Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/17/1993 01:40 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
February 17, 1993
1:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator George Jacko
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
MEMBERS ABSENT
NONE
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to violations of laws by juveniles; and
providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 49
"An Act relating to preelection reports; closing the two-day
reporting gap in those reports; setting the date of February
15 for filing year-end campaign finance reports; and
requiring reporting of zero year-end reports."
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska authorizing the use of the initiative to amend the
Constitution of the State of Alaska by approval of
two-thirds of the votes cast on the proposed amendment.
SENATE BILL NO. 69
"An Act prohibiting employers from discriminating against
individuals who use legal products in a legal manner outside
of work."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 54 - See Judiciary minutes dated 2/8/93.
SB 49 - See Senate State Affairs minutes dated 1/29/93.
SJR 6 - See State Affairs minutes dated 1/25/93 and 1/27/93.
SB 69 - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 2/2/93.
WITNESS REGISTER
John Shepherd, aide
Senator Rick Halford
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 54.
Margo Knuth, Asst. Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 54.
Kenny Leaf, Aide
Senator Robin Taylor
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 54.
Randall Heinz
Division of Family & Youth Services
Dept. of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
POSITION STATEMENT: Had questions about SB 54.
Rick Barrier, Efficiency Analyst
Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 112000
Juneau, Alaska 99811-2000
POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on SB 54.
Josh Fink, Aide
Senator Tim Kelly
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 49.
Karen Boorman, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission
2221 E. Northern Lights #2221
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 49.
Chip Toma
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 6.
Mike McMullen, System Services
Division of Personnel/EEO
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110201
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 69.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-12, SIDE A
Number 001
Chairman Robin Taylor called the Judiciary Committee meeting
to order at 1:40 p.m.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SB 54 (OFFENSES BY JUVENILE
OFFENDERS) and invited the prime sponsor, SENATOR HALFORD,
to testify. SENATOR HALFORD gave a short overview on the
bill, referred to some amendments from SENATOR DONLEY, and
asked his aide, JOHN SHEPHERD, to review the bill for
committee.
MR. SHEPHERD explained he would present a review written by
the drafter, JACK CHENOWETH, Legislative Counsel, and he
summarized the four areas of the report, beginning with
"Automatic Trial of Juveniles as Adults for Certain Felony
Offenses." The remainder of the segments are "Detention and
Incarceration," "Records," and "Restitution."
MR. SHEPHERD began by reviewing the "waiver of
jurisdiction," which under current law would allow the court
to prosecute the child as an adult if the offense is deemed
serious enough. SB 54 mandates that juvenile offenders from
16 to 18 years of age be tried as adults under the following
two conditions, as listed in Section 3:
A. if charged with an unclassified or class A felony;
or B. if charged with a felony class "crime against a
person" and the minor has been either
1. previously adjudicated as a delinquent or
2. convicted as an adult, for a felony class
"crime against a person" in Alaska or any other
jurisdiction.
MR. SHEPHERD referred the committee members to the list of
definitions, as defined under AS 33.30.901, and continued to
explain the remainder of the provisions in Section 3.
SENATOR HALFORD asked MR. SHEPHERD to repeat, "In the
immediate previous draft to this one, there was a section
that said, 'When the minor says ... I was not previously
convicted, or adjudicated delinquent in another jurisdiction
for a felony class crime against a person,' the state then
has the burden of showing that, in fact it did happen. In
the immediate previous draft, there was a standard
mentioned. The state had to do it by a preponderance of
evidence - and that has been lost." MR. SHEPHERD suggested
the committee might, or not, want to reinstate the standard.
Number 108
MR. SHEPHERD quoted the next two paragraphs, which would
establish, "the state is entirely free to employ the
currently existing procedures for closing a juvenile's case
in order to prosecuted him as an adult for lesser offenses."
Section 6, of the same theme states, "... if a minor is not
convicted of the felony charge that required he be tried as
an adult, but is only convicted for lesser offenses, then
the convictions will be treated as juvenile adjudications."
This passage would allow that, "... within five days of his
conviction as a juvenile delinquent, the state has the right
to file a petition for a waiver to convict the minor as an
adult for these lesser offenses." MR. SHEPHERD gave an
example to explain the provisions of these sections.
SENATOR HALFORD clarified the provisions with MR. SHEPHERD,
who also explained the provisions were basically meant for
the incorrigible child, and represented the philosophy of
the bill.
Number 148
SENATOR DONLEY restated the previous testimony, and MR.
