Legislature(1995 - 1996)

05/05/1996 10:05 AM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
                             MINUTES                                           
                    SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                   
                           5 May 1996                                          
                           10:05 A.M.                                          
  TAPES                                                                        
                                                                               
  SFC-96, #111, Side 1 and 2                                                   
  SFC-96, #112, Side 1                                                         
                                                                               
  CALL TO ORDER                                                                
                                                                               
  Senator  Rick Halford,  co-chair,  convened  the meeting  at                 
  approximately 10:05 A.M.                                                     
                                                                               
  PRESENT                                                                      
                                                                               
  In  addition  to  co-chairman  Halford,  co-chairman  Frank,                 
  Senators Phillips,  Sharp, Donley, Rieger  and Zharoff  were                 
  present when the meeting convened.                                           
                                                                               
  Also Attending: Richard Vitale, staff aide to Representative                 
  Parnell;  Laurie  Otto,  Deputy  Attorney General,  Criminal                 
  Division,  Department  of  Law;  Chris  Christensen,   Staff                 
  Counsel,  Alaska  Court  System; Anne  Carpeneti,  Assistant                 
  Attorney  General,  Criminal  Division,  Department of  Law;                 
  George Dozier, Jr., staff aide  to Representative Pete Kott;                 
  John  Barnett,  Executive Director,  Board  of Storage  Tank                 
  Assistance,  Division  of  Spill  Prevention, Department  of                 
  Environmental  Conservation;  Virginia   Stonkus  and   Dave                 
  Tonkovich,  Fiscal  Analysts, Legislative  Finance Division;                 
  and aides to committee members.                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  SUMMARY INFORMATION                                                          
                                                                               
  SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO.  314(JUD)                                
  "An  Act relating to domestic  violence and to crime victims                 
  and  witnesses; amending  Rules 3,  4, 65,  and 100,  Alaska                 
  Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 505 and 613, Alaska Rules of                 
  Evidence, and Rule  9, Alaska  Rules of Administration;  and                 
  providing for an effective date."                                            
                                                                               
  Richard  Vitale,  staff   aide  to  Representative   Parnell                 
  testified on behalf of the bill.  Laurie Otto was invited to                 
  join  the committee  and  answered  questions from  members.                 
  Chris  Christensen  said  the  Courts   would  like  to  see                 
  mediation  banned.    Senator   Donley  moved  a  conceptual                 
  amendment  and without objection  it was adopted.   He moved                 
  amendment #2 and without objection it was adopted.   Senator                 
  Rieger moved  SCS CSHB 314(FIN) and without objection it was                 
  adopted with individual recommendations and fiscal  notes of                 
  $52.5 Department  of Public Safety/AST; $55.0  department of                 
  Public Safety/CDVSA; zero Department  of Administration/OPA;                 
  $55.0 Department  of Corrections; zero Department  of Public                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Safety/Criminal Records; and $108.5 Alaska Court System.                     
                                                                               
                                                                               
  SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 202(JUD)                                 
  "An Act relating to the  participation and accountability of                 
  parents and  guardians and  the  enforcement of  restitution                 
  orders entered in juvenile delinquency proceedings; relating                 
  to   claims  on   permanent  fund   dividends   for  certain                 
  court-ordered treatment in juvenile delinquency proceedings;                 
  and amending  Alaska Delinquency  Rules 3(b)  and 8(b);  and                 
  providing for an effective date."                                            
                                                                               
  Anne  Carpeneti, Assistant  Attorney General was  invited to                 
  join the  committee and  testified on  behalf  of the  bill.                 
  Senator Donley moved revisor amendment and without objection                 
  it was adopted.  Senator Donley  moved SCS CSHB 202(FIN) and                 
  without  objection  it  was  reported  out  with  individual                 
  recommendations  and  fiscal note  of  $5.0 from  the Alaska                 
  Court System.                                                                
                                                                               
