Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/20/1996 01:30 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
March 20, 1996
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice-Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Al Adams
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 270
"An Act relating to juveniles; relating to the jurisdiction of
juvenile courts; relating to the release of juveniles; and relating
to records concerning juveniles."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 207(CRA)
"An Act authorizing the issuance and sale of revenue bonds to fund
public wastewater systems, nonpoint source water pollution control
projects, including solid waste management systems, and estuary
conservation and management projects; authorizing the use of the
Alaska clean water fund to pay and secure the bonds and to pay
costs related to issuance and administration of the bonds;
authorizing certain measures to secure payment of the bonds; and
amending Rule 3, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
SENATE BILL NO. 279
"An Act relating to salmon classics and race classics."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 370(JUD)
"An Act relating to the provision of legal services at public
expense."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 211(STA)
"An Act relating to sexual assault; and relating to endangering the
welfare of vulnerable adults."
SENATE BILL NO. 277
"An Act relating to charitable gaming and gaming on state ferries;
and providing for an effective date."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 156(HES)
"An Act requiring a court to order parties involved in child
custody or visitation matters to attend an educational presentation
about mediation; and allowing the presentation to be through
written materials when necessary."
SENATE BILL NO. 268
"An Act relating to release before trial in cases involving
controlled substances." SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 270 - See Judiciary minutes dated 2/26/96 and 3/11/96.
SB 279 - No previous Senate committee action.
SB 277 - No previous Senate committee action.
SB 207 - See Community & Regional Affairs minutes dated 2/5/96,
2/14/96, and 2/21/96, and State Affairs minutes dated
2/29/96.
SB 211 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/7/96.
SB 156 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated
9/21/95, 10/20/95 and 2/21/96.
WITNESS REGISTER
Keith Kelton
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Ave. Ste. 105
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSSB 207(CRA) for DEC and the
Administration
Marie Sansone
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT : Answered questions on CSSB 207(CRA)
Lee Sharp
Bond Counsel
Preston, Gates and Ellis
420 L St., Suite 400
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 207(CRA)
Anne Carpeneti
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 270
Diane Worley
Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS)
Dept. of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, AK 99811-0630
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 270
Joe Ambrose
Legislative Aide to Senator Taylor
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for the sponsor of SB 277
Mary Magnuson
National Association of Fundraising
Ticket Manufacturing
Minneapolis, MN
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 277
Tim Reed
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
36115 Murray Lane
Soldotna, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked questions about SB 277
Lois Pilifant
Soldotna Senior Center
197 Park Ave.
Soldotna, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked questions about SB 277
Mike Tibbles
Legislative Aide to Senator Green
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for sponsor of SB 156
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-23, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:52 p.m. All members were present. The first order of
business before the committee was SB 270.
SB 270 JUVENILE OFFENDER PROCEEDINGS & RECORDS
SENATOR TAYLOR announced the committee heard SB 270 at a previous
hearing and a committee substitute has been drafted. SENATOR
MILLER moved adoption of the committee substitute (Luckhaupt,
3/13/96). SENATOR ADAMS objected and asked for a review of the
changes made in the proposed committee substitute.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated the sections pertaining to the disclosure of
juvenile records have been removed in the proposed committee
substitute in response to testimony from DFYS indicating it will
lose $8 million in federal funding if juvenile records are opened.
The proposed committee substitute allows municipalities to enact
ordinances which would provide for a violation penalty of a fine of
up to $300.
SENATOR ADAMS requested DFYS' position on the proposed committee
substitute.
ANNE CARPENETI, Department of Law, stated the committee substitute
removes the amendment to AS 47.10.060(e) which references in
disclosed records under AS 47.10.090(f), and removes the amendment
to AS 47.10.090 which would have allowed for public disclosure of
records for juveniles aged 13 and over. Section 7 of SB 270 was
removed which determined when a court could allow records to be
sealed or opened. All of the provisions in the original bill
amending AS 47.10.090 and AS 47.10.093, which deals with agency
records, have been removed.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted AS 47.10.092(b) - (g) and (k) have also been
removed. MS. CARPENETI stated that is correct. SENATOR TAYLOR
asked Ms. Carpeneti if any provisions remained in the proposed
committee substitute that would jeopardize federal funds. MS.
CARPENETI replied they did not.
DIANE WORLEY, Director of DFYS, verified the proposed committee
substitute does not jeopardize federal funding.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there was continued objection to the
adoption of the committee substitute. SENATOR ELLIS asked if a
representative of the Court System could testify on the impact of
the committee substitute.
