Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/16/1994 01:32 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
February 16, 1994
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator George Jacko
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 252
"An Act prohibiting the possession of child pornography."
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to public home care providers; and providing for
an effective date."
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 39
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
to guarantee, in addition to the right of the people to keep and
bear arms as approved by the voters at the time of ratification of
the state Constitution, that the individual right to keep and bear
arms shall not be denied or infringed by the state or a political
subdivision of the state.
HEARD BUT NOT SCHEDULED.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 252 - No previous action to record.
HB 3 - See HESS minutes dated 4/21/93.
SJR 39 - See State Affairs minutes dated 1/21/94. See
Judiciary Minutes dated 2/4/94.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Miller
Prime Sponsor
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 252.
Ermalee Hickel
National Enough is Enough Campaign Member
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 252.
Bob Head
Chairman, State Human Relations Commission
Director, American Family Association State of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 252.
Encouraged changing the class B misdemeanor to
a class C felony.
Virginia Phillips
Enough is Enough Member
404 Lake Street, 2-D
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 252.
Encouraged changing the class B misdemeanor to
a felony.
Roberta Beebe
1902 SMC
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 252.
Encouraged changing the misdemeanor to a
felony.
Diane Schenker
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered an amendment to SB 252.
Jerry Luckhaupt, Legislative Counsel
Division of Legal Services
130 Sevard Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 252.
Bruce Grossman
P.O. Box 1284
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested tighter language in the Department
of Corrections amendment.
Jerry Mackie
Prime Sponsor
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 3.
Nancy Weller
Staff to Representative Mackie
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered additional information on HB 3.
Fran Jameson, Associate Coordinator
Older Alaskans Commission
P.O. Box 110209
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0209
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 3.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-11, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:32 p.m. and introduced SB 252 (POSSESSION OF CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY) as the first order of business before the committee.
SENATOR MILLER, prime sponsor, stated that SB 252 "closes the loop"
by making the possession of child pornography a class B
misdemeanor. Currently, producing and selling child pornography is
unlawful while owning child pornography is not a crime. He pointed
out that the U.S. court addressed the pornography issue when a New
York statute that banned the possession or viewing of child
pornography was upheld; local state laws are constitutional in this
area. He noted that the Department of Corrections has a proposed
amendment to SB 252. He believed that pornography is a plague on
society, especially child pornography.
SENATOR LITTLE expressed concern about the use of "knowing" and
said she would address that to the drafter.
ERMALEE HICKEL supported and encouraged passage of SB 252. She
believed that pornography should not have a place in our society
and that child pornography is an outrage. She explained many
staggering statistics regarding abuse of children and sexual abuse;
Alaska ranks number one in the nation in child sexual abuse. She
noted that 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 7 boys will be sexually molested
by the age of eighteen. Over 80 percent of child molesters admit
to regular use of pornography. Approximately 1.2 million children
are exploited every year in the production of child pornography and
child prostitution. She asserted that legislation prohibiting the
possession of child pornography makes a positive step towards
protecting young people while sending a strong message to those who
use such material.
Number 110
Ms. Hickel informed the committee that she was a member of the
National Enough is Enough Campaign which has made the public aware
of illegal pornography and child pornography. She pointed out that
Time and Newsweek had featured advertising which educate the p e p
about the relationship between hard core pornography and sexual
abuse of children. The National Enough is Enough Campaign is
having a positive effect on changing the laws regarding obscenity
and child pornography. She commended this organization for its
work on behalf of America's children. She urged support of SB 252.
She said now is the time to take care of our children before it is
too late.
BOB HEAD, Chairman of the State Human Relations Commission and
Director of the American Family Association State of Alaska, noted
that most of his comments were taken from a sound bite of a
Commissioner who served on the Attorney General's Commission on
Pornography. He began by defining child pornography and stating
that it was unchallengable as evidence; furthermore, an adult who
violates a child sexually is also unequivocably a child molester.
He defined and characterized the "situational" and the
"preferential" molester. The "preferential" molester, commonly
known as a pedophile, seems to victimize many more children than
the "situational" molester. He discussed the six step "life cylce"
of child pornography which ultimately perpetuates the the cycle.
