03/19/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB89 | |
| HB359 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 359 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 19, 2012
2:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Mike Hawker (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 89(JUD)
"An Act clarifying that a legislator or legislative employee is
allowed to accept certain compassionate gifts; allowing
legislators and legislative employees who are representing
persons in an administrative hearing to contact hearing officers
and attempt to influence the outcome of the hearing if they are
professionals licensed in the state, and allowing legislators
and legislative employees who are not professionals licensed in
the state to contact hearing officers for the purpose of
influencing the outcome of the hearing in certain instances;
requiring the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to maintain
a refrain from disclosure under the Legislative Ethics Act;
relating to the applicability of certain provisions of the
Legislative Ethics Act to certain legislative employees,
volunteers, and interns; establishing a seat for an alternate
public member on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics;
clarifying the requirements related to participation by
alternate public members and alternate legislative members in
the proceedings of the committee; amending the definition of
'legislative employee' in the Legislative Ethics Act; and
repealing a procedure for appointment of alternate legislative
members."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 359
"An Act relating to conspiracy to commit human trafficking in
the first degree or sex trafficking in the first degree;
relating to the crime of furnishing indecent material to minors,
the crime of online enticement of a minor, the crime of
prostitution, and the crime of sex trafficking; relating to
forfeiture of property used in prostitution offenses; relating
to sex offender registration; relating to testimony by video
conference; adding Rule 38.3, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 359(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 89
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE ETHICS ACT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) COGHILL
02/16/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/11 (S) STA, JUD
03/15/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/15/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/15/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/31/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/11 (S) Moved CSSB 89(STA) Out of Committee
03/31/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/01/11 (S) STA RPT CS 1DP 4NR NEW TITLE
04/01/11 (S) DP: MEYER
04/01/11 (S) NR: WIELECHOWSKI, KOOKESH, PASKVAN,
GIESSEL
04/11/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/11/11 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/13/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/13/11 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/15/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/15/11 (S) Heard & Held
04/15/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
01/18/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/18/12 (S) Heard & Held
01/18/12 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
01/27/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/27/12 (S) Moved CSSB 89(JUD) Out of Committee
01/27/12 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
01/30/12 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE
01/30/12 (S) DP: FRENCH, COGHILL, PASKVAN
02/08/12 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/08/12 (S) VERSION: CSSB 89(JUD)
02/09/12 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/09/12 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 02/16/12>
02/10/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/10/12 (H) STA, JUD
02/16/12 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/16/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/12 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/06/12 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/06/12 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 89(STA) Out of Committee
03/06/12 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/12 (H) STA RPT HCS(STA) 3DP 1NR
03/08/12 (H) DP: P.WILSON, SEATON, PETERSEN
03/08/12 (H) NR: KELLER
03/19/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 359
SHORT TITLE: SEX CRIMES; TESTIMONY BY VIDEO CONFERENCE
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/22/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/12 (H) JUD, FIN
03/05/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/05/12 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/14/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/14/12 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/16/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/16/12 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/19/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
Senator John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 89 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Coghill.
PAMELA FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the bill drafter, responded to
questions and provided comments during discussion of SB 89.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Alaska State Legislature
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of SB 89.
RICHARD SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General
Central Office
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 359.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to a
question during discussion of HB 359.
DOUGLAS GARDNER, Director
Legal Services
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 359.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:11:17 PM
VICE CHAIR STEVE THOMPSON called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:11 p.m. Representatives
Thompson, Gruenberg, Holmes, Keller, and Pruitt were present at
the call to order. Representative Lynn arrived as the meeting
was in progress. Representative Gatto was excused.
