03/06/2003 08:01 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 2003
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 5
"An Act prohibiting discrimination by credit rating or credit
scoring in insurance rates; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 92
"An Act relating to reports by members of the clergy and
custodians of clerical records who have reasonable cause to
suspect that a child has suffered harm as a result of child
abuse or neglect."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 18
"An Act relating to the liability of parents and legal guardians
of minors who destroy property."
- MOVED CSHB 18(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC FACILITIES
PORTION
- HEARD [See 10:15 a.m. minutes for this date]
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 5
SHORT TITLE:INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION BY CREDIT RATING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CRAWFORD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0031 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0031 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0031 (H) STA, L&C
01/21/03 0031 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 92
SHORT TITLE:CLERGY TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)LYNN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/12/03 0186 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/12/03 0186 (H) STA, HES
02/12/03 0186 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/19/03 0257 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
03/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 18
SHORT TITLE:PARENTAL LIABILITY FOR CHILD'S DAMAGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MEYER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0036 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0036 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0036 (H) STA, JUD
02/07/03 0153 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ANDERSON
02/20/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/20/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
03/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 5.
CYNTHIA LAMB FAUST, Safe Church Program Consultant
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as a representative for the Right
Reverend Mark MacDonald, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of
Alaska, during testimony of HB 92.
JOANNE GIBBENS, Program Administrator
Division of Family & Youth Services
Department of Health & Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 92.
CHIP WAGONER, Lobbyist
for the Alaska Catholic Conference (ACC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 92.
TERESA WILLIAMS, President
Pissed Off Parents (POP)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 92.
W.M. THOMAS MOFFATT, Rev., Staff
to Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 92 on behalf of
Representative Lynn, sponsor.
RICHARD BLOCK, Representational Lobbyist
for Christian Science Committee on Publication in Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 92.
FLOYD V. SMITH
Alaska District Council of the Assemblies of God
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 92, testified about
confidential communications, immunity, and insurance problems
for churches.
TED BOATSMAN, District Superintendent
Alaska District Council of the Assemblies of God
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 92, testified
regarding its possible effects on proving the intent of
confidential communication,.
KENT REDFEARN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 92.
LAUREE HUGONIN
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 92.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 18.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-16, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Holm,
Seaton, Lynn, Gruenberg, and Weyhrauch were present at the call
to order. Representatives Dahlstrom and Berkowitz arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 5-INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION BY CREDIT RATING
Number 0040
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 5, "An Act prohibiting discrimination by credit
rating or credit scoring in insurance rates; and providing for
an effective date."
[Chair Weyhrauch asked potential testifiers to be available to
testify at the next planned hearing, March 29, 2003.]
Number 0264
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 5, told the committee the process of working on the
proposed legislation began about a year ago after receiving
complaints from constituents about increased home and auto
insurance rates because of bad credit scores; most people want
to know what their credit has to do with setting their insurance
rates. He said that as he has gone through the process [of
working on HB 5], he has decided that credit scoring really has
no place in setting insurance rates.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH observed that [HB 5] is broader than HB 47
because it would prohibit scoring for business and personal
lines of credit.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD affirmed that. He explained that he
wanted to coordinate with members of the Senate and is open to
suggestion and modification, if he can be shown a justification
for using credit scoring. He noted that Mr. Lessmeier [lobbyist
for] State Farm Insurance Company, spent a lot of time the
previous year working with him to illustrate what he felt was
worthwhile regarding credit scoring.
Number 0476
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH requested empirical facts showing that [a
consumer's] credit was used to set an insurance rate, the
consumer's complaint to the Division of Insurance, and how the
Division of Insurance addressed the complaint.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD responded that he could provide lots of
anecdotes, but doesn't know how the Division of Insurance has
dealt with [incidents] or whether those have been corrected at
all. He noted that over the past couple of years there have
been no bans or limitations on the use of credit scoring. He
told the committee about a phone call [received by his staff]
within the past week from a 70-year-old man with human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) who is no longer able to pay his
medical bills; because of that, his credit score is almost
nonexistent now, and although the man has never had an accident,
his insurance rates have almost tripled.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said the insurance industry was banned
from using "red lining" in disadvantaged economic districts. He
mentioned studies, including one by the Division of Insurance,
which show that credit scoring hurts people in disadvantaged
neighborhoods more than in wealthy neighborhoods. For example,
a man with two [convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI)]
was given a lower insurance rate because of stellar credit,
while some people with great driving records have a change of
economic situation - because of divorce, for example - and find
their insurance rates skyrocketing. He cited an example of a
man who was laid off from a company that didn't allow people
with low credit scores to work there because "somebody's selling
this as a predictor of theft." He also recalled hearing that
Delta Airlines will start color-coding passengers as posing a
terroristic threat based in part on their credit scores; he said
he can't imagine what use that has as a predictor of a
terrorist.
Number 0876
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that the bill only addresses credit scores
as a function of insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD agreed but said, "It's a slippery slope
that's being sold as a predictor for all sorts of things." He
explained that elements which go into a credit score are
proprietary - secret - and not revealed to the Division of
Insurance, which would be required to disclose some of that
information if it were in the public realm. He listed what he'd
been told are the five components [of a credit score], which are
kept secret: 35 percent payment history, 30 percent outstanding
debt, 15 percent length of credit history, 10 percent recent new
applications or opened accounts, and 10 percent a mix of credit
and types of accounts and loans.
