw HB 52 as
an improvement over the present situation. He believed that the
National Institute of Corrections in Washington, D.C., had done
a lot of research and work on this issue. [The Public Defender
Agency] supported HB 52.
Number 1752
CHAIR ROKEBERG advised members that the committee would hold HB
52 over and take it up again as soon as possible. He noted that
Representative Ogan wished to further investigate the
constitutional issues of HB 52. [HB 52 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1694
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|