SB 89 - LEGISLATIVE ETHICS ACT
2:11:51 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the first order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 89(JUD), "An Act clarifying that
a legislator or legislative employee is allowed to accept
certain compassionate gifts; allowing legislators and
legislative employees who are representing persons in an
administrative hearing to contact hearing officers and attempt
to influence the outcome of the hearing if they are
professionals licensed in the state, and allowing legislators
and legislative employees who are not professionals licensed in
the state to contact hearing officers for the purpose of
influencing the outcome of the hearing in certain instances;
requiring the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to maintain
a public record of certain ethics disclosures made by
legislators and legislative employees; prohibiting a public
member of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics from
disclosing confidential information without authorization;
clarifying the ethics disclosure requirements for tickets to or
gifts in connection with charity events; amending disclosure
deadlines under the Legislative Ethics Act; relating to requests
to refrain from disclosure under the Legislative Ethics Act;
relating to the applicability of certain provisions of the
Legislative Ethics Act to certain legislative employees,
volunteers, and interns; establishing a seat for an alternate
public member on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics;
clarifying the requirements related to participation by
alternate public members and alternate legislative members in
the proceedings of the committee; amending the definition of
'legislative employee' in the Legislative Ethics Act; and
repealing a procedure for appointment of alternate legislative
members." [Before the committee was HCS CSSB 89(STA).]
2:12:12 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Senator Coghill,
explained that SB 89 - proposing changes to AS 24.60, the
Legislative Ethics Act - is the product of discussions with the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics over the years regarding
certain issues it's had to address. Section 1 of HCS CSSB
89(STA) adds [accepting] compassionate gifts to the list of
exceptions to prohibited conduct, thereby addressing an
oversight that occurred when the legislation regarding
compassionate gifts was initially passed. Section 2 of the bill
provides exceptions to the prohibition against involvement by
legislators and legislative employees in administrative
hearings. Under Section 2, one would be permitted to be
involved in an administrative hearing if one is representing
another person for compensation as a licensed professional; if
one's contact is made in the presence of all parties while one
is acting as a party or a witness or is responding to questions
posed by the adjudicating authority and the contact is made part
of the record; or if one's contact is inadvertent and ex parte
and its fact and substance are promptly disclosed to all parties
and made part of the record. Section 3 defines the term,
"administrative hearing" as that term is used in AS 24.60.030.
MS. MOSS explained that Section 4 eliminates the requirement
that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics compile a list
of financial [disclosure] statements; public access to those
statements must be maintained, however, and the information
included therein must still be forwarded to the presiding
officers for inclusion in the legislative journals. Section 5
adds public members of the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics to the statute prohibiting disclosure of confidential
information. [Sections 6 and 7 together] clarify that tickets
to charity events and any gifts such tickets entitle the bearer
to may be accepted but if from a lobbyist cannot exceed $249.99
in aggregate value in a calendar year. Section 8 provides
conforming changes regarding such charitable items, and extends,
from 30 days to 60 days, the reporting period for disclosing
certain gifts as outlined therein. Section 9 replaces the term,
"trainee", with the term, "legislative intern"; this is a
conforming change that's also been made elsewhere in the bill.
Section 10 adds a new provision stipulating that if one is
required under AS 24.60 to make a certain disclosure but doing
so would violate federal or other state law, then one may
request and [perhaps] receive a waiver from such disclosure.
2:21:12 PM
MS. MOSS explained that Section 11 provides the aforementioned
additional conforming change regarding legislative interns,
additionally stipulating that they must also comply with the
statutory requirements of AS 24.60.155 - addressing legislative
ethics training. Sections 12 and 13 add a reference to a new
statute being added by Section 14 regarding alternate members of
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. Section 14 provides
new requirements for alternate members, including that an
alternate public member be appointed. Under existing statute,
alternates are appointed for the legislative members of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, but not for the public
members, and yet two quorums - one for the public members and
one for the legislative members - must be established in order
for the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to conduct
business. Establishing those two quorums has not always been
possible, and so providing for an alternate public member as
Section 14 is proposing would help ensure that the statutory
quorum requirements are met. Section 14 also stipulates that
when an alternate has been designated to participate in a
particular proceeding, he/she must participate for the duration
of that proceeding.