Number 1022
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced his intention to carefully review the
report from the Division of Insurance before the next hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD offered his belief that the basic
premise of that report is that "they say we can't prove that
credit scores don't have correlation with the setting of
insurance rates." He added, however, that it can't be proven
that they do [correlate]. Referring to examples of past studies
showing that people with a certain color of hair or certain
zodiac sign were better or worse drivers, for example, he said,
"We never would use those things as a basis to set insurance
rates, and I think that credit scores have just about as much
efficacy as what sign you were born under."
Number 1147
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD told the committee about a letter
received from Washington, D.C. He said proponents of credit
scoring claim that if passed, HB 5 [may] be preempted by the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Addressing the
purpose and intent of FCRA and why he believes the preemption
argument is invalid, he told members:
First, it's important to keep our terms straight.
Proponents of credit scores, particularly those who
are claiming preemption of the FCRA, frequently use
"consumer reports" and "consumer information" because
those are the terms used in the FCRA. The appropriate
term, however, in the context of this argument, is
"credit score."
Credit scores are not consumer information, as
contemplated under the FCRA. They are a computation
based on consumer information. ... In short, the
purpose of the FCRA was to level the playing field
between consumers and lenders. Consumers were to be
allowed to see the same information used by lenders
and underwriters, in a clear and understandable
fashion. ... And the use of credit history was
regulated to ensure it was accurate and fair to the
consumer.
The most basic problem with credit scores, in terms of
the FCRA, is that they are the result of a secret
methodology. The information used is secret, the
weight given to that information is secret, and the
formulas used to compute those scores from the
information [are] secret. As a result, the playing
field is no longer level, and the consumer protection
afforded under the FCRA has been corrupted. The FCRA
was basically a federal floor on legislation.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked about any judicial cases on [possible
preemption in other states].
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered that he doesn't think there
have been any challenges so far. In response to a follow-up
question, he said he believed the original Act was passed in
1970 and has been modified a few times. He said he thinks the
last time it was updated was in either 1996 or 1998, and the
credit score was never contemplated and never mentioned until
the very last modification, which he thought was in 1998. He
added, "But it doesn't say that the use of credit scores is
either prohibited or that it should be used."
Number 1525
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would appreciate Representative
Crawford's presence at the March 29 meeting. He also asked
someone from the Division of Insurance to address at the next
hearing the question of whether a simpler way to deal with this
might be to enact a fair credit reporting Act in Alaska and
extend it to insurance, as "insurance consumers' right-to-know
legislation." He opined that the real question is a matter of
disclosure. [HB 5 was held over.]
HB 92-CLERGY TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE
Number 1600
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 92, "An Act relating to reports by members of the
clergy and custodians of clerical records who have reasonable
cause to suspect that a child has suffered harm as a result of
child abuse or neglect." [In packets was a proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 23-LS025\D, Lauterbach, 3/5/03.]
Number 1650
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, sponsor of HB 92, remarked, "This is
America and no one is above the law, but first there needs to be
a law." He told members:
One only has to read national headlines to conclude
it's long past time to mandate reporting by clergy of
actual or suspected sexual abuse of children.
Doctors, nurses, and teachers already are required to
report. Alaska's children and Alaska's faith
communities are Alaska's most important and valuable
resources and resources most worthy of projection.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered his belief that HB 92 is good for
children, "all of our churches," and Alaska. He said his intent
is not to cast stones at any particular church, individual, or
group of individuals. He pointed out that he'd asked for this
to be drafted while still a Representative-elect, before the
publicity involving Archbishop Hurley's honorable apology [for
failure to help a teenage parishioner who reported sexual
abuse]. Representative Lynn noted that he is a practicing Roman
Catholic, but was testifying strictly as a layperson and
legislator. He said, thankfully, there has been no personal
involvement of his family or him with any of the situations that
prompted him to introduce HB 92.
Number 1817
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN continued as follows:
Headlines don't tell the entire story. No church has
a monopoly on sinners, whether they be clergy or
nonclergy. And no church has a shortage of people who
will find inaction more convenient than action. It's
neither fair nor accurate to conclude from newspaper
headlines that sexual abuse, or failure to report
abuse, is territory limited to one church. The church
organized with a hierarchy of clergy, as in the
Catholic Church and several other churches, may
actually have an easier reporting situation than
churches in which clergy report only to their own
congregation, where there's not one boss and no single
keeper of personnel records.
The point is that however a church is organized, the
appalling failure of any clergy member to voluntarily
report abuse should not become an excuse for bashing
anyone's church. The surreptitiousness accompanying
the sexual mistreatment of children and the failure to
report abuse has no denominational boundaries. HB 92
is intended to protect our children and strengthen the
entire spectrum of our faith communities in doing what
common sense tells us needs to be done. All 50 states
have some form of mandated reporting of sexual abuse
of children, and many include clergy among the
mandated reporters.
Number 1893
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN continued:
HB 92 does, in fact, provide a reporting exception for
the thing we call "penitential communication,"
commonly known as "confession." The nature of the
rite of confession, in my faith family, we term as a
sacrament. It's not generally well understood outside
the churches that practice it. It's understandable
that some may believe exclusion of mandatory reporting
of confession [in] HB 92 is, quote, "unfair to
churches that don't practice a formal rite of
confession."
The only thing I can say is, this hearing and this
bill are not the place to debate the theology of
confession, or any other church doctrine of practice.
It may also not be commonly known that the rite of
confession is not limited to the Roman Catholic
Church. Other churches have similar special rites of
confession, including Episcopalians and the various
Orthodox churches, such as Greek Orthodox, Russian
Orthodox, and Orthodox Church of America.