He explained the various effects on children used in pornography,
noting that many victims will be likely to become an abuser in this
abuse cycle.
Mr. Head informed the committee that some states have already made
child pornography illegal. Such states consider this to be an
effective defense against child molesters. He urged passage of
SB 252, but with the first offense being classified as a class C
felony not a class B misdemeanor. He suggested that the first
conviction require registration on an inter-state law enforcement
network, and tie that registration requirement to life-time
probation which has been proven constitutional.
Number 217
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Head to which states or cases he was
referring when he mentioned life-time probation and other
enhancements to the penial system had been proven constitutional.
BOB HEAD said that he would have to refer to the Commission's
report on pornography for such details. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that
the Commission's report would be added to the packets.
VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, Enough is Enough Member, supported SB 252 for
the safety of Alaskan children. She explained that a recent study
from the University of New Hampshire illustrates a strong
corelation between the use of child pornography and sexual abuse of
children. Every child in the neighborhood of a user of child
pornography becomes a potential victim of sexual abuse due to the
pornography users insatiable sexual appetite for children. She
stated that children used in pornography are harmed physically,
mentally, and emotionally; their childhood innocence is taken from
them.
Ms. Phillips explained that SB 252 may not withstand a court
challenge for two reasons: Alaska's lack of statute defining what
is pornographic and obscene, the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling
that private possession of obscene material cannot be
constitutionally made a crime. She encouraged passage of SB 252
with the the class B misdemeanor being changed to a felony.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR requested copies of Ms. Phillips testimony.
ROBERTA BEEBE supported SB 252 because she believes that
pornography exploits children from infancy up to teens.
Pornography eliminates the ability of an innocent childhood free of
sexual knowledge. She explained that pornography degrades the
perpetrator and perpetuates further victimization of other
children. She expressed the need to make SB 252 a felony.
Number 286
DIANE SCHENKER, Department of Corrections, explained that her
amendment addressed material that is used to provide sex offender
treatment which could be construed as child pornography. Exposure
to pornographic material produces an accurate assessment of what
the offenders risk level is and to what population. She stated
that the amendment would exempt those providing plethysmograph
assessments during sex offender treatment which meets the standards
of AS 33.30.011.
SENATOR LITTLE asked if a sex offender treatment program that was
not a state affiliate would still be exempt under this amendment.
DIANE SCHENKER explained that many sex offender treatment programs
provided in communities are doing so under contract with the
Department of Corrections. She noted that the Department of
Corrections has a board who makes sure that the programs are
meeting approved provider status minimum standards. She stated
that a provider giving sex offender treatment who was not approved
by the Department of Corrections would not be covered under this
proposed amendment. She did not believe there are many such cases.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that a provider would be required to meet
the minimum standards in order to possess the materials discussed
under this amendment. The provider would not have to be affiliated
with anyone.
SENATOR LITTLE moved to adopt the amendment by the Department of
Corrections. Hearing no objections, the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR LITTLE asked why the "knowing" provision on line 6 could
not be moved to line 5 after "person." She inquired as to why the
"knowing" clause was placed in the legislation the way it was.
Number 353
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Counsel, stated that the "knowing"
requirement is placed on line 6 in order to be consistent with the
current distribution of child pornography statute. He acknowledged
possible difficulties with proving that the offender knew that
child involved in the pornographic production was under the age of
eighteen at the time. He explained that in many cases that problem
would not occur due to the general intent level of "knowing."
Mr. Luckhaupt said that there are problems when attempting to
regulate or specify a division between constitutional materials an
individual can keep in their own home and those that are not.
Regular pornography can be possessed in the home; it is not
unconstitutional. He pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has
drawn the line with child pornography; the possession of child
pornography in the home can be prohibited. He explained that the
"knowing" requirement should assure that SB 252 is construed as
constitutional. Without such a clause there would be an increased
potential for a challenge to include possession of material of
those over eighteen, which cannot be regulated.
