Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
04/12/2016 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB200 | |
| SB180 | |
| HB334 | |
| SB174 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 112 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 334 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 12, 2016
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kurt Olson (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 200
"An Act establishing procedures related to a petition for
adoption of a child in state custody; adding a definition of
'proxy for a formal petition'; amending Rule 6(a), Alaska
Adoption Rules; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 200(HSS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 180(JUD)
"An Act relating to the temporary delegation by a parent or
guardian of powers related to a child; relating to adoption;
relating to nonprofit organizations that provide certain
assistance to parents; relating to the distribution to a parent
or guardian in a child protection situation of information on
family support services; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 180(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 334
"An Act relating to visitation and child custody."
- MOVED HB 334 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 174(FIN)
"An Act relating to the regulation of firearms and knives by the
University of Alaska; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 112
"An Act establishing procedures related to a petition for
adoption of a child in state custody; adding a definition of
'proxy for a formal petition'; amending Rule 6(a), Alaska
Adoption Rules; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 200
SHORT TITLE: ADOPTION OF CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
04/16/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/16/15 (H) HSS, JUD
03/29/16 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/29/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/16 (H) MINUTE (HSS)
03/29/16 (H) HSS AT 6:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/29/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/16 (H) MINUTE (HSS)
03/31/16 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/31/16 (H) Moved CSHB 200(HSS) Out of Committee
03/31/16 (H) MINUTE (HSS)
04/01/16 (H) HSS RPT CS (HSS) NT 2DP 2NR
04/01/16 (H) DP: TALERICO, SEATON
04/01/16 (H) NR: TARR, WOOL
04/10/16 (H) JUD AT 2:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/10/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/11/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/11/16 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/12/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: SB 180
SHORT TITLE: PARENT-GUARDIAN/CHILD: TEMP. POWER OF ATTY
SPONSOR(s): GIESSEL
02/12/16 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/16 (S) JUD
02/24/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/24/16 (S) Heard & Held
02/24/16 (S) MINUTE (JUD)
03/02/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/02/16 (S) Moved CSSB 180(JUD) Out of Committee
03/02/16 (S) MINUTE (JUD)
03/07/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/07/16 (S) Moved CSSB 180(JUD), Rescinded Action
on Prior CS
03/07/16 (S) MINUTE (JUD)
03/11/16 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 3NR NEW TITLE
03/11/16 (S) DP: COGHILL
03/11/16 (S) NR: MCGUIRE, MICCICHE, WIELECHOWSKI
03/16/16 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/16/16 (S) VERSION: CSSB 180(JUD)
03/18/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/16 (H) JUD
04/12/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 334
SHORT TITLE: CHILD CUSTODY; DOM. VIOLENCE; CHILD ABUSE
SPONSOR(s): MUNOZ
02/22/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/16 (H) HSS, JUD
03/22/16 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/22/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/16 (H) MINUTE (HSS)
03/24/16 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/24/16 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 3/29/16>
03/29/16 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/29/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/16 (H) MINUTE (HSS)
04/05/16 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/05/16 (H) Heard & Held
04/05/16 (H) MINUTE (HSS)
04/06/16 (H) HSS AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/16 (H) -- Continued from 4/5/16 Meeting --
04/07/16 (H) HSS RPT CS (HSS) 2DP 5NR
04/07/16 (H) DP: STUTES, VAZQUEZ
04/07/16 (H) NR: TARR, TALERICO, FOSTER, WOOL,
SEATON
04/09/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/09/16 (H) Heard & Held
04/09/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
04/12/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: SB 174
SHORT TITLE: REG. OF FIREARMS/KNIVES BY UNIV. OF AK
SPONSOR(s): KELLY
02/08/16 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/16 (S) EDC, JUD
02/16/16 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/16 (S) Heard & Held
02/16/16 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
02/17/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/17/16 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
02/18/16 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/18/16 (S) Heard & Held
02/18/16 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
02/23/16 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/23/16 (S) Moved CSSB 174(EDC) Out of Committee
02/23/16 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
02/26/16 (S) EDC RPT CS 2DP 1DNP 1NR SAME TITLE
02/26/16 (S) DP: DUNLEAVY, HUGGINS
02/26/16 (S) DNP: GARDNER
02/26/16 (S) NR: GIESSEL
02/26/16 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
02/29/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/29/16 (S) Heard & Held
02/29/16 (S) MINUTE (JUD)
03/02/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/02/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/02/16 (S) MINUTE (JUD)
03/07/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/07/16 (S) Moved CSSB 174(EDC) Out of Committee
03/07/16 (S) MINUTE (JUD)
03/09/16 (S) JUD RPT CS (EDC) 2DP 2NR
03/09/16 (S) DP: MCGUIRE, COGHILL
03/09/16 (S) NR: MICCICHE, WIELECHOWSKI
03/24/16 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/24/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/24/16 (S) MINUTE (FIN)
04/04/16 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/04/16 (S) Moved CSSB 174(FIN) Out of Committee
04/04/16 (S) MINUTE (FIN)
04/06/16 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 3NR 1AM NEW TITLE
04/06/16 (S) DP: KELLY, DUNLEAVY
04/06/16 (S) NR: MICCICHE, OLSON, HOFFMAN
04/06/16 (S) AM: MACKINNON
04/07/16 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/07/16 (S) VERSION: CSSB 174(FIN)
04/08/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/08/16 (H) EDC, JUD
04/08/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/08/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/11/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/11/16 (H) Moved CSSB 174(FIN) Out of Committee
04/11/16 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
04/12/16 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director
Office of Children's Services (OCS)
Department of Health & Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, provided an
overview and answered questions.
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, answered
questions.
AMANDA MacADO
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, offered
support for the legislation.
CRISTY WILLER, Chief Operating Officer
Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, offered
support for the legislation.
MELANIE FREDERICKS, Community Member
Association of Village Council Presidents
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, offered
support for the legislation.
ANDREW BEAVER, Tribal Administrator
Native Village of Kwigillngok
Kwigillngok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, offered
support for the legislation.
MELANIE BAHNKE, CEO
KAWEAK Incorporated
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, offered
support for the legislation.
NICOLE BORROMEO, Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Alaska Federation of Natives
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, offered
support for the legislation.
KATHERINE MOSES
Tribal Administrator
Asa'carsarmiut Tribal Council
Mountain Village, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, Lorraine Mung
spoke on behalf of Ms. Kathrine Moses and offered support for
the legislation.
EVELYN PETERSON, Echo Worker
Asa'carsarmiut Tribal Council
Mountain Village, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, offered
support for the legislation.
DAPHNE JOE
Asa'carsarmiut Tribe
Mountain Village, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, offered
support for the legislation.
ELIZABETH STEVENS, Echo Worker
Napaiap Tribal Court
Napaiap, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, offered
support for the legislation.
DON SHIRCEL, Director
Client Development
Tanana Chiefs Conference
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, offered
support for the legislation.
DARLENE PETE, Tribal Administrator
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, testified in
support of the legislation.
APRIL FERGUSON, Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Bristol Bay Native Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, testified in
support of the legislation.
ELIZABETH MEDICINE CROW, President/CEO
First Alaskans Institute
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, testified in
support of the legislation.
MELVIN EGOAK
Atmauluak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, testified in
support of the legislation.
ELIZABETH HENSLEY
General Counsel, Maniilaq Association
Kotzebue, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, testified in
support of the legislation.
LORINDA WESTIN O'BRIAN
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, testified in
support of the legislation.
MARY TUNUCHUK
Chefornak Tribal Council
Chefornak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, testified in
support of the legislation.
KARLE NORE, Staff
Senator Cathy Giesel
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 180 on behalf of Senator Cathy
Giesel, prime sponsor.
ANDREW BROWN, Senior Fellow
Child Welfare Reform
Foundation for Government Accountability
Naples, Florida
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 180, offered
testimony.
ANDY COARY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 180, offered
support for the legislation.
CHARITY CARMODY, President
Beacon Hill
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 180, explained the
workings of Beacon Hill.
MIKE COONS
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 180, testified in
support of the legislation.
TRACY SPARTZ CAMPBELL, Deputy Director
Office of Children's Services
Department of Health & Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 180, answered
questions.
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff
Representative Cathy Munoz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 334, offered
testimony on behalf of Representative Munoz.
REBECCA SHIELDS, Executive Director
Kodiak Women's Resource and Crisis Center
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 334, spoke in
opposition to the legislation.
PAUL GRANT, Attorney
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 334, discussed
current law and this legislation.
SARALYN TABACHNICK, Executive Director
Aiding Women in Abuse and Rape Emergencies (AWARE)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 334, discussed the
effects of domestic violence on children.
FRED TRIEM, Attorney
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 334, discussed
legislative drafting.
SENATOR PETE KELLY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 174 as prime sponsor.
JOE BYRNES, Staff
Senator Pete Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, offered
testimony and answered questions.
MICHAEL HOSTINA, General Counsel
University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, answered
questions.
MAC COOPER, Associated General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, answered
questions.
KEN LANDFIELD
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, offered
opposition to the legislation.
ERIN HOOD
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, offered
opposition to this legislation.
SALLY RUE
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, strongly
opposed this legislation.
FRANK RUE
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 176, strongly
opposed this legislation.
CALLIE CONERTON, Student Government President
University of Alaska Southeast
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, testified in
opposition for the legislation.
JENNIFER McCLUNG, Instructor
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, spoke in
opposition to SB 174.
ROBIN SMITH
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, spoke in
opposition to the legislation.
CAROLINE STORM
Alaska PTA Advocacy Committee
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, discussed
overreach.
PATRICK RACE
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, spoke in
opposition to the legislation.
BRIAN JUDY
Senior State Lobbyist
National Rifle Association
State of California Assemblyman
Unknown Address
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, testified in
support of SB 174.
STEVEN SAMUELSON
Southeast Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, offered
support for the legislation.
ALYSE GALVIN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, spoke in
opposition to this legislation.
BUTCH MOORE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, offered
opposition to this legislation.
MIKE NEWBERN, Assistant Director of Public Relations
Buckeyes for Concealed Carry
National Rifle Association
Unknown City, Ohio
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, offered
support for the legislation.
TOM BOUTIN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, offered
support for the legislation.
JENNIFER GLENN
Volunteer
Alaska Chapter, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, spoke in
opposition to this legislation.
MIKE COONS
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, offered
support for the legislation.
DANIEL BELGRIZE
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, offered
support for the legislation.
RYAN SHERWIN-ALAKAYAK, Student
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, offered
support for this legislation.
HANS RODVIK
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, offered
support for this legislation.
CEEZAR MARTINSON, Student
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, spoke in
support of the legislation.
KELSI PULCZINMS, Student
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, spoke in
support of the legislation.
LAURA MIKO
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 174, testified
against the legislation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:01 PM
CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Foster,
Keller, Lynn, Claman, and LeDoux were present at the call to
order. Representatives Millett and Kreiss-Tomkins arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 200-ADOPTION OF CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY
1:07:56 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 200, "An Act establishing procedures related to a
petition for adoption of a child in state custody; adding a
definition of 'proxy for a formal petition'; amending Rule 6(a),
Alaska Adoption Rules; and providing for an effective date."
1:08:23 PM
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director, Office of Children's Services (OCS),
Department of Health & Social Services, said she was available
to testify.
1:08:40 PM
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Department of Law, said she was available to
testify.
1:08:45 PM
MS. LAWTON advised that she would present an overview of HB 200,
as well as a detailed sectional analysis. The bill was
primarily created to help increase the state's compliance with
the Indian Child Welfare Act, enacted in 1978. The Act seeks to
ensure that Alaska Native and American Indian children are,
whenever possible, kept closest to home and with their family
members, she explained. Cases involving foster care are heard
in a Child In Need of Aid (CINA) proceedings in the superior
court. Although, hearings involving foster children such as
adoption, guardianship, and civil custody proceedings, are
typically conducted in different courts with different judges
outside of the CINA proceedings. This bill creates a "one
judge, one family" model, whereby, all proceedings will be
conducted under the same judge when a child is a dependent of
the State of Alaska.
1:11:00 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the desire to keep a Native child with
their family, and asked whether it works differently for non-
Native children.
MS. LAWTON replied that she intends to speak to that issue later
in the presentation. She advised that in developing the "one
judge, one family" concept, the division worked closely with the
Public Defender's Office, Office of Public Advocacy, and the
Alaska Court System. This concept will save time and money for
state entities and, more importantly, it will help all children
get out of the foster care system faster. This legislation
ensures that the proceedings are timely with appropriate
judicial determinations made, because multiple judges and courts
will not be involved, she said. Another important change in the
bill involves Native and non-Native foster care adoption
preferences in terms of how it looks to find people short-term
or long-term to care for those children. The division looks at
immediate family members first, then extend family, and then
close family friends who have stepped up. She said that with
regard to the Alaska Native children covered under the Indian
Child Welfare Act, after the division has exhausted all
relatives, the division must also consider whether tribal
members associated with the child may be interested.
1:13:05 PM
MS. LAWTON explained that this provision, in relation to a
federal legal decision, puts a burden upon those people
interested in the immediate and permanent placement of an Alaska
Native child. She explained that those interested people must
file a formal petition with the court for those preferences to
be recognized. Currently, when the division looks at the
temporary or permanent placement of a child, it reviews those
preferences along the way, and continues to evaluate and search
for relatives whenever possible, she said.
1:13:44 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that this is strictly with Alaska Native
children.
MS. LAWTON replied that in both scenarios the division is always
looking for relatives and trying to move children in with
relatives whenever possible. When discussing Alaska Native
children, once the division has exhausted looking for relatives,
it also looks to the tribe and other tribal members who may be
willing to care for the child. Under current law when the
Indian Child Welfare Act applies, a formal petition must be
filed to adopt for the adoption placement preferences to be
preserved. People not covered under the Act do not have the
same burden and requirement to file a petition or proxy to have
their preferences preserved to advise they are a relative that
should come before the division looks to non-relatives. She
explained this bill tries to provide a simpler mechanism, such
that those preferences can be acknowledged by the court and
recognized. She explained "It doesn't make it be an automatic,
you know, proceed to adoption that basically then requires us to
do an evaluation and consider their suitability for adoption,
long-term, as well as short-term placement." Under the
division's current policy and Alaska Statutes, the provision
continues to require that the division consider other people
that come forward and looking at all of the options. She said,
"This really just has us put that on the record for the court
and then it would initiate a process moving forward."
1:15:16 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked her to explain what would be put on the court
record.
MS. LAWTON answered that it would basically recognize, for the
court, that under that Act there are specific adoption placement
preferences that apply, that the court should consider in its
final determination. She explained, it is not forcing the court
to make a final determination one direction or another, it just
reads that "it must at least be considered." [Under current
law, a formal Petition to Adopt must be filed in order for the
adoption placement preferences to be preserved], and this proxy
does that, so [the relatives or members of the Alaska Native
child's tribe] are not required to file the formal Petition to
Adopt early on. Although, she pointed out, when the division
and the court decide who should adopt the child, that person
would, ultimately, file the Petition to Adopt because that
mechanism is still required. It is just not required early on.
She explained the reason to not file the petition early on is
because the division may rule a person out, and filing the
petition early on would have been for not, because the division
had not yet evaluated them, she said.
1:16:13 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether, under current law, a grandparent
desiring to adopt the [foster Alaska Native] child would have to
file a petition with the division.
MS. LAWTON explained that, currently, for a grandparent desiring
to adopt their grandchild covered under the Indian Child Welfare
Act, they are required to file a formal Petition to Adopt so
they can be considered a higher preference than a stranger to
their grandchild. Under this legislation, the less formal
process of using a proxy for adoption could be used, she
explained.
1:17:04 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX opined that, under this bill, the grandparents
would be allowed a less formal process of using a proxy for
adoption. Currently, she asked, what precludes the division
from considering the grandparents in the first place, because
the grandparents or family members appear to be people the
division would want to consider. She further asked why, in the
first place, the division needs the bill to do the right thing.
MS. LAWTON responded that the division always looks at
grandparents and relatives as a placement and a permanent
placement, with or without this legislation. The bill is
necessary due to a federal law that was changed that basically
said in order for [the adoption placement] preferences to be
recognized and considered by the court, a formal Petition to
Adopt must be filed by the grandparent, family member, or
someone in the category of people considered to have preference
for adoption of a Native child. She referred to the scenario of
the grandmother, and advised that once the case is ready for
adoption, in order to ensure that the court recognizes the
grandmother is the first preference placement because she is a
relative, that information must be on the record. Without that
information on the court's record, if a non-related person also
wanted to adopt the child then the court would look at them
almost equally, as opposed to the consideration that a relative
should have a higher preference for consideration, she
explained.
1:19:09 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that under federal law they still have to
file the petition, correct.
MS. LAWTON agreed, and she advised they will eventually have to
file the petition, they just don't have to do it early on so
those preferences are recognized while moving forward.
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that since this is not changing federal
law, why wouldn't the department help the grandmother early on
to file this petition.