Some well-meaning person is sure to ask: "What's more
important, reporting child abuse, or protecting the
seal of confession?" And, frankly, the answer to that
is above my pay grade. I suppose God would have to
answer that. The reality is, however, the absolute
protection of the seal of confession goes back to
biblical days, and priests of have suffered execution
rather than reveal a confession.
According to the Catholic encyclopedia, sins revealed
in a sacramental confession bind the priest in viable
secrecy. Under this obligation, the priest cannot be
excused, either to save his own life or good name, to
save the life of another, or to further the aims of
human justice, or to avert any public calamity. No
law can compel him to divulge the sins confessed to
him. With this in mind, we can see that no state law
is going to trump that ..., even though some states
have, in fact, seen fit to have this unenforceable law
in their statute book.
Number 1999
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that HB 92 would probably encompass
95 to 98 percent of the abusers who should be reported. He
opined, "Something is better than nothing." He said a case
could also be made that everyone should be mandated to report
sexual abuse, and noted that some states have such a law. He
suggested at some point that perhaps the legislature should
visit that option, but said now is the time to put clergy on a
mandated reporting list.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN told the committee a 10-year look-back
provision has been added to [the proposed CS], which states that
past suspected sexual abuse shall be reported. He added that
abuse suspected more than 10 years ago, may - emphasis on the
word "may" - be reported. He said, "These sections apply even
if the victim has already obtained the age of majority."
Failure to report, as required, would be a class B misdemeanor.
He added, "This brings HB 92 into alignment with language that
currently exists for currently mandated reporters."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that not every allegation of abuse is
valid and said, "Properly reported, an allegation can be
investigated and, if necessary, guilt or innocence determined by
a court of law; ... there can be no due process of law, however,
without a law." Highlighted a broad range of support evidenced
by letters in the committee packet, he concluded by saying
nobody of any age or situation should suffer sexual abuse, and
that type of abuse should be reported. Thus HB 92 simply asks
clergy, who treat the health of the soul, to be added to the
current list of mandated reporters - a list that already
includes doctors, nurses, and teachers, for example. This is
not a panacea, but a practical step in the right direction.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH told Representative Lynn that he appreciates the
homework he has done regarding HB 92 and the support that he's
gained for the proposed bill.
Number 2232
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 92, Version 23-LS025\D, Lauterbach,
3/5/03, as a work draft.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred to page 1, line 8. He asked if the
essence of the bill is to report child abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said yes.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested that clergy report the abuse of any
person [regardless of the victim's age]. He noted that his own
father had suffered abuse at the hands of a worker in a long-
term care facility.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he would be happy to expand [the
language] to include anyone under those circumstances.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, noting that he is a Presbyterian, gave an
example of a Presbyterian minister being under legal obligation
to report abuse and, therefore, telling someone to confess
instead to a Catholic priest. He asked, "If a confession of
abuse comes out in a Catholic confessional, is it not subject to
reporting, but if it comes out with a Presbyterian minister, is
it subject to ... reporting?"
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered his understanding that the answer is
yes; it creates a difficult situation. He said he didn't know
the answer to the aforementioned example; he didn't know whether
a non-Catholic could actually go get a confession [from Catholic
clergy]. He reminded the committee that the object is to
protect children and perhaps everybody who has suffered abuse at
the hands of "a church member, or by anybody else."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted several people on a list to testify.
He said he'd prefer that questions regarding denominations other
than his own be addressed by clergy of other denominations.
Number 2558
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH returned attention to the motion to adopt
Version D as a work draft. He announced that without objection,
Version D was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 1, line 9, and the title.
He sought clarification as to whether the intent of the proposed
legislation is to require that all clergy report, to the legal
authorities, all cases in which there is perceived neglect, as
well as abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN answered in the affirmative.
Number 2648
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to Chair Weyhrauch's question
regarding different reporting requirements for different faiths.
He clarified that his concern is with having different
treatments of different religions in the statutes.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested it's a matter of separation of church
and state and how each [denomination] defines its own practice.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised, "Denominational choice,
then."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN replied, "To the best of my knowledge,
there's nothing in the statute that defines responsibility of
one faith community compared to another one." He said he has
been advised that the neglect portion is already covered under
other "currently mandated reporters."
Number 2737
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said in the rules of court there is
priest-penitent privilege that can be asserted in trials. He
asked how HB 92 would intersect with that court rule.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered his belief that nothing in HB 92
would interfere with that. He said the state cannot force the
seal of confession to be broken, but added, "If it's already in
the bill in some other fashion - not necessarily in the name of
confession - (indisc.) reconciliation or the right of penance, I
suppose that that would work, would it not?"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he thinks Representative Berkowitz was
talking about a rule of evidence, but said he is not sure how
this amendment to the statute would be incorporated into that.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM expressed appreciation for HB 92 as a great
step. He referred to previous comments by Representative Seaton
and noted that "neglect" isn't defined in the bill. He said he
wanted to see if it's defined in state law as referenced in
AS 47.17.290.
Number 2843
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to AS 47.17.290(10), which
reads:
(10) "neglect" means the failure by a person
responsible for the child's welfare to provide
necessary food, care, clothing, shelter, or medical
attention for a child;
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if that is the same statute that
applies to teachers, for example.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "In terms of neglect it would be defined,
because teachers and staff are included already under the
existing statute."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the definitions in Title 47.17
would apply to "the prohibited acts, or the required acts."