Number 143
SENATOR ADAMS asked for DFYS' position on the committee substitute.
MS. WORLEY stated DFYS still opposes the bill, because of the
automatic waiver to district court. DFYS would prefer cases be
heard by hearing officers in the civil section of court, as opposed
to waiving young children into adult courts.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that making hearing officers available in
every community statewide would require a significant increase in
cost. MS. WORLEY noted DFYS has been working with Representative
Toohey on HB 474, and in discussions with the Municipality of
Anchorage staff, they revealed they had intended to use hearing
officers rather than district courts. She agreed that approach
could incur additional costs for other communities who decide to
use it but felt it is a more palatable option.
Number 193
SENATOR TAYLOR advised that several communities already do this.
He questioned whether DFYS has attempted to work with those
particular communities. MS. WORLEY replied DFYS has not at this
point.
MS. CARPENETI discussed further departmental concerns about the
measure. The Department of Law remains opposed to the waiver of
juveniles for municipal offenses to district court, and opposes the
imposition of bail for a delinquent who is detained. The bail
provision would be new to law. According to the Juneau district
attorney, the imposition of a large bail could increase the number
of children incarcerated. This provision also conflicts with
Delinquency Rule 12, and raises a question as to how it will work
in relation to AS 47.10.140, which pertains to probable cause in
terms of detention of a minor. AS 47.10.082 does not currently
require probable cause, if a minor has committed an offense, before
bail is imposed. DOL's last concern is with Section 4, which adds
a chain of criteria to be used by the court system for sentencing,
or disposing of, a juvenile case. The chain of criteria includes
the consideration of community condemnation of the minor's conduct
as a reaffirmation of societal norms, which is not relevant to
delinquency cases. If the purpose is to rehabilitate the child,
according to the Juvenile Code, this requirement would be a major
departure from that goal.
SENATOR TAYLOR believed Section 1 takes children out of that
provision and questioned whether this bill will require all minors
to go before a district court judge. MS. CARPENETI replied AS
47.10.082 applies to all delinquency cases, not just those that
would be automatically waived if this measure passes.
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, general counsel to the Alaska Court System,
responded to Senator Ellis' question. Most of the court system's
concerns, reflected in the fiscal note for SB 270, pertained to the
problem of trying to determine what would be public information in
each record. By removing the records issues from SB 270, those
concerns and related costs no longer exist, however giving
municipalities the authority to create non-criminal offenses will
have some impact on the court system and a new fiscal note will
need to be submitted. Also, the imposition of bail for juveniles
will double the hearing time, and because children's court is not
set up to accept money of any kind, computer adjustments will have
to be made.
Number 265
SENATOR ELLIS questioned whether bail for juveniles will be
comparable to the amount of bail ordered for adults. SENATOR
TAYLOR remarked that if the maximum penalty for municipal
violations is $300, the amount of bail for those offenses should
not be very high. The release of minors provision also takes into
account the release of class A felony offenders, and it is
difficult to guess whether there will be a difference in the amount
of bail ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there were further objections to the
adoption of CSSB 270. There being none, the motion carried.
SENATOR MILLER moved CSSB 270 out of committee with individual
recommendations. SENATOR ADAMS objected due to the concerns raised
by the Department of Law. SENATOR TAYLOR stated it is his hope the
sponsor will work with the Department of Law to clarify those
matters. The motion carried with Senators Taylor, Green and Miller
voting "yea," and Senators Adams and Ellis voting "nay."
SB 207 REVENUE BONDS: WATER & WASTE PROJECTS
KEITH KELTON, representing the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), summarized the legislation as follows.
Congress reauthorized the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1987. Prior to
that time grants were available for municipal construction of
wastewater treatment facilities. Since 1987, the grant provision
was substituted with a low interest loan program, which has been
administered by DEC and expanded to include solid waste landfills.
For the first few years of the loan program, state general funds
continued to provide grant money, however in the last few years
less direct grants have been made, and the demand for loans has
increased dramatically. Twenty other states have programs
providing low-interest loans financed by revenue bonds.
MR. KELTON referred to charts and written material submitted to
committee members to explain how the financing program would work.