MS. LAWTON opined that it is partly because the division does
not know, at that point, whether the grandmother would be the
permanent person because it does an evaluation with approval
from the court. Oftentimes, several relatives come forward and,
as part of the division's process, it evaluates everyone. The
division wouldn't want to invest the time, nor have the
grandmother invest the time, with a more formal mechanism. The
proxy basically says, "as we consider and as we move towards a
permanent decision about where the child will go, the court has
to recognize that there are preferred placement preferences for
this child." The division would then evaluate the relatives to
determine which relative is the best long-term plan, the other
legal parties then get to weigh in on that, and the court then
ultimately has to agree.
1:20:50 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned why the division doesn't just do this,
why is it taking this legislation to get the division to do
something that it wants to do anyway.
MS. KRALY responded that the reason for the legislation is to
create a system for both the courts, and the Office of
Children's Services (OCS), to establish this "placeholder" for a
relative or a priority preference placement. The system is that
this proxy is issued and it provides a priority of preference
if, and when, the case gets to adoption. While there may be
merit to Chair LeDoux's statement about doing this informally,
she noted, due to the complexities of these cases and the number
of individuals involved, the legislation is necessary to create
a formal recognition of these issues. In the cases that led to
this legislation, the lack of the formal petition created
enormous confusion within the system. She noted that members
may recall news accounts that when permanency was decided, these
family members and grandparents were not allowed to have the
permanency placement of their grandchildren. The legislation
creates the formal process whereby everyone, including the court
system, the tribes, opposing attorneys, and the Office of
Children's Services (OCS), all know who is interested in
becoming a permanent placement. Technically, she commented,
this could be done on an informal basis, but it doesn't create
the efficient guarantee of avoiding the complexities that happen
when the placeholders are not in effect at the time the case
gets to permanency.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that the push for the revision to
the adoption code is related to the litigation involving the
Native Village of Tununak v. State of Alaska, Office of
Children's Services, 303 P.3d 431.
MS. KRALY agreed.
1:23:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the state lost the Native
Village of Tununak case.
MS. KRALY said the state lost the case.
1:23:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked what the Native Village of Tununak
case held and how these changes to the statute provide the
problem does not arise in the future.
MS. LAWTON responded that under Native Village of Tununak II v.
State of Alaska, 334 P.3d 165, the case was in the Alaska
Supreme Court and involved a non-native, non-related foster
family seeking to adopt an Alaska Native child. The other party
was the child's Alaska Native grandmother. The court was
litigating and trying to make a determination about that case,
and at the same time the United States Supreme Court was hearing
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), out of South
Dakota. In the Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the United States
Supreme Court was contemplating a non-native, non-relative
foster family seeking to adopt the child. The other party was
the child's biological father who was seeking to have his
parental rights reinstated. He had been active military and
when he returned to the United States, unbeknownst to him, his
child was up for adoption. The United States Supreme Court
basically concluded that in order for the adoption placement
preferences, under the Indian Child Welfare Act, to be upheld
and recognized, a person had to first file a formal petition to
adopt. When that decision was made, the Alaska Supreme Court
had no recourse except to rule in Native Village of Tununak II
case on behalf of the foster family because they were the only
party that had previously filed a Petition to Adopt that was
being held in abeyance. The grandmother had not filed a
petition nor was she required to file at that point, but they
had initiated those proceedings and because they were the only
party that had initiated, the Alaska Supreme Court decided the
case in favor of the foster family and the child went to them
for adoption.
1:25:50 PM
MS. LAWTON continued that this provision basically reads that in
recognition of the United States Supreme Court's decision,
Alaska wanted to create something less burdensome such that they
wouldn't have to file a formal petition upfront. She pointed
out that close to 60 percent of children in foster care are
Alaska Native and half of them end up going to adoptions with
non-related extended family members (NREFM). The division sorts
out when the child should go, and where the child should go as
it works on possible reunification. Relatives come in and go
out because interest sometimes waxes and wanes. The [proxy]
could serve as a placeholder that there are specific adoption
placement preferences the court can't ignore when it gets to the
final decision. It does not mean that the court can't consider
interested people, but the court must look at that with a little
more weight in terms of the people identified.
1:26:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether one of the issues under
Native Village of Tununak case was that the grandmother had sent
a letter or provided some notice to the Department of Health and
Social Services that she was interested, but she had not filed
the formal notice. He surmised that this statute change will
provide that a person in the grandmother's position could send a
letter to the department to protect their ability to go in later
and formally seek to adopt because the department would have had
notice they were an interested party.
MS. LAWTON said he was correct. The grandmother had informed
the department orally, and in writing, of her interest, but she
hadn't taken the step of filing the formal petition. Ms. Lawton
related that the closest court to the grandmother was Bethel,
which is an $800 travel ticket away from her home, she didn't do
that and she wasn't required to do that. She opined that the
court had told her she didn't need to do that, but due to the
United States Supreme Court's decision, the Alaska Supreme Court
had to say that filing the formal petition is the only thing
that matters now.
1:27:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that the department issued
regulations allowing for the more formal notice as an interested
party, and opined that those regulations have been in place for
roughly a year.
MS. LAWTON agreed, and she commented that emergency regulations
were enacted; however, they only apply to what the department
does, it doesn't require the court to change any of their
processes or system. Without the support of the legislation the
regulations do not have the intended effect, she said.
1:28:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the regulations are working
well after a year.
MS. LAWTON opined that she was unsure whether the department had
seen it tested entirely. Although, she commented, it hasn't
heard of any cases where it has not worked. She described the
regulations as being enacted backwards because usually the
statutes come first.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that this legislation basically
puts in place [a statute] where the Native Village of Tununak
case won't happen again in Alaska.
MS. LAWTON answered, absolutely.
1:29:07 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that federal law still requires the
petition, so under the Village of Tununak case, the grandmother
hadn't filed the petition, but she put the department on notice
that she wanted to adopt the child. Under Native Village of
Tununak, she asked whether the department went to bat for the
grandmother.
MS. LAWTON related she was not familiar with the case in the
early beginnings and she couldn't speak to why, or why not, the
department did not pursue the grandmother earlier in that case.
1:29:56 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there is an exception in federal law
that says a person does not have to do the petition early if the
state has regulations or a law allowing a placeholder.
MS. LAWTON explained that the formal petition will eventually
occur, and this legislation is another mechanism, a temporary
solution, of preserving those placement preferences until the
petition is actually required. She reiterated there could be
several family members or other members of the child's tribe
coming forward, and as the division sorts out those folks, all
but one are not viable options. The folks [not chosen] will
never get to the step of filing a Petition to Adopt. This
legislation, she explained, would provide for the recognition of
where they fall in those placement preferences, and without the
use of the proxy they would have been required to file the
formal Petition to Adopt in order for the court to recognize and
consider them.
1:31:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether the Native Village of
Tununak case had to do with filing by proxy, or not. He pointed
out that the inference made from that case was that Alaska
needed to have a law changed to formalize this process. He
queried whether without this law there can be an informal
placement put in, such as a letter, telephone call, fax, or
filling out a form, or whatever. He noted surprise that it is
needed where it wasn't a direct corrective action in the
lawsuit.
MS. LAWTON related that the inference earlier was that if under
Native Village of Tununak II the provision for the use of a
proxy wasn't in state law, then the grandmother, when she had
identified herself to the court as someone interested in
placement and adoption, would have preserved her right. When
that decision was ultimately decided it wouldn't have mattered
who had filed the formal Petition to Adopt because that would
have still been considered, but it wouldn't have guaranteed the
judge would have ruled in her favor. She offered that she
doesn't know all of the facts of weighing the placement options,
but she opined that if they don't file the proxy in a case
involving a Native child, and later relative A comes forward
saying they want the child, and foster family A also wants the
child, the court does not have to recognize that there is a
higher preference. This child is covered under the Indian Child
Welfare Act and this is a relative of the child, the court could
almost look at them as equal competing interested parties.
Whereby, the division believes it is important for children to
be with their families, and if they can't be with their families
to keep them within their tribal communities or close to home
and, she related, that is what this provision ensures the
division do.
1:33:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX offered a scenario of the grandmother telling the
division she wants the child, writes a letter, send an email,
and orally puts it in on the division's record. She asked
whether it is then the division's responsibility to make certain
the grandmother files a petition, and without this law the
division won't make sure the grandmother files the petition.
1:34:12 PM
MS. LAWTON explained that the division's responsibility would
be, after the grandmother identifies her [desire to have the
child], the division would [investigate], have a home visit and
further conversations with the grandmother to evaluate her
ability to take immediate placement. She said, "It's just, you
know, call me -- call me a year from now if things don't work
out, you know, with the biological mom, but I'm willing to take
the child now and permanently, if needed." The division is then
required to provide a written report to the court advising what
it learned about the grandmother. A court hearing would then
take place to evaluate whether anyone has disagreements with
this potential placement. Assuming she is suitable and willing
to take immediate placement, the division would move forward
from that perspective. The petition still would not necessarily
need to be formally filed until, and if, reunification fails and
the division must actually move to an adoption.
1:35:05 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to why the division doesn't just do
that, why a law is necessary to tell the department what to do,
and if that is the best practice why hasn't the department been
doing it.
MS. LAWTON responded that it has been the division's practice,
and opined that the law is necessary in order to ensure that the
adoption placement preferences are not ignored, or otherwise not
considered by the court. She offered that it has nothing to do
with the department's efforts to find relatives or evaluate the
relatives, it has to do with a judicial determination that,
without this legislation or a formal petition, may have family
members or other tribal members not given the consideration they
are due.
1:35:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether she was saying that the
court would ignore a letter that was on file and managed by the
division. He further asked the difference between "what we're
doing" and information the division receives through whatever
means that there is a potential placement out there. He quiered
whether the courts would take that into consideration,
MS. LAWTON answered that in Native Village of Tununak it was
exactly seen that the court didn't take that into consideration
even though that request and notification had occurred. Except,
by the letter of the law, the grandmother had not filed the
formal Petition to Adopt and court said the grandmother's
actions were not good enough, she explained.
1:36:49 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that if this legislation had been the law
and the grandmother still hadn't filed a formal Petition to
Adopt, that would not have been good enough either.
MS. LAWTON responded that if the grandmother didn't file the
formal Petition to Adopt and the division didn't have the proxy
provision, and a family member came forward at some other later
date, the court would not have to recognize the adoption
placement preferences. For example, if the child was residing
with a non-related extended family member (NREFM), the court
could look at them equally, weigh the pros and cons, and make a
determination as to who would best meet the child's needs and
not give consideration to a relationship with the child, per se.
1:37:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER surmised that the state lost the Native
Village of Tununak lawsuit and the state is attempting to fix
that. He referred to the committee packets and offered that
they include information in which First Alaskans, AFN, and many
tribes and Native Corporations show support for the state's
proposal to fix it. He then voiced support because he is
comfortable where the bill is going with this issue.
1:38:29 PM
The committee took a short at ease.
1:38:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX listed the names of witnesses available to answer
questions, and hearing no requests opened public testimony.
1:39:49 PM
AMANDA MacADO, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, offered
the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association's support of the
legislation. After listening to the confusing discussion, she
stated the Child In Need of Aid (CINA) process can be a long and
confusing process for communities and villages across Alaska.
These are formalities that many Native individuals do not
understand. Allowing these families to express their interest
in the CINA proceedings, not having to wait until the permanency
goal where the parents have already terminated their rights and
wait until probate, gives them an opportunity to have time to
prepare, time to have a full understanding of what will happen
and what will take place, rather than waiting until the end.
She explained, once it goes to the point of permanency and
adoption, it is similar to a race and not easy for someone out
in the village, who does not understand the process and possibly
the families don't speak English, this gives them more time. It
also gives ECHO workers more time to help the families
understand the process and have their voices heard. The
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association supports this bill 100
percent and the committee would be doing a great service to not
only Alaska's children but to their extended families by
approving this bill.
1:42:22 PM
CRISTY WILLER, Chief Operating Officer, Cook Inlet Tribal
Council (CITC), said she serves as Chief Operation Officer for
the Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC) and it offers strong
support for HB 200. This bill provides an important correction
to the Alaska Supreme Court decision in the Native Village of
Tununak case. Within CITC's child welfare services there is a
broad continuum of care, from intensive in-home case management
to supervised visitation. It is especially proud of the work
within its Father's Journey Program where 90 percent of the
parents have increased contact with their children within 90
days. She advised the CITC works closely with OCS and with
families for these results. House Bill 200 removes barriers for
Alaska Native families who want to adopt these children who are
connected to them by family or tribal membership. The
legislation makes the process realistic and understandable, and
remove obstacles that have resulted in children unnecessarily
being disconnected from their families. Unfortunately, she
noted, currently well over 40 percent of Alaska Native children
are adopted annually by non-Native non-family members. The bill
will increase the number of Alaska Native children to reach
permanency with their family culture and traditions, and will
reduce litigation based on lack of compliance with the Indian
Child Welfare Act. This bill seeks to eliminate procedural
barriers in the adoption process for children in custody and
Alaska Native families can be considered for adoption through
the CINA proceedings rather than through an entirely different
proceeding held in probate court. As a result, children in an
out-of-home placement would reach permanency more quickly,
lessening the burden on the Alaska Office of Children's Services
(OCS). She thanked the committee for its support in keeping
Alaska's children with their families and in their own home
communities.
1:45:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether the current ratio is
disproportionate in terms of Native and non-Native children in
foster care. Statistics, she stated, there is a
disproportionate number of Native children and this legislation
is a way to move children into tribes and this is way to move to
a more proportionate number.
MS. WILLER opined the ratio is approximately 60 percent of
Alaska Native children, and this bill would allow that
permanency to be achieved more quickly and reduce the
inequality.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that the legislation is geared
toward better placement and better opportunities for the
disproportionate population to find permanent homes.
MS. WILLER agreed.
1:46:31 PM
MELANIE FREDERICKS, Community Member, Association of Village
Council Presidents, offered support for HB 200 because currently
Alaska Native families, in her region, encounter many challenges
and barriers throughout the life of a Child In Need of Aid
(CINA) case. The barriers can include language because often
English is the region's second language. These barriers cause
complications and confusion such that paperwork is often
discouraging and confusing, and they often do not receive the
help or undivided attention they need because advocates and
social workers may not reside in their communities. Relatives,
especially those living in rural communities, often feel
intimidated and confused with the court system which could
potentially deter family members from moving forward with issues
such as the formal Petition for Adoption. In passing this
legislation the State of Alaska would ensure removal of one of
these many barriers for families and children in her region to
gain permanency, and the opportunity to take care of one of
their relative children, she said.
1:48:41 PM
ANDREW BEAVER, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of
Kwigillngok, said they strongly support HB 200 because it makes
it easier for families to work with OCS and also lets the court
know that the Native Village of Kwigillngok is willing and able
to take care of its families in their village. He expressed
there shouldn't be complicated paperwork when everyone is
already aware that a family member is willing to adopt their own
relative. He described this bill as "making a lot of sense" and
noted it can prevent a lot of grief for children and families.
He thanked the legislature for honoring the Native Village of
Kwigillngok's volunteer child protection team with an Alaskan
sealed certificate on March 26, 2010, signed by the Speaker of
the House, the President of the Senate, Bob Heron and Senator
Lynn Hoffman as prime sponsors, and 57 other co-sponsors. He
expressed appreciation for recognizing the child protection
team.
1:50:54 PM
MELANIE BAHNKE, CEO, KAWEAK Incorporated, advised that English
is her second language and she would prefer giving her testimony
in Yupik simply so the committee could get a sense of what the
court system can feel like from the other end of the spectrum.
She remarked that Child In Need of Aid (CINA) proceedings and
the court system may as well all be held in Chinese. She echoed
support for the legislation and stressed that Chair LeDoux hit
the nail on its head when she asked why people can't just do the
right thing in the first place without requiring a law. She
expressed her wish that people and systems would automatically
do the right thing, but they don't always. The current
Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Office of
Children's Services administration has been good to work with
from her end of the tribal partner's perspective, but
administrations come and go, people come and go, judges come and
go, and that is why things need to be put into regulation, and
placed into law. "You represent 20 percent of the overall
population in the state" she said, and yet its children
represent 60 percent of children in OCS custody, and half of its
children are adopted out to non-Native people. She implored the
committee to do the right thing in the first place and enact
this law. She reiterated barriers such as language and the
court system, and offered that the OCS system can be
intimidating, confusing, and a total power imbalance. Even she
as a highly educated person, she said, she can be intimidated by
the process. The legislature should be looking to reduce
barriers wherever possible for her people to take responsibility
and take care of their own people.
MS. BAHNKE referred to the question asking why the legislation
only applied to Alaska Native children, and commented that if
this bill would be killed because it only addresses Alaska
Native children, then she urged the committee to look at
expanding the scope. The State of Alaska claims authority over
children's matters, court matters, and it needs to fulfill its
responsibilities, which includes compliance with federal laws.
In this case, the Department of Health and Social Services is
earnestly working to reduce barriers for Native people to adopt
Native children, and she asked that the committee do the right
thing and pass this bill.