SHEPHERD said he was correct.
MR. SHEPHERD proceeded to the second area of detention and
incarceration, in which he read the provisions in current
law as related to the Department of Law and the Department
of Health and Social Services in the Division of Family and
Youth Services. He explained either way, minors are
required to be kept separate from adults.
Number 158
MR. SHEPHERD said, "SB 54 eliminates this ambiguity by
mandating the minors either charged or convicted as adults
be placed in the custody of the Department of Corrections."
He explained this would be done in Section 1 which would,
"amend the definition of 'prisoner' within the custody of
the Department of Corrections to include a juvenile charged,
prosecuted, or convicted as an adult."
MR. SHEPHERD explained Section 8 would amend the current law
concerning the detention of minors to state that a juvenile
held in jail under the custody of the DOC need not be "held
in custody in a room or other place apart and separate from
adults."
SENATOR HALFORD clarified the only juveniles under the
Department of Corrections would be those convicted as
adults.
MR. SHEPHERD explained it as being a "negative emancipation"
once a minor is convicted as an adult.
SENATOR DONLEY referred to previous legislation that
elicited a large amount of testimony on the issue under
discussion, as to whether the minors would be safe among the
adults. He said the only difficulty that occurred between
minors, who had been waived, was assaults by the minors
against other minors, but the minors had not been victims of
adults. MR. SHEPHERD said MR. HEINZ from the Division of
Family & Youth Services would be discussing the
rehabilitation aspects of this testimony.
Number 200
MR. SHEPHERD presented the third major area of the bill,
Records, and reviewed the provisions of Section 4, which
provides the court may not seal the records of a criminal
proceeding involving a minor if:
"1. the minor has not yet fulfilled the orders of
the court connected with their adjudication or
conviction,
2. the minor was convicted as an adult under
AS 47.10.010(e), created in SB 54 for
a. an unclassified or class A felony and
properly joined crimes, or
b. for a second felony crime against a
person, or
3. the minor was adjudicated delinquent or
convicted as an adult for a felony class crime
against a person and had been previously
adjudicated delinquent or convicted as an adult for
a felony class crime against a person."
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if this might set up a situation where
a delinquent adjudicated twice, would, on the second
adjudication, becomes an adult. They discussed the
questions before MR. SHEPHERD continued the explanation of
SB 54.
MR. SHEPHERD said the provisions of Section 7 would allow
the victims of a property crime against a person committed
by a minor to inspect the official record of the minor
related to that crime in order to use the information in
support of civil action.
Number 237
MR. SHEPHERD quoted from the fourth area on Restitution,
"Courts are not currently required to force juveniles to pay
restitution for property offenses or for crimes against a
person. It is also virtually impossible to sue a juvenile
in civil court for damages resulting from his crimes because
his criminal record is kept confidential." He said Section
7, as previously mentioned, would allow permission.
MR. SHEPHERD said Section 5 would require the court to order
a minor to pay restitution to the benefit of the victim if
the minor's offense is the basis of a delinquency
adjudication. In Section 2, it allows for the entirety,
rather than the present 40%, of a juvenile offender's
permanent fund dividend, as well as the dividends of parents
and legal guardians, be used to pay restitution or civil
damages resulting from the juvenile's criminal activity.
SENATOR DONLEY questioned the provision, and MR. SHEPHERD
said the $2000 cap was unchanged. There was some discussion
on this provision, and SENATOR TAYLOR suggested there would
be no incentive for the juvenile or parents to file for the
permanent fund. He suggested the sponsor think of this.
SENATOR HALFORD thought the juvenile would prefer to have
the permanent funds executed upon other things such as cars,
and he explained why it would be wise for the juvenile to
apply for their dividend.
SENATOR TAYLOR suggested something might be included to
allow the victim to apply for the permanent fund dividend,
if the juvenile did not. There was not a general agreement
on this.
MR. SHEPHERD indicated he was finished with the overview of
SB 54.
Number 289
SENATOR DONLEY expressed concern about the status of the
run-away laws in relation to taking the dividend of a
parent, who is not in control of a juvenile.
SENATOR HALFORD described how the provision was reached and
how it could be improved to increase the cap to $4000, as
well as increase the ability of the parent to control their
child. He was opposed to the House level of $50,000, unless
there was a way to enforce some kind of standards on the
person costing the victim that amount.
SENATOR TAYLOR excused MR. SHEPHERD, and invited MARGO
KNUTH, from the Criminal Division of the Department of Law,
to testify.