The Alaska Clean Water Fund was created by statute in 1989, and was
capitalized by $80 million. The federal government matches the
fund with 20 cents per state dollar. Of the $80 million, $50
million has gone to 20 year low interest loans. The remaining $30
million can be used as a corpus that can be used as collateral for
revenue bonds. CSSB 207 would set up a bond redemption fund, would
draw funds from the ACWF through the state bond committee and their
financial trustees, and would allow them to issue bonds to
investors. Monetary limits of $15 million per year and $150
million over a ten year period were placed on the fund in the
Senate Community and Regional Affairs committee substitute. The
advantage to creating the fund this year is that it allows the
corpus, which is currently unobligated, to remain large enough to
have a better leveraging effect when selling revenue bonds. DEC is
currently obligating $12 million to $13 million per year so the $30
million corpus will be decreased substantially if CSSB 207 does not
pass this year.
Number 450
LEE SHARP, bond counsel, addressed a proposed amendment related to
the cap on the issuance of bonds. The bond committee can issue
revenue bonds for purposes other than the Clean Water Fund, but the
committee substitute appears to limit that authority. The
amendment adds references to clarify that the bonds referred to in
the cap are only those issued under the Clean Water Act. The
amendment also addresses questions about computations on the
$150,000,000 cap such as whether the interest owed during this
fiscal year or the interest owing to the payoff of the bond was to
be included in the computation. Additionally, if a bond was issued
with a floating interest rate, there would be no way to accurately
compute that amount. The amendment clarifies that the principal
amount is used for the computation. Furthermore the principal of
a bond can mean two things: the remaining unpaid principal, or the
original principal amount of the bond. The amendment clarifies the
unpaid principal amount is to be used. It also clarifies whether
refunding and refunded bonds are counted in the computations.
MARIE SANSONE, Assistant Attorney General, explained three
technical amendments:
on page 4, line 6, insert the word "such" before the word "money;"
on page 5, line 8, following "default to" delete "the" and insert
"a;"
on page 6, line 23, following "refunding" insert "bonds."
SENATOR TAYLOR entertained a motion to adopt amendments one through
four. SENATOR GREEN so moved. There being no objection, the
amendments were adopted.
Number 528
SENATOR TAYLOR noted a concern expressed by Tam Cook, Legal
Counsel, that CSSB 207 runs significant constitutional risk in that
it may violate art.9, sec. 8 of the Alaska Constitution. That
section prohibits any state debt from being contracted unless
authorized.
MS. SANSONE responded that when drafting the bill with the bond
counsel, a good deal of time was spent analyzing the constitutional
limitations on debt; specifically whether this would be a general
obligation or revenue bond and the necessity of voter approval, and
other constitutional issues relating to bonds. The bond counsel
prepared a letter which dealt with some of these questions. She
and the bond counsel felt these bonds would be construed as a
public enterprise of the state and would not fall within the
constitutional limitations.
SENATOR TAYLOR believed the words "public enterprise" are what Ms.
Cook was referring to in her memo. He stated there is something to
be said for the constitutional provision requiring voter approval,
and noted that is a policy call separate from whether this bill is
in compliance with that provision.
MS. SANSONE commented under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Water
Fund may be leveraged by either general obligation or revenue
bonds. When designing the program with input from various
agencies, the decision to use revenue bonds was made, and the bill
was drafted carefully with full regard for all of the
constitutional arguments. That policy decision was made by the
Administration when designing this program and requesting
legislation. She added there is a question as to whether voter
approval would be required at the municipal level.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated voter approval at the municipal level was his
second question. MS. SANSONE replied it is her understanding that
DEC does not currently require voter approval for the loans they
are entering into with municipalities. She added that the bond
counsel may disagree and feel a change would have to be made if the
loans were funded with bond proceeds.
SENATOR TAYLOR indicated no one wants to initiate this program only
to have it run afoul because of constitutional problems. He
believed people in most communities would be willing to vote for
such things since they will be called upon to repay.
MR. SHARP advised that Section 11 of the finance article of the
Constitution provides an exception from the required vote for
obligations of the state and municipalities, where the only
security for the payment of the bonds is to be the revenues of an
enterprise. This typically applies to utility situations. At the
local government level, the water or sewer utility revenues would
be pledged to pay the municipality's loan from the state, which
does not require a municipal vote. One caveat is that there are
some home rule municipalities that have charter provisions that
require a vote even on a revenue issue, but they would be the only
exceptions. On the question of policy, the municipality could put
the issue to a vote, but would not be required to.
SENATOR TAYLOR remarked the legislature could put a vote
requirement in the bill. MR. SHARP stated that is correct.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the bond committee is a public corporation.
MR. SHARP replied it is not, but that does not keep it from being
classified as an enterprise. The Municipal Bond Bank is a similar
operation and falls under Section 11 as a revenue generating
enterprise. It issues bonds and pledges to bondholders that
repayment will be made from revenues received from making loans to
municipalities.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there is any case authority to establish
what is or is not considered an enterprise. MR. SHARP noted in the
early days of statehood when several bond issuing agencies were
created their authority was challenged, but he did not recall any
cases which focussed on that particular language.