1:54:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER remarked that Ms. Bahnke is a good friend
[of his]. She is also the CEO of his regional Native nonprofit
representing Little Diomede Island. He described Little Diomede
as small, with no roads, no railroad, no airplanes, and the only
transportation is by helicopter. Therefore, the challenges for
someone living on the small island include the possibility that
two weeks may pass before someone can leave the island, there
are telephones but working face-to-face is more effective,
especially when it comes to a situation like this where adoption
is involved, and not understanding the legal system. He said
the bill is good because distance is an issue and added that
there are many more challenges.
1:56:14 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed to Ms. Bahnke that she was not thinking
the bill should die because it may only apply to Alaska Native
children, she was thinking that the idea of family reunification
and reunifying with other relatives should be applied along the
gamut for all children.
MS. BAHNKE related that she had that sense from Chair LeDoux,
she just didn't want "perfect be the enemy good." She suggested
that possibly this could be considered a starting point and then
see how things develop.
1:57:15 PM
NICOLE BORROMEO, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
Alaska Federation of Natives, said there is a lot of support for
the bill within the Alaska Native community and the Alaska
Federation of Natives (AFN). The AFN has been heavily involved
in the bill since it originated since AFN drafted it in close
partnership with OCS and the governor's office, she explained.
She said she echoes Chair LeDoux's words relating to people just
doing the right thing and said that, unfortunately, for all the
reasons previously identified, that doesn't happen and this
legislation is necessary to protect the right thing.
1:59:09 PM
KATHERINE MOSES, Tribal Administrator, Asa'carsarmiut Tribal
Council, was not available and Lorraine Mung spoke on her
behalf. Ms. Mung advised that they live in Mountain Village,
and support HB 200 for the same reasons previously mentioned,
and many people in villages, communities, and cities throughout
the state agree. She asked the committee to understand the
importance of the legislation to Native families, and to not
make the process complicated for a family care for their own
relatives in situations where good family members are ready to
adopt.
2:00:35 PM
EVELYN PETERSON, Echo Worker, Asa'carsarmiut Tribal Council,
said she lives in Mountain Village. She said she agrees with
Ms. Mung's reasons for supporting this legislation, and asked
that the bill pass.
2:01:35 PM
DAPHNE JOE, Asa'carsarmiut Tribe, said she lives in Mountain
Village and fully supports HB 200. She pointed out that too
many of their tribal members have been adopted out of their
families, when there are families that want to take them in.
This legislation will make it easier for family members to let
the court know they are willing to raise their relatives, or
children, by changing it to only one judge following the case.
She remarked that that will save a lot of time and importantly
keep children close to their families, communities, and culture.
2:02:46 PM
ELIZABETH STEVENS, Echo Worker, Napaiap Tribal Court, said she
works with the Association of Village Council Presidents (Avcp)
in Bethel and with OCS workers. She stated she supports HB 200,
and if this bill passes it will be easier for members.
2:04:13 PM
DON SHIRCEL, Director, Client Development, Tanana Chiefs
Conference, offered strong support for HB 200. He said that as
a social worker who spent the last 33 years working for the
Tanana Chiefs Conference and working closely with OCS, he
recognizes the practical implications and significant
contributions this bill could make toward improving the Office
of Children's Services, and the court system. He opined that
HB 200 makes possible a common sense approach that could easily
fix a problem, potentially save time, effort and money by
consolidating and streamlining court processes. Most
importantly, he said, it could provide more children traumatized
by abuse, a safe, healthy, nurturing and permanent home that is
fully connected to their family, community and culture. This
legislation could significantly help the state comply with the
spirit, intent, and letter of the law regarding the Indian Child
Welfare Act by ensuring that a relative willing to adopt a
family member will always have their voice heard. He commented,
it is one of those bills that just makes sense for all of
Alaska's children who won't have to wade through another court
process to have a permanent home. The bill also makes sense for
all of Alaska's families that are ready, able, and willing to
provide a home right now. He asked that the committee actively
support the passage of this bill this session.
2:06:22 PM
DARLENE PETE, Tribal Administrator, said she fully supports the
bill because too many of her tribal members have been adopted
out of their families and communities when they have family
willing to take them in. She related that it is heartbreaking
that many children have been adopted out and are sometimes
nowhere to be found by other family members. This bill would
make it easier for a family member to let the court know they
are willing to raise their relative by changing it to one judge
following the case. Money will be saved, and most importantly,
it will keep their children close to their family, community,
and their culture, she said.
2:07:59 PM
APRIL FERGUSON, Senior Vice President and General Counsel,
Bristol Bay Native Corporation, said that she has served as
Senior Vice President and General Counsel to the Bristol Bay
Native Corporation, and she chairs the AFN litigation and
legislative committee. Hard work has gone into this bill by a
number of experts having experience in all areas of the state.
She noted that every process needs periodic review and this bill
contains a number of corrective fixes that will help streamline
the process in moving forward, and save the state money.
The foster care system in this state is in desperate trouble and
the state must utilize all of its resources to do the best for
the children. She asked that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee become a champion for this cause, and she asked that
the committee support the bill.
2:10:14 PM
ELIZABETH MEDICINE CROW, President/CEO, First Alaskans
Institute, said she supports this bill and for the past twelve
years, First Alaskans Institute has had the honor, privilege,
and responsibility in helping develop its community's
leadership. The First Alaskans Institute has touched the lives
of over 8,000 children, young people, youth, and young adults
from across the state. Throughout this time, it has seen its
young people seek to strengthen families or already have a deep
cultural connection to who they are through relationships with
their families and communities. These young people have an
inherent ability and capacity to lead their people and
contribute to Alaska. She related that, "At the root, of the
root, of the root of this bill" is common sense, practical
application, and experience of all Alaskans to place children in
families and communities within their culture, where they have
the best chance of thriving." She said that all people of
Alaska have that responsibility. The First Alaskan Institute
thanks the sponsors of this bill in supporting and fighting for
children's rights, she said.
2:12:22 PM
MELVIN EGOAK said he fully supports HB 200. He said he has seen
too many tribal members adopted out even though families advised
OCS and the court, that families are willing and able to "take
care of our family right here in our villages." He related,
paperwork shouldn't be necessary when everyone is already aware
that the family members are willing to adopt their own relative.
This bill can relieve families of heartbreak, please pass this
bill, he asked.
2:13:42 PM
ELIZABETH HENSLEY, General Counsel, Maniilaq Association, said
the Maniilaq Association is a consortium of the twelve tribes of
Northwest Alaska. She related that she is preparing to take the
children, in the emergent school, ice fishing this week, and
while fishing, will speak their native language. The fish will
then be taken back to the classroom, cut up, viewed under a
microscope to identify various parts of the fish, and then
cooked and eaten. She said that what she described is some of
what Kotzebue children do at home, and these children would not
receive that education any place else. She requested the
passage of HB 200, and keep children home in their communities
across the state so they can be enriched in the beautiful
cultures thriving throughout Alaska. She noted that she comes
from a family wherein her aunties and uncles were raised in four
different communities, she did not know them growing up, and she
does not know their children. She asked that the process of
adopting their children be as simple as possible, to help keep
children at home, and save the state money.
2:17:36 PM
LORINDA WESTIN O'BRIAN pointed to the importance of HB 200, and
related it is all about [children] knowing who they are, and
grown adopted people want to know where their family is located.
Although, she remarked, some children will never know, [where
their family is located] due to sealed records. She acknowledge
that information may seem separate, but it is relevant to a
person knowing who they are. Clearly, this legislation is in
line and connects to the federal intent of the Indian Child
Welfare Act, keeping children with their families and
communities, and keeping those children connected to their
heritage.
2:19:41 PM
MARY TUNUCHUK, Chefornak Tribal Council, said she is "all in"
for HB 200, and echoes the support from prior witnesses. She
asked the committee to understand the importance of HB 200 to
Alaska's families and not making it complicated for a family to
take care of its own relatives. There are situations, she said,
where good family members are ready to adopt in order that the
child is not misplaced outside their village, and raised not
knowing their blood line.
CHAIR LEDOUX, after ascertaining no one further wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
2:21:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Ms. Lawton to walk the committee
through the 60 percent - 40 percent population, and discuss the
difficulty of finding adoption for Alaska Native foster
children.
2:22:34 PM
MS. LAWTON responded that currently there are just under 3,000
children in foster care, and of that amount, approximately 55
percent are Alaska Native. She referred to difficulties to
adoption that this bill will help improve, and noted that
sometimes, due to workloads and other reasons, OCS struggles to
identify all of the family members in the beginning. There is
federal and state law and policy governing how much family
searching is taken on, and at which point it continues to
search. Although, she said, as the case moves along, often
family members come forward late in the game, and sometimes
parents are not always willing to tell OCS all of their family
members in the beginning, which can cause delays. Sometimes,
she pointed out, given the historical context the Alaska Native
population has experienced in Alaska, and around the country,
there is some caution and concern about "jumping on board" to
work with OCS. Particularly, she said, when OCS asks a relative
to be in a position where they may see that as "they're kind of
being an agent of the state," because if they are caring for the
child, OCS will tell them what the rules are in terms of contact
with relatives. She described that as a difficult place for a
relative to be in when working with the state, working with the
authority that comes from working with OCS, and the historical
distrust. She opined that sometimes relatives are nervous about
stepping forward early, and OCS believes the bill will help
because it allows its colleagues in tribal child welfare to have
earnest conversations with relatives and advise that this is
their opportunity. Also, the Office of Children's Services
(OCS) will explain that they can't wait until they see that
reunification fails, because that is when the state gets into
terrible situations where the children have become attached, and
the foster families have fallen in love with them. This bill
not only requires that the party is interested in permanent
placement, but it also requires that they are willing to take
immediate placement. She related that that will help to promote
earlier decision making to get people on board with families
within their tribal communities earlier.
2:25:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 200, Version 29-
GH1262/H, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
200(HSS) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:25:40 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:25 p.m. to 2:31 p.m.
SB 180-PARENT-GUARDIAN/CHILD: TEMP. POWER OF ATTY
2:31:03 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 180, "An Act relating to the temporary
delegation by a parent or guardian of powers related to a child;
relating to adoption; and relating to the distribution to a
parent or guardian in a child protection situation of
information on family support services."
2:31:30 PM
KARLE NORE, Staff, Senator Cathy Giesel, Alaska State
Legislature, said that SB 180 is commonly referred to as Safe
Families for Children. An issue considered when drafting this
legislation was to preserve families, which are the core unit of
society, because [families] are the best environment for
children. She remarked that life has challenges, such as loss
of work, divorce, homelessness, struggling with addiction,
medical emergencies, military deployment, or incarceration. Not
all Alaskan families have someone to care for their children,
who need a safe place while they solve these issues, she pointed
out. These parents do not necessarily want, or need, government
to take their children, and the bill establishes a safe and
healthy alternative to placing a child into the foster care
system. She said SB 180 allows parents to execute a power of
attorney over their minor child, for no more than one year, to
another family in order to prevent the child from entering the
foster care system. This legislation allows the parent, or
guardian, to retain all of their parental rights inside the
power of attorney. Either parent can revoke the power of
attorney immediately, at any time, regardless of who implemented
the power of attorney. Birth parents retain all rights and
responsibilities of the child, she said. It allows parents, or
guardians, struggling to seek help with unemployment,
homelessness, and/or eviction, without concern of losing their
children, or without being accused of abandonment, abuse, or
neglect of the child while these family challenges are resolved.
There are provisions in the bill allowing for military parents,
or guardians, as well as incarcerated parents, to execute a
power of attorney for their children's care. This bill creates
an exemption allowing for nonprofit organizations that help find
temporary care for children in struggling families. She
explained that it exempts the nonprofit from having a variance
in order to operate, and it is getting government out of the way
at the heart of these issues.
2:34:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX listed witnesses available to answer questions and
asked Ms. Nore to point out significant portions of the
sectional.
MS. NORE explained that the heart of the bill is the robust
version of the power of attorney that gives more stipulation,
and allows for military parents to execute the power of attorney
for the length of their active duty plus 30 days.
MS. NORE referred to the exemption for non-profit organizations,
and pointed to Sec. 7, AS 47.32.020, page 8, lines 3-6, which
read:
(c) If a nonprofit organization operates a
program that assists parents to find temporary care
for a child, the nonprofit organization is exempt from
the licensing and other requirements of this chapter
when operating the program.
2:35:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT described this as the "safe, soft,
surrender bill," when families are experiencing temporary crisis
they can find suitable parents to intervene for them while the
parent gets their life back together. She asked whether that is
the gist of the entire bill.
2:36:28 PM
MS. NORE agreed, and she said there was testimony within the
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee by a mother who utilized the
Safe Families for Children in Alaska program, which is operated
by Beacon Hill. This mother was facing an extended hospital
stay for several weeks and did not have anyone to care for her
children. She asked Safe Families for Children for temporary
care for her children; the children were temporarily place, and
once she was healed regained custody of her children.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed gratitude for the work the
sponsor put into the bill, and noted he is the sponsor of HB
201, which is the House version of SB 180.
2:37:30 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.
2:37:40 PM
ANDREW BROWN, Senior Fellow, Child Welfare Reform, Foundation
for Government Accountability, said the Foundation for
Government Accountability is a nonprofit nonpartisan
organization dedicated to promoting better lives for individuals
and families through improving health and welfare programs
nationwide. He advised that Safe Families for Children is
working in Alaska by rallying the local communities to come
along side families in crisis before problems get to the point
of OCS intervention. Statistically, he said, the majority of
children in foster care are there due to poverty and neglect,
rather than physical or sexual abuse. These children are there
because their families often have nowhere to turn to get the
help they need, and he related stories from his past. The
concept of Safe Families for Children is simple, it is neighbors
helping neighbors during times of trouble. It organizes through
the local community to recruit, screen, and train volunteer host
families to temporarily care for children while their parents
receive help. He noted that the families do not receive
compensation. Beacon Hill is overseen by professional staff and
it is often done through existing private child welfare agencies
to ensure the safety of all placements. When a parent, in
crisis, seeks the help of Safe Families for Children, they are
introduced to a host family willing and able to take care of
their children. In the event that parent is comfortable, the
parent authorizes the host family to care for their children
through a power of attorney. He described this arrangement as
unique, because the parent retains full legal parental rights
throughout the duration of the placement. It is important, he
pointed out, that this legislation allows parents to address
issues without fear their family will be torn apart.
2:42:32 PM
MR. BROWN pointed to Sec. 2, AS 13.26.023(h), page 5, lines 13-
17, which read:
(h) Except as otherwise determined under another
statute, the execution of a power of attorney by a
parent or guardian does not constitute abandonment,
neglect, or abuse of the minor child or ward under AS
47.10.013 - 47.10.015, unless the parent or guardian
fails, after the power of attorney terminates, to
retake custody of the child and does not execute a new
power of attorney.
MR. BROWN continued that the provision means that the parents
loving choice to ask for help cannot be held against them, as
opposed to being a bad parent and neglecting their child. He
said he has been told by families in crisis that they would not
go to the state for help due to fear the state would take their
children away from them. Safe Families for Children is an
important tool, this legislation is critical to get out in front
and help OCS do the work they are already doing to protect
children in Alaska. Nationwide, he explained, the Safe Families
for Children network is active in 27 states, it has served over
20,000 children, and of those children 90 percent successfully
returned home within an average of 45 days, never to enter the
child welfare system. Nationally, when comparing a child in the
foster care system, they have roughly a 50-50 shot at ever
coming home, and an average time in foster care is over 700
days. He explained that this bill is inspired by best practices
perfected by the Safe Families for Children organization over
the last 14 years, and SB 180 gives families the safe option to
provide for temporary care of their children while they get the
help they need to achieve stability. The program keeps the
children close to their communities and creates an environment
where someone in that child's school district, or local church,
or local community, comes forward to help the family and take
the children in. He said that frontline OCS workers are
stretched thin, they are overwhelmed and need better pools of
resources to help them respond to the needs of children and
families.
[CHAIR LEDOUX passed the gavel to Vice Chair Keller.]
2:46:55 PM
VICE CHAIR KELLER advised that Chair LeDoux passed the gavel to
him because she has a bill in another committee.
2:47:11 PM
ANDY COARY said he is in favor of the bill because it makes
sense, and will enable movements, such as Safe Families for
Children, to operate in Alaska and keep children from entering
the foster care system. Also, he pointed out, by doing that,
there is reduced financial strain on the state, and it allows
non-state resources to step in and care for these children in
need. He opined that the bill has the proper protections in
place for parental rights, because it is a voluntary arrangement
between a parent and a caregiver, and the parent maintains the
right to revoke the power of attorney at any time. On a
personal note, he offered that he has seen the benefits of the
Safe Families for Children movement in Anchorage, because close
friends have taken in children, and those children did not have
to enter foster care. He described this as an ongoing effort to
reduce the number of children entering foster care, and SB 180
will assist in reducing the number of children in state foster
care.
2:49:15 PM
CHARITY CARMODY, President, Beacon Hill, explained that Beacon
Hill is a foster care and adoption community resource center,
and is the arm of the faith based community seeking to provide
aide to children going into foster care, or children at risk of
going into foster care. In 2003, the Safe Families for Children
national movement began, and is in seven different countries.