Number 2894
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wants to make sure the bill's
intent is to require clergy to report class B misdemeanor
violations, just as those in counseling are required to do
currently.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN replied that the intent of the drafters of
HB 92 was to bring the requirement for clergy reporting in line
with reporting already required for other classes or persons so
that there wouldn't be a dichotomy between what clergy have to
do and what doctors and nurses have to do, for example.
TAPE 03-16, SIDE B
Number 2999
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the requirement [to go back 10
years in the records] is a requirement for "all the other
agencies" or is specific to clergy.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he didn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to Section 3, which read in
part, "recognized religious denomination or religious
organization." He asked, "Recognized by whom?"
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that it would be denominations or
religious organizations recognized by the federal government for
tax-exemption purposes.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH opened the hearing to public testimony.
Number 2918
CYNTHIA LAMB FAUST, Safe Church Program Consultant, representing
the Right Reverend Mark MacDonald, bishop of the Episcopal
Diocese of Alaska, testified as follows:
For over 10 years the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A.
has required that every diocese develop and implement
a program to prevent sexual misconduct on the part of
clergy and church leaders. In our diocese here in
Alaska, part of our Safe Church Program includes an 8-
hour training for clergy and laity, and deals directly
with sexual abuse of children, elders, disabled, and
those who are not legally competent to give consent.
MS. FAUST read from part of the manual used by the Safe Church
Program as follows:
Sexual misconduct is more about the misuse of power
than it is about sex. In relationships of trust with
children or adults, church leaders must use great care
to avoid taking advantage of or abusing their power so
they do not betray God's image in themselves and
others by becoming reckless bullies. It is the
responsibility of every church leader to keep a clear
boundary between conduct that is trustworthy and
misconduct. Keeping this high standard is always the
responsibility of the minister or leader.
Sexual abuse is sexual involvement or contact by a
person with a minor, an elder, a disabled person, or
someone who may not [be] legally competent to give
consent. Abuse of power, especially, hurts children
and those too weak to defend themselves. Children are
not able to give consent to sexual activity because
they don't and can't understand everything involved in
... what they are being asked to do and what it will
do to them. Therefore, even if they "go along" with
what the older and more powerful abuser wants,
children cannot be considered capable of true
"consent."
The Gospel shows Jesus always takes the side of
children and the weak against those who misuse their
power to hurt others. The church forbids this
behavior. It is a criminal offense, to be reported to
law enforcement officials. If you suspect or are
aware that a child, elder, or disabled person is being
abused and it is within your ability, seek to protect
them from further harm. Contact the nearest office of
the Division of Family and Youth Services and/or the
Alaska State Troopers or police and report it. If the
abuser is a church leader, notify the bishop
immediately.
Number 2724
[A portion of Ms. Faust's testimony was indiscernible because of
technical difficulties.]
MS. FAUST told the committee Bishop MacDonald heartily agrees
with a need for reporting and has agreed to support HB 92. She
continued:
I can also say that, in our training, we talk about
the confessional seal. We do let priests know ..., if
they suspect that someone is coming to them to
confess, that they also warn people that we do
[report]. And if the person does choose to use the
confessional as a way to unburden themselves, the
priest always has the opportunity to withhold
absolution until the person does confess.
So, while I am not in a position to speak to all of
the intricacies of that, I did want to say that that
is part of program to discuss this with clergy and to
make the ... people in the congregations aware that
reporting is something that we strongly encourage all
of our clergy to do already.
Number 2680
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said Ms. Faust's testimony seemed to
revolve around sexual abuse or misconduct, especially [by] those
who are in power. He asked whether Ms. Faust's testimony
concerns the requirement that any member of the clergy would,
under this law, be required to report neglect.
MS. FAUST answered that she appreciates the distinction, but
Bishop MacDonald hadn't instructed her to speak to that. She
said her sense is that she is testifying on the bishop's behalf
to support the reporting of sexual abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Faust to check with Bishop
MacDonald to find out the position on requiring clergy to report
any cases of neglect that come to their knowledge from the
congregation.
Number 2582
JOANNE GIBBENS, Program Administrator, Division of Family &
Youth Services, Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS),
told the committee DHSS supports HB 92. She noted that
approximately 13 states currently include members of the clergy
among those specifically mandated to report known or suspected
child abuse or neglect. In 18 additional states, any person who
suspects child abuse or neglect is required to report. She
clarified that the clergy would be included within the
definition of "any person." Other states are currently
considering similar legislation, she said. She concluded that
the department hasn't had a chance to look at the proposed CS,
but believes it would be of benefit regarding the protection of
children. In response to a request by Representative Gruenberg,
she said she'd provide a copy of other states' statutes in the
next day or two.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned organizations such as the
Society of Friends [the Quakers] who don't have ordained priests
and ministers. He asked how those are handled.
MS. GIBBENS answered that she doesn't know. She surmised that
it would be a legal question.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for any information she could
find "in her network of other administrators." Referring to the
look-back provision in Section 4, he asked if Ms. Gibbens was
aware of any other states with anything like that.
Number 2454
MS. GIBBENS said not at present, but she hadn't had time to
review and analyze [Version D] before the meeting. She said
she'd be happy to look into it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Ms. Gibbens was aware of
similar look-back provisions elsewhere in Alaska law.
MS. GIBBENS answered, "Not that I'm aware of."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "Neither am I."