SENATOR LITTLE said that she was thinking of adding another
"knowingly," but now believes that could weaken the bill.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT believed that "knowing" was in an appropriate
place. He recognized the possibility to draft this legislation in
a broader manner; however, drafting SB 252 broader would increase
risks. He did not see the need to add "knowing" to the clause
referring to the possession of child pornography. Currently, the
language follows previous legislation regarding prescribed
possession, distribution, or intent to distribute child
pornography. He noted that there is a Federal Statute prohibiting
the possession of child pornography. He explained that Attorney
General's Office believed that most child pornography possession
cases would surface during other investigations when a search
warrant was executed.
SENATOR JACKO asked if SB 252 applied to an individual who was
eighteen or under and married.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT pointed out that with an individual under the age
of eighteen there is no distinction regarding whether that
individual is a spouse of someone who possesses or takes the
photographs. There is currently no spousal defense provided under
sexual exploitation of minor statutes. He noted that there is a
spousal affirmative defense for sexual abuse of a minor, when the
spouse of the offender. The legislature has not provided a
statutory defense for sexual exploitation of a minor, or
distribution of child pornography. He acknowledged the possibility
that a court could read in some defense due to the lack of
definition for "child" under Title XI. A minor that is the spouse
of someone could be said to no longer be a child due to having a
spouse. He inquired of the possibility that the committee may
want to consider providing a general defense for the sexual
exploitation of a minor statutes, distribution of child pornography
statutes, the possession of child pornography statutes, or a
spousal defense.
Number 453
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed concern with the lack of a definition of
obscene and the excuse that in Alaska pornography could be
classified as art.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT observed that the term obscene is not used in
SB 252. He recognized the problems with definitions of obscene.
Currently, the Miller definition of obscenity is applied by the
courts which addresses the violation of contemporary community
standards, applies a purient interest, and the lack of any artistic
value. He pointed out that SB 252 speaks to possession of visual
or aural material depicting illegal conduct as described in AS
11.41.455. He did not believe there would be a problem in not
defining obscene; potentially that would strengthen the statute.
SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that lots of ordinary movies imply that
teenagers are engaging in sexual activities; would possession of
such a movie be a crime.
SENATOR JACKO asked if it would also apply to plays.
SENATOR DONLEY noted that the statutes refer to depicted conduct
and simulated conduct. JERRY LUCKHAUPT stated that there is a
defense provided for motion pictures for the distribution of child
pornography in AS 11.61.125. He said that the committe may want to
apply the same sort of defense for motion pictures for the mere
possession of the material. He used Blue Lagoon as an example that
distribution of that film would not violate the distribution of
child pornography statute, although it involved or visually
depicted lewd touching of the minor. AS 11.41.455 does not provide
a defense for inducing or employing a minor to engage in or
simulate illegal exploitation of a minor conduct; there is no
defense for works of art, plays or anything such as that.
SENATOR DONLEY posed the following situation. If a theatrical
presentation employs adults to depict such unlawful conduct while
the story refers to teenagers. He pointed out that the individuals
who made the theatrical presentation did not break any law, but
those who possess such a presentation about teenagers knowingly
possess something that could be considered unlawful.
Number 522
JERRY LUCKHAUPT explained that the proof process requires that the
viewer has knowledge the presentation uses a person under eighteen
in order to find the viewer guilty of possession of child
pornography. The decision to exempt movie theaters under the
distribution of child pornography statute probably used this same
argument. He stated that the defense provided for movie theaters
addresses concerns about the possibility of initiating a
prosecution. That defense would prevent the charge from ever
proceeding.