MS. MOSS explained that [Section 15] addresses the statutory
definition of the term, "legislative employee", proposing to
replace a list of certain employees who are not considered to be
legislative employees in that they perform functions that are
only incidental to legislative functions, with the term, "hourly
employees". Section 16 repeals AS 24.60.130(n), the existing
provision addressing alternate members of the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics.
2:30:22 PM
MS. MOSS - in response to questions about Section 2's proposed
exception to the prohibition against being involved in an
administrative hearing so long as one's contact is inadvertent
and ex parte and its fact and substance are promptly disclosed
to all parties and made part of the record - explained that
under current law, once an administrative hearing process
begins, any contact, whether direct or indirect, with the
adjudicating authority would be an ethics violation. Under the
bill, in contrast, one could simply notify all the parties that
the contact occurred and was accidental.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT pointed out, though, that in such a
situation, one might not know all the parties involved, and so
questioned how one could comply with the disclosure requirements
of that provision without first becoming further involved - for
example, making further contact while researching who to
disclose the initial contact to - and thereby committing further
violation.
MS. MOSS ventured that perhaps it would be sufficient to notify
the pertinent department, the adjudicating authority, the
Department of Law (DOL), and the Department of Administration
(DOA).
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed concern that one would never
know that one has to take those disclosure steps if, after
making inadvertent ex parte contact in writing, no one ever
responds to explain that an administrative hearing process had
begun.
2:39:28 PM
PAMELA FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA) - on behalf of the bill drafter of SB 89 and in
response to questions - explained that Section 3's proposed
definition of the term, "administrative hearing" was taken from
AS 44.64.200, the definition section of the statute addressing
administrative hearing officers and the office of administrative
hearings. She acknowledged, however, that the committee could
choose to delete Section 3's proposed stipulation that a rate-
making proceeding is not an administrative hearing for purposes
of AS 24.60.030, the Legislative Ethics Act's provision
addressing prohibited conduct and conflicts of interest.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed interest in making such a
change, opining that just as with administrative hearings,
legislators shouldn't become involved in rate-making proceedings
either.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed a preference for leaving
Section 3 as currently written, venturing that perhaps in some
situations, it would be appropriate for legislators to become
involved in proceedings that affect the rates their constituents
pay.
MS. FINLEY - in response to Representative Pruitt's point
regarding Section 2's proposed exception to the prohibition
against being involved in an administrative hearing so long as
one's contact is inadvertent and ex parte and its fact and
substance are promptly disclosed to all parties and made part of
the record - explained that that exception is tied to the
prohibition, the language of which stipulates that a legislator
or legislative employee may not attempt to influence the outcome
of an administrative hearing. She surmised, therefore, that
simply asking who the parties are in order to comply with
Section 2's proposed disclosure requirements wouldn't constitute
a further violation of the law because such inquiry wouldn't be
an attempt to influence the outcome of the hearing, and because
disclosing the initial contact to all the parties would be
required. She acknowledged, however, that if the names of the
parties haven't been made public for some reason, then complying
with those disclosure requirements could be problematic.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON observed that under the language of the
prohibition, in order for there to be a violation, one would
have had to contact, or attempted to contact, the adjudicating
authority, and since one wouldn't bother to do so unless one
knew that an administrative hearing process had begun, the
contact wouldn't really be inadvertent and thus the exception
wouldn't apply.
2:50:27 PM
MS. MOSS, in response to comments, offered her belief that
contact alone wouldn't necessarily constitute a violation - one
would also have to be trying to influence the outcome of an
administrative hearing via that contact or attempted contact in
order for there to be a violation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES suggested amending Section 2 so as to
address situations in which there are parties whose names have
not been made public: for example, perhaps by adding a
stipulation that in such instances, it shall be the department
or adjudicating authority that informs the unnamed parties of
the inadvertent ex parte contact.
MS. MOSS acknowledged that point.
MS. FINLEY, in response to comments, concurred with Ms. Moss
that in order for there to be a violation, one would have to be
attempting to influence the outcome of an administrative hearing
via the contact or attempted contact. Therefore, Ms. Finley
surmised, if one is never informed that an administrative
hearing process has begun, it would be hard to view one's
inadvertent contact as an attempt to influence the hearing's
outcome.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed interest in clarifying under
what circumstances disclosure of the inadvertent ex parte
contact or attempted contact would be required.