Number 2394
CHIP WAGONER, Lobbyist for Alaska Catholic Conference (ACC),
explained that the ACC is composed of the three Roman Catholic
bishops in Alaska and is the vehicle they use to speak with one
voice on public policy matters. He announced that he would hand
out a brochure at the conclusion of his testimony. Noting that
ACC met twice the prior week, he said HB 92 was on the agenda
and was endorsed unanimously, is consistent with the church's
policy, and is good for the children and the churches of Alaska.
MR. WAGONER referred to amendments in [Version D], saying ACC
hadn't taken a position on the proposed CS. He said two are
housekeeping amendments, but one makes the permissive past-
reporting requirement mandatory, going back 10 years; he
expressed ACC's need for discussion on this provision. He said
if the bill is merely directing churches to report allegations
of past sexual abuse or suspected allegations of sexual abuse of
a minor by a clergy member within the last 10 years, that would
be one thing; that information would be in the records of the
church. However, the bill goes much further than that,
requiring all clergy members to report all past allegations of
sexual abuse, or suspected sexual abuse, that the clergy member
had knowledge of or suspected.
MR. WAGONER suggested that the latter requirement would mean the
bill is not so much directed towards the clergy as towards the
parishioners of the clergy member. He suggested that members
keep this distinction in mind while debating HB 92. He
explained, "The first one is much easier for the churches to
comply with, because of the record keeping and [because] we're
looking at specific clergy members." He said to ask the clergy
to try to remember conversations or counseling sessions they had
over a 10-year period, without written records, would be much
more difficult to comply with. He told the committee that
whatever it decides, [the Catholic] Church will do its best to
meet the requirements of the law; however, he emphasized that
there are two very different requirements being considered. He
added that it is a concern that a clergy member who "misses
something" in the 10 years can be incriminated for it.
Number 2191
MR. WAGONER referred to use of the word "priest" in statute and
said in [the Catholic] Church that would include the definition
for bishop. Noting that the bill provides for an exception for
reporting of penitential communication, he pointed out that the
technical term [for confession] is "the sacrament of penance and
reconciliation." Mr. Wagoner said only a bishop or priest,
through a bishop's authority, can give confessions. It's a very
narrow exception and wouldn't include when someone came in to
talk to the priest about a family problem and an allegation of
sexual abuse arose during the session, for example - it would
only be the sacrament of penance and reconciliation.
MR. WAGONER noted that sacraments are an essential component of
the church; [the sacrament of penance and reconciliation] is one
of the seven sacraments and has been around for 1,300 to 1,500
years. The church has a body of cannon law that regulates it.
Cannon Law 983 states that the sacramental seal is inviolable;
therefore, it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor - a priest
or bishop - to betray in any way a penitent, in words or in any
manner or for any reason.
Number 2042
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to Mr. Wagoner's definition of
clergy members. He asked if a nun, for example, would be a
clergy member under [the bill].
MR. WAGONER answered no. He said he interpreted the bill to
define "clergy member" as "priest, minister, or rabbi of a
church". It wouldn't include Sunday school teachers or full-
time ministers, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if members of other faiths who
use different terminology for their religious leaders would be
covered.
MR. WAGONER said he didn't know.
Number 1955
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if nuns and brothers, while not
considered clergy, would be considered "religious".
MR. WAGONER responded that "religious" would include sisters;
the brothers would be ordained and are not usually associated
with a diocese, but with an order. He added, "They would be
covered." In further response, he clarified that a brother who
is a priest could hear a confession.
Number 1900
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred to [page 2, lines 27-28], which reads:
(17) "clergy member" means a priest, minister,
or rabbi of a church, temple, or recognized religious
denomination or religious organization.
He said many recognized religious denominations don't have those
kinds of names, for example, a reader in a Christian Science
church. He suggested the question being asked is whether the
definition is enough to sweep in those in a religious context
who hear reports of abuse, or whether it should do so. He said
it is a fundamental policy question and he thinks the answer is
yes.
MR. WAGONER reiterated his belief that the current bill would
cover priests and bishops, not volunteers who teach religious
education classes, for example.
Number 1831
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Wagoner if he is comfortable
supporting the position with regard to reporting potential cases
of neglect within the congregation.
MR. WAGONER asked, "The past or the present?"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the past is only for sexual abuse,
but the title of the bill and the requirement is that clergy
will report any neglect, as well as abuse. He asked if that is
[ACC's] understanding [of the bill] and if it supports that.
MR. WAGONER said it wasn't discussed at the meeting, but he
can't imagine that the bishops would have a problem with
reporting present or future issues of neglect; he said he'd have
to verify that with them.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he'd appreciate it if Mr. Wagoner did
that because he sees a stark difference between requiring the
clergy to report any suspected neglect of children within their
congregation, versus sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, or
physical abuse from members of their organization. He said he
could see that the current definitions [in HB 92] could cause
problems in how congregations function.
Number 1666
TERESA WILLIAMS, President, Pissed Off Parents (POP), told the
committee POP supports HB 92. Its position is that everyone
should be reporting. She said she hears a lot of concern
regarding neglect, and there are more victims of neglect,
statewide and nationwide, than any other crime against children.
She posited that it is only fitting that those who administer to
"our spiritual selves" should also administer to children.