SENATOR TAYLOR believed the inclusion of an intent or purposes
provision in the legislation that states the legislature finds, as
a matter of fact, that the bond committee is an enterprise, would
enhance the likelihood of the bill being found constitutional. He
asked if it would be further enhanced by requiring a ballot.
MR. SHARP replied that generally, a ballot for voter approval of a
general obligation bond asks the voter to pledge the full faith and
credit and taxing authority. If a municipality fails to make a
payment, the bondholders can get judgment forcing the municipality
to levy taxes to pay the bond. For a water or sewer system, there
is no authority to require a municipality to levy any tax, it can
look only to the revenues of the water or sewer system. If a vote
was required there may be a question as to whether or not the
legislature intends to make the municipalities issue general
obligation bonds, or whether the legislature just wants voter
approval of ordinary revenue bonds. He knew of only one
municipality that requires a vote on revenue bonds. Regarding the
inclusion of a policy or findings section, he suggested stating
that the legislature views this program as the operation of a
revenue generating enterprise.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Ms. Sansone to assist the committee in
drafting such language to be considered at the next hearing.
SB 279 CHARITABLE GAMING SALMON AND RACE CLASSIC
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, sponsor of the measure, explained SB 279
authorizes the Seward Chamber of Commerce and the Sterling area
senior citizens to sell tickets statewide for particular activities
for fundraising purposes. The Seward Chamber of Commerce hosts a
race up Mount Marathon, and holds a contest to guess the weight of
the prize fish caught in its salmon derby. The Sterling Senior
Citizens would like to hold a contest to guess the number of salmon
going up the Kenai River.
There were no questions for the sponsor.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Senator Torgerson what he thought the odds
were of the bill moving from committee. SENATOR TORGERSON replied
he would need to get his ticket book.
SENATOR GREEN moved SB 279 out of committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried.
HB 370 LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE
DEAN GUANELI, Assistant Attorney General, addressed a question
raised at a previous committee hearing on when and how indigent
people are granted public defender services. That question arose
in the context of several murder investigations, particularly in
the Anchorage area, where police were investigating a certain
person. In the middle of the investigation, before the suspect was
charged with a crime, the public defender took on the defense of
the suspect and told police not to speak to him. Several members
of the law enforcement community proposed changing the way public
defenders are allowed to appoint themselves to represent people
charged with criminal offenses. HB 370 is an attempt to provide a
more uniform process for appointing legal representation by
designating the judge to determine whether the person has adequate
funds to hire an attorney. If the police want to talk to a person
before that person is charged with a crime, the police can either
stop questioning the person, or they can ask the judge to appoint
an attorney at that point.
Number 444
SENATOR TAYLOR noted Section 3 not only prohibits the agency from
self appointing, but also removes the ability of law officers to
notify the court or agency of the need for representation. He
questioned why that ability should be removed from police officers.
MR. GUANELI stated under current law the question of whether a
person has a right to representation depends on a judicial
determination of whether the person is indigent. Second, this
situation often occurs in the middle of the night, and as a
practical matter, to require police officers to call the agency at
that time will not likely result in representation until the next
day at the arraignment.
SENATOR ADAMS questioned whether HB 370 violates art. 1, sec. 11 of
the Alaska Constitution, as well as Criminal Rule 5B.
MR. GUANELI replied the constitutional right to counsel has been
interpreted to attach when charges have been filed. HB 370
reflects that constitutional standard. Criminal Rule 5B provides
for the right to immediately communicate with an attorney or a
friend after arrest. That right is also contained in Alaska
statute. HB 370 does not deprive anyone of that right because it
does not prevent anyone from calling an attorney.
Number 398
SENATOR ADAMS commented the cost of finding and hiring an attorney
in rural Alaska is very high, especially when the Republican
Majority is trying to cut out Alaska Legal Services.
SENATOR TAYLOR referred to a memo written by the drafter, Jerry
Luckhaupt, to Representative Porter, indicating there are a few
unique pre-arraignment situations that the Supreme Court has
recognized as a critical stage at which point counsel would have to
be provided. One is a post-arrest line-up situation. The Supreme
Court has decided if the line-up is very close in time to when the
criminal event occurred, one would not be allowed counsel, because
of the exigent circumstances. If a line-up was not temporally
proximate to the event, the person would have to have counsel
appointed and available. That differs from the arraignment stage
which could be one or two days later.