                                                                               
  SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 204(JUD)                                 
  "An  Act  relating  to the  administrative  revocation  of a                 
  minor's  license to  drive;  creating  criminal offenses  of                 
  minor operating a vehicle after consuming alcohol, a minor's                 
  refusal  to submit to chemical test,  and driving during the                 
  24 hours  after being  cited for minor  operating a  vehicle                 
  after consuming  alcohol or  refusal to  submit to  chemical                 
  test; establishing penalties for these offenses; relating to                 
  court  ordered  drug   and  alcohol  screening,  evaluation,                 
  referral,  and  programs;  relating to  implied  consent  to                 
  certain testing if  operating a motor vehicle,  aircraft, or                 
  watercraft; relating to an instrument's working tolerance in                 
  a chemical breath test; relating to the authority of a court                 
  to  impose a suspended sentence after  failure to complete a                 
  treatment program  upon conviction  of felony driving  while                 
  intoxicated or felony  refusal to submit to a chemical test;                 
  relating to  the period  of time  a court  may consider  for                 
  determining  prior   convictions  in  sentencing   a  person                 
  convicted  of felony  driving  while  intoxicated or  felony                 
  refusal to submit to  a chemical test; amending Rules  6 and                 
  32.1, Alaska Rules  of Criminal Procedure, to  allow the use                 
  of hearsay evidence before a grand jury in a prosecution for                 
  felony driving while intoxicated or felony refusal to submit                 
  to a chemical test  and to not require a  presentence report                 
  for a first felony driving while intoxicated or first felony                 
  refusal to submit to  a chemical test; and providing  for an                 
  effective date."                                                             
                                                                               
  Anne Carpeneti,  Assistant Attorney  General was invited  to                 
  join  the committee  and testified  on behalf  of the  bill.                 
  Laurie  Otto  was also  invited  to join  the  committee and                 
  answered  questions  for members.    Senator Donley  moved a                 
  conceptual amendment  and without objection it  was adopted.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp moved SCS CSHB  204(FIN) and without objection                 
  it was reported out with individual recommendations and zero                 
  fiscal   notes  from   Department  of   Health  and   Social                 
  Services/Alcohol Safety Action Program; Department of Public                 
  Safety/AST;  Department  of  Public Safety/Driver  Services;                 
  Department      of      Law/Criminal;      Department     of                 
  Administration/PDA;  Department  of  Administration/OPA; and                 
  the Alaska Court System.                                                     
                                                                               
                                                                               
  CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 456(L&C)                                               
  "An  Act relating to  the Board of  Storage Tank Assistance;                 
  and providing for an effective date."                                        
                                                                               
  George  Dozier,  Jr.,  staff  aide  to  Representative  Kott                 
  testified;   John   Barnett,  Department   of  Environmental                 
  Conservation testified  and answered  questions by  members.                 
  Senator Phillips and  Senator Sharp  moved amendment #1  and                 
  without objection it  was adopted.   Senator Phillips  moved                 
  CSHB 456(FIN) and without objection it was reported out with                 
  individual  recommendations   and  zero  fiscal   note  from                 
  Department of Environmental Conservation.                                    
                                                                               
                                                                               
       SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO.  314(JUD)                           
       "An  Act  relating to  domestic  violence and  to crime                 
  victims and    witnesses; amending Rules 3, 4,  65, and 100,                 
  Alaska Rules of     Civil  Procedure,  Rules  505  and  613,                 
  Alaska Rules of Evidence,     and  Rule  9, Alaska  Rules of                 
  Administration; and providing for  an effective date."                       
                                                                               
  Co-chairman Halford introduced  the bill and said  he wanted                 
  to  spend  enough  time  to  know  that  the  committee  was                 
  achieving a balance  between protecting  those in  immediate                 
  danger and the  converse side which  in some cases would  be                 
  punishment before trial and before  determination of guilt.                  
  That is a difficult area to strike a reasonable balance.  By                 
  the same token there are  people being killed because  there                 
  is no protection before a determination of guilt because the                 
  system does not react that fast.                                             
                                                                               
  Richard  Vitale, staff  aide to  Representative  Parnell was                 
  invited to join the committee.  He said the major changes to                 
  current  practice  would be  that  of the  protective orders                 
  going from 90 days, with a 45 day extension,  to six months.                 
  Ex parte orders,  which were emergency orders  under current                 
  law, stay  at 20 days.  There is  also a new emergency 3-day                 
  order, another model code suggestion.   Other points include                 
  training for  police agencies  and other professionals  that                 
  encounter  domestic violence and  a central protective order                 
  registry system so restraining orders can be tracked.                        
                                                                               
  Co-chairman Halford referred  to adjustments in the  new CS.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  One was the elimination  of defense that the subject  of the                 
  order was invited back  on the premises to fix  something or                 
  to see children; another was the  duration of time.  Senator                 
  Sharp referred to page  21, lines 18 - 20 and  asked if this                 
  section  expanded  the  role of  the  office  of  the public                 
  advocate counsel beyond where they are now.                                  
                                                                               