Number 1600
W.M. THOMAS MOFFATT, Rev., Staff to Representative Bob Lynn,
Alaska State Legislature, told the committee he is an Eastern
Orthodox Christian priest. He said the central purpose of HB 92
is to require of clergy what is already required from "the eight
other categories" of professions. Father Thomas said he and the
bishops with whom he has spoken appreciate Representative
Seaton's previously stated concern regarding the effect of
requiring neglectful situations involving children to be
reported by clergy. He added, "No problem." He referred to
[page 1, lines 6-10], which reads in part:
(a) The following persons who, in the
performance of their occupational duties, or with
respect to (8) of this subsection, in the performance
of their appointed duties, have reasonable cause to
suspect that a child has suffered harm as a result of
child abuse or neglect shall immediately report the
harm to the nearest office of the department:
FATHER THOMAS read "reasonable cause to suspect that a child has
suffered", placing emphasis on the word "has". He said the
whole purpose of HB 92 is to protect children who are suffering
or being caused to suffer.
Number 1415
FATHER THOMAS mentioned the definition of clergy. He said "we"
use three specific words: priest, minister, or rabbi. He said
the word "minister" in the bill is meant to cover "a whole raft
of titles of people," including ayatollahs and Christian Science
practitioners - "those who have responsibility." He said it was
the intent of [the sponsor] of HB 92 to "snare in the net" those
people who have the title of priest, minister, or rabbi. He
said he, Representative Lynn, and all the clergy with whom he
has spoken hope, as the bill moves, that "perfect doesn't get in
the way of accomplishing good."
FATHER THOMAS suggested perhaps every citizen should have the
duty to report child abuse or neglect. He related his
understanding that the eight categories currently required to
report do so to the Department of Health & Social Services.
Referring to a previous question regarding whether Quakers would
be included as clergy, he said, "They don't have clergy, so they
don't get included." Bringing attention to Representative
Gruenberg's previous mention of the look-back provision, he
said, "Yes, perhaps this would be unique, but a lot of the
controversy in most recent days is resolved around the past."
He said the first part of the bill, hopefully, addresses the
present and the future, "but we do provide this look-back
provision." In response to a question from Representative Holm,
he noted that the eight categories are listed in the bill
[beginning on page 1, line 11].
Number 1115
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM told Father Thomas that when he uses the
word "ministers" it doesn't reflect religious leaders. He
suggested "religious leaders" might be a more appropriate
phrase.
FATHER THOMAS explained that in the Episcopal Church, "minister"
refers to a vicar or a rector, someone in charge of a
congregation. He said he thought the intention related to
leadership, for example.
Number 0990
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said when he thinks of ministers - religious
leaders - he thinks of the barrio in Mexico and poor, indigent
people, perhaps without a good education, who need help. He
asked how [the bill] would help people who need to be ministered
to, if [the legislature] puts a requirement on those who
minister to them to make the definition between whether they're
good parents, [by deciding] whether they have enough money and
education, or whether they even should be parents. He asked,
"When we make law that requires that there's a penalty if you do
not, as a minister, make those definitions, are we really doing
what we want to do here in this bill?" Sexual abuse is one
issue, but he said he has a problem with the neglect portion of
this bill.
FATHER THOMAS said the intent is to have the clergy treated the
same as those in the previously mentioned eight categories who
are required to report.
Number 0722
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG voiced concern that the bill may be
underinclusive in regard to those religious groups who don't
have "official people" and also overinclusive in the sense that
there may be a minister without a parish.
FATHER THOMAS responded that there are priests, for example, who
don't have a parish; he himself is one, he would want to be
included [in the proposed requirement], and he doesn't know
anyone who wouldn't. He said [the sponsor] attempted to do some
good by requiring that clergy be included in the requirement.
He added, "If you want to include, for all eight or nine
categories, the requirement for the reporting of spousal abuse
or the reporting of the elderly who are abused, ... go for it."
Number 0409
RICHARD BLOCK, Representational Lobbyist for Christian Science
Committee on Publication in Alaska, told the committee he
represents those people in the state who rely on prayer for
healing and who choose to protect the ability to recognize the
importance of spirituality as a path to healing. Mr. Block
indicated although his organization doesn't have an official
position on HB 92 or object to its passage, it does recognize
the social issues and problems the legislature is dealing with,
and that it may be necessary to impose broader reporting
requirements than currently exist in order to effectuate that
level of protection.
MR. BLOCK expressed concern that Sections 2 and 3 be preserved.
He opined that the primary and ultimate objective of the bill
should be the healing of those who are abused and of the alleged
perpetrators. He stated his belief that the ability of the
person abused, or even the perpetrator, to communicate in a
confidential way with a spiritual leader is a vital first step
in that healing process.
MR. BLOCK referred to the change in Version D that removes
"religious practitioner, or similar functionary" from Section 3.
He said he is puzzled because he isn't sure what that does. He
indicated he'd like some time to think about it and talk with
the sponsor's staff. He suggested the result of Version D might
be to exempt Christian Science practitioners. Referring to
previous testimony regarding the meaning of the "minister", he
stated his belief that a minister is someone who is ordained by
his/her church, or maybe even recognized in state law as having
official capacity with a church; thus people in the Christian
Science church, for example, who are not official clergy
wouldn't be included in [Version D].
TAPE 03-17, SIDE A
Number 0001
FLOYD V. SMITH, testifying on behalf of the Alaska District
Council of the Assemblies of God ("Assemblies of God"), said he
would like to confine his testimony to confidential
communications, the question of immunity, and "some very
significant insurance problems, which are raised for churches by
this particular bill - particularly the retroactive application
of a reporting requirement."
MR. SMITH referred to the Alaska Rules of Evidence and the
related commentaries, which had been alluded to. He told
members:
We've been operating under those rules for many, many
years - I think, at least back [to] 1979 - predating
the adoption of the abuse and neglect Act.