MR. GUANELI agreed that is a valid point, and is another example of
a situation where, if the police want to undertake that procedure,
they would have to request a judge to assign an attorney. It's
similar to a situation when the police might want to take a
statement prior to an arraignment and the person refuses until
he/she has spoken to an attorney. The police have the choice of
either foregoing the procedure or asking a judge to make an
appointment.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated that was the reason for his original question
about removing that ability from police officers in Section 3.
MR. GUANELI referred to Section 2 and explained the police officer
would have to request the district attorney make application to a
judge for the appointment for a public defender.
SENATOR TAYLOR replied that in at least two of the communities he
represents, the police officer would have to contact the district
attorney via a long distance phone call, and the district attorney
might have to request a judge in a different town. Under current
conditions, the police officer could ask the local magistrate.
MR. GUANELI indicated from a logistical standpoint, he sees no
problem in allowing the police to request a local magistrate. The
main emphasis of HB 370 is that the determination of indigence be
judicial.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated it is the procedural aspect he is concerned
about. When the investigation has focussed on a particular
individual and the critical stages of the investigation is reached,
all of the decisions about whether or not counsel should be
appointed for the defendant are being made by the people
prosecuting the defendant. This places a very high ethical burden
upon the officer to make certain that critical evidence is being
obtained, while simultaneously protecting the individual's
constitutional right to representation.
MR. GUANELI felt that to be a legitimate point but repeated the
police have a choice and can either stop talking to the person, not
do a line-up, or get the person an attorney. If that procedure is
not followed, the police officer risks the ability to use evidence
that is driving the investigation.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Representative Porter if he would object to
reinstating the words "law enforcement officers" back into Section
3(a).
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER did not object, and noted he drafted the bill
from an urban perspective.
Number 306
SENATOR ELLIS pointed out that the co-sponsor of HB 370 presented
the measure as a money saving device which followed the
recommendations of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, and
asked Representative Porter if he agreed with that representation.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied he did and that is why the
legislation has joint sponsorship. A section of the bill requires
that the basis of the determination by the court of indigence be
put on record. The problem found by the Budget and Audit Committee
is that there is a differential application of the court rule on
indigence throughout the state. In some areas the appointment of
a public defender was automatic, regardless of qualifications, and
in other areas it is very difficult. The opinion of the auditors
was that there were more people being afforded public defenders
than should be. Putting the basis for the appointment on the
record would provide accountability.
SENATOR TAYLOR added an earlier provision in the bill required the
entire determination be placed on the record, now the bill only
requires the court to put the basis for the determination on the
record which eliminates recording the full findings and facts.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated the court system was opposed to
recording the full determination because it would require the
equivalent of a full extra hearing.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if savings would result from fewer public
defenders being appointed, or from being appointed later in the
process.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER estimated the number of public defenders
appointed when police are desiring an interrogation would not
change considerably. He hoped a more appropriate determination
would be made by the judge at the first formal appearance.
SENATOR ELLIS asked Representative Porter if he agrees with Mr.
Salemi's assessment that public defenders self appoint only in rare
instances.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated from personal experience, he saw
public defenders self appoint often enough to be of concern, and
two officers he spoke with in Anchorage said the number of self
appointments has increased.
SENATOR ELLIS questioned whether Representative Porter was
concerned that if HB 370 is enacted, legal counsel for indigent
people at the time of interrogation might not be available.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER answered the critical stages that appear
before the appearance in court where a prime suspect is entitled to
counsel are well documented and, for years, law enforcement has had
the ability to get an attorney or not proceed. If an attorney is
not available, police officers may not proceed. If they do, they
will lose whatever evidence they have gained as the result of that
action, as well as anything they subsequently determine because of
that evidence.
SENATOR ELLIS contended that by removing the law enforcement
officer's ability to notify a public defender the interrogation
comes to a halt, and confession cannot be obtained at the time the
suspect is under the most stress.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER did not think that the suggestion for change
was that the police officer appoint, it is that the police officer
may ask the court to appoint, as the court is responsible for that
determination.
SENATOR TAYLOR surmised the police officers' frustration is caused
by the agency's aggressive style of self appointment and by the
fact that the public defender agency has self appointed to
represent a previous client on a second offense committed several
years later.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER felt there was no doubt the public defender
has an adequate method of getting policy throughout his offices,
and if this bill becomes law, it would be known that they could not
represent a person merely on the basis that person had been
represented in the past.
