Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/19/1997 01:07 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 6 - RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS HB 3 - DISCLOSURES RE FELONY ARRESTS OF MINORS HCR 4 - SEPARATE RECORDS FOR DELINQUENTS & CINA Number 238 CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members the first order of business would be a report by Representative Bunde, subcommittee chairman of HB 6, "An Act amending laws relating to the disclosure of information relating to certain minors," HB 3, "An Act relating to disclosures of information about certain minors," and HCR 4, relating to records generated and maintained by the Department of Health and Social Services. CHAIRMAN GREEN excused himself for the purpose of testifying in another standing committee meeting. VICE CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE, chairman of the subcommittee assigned to HB 6, HB 3 and HCR 4, advised members that Representative Pete Kelly had provided an updated list regarding the release of information on felonies to the subcommittee. The subcommittee presented several language adjustments to Representative Kelly and asked that he incorporate them into the original version of HB 6, and provide a draft committee substitute for the full committee's consideration. The draft committee substitute could be found in members' bill files. Number 376 VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE advised members that the subcommittee also recommended that a draft committee substitute be prepared on HB 3, "An Act relating to disclosures of information about certain minors," which would incorporate the same list of crimes that would trigger the release of information as in HB 6. VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE pointed out that the subcommittee did not take a position as to endorsing one bill over the other. Number 418 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER, member of the subcommittee, pointed out that there was a substantial amount of discussion regarding the criteria relating to the appropriate point to release information. He added that the criteria in both bills was the majority opinion of the subcommittee. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER reiterated that the Prime Sponsor of HB 3, Representative Pete Kott, agreed with the recommendations of the subcommittee and a draft committee substitute had been prepared. Representative Porter noted that if both HB 6 and HB 3 passed the legislature, there would not be any confusion or contradiction over what the criteria was for the release of information. Number 519 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT expressed his apologies for the inability to attend Monday's committee meeting because of weather conditions and the need to overhead to Sitka, Alaska. He pointed out that he had been particularly concerned with the lower levels of burglary and arson on buildings other than homes. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members he had some additional language changes to HB 6 relating to the burning or burglarizing of a shed, and also the ability to adjust a first time drug offender. HB 6 - RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS Number 652 VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE advised members they would now proceed with HB 6, "An Act amending laws relating to the disclosure of information relating to certain minors." He asked that Representative Pete Kelly comment on the draft committee substitute for HB 6 which incorporated the recommendations of the subcommittee. Number 720 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, Prime Sponsor, referenced Section 4 of the draft committee substitute, CSHB 6 (), Version "T". Number 734 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG moved to adopt CSHB 6 (), Version "T" for the purpose of discussion. There being no objection, CSHB 6 (), Version "T" was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referenced Section 4, page 2, line 19, and advised members that the new language would give the department the discretion to say when someone was not in compliance. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY continued on page 2, line 22, and advised members that the word "previous" had been added to make clear it was from a prior offence. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that on page 2, line 29, language was incorporated which would allow the release of information about minors who commit felony crimes, not misdemeanors. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that there had been concerns raised regarding the use of the term "dangerous instrument" as being too broad, so that had been changed to "deadly weapon" on page 2, line 30. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referenced page 3, line 8, advising members there had been concern regarding the possession of a marijuana plant. If the plant was alive it would be considered as manufacturing, and if the plant was dead it would be considered possession of marijuana. Representative Kelly advised members they deleted the "manufacturing" language of the original bill, and the "intent to deliver" replaced that language on page 3, line 8. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that individuals who sought the route of petition rather than adjustment was addressed on page 3, line 9. Page 3, lines 11 and 12, addressed the names that would be released at the petition phase. Representative Kelly pointed out that the difference at petition involved the minor's alleged commission of a felony if the minor was 16 years old who had been previously convicted or adjudicated as a delinquent minor. Number 1307 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES asked for clarification regarding the release of information for serious crimes. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that if a heinous crime was committed, the person's name would be released at adjustment and if the department chose to take the individual through the petition process the minor's name would be released as well. He pointed out that there would be no advantage to opt out of the adjustment phase to go to the petition process on the more serious crimes. Representative Kelly explained that that addressed a concern expressed by the department. Number 1407 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that at the point of adjustment or petition that punishment had not yet been established. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY directed members attention to page 3, line 11, which reflects, "the outcome of proceedings before the court", and also on page 2, line 16, states, "the action required by the agency". REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked to be excused for the purpose of testifying in another standing committee meeting. Her request was granted. Number 1473 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ was concerned that there would be no incentive on the defendant's part to cooperate if disclosure took place both at the adjustment stage and the petition phase. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY felt language existed in the original bill which provided an incentive to the defendant to go to the petition phase rather than the adjustment phase, and he thought that was a flaw in the bill. The draft committee substitute would not provide that incentive because both phases were basically equal. Number 1704 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that with information he received from the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS), he had provided a breakdown which reflected the percentage of petitions dismissed by the court. He pointed out that approximately 20 percent of the petitions filed by the department were ultimately dismissed by the court for lack of evidence, innocence, or other reasons. Representative Croft noted that in the criminal system, cases were dismissed not because the individual was possibly innocent, but that there was insufficient evidence to prove one guilty. He pointed out that approximately 60 percent were adjudicated guilty on a petition, 20 percent found insufficient evidence and approximately 20 percent included a variety of things, such as dismissal and waivers to adult court. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT expressed that his question during the previous hearing regarded how many cases lacked evidence to pursue, compared to how many, during the time period between petition and adjudication, might be committing other crimes and asked if there was any data relating to that scenario. Number 1807 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that information would not be available because the records were presently secret. He noted that, anecdotally, he was aware of individuals going through the adjustment phase committing other crimes while going through that process. Representative Kelly assumed that would occur during the petition process as well, although he felt there would be fewer cases in that sense because once a petition is filed the individual would know that action would be forthcoming. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, with regard to a space problem, when deciding to detain a minor, if the proposed legislation was solving a space problem through the disclosure requirement. Number 1807 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY did not believe so. He expressed that the juvenile crime system, as he understood it, was that for a lack of inadequacies in the system of law that had developed over 30 years, that the system was kind of teaching minors to be juvenile criminals. It says if you commit a bad act, the punishment would probably not be that great. Representative Kelly advised members that what he learned from people who deal with those juvenile situations was that when a minor finally comes before a judge, he/she may have committed dozens of crimes previously, and when a judge reviews a particular crime record and sentences the individual to jail, the juvenile is completely "flabbergasted". He noted that through a flawed system, flawed philosophy or limited space, the state was not able to deal with the minor until a serious crime was committed, which results in teaching the minor to elevate their level of criminal activity because crime does pay if there is no down-side to it. Representative Kelly referenced a quote as follows: "This was the first generation that will not do as well as its parents."; and someone else said, "This is the first generation that is afraid of its children." REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that the point of the proposed legislation was to correct a system that had been in existence for decades that basically protected criminal juveniles. The proposed legislation would expose the individual's name, along with the crimes they commit for the purpose of providing safety to the public. Number 2158 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed that there was a space problem for those who go to petition and found guilty; however, pointed out that the majority of the individuals were taking the adjustment route and he felt that was where the preventative measure came into effect, and space had nothing to do with that. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER did not agree with the chart reflecting the percentage of petitions dismissed by the court. He felt many of cases that might have been dismissed was because there was not enough time on the court's calendar to consider them, as well as finding no probable cause to pursue a hearing. Representative Porter felt that people could be filing for petition too soon and the department should look into that possibility. Number 2275 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly how many of the 56 individuals interviewed were delinquents. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that he did not interview a lot of juveniles. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what response Representative Kelly received from the juveniles he did interview. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said that those he interviewed did not like the idea of having their names released. Number 2394 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that with the Governor's Commission on Juvenile Justice, that the public, in every community in the state cautioned against disclosure. He advised members that gave him a great deal of pause before he could endorse anything, such as the proposed legislation which suggests disclosure as being appropriate. Representative Berkowitz noted that the task force spent a lot more time than committee members had sifting through evidence, and had come to the conclusion that disclosure was not in the best interest of the state. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that he was a member of that task force, as was Representative Porter, and there had been a lot of discussion relating to disclosure and he did not hear that much objection to it. He advised members he was on the Youth at Risk Task Force and Representative Porter was on the Offenders Task Force which specifically addressed the issue of disclosure. Number 2444 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that as a member of the Justice Commission he attended the community meeting in Anchorage. The method of getting at the opinion of release of juvenile records was done through a series of scenarios, or fact situations. He advised members that in Anchorage, as well as other communities, the public did not disagree with the release of information of the records of juvenile offenders for serious violations, but felt it was appropriate. TAPE 97-21, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that one of the scenarios asked about involved a case of malicious mischief felony and if a 12 year old's name should be released. The public's response was that it should not be. Representative Porter stated that that type of situation, under the proposed legislation, HB 3 and HB 6, the individual's name would not be released. However, he stated that for serious offenses there was a fairly good consensus that the names should be released. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that both adjustment and adjudication provided a fairly high confidence of guilt. In adjustment, the juvenile has admitted to the crime, and in adjudication the court has found guilt. The petition stage would still be an allegation by the department. He asked what the approximate ratio was from adjustment to petition cases. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated that the ratio of referrals to petition was approximately 15 percent. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that juveniles going into the petition phase involved juveniles who were adamant about their innocence, and those who admit guilt go through the adjustment process. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY agreed; however, pointed out that it would be after a preliminary investigation had taken place in both cases; i.e., petition and adjustment. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that of the crimes enumerated at the bottom of page 2 and top of page 3, that they were all felonies with the exception of misconduct involving a controlled substance, subsection (G), page 3, line 6. He pointed out that there is misconduct in the fifth degree, which was a Class A Misdemeanor and felt that was somewhat anomalous. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked if that involved delivery of a controlled substance. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that it was a delivery charge, AS 11.71.050. He stated that if they were going to attack felony charges, was it the intent to leave that charge unaddressed in the proposed legislation. Representative Berkowitz explained that the delivery of an item did not necessarily mean the sale of that item, adding that handing a book to someone would mean the same as delivering the book. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members he would have to give that some thought and could address the issue at a later time; however, expressed that it could be something that should be included. Number 245 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned the fiscal note dated 2/18/97, which reflected $1,038,900 as being the total cost of both the lost revenues and the restructuring costs of the department. He asked the department to explain that amount. Number 273 DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health and Social Services, advised members that the total cost column figure of $1,037,900 included $698,200 of revenue loss and $339,700 of restructuring costs. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the restructuring figure of $339,700 was a one-time cost. MS. WORLEY advised members that it would involve a one-time expense for the restructuring changes, and the department saw that as becoming a part the department's budget in an ongoing way. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that $339,700 would be an annual increment in the future and not involve a one-time charge. MS. WORLEY stated that was correct. Number 328 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved Amendment 1, page 4, line 12 after the words "the public", delete [the name of the minor, the name or names of the parent, parents, or guardian of the minor, information about the offense alleged to have been committed by the minor, and]. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that he believed that Amendment 1 and Amendment 4 were primarily technical in that they modify page 4, line 12. He noted that currently the section read "If the minor makes a request under this subsection, the department shall disclose to the public the name of the minor, the name or names of the parent, parents, or guardian of the minor, and information about the offense", or any information as appropriate. Representative Croft pointed out that the subcommittee was concerned that it might not always be appropriate for all of those and that it simply be information about the disposition of the matter, or case as appropriate. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT expressed that to some extent the language presented a problem with lists by listing some of the things that might be appropriate, but not all others. He pointed out that they were addressing the exoneration category, that they were releasing information when a mistake had been made and would be disclosing innocence. Representative Croft advised members it was not giving anymore discretion to the department to avoid releasing evidence of guilt, but simply when it would be appropriate to release exonerating evidence as appropriate. Number 437 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER withdrew his objection after hearing the explanation given by Representative Croft. There being no objection, Amendment 1, was adopted. Number 446 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to adopt Amendment 2, to CSHB 6(JUD); page 3, line 1, delete [11.46.410], page 3, line 2, delete [11.46.310], page 3 line 27, delete [11.46.410] and page 3, line 28 delete [11.46.310]. Representative Porter objected. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 2 was categorized as the "shed amendment" by his office. He pointed out that they were dealing with two categories; burglary in the first and second degree and arson in the first and second degree. Representative Croft advised members that second degree burglary and arson would be eliminated by the proposed amendment. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that in both charges, the second degree charge was a base, generic form; burning of a building or breaking into any structure or building with the intent to commit a crime. He pointed out that breaking into a "shed" to steal a hammer, or burning a "shed" where no one lives, would fall under the second degree category. Representative Croft advised members that arson in the first degree would include the possibility of causing harm to a person, or acting with recklessness towards someone. Burning a "shed" where someone lives would be first degree arson. He stated that second degree burglary involved burglary of any structure, and first degree involved the burglary of a house or dwelling, using a dangerous weapon to commit the crime, confiscating a dangerous weapon upon leaving the dwelling, or breaking into a "shed" to cause someone bodily harm. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that the question Amendment 2 addressed was what manner of punishment should be imposed on juveniles committing "shed" crimes. He pointed out that DFYS had requested that some discretion be allowed for first time "shed" offenders, although second time offenders who had not complied with their restitution from the first offense, would be automatically disclosed under the proposed legislation. Number 575 CHAIRMAN GREEN posed a hypothetical situation whereby a minor burned a "shed" just for the purpose of burning it, and found later that someone had been injured, or something valuable destroyed in the fire. He asked if a situation such as that would change the offense. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members it would not be dependent on the damage caused, but dependent on some knowledge about the likelihood of causing injury. He noted that first degree arson involved reckless threat to human life. CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that the primary intent of the proposed legislation was to make juveniles responsible and accountable for their acts, and make them realize what the potential consequences might be, which was one of the reasons for disclosing their names. Number 656 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed that the law, for the same offense, would allow the substitution of "shed" with "bank". He explained that if a person burglarized a bank and did not threaten anyone on the way out, it would be a charge of 2nd degree burglary. It was not a residence, the person was not armed and did not confront a person. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that the definition of 1st degree arson involves starting a fire, and by that act, recklessly places another person in danger of serious physical injury. He advised members that it would more closely parallel a crime against a person. Representative Croft expressed that he was trying to find the crimes that were the biggest threat to public safety. He pointed out that what the amendment would provide was the capture of both the shed and the nonviolent, non-dwelling place. Representative Croft stated that the proposed amendment would allow the department to work with the "shed" burglar by allowing the ability to work with the individual to make them appreciate what they had done and by keeping them out of the papers the first time, there might not be a second time. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out that arson and burglary were serious crimes and young people that seem to be involved in burning things often had serious problems. He spoke against Amendment 2, adding that he understood the intent of the proposed amendment; however, when a young person was committing burglary or arson, even though they were not hurting a person, that a call for help was necessary. Representative Bunde noted that part of the purpose of the proposed legislation was to discourage the young person from getting involved in criminal acts, as well as to protect the public. Number 898 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER spoke against the proposed amendment, pointing out that when they were talking about 1st and 2nd degree arson, they were not talking about careless smoking juveniles, that it would involve an intentional torch of a building. He stated that burglary, statistically, if one could catch him or her, was probably the fifth time the individual had burglarized. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with the statements of both Representatives Bunde and Porter, even though Representative Croft did an excellent job of explaining the "shed" amendment. Number 1024 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG called for the question. Representative Porter maintained his objection to the adoption of Amendment 2. A roll call vote was taken. In favor: Representatives Croft and Berkowitz. Opposed: Representatives Bunde, Porter, Rokeberg, James and Chairman Green. Amendment 2, CSHB 6(JUD) failed adoption REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved Amendment 3, page 3, delete lines 6 through 8. Representative Porter and Rokeberg objected. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that the prior amendment affected both the adjudication and adjustment categories; affecting the list for both. He explained that Amendment 3 would only affect the adjustment category and would not affect the petition category. Representative Croft advised members that it would give the division the ability to adjust the first time drug offender. He noted that if the drug offense was serious enough that a petition was filed, it would still remain on the list. Representative Croft advised members that by deleting the drug crimes from the adjustment category of required disclosures, it would allow the division the discretion to see if they could work out an arrangement with the child, rather than disclosing his name on a first time drug offense. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that in talking with the department, they had said that a minor theft crime and a first time drug offense were two of the larger categories they found happening. If the department was able to confront the child with what had been done, and advise him or her of the possible consequences and working with the first time offender without disclosing to the community, they felt it would provide a better chance of rehabilitating the juvenile. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed that her concern would be if it actually was a first time offense or, in fact, the first time the juvenile was caught. Secondly, she considered a crime involving a controlled substance especially damaging, in particular who it was being sold to. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE spoke against the amendment also, noting that he saw a great deal of difference between possession and the intent to sell. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that delivery could be as simple as two persons sharing a joint which would be charged as a misdemeanor. He noted that it would be felonious if it involved one person carrying crack-cocaine for another person, so delivery and the way it is argued in front of juries was entirely separate from sale. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the concept was a person involving another person, which takes it out of incidental use or a mistake. He stated that it was an overt act of taking an illegal product to someone else, and should be worthy of note. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ advised members that there was somewhat of a disparity. He stated that if he handed someone a pencil, he delivered that pencil. And in his mind, the receiver of the pencil was equally culpable for accepting it; however, the legislation would not reach the acceptor of the pencil because he did not deliver the pencil. Number 1262 The objections were maintained, so Chairman Green called for a roll call vote. In favor: Representatives Croft and Berkowitz. Opposed: Representatives Bunde, Porter, Rokeberg, James and Chairman Green. Amendment 3, CSHB 6(JUD) failed adoption. Number 1283 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved Amendment 4, CSHB 6(JUD), page 4, line 31, following "(1) has", insert good cause for not complying with restitution payments or has. Representative Porter objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that he felt it was a technical matter, but the amendment inserted language in the exoneration clause and intended it to be identical language from the prior restitution, rehabilitation and probation sections. In the prior sections, it stated that if a juvenile violated his punishment or penalty without showing good cause, that would become a new crime and would be disclosed. Representative Croft felt there was good reason to include good cause language because there could be a very technical or minor violation of a restitution or rehabilitation order and those should be taken into consideration. Number 1362 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER removed his objection with the explanation provided by Representative Croft. There being no objection, Amendment 4, CSHB 6(JUD) was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ requested a brief at ease for the purpose of discussing a possible amendment. CHAIRMAN GREEN called an at ease at 2:25 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 2:28 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved Amendment 5, CSHB 6(JUD), page 3, line 12 following "the", delete [department files with the court a petition seeking adjudication of the minor as] and insert court adjudicates the minor; page 3, lines 14 and 23 following "minor's", delete [alleged]; and page 4, line 4, following "minor's", delete [alleged]. Representative Porter objected. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 5 was discussed in subcommittee hearings and would make the change of whether to disclose at petition or adjudication. He stated that the distinction was simply between an accusation by the department on some evidence that the child had done something, and a finding by the court that the child was, in fact, guilty. Representative Croft stated that fundamentally, and more appropriately, was it right to release a child's name at conviction rather than accusation. He noted that in the adjustment phase the child had admitted the charge. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out that the process the department goes through was fairly lengthy and the public would not be aware of an incident, in order to protect itself, for the period of time the juvenile was going through the process and could operate in a vacuum during that period of time. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY agreed that there would be that concern. He noted that the department and Representative Berkowitz had expressed that there would be a log jam at petition because everyone would attempt to take that route. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that did present a concern because she had the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty, and she was having a struggle as to how she would vote on that particular amendment. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that disclosure was not an imposed sentence, but simply a disclosure of a juvenile's name, and he did not believe the same equality of innocent until proven guilty existed. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that if a juvenile self adjudicates, it would accelerate the process and a log jam would not occur that might otherwise take place with people backing up to go to trial. He noted that if there was going to be a weakness in the system because of a time delay, a situation would take place where the defense bar would get together and jam the system, because that was just the way it worked. Representative Berkowitz stated that there were great odds for someone to be not guilty, and that by itself, was an incredible reason to support Amendment 5, adding that one out of 5 was a lot of people who were wrongfully accused. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER did not believe that one out of five of the petitions filed involved an innocent person. He felt the vast majority of the dismissals were because of some other reason. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that he had heard two rationales for the proposed legislation; protection of the public and punishment for crimes committee, which were both articulated reasons for disclosure. He stated that disclosure was a form of punishment which was being delivered prior to a conviction. Representative Croft stated with respect to public protection, that in the area of petition to adjudication, the protection was in the hands of the courts and whether they keep the individual incarcerated or not. He pointed out that judges were making that determination based on a threat to public safety. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed with Representative Porter in that it was possible that not all 20 percent of the petitioned cases were innocent; however, stated that was never what the state's constitution had required and never the basis of the state's system of government. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that they were not talking about incarceration, but a notification for the purpose of public safety. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE called for the question. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER maintained his objection, so a roll call vote was taken. In favor: Representatives Croft and Berkowitz. Opposed: Representatives Bunde, Porter, Rokeberg, James and Chairman Green. Amendment 5, CSHB 6(JUD) failed adoption. Number 1870 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved Amendment 6, CSHB 6(JUD), page 3, line 8 and page 4, line 3, following the word "deliver" insert other than an offense under AS 11.71.050. He pointed out that it was a conceptual amendment in an attempt to ensure consistency with the enumerated list of crimes in the proposed legislation. It was his intent to make sure the crimes listed were all felony crimes. He advised members that the amendment would delete the charge of misconduct involving a controlled substance because that was not a felonious charge. There being no objection, Amendment 6, CSHB 6(JUD) was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to report CSHB 6(JUD), Version "T", out of committee as amended, with the attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of making a statement. He advised members he was concerned with the fiscal notes, and in particular, the ongoing costs and the downgrading of a Superintendent II at the McLaughlin youth center. With that, Representative Rokeberg withdrew his objection, so CSHB 6(JUD) was reported out of committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|