Number 328
MS. KNUTH said the Administration anticipates a Governor's
juvenile waiver bill being filed, and accordingly, the
Administration supports the concept of juvenile waiver. She
said there was room for discussion on how broad a waiver law
should be enacted. She thought the Governor's bill would be
narrower than SB 54 and only apply to offenses of murder in
the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree, and
murder in the second degree.
MS. KNUTH reviewed some problems with the present juvenile
waiver, such as making the waiver, required by statute, show
the juvenile is unamenable to treatment. Presently, without
a track record of prior efforts to rehabilitate the person,
it is difficult to say there is no way this person is
unamenable.
MS. KNUTH said she had worked with the sponsor, and she felt
the bill, SB 54, does what it should do. She noted a couple
of technical matters. On page 2, line 16, in a reference to
a "minor's malicious or wilful injury ...," she noted
"wilful" is not one of the mental states defined in our
statutes, and suggested it might be changed to either
"intentional" or "knowingly."
MS. KNUTH suggested a technical change in Section 6, page 6,
in reference to AS 47.10.080(o), where the state could still
file this petition under the traditional juvenile waiver
laws to try to make the showing of un-amenability.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if she could make the change in
committee, and MS. KNUTH said she would.
Number 383
SENATOR DONLEY said the clause in Section 6 triggered his
question on a motion to waive a child to adult court, and he
expressed concern about the problems with the recent Court
of Appeals decision stating the juvenile can not be
compelled to take the psychiatric analysis the court needs
to make a rational decision. He made a suggestion for a
change in presumption.
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified a juvenile would only have to
refuse to cooperate, thus denying the state evidence needed
to hear the waiver.
SENATOR HALFORD discussed provisions for 14 to 16 year old
juvenile, and SENATOR DONLEY agreed with his conclusions.
In answer to a question from SENATOR LITTLE, SENATOR HALFORD
explained the presumption about whether a minor is amenable
to treatment, and he reviewed the old the standard under
which a minor could be prosecuted as an adult. SENATOR
LITTLE clarified the change with the burden of proof falling
on the individual.
MS. KNUTH said there would also have to be an amendment to
the court rules, and SENATOR TAYLOR asked how the Equal
Protection arguments could be addressed. MS. KNUTH said it
was an issue yet to be solved, and both she and SENATOR
DONLEY agreed the burden shifted for a whole class of people
- juveniles. This elicited a discussion of the steps
involved in the issue.
Number 439
MS. KNUTH said the Department of Corrections and the
Department of Health and Social Services have some concerns
about placements of the juvenile offenders, back and forth
as juveniles and adults, and have been working to address
the problem. She suggested making the automatic waiver
provision for a narrow class of offenses, and if a juvenile
was waived to an adult status, it would be for the duration
of the case.
SENATOR HALFORD asked how they could beat the equal
protection argument, and he outlined a manslaughter
scenario. MS. KNUTH indicated the juvenile should be
narrowly indited to hold the juvenile on that offense, but
she suggested someone from the Court System should answer
his questions.
SENATOR HALFORD said he felt uncomfortable with her
argument, and he described a deferential in charges. He was
still concerned about equal protection and the constitution.
Number 470
SENATOR DONLEY described the strong protection clause in the
constitution, and a judiciary that tends to enforce it.
SENATOR HALFORD said the conviction requirement was a
standard for equal protection, but he outlined where the
problems began with the conviction of a lesser offense. He
discussed the equal protection criteria with SENATOR TAYLOR.
SENATOR DONLEY thought the public safety threat overrides a
pure equal protection argument. MS. KNUTH agreed with
SENATOR DONLEY and suggested the indictment follow a finding
of fact. SENATOR TAYLOR didn't agree and described his
ideas on the problems as discussed.
Number 514
SENATOR HALFORD suggested fixing some of the "little things"
and take up the amendments by SENATOR DONLEY.
First, SENATOR HALFORD moved to adopt 8-LS0384\D, a draft
dated 2/16/93, as a working draft version of a potential
committee substitute for SENATE BILL 54. Without objections,
so ordered.
SENATOR HALFORD referred to page 2 and the term, wilful. He
said the two potential substitutes were "intentional" or
"knowing." There was some discussion among the committee
members on these words. MS. KNUTH explained intoxication is
a defense to "intentional" and not to "knowing." She
suggested dropping the "or wilful" and leave it "malicious,"
but she thought the law would imply a knowing standard.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to delete the word "wilful" and insert
the word "knowing." After some discussion, the motion
passed.