Number 200
SENATOR ELLIS submitted that HB 370 is based on the assumption that
self appointment by the public defenders' office is a common
occurrence, despite testimony both ways. He asked the committee to
get an accurate number of those cases.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to amend page 2, line 9, to reinstate the
words "the law enforcement officers concerned, upon commencement of
detention," thereby deleting "the agency or" only.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER felt that language refers to more than just
advising of rights. He suggested changing page 2, line 4, to read,
"...when the prosecuting attorney or a law enforcement officer
requests the court...."
SENATOR TAYLOR modified the amendment to include on page 2, line 4,
the words, "or a law enforcement officer." SENATOR ADAMS asked
for clarification. SENATOR TAYLOR stated that change is both on
line 4 and on line 10. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
SENATOR ELLIS asked the Chairman to request the number of self
appointments from the Public Defenders' Agency. SENATOR TAYLOR
agreed to do so and announced the bill would be held until Friday.
SENATOR ADAMS asked if the sponsor recognizes that the only law
enforcement officers in rural Alaska are VPSOs. The sponsor said
yes.
SB 211 VULNERABLE PEOPLE:NEGLECT/SUPPORT/ASSAULT
SENATOR ELLIS, sponsor of SB 211, explained that SB 211 was drafted
in response to an abuse case last December in which the Department
of Law was unable to prosecute the offenders. SB 211 creates the
new crime of endangering the welfare of a vulnerable adult
committed by intentionally deserting a vulnerable adult, and
criminal neglect of a vulnerable adult by failing to provide
support to a vulnerable adult, and establishes penalties for those
crimes. This measure will provide the Department of Law with the
tools it needs to prosecute such crimes. The state has encouraged
the growth of the new industry of assisted living and group homes
for vulnerable people, including senior citizens, developmentally
disabled adults, or any adults who are mentally or physically
disabled in any way that makes them vulnerable.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked Senator Ellis for bringing this matter to
the legislature's attention. He noted AARP has submitted a letter
of strong support to the committee, as well as a significant amount
of backup material and recommendations on elder abuse.
SENATOR GREEN asked if SB 211 applies only to licensed agencies, or
whether it extends to a neighbor or family member who takes care of
a vulnerable adult in a more casual relationship.
SENATOR ELLIS deferred that question to a representative of the
Department of Law. He added the bill was crafted to address those
facilities that present a potential liability to the state because
they are licensed by the state.
Number 034
ANNE CARPENETI stated the Department of Law supports SB 211. She
did not believe the bill applies to persons other than those
licensed by the state. It applies to relationships made by
authority of law, which could be a guardianship, but not to less
formal relationships between two people.
CONNIE SIPE, Director of the Division of Senior Services, testified
via teleconference in support of SB 211.
SENATOR GREEN moved CSSB 211(STA) out of committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried.
TAPE 96-24, SIDE B
Number 020
SB 277 GAMING: FERRIES, VIDEO LOTTERY & MISC
SENATOR TAYLOR moved adoption of a committee substitute. SENATOR
ADAMS objected to the motion.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained the committee substitute allows pulltab
gaming to continue, videogaming to occur in the future, and
videogaming on the ferries.
JOE AMBROSE, legislative aide to Senator Taylor, sponsor of the
measure, commented on the SB 277. The original version was
designed to do away with pulltabs entirely, and replace them with
video lottery machines. Charitable organizations statewide argued
that many of the smaller operations would be negatively impacted by
a total ban on pulltabs. The committee substitute is a compromise
proposal that would still prohibit the funding of political
activities by income derived from charitable gaming, including
contributions to candidates for public office, or to groups that
support candidates for public office. It would delete political
and labor organizations from the definition of a bona fide civic or
service organization qualifying for a charitable gaming permit.
MR. AMBROSE continued. The main thrust of SB 277 is the
introduction of video lottery machines. These machines will make
charitable gaming in Alaska more accountable. They are capable of
being linked to a central computer where a permanent record of all
transactions can be kept. SB 277 directs that the proceeds of
video lottery machines be distributed differently from those of
pulltabs. Charities would retain 30 percent, 30 percent would go
to the vendor, 15 percent would go to the state, and 25 percent
would go to the municipality in which the machine is located.
Proceeds from machines in unorganized boroughs outside
municipalities would go to the state. If the Marine Highway System
so desires, SB 277 provides it to license video lottery gaming on
state ferries.
Number 082
SENATOR ADAMS asked what entities can have permits, and whether
permits can be sublet to another contractor.