  Laurie  Otto,  Criminal  Division,  Department  of  Law  was                 
  invited to join  the committee.   She said this was  current                 
  practice.  This section  was requested by the office  of the                 
  public advocate to  narrow the  circumstances in which  they                 
  could  be appointed and  not allow  it be  expanded further.                 
  The  Court  is   presently  appointing  them   very  rarely.                 
  Further, she  said the petitions were civil and not criminal                 
  actions.   Individuals under eighteen  years of age  may not                 
  file civil actions.  Minors are considered incompetent to do                 
  that.  Senator Sharp further referred to page 23, lines 19 -                 
   21  (e) which says  the court  may not  deny a  petition no                 
  matter how long the period of time has been since the act of                 
  domestic  violence  happened.    He   wanted  to  know  what                 
  constraints  were  in  place  that  would enable  denial  of                 
  petition if a considerable lapse of time had occurred  since                 
  the act of  violence.  Ms.  Otto said  this section was  the                 
  topic of considerable discussion in the judiciary committee.                 
  The  chair  of that  committee  felt strongly  this language                 
  should stay in  as written.  They  felt if a limit  were put                 
  in, it  would be  artificial.   This is  better left to  the                 
  discretion of the  court.  Co-chairman Halford said this was                 
  already  left  to the  discretion of  the  court.   Ms. Otto                 
  referred to the problems with rural areas being able to file                 
  a petition  timely.   Senator Sharp  said he  would be  more                 
  comfortable if the  intent were more  specific.  He said  he                 
  would prefer  a requirement that  the court find  the victim                 
  was under definite threat,  in order to keep  retaliation in                 
  check.  The victim should have to act in a reasonable length                 
  of time.   In response to discussion between  Senators Sharp                 
  and Rieger,  Ms. Otto said it was better to leave the matter                 
  to the court's discretion as the judiciary is better able to                 
  weigh all the conditions.                                                    
                                                                               
  Co-chairman Halford referred to a hypothetical dysfunctional                 
  couple  with  alcohol problems.    In  response to  the  co-                 
  chairman, Ms. Otto  said there is  a provision that says  in                 
  getting   a  protective  order   the  court   requires  full                 
  disclosure of any other matters pending.  It is necessary to                 
  protect those individuals who need it, but likewise not give                 
  others a vehicle  for abusing the  system.  This model  code                 
  was developed by the National Council on Juvenile and Family                 
  Court Judges.  They are the ones who see these cases and see                 
  the abuses all the time.                                                     
                                                                               
  Senator Donley asked about mediation provisions of the bill.                 
  Mr. Vitale  said the sponsor  liked the original  version of                 
  the bill which did not included the amendment referred to by                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Senator Donley.   This  would allow  the court to  recommend                 
  mediation if three standards were met:  the victim agreed to                 
  the mediation, a  representative was  at the mediation,  and                 
  the mediator was trained  in domestic violence cases.    The                 
  original  language,  as  introduced  by  the  sponsor,  only                 
  allowed mediation in  domestic violence situations  when the                 
  victim requested it, had a representative present during the                 
  mediation,  and  the  mediator   was  trained  in   domestic                 
  violence.  The  judiciary adopted an amendment to  allow the                 
  court to recommend  mediation to the  parties.  The  sponsor                 
  preferred  that amendment  not be  included but  it did  not                 
  break  the  bill for  him.     Ms. Otto  said  mediation was                 
  premised on the parties partaking on equal standing, and the                 
  mediator  will help  the  parties reach  an  agreement.   In                 
  domestic  violence  cases  the  parties  do not  have  equal                 
  standing.    Both  the  Canadian  and  American  Society  of                 
  Mediators  have recommended  against  mediation in  domestic                 
  violence cases.   In  many cases, armed  guards are  present                 
  during  these  mediations  due  to  the possibility  of  the                 
  mediation triggering further assaults or violence.                           
                                                                               