2:55:51 PM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, indicated that
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics has already issued an
advisory opinion stating that making proper disclosure to all
parties is the responsibility of the legislator or legislative
employee who made the initial contact, including finding out
exactly who to disclose that contact to. She acknowledged,
though, that one issue which perhaps ought to be addressed is
that of who would notify any unnamed parties - for example, when
that information is being kept confidential for some reason.
With regard to the concern that one might be left nescient about
whether an administrative hearing process has begun, she also
indicated that before beginning work on a constituent's problem,
it's the legislator or legislative employee's responsibility to
contact the administration to find out if such a process has
already begun; furthermore, staff to the adjudicating authority
are able to answer such inquiries.
MS. ANDERSON, in response to questions and comments, relayed
that Section 2 addresses administrative hearings at the state
level, not at the local level; that whether to expand the
provision to include administrative hearings at the local level
would be a policy call for the legislature to make; that [AS
24.60.080(h)] stipulates that legislators may accept gifts of
services from volunteers and trainees, with the term, "trainee"
being changed via Section 9 to the term, "legislative intern";
that an advisory opinion issued many years ago by the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics indicates that such gifts from
volunteers are considered gifts, and that such gifts from
legislative interns are considered an exchange of services; and
that the definition change proposed via Section 15 addresses the
fact that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics feels that
certain employees who perform functions incidental to
legislative functions should not be required to take legislative
ethics training.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed disfavor with using only the
criterion of being an hourly employee.
MS. ANDERSON pointed out that the other criterion Section 15
provides for is that it be an employee who performs functions
incidental to legislative functions.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, after ascertaining that no one else wished
to testify, closed public testimony on SB 89.
3:10:20 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled
27-LS0452\O.1, Wayne, 3/14/12, which read:
Page 13, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 15. AS 24.60.260(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person required to make a disclosure under
this chapter may not knowingly make a false or
deliberately misleading or incomplete disclosure to
the committee or to the Alaska Public Offices
Commission. A person who files a disclosure after a
deadline set by this chapter or by a regulation
adopted [BY THE COMMITTEE OR] by the Alaska Public
Offices Commission has violated this chapter and may
be subject to imposition of a fine as provided in (c)
of this section or AS 24.60.240."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON explained that Amendment 1 - proposing to
add a new Section 15 and renumber the remaining sections - would
alter existing AS 24.60.260 [addressing prohibited conduct
related to disclosures, and the penalties for such conduct] such
that it's subsection (a) would no longer reference regulations
adopted by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her understanding that Amendment 1
is warranted because the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
doesn't have the authority to promulgate regulations and so any
reference to such regulations is unnecessary and potentially
misleading.
MS. MOSS concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether there would be any
benefit to providing the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
with such authority.
MS. ANDERSON posited that that would be something for the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics to discuss.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he wasn't going to object
to Amendment 1.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON ascertained that there were no further
objections to the motion, and announced that Amendment 1 was
adopted.
3:12:51 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled
27-LS0452\O.2, Wayne, 3/14/12, which read:
Page 11, line 8:
Following "interns":
Insert "and volunteers"
Following "intern":
Insert "or legislative volunteer"
Page 11, line 11, following "intern":
Insert "or legislative volunteer"
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON explained that Amendment 2 would alter
Section 11 such that its proposed AS 24.60.112 would address
both legislative volunteers and legislative interns.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:13 p.m. to 3:14 p.m.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON added that under Amendment 2, legislative
volunteers would be subject to the same ethics rules as
legislative interns.
MS. MOSS - noting that the reference in AS 24.60.112 to
legislative volunteers was removed in the prior committee -
indicated that the sponsor would be amenable to having proposed
AS 24.60.112 apply to both legislative interns and legislative
volunteers, since both have access to confidential information
and the use of state equipment.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he supports Amendment 2.