MR. AMBROSE replied the permittees are basically the same group
that can currently sell pulltabs, with the exception of political
and labor organizations. It does not impact pulltab operations
currently in place. Regarding subletting permits, SB 277 prohibits
the use of an operator. The videogaming machines would have to be
located in a licensed premise; each premise would be limited to ten
machines.
SENATOR ELLIS asked about a reference made to this type of gambling
as the "crack cocaine" of gaming.
MR. AMBROSE responded he saw that reference today for the first
time.
SENATOR ELLIS questioned the payouts on existing pulltabs versus
payouts on videogaming. To his knowledge, pulltab prizes are
relatively low compared to videogame prizes.
MR. AMBROSE stated SB 277 specifically defines the parameters of
payouts and maintains the existing framework.
SENATOR ELLIS inquired whether it makes the payout identical to
current payouts for pulltab prizes.
MR. AMBROSE deferred that question to the Director of the Division
of Charitable Gaming. He added the intent was to maintain similar
payouts while providing a more accountable mechanism to replace
pulltabs, not to expand the whole area of gaming in Alaska.
SENATOR ADAMS noted there is no fiscal note accompanying SB 277.
MR. AMBROSE indicated the state ferries would become permittees if
they were to become licensed, therefore a fund could be set up to
use the income from the games on ferries for operations.
SENATOR ADAMS asked how much revenue the permits would generate.
MR. AMBROSE referred to a position statement submitted by the
Marine Highway System which contended SB 277 would cost it money.
The fiscal note for the original bill, which should be the same for
the committee substitute, shows an annual revenue of $15,600 per
vessel with three machines. The ferry system believes it will have
to hire extra employees.
Number 167
SENATOR ELLIS assumed the video machines offered a slot machine
type of game on a video screen, and questioned whether the machines
can be programmed to play all kinds of games not currently allowed
under Alaska statute.
MR. AMBROSE stated that the term "video lottery" would include
video poker and video keno, but it would be up to the Division of
Charitable Gaming to decide which games would be allowed.
SENATOR ELLIS asserted that even though the bill is not intended to
expand gambling in Alaska, it would grant to the executive branch
the authority to do so.
MR. AMBROSE stated he meant the bill would not up the stakes as far
as payouts. The Department of Law has advised that SB 277 could
have an impact on previous decisions made by the legislature.
SENATOR ELLIS commented that the legislature staked out a fairly
clear path last year in trying to limit gambling in the State of
Alaska, and felt it is curious why this majority would want to
grant to this executive the power to expand gambling in the state.
Both the administration and the majority seemed to be of one mind
on casinos and Monte Carlo Nights last year.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated the original intent was to clean up the
pulltab operations by creating more accountable transactions. Any
member of the benefitted organization could get a print out showing
exactly what was played. That approach met with tremendous
opposition from charitable organizations. The use of video lottery
games has worked very well in other states, such as North Dakota,
and provides a financial base for those affected. He added he
would not support the measure either if it will result in the
executive branch using that as an excuse to provide a negotiated
agreement with various other sovereigns as to where they may wish
to create full casino-type gambling in Alaska. The whole question
of where the state may or may not be going in the arena of gambling
needs to be addressed as it was not resolved last year.
Number 235
TIMOTHY REED, testifying via teleconference from Kenai, asked if a
non-profit organization could own the video lottery machine
outright and receive 60 percent of the revenues.
SENATOR TAYLOR replied that is his understanding.
MR. REED questioned how many machines a non-profit organization
could own, and whether one game could be played per machine.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded each permittee could have a total of ten
permits, and the machines could be programmed to play any number of
games, although only one game could be played at a time.
MR. REED inquired about the percentages for the city and state.
SENATOR TAYLOR answered those figures will generate significant
revenues and may replace municipal assistance revenue sharing. He
requested input on those amounts, as the percentage amounts are not
fixed.
LOIS PILIFANT, representing the Soldotna Senior Center, asked if
all ten machines could be operated in one location. SENATOR TAYLOR
agreed.
MS. PILIFANT stated she was confused by the charitable
organizations that were concerned that video lottery gaming would
result in a loss of revenue since video gaming would only replace
paper pull tabs. She believes paper pull tabs are harder to
control and account for.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained those organizations were concerned they
would lose money because the pull tabs allow more customers access
at one time, where ten video machines would allow only ten people
to play at a time.
MS. PILIFANT asserted several employees would be required to sell
more than 10 pull tabs at a time, and such an operation would not
be considered small. She noted the Soldotna Senior Center runs a
small pull tab operation and raises most of its own operating
revenue. It receives very little money from the Older Alaskans
Commission. The video lottery games would require less paperwork
and fewer employees.