Beacon Hill is the implementer for Safe Families for Children,
with the blessings of OCS, because it believed the system would
work in Alaska, especially within rural communities, because it
does go back to the tribal way of the community taking care of
itself, she said. Although, she commented, Beacon Hill did not
want to become a child placement agency with regulations
attached, although, it does operate in that manner, it prefers
to operate outside of the state system. Therefore, Beacon Hill
requested legislation that would help eliminate the need for
Beach Hill to be a child placement agency, and also, that the
host families are not required to be licensed foster families.
She explained that the families within the movement are not
families with any current OCS investigation, she stated, and if
abuse was happening, the parents would be referred directly to
OCS. These are families calling about other forms of crisis.
She said that Beacon Hill began operating Safe Families for
Children in Alaska on January 1, [2016], and since that time 12
children have entered Safe Families for Children in Anchorage
and the Matanuska-Susitna Valley who have not entered foster
care. She explained that Beacon Hill, and the host families,
come alongside the parents, surround them with a whole community
of people that helps keep them on track, provides for their
needs and the needs of the host families, and creates a social
network that didn't exist for those families before. She
commented that Beacon Hill has a wonderful relationship with
OCS, under its current leadership, but administrations change
and it wants to help protect the people willing to volunteer
their time and lives for this movement.
2:53:32 PM
MIKE COONS said he was speaking as a former non-commissioned
officer in charge of medical readiness at Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, Ohio. He offered that his duties included
determining what to do with the children of the families if the
United States went to war, with many logistical issues. From a
deployment standpoint, he opined, there is a timeframe wherein
deployment orders come in so an airman can work on those issues.
Although, he explained, in the event of Desert Shield and Desert
Storm, the deployment happened fast, and being in Alaska it was
difficult to get the grandparents to the children. He opined
that this legislation will help the military community with
those deployments and rapid deployments that occur and save
those children from trauma in the foster care system. He
related that he is not a fan of the state foster care system,
and he supports this legislation moving forward.
2:56:05 PM
VICE CHAIR KELLER after ascertaining no one further wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT remarked that this is a good bill and she
would like to see it move out of committee to avoid some
children entering into the state foster care system, and save
money for the state.
VICE CHAIR KELLER added that having a strong family as a result
[of this legislation] is a great bonus.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked the administration's position on
this bill.
VICE CHAIR KELLER advised that Ms. Tracy Campbell can speak to
his question. He related that he has spoken with OCS on several
occasions and his impression is that OCS is positive.
2:57:35 PM
TRACY SPARTZ CAMPBELL, Deputy Director, Office of Children's
Services, Department of Health & Social Services, responded that
the Office of Children's Services (OCS) has positive feelings
about this program; however, the administration's official
position on the bill is neutral.
2:57:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report CSSB 180(JUD), Version 29-
LS1431/I out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB
180(JUD) passed out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:58:16 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:58 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
HB 334-CHILD CUSTODY; DOM. VIOLENCE; CHILD ABUSE
3:00:56 PM
VICE CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 334, "An Act relating to visitation and
child custody."
[Before the committee was HB 334, Version 29-LS1409/I.]
3:01:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt HB 334, Version 29-
LS1409/H as the working document. There being no objection,
Version H was before the committee as the working document.
3:01:28 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Cathy Munoz, Alaska
State Legislature, said Version H is the original version of the
bill introduced by Representative Munoz modifying visitation in
child custody statutes. Currently, AS 25.24.150 allows for a
rebuttable presumption to be utilized if there is a history of
domestic violence. She advised that history is defined as one
serious incident, or more than one incident of domestic violence
as identified by the judge. This legislation seeks to change
that language from "a history of domestic violence" to "a
conviction of domestic violence," she said.
VICE CHAIR KELLER opened public testimony.
3:02:50 PM
REBECCA SHIELDS, Executive Director, Kodiak Women's Resource and
Crisis Center, said she has worked in the field of domestic
violence and sexual assault for 25 years, and within her
experiences, has come to learn that domestic violence is an
isolated and secretive crime that happens behind closed doors
and is; therefore, hard to prove in a court of law. Currently,
with the state's budget crisis, its district attorney's office,
law enforcement offices, and courts are suffering from budget
cuts and understaffed with reduced working hours. The threat
most often heard from victims is that their abuser told them if
they leave the relationship, the abusive partner will take the
children, or sue for custody. She related that the threat is
already all too real for victims, because the abuser is
oftentimes the main wage earner in the household with the money
to fight for custody. She said that victims stay or return to
their violent relationship because, in their minds, it is the
only way to keep custody and protect their children. This
legislation will validate the victims' greatest fears, to not be
able to protect their children in court protected or custody
cases, would be realized. The most undeserved victims of
domestic violence incurring the greatest harm are children who
grow up in violent homes. Alaska has 1.4 times the national
rate in child abuse, and this legislation disregards the rights
of children's safety as priority. The consequence of HB 334 is
that children would be sentenced to living in violent households
either as witness to, or direct recipients of, violence. The
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
worked hard with the legislature to pass the current rebuttable
presumptive law in 2004 to protect Alaskan children. She
explained that under the law prior to 2004, parents and children
were killed during custody disputes, that current law saved
lives, and the legislature should not mess with that. She
advised she is strongly opposed to HB 334, and urged the
committee to not move the bill forward.
3:06:30 PM
PAUL GRANT, Attorney, said he has practiced law in the domestic
violence and sexual assault field over 25 years. In his
experience, he related, the current law frequently destroys
relationships between children and parents who are not violent,
and have not committed any physical violence or psychological
violence against the children. Under current law, once the
court is forced to impose supervised visitation there are many
barriers to supervised visitation being effective contact. He
explained that those barriers can include, costs, unavailability
of a batterer's programs in remote communities, lack of
qualified supervisors, and any number of problems. He
expressed, current law needs to change, and addressed the
differences between the original bill (Version H), and the
committee substitute (Version I), and noted his personal
preference for Version I. He explained there are two ways to
approach the problem, but they both come down to making sure
that the people subjected to a presumption or supervised
visitation, are people who are causing harm to children. He
said, often there are technical violations, such as an
accidental encounter in a grocery store, which leads to a
violation of a protective order, which then triggers the
presumption, and from there all of the consequences roll
downhill.
3:09:17 PM
MR. GRANT suggested requiring a conviction of the crime before
imposing the presumption, which makes clear this person actually
committed some act of violence that caused harm to the children
of that marriage. The committee substitute approach was
different in that it establishes the highest civil level of
proof, clear and convincing, in order for there to be a history
of domestic violence. In the event there was an act of domestic
violence, the court must take that into consideration in the
custody determination. Or, he said, under the committee
substitute, "conviction of a crime." He explained there are two
ways to get to the history of domestic violence. The most
beneficial aspect of the committee substitute is that it gives
the court discretion.
MR. GRANT pointed to Sec. 2, AS 25.20.061, page 1, lines 13-15
and page 2, lines 1-4, which read:
If visitation is awarded to a parent who the
court finds by clear and convincing evidence has a
history of perpetrating [COMMITTED A CRIME INVOLVING]
domestic violence or been convicted of a crime
involving domestic violence, against the other parent,
[OR] a child, or a domestic living partner [OF THE TWO
PARENTS], within five years preceding the award of
visitation, the court may set conditions for the
visitation, including
MR. GRANT explained that it gives the court a checklist of
[conditions it can set] to protect the child in a case where it
has found domestic violence. He explained that when the court
finds there is domestic violence committed by the accused, there
are then eight different protections the court can put into
place in that particular case. The conditions do not,
necessarily, involve removing the child from the parent,
whereas, under current law the court really has no choice. For
example, he said, if there is a finding of domestic violence,
the conditions can include: supervised visitation; possibility
of a batterer's program if available; alcohol or drug
restrictions; paying the costs of supervised visitation; and a
number of other conditions.
3:12:28 PM
MR. GRANT opined, the most important factor is giving the trial
courts the discretion to make reasoned decisions as to whether
this person is a danger to these children. Under current law,
under the presumption, that [discretion] does not happen. He
explained that the court does not have a choice to determine
whether this person is a danger to these children, and opined
that the court does not want to destroy the relationship between
a child and their parent. He said his preference is taking the
presumption out and making it a clear and convincing finding by
the court, which would then trigger the protections the court
can impose. He pointed out that either version gets the law
moving in the right direction, which is to not destroy
relationships between parents and children in the absence of a
concrete showing of harm to the child involved.
3:14:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked how often the rebuttable
presumption has been invoked in these custody cases, in Mr.
Grant's experience.
MR. GRANT opined, it is invoked approximately 10-15 percent of
the time, wherein possibly 20 percent of the time there would be
a couple of incidents of domestic violence when discussing the
entire universe of custody cases. Another problem, he said, is
that due to the way the law is structured, if the parent
contemplating suing for divorce wants to obtain custody of the
children, and that parent is able to convince the court there
were two incidents of domestic violence, then that parent has
immediately put their ball in the five yard line of the other
team. He advised he has often seen the tactic of invoking the
rebuttable presumption used in cases where there is no danger to
the child. The presumption is invoked because it gives that
parent an advantage in the unfolding custody litigation. He
opined that he could not offer a statistical number, other than
it is pretty substantial, but he could say there are a number of
cases in which he has seen the tool applied.
3:16:40 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:16 p.m. to 3:17p.m.
3:17:05 PM
VICE CHAIR KELLER advised that Chair LeDoux had returned, but he
would continue as chair through the conclusion of Mr. Grant's
testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Grant, as a family law
attorney, which side of these cases he finds himself on.
MR. GRANT responded that he has represented both parties a
relatively equal amount of time. He pointed out that it is more
common the mother invokes the presumption; however, he has
recently been involved in a couple of cases in which the mother
was the perpetrator. Although, he related, it certainly is not
a gender exclusive phenomenon and he finds himself on both sides
of the issue, and both sides of parents of both genders.
3:18:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the court finding that
the domestic violence had occurred and the presumption attached
with the notion of a technical violation, and asked how
technical a technical violation can be. He further asked Mr.
Grant to illustrate two technical violations from his prior
cases, how uncommon it can be that someone who, in his view,
does not pose a danger to a child can be found of two
infractions of domestic violence, and the presumption be invoked
upon them.
3:20:01 PM
MR. GRANT offered the example he presented within his written
testimony for the previous committee, and advised that the facts
were modified slightly so the people involved couldn't be
identified. During an argument the father slammed a door in the
house and broke the door frame, and the police were called but
never did anything about that. Although, technically speaking
that is malicious destruction of property or some sort of an
assault. The court found, on request for a short-term
restraining order, that incident constituted enough of a showing
to obtain a short-term restraining order. Subsequently, the
father ran into the mother in the grocery store, and not having
consulted with counsel yet, asked the mother what they were
doing, can't they stop this, and figure out some other way to
work it out. At some point the conversation got a bit heated
and the father finally walked away. The mother called the
police, he was arrested for violating the 20 day restraining
order, supervised visitation followed, and he didn't see his
children for a long time. He pointed out that that is the type
of case that concerns him. An argument can be made that the
father is a perpetrator because he slammed the door during the
argument and the child heard it, and that's domestic violence
that children are exposed to. He opined that no reasonable
person would say that is a situation where a father should lose
his relationship with his children, and that is the type of
issue the bill needs to address in whichever version is taken up
by the committee.
3:22:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that several of the folks
previously testifying discussed the challenges in domestic
violence cases, and that reporting is a large issue. He pointed
out that this discussion is not the slamming of doors in anger
cases, but rather cases wherein people are physically assaulted
and those children put in danger. He also pointed out, there
are domestic violence orders not resulting in prosecutions for
any number of reasons. Previous testimony indicated that this
legislation makes it harder to reverse the trends in domestic
violence cases if the legislature changes how these domestic
violence orders are managed. He asked how Mr. Grant responds to
that critic of both versions of the bill, not focused on the
slamming of the door scenario where people are potentially
abusing the domestic violence protective order statute. He
asked Mr. Grant how he balances those issues due to the issue of
domestic violence in this state.
3:24:38 PM
MR. GRANT responded that the problem Representative Claman
posited is that it is an "either or" situation, either the
perpetrator gets away with it, or potentially the protections
are abused. He opined, the solution is judicial discretion, the
judge's ability to look down at these parties and relate what he
believes happened, and what should happen to protect the
children or the other spouse. Thereby, giving the judge the
ability to prevent destruction of a parent-child relationship
unnecessarily, and [Version I] does that. Although, he noted,
at the end of the day there probably will be hard cases where a
choice has to be made as to the unnecessary destruction of
parent-child relationships. The criminal system is set up to
provide those kinds of protections, he remarked, and whether it
does so, or not, he couldn't speak to how often prosecutors roll
over on a case that should be prosecuted. He suggested there
are other things to do about that, such as educating
prosecutors, make referrals to prosecution easier, and other
ways to approach that. He conceded there is a tension there,
and [Version I] probably addresses that better by making it
either a conviction of a domestic violence, or a finding of
domestic violence.
[VICE CHAIR KELLER passed the gavel back to Chair LeDoux.]
3:27:44 PM
The committee took a short at ease.
3:27:57 PM
SARALYN TABACHNICK, Executive Director, Aiding Women in Abuse
and Rape Emergencies (AWARE), said she has worked at the Aiding
Women in Abuse and Rape Emergencies (AWARE) Center for 29 years,
and during that time has worked with children who have
experienced domestic violence or sexual abuse. She clarified
that a slammed door doesn't, necessarily, mean that these people
are a domestic violence offender. She pointed out that she does
not want to minimize what domestic violence is, and described it
as an ongoing pattern of behavior wherein people live in fear of
an intimate partner in their home abusing power and control over
them. She offered that children live in fear and slamming doors
can be very fearful, it's not an isolated incident. She
clarified, this is not about destroying relationships between
parents and children, it's about keeping children safer, and the
legislation does not keep children safer. In order for a
conviction to occur, someone has to call the police, and in
order for someone to call the police, they have to not be afraid
of calling the police and not be afraid of getting the
perpetrator in trouble. The [victims] must be willing to take
that step. She continued that there has to be an arrest and a
conviction. It is uncommon that there are consistent
convictions in domestic violence, because quite often charges
are pled down to disorderly conduct, and then there is no
domestic violence.
3:30:51 PM
MS. TABACHNICK related that under current law, rebuttable
presumption requires a judge to find a history of domestic
violence. She referred to previous testimony as to leaving it
to the judge's discretion, and advised that current law protects
Alaska's children exposed to domestic violence by requiring
courts to consider that. The presumption is rebuttable, which
means an accused domestic violence offender has the opportunity
to come forward and contest it. She related that knowing all of
this, the rebuttable presumption law puts faith in Alaska's
judges to rely on collateral sources to determine a finding of
domestic violence. In the event a history is found, the court
has discretion to decide whether unsupervised, or supervised,
visitation is best, and require the perpetrating parent to
participate in some sort of programming. She explained that
this does not mean an offending parent can't see their children,
and when people say the father hasn't seen his children for a
year, that is not because the court didn't allow it, she
remarked. She stated, it means the parent made a choice to not
see their children, because the court requires [certain'
conditions to keep a child safe, generally a supervisor being
present. She pointed out that this has also been helpful in
assisting parents to get help, and Alaskan judges do not take
that responsibility lightly. She urged the committee to let
judge's do what they do best and what Alaskans trust them to do,
look at all of the evidence, and make an informed decision about
domestic violence in a given relationship. Current law is based
upon language from a model code drafted by the National Council
on Juvenile and Family Court Judges. She said that Alaska is
one of twenty-four states to have a rebuttable presumption
against giving custody to parents with a history of domestic
violence, and that is something to be proud of, rather than
looking to change.
3:32:56 PM
MS. TABACHNICK advised, more often than a rebuttable presumption
protecting children, AWARE sees children ordered by the court to
spend unsupervised time with an abusive parent, a parent they
have seen be hurtful to their mothers, a parent they are afraid
of, and a parent who may be directly abusive to them as well.
More often than a rebuttable presumption protecting children,
AWARE hears mothers trying to protect their children, mothers
whose hearts are wrenched put as they send their crying and
pleading children to be with a parent they are terrified of.
Then, she stressed, when their children return, they have
nightmares, are angry or anxious or bed wetting for days until
they are able to be soothed and calmed only to have this pattern
repeated the next weekend. She said that Alaska is raising
children who are learning that their needs and feelings don't
matter, that their boundaries are not to be respected.
Therefore, she said, they learn that they are not allowed to
have boundaries and thus have no skills in either setting
boundaries or believing they have rights to boundaries. Alaska,
as a society, set up the most vulnerable children to be harmed
again and again. She related that she finds HB 334 to be one of
the most disheartening bills she has ever spoken to in her 27
years at AWARE. If anything, Alaska needs laws that further
protect children, not laws that make it more difficult to keep
them safe, she related.
3:34:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked what kind of supervised
visitation programs exist in a community such as Juneau, how
available are those kinds of programs in different parts of
Alaska, and what cost would they have to the supervised parent.