SENATOR HALFORD suggested a change in the burden of proof on
page 3, line 17, and read the section dealing with a
preponderance of evidence.
There was some discussion on this language with MS. KNUTH,
and the language was amended to insert on line 17, after the
word true, a new sentence, "At a hearing on a petition under
this subsection, the state bears the burden of proving, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the allegations of a
sworn statement under (g) of this section are true."
SENATOR DONLEY moved the motion. Without objections, so
ordered.
SENATOR LITTLE clarified this was a separate amendment and
different from the previous discussion.
TAPE 93-12, SIDE B
Number 001
SENATOR HALFORD said the new amendment incorporates the
provisions, on which he had previously worked with SENATOR
DONLEY, concerning 14 to 16 year old juveniles.
SENATOR TAYLOR stressed the amendment was involved and
complex.
SENATOR LITTLE asked for further clarification, and SENATOR
DONLEY explained. (The explanation has been quoted from the
actual amendment.)
Page 2, line 26 through page 3, line 1:
Delete all material and insert:
"does not apply when a minor
(1) is 16 years of age and older and is charged with
(A) an unclassified felony or a class A felony; or
(B) a crime against a person that is a felony
other than an unclassified felony or a class A felony, and
the minor has been previously adjudicated as a delinquent or
convicted as an adult, in this or another jurisdiction, as a
result of an offense that is a crime against a person and
was a felony under the laws of this state, or that in
another jurisdiction is an offense with similar elements and
would be a felony if charged under the laws of this state;
or
(2) is 14 years of age and older but has not reached 16
years of age and is charged with
(A) the offense of murder under AS 11.41.100 -
11.41.110 or an attempt or solicitation to commit murder
under AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.110;
(B) an unclassified or a class A felony, and the
minor has been previously adjudicated as a delinquent in
this or another jurisdiction is an offense with similar
elements and would be a felony if charged under the laws of
this state;
(C) a felony of any degree, and the minor has been
previously prosecuted and convicted as an adult of a felony
in this state, or of an offense in another jurisdiction with
similar elements that would be a felony if charged under the
laws of this state."
SENATOR DONLEY explained to SENATOR LITTLE the importance of
the amendment based on the statistics of juvenile violence
in the age category, but due to a recent court decision,
juveniles may not be compelled to take a psychiatric
examination. This makes it difficult for the state to
present a case, by a preponderance of evidence, to meet
their burden of proving a juvenile is not amenable to
treatment by age 20.
SENATOR DONLEY further explained there were fewer waivers
because of the new Court of Appeals ruling, and put an
unfair burden on the judge.
Number 062
SENATOR TAYLOR again raised the issue of equal protection,
and SENATOR DONLEY explained how using the severability
clause would not violate equal protection.
MS. KNUTH said the discussion of the amendment was tracking
all of the points that have been discussed. SENATOR DONLEY
said, if the committee adopted the amendment, he would work
with MS. KNUTH to inject additional safeguards to help meet
the equal protection criteria.
Number 090
SENATOR HALFORD moved to adopt the amendment numbered 8-
LSO384\D.1 drafted by CHENOWETH, dated 2/17/93. Without
objections, so ordered.
MR. LEAF, aide to SENATOR TAYLOR, brought up a question on
page 6, Section 6, which was clarified by MS. KNUTH in
amending the sentence to include, "and if the motion is
granted." She explained the amendment.
SENATOR HALFORD moved the amendment by MS. KNUTH on page 6,
Section 6, line 24, which would delete the (.) at the end of
the sentence, and insert "and if the motion is granted."
Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR opened the meeting to testimony, and called
on RANDALL HEINZ from the Division of Family and Youth
Services, to testify.
MR. HEINZ said he had attended to answer questions and to
present some concerns from the department on the housing, as
to when children under the bill would be transferred to
adult Department of Corrections. He hadn't analyzed how
many children would be affected.
SENATOR LITTLE asked how MR. HEINZ thought the changes would
affect the costs. MR. RANDALL said they found in the first
age group of 16 years and up, there were approximately 60
juveniles in that category, but the addition of 13 and 14
year old's would require more analysis to come up with a
real cost of the impact. He described how they might be
able to issue a positive fiscal note.
SENATOR LITTLE clarified the present situation and asked
about the potential of having 60 additional minor prisoners
in our system. MR. RANDALL explained there were 60 children
referred to Youth and Family Services (DFYS) from the police
agencies on unclassified or classified class A felonies for
fiscal year 1992. He said they were using those juveniles
to judge the impact of the legislation.