Number 330
MARY MAGNUSON, representing the National Association of Fundraising
Ticket Manufacturers, a small trade association in Minnesota that
produces pulltabs and bingo paper for charity gaming purposes,
expressed concern about SB 277 because it will create economic
problems for pulltab manufacturers. Currently five states allow
some sort of video lottery gaming, primarily in bars, not
necessarily for charitable purposes but to generate revenue for
those states. Four other states allow video lottery gaming only at
racetracks to stem the tide of declining pari-mutuel revenues.
Seven or eight states have struggled with this issue in the last
few years, and have rejected the notion of legalizing video lottery
for the following reasons. Video lottery gaming typically involves
an expansion of gambling: it is new, popular, and has attracted
many businesses that might not otherwise be involved because of the
revenues generated. The amount of money spent of video lottery
gaming is generally higher than the amount spent on other forms of
gambling. In Alaska, the per capita wagering on pull tabs and
bingo is approximately $465 per capita per year, almost twice that
of any other state. That amount is likely to increase with video
lottery gaming. In Oregon, $717 is spent per capita on video
lottery, and South Dakotans spend $625 per capita. States that
have been faced with this issue have been concerned about expansion
and that video lotteries separate the player from his/her money
faster than any other form of gambling.
MS. MAGNUSON advised that studies have shown that video gambling is
the single most addictive form of gambling ever invented. Although
all gambling is addictive, the higher incidence of compulsive
gambling, pathological gambling, and problem gambling typically
result from video gambling. She explained that is why it was
termed the "crack cocaine" of gambling by a clinical worker in Las
Vegas. The machines are designed to make it easy to stay at for a
longer period of time and removes the social aspect of other games.
Many states have had to implement problem gambling programs which
are funded by the state. In Minnesota, that program gets $1.5
million per year and reaches only the tip of the iceberg in the
problem gambling areas.
MS. MAGNUSON explained the third reason states have been less
likely to legalize video gambling in the last few years is because
Louisiana was the last state to legalize video gambling in any kind
of tavern environment in 1993. This year the newly elected
governor has called a special session for the purpose of repealing
the video gambling law, because of scandals involving organized
crime infiltration and certain government officials, and other
problems associated with video gambling. The governor plans to
offer for local option riverboat gambling and land based casinos in
New Orleans, and give the voters the opportunity to repeal all
gambling within the state. States have had to look at these issues
and make the public policy decision as to whether the social costs
outweigh whatever benefits might be achieved through the
legalization of video gambling.
MS. MAGNUSON believed pulltabs are accountable as they contain
serial numbers and bar codes. Electronic systems are available to
accurately record products sold to each distributor and permittee
in the state. She offered to work with regulators to increase
accountability.
SENATOR TAYLOR commended Ms. Magnuson for her discussion on the
vicious nature of the competition. He added he has represented
approximately 30 bars in the state. The single biggest problem for
bar owners is that they are cash based businesses, with several
employees handling cash before it is accounted for. Even though
cash registers are more sophisticated, pulltabs are still sold out
of shoeboxes. Employees are able to monitor how much prize money
has been awarded and how much is available in the batch. He
announced the bill would be held to wait for further comment.
SB 156 MANDATORY MEDIATION:CHILD CUSTODY ISSUES
MIKE TIBBLES, staff to Senator Green, sponsor of SB 156, explained
the measure was introduced to help families resolve custody
disputes through mediation rather than adjudication. Resolving
issues before the courts is often expensive, confrontational, and
competitive, and can lead to decisions which are contrary to the
best interests of the child. Mediation leaves the decision making
up to the parties involved. The committee's original intent was to
mandate all individuals involved in a child custody dispute to
attend mediation, however during Senate HES interim hearings,
concerns were raised about the mandatory provision. To address
those concerns, the bill provides for education on mediation and
makes it voluntary.
SENATOR ADAMS asked if the intent is to get information to both
parties, and not to mandate mediation. MR. TIBBLES stated that is
correct.
SENATOR ADAMS moved and asked una
nimous consent that SB 156 be moved out of committee with
individual recommendations. There being no objections, the motion
carried.
SB 268 PRETRIAL RELEASE FOR DRUG OFFENSES
SENATOR ADAMS repeated this bill attempts to fix something that is
not broken. He asked if the Department of Law planned to submit
further testimony on this bill.
SENATOR TAYLOR announced the sponsor requested the bill be held
until Friday. He adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|