  Chris Christensen, Alaska  Court System was invited  to join                 
  the  committee.    He  said  the  court would  like  to  see                 
  mediation banned in domestic violence  cases.  While a small                 
  number of cases are referred for  mediation, once the matter                 
  reaches the  court, mediation is  pretty much  useless.   In                 
  response  to Senator Donley, Mr. Christensen said he did not                 
  think  the  court system  would  object to  the  addition of                 
  language providing that if the court suggested mediation, it                 
  advise  the  parties they  have the  right  not to  agree to                 
  mediation,  and  their  decision will  not  bias  the court.                 
  Senator Zharoff  referred to sections 33 and 28 regarding if                 
  the victim is notified of all rights concerned with filing a                 
  petition and if granted  the protective order would  only be                 
  good  for six months.    Ms. Otto indicated that was correct                 
  and  the  petition could  be  filed  at any  time  after the                 
  commission of  the abuse.    She said  that  if there  is  a                 
  significant lapse  of time, the  court is unlikely  to grant                 
  anything beyond that indicated on page 21, lines 30 - 31 and                 
  page 22, lines 1 - 3.   That would be the minimum protection                 
  and is adequate  for many.   In response to a  question from                 
  Senator Zharoff, Ms.  Otto said she  did not know if  VPSO's                 
  were required to  be certified as  peace officers to  handle                 
  domestic violence cases.  Ms.  Anne Carpeneti, Department of                 
  Law indicated that they were.                                                
                                                                               
  (tape SF-96, #111, switch to side 2)                                         
                                                                               
  Ms. Otto  explained that  under a  civil proceeding  6-month                 
  orders give full due  process rights.  This process  is used                 
  every day in this state to make fairly significant decisions                 
  against  people.     However,  there  is  a   provision  for                 
  modification  of protective orders (page 24,  line 27).  She                 
  explained the language  on page 25, line  2 and said  it was                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  verbatim current law.  She said the  court had to schedule a                 
  hearing within twenty days.  She  explained that under an ex                 
  parte order  the  court would  have  to schedule  a  hearing                 
  within  three  days.     Senator  Rieger  referred   to  the                 
  restrictions on the  perpetrator and  asked if the  language                 
  permitted restriction  on the  activity  of the  petitioner.                 
  Ms. Otto said there were no  restrictions but the respondent                 
  could also file  a protective order against  the petitioner.                 
  She further said  the court could  not issue both parties  a                 
  restraining order  under one  petition.   She explained  why                 
  mutual restraining orders were not issued.  There also needs                 
  to be proof of a crime before an order could be entered.                     
                                                                               
  Senator Phillips referred to  section 28.  Ms. Otto  said it                 
  referred to  the advisement  that   police officers  need to                 
  give victims  and it  was a  summary of  the bill.   Senator                 
  Zharoff commented  on  section 28  and said it was  like the                 
  victim's  Miranda rights.   Ms. Otto concurred  and said the                 
  court had  the discretion to order any  or all of the things                 
  that are listed under this section.   However, this does not                 
  expand the  powers of  the Court, and  it does not  give new                 
  rights for the victim.                                                       
                                                                               
  Laurie  Hugenin,  executive   director,  Alaska  Network  on                 
  Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault was invited to join the                 
  committee.   Some  of  the concerns  she addressed  were the                 
  limitation  on protective order time, specifically the first                 
  and second elements  that could be  granted in a  protective                 
  order, asking respondents  to not continue to  break the law                 
  or commit domestic violence, not harass, stalk or intimidate                 
  the victim.  Another  item she addressed was mediation.   As                 
  suggested by American  Bar Association reports in  both 1993                 
  and  1994,  mediation  in  divorce,  custody,  and  domestic                 
  violence  cases   is  not   appropriate.     Mediation   was                 
  detrimental for the victim and children.  She voiced concern                 
  over  court  ordered  mediation and  said  there  were other                 
  avenues that could  be explored.  The network concurred with                 
  most sections of  the bill.   She further  cited that  there                 
  were  thirteen  murders  in  Anchorage  directly  related to                 
  domestic violence.                                                           
                                                                               
