HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE April 2, 1993 1:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Brian Porter, Chairman Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair Representative Pete Kott Representative Gail Phillips Representative Joe Green Representative Jim Nordlund MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Cliff Davidson OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Kay Brown Representative Eileen Maclean Representative Ed Willis COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 54: "An Act relating to eavesdropping, telephone caller identification, and telephone directory listings and solicitations." CSHB 54 (L&C) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION HB 217: "An Act relating to Native corporation dividends and other distributions due to minors in state custody." CSHB 217 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION *HJR 27: Relating to an amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting desecration of the Flag of the United States. PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION *HB 231: "An Act relating to aggravating and mitigating factors at sentencing." CSHB 231 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION *HB 212: "An Act relating to a factor in aggravation of the presumptive term of a criminal sentence, and prohibiting the referral of a sentence based on application of that factor to a three-judge sentencing panel as an extraordinary circumstance." CSHB 212 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION *HB 214: "An Act allowing the parent or legal guardian of a minor to disclose certain records and information about the minor to certain state officials and state employees; prohibiting further disclosure of the records and information to unauthorized persons; and providing for an effective date." CSHB 214 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION (* First public hearing.) WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 517 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-4998 Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 54 MARCIA MCKENZIE, Program Coordinator Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault P.O. Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Phone: 465-4356 Position Statement: Supported HB 54 CINDY SMITH, Executive Director Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 419 Sixth Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 586-3650 Position Statement: Supported HB 54; Voiced concerns about HB 231 REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 507 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-4833 Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 217 RANDALL HINES Division of Family and Youth Services Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110630 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630 Phone: 465-3187 Position Statement: Supported HB 217 GAYLE HORETSKI Committee Counsel House Judiciary Committee Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 120 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-6841 Position Statement: Reviewed amendment to HB 217; answered a question related to HJR 27; reviewed the changes in CSHB 231 (JUD); commented on changes made to HB 214 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS Alaska State Legislature Court Building, Room 614 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 465-2199 Position Statement: Reviewed HJR 27 WARREN CULVER The American Legion Department of Alaska 519 West Eighth Avenue, Suite 208 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: 276-8211 Position Statement: Supported HJR 27 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 409 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-3777 Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 231 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Phone: 465-3428 Position Statement: Supported and answered questions on HB 231; suggested amendments to HB 212 JERRY LUCKHAUPT Legislative Legal Counsel Division of Legal Services Legislative Affairs Agency 130 Seward Street Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105 Phone: 465-2450 Position Statement: Answered questions related to HB 231 MARTHA STEWART, Legislative Aide to Senator Al Adams State Capitol, Room 417 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-3707 Position Statement: Gave an overview of HB 212 DUNCAN FOWLER, Ombudsman P. O. Box 113000 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Phone: 465-4970 Position Statement: Supported HB 214 JANINE REEP, Assistant Attorney General Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Phone: 465-3603 Position Statement: Answered questions on HB 214 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 54 SHORT TITLE: TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL VERSION: CSHB 54(L&C) SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BROWN,Navarre,Mulder,Hudson TITLE: "An Act relating to telephone caller identification; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/14/93 60 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/14/93 60 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/11/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 03/11/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 03/16/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 03/17/93 678 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NEW TITLE 6DP 03/17/93 678 (H) DP: PORTER, MACKIE, MULDER, WILLIAMS 03/17/93 678 (H) DP: GREEN, HUDSON 03/17/93 678 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 3/17/93 03/17/93 691 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MULDER 03/19/93 716 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HUDSON 03/26/93 (H) JUD AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 120 04/02/93 955 (H) JUD RPT CS(L&C) NEW TITLE 4DP 2NR 04/02/93 955 (H) DP: GREEN, PORTER, PHILLIPS, NORDLUND 04/02/93 955 (H) NR: KOTT, JAMES 04/02/93 956 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED) 3/17/93 04/02/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 217 SHORT TITLE: NATIVE CORPORATION DIVIDENDS TO MINORS BILL VERSION: CSHB 217(JUD) SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACLEAN TITLE: "An Act relating to Native corporation dividends and other distribution due to minors in the custody of a state." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/10/93 592 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/10/93 592 (H) HES, JUDICIARY 03/24/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/24/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/26/93 789 (H) HES RPT 5DP 1DNP 2NR 03/26/93 789 (H) DP:G.DAVIS,TOOHEY,B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA,BRICE 03/26/93 789 (H) DNP: VEZEY 03/26/93 789 (H) NR: BUNDE, OLBERG 03/26/93 789 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DHSS) 3/26/93 04/02/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HJR 27 SHORT TITLE: DESECRATION OF U.S. FLAG BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL CMTE MILITARY & VETERANS AFFAIRS TITLE: Relating to an amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting desecration of the Flag of the United States. JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/11/93 321 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/11/93 321 (H) JUDICIARY 04/02/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 231 SHORT TITLE: AGGRAVATING/MITIGATING FACTORS:SEX CRIMES BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT TITLE: "An Act relating to aggravating and mitigating factors at sentencing." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/16/93 663 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/16/93 663 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 04/02/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 212 SHORT TITLE: SENTENCING:AGGRAVATING FACTORS BILL VERSION: CSHB 212(JUD) SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACLEAN TITLE: "An Act relating to a factor in aggravation of the presumptive term of criminal sentence, and prohibiting the referral of a sentence based on application of that factor to a three-judge sentencing panel as an extraordinary circumstance." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/10/93 590 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/10/93 590 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 04/02/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 214 SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF MINOR'S RECORDS BY PARENT BILL VERSION: CSHB 214(JUD) SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TITLE: "An Act allowing the parent or legal guardian of a minor to disclose information about the minor to certain state officials and state employees; prohibiting further disclosure of the information to unauthorized persons; amending Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rule 22; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/10/93 591 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/10/93 591 (H) JUDICIARY 04/02/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-49, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIRMAN PORTER called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m., noted members present, and announced the calendar. He brought HB 54 to the table. HB 54: TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION Number 031 REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 54, noted that some provisions of the bill had been dropped in the House Labor and Commerce Committee, and that the only provisions remaining in the bill related to caller identification service, a service soon to be available in Alaska. The bill required that customers have the option to block out calls either permanently or on a per-call basis, at no charge, she said. REPRESENTATIVE BROWN said that the caller ID service divulged the identity of the caller to the callee, which raised serious privacy issues, and questions of protection for victims' shelters, law enforcement, doctors, or public servants. She said that the Alaska Telephone Association had voiced objection in the Labor and Commerce Committee, and wanted to delete permanent line blocking requirements, found on line 9 of the bill, but leave intact the call-by- call blocking option. She considered the loss of the permanent block a serious change, and recommended against the change. REPRESENTATIVE BROWN said further that telephone companies wanted to charge for the blocking service, but she said that Pacific Telecom Inc. (PTI) offered the service for free in the State of Washington and still made a profit. She said that people had the right to opt out of caller ID, and that telephone companies were regulated monopolies. She said that there were other technologies available to deal with harassing phone calls. The purpose of caller ID was to allow telemarketers to capture the number of potential customers, and that impinged on the constitutional right to privacy, she concluded. Number 207 MARCIA MCKENZIE, PROGRAM COORDINATOR FOR THE COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, testified in support of HB 54. She said that caller ID could place a domestic violence shelter client's confidentiality in jeopardy, and could also place a victim in physical danger. She said that call-by-call blocking could pose a problem during crisis situations. She said that the Council supported the Labor and Commerce Committee version of the bill, as written. Number 262 REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked about the cost to a customer of having the call blocking service. Number 271 CINDY SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, testified in support of HB 54. She referred the committee to the Network's position paper on the bill. She said that, as about twelve other states required free call-by-call blocking, the request for such a service in Alaska was not unusual, and providing the service for free could be economically feasible. She said that people generally did not stay in shelters long, but privacy was also important when people returned to their permanent homes. Number 300 MS. SMITH said that many shelters employed volunteers, who used their home telephone lines in their service to shelters, and who sometimes sheltered people in their homes and therefore needed secure telephones. She said that the Network did not oppose telemarketers, but said that Alaskans should have a choice as to whether they wanted to have caller ID services, and those who wanted the service should bear the cost, not those who did not. She said that the cost would be from $6 to $9 per month. Number 351 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Representative Brown whether HB 54 would allow a telephone subscriber not to have the caller ID service, and not to have his or her number displayed to another caller who had the service. REPRESENTATIVE BROWN answered that HB 54 would allow telephone subscribers to opt out of the caller ID service for free. Number 376 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER asked if the three-digit number that people would have to dial in for call-by-call blocking would be the same for all telephones. REPRESENTATIVE BROWN answered that some states had toggle switches to turn the blocking on or off, that some telephone companies had the same numbers, and that in some places the same three digits both activated and de-activated the call blocking feature. Number 410 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was anyone else who wanted to testify on HB 54. He supported the bill, and said that line and call blockage was important, especially in Alaska, which had constitutionally guaranteed privacy rights. He said that he would entertain a motion. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN MOVED PASSAGE OF CS HB54 (L&C) with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objections, and hearing none, declared CSHB 54 (L&C) PASSED from committee with individual recommendations. He then brought HB 217 to the table. Number 450 HB 217: NATIVE CORPORATION DIVIDENDS TO MINORS REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 217, said that the legal guardians or parents of some Native children in state custody did not always use the dividends distributed to Native children by Native corporations for the good of their charges. The bill would address this situation by directing that Native corporation dividends for minors in the custody of any state would go to a bank, not the parent or guardian, until the child reached the age of majority. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that it was a good bill, and she assumed that all the regional Native corporations supported HB 217. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN answered that they did. Number 492 RANDALL HINES, DIVISION OF FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (DHSS), testified in support of HB 217. He said that the DHSS had issued a position paper strongly supporting the bill. He also noted a zero fiscal note. He offered to take questions. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that there was one technical amendment to HB 217. Number 505 GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, noted a letter from Cook Inlet Regional Inc., which said that while the corporation supported HB 217, some minor shareholders eligible for dividends lived outside Alaska. She said that the amendment to which Chairman Porter had referred was drafted to extend the bill's provisions to minors living outside Alaska. Number 531 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED the AMENDMENT. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the amendment was the only one yet proposed. He asked for objections and, hearing none, declared the MOTION PASSED. Number 535 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED PASSAGE of HB 217 from the committee with individual recommendations. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was a fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS answered that her motion included acceptance of a zero fiscal note. CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objections, declared HB 217 PASSED from the committee with individual recommendations. He then brought HJR 27 to the table. HJR 27: DESECRATION OF U.S. FLAG Number 553 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS testified on behalf of the HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS regarding HJR 27. He said that the committee had introduced the resolution at the request of various veterans' organizations around the state. An identical measure, SJR 9, was introduced in the Senate, he said. The resolution asked the U.S. Congress to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting desecration of the U.S. flag, a step which would have to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of states, he said. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS supported HJR 27, but had some questions regarding the language on page 2, starting with line 24. She asked why the bill referred to the "several states," instead of all the states. Number 596 WARREN CULVER, from the AMERICAN LEGION, said that the language matched language in a national resolution concerning flag desecration. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that the phrase "several states" did not to her connote all the states, and that while she did not want to hold HJR 27 up, it would be clearer simply to say "all states." There followed general discussion on the relative merits and meanings of the words "several states" and "all states." Number 603 MR. CULVER testified in support of HJR 27. He said that the resolution did not interfere with constitutionally protected free speech. He said that the flag was a living, unifying symbol, representing freedom and hope. He said that burning and desecrating the flag slandered the service of people who had fought under it. He answered critics who opposed amending the Constitution by pointing out that the Constitution had been amended 46 times already. He cited an artistic display in Anchorage which had encouraged people to walk on a flag on the floor, which shocked veterans. MR. CULVER said that a national poll indicated that 70 percent of Americans believed that a flag amendment would not place freedom of speech in jeopardy. He said that so far, 28 or 29 states had asked Congress for a constitutional amendment on flag desecration and that Congress could act on the amendment if nine more states asked for the amendment. He cited Alaska's historical ties to the military. Number 711 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Mr. Culver to repeat the history of previous attempts to get similar legislation passed. MR. CULVER explained that the legislation had first been introduced last session as SJR 29 by Senator Zharoff, and passed through three or four committees, but died in the House. Number 732 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked whether the bill had been introduced in only one previous legislative session. MR. CULVER answered in the affirmative. Number 735 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN MOVED PASSAGE of HJR 27 from the committee with individual recommendations, but said that he did not see a fiscal note for the resolution. MS. HORETSKI said that it had not been decided if HJR 27 needed a fiscal note. She said that it might be possible to have the Legislative Affairs Agency prepare a fiscal note. Number 752 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that he would consider as part of the motion that HJR 27 would have a zero fiscal note. He asked for objection and, hearing none, declared HJR 27 PASSED with individual recommendations. He then brought HB 231 to the table. HB 231: AGGRAVATING/MITIGATING FACTORS: SEX CRIMES Number 761 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 231, said that the bill was recommended by the Alaska Sentencing Commission. He said that AS 12.55.155 contained a series of aggravating and mitigating factors that were applied by the court in presumptive sentencing of felony offenders. He said that HB 231 modified the aggravating factors, and added a new mitigating factor. He said that at present, there were no aggravating factors for conviction of sexual abuse of a minor, or for previous convictions for sexual assault of an adult. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that section 1 of HB 231 filled the gap by creating an aggravating factor. He said that section 2 established as a new mitigating factor that the prior conviction was for a less serious class of offense. He said that section 3 was a housekeeping provision, maintaining the status quo regarding the types of cases that could be referred to a three-judge panel. He said that the bill would have no fiscal impact. Number 801 MS. SMITH expressed concerns about the bill's section 2, asking why the previous commission of a lesser felony should be a mitigating factor in the sentencing for another, more serious felony conviction. TAPE 93-49, SIDE B Number 000 MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, testified regarding HB 231. She said that the state's present presumptive sentencing system assumed that the subject had at least one prior conviction for a felony of approximately the same level. She said that if the prior conviction was a more serious offense, that would be an aggravating factor. A less serious offense could be a factor in mitigation, she said. MS. KNUTH said that it was important to remember that a presumptive sentence was assumed to be the right sentence, and that judges could vary from that sentence only if they decided that there was a very good reason to do so. She said that the bill allowed some increased flexibility in sentencing. Number 025 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that under present law the mitigating or aggravating factors had more to do with the fact that a person had a previous conviction, and not so much with the relative seriousness of the felonies. He asked if this approach made sense. MS. SMITH replied, "Not in my field." Number 049 MS. KNUTH said that the Department of Law supported HB 231, as recommended by the Sentencing Commission. CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the committee adopt CSHB 231 (JUD). REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES MOVED that the committee ADOPT CSHB 231 (JUD), dated April 2, 1993. Number 061 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED for the purpose of discussing CSHB 231 (JUD). MS. HORETSKI said that the committee members had a draft CS dated 4/2/93. She said that she had talked with Ms. Knuth, members of Representative Kott's staff, and with the legislative drafters several times regarding HB 231. She described the changes in the CS. On page 1, line 4, the term "crime" was changed to the word "felony." She said that the CS combined existing language describing aggravators for prior crimes of rape and sexual abuse of a minor. She said that the main change in the CS version deleted section 3 of the original bill. MS. HORETSKI said that the CS did not change the thrust of HB 231, but improved it slightly. Number 140 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT had no questions, but added that it was not his intent to tamper with the three-judge panel. Number 144 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that it was a bad idea for amendments to be made without the sponsor's knowledge. She said that it was important to involve the sponsor in any amendment to his or her bill. CHAIRMAN PORTER said that was a good point, and that while there had been discussions with the sponsor's staff, that did not overcome the obligation to consult with the sponsor. Number 161 MS. HORETSKI asked that the record reflect that she had had extensive discussions with the sponsor's staff as well as agency representatives regarding CSHB 231 (JUD). Number 170 MS. KNUTH said that the amendments made sense to her, and that it was up to the legislature to decide sentencing parameters. CHAIRMAN PORTER said that HB 231 made an appropriate distinction regarding a sexual offender based on the victims. He invited the drafter of the bill to comment. Number 188 JERRY LUCKHAUPT, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL COUNSEL, DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, testified on HB 231, saying that he agreed with Ms. Knuth, Ms. Horetski and Chairman Porter, that it was up to the legislature to fashion aggravating factors as it saw fit. He said that early on in his work, the sponsor did not want to make any changes regarding what cases could go before the three-judge panel. He had no legal concerns regarding the changes made in CSHB 231 (JUD), however. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that the changes were acceptable to him. He asked if there was a need for a title change, because CSHB 231 (JUD) would prevent some cases from being referred to the three-judge panel. Number 213 MR. LUCKHAUPT did not think so, but said that the committee could ask him to change the title. He offered to consult with the revisor of statutes as to the need for a title change. He said that the committee could conceptually adopt CSHB 231 (JUD), then allow him to change the title if necessary. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT WITHDREW his OBJECTION. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objections and, hearing none, declared that the committee had adopted CSHB 231 (JUD). Number 233 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN MOVED PASSAGE of CSHB 231 (JUD) with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note, and if necessary, a title change. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objections and, hearing none, declared CS HB 231 (JUD) PASSED with individual recommendations He then brought to the table HB 212, and noted that the sponsor, Representative Maclean, had had to leave the committee meeting to return to work in another committee. HB 212: SENTENCING: AGGRAVATING FACTORS Number 257 MARTHA STEWART, LEGISLATIVE AIDE to SENATOR AL ADAMS, testified on behalf of Representative Maclean, the prime sponsor of HB 212. She said that the bill was intended to provide the most serious sentences for the sexual assault of a minor by a person who lived with or was in a position of authority over the minor, as children were less able to defend themselves against assaults from such people. The bill accomplished that by adding such factors to the list of possible aggravating factors in sentencing, she said. MS. STEWART said HB 212 would also add such crimes to the list of crimes which could not be referred to the three- judge panel. Number 295 REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND noted that the three-judge panel was supposed to make sentencing decisions based on a convict's chances for rehabilitation. He asked what difference it would make to such a panel whether a person convicted of sexual assault of a minor knew the child or not. Number 317 MS. STEWART could not give a good argument. She commented that the intent of the section was to prevent the three- judge panel from having latitude in differing from presumptive sentencing requirements. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND wondered how frequently it happened that a three-judge panel would reduce a sentence. MS. STEWART commented that Ms. Horetski had recommended that some changes be made on page 3 of the bill. She stated that the sponsor would concur with the proposed changes. Number 345 MS. KNUTH said that she first thought that the bill was not necessary, because the legislature in 1990 created new offenses of sexual abuse of a minor in the first, second and third degrees, which related to the perpetrator's being in a position of authority over the minor. Upon further analysis, however, she concluded that the aggravating factor proposed in HB 212 would have some use. Number 365 MS. KNUTH said that sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree could be committed in several different ways, including sexual penetration of a victim under the age of 13 and sexual penetration of a victim under the age of 15 and over which the defendant had a position of authority. She said that HB 212 would create an aggravating factor which could apply if a defendant was accused of first-degree sexual penetration of a minor, but then had the charge reduced by one degree to spare the victim the trauma of a trial. Number 395 MS. KNUTH said further that her analysis showed that it was impossible to have as an aggravating factor an element of the crime which was already inherent in that crime. She said that it was appropriate to remove the misdemeanor from the bill. She said that removing language on lines 17-18, page 3, concerning an offender's sharing living space with the victim "will keep some clarity in the law." She said that whether such crimes should be referred to the three- judge panel was up to the legislature to decide. She said that some three-judge panels were very active, and others were not. Number 451 CHAIRMAN PORTER invited further testimony on HB 212, but hearing none, said he would entertain a motion. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1 to HB 212. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objections and, hearing none, declared that the committee had ADOPTED the AMENDMENT. He said that the committee had CSHB 212 (JUD) before it. Number 459 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT MOVED PASSAGE of CSHB 212 (JUD) with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objections and, hearing none, declared CSHB 212 (JUD) PASSED with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. He then brought HB 214 to the table. HB 214: DISCLOSURE OF MINOR'S RECORD BY PARENT DUNCAN FOWLER, OMBUDSMAN, STATE OF ALASKA, testified in support of HB 214. He said that the bill was submitted at the request of the Legislative Council, based on a case involving the Ombudsman's office. He said that a legislator had called the Ombudsman's office regarding a problem. He said that, shortly after the Ombudsman's office had held interviews with the child, the parent and the legislator, the court had issued an order barring the parents from talking to any legislators or to the Ombudsman's office. MR. FOWLER said that the court eventually amended the order to allow the parent to talk to the Ombudsman's office, as that office operated under confidentiality rules. The case was now before the state Supreme Court. The bill would correct the problem which came up, he said, and addressed an important point of legislative oversight over the executive branch. He thought that the original bill might limit a parent's ability to discuss issues they already knew about which were not confidential. The amendment addressed that problem, he said. He said that his office supported the bill, although it would not affect his office. Number 519 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why the amended version of HB 214 deleted the word "records" from the title of the bill. MR. FOWLER did not know, but said that perhaps the committee staff could answer the question. Number 532 JANINE REEP, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, testified on HB 214. She said that she had not seen the amendment. She was then provided a copy of the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS repeated her question. MS. REEP said that there was a good reason for the change. She said that there was concern over the automatic release of records to certain people. She said that, as the statute was set up, the court had to authorize release of any records. She noted that in the case to which Mr. Fowler had referred, the parents and the child had the right to be represented by an attorney. She said that records could include highly sensitive and potentially damaging information. MS. REEP said further that parents might request the release of information to their attorneys, but that did not automatically mean the release of records to an attorney. She was not aware of the case which Mr. Fowler had described. She was surprised to hear that some parties felt a parent could not talk to the Department of Law, as they frequently did, she said. Number 575 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that the explanation seemed to mitigate the intent of HB 214. She said that section 2 of the amended bill, on page 2, line 15, gave parents the right to disclose any information. She said that there was conflict between the purpose of the original bill and the amended version. MS. REEP was uncertain as to the intent of HB 214. She said that it was a policy question as to whether legislators should have access to a child's records. Number 601 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that the new section 2 gave legislators the power and authority to have records, and disclose information from those records. CHAIRMAN PORTER disagreed, saying that the section gave such power over information, not records. There followed some discussion over the meaning of the terms "information" and "records." CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Horetski to comment. Number 622 MS. HORETSKI said that the original bill (HB 214), was proposed by the Ombudsman's office. She said that the first draft was not well drafted. She discussed the CS dated April 2, 1993, and the process followed in drafting the bill. She said that the CS had been received only shortly before the start of the meeting. She believed that the title should use the term "information." She said that the CS did not restrict parents' right to talk about their child, but that their existing rights were expanded. Number 665 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS interrupted to note that HB 214 had its roots in the court telling the parents that they did not have the right to share information about their child. She said that the bill clarified that the parents did have that right. She asked why the court would assume that the parents did not have that right. MS. HORETSKI said that records regarding the minor in children's proceedings were confidential, under AS 47.10.090. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that the court in the case under discussion apparently had issued a blanket prohibition against the parents even speaking to legislators. Number 678 MS. HORETSKI made further comments on the CS regarding penalties for violation of the records statute. She said that section 3 made it plain that there was a change in court rules. She said that it was acceptable to remove the word "records" from the title, and that most parents would not have the records, but would get from social workers or others the information contained in those records. CHAIRMAN PORTER said that often more than one person was included in the same record. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the case was to occur again, and courts issued an order barring parents from talking to legislators, would the court be in violation of subsection (c), the penalty section. MS. HORETSKI said that the courts were absolutely immune. TAPE 93-50, SIDE A Number 000 MS. HORETSKI suggested an amendment on page 2, line 16 of the CS to change the word "records" in the title to the word "information." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED the AMENDMENT. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objection to the amendment. He then asked the will of the committee. Number 019 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether the committee had the CS version as its working document. CHAIRMAN PORTER answered in the negative. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES then MOVED that the committee ADOPT the CS version of HB 214, as amended, as its working draft. CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection, declared that the committee had ADOPTED as its working draft the CS version of HB 214, dated April 2, 1993. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN MOVED an AMENDMENT to page 2, line 16 of CSHB 214 to change the word "records" in the title to the word "information." CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objection and, hearing none, declared that the committee had before it CSHB 214, AS AMENDED. Number 045 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MOVED PASSAGE of CSHB 214 AS AMENDED, with individual recommendations, unanimous consent and a zero fiscal note. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for objections, and hearing none, declared CSHB 214 (JUD) MOVED from committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 2:39 p.m.