MS. MOSS, in response to a question and comments, explained that
at one point, the bill's proposed AS 24.60.112 stipulated that
one would have to work more 30 days before having to comply with
AS 24.60.112's referenced statutes; although that stipulation
has since been removed, the committee could amend the bill to
add a specific time period back in.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed favor with doing so.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, in response to a request, relayed that the
motion to adopt Amendment 2 would be tabled, and that HCS CSSB
89(STA) [as amended] would be held over.
HB 359 - SEX CRIMES; TESTIMONY BY VIDEO CONFERENCE
3:17:47 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 359, "An Act relating to conspiracy to
commit human trafficking in the first degree or sex trafficking
in the first degree; relating to the crime of furnishing
indecent material to minors, the crime of online enticement of a
minor, the crime of prostitution, and the crime of sex
trafficking; relating to forfeiture of property used in
prostitution offenses; relating to sex offender registration;
relating to testimony by video conference; adding Rule 38.3,
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date." [Included in members' packets was a proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 359, Version 27-GH2627\M,
Gardner, 3/17/12, that incorporated amendments adopted during
previous hearings on the bill.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that in drafting a committee
substitute (CS), a change was made by the drafter to address a
problem with hand-altered Amendment 3, as amended, that being
that in amending Section 6's proposed new AS 11.66.100(c)(1) -
pertaining to the crime of prostitution - the word, "patronizes"
should not have replaced the phrase, "is a patron of". He
referred to a memorandum from Legislative Legal and Research
Services dated March 18, 2012, in members' packets that
explained the rationale for not using the word, "patronizes".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed CS for
HB 359, Version 27-GH2627\M, Gardner, 3/17/12, as the working
document.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected and questioned whether Version M
contained all the other amendments adopted previously.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG confirmed that it did.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that Version M was before the
committee.
3:21:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 13,
labeled 27-GH2627\M.2, Gardner, 3/19/12, which read:
Page 4, lines 9 - 10:
Delete "material is [TO ANOTHER PERSON ANY]
material that the person knows"
Insert "person knows that the material [TO
ANOTHER PERSON ANY MATERIAL THAT]"
[Note to the reader: Amendment 13 was the first amendment to
Version M of HB 359.]
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES and VICE CHAIR THOMPSON objected for the
purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 13 simply
provides alternative phrasing for the stipulation outlined in
paragraph (2) of Section 4's proposed AS 11.61.128(a), which
addresses the crime of distribution of indecent material to
minors.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON removed his objection, ascertained that no
other objection was maintained, and announced that Amendment 13
was adopted.
3:23:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 14,
labeled 27-GH2627\M.3, Gardner, 3/19/12, which read:
Page 7, line 5:
Delete "AS 11.66.100 - 11.66.135"
Insert "AS 11.66.100(c) and 11.66.110 -
11.66.135"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 14 would
change the statutory references in Section 13's proposed
AS 11.66.145 - which mandates that property used to institute,
aid, or facilitate, or property received or derived from, a
violation of certain laws shall be forfeited - such that that
forfeiture provision would then only apply to Section 6's
proposed class C felony crime of being the "patron" of a
prostitute who is under 18 years of age while being at least
three years older than his/her victim, and to the first, second,
third, and fourth degree crimes of promoting prostitution, which
HB 359 is proposing to change to the first, second, third, and
fourth degree crimes of sex trafficking. It is not the
committee's intention for that forfeiture provision to apply to
the class B misdemeanor crimes of prostitution, and Amendment 14
would ensure that it doesn't.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON ascertained that there were no further
objections, and announced that Amendment 14 was adopted.
3:25:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 15, to add to Section 16's proposed new
AS 12.47.100(h) - addressing testimony from a witness by
contemporaneous two-way video conference in a pretrial hearing
to determine a defendant's competency to stand trial - a comma
on page 8, line 27, after the word "court" and before the
phrase, "and the procedure allows"; Conceptual Amendment 15
would address a grammatical issue in the first sentence of
proposed subsection (h).