He asked her to provide her perspective on the realities of
supervised visitation.
MS. TABACHNICK responded, there is one local agency offering
supervised visits, and she was unsure whether other venues were
available or arrangements could be made with the court in terms
of finding a supervisor that is agreeable to all. She advised
that when she hears about parents not seeing their children for
a year, she stated that it is not because they couldn't find a
supervisor or couldn't afford to pay for one, it is because they
don't want to be told by the court or anyone that there has to
be a supervisor, and they put that in front of their
relationship with their children. She said that is also not
unusual to see when domestic violence has occurred and the
problem is not the presumption. She remarked that she hoped
people would look more at justice than [using the rebuttable
presumption as a tool and] winning.
3:37:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that in situations Ms.
Tabachnick has seen, indignation and righteousness is a barrier
for the parent seeing the child and not necessarily the external
barriers, such as cost or lack of services.
MS. TABACHNICK agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN clarified that Mr. Grant said he had
considered using it as a tool but never actually done so,
although he may have misheard him.
MS. TABACHNICK thanked Representative Claman because she is
happy and relieved to be corrected on that.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN related that doesn't mean that others, not
represented, may not use it in that way. He referred people who
may use slamming a door as a basis for a domestic violence
petition, and the court may or may not approve the ex parte
petition. He said those are contrasted with cases involving
horrific instances of domestic violence that anyone would agree
was awful by anyone's approach. He asked whether she has seen
cases where it appears someone is using a single incident to
push forward their domestic violence petition. He offered that
he was trying to get the breadth of her experience in what she
sees coming into the shelters.
MS. TABACHNICK answered that she does not do a lot of direct
service, and she does not believe AWARE receives many people
coming in just to look for a protection order, because the
AWARE center looks for certain elements necessary to receive a
protection order. Therefore, AWARE is looking for those
elements and not looking to abuse or use the system, but it may
ask someone why they are coming for AWARE's services if the
issue is not one that puts them in fear.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that Fred Triem is next and pointed out
that she normally does not allow people to testify under public
testimony twice, and she is making an exception in this case
because the bill being heard today is different than the bill
heard a couple of days ago.
3:41:15 PM
FRED TRIEM, Attorney, advised that the task before the committee
is a task of legislative drafting, and that it is better to use
a precise word or term in preference to a vague, amorphous, or
uncertain term. He explained, this bill does a good job of
replacing vague, amorphous, and imprecise terms with exact
precise language. For example, under Version H, page 1, line 5,
and the phrase "committed" as in committed a crime, is replaced
with the phrase "been convicted of a crime." He pointed out
that when reviewing the second, third, and fourth pages of the
bill this legislation is improved in eight different places by
replacing the vague phrase of "a history of perpetrating" with a
precise phrase "convicted." He described this as the best bill
he has seen because it will improve Alaska's law, it will save
the court system a lot of time, and it will eliminate a lot of
expensive hearings.
MR. TRIEM referred to judicial discretion, and pointed out that
the problem is that it requires time, requires a hearing, and a
trial. The language of the bill eliminates the need for
judicial discretion because discretion took place in an earlier
proceeding wherein a defendant had their trial and exercised
their due process rights. He remarked, this bill will not give
free rein to child abuses as it simply protects Alaska's
judicial system, the people involved in domestic violence,
streamlines the process by requiring precise language, and
eliminates time consuming and expensive proceedings. Given the
late date of the session, he suggested that a good bill now is
better than a perfect bill weeks and weeks from now.
3:46:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether he supports changing
the eighth criteria listed on page 5, lines [1-7], to a
conviction of drug use or drug abuse to similarly achieve a
precise and clear definition that the court does not need to
exercise discretion.
MR. TRIEM responded, he is not advocating a court should not use
discretion. The language contained in Sec. 8, addresses the
topic of different programs, some of which are not available in
small towns. He stated he is not advocating doing away with
discretion for a court to determine whether the defendant is
abusing alcohol or psychoactive drugs. He reiterated that those
are the kinds of conduct that have already been adjudicated and
determined in a fair judicial proceeding. If a defendant has
been convicted of abusing alcohol or using psychoactive drugs, a
person can go to CourtView to determine whether there has been a
conviction. He described it as a precise process wherein a
determination is easily made, as opposed to having days and days
of hearings to determine whether the person does, or does not,
have a history of this misconduct.
3:48:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that Mr. Triem is saying
he wants to see a conviction of domestic violence, and asked why
he does not want to see a conviction for drug possession or drug
use also.
MR. TRIEM replied he is not saying he does not want to see
convictions. He explained that a conviction of misconduct is a
result of a judicial process in which the defendant has had an
opportunity to present his defenses in an orderly process,
usually with a jury trial. Whereas, these cases that go before
district courts and superior courts without a jury do not afford
the accused the full range of their constitutional protections.
In his experience, it is almost invariably a male who is being
excluded by this process, because it is almost always men who
lose custody of their children because they are accused of
having a history of domestic violence, he said.
3:49:45 PM
MS. KOENEMAN pointed to Representative Kreiss-Tomkins's question
regarding substance abuse, and whether or not there is support
for conviction. She offered, the language in the bill, both in
current statute and Version H, doesn't contain a rebuttable
presumption language regarding substance abuse, like it does
with domestic violence. There is specific language, "if there
is a history, they are guilty until proven innocent," which is
why the sponsor hasn't addressed that issue, or why there isn't
clear and convincing evidence regarding substance abuse. She
explained that it is a factor the judge can consider, but there
is not an automatic loss of the person's children unless they
complete a batterer's program or alcohol treatment abuse
program.
MS. KOENEMAN pointed to a question related to supervised
visitations. She explained that she has found seven programs
across the entire state for supervised visitation. The cost for
one program in Palmer, is a $35 orientation fee and $50 per
hour. There was a 2011 Alaska Judicial Council report on the
batterer's intervention programs that went through some of the
stakeholder observations. She referred to the report and
advised she would get copies of the report should members so
desire. Ms. Koeneman said that page 6 of "that report" talks
about barriers to referral, enrollment, and completion of the
batterer's intervention programs, which she said states,
"enrollment programs was often hindered by a lack of
transportation, lack of money to pay for programs, and defendant
transiency." She said the report further lists suggestions,
such as "examine the need for more programs statewide; look into
ways to use technology to broaden the programs to rural
locations, to women, and to ease transportation difficulties;
examine ways to lower program costs, and to communicate payment
options to offenders at the time of the referral; develop state
protocols for transferring offenders from [Batterers'
Intervention Program] BIPs to another in a different location;
consider ways to promote batterer's intervention programs
completion by teaching offenders life skills as part of the BIP
course prior to entry."
MS. KOENEMAN pointed to the comment there are people attending
batterer's intervention programs, or people who don't complete
it, or people who choose not to. She opined there are many
other reasons why, and she said, "I don't think it's just a
sheer, 'I don't want to see my kids and I wanna fight,' you
know, and 'I don't think I need to go.'" She opined there are
true reasons as to why people are unable to complete those
programs, as outlined by the Alaska Judicial Council.
3:54:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 334, Version 29-
LS1409/H out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 334
moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
3:54:25 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:54 p.m. to 4:04 p.m.
SB 174-REG. OF FIREARMS/KNIVES BY UNIV. OF AK
4:04:38 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would
SENATE BILL NO. 174, "An Act relating to the regulation of
firearms and knives by the University of Alaska."
4:05:35 PM
SENATOR PETE KELLY advised there was a conflict between the
Board of Regents policy, the Constitution of the State of
Alaska, and Alaska's Statutes. In 2003, he related, under House
Bill 102, it became legal to have a concealed carry in this
state. He described it as a blanket legislation. He said that
subsequent to that law, the University of Alaska put into policy
that concealed carry was not allowed, put up red signs advising
that no one could have a gun on campus, and there was a campus-
wide restriction on the carrying of weapons. He stated that
the state constitution is specific about the right to keep and
bear arms in the State of Alaska, and it is more strongly
specified than the Constitution of the United States. The
Constitution of the State of Alaska reads that the right to keep
and bear arms is an individual right. Currently, he said, there
are 150 campuses in the United States allowing concealed carry,
and eight states put that into specific legislation. This
legislation was originally drafted to mirror a piece of
legislation that had gone through the process a couple of years
ago. The University of Alaska pointed out their concerns and,
he noted, that a couple of unique concerns involved the fact
that the university deals with domestic violence disputes,
employee and student disputes, investigations of those disputes,
assaults, and it has dormitories. Changes were made in the bill
allowing the university to restrict weapons in specific areas
where the university handles disputes, and that the firearms
must be secure in the dormitories. Essentially, he explained,
the legislation makes it so the university has to be in line
with other places in the state. Alaskans have the right to
defend themselves and, he described the current university
policy as a red sign saying bad guys don't carry weapons here,
which does not meet any test it would put forward to provide
safety, if that is its intent. He related that it unduly
restricts the constitutional rights of Alaskans and it does not
have the authority to do that, because the authority rests
within the legislature and the provisions of the Constitution of
the State of Alaska. That is essentially what this bill does,
he said.
4:10:10 PM
SENATOR KELLY reiterated that this bill recognizes that Alaskans
have the right to keep and bear arms. He explained that a
motivation for the legislation was the San Bernardino shooting,
and multiple shootings in the United States over the past few
years. Since 1955, all but two of the mass public shootings in
the United States have happened in gun free zones. When a
person that normally has the right to defend themselves is told
that they cannot defend themselves in these areas they become
soft targets for the bad guys. He related that one of the items
on the shooters plan, at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University (Virginia Tech) shooting, was that it was a gun
free zone. He said, with regard to the Century movie theater in
Aurora, Colorado shooting, there were eight other theaters in
that city, but that particular theater was posted as a gun free
zone. The choices made by the people who will do violence do it
in places where they do not have people shooting back, they
don't want to be interrupted in their mission by people
defending themselves and, he commented, that many of those
people will ultimately commit suicide. He opined the University
of Alaska has made itself a large target, not only for people
who are unstable, but also members of ISIS that have gained more
and more strength in the country. When ISIS comes to Alaska,
the sponsor wants to be certain Alaskans are prepared, and able,
to defend themselves, and are not breaking the law when they
carry out their "god given right," he said. He stated that the
University of Alaska is against this bill on, probably, a
philosophical basis, or it does not think it is able to manage a
citizenry carrying out its constitutional rights. He noted the
university's complaint that it is not able to restrict someone's
right to carry if they are a threat to themselves or others, and
said that currently exists in law, under a Title 47 hold.
Senator Kelly advised Chair LeDoux that he had to leave ...
4:14:28 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that while she realizes he is a busy
man, there are three questions she would like to ask. She
referred to secured guns in the dormitories, and asked why that
would not be constitutionally prohibited because the dormitories
are the student's living area. She referred to the Senate
Finance Committee zeroing out the fiscal note, and asked for the
rationale. She then referred to letters from the public
pointing out that people with guns are not allowed in the Juneau
Capitol Building where the legislature resides. The public has
asked why the people working at the University of Alaska have to
deal with people with guns when they are not allowed in the
legislative building.
4:15:32 PM
SENATOR KELLY responded, with regard to the dormitories, the
bill reads that people must keep the weapon in a lockbox with a
self-locking mechanism.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked what good is having the gun in a lockbox if
someone breaks into the dormitory.
4:15:47 PM
SENATOR KELLY answered that the bill provides that a person
either has it on their person, or it's in a lockbox. It would
be against the rules for a person, leaving their dormitory for a
long period of time, to leave it in there where it could be
stolen. The idea is that with responsible gun ownership,
certain things are wired into gun owners, such that the person
has control of their weapon or has secured their weapon.
Although, he related, the gun can remain in the lockbox if they
are going shopping, or gone for a short period of time. Senator
Kelly said he does not want people leaving their guns in their
dormitories for a long period of time.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the gun has to be in a lockbox if a
person is in their room in the dormitory, or whether it is
alright if they are in their room with the gun.
SENATOR KELLY replied that the gun has to be on their person or
in the lockbox, which is basic responsible gun ownership.
SENATOR KELLY referred to zeroing out the fiscal note and
offered that other states had put forward large fiscal notes,
but those fiscal notes were never funded because they were not
necessary. He offered that the red signs do not work, but areas
where the university is investigating a domestic violence
situation in a certain room, it is reasonable for the university
to restrict weapons from that area. He described it as a simple
matter that does not require wands and magnetic metal detectors,
"it allows them to restrict in that manner." Similarly, he
noted, courts do not allow weapons and the courts have magnetic
metal detectors, but he does not feel that is necessary for the
university because it will not be dealing with heightened levels
of criminality that the courts deals with on an hour-by-hour
basis.
4:18:23 PM
SENATOR KELLY referred to the difference between the university
and legislators [and restricting people with guns], and
responded that this bill is not about the legislature. If there
is a desire for another bill, he commented that he just might
sponsor that bill. This bill is regarding the university campus
and he unsure about adding it to the bill because there may be
complications he is unaware of at this late date, he remarked.
4:18:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the lockbox idea and asked
whether it would be in a student's room or on the main floor,
and whether a lockbox is like a safe.
SENATOR KELLY advised that the lockbox would be in the student's
room, and a lockbox is similar to a safe except it is smaller.
Although, he explained that a safe could be used because the gun
would be even more secure. He further explained that the
lockbox is safer, and the bill specifies that it must be made of
metal.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska providing a greater right to possess arms than the
Constitution of the United States, and asked whether he is aware
of any Alaska Supreme Court case making that finding.
SENATOR KELLY advised that he is mostly tracking court cases for
the Alaska Supreme Court where there has been an argument that
the right to keep and bear arms is a general right in Alaska.
When reading the Constitution of the State of Alaska on this
matter, it reads that it is an individual right, he said.
4:20:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494
(Alaska 1975), involving marijuana where the court found there
was a greater right to privacy than in the federal constitution,
and asked whether he was aware of an Alaska Supreme Court case
that makes a similar finding.
SENATOR KELLY said, no.
4:20:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to his statement regarding the
constitutional right to bear arms, and asked whether a homeowner
has the right to tell his dinner guests that guns are not
allowed in the house and to leave them in the car.
SENATOR KELLY responded that that issue is not contemplated in
this bill, this involves the university.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said that he asked the question in terms
of Senator Kelly's conception of the right to bear arms and how
it weighs on other constitutional rights. He then reiterated
the question and asked whether the neighbor can say that guns
are not allowed in his house, and whether that would be within
his constitutional right to tell the guest to put the gun in the
car.
SENATOR KELLY responded that the property owner, absolutely,
would have the right to say that guns are not allowed in his
home.
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that the neighbor's house is not a
public building.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN agreed, and he referred to the comparison
between the Alaska Court System, which has taken the position
that it can bar weapons from the public courthouse, he asked why
it is not within the university's right, as the owner of that
public space, to make these same determinations. He further
asked how the university differs from the court system.
SENATOR KELLY responded that there is somewhat of a wall between
the legislature being able to impose rules on the courts,
although, there is some authority to do that, but there is a
separation of powers between the legislature and the court. The
right to keep and bear arms has evolved over time. The right of
the court to say that the court is in session and guns are left
outside the courthouse has been part of the American culture,
and it is accepted by gun advocates. He noted he is unaware of
anyone that supports guns in the courtroom due to the criminal
nature, contentious nature, and adversarial nature of court.
4:23:36 PM
JOE BYRNES, Staff, Senator Pete Kelly, Alaska State Legislature,
referred to the fiscal note and advised that the University of
Alaska requested $1.3 million because it referenced the same
amount as the University of Idaho system had requested in order
to implement its campus carry system. The State of Idaho
legislature never funded the University of Idaho's request, and
he said, "they found that the fiscal note, and I think we feel
likewise to the fiscal note, on -- the university has offered on
SB 174, um ... it was an attempt to oppose the bill." Although,
he said, the University of Idaho system did implement long over-
due security changes. Currently, he commented, all of the
University of Alaska campus security forces are armed, and are
actual peace officers. He questioned, why allowing law abiding
citizens to carry concealed handguns on campus would require a
sudden increase in security if the university currently believes
its policy adequately protects its campus. He then offered to
go through the sectional of the bill.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked that he focus on the most important aspects
of the bill.
4:25:44 PM
MR. BYRNES agreed, and referred to Section 1, page 1, lines 6-
10, which read as follows:
FINDINGS AND INTENT. The legislature finds that the
individual right to keep and bear arms is a
constitutionally protected right under art. 1, sec.
19, Constitution of the State of Alaska, and may not
be abridged by the Board of Regents of the University
of Alaska. The legislature reserves to the state the
authority to regulate firearms, except as specifically
provided in AS. 14.40.173.
MR. BYRNES advised it adds the findings and intent language to
uncodified law.
