Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/14/1994 01:35 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
March 14, 1994
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator George Jacko
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
MEMBERS ABSENT
NONE
OTHERS PRESENT
Senator Johnny Ellis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 24
Supporting the governor's decision to authorize a suit against the
United States government for violating the Alaska Statehood Act.
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 28
Relating to requesting the Governor to direct the Attorney General
to undertake all available means to have the partial settlements
agreed to by the state in Cleary v. Smith and the court orders
issued in that case that impose required conditions of confinement
and continued monitoring and oversight of the correctional system
by the courts dissolved or modified.
SENATE BILL NO. 220
"An Act amending schedule IIA of the schedules of controlled
substances applicable to offenses relating to controlled substances
to add the drug methcathinone, commonly identified as `cat.'"
HOUSE BILL NO. 65
"An Act relating to the improvement of state finances through
reduction of operating costs of certain state agencies and
establishment of certain fees; and providing for an effective
date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HCR 24 - NO PREVIOUS ACTION.
HCR 28 - NO PREVIOUS ACTION.
SB 220 - See State Affairs minutes dated 2/9/94.
HB 65 - NO PREVIOUS ACTION.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mel Krogseng, Staff Assistant
Representative Ramona Barnes
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HCR 24 & HCR 28.
Cheri Jacobus, Chief
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
1031 W. 4th, Ste 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HCR 24.
Clarence W. Worth
Juneau Police Officer
Criminal Division
210 Admiral Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 220.
Randy Crawford, State Trooper
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 220.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-16, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:35 p.m.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced HCR 24 (SUPPORT SUIT AGAINST FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT) and invited MEL KROGSENG, Staff Assistant to the
sponsor, REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES to review the bill. SENATOR
TAYLOR noted the bill before the committee was CS FOR HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 24(JUD) am.
MS. KROGSENG explained HCR 24 supports the governor's decision to
authorize a suit against the United States government for violating
the Alaska Statehood Act and the Alaska Statehood Compact. She
read the Sponsor Statement: "When the Alaska Statehood Act was
crafted, Congress guaranteed all attributes of sovereignty that
were granted to all other states under the Constitution to Alaska.
However, over the past few years, the terms of the Alaska Statehood
Act have been violated by the Congress. These violations include
withdrawal from development nearly 80% of federal land from which
Alaska was to derive mineral royalties. Alaska is also the only
state not allowed to sell her oil resources abroad. We are a
sovereign state and we must not let our sovereignty be violated.
The Statehood Act was an agreement between Congress and the People
of Alaska and it cannot unilaterally be changed. We must stand up
for our rights now and in the future."
MS. KROGSENG indicated the pamphlet provided by the governor's
office entitled DEFENDING ALASKA'S STATEHOOD COMPACT goes into
greater detail with some of the violations of the Act. She
deferred the remainder of the testimony to CHERI JACOBUS, Chief,
Attorney General for the Department of Law who is handling the case
for the State of Alaska.
Number 049
SENATOR DONLEY asked why PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH did an Executive
Order allowing the export of 250 thousand barrels a day of
California crude, but did not do a similar act for the State of
Alaska.
MS. JACOBUS thought the only answer could come from PRESIDENT BUSH,
but she thought SENATOR DONLEY had hit upon an important factor,
that Alaska has been singled out for unique treatment. She claimed
no other state, or court, has had a case such as the oil export
ban, where one state has so clearly been discriminated against.
She had no knowledge of PRESIDENT BUSH'S reason.
SENATOR DONLEY asked MS. JACOBUS if she had consulted with MR. JOHN
KATZ, Special Counsel for State/Federal Relations, as to the timing
of the filing of the lawsuit, in relation to the potential of
PRESIDENT BUSH considering an Executive Order during the period of
time before the export act was reauthorized by Congress.
MS. JACOBUS explained the decision to file the lawsuit, and the
timing, was actually made by the governor's office in consultation
with ATTORNEY GENERAL COLE. She said it was not filed without the
concurrence and the support of the governor's office in discussion
with MR. KATZ.