  Senator Phillips asked what the standing of the sponsor was,                 
  and  Mr.  Vitale said  they supported  the bill  without the                 
  amendment that was  put in  judiciary.  Co-chairman  Halford                 
  referred to the  orders with extension  of time and said  he                 
  did  not   disagree  with  those,   however,  because   they                 
  represented  a  punishment before  trial,  he asked  if they                 
  would apply in taking property away.  Ms. Otto said the only                 
  things  that  lasted   indefinitely  were  prohibiting   the                 
  respondent  from threatening  or committing  another  act of                 
  violence and  prohibiting  the respondent  from stalking  or                 
  harassing,  directing  the  person  to  stay away  from  the                 
  residence,  school  and  prohibiting  the  respondent   from                 
  entering a propelled vehicle in the possession or control of                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  the petitioner.   Co-chairman Halford  said his concern  was                 
  that the  propelled vehicle may  be that of  the respondent.                 
  The  home may be  that of the  respondent,  The  location of                 
  these items  may be the home  of the respondent,  and it may                 
  have  been the  respondent's home  for twenty years  and the                 
  home of  the victim for six months.   He said there was some                 
  serious trampling of constitutional rights but as long as it                 
  was of short duration and really necessary it was supported.                 
  Ms. Hugenin  asked if  the chairman  would consider  putting                 
  harassing and stalking  into the first element that could be                 
  asked  for and  have that  element be  indefinite.   Senator                 
  Donley moved that  as a  conceptual amendment.   Co-chairman                 
  Halford suggested that number one could be a perpetual order                 
  and  include  stalking  and  harassing.    Senator  Phillips                 
  opposed the amendment.  Co-chairman  Halford said they would                 
  go  back  to  the version  that  Representative  Parnell had                 
  before it came to the Senate  Finance Committee.  Mr. Vitale                 
  said the sponsor  would support that.    Upon a vote  by the                 
  committee  the  conceptual  amendment  was  adopted  without                 
  objection.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Senator Donley  moved amendment  #1 which  would delete  the                 
  ability to recommend mediation.  Senator  Phillips objected.                 
  Co-chairman Halford said  he supported amendment #2  but was                 
  willing to go with the Court system on amendment #1 and  not                 
  support it.  Mr. Vitale voiced his concern of a possible bad                 
  mediator because, as he pointed out, state mediators have no                 
  licenses  or  regulations.    Senator  Zharoff  opposed  the                 
  amendment and said  the court was only  proposing mediation.                 
  Upon  a  vote by  the committee  amendment  #1 failed  to be                 
  adopted.   Senator Donley  moved  amendment #2  and said  it                 
  should be  inserted wherever appropriate  in the bill.   Ms.                 
  Otto  said  it  would go  three  places  in  the bill  which                 
  referred  to  mediation.    Upon  a vote  by  the  committee                 
  amendment #2 was adopted without objection.                                  
                                                                               
  Co-chairman  Halford asked for an  update on the fiscal note                 
  from Department of Public Safety.                                            
                                                                               
  Senator Rieger moved SCS CSHB 314(FIN) and without objection                 
  it  was  reported out  with  individual recommendations  and                 
  fiscal notes of $52.5 Department of Public Safety/AST; $55.0                 
  Department  of  Public  Safety/CDVSA;   zero  Department  of                 
  Administration/OPA;  $55.0  Department of  Corrections; zero                 
  Department  of Public  Safety/Criminal  Records; and  $108.5                 
  Alaska Court System.                                                         
                                                                               
                                                                               
       SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 202(JUD)                            
       "An   Act    relating   to   the    participation   and                 
  accountability of   parents    and    guardians    and   the                 
  enforcement of restitution    orders  entered   in  juvenile                 
  delinquency proceedings; relating  to  claims  on  permanent                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  fund dividends for certain    court-ordered   treatment   in                 
  juvenile delinquency proceedings;  and    amending    Alaska                 
  Delinquency Rules 3(b) and 8(b); and    providing   for   an                 
  effective date."                                                             
                                                                               
  Anne  Carpeneti, Assistant  Attorney General was  invited to                 
  join the committee and testified on behalf of the bill.  She                 
  said this would  make participation  of parents at  juvenile                 
  hearings mandatory.  The Court was allowed the discretion to                 
  impose a fine  that would motivate a parent.  In response to                 
  Senator Phillips  she said  a $50  fine would  motivate many                 
  parents.   It would  further allow  the court  to order  the                 
  parents  to  participate in  treatment  and to  pay  for the                 
  treatment.  If the court found the parents to be indigent it                 
  would allow the  department to garnish their  permanent fund                 
  dividend to pay  for the  treatment.  It  would not  include                 
  treatment for the children.                                                  
                                                                               