Number 120
SENATOR HALFORD said those children would stay where they
are, and SENATOR LITTLE asked if that would justify a zero
fiscal note from the department. MR. RANDALL said the
number of juveniles based on the 1992 numbers was relatively
small, but the changes in the age grouping, and offenses,
has made the group grow. SENATOR LITTLE was interested in
seeing those finished figures.
SENATOR TAYLOR expressed concern about the number of
waivers, and MR. RANDALL explained in fiscal 1992 they
requested 10 kids to be waived into the adult system, and
nine of the waivers were granted. He also explained this
was all juveniles, not just those who would fall under the
bill.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for his estimation on a possible number
of juveniles under SB 54, and MR. RANDALL explained it would
be the charge at arrest which would determine where the case
would be handled. In their discussion, MR. RANDALL said
there would have been 60 kids for FY92.
SENATOR HALFORD questioned in to which category the 60 kids
would fit. MR. RANDALL explained, in FY92, there were 60
kids referred to DFYS by police agencies for unclassified or
class A felonies that were 16 years old or older - in new
referrals.
SENATOR LITTLE discussed with MR. RANDALL how he personally
felt about the bill, and MR. RANDALL thought children of 13
and 14 years old were better candidates for rehabilitation,
but the older offenders were less likely to be amenable to
treatment. He said his department still needed to analyze
the facts before coming up with a position.
Number 180
SENATOR TAYLOR asked RICK BARRIER, an efficiency analyst for
the Department of Corrections, for his comments.
MR. BARRIER explained he had worked on the bill, but at this
point he thought the impact of the legislation was unclear.
He said the department had submitted a zero fiscal note on
the bill without any certainty it would be accurate, but if
the proposed statistics were accurate, it would cost more
money. He thought part of the cost would be reflected in
the increased length of terms, and he indicated more work
was needed with DFYS.
SENATOR DONLEY suggested in their analysis it would be
appropriate to consider how many of the juveniles, who
commit these serious crimes, fail to be waived to adult
court, and released when they are 20 years old, commit the
same crime again and return to jail in their 20's.
MR. BARRIER said they could include a factor of recidivism,
but it wouldn't take many of the unclassified and class A
felonies to impact their systems v. to spend less money. He
agreed with DFYS they would like to see the waived juvenile
remain in adult status.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. BARRIER to comment on the necessity
for segregating the younger offenders, and MR. BARRIER
reported his department had a policy of segregating
juveniles entirely from the adult population. Juveniles
adjudicated as adults are also segregated to the extent of
being maintained in separate cells until the age of 18. He
thought the new legislation would bring more flexibility.
SENATOR LITTLE wanted to know how many person years would be
added to the Department of Corrections if the bill passed,
and MR. BARRIER said they planned to try to get that
statistic.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked the participants and entertained a
motion to move the bill from committee.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to pass CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 54(JUD)
from committee with individual recommendations. There was
one objection, and the bill passed on a 3 to 1 vote.
Number 329
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SB 49 (YEAR-END CAMPAIGN FINANCE
REPORTS) and invited JOSH FINK, aide to SENATOR KELLY to
review the bill.
MR. FINK explained SB 49 would make some long needed
adjustment to the campaign reporting laws, the main feature
being the closing of the reporting gap. He gave some
history on the fate of similar legislation from last year,
and some general history on the APOC reporting gap, which
occurs between the 7 day pre-election report and the 24 hour
reports.
He explained how this obscures the public's right-to-know.
MR. FINK said the bill would change the deadline for filing
year-end campaign reports from December 31 to February 15th,
and he explained the advantages of such actions. He
reported APOC had requested a couple of amendments which
were included in the legislation. The first in Section 1
has new language which clarifies the scope of the year-end
report, and the second, also in Section 1, makes the filing
of zero reports mandatory. MR. FINK described the reasons
for the amendments.
SENATOR LITTLE asked if there would be a problem with
including left-over information on the April report. She
explained it would be any information from the last deadline
for the year-end report and the April deadline.
MR. FINK said her year-end report wouldn't really be a year-
end report then, and he outlined the statutory problem with
her question. He deferred to KAREN BOORMAN, from APOC, for
additional answers.
Number 312
MS. BOORMAN, Executive Director for the APUC, explained the
deadline on the report and the April 15 report were two
separate laws. The Conflict of Interest Law statement is
due April 15, and the other deadline refers to the Campaign
Disclosure Law. The February 15 deadline was the result of
issues raised by legislators giving reasons for a delay in
their records, and she said the commission was amenable to
the delay. She said the information was still available to
the public in a timely manner.