SENATOR DONLEY asked MS. JACOBUS if MR. KATZ had given any
information on PRESIDENT BUSH'S position on potential executive
orders during the gap when the export act was in place.
MS. JACOBUS said MR. KATZ had not given her any specific
information as to exactly what he was hearing from PRESIDENT BUSH,
bus she indicated discussions with the governor's office as well as
ATTORNEY GENERAL COLE.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if she had ever inquired of people in the
Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, or the BUSH
Whitehouse why they didn't do an executive order such as was done
in California for Alaska.
Number 100
MS. JACOBUS explained there had been many conversations with the
Department of Energy, and she said the department was currently
doing a study on the impact of the oil export ban of areas such as
California and Washington State. She claimed the Department of
Energy has long been in support of allowing Alaska to export its
oil.
MS. JACOBUS said she has not had conversations with the Department
of Justice other than with respect to the case itself, but she
assured SENATOR DONLEY everyone was negotiating with the BUSH
Administration, and has continued with the current administration.
SENATOR DONLEY didn't think he had received an answer to his
question, so he reiterated his question as to whether MS. JACOBUS
ever asked anyone in the Department of Energy, the Department of
Justice, or the BUSH Administration why they did it for California
but didn't do it for Alaska. She said she did not ask.
SENATOR DONLEY said this was a very important question. He
explained, while he supports the lawsuit, he didn't support the
timing of the lawsuit. In a dialogue among the committee members
and MS. JACOBUS, they discussed statute of limitations as to what
kind, the litigation of the statutes, and the relevance of when the
statute of limitations were filed. She concluded by explaining she
was not a party to the negotiations between the governor's office
and the Congressional Delegation.
Number 150
SENATOR DONLEY thought it was a mistake to not have her involved
fully with those doing the legal process. MS. JACOBUS clarified
the timing of the lawsuit was arranged by the Congressional
Delegation and MR. KATZ, and she understood the negotiations were
ongoing. SENATOR DONLEY was not satisfied with the reasoning as
presented by MS. JACOBUS, and she maintained she did not know why
the Bush Administration made their decision when it was made.
MS. JACOBUS said she did not understand the significance of the
questions by SENATOR DONLEY on the timing of the lawsuit. SENATOR
DONLEY said there needed to be testimony by MR. KATZ, but MS.
JACOBUS didn't see how this would be related to the support of the
two lawsuits. SENATOR DONLEY said his concern had to do with the
timing of the lawsuits, not with the content of the lawsuits.
SENATOR DONLEY said he would appreciate the opportunity to talk to
MR. KATZ, because he thought all routes in the discussion led to
him. SENATOR DONLEY indicated he had some serious doubts about the
timing of one of the lawsuits, that the State would have gotten an
Executive Order out of PRESIDENT BUSH if we hadn't sued him on the
subject.
Number 205
In answer to a question from SENATOR TAYLOR, SENATOR DONLEY
explained there was a recommendation from the Department of Energy
to lift the ban, but the Department of Justice said "no," because
there was on going litigation.
MS. JACOBUS objected to this line of judgment and said she did not
understand the thrust of his question about whether the lawsuit was
brought before the decision had been made by the Whitehouse. She
reviewed her discussion with the governor's office and JOHN KATZ
that the decision had already been made to not lift the ban, which
was the impetus for the lawsuit. She continued to confront some of
the arguments about the lawsuits with her understanding and
apologized for her misunderstanding of the earlier questions.
SENATOR DONLEY said he still wanted to talk to MR. KATZ about the
timing of the lawsuit, and he thought it was an important question
to the Judiciary Committee, since questions will be asked.
SENATOR TAYLOR was not sure of the extent MR. KATZ would be willing
to reply or disclose confidential discussions with his "boss." He
said he would contact MR. KATZ for the information and announced
the bill would be held over until next week.
SENATOR DONLEY reiterated his support for the substance of the
lawsuits, and he only wanted to know about the timing of the
specific suit. SENATOR TAYLOR directed his aide to find out when
MR. KATZ was available for teleconference.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced HCR 28 (GET CLEARY ORDERS DISSOLVED OR
CHANGED) and invited MEL KROGSENG, Staff Assistant to the sponsor,
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES, to review the legislation.
Number 249
MS. KROGSENG explained HCR 28 was introduced to relieve some of the
burden the Department of Corrections has encountered due to the
Cleary Final Settlement Agreement and Order, and she quoted from
the Position Paper: "In the early 1980's, several inmates
incarcerated in Alaska's correctional institutions sued the state
alleging that some if not all of the conditions of their
confinement were unconstitutional.
Although the Superior Court found no conditions of confinement at
that time to be unconstitutional, it did find that the conditions
might become unconstitutional at some future unspecified date.
Despite the fact that the plaintiffs failed to present any proof of
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, the court decided, and
in some cases the state agreed, to allow the court to dictate the
conditions of confinement either through the settlement agreements
of the court's orders and decisions. This agreement required the
department to hire and pay for monitors (at no small cost) to
ensure that the conditions of the agreement were being met.
Since the time the lawsuit was first filed, any potential
unconstitutional conditions have been rectified and continued court
intervention is unnecessary. With the state's declining revenue
picture, we can no longer continue to provide more than is
constitutionally required.
HCR 28 urges the Governor to direct the Attorney General to take
whatever steps are necessary to dissolve or modify the Cleary
partial settlement agreements, court orders, and decisions in this
case."
MS. KROGSENG presented a list of 12 simple items that are required
by Cleary to do, that are not constitutionally mandated. She
explained the Department of Corrections thinks some of the items
should be done, but they should not be required by a court order to
do them. She listed some of the items such as: gate money of $150
per prisoner, a Mental Health Forensic Unit separate from the state
psychiatric hospital, the purchase of eye glasses for prisoners who
have been incarcerated 15 days or longer, and she said they were
required to provide telephones.
MS. KROGSENG referred to page 29 of the settlement agreement and
directed the committee's attention to #5, "The department may not
monitor the telephone call of a pre-trial detainee, ..." It was
pointed out by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in the
floor debate monitoring could have prevented the Eagle River mail
bombing. She explained many of the court orders are very costly
and some should be modified or eliminated, and she quoted JERRY
LUCKHAUPT, attorney for legislative legal counsel, as saying there
have been two recent Supreme Court decisions which have allowed
modification or dissolution based on declining state revenues.
Number 303
SENATOR LITTLE questioned the lawsuit method to be used to get the
conditions in the Cleary Settlement thrown out.
MS. KROGSENG explained it wasn't a lawsuit, it was to ask the
Attorney General to look at what it would take to modify or
dissolve, but until it was decided what would be required, it would
be difficult to make a decision to modify or dissolve.
MS. KROGSENG quoted a conversation with an inmate presently on
parole, who said corrections was broke, and was impacting Cleary.
He said there were few incentives or motivation in the system for
inmates to want to become responsible citizens. He used the lack
inmate correctional industries as an example of what could be done
to promote a responsible attitude among the inmates. She reviewed
other methods used in the federal prisons, as described by the
inmate, to bring about more responsible behavior.
SENATOR LITTLE, in reference to one of the resolves which directs
the attorney general to dissolve or modify the partial settlement
agreements ..., asked what available means would be under taken.
MS. KROGSENG said she had no idea, and she reviewed the lack of
participation by the court in the original case. She thought the
legislature agreed to too much that might have been curbed by the
court.
Number 350
SENATOR DONLEY explained this was a revolving area of the law, and
he described some recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions as far as
changes to earlier decisions or agreements in this area. He also
explained why he thought the resolution was well drafted.
SENATOR DONLEY moved to pass HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 28
(GET CLEARY ORDERS DISSOLVED OR CHANGED) from committee with
individual recommendations. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SB 220 (ADD "CAT" TO SCHEDULE IIA DRUG
LIST) to committee and invited the sponsor, SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS,
to explain his bill. SENATOR TAYLOR noted the bill before the
committee was CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 220(STA).
SENATOR ELLIS explained the bill proposed to add to the list of
controlled subsistence in schedule IIA the substance known as
methcathinone, or "cat." He also explained it was highly addictive
and an easy to manufacture substance. He was shocked to find cat
was not currently an illegal drug in the State of Alaska, and he
explained the extreme dangers of the drug.
SENATOR ELLIS claimed there was considerable support in law
enforcement around the state as well as the anti-drug community.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that CLARENCE WORTH of the Juneau Police
Department and MARGOT KNUTH from the Criminal Section of the
Department of Law present and in support of the legislation.
SENATOR TAYLOR invited MR. WORTH to testify.
MR. WORTH explained he has been a police officer for eight years,
and for three years working exclusively with drug cases here in the
Juneau area. He described being horrified at the realities of drug
abuse and addiction, and as a result, he has dedicated his career
to trying to educate kids about drugs.
MR. WORTH said methcathinone is fairly recent in Juneau, and he has
sent for additional information from the Alaska State Trooper
Intelligence Unit in Anchorage. He also received information from
the Western States Information Network, which is an information
dissemination network working with police departments in the
Western United States.
MR. WORTH explained cat is easier to manufacture than an other of
the controlled substances, can be made over night, can be made with
very few laboratory supplies such as glass jars, rubber tubes, and
a source of heat. He further explained it can be made from
chemicals that are readily available including things such as
draino, battery acid, epsom salts, and various paint solvents. He
believes it is more addictive than cocaine and people can become
hooked the second time they try it, which ranks it with crack
cocaine with the power of addiction.
MR. WORTH described cat as changing the personality of the user,
being used for binging, and selling for about $100 per gram. For
a $500 investment in supplies, the return could be $20 thousand,
and he described the potential for being very damaging to our
society.
Number 415
Next to testify was RANDY CRAWFORD, a First Sergeant with the
Troopers, permanently assigned to the director's office. He has a
continuous work history in Alaska, and he said the bill was
supported by the Alaska State Troopers. He reiterated the ease of
manufacture and the terrible consequences, but he explained Alaska
typically falls a couple of years behind in some of the designer
drugs. He explained it was prohibited Outside in most states and
he predicted the committee members would not want to see it in
Alaska.
MR. CRAWFORD explained the user groups Outside are college age
students, but it has begun to permeate industries where there is a
high degree of physical effort involved, such as the previous use
of amphetamines by people who stay up for a great length of time.
He said there were these kinds of markets in Alaska, and he offered
to answer questions.
SENATOR TAYLOR indicated MS. KNUTH had signed in and advised the
Criminal Division of the Department of Law supports the bill.
SENATOR HALFORD and SENATOR DONLEY suggested moving CS FOR SENATE
BILL NO. 220(STA) with a unanimous DO PASS. Without objections, so
ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced HB 65 (FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE
GOVERNMENT), the old fee's bill of last year BY REQUEST OF THE
GOVERNOR.
SENATOR LITTLE asked how it came to be referred to the Judiciary
Committee, and SENATOR HALFORD suggested sending the bill from
committee without comment. SENATOR TAYLOR answered questions by
SENATOR LITTLE and his reasons for agreeing to hear the bill.
SENATOR TAYLOR called for a vote on SENATOR HALFORD'S move to pass
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 65(FIN) (FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE
GOVERNMENT). SENATORS TAYLOR, JACKO, and HALFORD voted to send the
bill on to the next committee of referral, and SENATORS LITTLE and
DONLEY voted to keep it in committee. SENATOR TAYLOR stated the
bill would be sent to the next committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. by SENATOR TAYLOR.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|