  Senator  Donley said he supported  this bill.  Ms. Carpeneti                 
  said the  bill was  very obvious  and did  not need  further                 
  study.   Parents  should be  participating if  there is  any                 
  progress  to  be made  in   treatment  of the  child.    She                 
  advised the  committee that there  was a $5,000  fiscal note                 
  from the  court system  regarding sending  out summonses  to                 
  parents.  Senator Donley asked if there was any provision to                 
  confiscate the permanent fund dividend from the juvenile and                 
  Ms.  Carpeneti  said not  in  this  bill.   This  bill would                 
  address  the  responsibility of  parents in  connection with                 
  juvenile proceedings  against their children.  She indicated                 
  there was  a provision  for restitution  to be  made by  the                 
  juvenile.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Senator Donley moved revisor amendment.   Ms. Carpeneti said                 
  the amendment would  give the revisor  statutes instructions                 
  on how the  bill would fit into the code revision of HB 387.                 
  If  HB 387 becomes  law  this  would be transferred  into AS                 
  47.12.    Without  objection  the  revisor's  amendment  was                 
  adopted.  Senator Donley moved SCS CSHB 202(FIN) and without                 
  objection    it   was    reported   out    with   individual                 
  recommendations  and  fiscal note  of  $5.0 from  the Alaska                 
  Court System.                                                                
                                                                               
                                                                               
       SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 204(JUD)                            
       "An Act relating to the  administrative revocation of a                 
  minor's   license to  drive; creating  criminal offenses  of                 
  minor     operating  a vehicle  after  consuming alcohol,  a                 
  minor's refusal     to submit to chemical  test, and driving                 
  during the 24 hours      after   being   cited   for   minor                 
  operating a vehicle after     consuming  alcohol or  refusal                 
  to submit to chemical test;   establishing   penalties   for                 
  these offenses; relating to court  ordered drug  and alcohol                 
  screening, evaluation, referral, and    programs;   relating                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  to implied consent to certain testing if     operating     a                 
  motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft; relating  t o    a n                 
  instrument's working tolerance in a chemical breath    test;                 
  relating to the authority of a court to impose a  suspended                  
  sentence after failure to complete a treatment    program                    
  upon conviction of felony driving while intoxicated    o   r                 
  felony refusal to submit to a chemical test; relating to                     
  the  period of  time  a court  may consider  for determining                 
  prior     convictions  in sentencing  a person  convicted of                 
  felony driving      while intoxicated or  felony refusal  to                 
  submit to a chemical     test;  amending  Rules 6  and 32.1,                 
  Alaska Rules of Criminal      Procedure, to allow the use of                 
  hearsay evidence before a grand    jury in a prosecution for                 
  felony driving while intoxicated or     felony   refusal  to                 
  submit to a chemical test and to not require      a                          
  presentence   report  for  a   first  felony  driving  while                 
       intoxicated  or  first felony  refusal  to submit  to a                 
  chemical  test; and providing for an effective date."                        
                                                                               
  Anne  Carpeneti, Assistant  Attorney General was  invited to                 
  join the committee and testified on behalf of the bill.  She                 
  referred to the inexperience of  children who drive combined                 
  with  the use  of alcohol  results in a  deadly combination.                 
  This bill would  add three  new statutes to  Title 28  which                 
  would provide that  children would not  be allowed to  drive                 
  after having had any amount of alcohol.  A person  who would                 
  be  arrested for probable cause for drinking and driving, if                 
  they would refuse  a breath test,  they could also be  cited                 
  for that.  It would require a peace  officer that arrested a                 
  child  for  drinking  and  driving  or  refusal  to  take  a                 
  breathalyzer must give them a warning that they would not be                 
  allowed to drive within a 24-hour period after they had been                 
  cited.   The offenses are  violations with the  provision of                 
  maximum  of  $1,000  fine  plus  community work  service  or                 
  combination  of  both.   Pending  a child's  conviction they                 
  would  be subject  to  administrative  revocation  of  their                 
  driver's license or privilege to drive.  First offense would                 
  be 90 days  under the provisions adopted  by the legislature                 
  last year.  She noted there were four clean-up issues to the                 
  felony drunk  driver statute  passed  last year.   It  would                 
  allow computer printouts rather than certified copies of the                 
  judgments of  prior DWI convictions  to be presented  to the                 
  Grand Jury.                                                                  
                                                                               