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected, sought and received information
regarding the location of Conceptual Amendment 15's proposed
change, and then removed his objection.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON ascertained that there were no further
objections, and announced that Conceptual Amendment 15 was
adopted.
3:27:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 16,
labeled 27-GH2627\M.1, Gardner, 3/19/12, which read:
Page 12, line 14, following "minor":
Insert "under AS 11.41.452(e)"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that the aforementioned
Legislative Legal and Research Services' memorandum addresses
the need for Amendment 16's proposed change to Section 19's
proposed AS 12.55.185(10) - which defines the term "most serious
felony" for purposes of sentencing and probation under AS 12.55
- and indicated that under Amendment 16, only the class A felony
crime of online enticement of a minor would be added to
paragraph (10)'s definition.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, after ascertaining that there were no
further objections, announced that Amendment 16 was adopted.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON then noted that public testimony on HB 359
had previously been closed.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to Section 16, and offered her
understanding that its proposed new AS 12.47.100(h) - addressing
testimony from a witness by contemporaneous two-way video
conference in a hearing to determine a defendant's competency to
stand trial - might raise constitutional issues depending upon
whether a competency hearing would be considered enough like a
criminal trial to warrant providing for the person's
constitutional rights to confront the witnesses against him/her.
3:33:34 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), referred to
an amendment in members' packets proposing to replace
subsection (h)'s stipulation requiring that any such witness be
in a place from which people customarily travel by air to the
court, with an alternative stipulation that the court must find
that allowing a witness's testimony by contemporaneous two-way
video conference is necessary to further an important public
policy, and indicated that the DOL's position is that such an
amendment is not necessary; that amendment read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 8, lines 26-27, following "if the":
delete "witness is in a place from which people
customarily travel by air to the court"
insert "court finds that doing so is necessary to
further an important public policy"
3:34:00 PM
RICHARD SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General, Central Office,
Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), offered his
understanding that both the Supreme Court of California and the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that under California
law, competency hearings are like civil matters; that almost all
states have said that competency hearings are different than
criminal trials in that not all constitutional rights apply; and
that no case has directly addressed the issue of whether the
constitutional rights to confront the witnesses against oneself
apply in competency hearings. Competency hearings are not like
criminal trials, he asserted, since the question being addressed
is different, the burden of going forth could be borne by a
different party, and the standard of proof is different. The
state's view, he indicated, is that contemporaneous two-way
video conference technology is sufficient to provide for the
constitutional rights to confront the witnesses against oneself,
if indeed such rights must be provided for in competency
hearings; the goal with the bill's proposed change to
AS 12.47.100 is to make the most efficient use of the state's
very limited resources during competency hearings, the number of
which has quadrupled since the late 1990s, early 2000s.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, mentioned that
members' packets contain the aforementioned 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals case, Nguyen v. Garcia, decided in 2007; and a U.S.
District Court case from Maine, United States v. Burhoe, decided
in 2008.
3:42:57 PM
DOUGLAS GARDNER, Director, Legal Services, Legislative Legal and
Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA) - referring
to a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska
(ACLU of Alaska) in members' packets - surmised that
Section 16's proposed AS 12.47.100(h) is likely to engender
litigation, with the issue still to be resolved being that of
whether the constitutional rights to confront the witnesses
against oneself apply in competency hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES mentioned that she wouldn't be offering
the aforementioned amendment to Section 16's proposed
AS 12.47.100(h).
3:49:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 359, Version 27-GH2627\M, Gardner, 3/17/12, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 359(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
3:49:44 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:49 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 89 HCS (STA).pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| SB 89 Request for House Judiciary Hearing.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| SB 89 HCS (STA) fiscal note.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| HB 50 CS (JUD) M.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB 359 (JUD) M.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 359 |
| HB 359 CS (JUD) Memo.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 359 |
| SB 89 House Judiciary Amendments.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| Sponsor Statement HCSCSSB 89(STA).pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| HB 359 Amendments.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 359 |