SENATOR JACKO asked if any federal statutes address a spouse under
the age of eighteen. JERRY LUCKHAUPT said that he did not remember
any. Mr. Luckhaupt explained that part of the argument is that a
spouse who takes photographs of their under age child and
distributes them does harm to the other spouse. There is a need to
protect the child in such a situation. Mr. Luckhaupt stated that
the same argument could be used regarding possession.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked about the utilization of virtual reality
regarding this legislation; would it be covered. JERRY LUCKHAUPT
said that there would be a problem if a child under the age of
eighteen had been employed. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if cartoons that
do not utilize anyone but that accurately depict situations as if
it were children would be covered. JERRY LUCKHAUPT noted that
there are other bills being introduced that speak to depiction of
material harmful to minors where cartoons could apply. He said
that they are requiring that a child under the age of eighteen
years be employed or involved in an unlawful depiction or unlawful
conduct which would not be the case in cartoons. He did not
believe there would be any violation of SB 252 or the possession of
child pornography statute. There would not be depictions of
conduct outlawed in AS 11.41.455 because that statute does not use
the referrence child.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there is a provision that would cover the
creation of such imagery. He stated that if they use cartoons,
they would not be charged. JERRY LUCKHAUPT said that if cartoons
are used the individual would be able avoid legal action.
Number 578
SENATOR DONLEY asked what was the age people can be married in
Alaska. JERRY LUCKHAUPT said that under sixteen the court's
permission is needed. Sixteen to eighteen years of age only
requires parental permission. At eighteen years of age the
individual can do as they wish.
SENATOR DONLEY inquired of the presence of statutes defining a
child as an emancipated minor or minor who is legally married.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT explained that a minor can become emancipated at
the age of sixteen by going before the court to recieve permission
to become emancipated. An emancipated minor then has the ability
to possess a firearm.
TAPE 94-11, SIDE B
Number 592
JERRY LUCKHAUPT pointed out that the word child is used in SB 252
when it is not used in the sexual abuse of a minor statutes. He
seems to believe that provides an argument for why a charge under
these statutes should not go forward against a spouse; however,
there are no definite answers.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what are the penalties for a class B
misdemeanor and a class C felony. JERRY LUCKHAUPT believed that
class B was less than thirty days or ninety days imprisonment and
a $1000 fine or more if you are an organization. An organization
or company that distributed child pornography could be fined the
amount of money realized from the illegal activity which applies to
all felonies and misdemeanors. The judge has the option of the set
fine or the realized amount from the illegal activity.
SENATOR DONLEY asked how safeguards could be added to parallel the
other parts of the statutes that deal with this issue. JERRY
LUCKHAUPT stated that the only safeguard was the defense provided
for motion pictures regarding the distribution of child
pornography. Mr. Luckhaupt noted that perhaps it would make sense
to continue that defense by applying it to possession of child
pornography.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed concern with being able to distinguish
between a motion picture such as Blue Lagoon and a sleazy video
production both of which could be rented at a local video store.
SENATOR DONLEY noted that some movies do more that depict, they
show. He was concerned with the distinction between the
implication of an illegal activity and the showing of the activity.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT reiterated that the distribution of pornography
statute, AS 11.61.125, provides a defense for acts that are an
integral part of the exhibition or preformance of a motion picture
which must be shown in a place where motion pictures are shown.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted the presence of backrooms which contain all
sorts of bad material in video stores. He expressed the need to
address such activities. The distributor in such a backroom
operation should recieve some sanctions.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT pointed out that the distribution statute does not
address video dealers, therefore, there is no defense provided for
them. He explained that if they know that a child was involved in
production of the video would create problems for them. There does
not appear to be a way to craft a statute due to the sensitivity of
the area with all of the exceptions that would need to be meet.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Mr. Luckhaupt felt that the standards
would hold up constitutionally. He referred to the Weaver and the
Waco cases when relaying his lack of faith in prosecutorial
discretion. He asserted that if they empower someone with this
legislation, the legislation should meet the constitution without
leaving so much leeway that the legislation could be thrown out.
He stated that currently, he wanted to risk some prosecution which
would allow litigation rather than continue to provide a loophole.
Number 505
JERRY LUCKHAUPT noted that the Ohio statute that made the
possession of child pornography illegal was as broad as this
statute and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. The Right to Privacy is
the problem in Alaska; the U.S. Supreme Court used that provision
under the U.S. Constitution, which is not explicitly stated, was
used to strike down a Georgia statute that made possession of
regular pornography illegal.
SENATOR DONLEY said that the specific Right to Privacy offers
comfort for unusual situations such as a married couple that are
ages seventeen and eighteen may innocently fall into this. The
Right to Privacy would be extended to their marriage so that they
are constitutionally protected. He indicated that Alaska's Right
to Privacy would prevent making criminals out of those who are not.