MR. BYRNES advised that Sec. 2 amends the University of Alaska
Community College statutes under Title 14, and makes explicit
that the authority to regulate firearms and knives is reserved
to the state, except as provided in statute, the Board of
Regents may not regulate firearms and knives. He explained that
the Board of Regents may regulate, through this legislation,
includes: open carry firearms; restricting the discharge of
firearms on land where there is a reasonable likelihood people,
animals, or property will be in jeopardy; the possession of
firearms or knives in posted restricted access areas, defined as
an area beyond a secure point where visitors are screened and
does not include common areas of ingress and egress open to the
public; and may include university designated rooms where sexual
assault, sexual harassment, or domestic violence are
investigated and victim assistance is provided; and in
university-designated rooms during adjudication of staff and
student disciplinary issues and disputes. He continued that the
Board of Regents may regulate the carrying of firearms in
dormitories or shared living quarters; however, those
regulations must require that the handgun is either carried on
the person or secured in an owner provided lockbox. Persons
living in dormitories must declare to the university their
intention to store a weapon in their dormitory room. He noted
that the university may privately collect and store that
information for no more than one year, and use it for making
housing decisions for students who have expressed they do not
want to share a dormitory room with a person who possesses a
firearm.
4:27:38 PM
MR. BYRNES explained that the sponsor is trying to balance the
rights of students who wish to carry their right to privacy, and
the rights of students not desiring to share their dormitory
room with a person possessing a firearm. Furthermore, he
advised, the bill prohibits the following: the university
creating a database or registry of persons who possess a firearm
on campus; requiring permission before a person may possess a
firearm on campus; or adopting implied consent policies on
campus. The bill also contains a civil liability immunity
section that states the university is immune from civil
liability for any act or omission resulting from a policy or
regulation adopted or enforced under this section of law. He
offered that the University of Alaska requested that provision.
MR. BYRNES explained that Sec. 3, adds an effective date for the
bill of August 1, 2016, to address the university's concern for
enough time to promulgate conformed regulations before the
upcoming semester. He then listed individuals available to
answer questions.
4:29:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed to his reference about restricted
access areas, and asked where it is located within the bill
itself.
4:29:35 PM
MR. BYRNES responded that restricted access areas are mentioned
on page 2, line 16, and are defined on page 4, lines 3-5. He
explained that the restricted access area is a secure point
beyond which visitors are screened, and does not include areas
of common ingress and egress open to the public. He noted that
this exact language is also found in Title 29, Municipal
regulation of firearms statutes, because municipalities are not
allowed to regulate firearms beyond what is found in the law,
but are allowed to erect these restricted access areas.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS advised that he spoke with friends
who had hunted since they were young children, and also trusted
police officers. He advised that his hunting friends, one of
which had taken a marksmanship course at the University of
Alaska Fairbanks, advised that stress can affect aim, and the
police officers advised that in high stress and dangerous
situations it is difficult to identify hostiles versus friendly
people. He then referenced Senator's Kelly's comments regarding
several mass shootings and opined that the clear implication is
that this is seen as legislation that will advance the right to
self-defense. He asked what precedence exists of attempted mass
killings, cut short by intervention from everyday people who may
carry concealed weapons, and that their actions directly
resulted in a better outcome.
MR. BYRNES responded that he does not have a study at his
disposal, although, he offered that FBI statistics indicate that
retaliating people have an overwhelmingly better chance of
getting out of their ordeal better than if they didn't
retaliate. Although, he acknowledged, that statistic didn't
have examples of how the people retaliated. Anecdotally, he
said, there are many cases where armed citizens have de-
escalated situations by having a gun. He pointed out that when
it comes to violence on campus and the fear that more armed
persons on campus will cause an increase in violence or increase
in suicide, that burden of proof rests with people who wish to
deny the right to begin with. He said that in all of the
concealed carry campuses there has not been a marked increase in
violence or suicide. Therefore, he commented, the evidence
shows that, overall, this would not be an issue.
4:36:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the active shooter
training provided at the Capitol Building, and noted that the
basic take away was that defensive retaliation is appropriate.
He said he agrees there has probably not been an increase of gun
violence or suicides on campuses adopting concealed carry, but
he would like to know what insurance companies think in
evaluating the risks, and how it may, or may not, affect
policies, which is a market based test.
4:37:56 PM
MR. BRYNES answered that he does not have any actuarial analysis
from insurance providers, but there has not been an increase in
violence. He added that the four instances that occurred have
been accidental discharges from irresponsible use with non-life
threatening injuries. He commented that concealed carry is for
the self-defense of the person who is carrying, and not to
protect other people. He advised that the sponsor does not
contemplate or encourage creating amateur armed swat teams
roaming around campuses to take out the bad guys in mass
shooting, and described it as irresponsible behavior. In many
situations, he commented, where a person has been threatened,
the mere brandishing of a gun may have de-escalated that
situation, and currently on campus that is not allowed.
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that Europe does not have concealed
carry due to stringent gun control laws, and it is highly
unlikely the people in Brussels or Paris were carrying guns.
Alaska, she said, has a fairly broad concealed carry law and
Alaska could be the only area a study could take place.
4:41:24 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX turned to Michael Hostina, University of Alaska
Fairbanks, and noted that, currently, guns are not allowed on
campus, but Alaska has a broad concealed carry law in general.
She asked how he would know whether someone is carrying a gun,
because they are not required to go through metal detectors and
they are not frisked.
4:42:07 PM
MICHAEL HOSTINA, General Counsel, clarified that weapons are
permitted on campus under certain circumstances and students may
have their weapons stored in secure storage. There are various
events on campus to which weapons may be carried, such as gun
shows, the rifle team where people may check in and check out
their weapons, and people in faculty and single housing are
permitted to store weapons. Weapons are not permitted in the
dormitories and concealed carry is not generally permitted on
campus. He explained that the university becomes aware of
someone carrying a weapon when they act in an inappropriate
manner, such as threatening someone, demonstrating their weapon,
or the weapon is mishandled and falls out. When the university
becomes aware of a person carrying a gun it takes steps to
administratively remove those weapons from campus.
4:43:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the restricted access areas
listed in the bill and asked his understanding of what the
university would be required to do, to create those areas.
MR. HOSTINA responded that a sign is not sufficient to establish
a restricted access area, and currently the university, by
policy, may limit weapons in areas such as, a disciplinary
hearing or an investigative meeting. With the passage of this
bill, the university would not be able to enforce a policy
unless it had established a secure point beyond which visitors
are screened. In order to regulate weapons in those areas, the
university would have to establish the restricted access area
and, he said, that's the definition of a restricted access area.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether that involves metal
detectors or a guard sitting at the secure access point using a
hand wand to check for weapons.
MR. HOSTINA answered that that is not clear and, he pointed out
the best way to set up the university's restricted access area
is not clear. Therefore, he explained, the fiscal note has an
expense associated with it, which is now limited to the cost of
a security analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the university could have a
secure access point, without having something different,
screening for weapons. Or, he asked, would the university have
to have something that screens for weapons to make it qualify as
a restricted access area.
4:45:49 PM
MR. HOSTINA opined that someone disadvantage by the university's
enforcement of a restricted access area, that did not include
some type of screening, would certainly have an argument that
the university had not complied with the law. The university's
ability to enforce requires it to establish some form of secure
point, and some form of screening, otherwise it will not be able
to enforce that aspect of the law.
4:46:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that, currently, the university basically
does not allow any guns on campus, and asked why it does not
have a wand to test everyone. She then asked why, if the
university is now allowing guns on campus, that people would
have to go through the wand exercise. Clearly, she pointed out,
a good portion of the university is in Fairbanks and there must
be many people carrying guns in Fairbanks.
MR. HOSTINA replied that he does not know whether that is the
case or not, or whether it is more likely in Anchorage, or not.
CHAIR LEDOUX interject that the university doesn't know whether
a person is carrying because a wand is not used; therefore, if
it is so important to check everyone, why isn't the university
using the wands now.
MR. HOSTINA explained that it is a matter of being able to
respond when the university becomes aware of an issue.
Currently, he said, if the university becomes aware of someone
violating its policy, the university can do something about it.
Under this bill, the university would not be able to do
something about someone carrying on campus unless the university
had established a restricted access area. He pointed out that
the bill establishes a restricted access area to prevent weapons
from being involved in adjudications or investigations.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether, currently, the university
is involved in investigations of sexual assault, sexual
harassment, domestic violence, and providing victim assistance.
MR. HOSTINA responded that the university is involved in
investigations and assistance on a daily basis. He explained
there are issues such as, sexual harassment, sexual assault,
other assaults, student disciplinary issues, staff disciplinary
issues, disputes involving student grades, and removal from
programs. Those adjudications and investigations take place on
a daily basis on the campuses of the university, he reiterated.
4:48:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that, under this bill, the
university would be required to create something akin to the
courthouse wherein people are screened prior to entering the
courthouse. He said that under this bill, the university would
no longer assume people were obeying the rules of the campus and
not carrying weapons.
MR. HOSTINA agreed.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked why the university would currently assume
that people are not carrying weapons just because a sign is
posted that says "no guns." She continued that the courthouse
does not assume that people do not have guns.
MR. HOSTINA opined that the university does not assume that
people do not have guns, but it does let people know that that
is the policy of the university. The university can ask them to
declare whether they have a firearm, and can ask them to remove
it from the campus. Alternatively, he noted, with younger
people who carry, many may be responsible, but there will be
some who will brag to their friends or roommates [about the
gun], or possibly try to intimidate someone. Currently, when
the university becomes aware of that [behavior], it can take
action. Although, he said, that would not be the case under
this bill, it would have to occur in a secure area.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for clarification that if
someone was brandishing a gun, intimidating, or showing off,
asked whether anyone would have any recourse, or whether that
become the new norm.
MR. HOSTINA asked whether that was a question for the
university.
CHAIR LEDOUX answered yes, because he is the general counsel for
the university.
MR. HOSTINA responded that, under SB 174, if someone was
brandishing a gun there may be an issue of some type of threat,
assault, or intimidation. There is a difference between a
criminal and university proceeding, and the university could
conduct an administrative proceeding if someone were
intimidating someone with a weapon, he said.
4:52:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that a person can intimidate without
having a gun, and whether currently the university would act if
someone was intimidating someone else on the campuses.
MR. HOSTINA replied, absolutely. He then asked Chair LeDoux
whether he could offer brief remarks because there may be a
misapprehension that the university is in direct opposition to
this bill, which is not the case. The university is seeking an
amendment to this bill to manage firearms in specific
situations, and it does not believe the current language allows
it to do that effectively.
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed, opened public testimony, and advised Mr.
Hostina that he could testify.
4:53:26 PM
MR. HOSTINA advised that the Board of Regents is seeking six
amendments to SB 174, the Senate Education Standing Committee
Substitute included four of the amendments sought by the Board
of Regents, and this bill only includes two and creates
additional issues. He pointed out that the amendments sought by
the university are grounded in existing state policy and
existing state law. Those amendments would apply to situations
similar to those situations in state law or under legislative
policy where weapons are prohibited. For example, he advised
that weapons are precluded under state law in the Capital
Building, concealed carry is precluded for people under the age
of 21, concealed carry in residences without the express
permission of an adult resident, loaded firearms in places where
intoxicating liquor is served, possession in childcare
facilities, possession in court system facilities, possession in
domestic violence and sexual assault shelters, and possession in
schools from pre-school through secondary school. These
existing policies in law, he explained, are constitutional for
the reasons Antonin Gregory Scalia, Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States noted in District of Columbia
v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which involved sensitive places
for government property, and were based on sound public policy.
For the same reason, the University of Alaska's amendments,
would be constitutional, they wouldn't criminalize conduct, are
narrowly tailored to achieve the same public safety goals, would
not exclude weapons from campus, but the amendments would permit
the Board of Regents to manage specific high conflict, high risk
situations common on its campuses. He mentioned there are two
problems the current language of SB 174 creates, such that it
does not adequately address secure storage of handguns and does
not address storage of rifles or knives. It also technically
allows concealed carry of rifles, as well as open carry of
knives.
4:56:05 PM
MR. HOSTINA referred to risk of harm to self or others, and
noted previous testimony offered that Title 47 takes care of
that. He said that Title 47 is a high threshold to meet,
because it involves committing someone involuntarily to a
hospital and essentially imprisoning them. It happens rarely,
he said it is not a useful tool for the university to use in
dealing with students and employees, and it simply is not a good
way to go when dealing with a student population the university
is trying to help and support, or an employee population. He
referred to the testimony regarding mass shootings on campuses,
and noted that those are still fairly rare events, but suicide
in Alaska is not a rare event. He explained that suicide is one
of the leading causes of death among persons 15-24 years of age,
and referred to the memorandum he provided to the committee
earlier. Suicide attempts by firearms are a more successful
means because people can't change their minds after the trigger
has been pulled. The university believes that the time to act
is when behavior indicates a risk of harm to self or others, and
that Title 47 does not provide an effective answer. He said the
university would appreciate an amendment allowing it to deal
with this as the Senate Education Standing Committee [Version N]
provided.
4:58:19 PM
MR. HOSTINA explained that Amendments 2 and 3, involve health,
counseling services, or other services, related to sexual
harassment or violence located within the facilities used for
adjudication of student and employee disciplinary issues or
disputes. The university appreciates that this bill allows it
to establish restricted access areas to address weapons in these
areas, but doing so will involve some expense. He said, the
issue will have to be addressed to create those restricted
access areas, and make the rules enforceable as disputes are
being adjudicated, or dealing with people possibly involved in
domestic violence or sexual assault.
4:59:09 PM
MR. HOSTINA advised that the fourth amendment is regulation in
student dorms and other shared living quarters. To be clear, he
explained, the university is not seeking authority to regulate
single family dwellings or individual apartments, but rather in
shared living quarters. He advised that the discussion is
concreate living, RA's manage these areas, and impose
discipline. The dormitories themselves and shared apartments
involve shared facilities, such as bathrooms and lounges. He
referred to allegations that the university has few students
under the age of 21, and clarified that 40 percent of the
students in the dorms are over 21. Therefore, there will be a
mix of people legally permitted to conceal carry, and those who
are not. He pointed out there are transient visitors in dorms,
the rooms are sometimes frequently visited by other students,
alcohol is present, and allowing concealed carry in dorms and
other shared housing results in concealed handguns and knives
being accessible in a volatile environment, unlike any private
residence. He said the lockbox portion of the bill provides
that the students provide their own lockboxes, it is not clear
how that will solve a problem since lockboxes have to be
installed and the bill does not provide for that. The bill also
does not provide technical specifications for lockboxes, some of
which are easily defeated with a paperclip or simply dropping
them upside down. On the other hand, he commented, installing
quality lockboxes in every room is a complex and expensive
issue. He noted that another issue in this area is that the
committee substitute appears to inadvertently provide for
storage of long guns in university housing, it doesn't make any
provision allowing the university to require secure storage of
long guns in university housing. He asked that the committee
amend this bill to allow the university to regulate weapons in
shared housing and dormitories.
5:01:46 PM
MR. HOSTINA explained that the fifth amendment involves K-12
dedicated programs on campus, it does not include K-12 students
occasionally being on campus, visiting a museum, or happening to
walk across campus. This amendment relates to dedicated
programs, and is a narrow amendment that only applies to
portions of the facility used for K-12 dedicated programs, and
only while the program is occurring. He explained that these
all involve programs where the university assumes the role of a
parent or guardian, and does not bear any resemblance to public
places where children just happen to be present and accompanied
by their parents. He advised that the ability to regulate in
these areas, where dedicated K-12 programs are going on, would
be consistent with current law on K-12 property. It would avoid
potential accidents, and the university would be able to apply
the same standard of care for K-12 as is the case on K-12
property.
5:03:06 PM
MR. HOSTINA related that due to the nature of the university
premises, it believes that a conceal carry permit is useful. He
point out that of the eight states requiring a public university
to allow concealed carry, six require a permit, and two of those
require an enhanced concealed carry permit. He reminded the
committee that the university operates in close quarters,
classrooms, laboratories, libraries and other communal space,
and related it is appropriate that students have some training
and knowledge about gun safety and applicable law. The permit
would also exclude certain individuals with criminal
convictions, including class A misdemeanors for domestic
violence or stalking, from carrying concealed weapons on campus.
He noted that the university asks the committee to adopt the
Senate Education Standing Committee Substitute for SB 174 in
place of the version passed by the full Senate, and to also
include the two additional amendments which provide for
regulation for K-12, and a permit.
5:04:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether insurance will rise
in any manner if this bill passes.
MR. HOSTINA replied that insurance companies often give
insurance company type answers to that question. The university
is self-insured for the first $2 million in claims against the
university. The university's excess carrier indicated it will
let the university know the impact of this bill when the final
bill is in place, and the policies and regulations of the
university are in place, after the bill is passed, he said.
5:05:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether he had spoken with
other universities in jurisdictions where similar legislation
was passed, and if so, how that affected their insurance
premiums.
5:05:29 PM
MR. HOSTINA said he was unsure whether the university asked
about insurance premiums with other universities, although, it
has asked about increased costs. He opined that the University
of Idaho implemented screening procedures for its stadiums and
added additional police. He referred to the earlier comment
that all three of the University of Alaska campuses have armed
police forces, and clarified that the Southeast campus does not
have a police force.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked why a person should be required to
have a permit to carry on campus if they are not required to
have a permit walking down the street.
