Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/10/1999 01:38 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 172 - OFFICE OF VICTIMS' ADVOCACY
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL
NO. 172, "An Act establishing the office of victims' advocacy in
the Department of Law; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency Rules, and Rule 501,
Alaska Rules of Evidence."
Number 1697
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated, as sponsor of the bill, he directed
the bill drafter to model HB 172 exactly after Senator Halford's
bill with the exception of putting the office back into the
executive branch and removing the permanent fund dividend
allocation. In relation to the dividend allocation, he was
concerned about other agencies, such as the Child Support
Enforcement Division [Department of Revenue], in terms of their
ability to recover fines. He referred to page 2, lines 17-18, of
the bill, and noted that AS 12.61.015 is one of the advantages of
including the office in the Department of Law. AS 12.61.015 lists
what the department has to do in regards to victims, and the bill
says that the office can do that as well, when directed. It
creates some efficiencies having the office close by. It also
coordinates well with other activities within the department.
Number 1904
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Representative Croft whether he feels
that having the office in the Department of Law or Public Safety
would influence it.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that's a legitimate concern because at
various time the office would be questioning the actions of the
Department of Public Safety, Department of Law, Department of
Corrections, and possibly the Public Defender Agency and the Office
of Public Advocacy. It seems that the function of the office is
most often performed by the Department of Law and most analogous to
it. He suggested, as another approach, putting more sideboards on
the appointment and firing of the advocate in terms of insulating
that person within the Department of Law as is done with
appointments and confirmations.
Number 2068
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated the Public Defender Agency and the
Office of Public Advocacy are not necessarily always on the same
side of an issue. Therefore, it seems that having the office
within the Department of Administration wouldn't have the same
conflict as it would have within the Department of Law.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the Department of Administration is
often a place where offices are put that need autonomy and that
don't fit anyplace else.
Number 2121
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated the bill does not list the qualifications for
the advocate.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied the list of qualifications in SB 4 is
relatively new. He's not opposed to that list other than it seems
rather long. He offered to the committee members to provide an
analysis of the differences between the two bills.
Number 2235
CHAIRMAN KOTT assigned the bill to a subcommittee consisting of
Representatives Croft, as chairman, Kerttula and Murkowski. He
charged the subcommittee with brining back the differences between
the two bills.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|