Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/27/2000 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 27, 2000
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Hal Smalley
Representative Scott Ogan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Hudson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 259
"An Act relating to a parent's eligibility to be represented by the
public defender before and during the probable cause and temporary
placement hearing that is held after the state takes emergency
custody of a child."
- MOVED CSHB 259(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE (NO CHANGES MADE)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 259
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC DEFENDER CHILDREN'S PROCEEDINGS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/10/00 1887 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/99
1/10/00 1887 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/10/00 1887 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
1/25/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
1/25/00 (H) Moved CSHB 259(STA) Out of Committee
1/25/00 (H) MINUTE(STA)
1/27/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of HB 259, clarified intent.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-2, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Whitaker, Kerttula and
Smalley. Representatives Green and Ogan arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 259 - PUBLIC DEFENDER CHILDREN'S PROCEEDINGS
Number 0017
CHAIR JAMES brought before the committee HOUSE BILL NO. 259, "An
Act relating to a parent's eligibility to be represented by the
public defender before and during the probable cause and temporary
placement hearing that is held after the state takes emergency
custody of a child." [Following adoption of an amendment to HB 259
at the previous hearing, CSHB 259(STA) had been moved from the
committee; however, a memorandum from Terri Lauterbach, Legislative
Counsel, accompanying a draft of the committee substitute (CS), had
recommended further clarification.]
CHAIR JAMES asked the sponsor whether he believes the parents in
question should repay the state if it is determined they aren't
eligible for the services of the Public Defender Agency.
Number 0185
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
agreed that was his intent. He said although he still believes the
language reflects that, he is open to discussion.
CHAIR JAMES suggested the committee, if in agreement, could provide
a conceptual amendment to Ms. Lauterbach clarifying the sponsor's
intention.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA made a motion to rescind the committee's
action [moving CSHB 259(STA) from committee on January 25, 2000]
and to bring the bill back before the committee for correction.
Number 0287
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked whether the new CS would come back
for final approval or would simply move from this committee.
CHAIR JAMES answered that everyone could look at it as soon as the
committee received it, before passing it on. However, she wouldn't
expect to bring it back for another meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded that he wouldn't go that route, as
he wanted to see the amendment. If it took two minutes to
reconvene and bring it before the committee the next time, he
suggested that should be done.
CHAIR JAMES pointed out a further option of not rescinding the
previous action but letting the House Judiciary Standing Committee
fix the bill. She mentioned sending along the memorandum from
Terri Lauterbach.
Number 0453
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Representative Coghill his
preference, given those choices.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said it would fit in either case. He
expressed willingness to move it along, in conjunction with the
concept brought up in Ms. Lauterbach's memorandum, which he
indicated meets with his intent.
CHAIR JAMES said she doesn't want to be responsible for its
languishing in committee, but she likes to pass legislation out of
her committee that doesn't need to be fixed.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented, "I tend to agree with the sponsor,
because I asked that very question of our attorney, and he said it
was covered." He suggested the House Judiciary Standing Committee
is the place to determine whether it is or isn't covered.
CHAIR JAMES inquired about the wishes of the rest of the committee.
She pointed out that they could turn down the motion to rescind the
previous action.
Number 0657
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said he would support the motion to rescind,
however, because he believes it is the committee's responsibility
to fix the bill. He suggested that wouldn't delay it that much.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced his opinion that a state affairs
committee should look at what is best for the state, regardless of
the legal language, which should be addressed by a judiciary
committee.
CHAIR JAMES said she wishes it were that way, but it isn't. She
indicated committees deal with all parts of bills that they pass.
Number 0831
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested that when signing the committee
report, members put "amend." Furthermore, changes could be made on
the House floor. He would have no objection to moving this bill
on, he said, with the caveat that the problem be taken care of.
CHAIR JAMES noted that a vote would be needed on whether to rescind
the previous action.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he would support rescinding the action for
purposes of signing the committee report with a recommendation of
amending it. He would also support moving it out afterwards.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed support for Chair James'
comments, then suggested this might go faster if the current
committee fixed it rather than waiting for the House Judiciary
Standing Committee to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked whether Chair James agrees that the
bill would move more quickly in that case.
Number 0909
CHAIR JAMES said her own position is that she doesn't want the bill
to languish, as she believes this is important legislation. She
doesn't know how soon this could be heard in the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, or what the attitudes of those members will be.
Another concern is that the sponsor believes and has a legal
opinion that the bill covers the intent. Having read the CS, she
herself agrees with Terri Lauterbach, however, that it doesn't say
that specifically and therefore it must be assumed. "When you
assume something, that doesn't necessarily mean it's so," she
cautioned. "It could be read either way." She surmised such a
decision would be at the policy or regulation level.
CHAIR JAMES clarified that her first choice is to rescind the
previous action, pass a conceptual amendment, and then have
everyone look at the subsequent CS before passing it on to the next
committee. On the other hand, if this will make the bill languish
- about which she is uncertain - then she is willing to do nothing,
which to her means not rescinding the action. She said rescinding
the action and saying the bill needs to be amended is embarrassing
and would make her feel derelict in her duties.
Number 1043
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded that he respectfully but vehemently
disagrees. Almost every committee he has served on has passed
legislation on to the House Finance Committee, at the least, for
review because of a fiscal note or some other issue. Commonly
legislation is passed on either with a letter or, as Representative
Ogan indicated, with recommendations to amend it. Although he
agreed this can be fixed, he emphasized that it isn't uncommon to
pass legislation on to the House Judiciary Standing Committee, for
example.
CHAIR JAMES pointed out that she has been on the House Judiciary
Standing Committee most of the eight years of her legislative
service too. There, they have passed numerous bills with
conceptual amendments, then looked at the CS before it is moved to
the next committee.
Number 1138
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she views this as the prerogative of
the chair. On behalf of both herself and Representative Smalley,
she expressed willingness to follow Chair James' decision on this.
CHAIR JAMES indicated she would let the vote of the committee
decide. She called a brief at-ease. [Small section of blank tape
due to recorder malfunction.] After calling the meeting back to
order, she requested a roll call vote on the motion to rescind the
committee's action on January 25, 2000, in moving CSHB 259(STA)
from committee. Voting to rescind the action were Representatives
Kerttula, Smalley and James. Voting against it were
Representatives Green, Whitaker and Ogan. Therefore, the motion
failed by a vote of 3-3. Chair James announced that the committee
would move CSHB 259(STA) forward as-is that day.
Number 1332
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated:
Just for the record, I would like to just say that
conceptually I agree that there needs to be an amendment.
And what I will be carrying on with this is, "If
determination is made that the natural or adoptive parent
is not indigent, he or she shall reimburse the Public
Defender Agency ... at the applicable billing rate." ...
That is my intent anyway. So, if that's needed, I'll
take that into the Judiciary Committee.
CHAIR JAMES commented that if there is any question about anything,
it is always better to make it clearer. "So, if you think it
already says that, and other people think it doesn't, you'd better
be sure it says that; that's my advice," she concluded. [CSHB
259(STA), unamended at this meeting, was again moved from
committee.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1351
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 8:25 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|