MR. HOSTINA responded that the university has specific
responsibilities for its students and employees on its campuses,
in the event it doesn't respond when someone behaves
irresponsibly, liability may result. Whereas, municipalities
are not responsible for certain events taking place on public
streets.
5:07:12 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether part of the bill exempts the
university from liability.
MR. HOSTINA agreed that part of this bill does exempt the
university, except "lawyers live for finding ways around
provisions like that under certain civil rights actions." While
it would prevent simple negligence type claims, it is not a
guarantee, he said,
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there is any guarantee there wouldn't
be claims brought against a municipality when someone is walking
down a street.
MR. HOSTINA responded that in terms of a shooting incident, the
municipality wouldn't ordinarily be subject to a claim.
Obviously, he pointed out, if the police were called and they
failed to respond, or responded inappropriately, a claim could
arise but not the simple event itself. Whereas, he stated, on a
university campus the university would likely be viewed as
somehow responsible for failing to ensure safety.
5:08:37 PM
MR. HOSTINA, in response to Chair LeDoux as to whether he was
aware of any other university being dinged for that, answered
the University of Alaska was dinged many years past, in a
negligence action. He agreed with Chair LeDoux that the bill
exempts the university from negligence actions.
5:09:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the fiscal note describing a
need for a consultant to estimate what is necessary to create a
secure area, and asked reason Mr. Hostina could not provide a
ballpark range.
MR. HOSTINA explained that, at this point, the university
believes it best to not attempt a guess.
In terms of the university trying to be fiscally restrained, it
would be best to obtain professional advice on how to arrange
sensitive areas involved in issues, such as investigation and
disciplinary actions, to minimize the cost, potentially, of
establishing secure restricted access areas, he explained.
5:11:13 PM
MAC COOPER, Associated General Counsel, Office of General
Counsel, University of Alaska, responded that the university's
rough estimate on the cost of a metal detector ranges from
$5,000 - $10,000 per unit - with wands costing a few hundred
dollars per unit, and a full-time security guard at
approximately $50,000 - $80,000 per year. The University of
Kansas is addressing the secured access issue in response to a
law effective in July, 2017. The University of Kansas advised
if it secured every building in its system, it would be beyond
its financial means to do so. Mr. Cooper remarked that the
University of Kansas is currently preparing the same type of
study to determine what buildings and areas of buildings should
be secured.
5:12:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER made a point of order that the committee
is far afield from debating the bill, and offered to make a
motion to zero out the fiscal note.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised the conversation is allowed to continue,
and subsequent to public testimony, the fiscal note debate can
take place.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he would hold his questions until the
fiscal note debate so the public would have a chance to testify.
CHAIR LEDOUX noted the public testimony list is fairly long, and
asked Mr. Cooper whether he would be available tomorrow.
MR. COOPER said he would be available tomorrow.
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony, and advised she is
limiting testimony to two minutes per person to allow time for
all witnesses.
5:13:32 PM
KEN LANDFIELD related that he occasionally takes classes at the
Katchemak Bay campus of the Kenai Peninsula College, and shared
the Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article VII Section 3,
which read:
The University of Alaska shall be governed by a board
of regents. The regents shall be appointed by the
governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the
members of the legislature in joint session. The board
shall, in accordance with law, formulate policy and
appoint the president of the university. He shall be
the executive officer of the board.
MR. LANDFIELD said that beyond the Board of Regents and the
president of the University of Alaska, there are chancellors
responsible for their respective campuses, not to mention
various branches with their own directors and respective
administrations. He asked whether these officials and
administrations are not the proper avenue for establishing
university policy in general, and in particular. While there is
a state policy allowing concealed carry statewide, he related
that weapons are not allowed in public places, such as the
legislature and the court system. He suggested that this
legislation is a clear case of state government overreach and
questioned why, in the face of a crippling budget crisis, the
legislature is spending precious time on an expensive, non-
urgent, non-issue, outside of its constitutional jurisdiction.
He asked that the bill not be enacted.
5:16:45 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:16 p.m. to 5:28 p.m.
5:28:54 PM
ERIN HOOD said he is testifying on his own behalf, teaches at
the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), and opined that one of
the main justifications for this bill is righting some sort of
constitutional wrong. Article I, Section 19 of the Constitution
of the State of Alaska was amended in 1994 to confer broader gun
rights, he said, and then read the instruction to voters, "This
amendment 'quote' would not overturn or invalidate state laws
restricting access of possession of firearms in school
building." Therefore, people voting in 1994 were told this
amendment was still in accordance with banning firearms in
school buildings. He said he would read from an Alaska Supreme
Court decision, as follows: "In limited respects as, 'quote,'
the Board of Regents is, 'quote,' co-equal rather than
subordinate to that of the executive or legislative arms of
government." That language "in the constitution," implies that
there should be deference to the Board of Regents with regard to
policies within the University of Alaska's campuses. He
explained that the University of Alaska, Board of Regents voted
nine to two against this bill, and in working at the university
and talking with students, staff, and administrators, the nine
to two vote is representative of the amount of support the bill
has on campus, with approximately 80 percent against the bill,
he remarked. He pointed to the idea of government overreach and
related that the people of King Cove are angry and disrespected
because they can't build a road to the airport because the
federal government is ignoring their particular concerns and
overruling them. The university campus is overwhelmingly
against this bill and its concerns are being ignored. From a
practical standpoint, the focus has been almost entirely on
school shootings, 30,000 shootings in the United States every
year, of those, two-thirds are suicides, one-third are
homicides, and less than one percent are justifiable homicides.
Therefore, there is no reason to think that by putting guns on
campus will doing anything except increase suicides and
homicides, he related.
5:32:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked the subject he teaches at UAS.
MR. HOOD responded, Environmental Science.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to his statement that the students
on campus are 80 percent ...
MR. HOOD interjected that that is his personal opinion after
speaking with student and other staff about guns and hunting,
and opined that the support is almost negligible between staff,
the administration, and students.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether his opinion is primarily based
upon students in the environmental science classes.
MR. HOOD advised that he teaches all majors in his introductory
education classes.
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to his statement that he has no reason to
believe this bill will do anything other than increase suicides
and homicides, and asked whether he was familiar with the other
schools that have now initiated the guns on campus system. She
opined there has been no uptick in homicides or suicides.
5:33:42 PM
MR. HOOD answered that only 8 states out of [50] allow guns on
school campuses, and school shootings and justifiable homicides
are a tiny fraction of the total number of shootings in the
United States. He remarked that it is more important to ask why
42 states do not want guns in their school, and to consider, in
this budget crisis, whether the legislature wants to attract
students from out-of-state, and to consider parents being told
guns are in the dormitories where people are drinking.
5:34:50 PM
SALLY RUE said she is a long-time resident of Alaska, is
speaking on her own behalf, and urged the committee to oppose
this bill. She offered that she grew up in a hunting family, is
a gun owner, has enjoyed hunting and passing on the tradition to
her children, and she is not against guns. Although, she
pointed out, she is against the legislature forcing the Board of
Regents to allow guns almost everywhere on campus. Currently,
the university allows weapons on campus in a reasonable manner
that is not in conflict with the Second Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States. Restricting firearms in
government buildings and schools has been recognized by the
courts, and the Alaska legislature, as presumptively lawful and
outside the scope of constitutional protections. The right to
bear arms is not the same as the right to carry arms all of the
time and anywhere. This bill is trying to address a problem
that does not exist, she opined. Alaska's university system is
first and foremost a place of learning where students, faculty,
and staff need to feel safe to freely discuss ideas and explore
differences. She described it as a place where young people are
growing into adults, where they experience the ups and downs of
adolescence and young adulthood. This often includes
experimenting with alcohol and drugs, navigating romantic
relationships and breakups, and sometimes dealing with a mental
health crisis. The students live in dorms and close quarters
where friction can occur, and mixing firearms into this volatile
environment does nothing to increase safety, and does everything
to make it inevitable there will be avoidable tragedies. Alaska
has the highest rates of suicide, gun violence, and sexual
assault in the nation, and there is no evidence this bill will
do anything to lessen that and, it could likely worsen it.
During this time of Alaska's budget crisis, the university is
facing huge cuts to its budget, cutting academic programs and up
to hundreds of faculty positions and, she remarked, this
legislation would divert even more resources from academics and
student support. Alaska and the Alaska legislature face
momentous choices this session that will determine the future
health and welfare of the entire state, she said. This bill is
not needed, potentially harmful to Alaska's young people and the
university system, and does nothing to focus on its biggest
issues. She urged the committee to oppose SB 174.
5:37:59 PM
FRANK RUE said he lives in Juneau, and is a long-time Alaskan
hunter and gun owner. He related that he is aware of a suicide
that took place because the gun was left unlocked, and once the
decision is made to pull the trigger it can't be un-pulled.
Allowing concealed weapons on campus will not make campuses
safer, but rather more depressed suicidal students will have the
means to kill themselves, and firearms will be readily available
at that moment of no return. He commented that rather than
students being hungover and seeking help from a counselor there
will be more dead students. The same is true, he noted, for
those moments when a student is angry about being dumped by
their girlfriend or given a bad grade by a professor. He opined
that rather than an incident of assault or harassment,
counseling, and/or legal proceedings, there will be dead
girlfriends and faculty. The same runs true for someone drunk
on alcohol and a fight. He pointed out that the most promising
students and faculty are the people likely to go elsewhere due
to the presence of concealed weapons on the University of
Alaska's campuses. He advised that the same is happening
elsewhere in the country where weapons on campus legislation is
passed. For example, he pointed out that the dean of the highly
touted University of Texas Architecture School left Texas to
become the Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Design School
in large part, because the newly passed Texas law allowed
concealed guns on campus. He pointed to the sponsor's remark to
people with the same above decisions, "Don't let the door hit
you on the ass on your way out the door," or words to that
effect, he said. He related that most people, who care about
the University of Alaska system, disagree with that sentiment,
and agree that Alaska keeping its best students and faculty will
improve the experience and education for all students. He
related that President Mark Hamilton remarked, as follows: "The
10 percent free tuition to 10 percent greatest highest students
was the one thing that made the -- increased the academic rigor
of the university because now you had the very best students in
Alaska." Mr. Rue reiterated that, that one thing alone raised
the academic standards of the university, and he opined that
this bill will drive some of those students away.
5:40:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to his mention of other
universities enacting these laws, and asked whether those state
schools saw a change after they added the concealed carry
provisions in terms of students applying to go to those schools.
MR RUE answered that he was not aware of any.
5:41:19 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to his concerns about dead girlfriends,
dead boyfriends, suicides, and so forth, and pointed out that
many students live off campus. The university doesn't make it a
condition of attending UAA, UAF, UAS, that no students are able
to live off campus and have guns. She advised she does not see
the distinction between living on campus and living off campus.
MR. RUE opined that situations can evolve quickly. He offered
the scenario of people drinking in dorms, suddenly they are
pushing each other, and a fight breaks out. Students are in
close proximity to each other in a dorm, which is far more
volatile than someone living in a house five miles off campus,
he opined.
5:42:49 PM
CALLIE CONERTON, Student Government President, University of
Alaska Southeast, advised she is a student at the University of
Alaska Southeast (UAS), and serves as student government
president, and as the statewide coalition of student leader's
vice-chair. She commented that there are multiple reasons she
opposes SB 174, campus is no place for guns. Contrary to what
the committee has been told, there are fiscal impacts and
Alaskan students cannot afford it. Major stakeholders from the
university, including its president, the Board of Regents
through the school faculty have opposed this dangerous and
expensive legislation. A campus is no place for guns because,
especially in dorms, guns and alcohol leads to impaired
judgement about whether to shoot a gun, and impairs the aim when
firing. A Columbia University study found that one-half of
United States students binge drink or abuse illegal or
prescription drugs. She said there is also an elevated risk for
a firearm suicide as it is a one-shot deal and suicide attempts
with guns are more successful than other suicide attempts.
Alaska has huge problems with Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD)
which also leads to depression in students, people age 18-20
represent 4.4 percent of the total United States population but
those people commit 17 percent of all gun homicides. Some
students may be responsible gun owners; however, there are often
situations where they are in close proximity with students who
do not have the knowledge or responsibility of gun handling and
think of guns as a toy. Two weeks after the State of Idaho
passed a bill allowing guns on campus, during class a professor
literally shot himself in the foot accidentally, and she
questioned whether Alaska wants that in its lecture halls and
classrooms. She pointed out that students will end up paying
for guns on campus, and with the current budget crunch it is
irresponsible to pass a bill that will cost students money. She
asked the committee to vote no on SB 174, and asked whether a
responsible gun owner at a party will lockup the gun, or
continue playing beer-pong.
5:45:57 PM
JENNIFER McCLUNG, Instructor, University of Alaska Anchorage,
said she is an instructor at the University of Alaska Anchorage
(UAA), and is opposed to the bill, because one of the premises
on which the bill was written is false. The FBI released a
study of active shooter incidents in the United States between
2000-2013, including shootings in schools, movie theaters,
business districts, commercial areas, gun free zones, and areas
allowing concealed weapons. The study found that less than one
percent of active shooter events were resolved by an ordinary
citizen with a firearm. She continued that out of 160
incidents, over a 14 year period, only one was stopped by a good
guy with a gun. In contrast, that study stated that 21
incidents ended by unarmed civilians. Therefore, good people
without guns, actually had more successful endings in active
shooter incidents than good guys with guns. On the other hand,
she commented, Alaska has a suicide problem and its college
students are not exempt. During the last two years, there have
been 18 suicide attempts at UAA alone, and likely some of them
would have completed if they had access to a firearm, because
suicide attempts with a firearm are almost always fatal. She
opined that by increasing student access to firearms, especially
in the dorms, there is a real risk more students will be enabled
to take their own lives, and that risk is not worth a less than
one percent chance of a good guy with a gun ending a mass
shooting that may, or may not, ever occur.
5:48:17 PM
ROBIN SMITH said she opposes the bill. She offered that if she
knew someone in the classroom had a gun, it would impact how she
acted and that she would hesitate to approach the person or
engage in a conversation. Particularly, she related, not a
divisive conversation, and it would have a chilling impact on
their dialogue. Unfortunately, she remarked, guns are
everywhere and society has not found a way to prevent
individuals with mental illness, violent histories, or criminal
histories, from accessing guns. She indicated that this bill
buys into the myth that a good guy with a gun could resolve a
shooting incident earlier than the police response. She
referred to an FBI report, released in 2014, which counters that
myth, and written by a special operations military person who
had recently retired. She related that he said, "There are
groups of individuals, special operators both military and law
enforcement, who train for years to be good at close quarters
shooting. Shooting with discernment, keeping your head clear,
and making snap decisions before you pull the trigger, all while
being shot at by the enemy. After dedicating their lives to
being good operators in those extreme circumstances, even those
professionals make mistakes." In some cases, she said, a good
guy with a gun can neutralize the threat and help save lives,
but it doesn't happen often. She related that people need to
know it is a fallacy to believe that the everyday gun owner can
be expected to make all of the right choices in a dangerous,
fast moving situation like a mass shooting with high powered
weapons. She referred to the FBI report offered by the previous
witness that the [shootings] took place at schools because the
shooters were associated with the schools, and not because they
were gun-free zones. She remarked that in many cases [the
shooter] did not know that they were gun-free zones. She asked
that the committee oppose this bill.
5:51:28 PM
CAROLINE STORM, Alaska PTA Advocacy Committee, described this
bill as, effectively, overreaching from the legislature to the
Board of Regents. She opposes this bill, she said, because the
Board of Regents believes this legislation is unsafe for its
campuses, and the legislature does not have the right to make a
decision for the people who know what life on campus is all
about.
5:52:34 PM
PATRICK RACE advised he lives in Juneau and described himself as
"another soft target" testifying against this bill. While
listening to the sponsor's testimony, he said he was amazed the
sponsor had no relatable statistics and relied entirely on
anecdotes about "dudes with crowbars." He said he has a
computer science degree from UAF, and is the third generation in
his family to graduate from Alaska's university system. He
described his freshman roommate as an unstable, unhealthy young
man who pulled a knife on him in the heat of the moment. He
noted that he was unsure whether he would be testifying today if
the roommate had instead pulled a handgun. Mr. Race related
that he is concerned about what is being created here with no
upside to it, except the possibility of increased campaign
funding. This bill begs the question of whether the University
of Alaska is violating the Constitution of the State of Alaska,
and he reminded the committee that this is a question for the
courts. It shouldn't be settled through a patchwork quilt of
legislation, one bill for the university, another bill for the
Capitol Building, and another bill later on down the road for K-
12, and he asked that the committee discard this bill.
5:54:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Race to describe the
incident during his freshman year.