He stated that he did not want to criminalize people unnecessarily.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT was concerned that the Department of Corrections
amendment may not address the situation that a psychiatrist could
be giving plethysmograph treatment to an individual without the
psychiatrist operating under a Department of Corrections contract
or notifying them. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR pointed out that Ms. Schenker
indicated that most professionals would be under the Department of
Corrections or they would already meet the standards.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if they could incorporate all the licensed
professionals that are conducting this treatment.
BRUCE GROSSMAN, testifying from Delta Junction, stated that he
supports the state tightening statutes on child pornography, but
the Department of Correction's amendment seems rather broad. He
believed that child pornography is a problem in the Interior. He
noted the importance of the previously mentioned safeguards
provided by the Right to Privacy; however, the possession of child
pornography does not need to be covered by statue. He supported
the amendment with tighter language.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked which portion of the language would he
suggest tightening up. BRUCE GROSSMAN expressed concern that this
would not cover innocent family photos such as children bathing.
He did not want this to be abused regarding such a situation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Mr. Luckhaupt had any recommendations for
modification of the amendment regarding Senator Donley's concerns.
Number 421
JERRY LUCKHAUPT pointed out that the amendment refers to the
minimum standards under AS 33.30.011(6) which could be applied to
SB 252 in a manner that requires anyone offering voluntary
treatment outside the corrections system to meet the Department of
Corrections standards. The psychiatrist would have to learn those
standards and modify the program to ensure that the standards were
met.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thought that any professional involved in this
treatment would be familiar with the standards. JERRY LUCKHAUPT
said that one would assume that since most of their clients would
be from the corrections system.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT indicated that an earlier draft included "under the
direct supervision of a licensed professional" after "program"
which would assure that a medical doctor or psychiatrist is
involved. He did not believe the present amendment had a problem.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Luckhaupt what a class C felony would
entail.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT noted that distribution of child pornography is a
class C felony. If the legislature decided that possession of
child pornography was as dangerous as distribution they could make
possession a class C felony. He explained that usually the
legislature does stair steps which would place distribution as the
greater offense.
SENATOR TAYLOR inquired about the reasoning behind possession being
a class B misdemeanor versus a class A. JERRY LUCKHAUPT informed
the committee that he was working from a previous drafter's draft.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if there was any other state law that
criminalizes the mere possession of any other document type of non
physically dangering substance. JERRY LUCKHAUPT explained that
many of the subversive material laws that other states have are not
present in Alaska since Alaska did not become a state until 1959.
He did not know of any laws dealing with subversive material.
SENATOR DONLEY asserted that this would be the first time that
Alaska would make mere possession, in your own home, a crime
besides drugs or weapons. He said that this would be a big step.
Law enforcement would not be trained in this issue. He
acknowledged the Department of Law's point that often these cases
would occur when enforcing more serious crimes.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT said that Alaska probably did have obscenity
provisions before the criminal code was revamped. He offered to
check out that possibility.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked the committee if the offense should be a class
B misdemeanor or a class C felony.
SENATOR DONLEY said that since this legislation would be a big
change that it should be taken cautiously. He supported SB 252
with the Department of Corrections amendment.
SENATOR JACKO moved that SB 252 as amended be moved out of
committee. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered.
Number 303
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE stated that HB 3 (REGULATION OF HOME
CARE PROVIDERS) would add protections for the elderly and disabled
of Alaska. HB 3 would restrict the ability of a home care provider
in obtaining power of attorney of the client they serve. HB 3
would require criminal background checks of persons providing home
care services that are paid by state funds. He noted that grantees
who contract with state agencies to provide these services would be
required to order criminal background checks on their employees.
HB 3 requires that the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) implement regulations on actions due to reports of harm by
a home care provider while protecting the due process rights of
that provider. He stated support of HB 3 by the Division of Family
and Youth Services and the Older Alaskans Commission.