Specifically, what we're referring to here is Rule 506
of the Alaska Rules of Evidence, promulgated by the
Alaska Supreme Court. And that rule provides that a
communication is confidential if it's made privately,
and not intended for further disclosure, except to
other persons present, in furtherance of the purpose
of the communication.
We've heard some very articulate testimony this
morning in respect to the sacramental exemptions and
privileges that were attached to particular churches
that have a sacramental or confessional tradition.
The Alaska Supreme Court rule, I would suggest to you,
avoids the problem of having the legislature have to
carve out exceptions for particular denominations or
particular doctrines by making any communication
intended to be confidential - notwithstanding the
denomination or status of the person receiving it -
confidential. We would infinitely prefer that, as
opposed to being in a position where somebody said the
Presbyterian might have to go down the street to the
Catholic Church for confession.
The commentary to the Alaska Rules of Evidence
promulgated by the supreme court states that this
privilege - and it is a privilege - recognizes the
need for a private enclave for spiritual counseling,
which is not confined to those whose religion requires
confession, but extends to all who attempt to lead
righteous lives, with the aid and comfort of their
religion and religious advisors.
We, for many, many years, have taken the position that
a communication made to a pastor or minister -
whichever term you prefer - is meant to be
confidential, and we will preserve the confidentiality
of that communication. The Alaska Supreme Court has
told us, in their rules, that we are obligated to do
so.
Number 0304
MR. SMITH referred to Plant v. State. He noted that in this
particular sexual abuse case, the person involved went to his
protestant minister to discuss the problems of sexual abuse; the
supreme court would not allow the minister to testify in court
because the privilege belongs to the person who makes the
communication. He continued:
When we're told that we might have to go back 10 years
and report cases of sexual abuse that the clergy might
know of - not just the church, but the individual
clergy might suspect - we believe that this means that
we would then have to go ahead and contact each and
every person who may have made a communication to a
pastor, and secure their consent to report this,
because this bill, as I understand it, does not
attempt to supersede the rules of the supreme court.
If it did attempt to do so, I think that the problem
is, the bill would have to be redenominated as a bill
to eliminate or change a procedure rule of the supreme
court, and would require a two-thirds vote in each
house. Whether or not this bill would stand, or
whether or not you'd have to put in a committee
substitute, I have no knowledge. You'd have to
consult with your legislative attorneys.
MR. SMITH went on to say that a requirement to report 10 years
back would create problems with insurance that may be voided in
respect to that. He reiterated that his church doesn't believe
it could do the required reporting without the consent of those
who made communications, and has had a policy of absolute
abhorrence of sexual abuse and a no-second-chance policy for
many years.
Number 0783
TED BOATSMAN, District Superintendent, Alaska District Council
of the Assemblies of God, noted that that the information
regarding HB 92 was received on short notice. He said he
believes the languages reads in favor of sacramental confession,
which leaves the protestant side "a little bit in confusion,"
because protestants do not have sacramental confession in the
same manner as the Catholic Church. He said, "That leaves us
... to having to prove the intent of the confidential
communication that we have as ministers." He told the committee
that he is ordained.
MR. BOATSMAN, regarding the look-back provision, said it is hard
to comprehend how someone would decide if the intent of
communication years ago was in confidence or was "a mere
communication" during a premarital conference, for example. He
said having to prove the intent of confidence would be a real
struggle, especially when the supreme court has ruled on the
side of the confessor.
Number 0839
KENT REDFEARN testified, saying he thinks the reason clergy
members are being considered as an addition to the other eight
categories [of those who report] is because they've always been
considered different from the other eight. He maintained that
clergy members are different from childcare providers and
administrative offices of institutions, for example. He
expressed concern about how this would be managed.
Number 0887
LAUREE HUGONIN, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual
Assault (ANDVSA), said ANDVSA supports HB 92 and would also
support the addition of elders and disabled persons in the
language of the bill, as was previously discussed. Regarding
neglect, she opined that it would be [based upon] the community
standard. She said a DHSS representative would probably be more
knowledgeable to speak to the issue, but added, "As a person
maybe who has a middle or upper income, I wouldn't go into a
community that was in a lower income and immediately start
reporting people. That's not what neglect is."
MS. HUGONIN said domestic-violence and sexual-assault workers
were already in statute as required reporters "before we gained
our privilege." She added, "But when we did gain the privilege,
in order to accommodate our responsibility as required
reporters, they put an exception in. So that might be something
that you could consider, if that continues to be an area of
confusion or contention."
Number 1031
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said his concern regarding the issue of
neglect comes in part from reports that indicate over 35 percent
of the children in protective custody in the Anchorage area are
Alaska Native. He offered his perception that a number of those
reports are based on cultural perspective on what is neglect.
He told [Ms. Hugonin] that he is not sure that she is correct.
He said if the state has a definition of neglect, a clergy
member who is under threat of a class B misdemeanor to report
neglect may not be able to say, "Well, this is just a general,
cultural way these people live, and so that's not neglect." He
asked [Ms. Hugonin] if she is saying there are factors other
than cultural differences explaining why these numbers are high.
MS. HUGONIN responded that she is not aware of those numbers,
but reiterated that there is concern regarding the community
standard. She said, for example, it is "so you don't have
somebody from outside a community coming in and just saying,
'Well, obviously that's neglectful - the child hasn't brushed
his teeth three times a day, and that's my standard - anything
less than that is neglect'."
