Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/20/1996 01:30 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ 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                                                               
  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                 
 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                
 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                
 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              
 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              
 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             
 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                 
 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            
 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                   
 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             
 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            
 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               
 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           
 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            
 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                  
 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             
       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           
 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               
 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           
 LOIS PILIFANT, representing the Soldotna Senior Center, asked if              
 all ten machines could be operated in one location.  SENATOR TAYLOR           
 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                
 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            
 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            
           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