Representative Mackie urged the committee's positive consideration
of HB 3 with a minor change. He suggested changing the dates on
page 3, lines 26 and 27 from "1994" to "1995" which would be a
technical change. He said that he had reintroduced this
legislation due to circumstances in his district where a home care
provider had assumed power of attorney over an elderly individual's
bank accounts. The home care provider spent almost all of the
elderly individual's life savings. He informed the committee that
Pioneer Homes are full with increasingly longer waiting lists,
while the senior population is rapidly growing. He expressed his
personal belief that elderly individuals are more comfortable in
their own homes. He also pointed out that HB 3 does not allow
someone to have direct control of an elderly person's finances;
there would have to be a third party involved.
SENATOR JACKO asked if there would be a charge for the background
check. REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said that Public Safety would do
those. He referred to the attached fiscal notes. NANCY WELLER,
staff to Representative Mackie, stated that the person who requests
the background check would be charged. She did note the new
situation with Adult Protective Services being transferred to the
Division of Senior Services from the Division of Family and Youth
Services (DFYS). Before this shift the DFYS had agreed to pay some
of the background check while providing slightly less services in
order to protect this population of individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said that perhaps DFYS felt that they could
absorb that cost from within without requiring additional
legislative appropriations. He stated that there had been strong
administrative support of this legislation. He asked if there
could be a user fee, the individual would pay, as a condition of
employment since the division has the ability to regulate.
Number 203
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that HB 3 seems to provide a request for
records. REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said that would be the criminal
background check. In response to Chairman Taylor, Representative
Mackie pointed out that HB 4, a companion bill to HB 3, does tie in
some of the provisions not in HB 3.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed concern with setting up another
bureaucracy to license people who take care of elder individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said that HB 3 takes the basic essentials to
do a better job from a public policy standpoint.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved to amend lines 26 and 27 on page 3; deleting
"1994" and inserting "1995" for an effective date. Hearing no
objection, HB 3 was amended.
FRAN JAMESON, Associate Coordinator at the Older Alaskans
Commission, noted their position paper and their support of HB 3.
She said that criminal checks would protect the elderly and
disabled from exploitation. The agency would require in the
condition of grant award that community agencies do background
checks. From the grant money the agency would pick up the cost,
approxiamately $75, with a reduction in overall services, about
three fewer hours of service for each client. She felt that the
protection of the clients would be worth that reduction of service.
Number 145
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked why the applicant could not pay for the
background check. FRAN JAMESON said that some individuals could
not pay the fee. Ms. Jameson clarified for Senator Little that the
background check would cost approxiamately $75.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR inquired about the wages of the employees. FRAN
JAMESON informed the committee that Respite Care wages range from
$7 to $9 per hour; however, there are others in home services that
may be as expensive as $15 per hour. She reiterated that the
general cost of a criminal background check would be around $75.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE suggested that perhaps the applicant should
pay for the background check, especially due to the limited funding
and the reduction of services.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR discussed the various positions that require
background checks. He expressed surprise that the cost was as high
as $75. He said that question could be addressed in finance.
FRAN JAMESON submitted a position paper to the committee.
SENATOR DONLEY moved HB 3 as amended out of committee with
individual recommendations. Hearing no objections, it was so
ordered.
Number 078
SENATOR DONLEY presented a Letter of Intent for SJR 39 (RIGHT TO
KEEP AND BEAR ARMS) which discusses three points of concern. The
first paragraph speaks to the applicability of SJR 39 to private
action. The second paragraph addresses the appropriate standard
for SJR 39, a strict scrutiny standard is required. Paragraph
three recognizes existing laws limiting felons from owning
firearms, although they may not have been convicted of a violent
felony. He explained that the legislature found that if a felony
is committed, that disregard of the law can justify the legislature
limiting access and possession of firearms. He said that the goal
of paragraph three is to defend existing firearm limitations on
felons from a constitutional challenge under the new constitutional
standard.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested that Senator Donley circulate the Letter
of Intent to have comments. He scheduled the Letter of Intent for
the next hearing. He thanked Senator Donley for his work.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting was adjourned by CHAIRMAN TAYLOR.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|