MS. HUGONIN suggested everyone wants children who are in
dangerous situations or neglected to be brought to the attention
of somebody who can provide resources to the family to help them
out. She said she thinks the intention of requiring the report
of neglect is so that the family is brought to the awareness of
the system that can provide some support for them, in order to
get the child in a safer environment.
Number 1233
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered the following statement:
I'm afraid that when we go and all of a sudden make an
Alaska Statute, we are not saying "local community
norms," we are saying that the clergy is going to be
responsible for reporting something that is within the
Alaska Statute definition, and we are not saying
"community norms." So, I appreciate your idea; I'm
just not sure if it's correct or not. And if it's not
correct, then we are going to be placing the clergy in
an awful position of either being eligible for ...
class B misdemeanors a lot of times or, basically,
putting them in a very untenable position within some
of the communities that they're to minister to.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is not opposed to the section of
the bill dealing with sexual abuse, but has problems with the
[look-back] reporting requirement in the bill because it is
specific to clergy and nobody else is required to do it.
Number 1354
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Smith and Mr. Block to take
part in future committee hearings on HB 92.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he hopes the issues discussed will be
resolved by working with the sponsor of the bill.
Number 1393
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that the problems of reporting - what
to report and when to report it - are not confined to one church
tradition, which he said is why he thinks there needs to be one
standard. He thanked members for their cooperation.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 92 would be held over.
[There are approximately four minutes of blank tape preceding
HB 18 because the tape kept rolling, but not recording, while
the committee took an at-ease.]
HB 18-PARENTAL LIABILITY FOR CHILD'S DAMAGE
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 18, "An Act relating to the liability of parents
and legal guardians of minors who destroy property."
Number 1615
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 23-LS0110\D, Luckhaupt, 2/28/03, as a
work draft. There being no objection, Version D was before the
committee.
Number 1647
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 18, explained that the purpose of Version D is to raise the
existing $10,000 cap to $20,000, a substantial increase. He
referred to previous testimony [at the February 20, 2003, House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting] that parents who adopt
high-risk children would be less likely to adopt if there were
unlimited liability. He added, "Certainly, we want to encourage
adoptions as much as possible." He said the cap has been in
place since 1967 and was last raised in 1995 from $2,000 to
$10,000.
Number 1709
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER told the committee that since the last
hearing on HB 18, [his office] had heard from the insurance
companies regarding their concern with unlimited liability and
parents' being tempted to use their homeowners' insurance to
cover the cost of their children's [vandalism]. He said,
"Their concern is that, with unlimited liability, ... they would
have to raise the homeowners' insurance rates; however, if we
kept the cap on, they did not see a problem with it impacting
homeowners' insurance rates."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said [his office] also heard from Carol
Comeau, superintendent for the Anchorage School District, who
indicated she'd like to see an unlimited cap because she wants
to be able to recoup all expenses for each incident.
Representative Meyer noted that 90 percent of vandalism that
occurs is minor, such as breaking windows and graffiti, and the
[proposed] $20,000 cap would cover those expenses. The [acts of
vandalism] over $100,000 are rare criminal acts, he said. He
offered an example that sometimes four children could be
involved in vandalism, in which case the school district could
[possibly] get $20,000 from each [set of] parents.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER told the committee only five states don't
have a cap. He said his research showed that there is no proof
that not having a cap is a deterrent to vandalism. Almost all
the other states have a cap; they range from as low as $2,000 to
California's $25,000 cap. A $20,000 cap would make Alaska's one
of the highest [in the country]. He described coming up with
the [proposed] $20,000 cap as a "balance act." The intent is
for school districts to be able to recover a substantial amount
for damages done. He concluded by saying, "We've been ...
trying to work with as many groups as we can that are involved
with this, and this is the balance that we've come up with."
Number 1874
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said in the interim he'll be considering some
mechanisms in a separate bill to deal with school vandalism.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he has been working with
Representative Meyer on this issue. He referred to a
delinquency statute and AS 47.12.155; he said he has prepared an
amendment that he will offer in the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, which he and Representative Holm are members of.
That amendment would add, at the end, "When damages are sought
in a civil action against a parent, both parents, or guardian of
a minor, under this subsection, the parent, parents, or guardian
shall disclose the existence of any insurance that may provide
coverage for the action of the minor."
Number 2001
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posited that a civil action should be
intended to make the school district "or whatever it is" whole
again. He read part of subsection (c) of [AS 47.12.155], which
reads:
(c) If a court orders a minor's parent or
guardian to participate in treatment under (b) of this
section, the court also shall order the parent or
guardian to use any available insurance or another
resource to cover the treatment, or to pay for the
treatment if other coverage is unavailable.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that deals with treatment, but
requires the disclosure of insurance. He noted that that
statute doesn't have a cap on it. He said his intent was to
work with the sponsor to make that also a cap, "like this." He
indicated a Colorado statute contains some good language, and
mentioned some other states' statutes that require the court to
order parents to undergo some parental training to ensure that
the children are helped so that "this kind of behavior doesn't
repeat itself." He concluded, "And it shouldn't be necessary to
do that in the context of a delinquency, but I think that it
might be something that we would consider in this, so that the
school district is protected in the future."
Number 2069
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to report CSHB 18, Version 23-
LS0110\D, Luckhaupt, 2/28/03, from committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHB 18(STA) was reported from the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The House State Affairs Standing Committee took an at-ease at
10:12 a.m. in order to prepare for the overview. [For the
overview by the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities, see the 10:15 a.m. minutes for this date.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|