  (tape change to SF-96, #112, side 1)                                         
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp asked  if this bill only  applied to juveniles                 
  and Ms. Carpeneti said the zero tolerance provisions in this                 
  bill apply to all  under 21.  She  said the felony  clean-up                 
  provision applied to all  felony DWI cases.  Senator  Donley                 
  asked her to  explain the  zero tolerance level.   She  said                 
  this bill adopted zero tolerance  level approach to drinking                 
  and  driving for juveniles.  If a police officer at the time                 
  of a stop  has probable  cause to believe  the juvenile  has                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  been  drinking  before driving  the  officer would  take the                 
  individual to the nearest police station for a breathalyzer.                 
  If the juvenile blows  any amount of alcohol in  their blood                 
  stream  they  will  be  cited  for driving  after  drinking.                 
  Senator  Donley said  he  supported  this  bill  and  he  is                 
  convinced this is  an important step.   The medical evidence                 
  is overwhelming that  alcohol has a  much greater impact  on                 
  the driving  ability of  young drivers  than on  experienced                 
  drivers.   In  response to  comments  by Senator  Rieger Ms.                 
  Carpeneti said it was already illegal for juveniles to drink                 
  but it was far more serious for them to drink and drive.                     
                                                                               
  Senator  Donley  referred to  the  section dealing  with the                 
  suspended  imposition of  sentence.   She said the  court in                 
  sentencing an individual for DWI is required to sentence the                 
  person to  be screened  and may  also provide  in the  court                 
  order  the  treatment  suggested by  the  screening  agency,                 
  including in-patient treatment.  If the individual failed to                 
  complete  the treatment  ordered  the  statute required  the                 
  sentencing  judge to  impose the entire  remaining suspended                 
  time of incarceration without discretion as to how much time                 
  was appropriate.   This  bill would  amend it  to allow  the                 
  court  to send  the  person  back  to  treatment.    Alcohol                 
  treatment  does  not  usually  take on  the  first  try  and                 
  sometimes it will take two or three times.  This would allow                 
  the court  to send the  individual back  into treatment  and                 
  also gives the court the discretion of partial imposition of                 
  sentence.   Senator Donley  felt this  was a step  backward.                 
  Ms. Carpeneti said the sponsor of the bill  is in support of                 
  this specific provision and MADD supports the bill also.                     
                                                                               
  Senator Rieger asked if other hearsay evidence is acceptable                 
  to a  grand jury  and Ms.  Carpeneti said  generally hearsay                 
  evidence is not admissable at a grand jury.  This bill would                 
  allow an  exception for the  use of computer  print-outs for                 
  prior records.   She explained  what "hearsay" evidence  was                 
  and  that  in   usual  circumstances  a  document   must  be                 
  authenticated by an individual before it is admissible.  She                 
  referred  to page 11  and the  Breath Test  Result Validity.                 
  Under this  test the court would accept  the results without                 
  having to  make adjustments for  margin of error  or working                 
  tolerances.  Senator Rieger said .02 was a working threshold                 
  but  basically  meant zero  tolerance.   Ms.  Carpeneti said                 
  children need to get the message that the tolerance level is                 
  zero.    She felt  using  the  .02 would  give  children the                 
  message that it was o.k. to  drink if one did not exceed the                 
  .02 level.  Co-chairman Halford  commented on section 17 and                 
  Ms. Carpeneti said it was added on the floor.  She said this                 
  was  not  in  the original  bill  and  did not  feel  it was                 
  necessary  to  have  in.     Co-chairman  Halford  said  all                 
  violations would be  based on  a statistical violation  that                 
  would be beyond the instruments tolerance  to zero.  Senator                 
  Donley said most cases are not prosecuted under  .12 because                 
  it had  been  established there  was  a .02  discrepancy  in                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  breathalyzers.  It is difficult to obtain convictions if one                 
  is below .12 rather than .1.                                                 
                                                                               