MR. RACE responded that his roommate fancied himself as a "mob
boss" kind of guy, he watched a lot of "Good Fellas" type of
entertainment, listened to Frank Sinatra, and had knives and
probably guns, but not in their room. They got into an argument
over a Nintendo game, and as young men are wont to do, it
escalated into shoving. Eventually the roommate pulled out a
knife and threatened to slit his throat while he was sleeping,
he described. Mr. Race said he started down the hallway and due
to the noise, many people were in their doorways. He then ran
past the crowd, the crowd closed in behind him [blocking the
roommate], and he moved into a different room after the
incident. The incident he described is not uncommon, he pointed
out, there are many fights and violence on campus that is not
reported, there is a lot of drinking, events happen, there is a
lot of miscommunication, and introducing guns into this
environment will not help anyone. If this bill is passed out of
committee and someone kills someone, the committee will have to
live with that. He offered the scenario of someone coming at
him with a knife, and "I pull out a gun, now I've killed him.
How does that change my life?"
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN responded that Mr. Race's life would be
changed by being alive.
MR. RACE agreed that he is alive, and fortunately has not had to
murder anyone.
5:56:31 PM
BRIAN JUDY, Senior State Lobbyist, National Rifle Association,
State of California Assemblyman, said he has a lot to unpack in
two minutes, and he is the Alaska liaison for the Alaska
National Rifle Association speaking in support of SB 174. He
said that self-defense is a fundamental right and under existing
law there is an arbitrary line, on one side of that line is a
law abiding adult, age 21 years and older, that can choose to
carry a firearm for self-protection on one side of the line, but
they can't on the other. He explained that this bill is about
not removing that line, but shrinking the line tremendously,
shrinking the gun-free zone that is currently in effect. He
referred to the question asking the university what it is doing
now, and he said the university is not doing anything. He
continued that if it is not doing anything now, then nothing
will change in allowing law abiding adults to choose to provide
a means of self-protection. He said it will not create the
tremendous, disastrous, catastrophic, situation the committee
has heard.
MR. JUDY said that this issue comes down to emotion versus facts
and, he described "the emotion is pretty astounding in this
committee room and I appreciate your indulgence." Gun free
zones have proven to be a public policy failure, and every mass
killing has happened in a so-called gun free zone. He remarked
that criminals do not obey gun free zones, they are only
respected by law abiding citizens. He said that the reality of
designating an area as a gun free zone, doesn't create a gun
free zone, it creates an area where only the victims will be
disarmed.
5:58:31 PM
MR. JUDY referred to the eight states discussed in previous
testimony, and said there is not a problem. This may, or may
not, make campuses safer, but the evidence is that it won't make
campuses more dangerous. He noted that the committee has heard
dire predictions of catastrophe, and said it didn't happen in
1993 when Alaska passed the concealed weapon permit law, or when
Alaska went permit-less carry, or in 2013 when Alaska passed a
"no duty to retreat" bill. He commented that these same
arguments are heard each time a bill passes in other states and
the campuses are not becoming dangerous areas. There was
testimony regarding Alaska's tremendous fiscal problems, and he
commented that if there are security issues associated with
irresponsible people and their firearms, that's a problem now
and the money needs to be spent, under the current
circumstances, because this bill is not going to make the
situation any worse. The states that have chosen to pass laws
and allow law abiding adults to carry a means of self-protection
haven't experienced any problems. Mr. Judy suggested a negative
fiscal note associated with this bill because it will
dramatically shrink the area the university will have to enforce
a gun free policy, and he urged no amendments to SB 174.
6:00:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether he was saying that by
dramatically shrinking the authority of the university to
control a campus, it will save the university millions of
dollars.
MR. JUDY disagreed, and he said he did not say it would save the
university millions of dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN argued that Mr. Judy said it should have a
negative fiscal note, and he asked for an estimate of how much
the committee should think about in his view of the estimated
negative fiscal note.
MR. JUDY replied "I don't know, a dollar, five dollars, a
thousand dollars?" He said in the State of Idaho, the
observation by the legislature was that the fiscal note was
unfounded and bloated. He opined that the fiscal note should be
zero, and the bill should be passed out.
6:02:43 PM
STEVEN SAMUELSON said he supports the bill due to the reasons
previously stated, and he could see how having guns on the
university campuses could be contentious. Although, with the
fiscal notes, this bill pertains to people who are already
responsible gun owners who want to know that they can have their
concealed weapon on a campus with adults. Alaska, through
history, has held strong on access to guns due to subsistence
rights and personal use rights, and he described this as just
another level. He advised that he briefly attended UAA and was
more afraid of the moose keeping him in his car than someone
potentially having a gun on campus. He then mentioned that he
had been in the areas of Moses Lake, Washington, and New Town,
Connecticut, at the time of the shootings and they were eye
openers. He opined that Governor Frank Murkowski moved to
permit-less concealed carry and nothing came of it.
6:05:08 PM
ALYSE GALVIN advised she has children who have taken classes at
the University of Alaska Anchorage, (UAA), and described them as
bright children younger than 18 years of age. She expressed
that she would not allow her children on campus if it allows
guns so freely, and opined that many parents agree with her.
She asked whether the legislature was, currently, in a place
where it listens to people from out-of-state, and allows those
people to tell Alaskans what to do, or will the legislature
listen to the people of Alaska. She said that, up until now,
the state has been good at dictating its own future and she is
hopeful the state is not moving to a new place. It is
important, she pointed out, to recognize that children younger
than 18 years of age are frequently on campus taking classes and
in dorms. She remarked that having a gun in a lockbox is not
the same as a gun in a safe. Alaskans believe they should be
able to hunt and do the things important to them as Alaskans,
and the Alaskan hunters she knows use a gun safe. She pointed
out that the entire amount of time spent on this bill rather
than the state's big problem is a concern, and she opposes the
bill.
6:07:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that the legislature addresses
many issues and frequently experts from out-of-state testify.
MS. GALVIN stated she appreciates that experts would sometimes
testify, but that is different from paid lobbyists.
CHAIR LEDOUX related that the committee offers the opportunity
for people from all over to testify, and noted the mail she has
received from Alaskan is tilted toward favoring this bill rather
than opposing this bill.
6:08:58 PM
BUTCH MOORE advised that in 2014 there were 145 gun deaths in
Alaska, and none of those deaths occurred on college campuses.
He said his daughter, Bree, was murdered, in 2014, by her
boyfriend, she was a 20-year old UAA student, and her boyfriend
was 21 years old. Within the majority of the 145 gun deaths in
2014, 79 percent were suicide, and the majority of all of those
were ages 18-26. The sponsor of this bill does not have any
statistics that Alaska has a problem. Mr. Moore said within his
research of mass shootings in Alaska, he could not find a mass
shooting in Alaska until he researched back to 1984, at Manly
Hot Springs. Alaska does not have a problem with guns on campus
and this bill is not necessary. He advised that Bree Moore was
proficient in the use of all weapons, was an active sporting
shooter, and he supports the country's Second Amendment rights.
If this bill passes, the young adult who turns 21 years old can
walk into Fred Meyer and buy a handgun having had no training.
He stressed that guns for people with no education on the use of
guns is not needed in Alaska's communities which is a community-
wide safety concern. He stressed this bill is not needed to
protect Alaskan's constitutional rights, and to let the bill die
in committee to protect the kids. He continued that a person
has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than being
shot on a college campus in the United States.
6:12:25 PM
MIKE NEWBERN, Assistant Director of Public Relations, Buckeyes
for Concealed Carry, National Rifle Association, said he is in
support of the campus carry bill, then referred to previous
testimony advising this bill will not make college campuses any
safer, and responded that it could not be said that SB 174 will
make campuses any less safe. He related that shootings in the
street did not happen when Alaska passed the concealed carry
bill in 1993, and the same for the State of Ohio in 2004. The
State of Ohio recently "got restaurant carry" and people were
worried about blood pouring out of the bars where alcohol is
served, and that hasn't happened. He mentioned a Texas A&M
University study found no increase in crime with respect to
campus concealed carry. He said Texas just passed a law, and
other universities are coming up with policy to deal with campus
conceal carry. He advised the working group at the University
of Texas, Austin found no instance of violence with respect to
campus conceal carry. He then referred to the comments
regarding the ability to recruit students and/or faculty and/or
staff. Admittedly, he offered, there have been a couple of
faculty members in Texas who left, but the administrator that
came to Texas from Utah when it enacted its conceal carry law in
2006, Michael Young, is currently the President of the Texas A&M
University who said that initially in Utah there was some uproar
when they got campus concealed carry in 2006, but in 2008-2011
the University of Utah saw record enrollment. The concerns
regarding not being able to recruit students, faculty, or staff
doesn't play out, and neither do the predictions of violence.
6:15:14 PM
TOM BOUTIN advised he is speaking for himself and that he
supports the bill because it is good legislation for the world
that Alaska finds itself in today. Gun free zones appear to
encourage crime, and encourage nuts cases causing mayhem, he
said.
6:15:56 PM
JENNIFER GLENN, Volunteer, Alaska Chapter, Moms Demand Action
for Gun Sense in America, advised that Moms Demand Action for
Gun Sense in America is a grass-roots movement of American
parents in Alaska, and across the country, fighting for public
safety measures respecting the Second Amendment and reducing gun
violence. She advised that she and her husband own several
guns, but she is opposed to this bill. In the event the bill
becomes law, Alaska would join the ranks of only two other
states that currently force colleges to allow all permit holders
to carry guns on campus. She described the bill as assuming
that anyone carrying on campuses will be a responsible gun
owner; however, it is known that not all of those carrying a
concealed weapon, or have a gun, are responsible gun owners.
She asked how a student, rooming with another student, would
know how responsible their roommate is, and whose responsibility
it becomes when that gun owner takes it upon themselves to step
into a dispute using their gun. She opined that SB 174 assumes
many things. Amy Thompson wrote an article for the Journal of
American College Health, entitled "Reducing firearms related
violence on college campuses-police chiefs' perceptions and
practices," which states that 89 percent of university police
chiefs oppose policies that allow guns on campuses. The student
community also echoes this sentiment wherein, "79 percent have
said that they would not feel safe if faculty, students, or
visitors, were allowed to bring concealed guns on campus." She
said she attended UAF and graduated at UAA, and had there been a
law allowing guns on these campuses, she would have considered
attending another university or going to an online program.
While working at the Municipality of Anchorage, at a recreation
center, a shooting occurred. Thankfully no one was injured, but
her experience tells her that arming citizens to protect other
citizens is not an answer to this problem, she related. She
opined that this bill goes against common sense when everyone
knows often there is a mix of alcohol, drug use, and highly
stressful situations on campus and dormitory rooms. She urged
the committee to vote no.
6:19:13 PM
MIKE COONS said he is speaking as a member of the NRA and
requested extra time because the "anti-gun crowd" gets extra
time. He related there has been testimony that First Amendment
rights, freedom of speech, will be infringed upon because
teachers and students will be afraid to discuss controversial
subjects with students due to fear they may be carrying a
concealed firearm. He said he does not agree, and argued that
the university has free speech zones, or the only place views
considered non-politically correct, based on the liberal
intolerance by faculty and student body, are allowed. He said,
the assumption is that no person, unless they are liberals, can
contain themselves in debating the issues of the day and, he
said that is an affront to him and any American who values
freedom of speech. Alcohol and drugs are another red herring,
and he advised it's against the law to use a firearm while
intoxicated. In the event he were a student, he said he would
take grave offense to the attack that students are a bunch of
drunks and illegal drug users that can't contain themselves. He
described mental health as a huge red herring that paints
students as not being able to handle stress, and he takes grave
offense for the vast majority of students who are responsible
and can control themselves. Continued talking points are just
that, all based on the far left anti-gun organizations lies and
innuendos, and the left has a long history of continuing the
lies to make the truth, he said. In this case, as well as many
others, the truth is the truth and change is not. He continued
that gun locks are safes, they are biometric and rapid tap
codes, secure and paperclips do not gain access. Gun free zones
have deaths of 12 or greater on the average, and guns allowed
zones have two. He said that Virginia Tech paid out $11 million
in punitive damages, and not (indisc.) that anywhere close in
insurance.
6:22:26 PM
DANIEL BELGRIZE, University of Alaska Anchorage, advised he is a
veteran, a senior in the justice program at UAA, an active
member in numerous student clubs, and is speaking on behalf of
over 50 members of UAA's Greek Life Organizations, and over 100
veterans who have expressed support for this bill. The
Constitution of the State of Alaska guarantees the individual
right to keep and bear arms will not be denied or infringed upon
by the state or political subdivisions of the state. Article
VII, Section 3, states that the Board of Regents may formulate
policy for the university and, he noted, the qualification of
"in accordance with the law" is vital, and there is no higher
law in Alaska than its constitution.
MR. BELGRIZE referred to the inquiry regarding defense of gun
use, and said the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recently
stated that defense of gun use is (indisc.) with its estimates
ranging from 500,000 to 3 million occurrences annually, compared
to less than 500,000 violent crimes involving firearms. The CDC
has also consistently found lower injury rates among gun using
victims compared with victims who have used other self-
protective strategies. He advised there is a budgetary interest
in this bill and that is to guarantee and protect the state from
potential lawsuits for the violation of rights guaranteed under
the constitution.
6:24:06 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether Mr. Belgrize is the Daniel Belgrize
she knows.
MR. BELGRIZE agreed.
6:24:35 PM
RYAN SHERWIN-ALAKAYAK, Student, University of Alaska Anchorage
(UAA), said he is a life-long Alaskan, student at UAA, and has
devoted his life to serving his community. He pointed out that
the testimony heard from the opposition tends to focus on
firearm issues, while the real focus of the bill supports the
Constitution of the State of Alaska. Alaskans should uphold
those values and rights. He noted that firearm violence exists
today, and the policies being made do not necessarily affect the
people committing crimes with firearms - the policies affect
people who do follow the laws. A person desiring to use a
firearm on campus will do so regardless of the law, but folks,
like himself, who do carry firearms will tend to veer away from
carrying on campus. He said he supports Mr. Belgrize's
testimony and supports SB 174.
6:27:11 PM
HANS RODVIK said he is a UAA alumni, and in 2014 assisted
Senator Coghill in spearheading the efforts, of Senate Bill 176,
to correct the wrong of the University of Alaska, Board of
Regents' policy which is an unconstitutional unlawful policy.
He related that Senate Bill 176 did not pass in 2014, and he is
testifying in full support of SB 174. He described this as a
fundamental right of self-defense of which has been echoed by a
couple of different folks today. He said there has been
fearmongering testimony tonight on behalf of folks who think
that law abiding adults over the age of 21, currently carrying
all around Alaska, are going to become unlawful criminals, drug
users and alcoholics when they cross that line on a university
campus. He opined that many alumni, veterans, and students take
offense to that [idea], and asked whether the Board of Regents
is telling veterans they don't have the right to carry for self-
defense, even though they served this country. He closed by
saying he fully supports the bill and hopes it passes out
tonight.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN thanked Mr. Rodvik for his service.
6:29:54 PM
CEEZAR MARTINSON, Student, University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA),
advised he is a student at the University of Alaska Anchorage
(UAA), and is in support of this legislation. He referred to
the Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article I, Section 19,
which read:
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The
individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be
denied or infringed by the State or a political
subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994]
MR. MARTINSON advised that it is clear the UAA policy is in
direct violation of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and
illegal given the fact it does not have the statutory authority
to restrict the ability to concealed carry on campus.
Furthermore, he suggested, the hyperbole testimony is complete
nonsense with regard to the fact that eight other states, and
150 private universities, allow concealed carry on campus. Mass
violence has not been seen, he related, nor has issues of inter-
student or inter-faculty violence. The reality is that this is
common sense legislation bringing the university back under the
rule of law. He said he supports the legislation, and asked the
committee to protect his Second Amendment rights.
6:31:33 PM
KELSI PULCZINMS, Student, University of Alaska Anchorage, said
she is a student at UAA, and is speaking on her own behalf. She
voiced her support of SB 174, and advised that she is an adult
and that just because she is a student, her constitutional
rights should not be infringed by the Board of Regents who have
no constitutional authority to do so. She referred to the
testimony of a mother concerned about her underage children
being on campus with firearms present, and stated that she is
sure her children are also present in Alaska's communities where
adults responsibly and legally carry every day, with no issues.
She described it as a fearmongering argument and stated that if
the mother is uncomfortable with her underage children being
around firearms, her children should not be in the community at
all because people carry every day. She related that she
strongly supports this bill and encouraged the committee to do
so, as well.
6:33:21 PM
LAURA MIKO said she is testifying in opposition to this bill and
on her own behalf. She said she is a UAF alumni, UAF employee,
and has worked both in student housing and on the main campus
where students are in crisis mode. She pointed out that when
people go to college there are many different things going on
with them, good and bad. Sometimes, especially with mental
health issues, things happen where guns should not be, she
pointed out. She related that on a populated campus, if
something should happen, there is a whole system in place for
lock down, and SB 174 is telling people to, basically, be
vigilantes. In those instances, with many people trying to
handle the situation, it will confuse police and law enforcement
who is actually the offending person, which can contribute to
more cross-fire and more injuries. She appreciates that she
lives in a state where guns can be carried in public, but she
does not think a college campus for education is an appropriate
place. Especially, she said, because there may be spiteful
debates and conversations in classrooms with people "who might
be packin."
CHAIR LEDOUX, after ascertaining that no one further wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
[SB 174 was held over.]
6:36:09 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:36 p.m.