MS. BOORMAN reported a zero fiscal note.
SENATOR TAYLOR said the bill would be moved from committee
as soon as there was a quorum.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SJR 6 (USE OF INITIATIVE TO AMEND
CONSTITUTION). The prime sponsor is SENATOR RICK HALFORD.
SENATOR TAYLOR opened the bill to testimony, and invited
CHIP TOMA to speak.
Number 340
MR. TOMA testified in support of SJR 6, which would
authorize the use of initiatives to amend the constitution,
and he distributed a list of 17 states which currently allow
constitutional amendments by initiative. He reviewed the
statistics which indicated most states passed their
initiatives by a majority vote.
MR. TOMA explained how the bill would assist him in the
recall of the governor and the lieutenant governor, since he
found the process as specified, presently in statute, to be
onerous and in the case of legal challenges to be dilatory.
He described how the proceedings had been turned into a
court case, which he thought was unnecessary.
MR. TOMA gave some history from the standpoint of being
employed by the Department of Elections during the recall
case, Minors v. the Bering Straits School District, and he
reviewed his position on how a recall should work - not by
making court cases on every single issue. He explained how
he would proceed with his recall by initiative in the event
the bill was passed.
MR. TOMA urged the passage of SJR 6 and suggested the two
thirds vote be changed to a majority vote, since it was
difficult to get anything passed with this number.
Number 435
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified MR. TOMA'S concern was the recall
question, but he said the legislation was primarily for
amendments to the constitution. They discussed the
resolution as opening up government to the people, but MR.
TOMA explained why the two thirds vote would never work.
JOHN SHEPHERD, aide to SENATOR HALFORD, reviewed the good
points presented by MR. TOMA, and thought the constitution
should be a living document reflecting the will of the
people. He explained the principal reason for the
resolution, and he reviewed the statistics on all of the
constitutional amendments since Statehood. He thought 80%
of the people would vote on an initiative to limit terms of
legislators.
TAPE 93-13, SIDE A
Number 001
SENATOR LITTLE asked if a person could use an initiative to
change the permanent fund, and MR. SHEPHERD said people
could try to amend the constitution. He explained several
changes that could be made by initiative.
MR. TOMA responded by explaining why he thought the two
thirds vote was destroying the ability of people to vote,
and he reviewed the prevailing fears at amending the
constitution. He said he trusted the voters of the state to
make the decisions and should be done on a 50% vote.
There being no quorum, the bill stayed in committee.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced his bill, SB 69 (RIGHT TO USE
LAWFUL PRODUCTS) and invited MIKE MCMULLEN, from the
Department of Administration, to testify.
MR. MCMULLEN explained some history on related legislation
from the previous session, and he said the Department of
Personnel had a problem with the legislation, having to do
with off-duty conduct by law enforcement officers. He said
off-duty conduct was recognized in other places, and he gave
an example. He thought the employer should be able to take
action.
MR. MCMULLEN explained some amendments were offered in Labor
and Commerce Committee and refused, but the amendments have
since been rewritten by the Department of Law. He reviewed
the provisions in the new amendments, with one dealing with
job performance standards in on-the-job conduct, and the
other dealing with health insurance issues. He proposed a
third amendment parallel to number one, which would allow
employers to take disciplinary action for conduct in off-
duty hours under certain circumstances. MR. MCMULLEN
defended the amendments.
Number 150
SENATOR TAYLOR and MR. MCMULLEN discussed examples of
discipline, probationary periods, poor judgement, and
standards of conduct on the part of the people in the
examples.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he was not able to move the bill because
of a lack of quorum.
MR. TOMA quoted a caller on a call-in program as asking
whether it was proper for foster parents to smoke, and MR.
TOMA said he didn't think foster parents, as employees of
the state on a 24 hour basis, should be allowed to smoke.
He suggested the bill was a smoker's and drinker's bill of
rights, but he thought the conduct should be considered.
MR. TOMA didn't think a child should be subjected to a
person who smokes or drinks - especially if the state is
paying for the conduct.
Number 214
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. MCMULLEN to respond, and he said
the Division of Personnel didn't view foster parents as
employees. MR. MCMULLEN explained the distinction was off-
duty conduct. They continued to discuss MR. MCMULLEN'S
objections to the legislation.
There being no further business to come before the
committee, the meeting was adjourned without a quorum about
3:30.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|