  Laurie  Otto,  Criminal  Division,  Department  of  Law  was                 
  invited to join the  committee.  She concurred with  Senator                 
  Donley.  She said most cases registering .11 were within the                 
  limits  and would not  be prosecuted.  What  is needed to be                 
  shown now in DWI cases was that the machine was  working and                 
  was calibrated correctly.   Ms. Otto  said that since it  is                 
  known the margin of error is above what the offense level is                 
  it would be  a logical amendment.  This would  make a better                 
  statute.    Senator Donley  said  he  would move  that  as a                 
  conceptual  amendment.     Discussion  took  place   between                 
  Senators Donley and  Rieger regarding blood alcohol  levels.                 
  Co-chairman  Halford  asked if  there  was objection  to the                 
  conceptual  amendment that applies  the machine tolerance to                 
  all  statutes on  the  books currently  except the  new zero                 
  tolerance  for  minors  and  there  being no  objection  the                 
  conceptual amendment was adopted.   Senator Zharoff asked if                 
  there would be a  message to young people that  it would not                 
  be o.k. to drink and drive but it would be o.k.  to drink at                 
  home but  Ms. Carpeneti said she  did not feel that  was the                 
  message.  There was still a prohibition on minor consuming.                  
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp moved SCS CSHB  204(FIN) and without objection                 
  it was reported out with individual recommendations and zero                 
  fiscal  notes   from  Department   of   Health  and   Social                 
  Services/Alcohol SAFety Action Program; Department of Public                 
  Safety/AST;  Department  of  Public Safety/Driver  Services;                 
  Department      of      Law/Criminal;      Department     of                 
  Administration/PDA;  Department  of  Administration/OPA; and                 
  the Alaska Court System.                                                     
                                                                               
                                                                               
       CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 456(L&C)                                          
       "An  Act  relating   to  the  Board  of   Storage  Tank                 
  Assistance; and     providing for an effective date."                        
                                                                               
  George Dozier,  staff aide to Representative  Kott testified                 
  on behalf of the bill.  He  said this bill was due to sunset                 
  this  year.    Legislative audit  recommended  the  board be                 
  extended and that  a public  member be added  to the  board.                 
  This bill would also take care of those recommendations.                     
                                                                               
  John Barnett, executive  director, storage tank  assistance,                 
  DEC was  invited to  join the  committee.   He reviewed  the                 
  legislative history.  He explained the amendment co-chairman                 
  Halford  requested  be drafted.    The current  storage tank                 
  assistance program  does not limit eligibility for financial                 
  assistance.    If  one  has  a  regulated tank  and  pays  a                 
  registration  fee,  they  are   able  to  receive  financial                 
  assistance without regard to financial need.  The  board has                 
  worked up  criteria related  to rural  locations, number  of                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  facilities owned by  the oeprator  and some other  criteria.                 
  It  will retain  the public  health threat  criteria as  the                 
  greatest emphasis to be put on sites; and also the inability                 
  to demonstrate the financial  responsibility requirements as                 
  set out by the                                                               
  Federal   Government.      The    financial   responsibility                 
  requirements require pollution  liability insurance or  self                 
  insurability.   Mr.  Barnett  said  the  federal  government                 
  defined small companies  through financial responsibility as                 
  twelve tanks or  less.   This would be  consistent with  the                 
  federal requirements.  The  failure of a tank owner  to meet                 
  financial  responsibility  under federal  law  is a  fine of                 
  $10,000/day.  He said  sites would be ranked with  six tanks                 
  or less with higher points than twelve tanks or less because                 
  it is a  set criteria the  board could consider in  ranking.                 
  Co-chairman Halford  said  he felt  smaller entities  should                 
  have  a  higher  priority.    Mr.  Barnett  said the  Alaska                 
  Underground Tank  Owners and Operators  supported ten tanks;                 
  the department made the  suggestion of twelve.  He  was sure                 
  there  would be  no  objection if  the  committee wanted  to                 
  initially reduce it  to ten on  this amendment.  Twelve  was                 
  considered  consistent  with  federal  rules.    Co-chairman                 
  Halford said he  has opposed this  bill in the past  because                 
  there are  four elements:   testing,  clean-up, closure  and                 
  granting individuals money to purchase new   tanks.  At some                 
  point the spill should not be rewarded.  The upgrade portion                 
  is the one that has the most opposition.                                     
                                                                               
  Senators  Phillips and  Sharp moved  amendment  #1 regarding                 
  tank  cleanup program.   Mr. Dozier  said the  sponsor would                 
  have no objection to the amendment.    Without objection the                 
  amendment  was  adopted.   Senator  Phillips moved  SCS CSHB                 
  456(FIN)  and  without objection  it  was reported  out with                 
  individual  recommendations  and   zero  fiscal  note   from                 
  Department of Environmental Conservation.                                    
                                                                               
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  Senator  Halford recessed at  12:24 P.M. subject  to call of                 
  the chair.                                                                   
                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects