04/23/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB3 | |
| HB164 | |
| HJR7 | |
| HB213 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 213 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 23, 2007
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to issuance of identification cards and to
issuance of driver's licenses; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 164
"An Act relating to reporting of vessel location by certain
commercial passenger vessels operating in the marine waters of
the state, to access to vessels by licensed marine engineers for
purposes of monitoring compliance with state and federal
requirements, and to the obligations of those engineers while
aboard the vessels; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 164(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
to avoid the use of personal pronouns and similar references
that denote masculine or feminine gender in that document.
- MOVED CSHJR 7(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 213
"An Act relating to an aggravating factor at sentencing for
crimes committed at certain shelters and facilities."
- MOVED CSHB 213(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 194
"An Act relating to fines for certain offenses involving
aeronautics, alcoholic beverages, boats, fish and game, health
care records and public health, medical review organizations,
public restroom facilities, smoking, shelter cabins,
refrigerators and similar equipment, radiation sources, high
voltage lines, child labor, employment in underground mines,
marriage licenses, motor vehicles and driver's licenses,
ignition interlock devices, pipelines, use of the state seal,
and emissions requirements; relating to the maximum fine
provided for violations and infractions and to the definition of
'minor offenses'; redesignating certain fish and game
misdemeanor offenses as class A misdemeanors; relating to
violations and offenses that are committed on state land, water,
and land and water or that are related to water management or
dam and reservoir safety; amending Rule 8(b), Alaska District
Court Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 4/27/07
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D.
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) LYNN
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD
02/27/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/27/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/06/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/06/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/06/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/07 (H) STA RPT 3DP 2DNP 2NR
03/07/07 (H) DP: JOHNSON, ROSES, LYNN
03/07/07 (H) DNP: GRUENBERG, DOLL
03/07/07 (H) NR: JOHANSEN, COGHILL
03/07/07 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
04/20/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/20/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/20/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/23/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 164
SHORT TITLE: OCEAN RANGERS & REPORTING VESSEL LOCATION
SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION
02/28/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/28/07 (H) TRA, FIN
03/08/07 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/08/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/07 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/13/07 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/13/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/13/07 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/14/07 (H) TRA RPT 2DP 1DNP 3NR
03/14/07 (H) DP: KOHRING, JOHANSEN
03/14/07 (H) DNP: DOOGAN
03/14/07 (H) NR: FAIRCLOUGH, JOHNSON, NEUMAN
03/14/07 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED AFTER TRA
03/28/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/28/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/13/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/13/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/16/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/16/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 04/18/07>
04/18/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/18/07 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/20/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/20/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/20/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/20/07 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/20/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
04/23/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 7
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: GENDER-NEUTRAL REFERENCES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GATTO
01/30/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/03/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/03/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/03/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/10/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/10/07 (H) Moved CSHJR 7(STA) Out of Committee
04/10/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/11/07 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP 3NR
04/11/07 (H) DP: ROSES, GRUENBERG, DOLL, LYNN
04/11/07 (H) NR: JOHNSON, JOHANSEN, COGHILL
04/18/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/18/07 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/23/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 213
SHORT TITLE: CRIMES AT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DOLL
03/21/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/21/07 (H) HES, JUD
04/10/07 (H) HES AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/10/07 (H) Moved CSHB 213(HES) Out of Committee
04/10/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/13/07 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 6DP
04/13/07 (H) DP: CISSNA, SEATON, GARDNER, WILSON,
FAIRCLOUGH, ROSES
04/17/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/17/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 04/20/07>
04/20/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/20/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/23/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DIRK MOFFATT, Staff
to Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 3 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Lynn.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 3.
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the chair of the House
Transportation Standing Committee, the sponsor of HB 164.
RANDALL RUARO, Staff
to Representative Kyle Johansen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 164 on behalf of the House Transportation Standing Committee,
which sponsored the bill and which is chaired by Representative
Johansen.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 164.
RUTH HAMILTON HESSE, Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 164.
SANDRA WILSON, Intern
to Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 7 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Gatto.
CHRIS ASHENBRENNER, Interim Program Administrator
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 213.
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the drafter of HB 213 and
responded to questions.
SARALYN TABACHNICK, Executive Director
Aiding Women in Abuse and Rape Emergencies Inc (AWARE)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 213.
PEGGY BROWN, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 213.
DON SHIRCEL
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. (TCC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 213.
LINDA STANDFORD, Program Coordinator
Arctic Women in Crisis (AWIC)
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 213.
RICK SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Division
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 213.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:07:31 PM. Representatives Dahlstrom,
Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, Holmes, Gruenberg, and Ramras were
present at the call to order. Senator Davis was also in
attendance.
HB 3 - REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D.
1:09:39 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 3, "An Act relating to issuance of identification
cards and to issuance of driver's licenses; and providing for an
effective date."
1:11:06 PM
DIRK MOFFATT, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, relayed on behalf of Representative Lynn
that Section 1 of HB 3 conforms AS 18.65.310(a) to allow the
validity period of an identity (ID) card to be longer or shorter
than the standard five-year validity period. Section 2 amends
AS 18.65.310(g) to require an eight-year validity period for an
ID card issued to a person 60 years of age or older. Section 3
creates new subsections (h) and (i) in AS 18.65.310 referencing
legal presence and validity dates. Subsection (h) requires
proof that an applicant for an ID card is a citizen or a legal
resident of the United States. Subsection (i) allows an ID card
to be issued to a temporary resident of the United States under
certain circumstances; requires a temporary resident to present
documentation in person; requires the ID's expiration date to
match the expiration date on the U.S. government's temporary
resident document; requires an ID to expire one year from the
date of issue when an applicant has indefinite temporary status;
allows IDs to be renewed with documentary evidence that the U.S.
government has extended the applicant's stay; and provides that
the department may regulate what constitutes valid, documentary
evidence for an ID card except it cannot approve matricula
consular cards.
MR. MOFFATT, in response to a question, explained that matricula
consular cards are cards that have a lot of fraud associated
with them even though they are issued through Mexico's
consulates or embassies.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, speaking as the sponsor of HB 3, relayed
that matricula consular cards, typically issued by the Mexican
government, basically say that the holder has that government's
permission to be in the United States.
MR. MOFFATT explained that Section 4 amends AS 28.15.031(b)(1)
to prohibit the issuance of a driver's license to a person whose
privilege to drive has been canceled or who is disqualified from
obtaining a license, and creates a new paragraph (8) with
subparagraphs (A) and (B) referencing legal presence and
validity dates. Subparagraph (A) prohibits the issuance of a
driver's license to a person who has not presented proof that
he/she is a citizen or legal resident of the United States;
exempts a person with an Alaska driver's license from the proof
requirements as long as the license has not expired or been
canceled, suspended, or revoked and the person has not been
disqualified from obtaining a license, or unless the department
is notified by a government agency that the person is not a
citizen or legal resident; and provides that the department may
regulate what constitutes valid, documentary evidence for
driver's license except it cannot approve matricula consular
cards.
MR. MOFFATT relayed that subparagraph (B) allows a driver's
license to be issued to a temporary resident of the United
States under certain circumstances; requires the applicant to
present documentation in person; prohibits license renewal
without proof that temporary status has been extended by the
U.S. government; prohibits a name change unless the name change
corresponds to the U.S. government's authorizing documents;
prohibits the issuance of a duplicate license without proof that
temporary status is still valid and in effect; and provides that
the department may regulate what constitutes valid, documentary
evidence for a driver's license except it cannot approve
matricula consular cards. Section 5 conforms [AS 28.15.101(a)]
to allow the validity period of a driver's license to be shorter
than the standard five-year validity period.
MR. MOFFATT explained that Section 6 creates a new subsection
(d) in AS 28.15.101 that requires a driver's license expiration
date to match the expiration date on the U.S. government's
temporary resident document, and provides that the license must
expire one year from the date of issue when an applicant has
indefinite temporary status. Section 7 provides for a January
1, 2008, effective date.
MR. MOFFATT, in response to a question, confirmed that language
in proposed AS 28.15.031(b)(8)(A) addresses those seeking a
legal name change due to marriage or divorce.
1:19:21 PM
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), in response to questions,
relayed that Sections 1-3 specifically address ID cards, and
that HB 3 is designed to address those people who are not able
establish that they are legally in the U.S. or who have stayed
longer than they have been approved for. "We don't want them to
have a driver's license or identification card," he added. In
response to further questions, he acknowledged that although a
driver's license is meant to indicate that a person has
sufficient knowledge and skill to drive a car and is physically
able to do so, it is more often used for non-driving purposes;
offered his understanding that the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) publishes information regarding what
documents can be used to satisfy its requirements; and confirmed
that driver's licenses are probably the most official photo ID
that people carry, adding that they are probably the most common
document used at airports.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, after mentioning that he's provided
members with a couple of proposed amendments, noted that the
federal REAL ID Act of 2005 requires documents showing a place
of residence, and asked how people in rural Alaska ought to list
their addresses given that in some areas there are no street
addresses.
MR. BANNOCK characterized that topic as being outside the
purview of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that under the bill, people
seeking driver's licenses or ID cards must come into the DMV
office and show their documentation in person. He asked how
people living in Alaska's remote locations are expected to
comply with that provision.
MR. BANNOCK, after noting that the DMV has an existing network
of offices, explained that existing statute provides for the
issuance of a specific type of [license or ID card] that he
called, "Valid Without Photo," adding that many people from
outlying areas of the state take advantage of that program. An
applicant of such a license mails his/her documents to the DMV,
which processes them and then mails back a license that doesn't
contain a photograph of the person. House Bill 3 will not alter
that statute.
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question, offered his
understanding that when people who live in rural areas of the
state travel to the bigger towns, one of their purposes for
doing so is to acquire a driver's license or ID card that does
contain their photograph. In response to other questions, he
explained that existing law requires a person whose license has
been expired for longer than a year to retake the written exam;
and that under HB 3, anyone seeking to have an expired license
renewed will have to present other documentation verifying
his/her identity even if the license has only been expired for a
brief time; and that the bill provides an exemption from its
documentation requirements for those seeking to get their
license renewed as long as their existing license has not
expired.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES mentioned that that exemption language is
located on page 3, [lines 18-22].
MR. BANNOCK added that under existing statute, a person is
allowed to renew his/her license up to a year in advance of the
expiration date. In response to questions, he explained that
currently, someone with an expired license seeking license
renewal needn't present further documentation.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed disfavor with the concept of requiring a
person with an expired driver's license to present additional
documentation, characterizing that requirement as an unfair
burden on rural Alaskans. He indicated that the bill would not
be moving from committee until that issue is addressed.
1:35:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, too, that under the REAL
ID Act of 2005, if the person living in rural Alaska has an
expired license, he/she won't even be able to board the plane in
order to come into an urban center and get his/her license
renewed. He concurred, therefore, that this provision does need
to be corrected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked how long the DMV intends to store
the required documents, and how it intends to store them.
MR. BANNOCK, noting that HB 3 does not address those issues,
indicated that the DMV intends to store electronic versions of
those documents but hasn't begun the process of doing so. In
response to a question, he offered his understanding that 40
other states already "practice legal presence." In response to
a further question, he offered his understanding that the REAL
ID Act of 2005 requires electronic copies of documents to be
stored seven years and photocopies of documents to be stored ten
years.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked Mr. Bannock to work with the sponsor to
address members' concerns regarding the bill's potential
detrimental impact on rural Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, acknowledging that Alaska has unique
demographics, agreed to address that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed a desire to inform the Bush
caucus of HB 3's potential ramifications. In response to a
comment, he indicated that he would not yet be offering his
aforementioned proposed amendments.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that HB 3 would be set aside.
HB 164 - OCEAN RANGERS & REPORTING VESSEL LOCATION
1:44:55 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 164, "An Act relating to reporting of vessel
location by certain commercial passenger vessels operating in
the marine waters of the state, to access to vessels by licensed
marine engineers for purposes of monitoring compliance with
state and federal requirements, and to the obligations of those
engineers while aboard the vessels; and providing for an
effective date." [In members' packets were two proposed
committee substitutes for HB 164: Version 25-LS0585\V, Kane,
4/20/07; and Version 25-LS0585\N, Kane, 4/23/07.]
CHAIR RAMRAS, mentioning a potential conflict of interest,
turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for an explanation of the
differences between Version V and Version N.
1:46:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the chair of the House Transportation Standing Committee,
sponsor of HB 164, relayed that Version N is the latest version;
that Version V was drafted after the 4/20/07 meeting on the
bill; and that one of the differences between the two version is
that Version N - on page 2, lines 4-5 - uses the term,
"wastewater treatment operator" instead of the term, "marine
engineer licensed by the United States Coast Guard and", and
provides a definition of "wastewater treatment operator" on page
2, lines 23-25:
(e) In this section, "wastewater treatment operator"
means a Level III wastewater treatment operator
certified by the department under the authority of AS
46.30.080.
1:48:37 PM
RANDALL RUARO, Staff to Representative Kyle Johansen, Alaska
State Legislature, speaking on behalf the House Transportation
Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 164, in response to questions,
relayed that the term "Level III wastewater treatment operator"
- an existing position within the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) - is currently only defined in regulation,
not statute.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to a question, indicated
that a Level III wastewater treatment operator is specifically
trained in wastewater analysis and sampling, and in
[maintaining] advanced wastewater treatment plants, whereas a
licensed marine engineer - as referenced in both the original
bill and Version V - is not. Furthermore, language on page 2,
lines 3-8, of Version N stipulates that the wastewater treatment
operators will be allowed on board vessels at random times
determined by the commissioner while vessels are in port or
operating in Alaska waters between two Alaska ports; this new
language, he offered, gives the commissioner the discretion to
create a program that will satisfy the intent of the voters who
approved the recent ballot initiative regarding cruise ship
taxation, regulation, and disclosure.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked whether the wastewater treatment
operators will be state employees.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN relayed his intent to have that issue
addressed in the House Finance Committee. In response to
another question, he observed that the DEC's fiscal note will
have to be recalculated after the adoption of the CS, though he
anticipates it will be lower.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that proposed AS 46.03.476(a) says in part,
"The commissioner may require the owner or operator", and
surmised that cruise ships wouldn't be prohibited from sailing
if not all the Level III wastewater treatment operator positions
were filled.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that it is the
commissioner who has the discretion to determine when a
wastewater treatment operator should go on board a vessel.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that he wants to ensure that the
department's inability to hire enough Level III wastewater
treatment operators won't disrupt a cruise ship's schedule.
1:55:20 PM
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), in response to a question,
first clarified that the department has estimated that under
existing law it will need about 35 Ocean Rangers, and then
relayed that Level III wastewater treatment operators have to
have 14 years of education, which translates into two years of
college and four years of wastewater treatment facility operator
experience, at least half of which has to be on a similar type
of system. And since many cruise ships operate with an advanced
wastewater treatment system, which is not a system that's
commonly used at shore-based facilities, there may be some
challenges, at least in the first few years, finding staff who
have a Level III operator certification for the types of systems
that are on cruise ships. She observed, though, that the bill
provides leeway to either hire state staff or obtain the
services through contract.
MS. KENT, in response another question, said that Level II
wastewater treatment operators have to have 12 years of
education, which translates into a high school diploma and three
years of experience operating a system at the next lower level,
and at least half of that time must be spent working on a system
that's similar to those found on cruise ships. With regard to a
question of how the DEC determined that it would need 35 Ocean
Rangers, she explained that the department had a contractor
review a multitude of options for placing Ocean Rangers on board
vessels, and it was the contractor's recommendation that the
department could fully staff the vessels while they're operating
in Alaskan waters with about 35 Ocean Rangers; this number would
satisfy the ballot initiative as currently written with the
assumption that a vessel would have just one Ocean Ranger on
board, rather than two, working a 12 hour shift.
MS. KENT, in response to a question about the fiscal impact of
the ballot initiative, relayed that in addition to the salaries
paid to those monitoring the cruise ships, there are also costs
associated with equipment, training, and traveling to and from
vessels.
2:00:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what the difference is between a
wastewater treatment operator and a marine engineer, and whether
either would satisfy the requirements of the ballot initiative.
MS. KENT said that a Coast Guard licensed marine engineer -
someone who is trained in how the systems on the vessel operate,
including propulsion systems as well as wastewater systems - is
required to have a certain amount of sea time in order to get
certification, but doesn't have the kinds of training needed
under the initiative as currently written - he/she would have to
specifically trained in domestic wastewater sampling,
foodservice, solid waste management, drinking water, air
opacity, and a wide variety of pollution, health, and safety
requirements. Therefore, licensed marine engineers would still
have to be trained in those other aspects of environmental and
public health rules. A wastewater treatment operator, on the
other hand, has been trained in and has experience operating
domestic or sewage treatment facilities, but may or may not -
likely not - have experience in other kinds of environmental
rules, though the way the CS is written, he/she won't have those
responsibilities anyway for things like "sanitation" or
"safety."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked which type of person would be best
qualified to ensure that wastewater discharge systems are
working properly at the proper times.
MS. KENT offered her belief that a wastewater treatment operator
would be better suited and better trained for the job as long as
his/her duties are limited to wastewater discharge on the
vessels, as is provided for via Version N.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the legislature will have
to further amend AS 46.30 as a result of the passage of HB 164.
MS. KENT said she's not yet had a chance to review the statutory
authority that sets up the certification system for wastewater
[treatment] operators.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested to the sponsor that he
research that issue as well.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, referring to page 2, line 3, of Version N,
noted that it says in part, "The commissioner may require the
owner or operator of a large commercial passenger vessel to
allow". He questioned whether "may" should be changed to "shall"
in order to more closely comply with the ballot initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he doesn't see any problem with
such a change.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that such a change would take away
the commissioner's discretion to train personnel, and
characterized it as a huge change.
2:05:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 164, Version 25-LS0585\N, Kane, 4/23/07,
as the work draft. There being no objection, Version N was
before the committee.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM concurred with Representative Samuels's
point.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that changing "may" to "shall"
could result in problems related to having sufficiently trained
personnel.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN disagreed, said he believes that the
commissioner would maintain his/her discretion in that regard,
and pointed out that such a change would only mandate that the
commissioner must require the owner or operator of a vessel to
allow a wastewater treatment operator on board.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that the issue is whether the
owner or operator would be directed to allow or permitted to
allow, and doesn't pertain to whether the commissioner still has
the discretion to set the times of boarding or establish the
duties of wastewater treatment operators. If the "may" is
changed to "shall", vessels will be required to "lower the
gangplank," he remarked, adding that he doesn't have a problem
with that concept.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked what the impact will be on how cruise
ships operate if the department is not able to fill the
necessary positions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he is not sure that a lack of
sufficient personnel would preclude cruise ships from operating
in Alaska's waters, but acknowledged that staffing concerns
prompted the removal of language referring to licensed marine
engineers. The intent is to give the commissioner the ability
to put folks on board when he/she wants to, and so perhaps a
further solution to a potential staffing problem would be to
remove the words, "Level III" from page 2, line 23, he added.
2:09:51 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS asked Representative Johansen whether he would be
amenable to a conceptual amendment along the lines of, "in the
event that positions cannot be filled on a timely basis by the
commissioner of DEC, these large commercial passenger vessels
shall be allowed to travel in Alaskan waters." He said he does
not want to risk disturbing commerce based on the state's
inability to hire sufficient staff.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he intended the language in
Version N to give the commissioner the ability to put a person
on a vessel, not to automatically have a person board every
single ship. Thus, if the commissioner decides that certain
vessels - because of a demonstrated good track record - don't
need someone on board, the commissioner would have the
discretion to adjust the program accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she does not think that changing
"may" to "shall" will cause a problem because the times of
boarding would still be determined by the commissioner, and
using the word, "shall" simply means that a particular thing
must be implemented. If there is a shortage of staff, she
posited, the commissioner can simply chose to have people board
vessels fewer times - a shortage of staff won't require cruise
ships to be prohibited from entering Alaska waters. "So I would
be in favor of changing 'may' to 'shall'," she added.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN reiterated that he has no problem with
such a change.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM referred to that suggested change as
Amendment 1: on page 2, line 3, changing "may" to "shall".
[Although no formal motion was made, the committee treated
Amendment 1 as having been adopted.]
2:15:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 2, labeled 25-
LS0585\V.2, Kane, 4/23/07, which read:
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "between two Alaska ports"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wants to be certain that
vessels entering Alaska waters could be monitored before they
arrive at their first Alaska port, and that vessels leaving
Alaska waters could be monitored after they leave their last
Alaska port. Without such a change as proposed by Amendment 2,
a vessel operator could simply dump [untreated material] right
after coming into Alaska waters or just before leaving Alaska
waters. He asked whether eliminating the words, "between two
Alaska ports" would address that point.
RUTH HAMILTON HESSE, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL),
indicated that it would.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that in order to apply to
Version N, Amendment 2 would need to be altered to read:
Page 2, line 7-8:
Delete "between two Alaska ports"
[Although no formal motion was made, the committee treated
Amendment 2 as having been amended to that effect.]
2:19:27 PM
MS. HAMILTON HESSE, in response to a question, offered her
belief that the words, "or operating in Alaska waters" would
include all Alaska waters [down] to Dixon Entrance, and that
Alaska has a three-mile jurisdictional boundary. She surmised
that the words, "between two Alaska ports" allows wastewater
treatment operators to board a vessel while it is in port rather
than trying to board the vessel while it is underway right at
the Dixon Entrance border line.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised, then, that if Amendment 2 were
adopted, a wastewater treatment operator could still board a
vessel while it is at port, but he/she would not be limited to
that situation. He questioned whether, without the adoption of
Amendment 2, vessels that choose to enter Alaska waters but not
stop at any ports before leaving would be exempt from the
provisions of the bill.
MS. HAMILTON HESSE said she didn't know, but offered that most
cruise ships that come into Alaska waters stop at [at least] two
ports. She surmised that the commissioner would still have the
discretion to address such a circumstance, though fiscal
considerations might have to be made.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that he simply wants to
ensure that while in Alaska waters, vessels aren't simply
performing improper discharge operations before they get to
their first Alaska port or after they leave their last Alaska
port.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to comments, using the
example of marine pilots, said that Version N was written so as
to make boarding by wastewater treatment operators practical,
and noted that the waters of Dixon Entrance - wherein lies the
Alaska-Canada maritime border - are quite dangerous, too
dangerous for requiring wastewater treatment operators to board
vessels while they are underway in those waters.
2:26:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is more concerned about the
jurisdictional aspect of the bill's language, not so much about
when a wastewater treatment operator would board a vessel, and
relayed that he doesn't want to endanger anyone. Alaska should
exert its jurisdiction over "this dumping," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN concurred. He offered his understanding
that although it would not be required that someone board a
vessel while it's underway in dangerous waters, if the occasion
demanded it, under Amendment 2, doing so would remain an option.
He added, "I think there's a lot to gain and nothing to lose."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN posited that the commissioner will still
have discretion in that regard; however, although he is not
opposed to the amendment, he can't envision the commissioner
putting someone on board a vessel while it was out in the middle
of the ocean anyway.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES concurred with Representative Lynn.
[Under Amendment 2,] the commissioner would have the discretion
to have a wastewater treatment operator on board a vessel while
it is entering or exiting Alaska waters, but doing so would not
be mandated. She expressed favor with giving the commissioner
more discretion in this area in case circumstances called for
it.
2:28:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, as
amended [text provided previously].
CHAIR RAMRAS objected, and said, "I call the question."
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, Holmes, and
Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 2, as amended.
Representatives Coghill, Samuels, Dahlstrom, and Ramras voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 2, as amended, failed by a
vote of 3-4.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:29 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 164, Version 25-LS0585\N, Kane, 4/23/07,
as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He asked whether the words,
"Level III" should remain on page 2, line 23.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN relayed that he is comfortable with
keeping that language in.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS again stated that he has a potential conflict of
interest.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected [thus requiring Chair Ramras to
vote].
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM objected to the motion for the purpose of
allowing a roll call vote.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Samuels, Lynn,
Coghill, and Ramras voted in favor of reporting the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 164, Version 25-LS0585\N, Kane,
4/23/07, as amended, from committee. Representatives Holmes,
Gruenberg, and Dahlstrom voted against it. Therefore, CSHB
164(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing
Committee by a vote of 4-3.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.
HJR 7 - CONST AM: GENDER-NEUTRAL REFERENCES
2:32:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report CSHJR 7(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS then withdrew his motion.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska to avoid the use of personal
pronouns and similar references that denote masculine or
feminine gender in that document. [Before the committee was
CSHJR 7(STA).]
2:33:27 PM
SANDRA WILSON, Intern to Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, relayed on behalf of Representative Gatto
that bringing HJR 7 before the committee recognizes the election
of Alaska's first female governor, as well as the fact that the
state now has [several] female legislators, a female chief
justice, and [several] female commissioners. Six other states
have [recently] amended their state constitution in a similar
fashion. House Joint Resolution 7, she offered, would not alter
the rights, powers, or privileges afforded Alaska's citizens via
the Alaska State Constitution. In conclusion, she asked the
committee to support HJR 7. In response to a question, she
confirmed that if HJR 7 were to pass both bodies of the
legislature, the resolution's proposed constitutional amendment
would be placed on the ballot for approval by the voters.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HJR 7.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS again moved to report CSHJR 7(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 7(STA) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:36 p.m. to 2:38 p.m.
HB 213 - CRIMES AT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS
2:38:49 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 213, "An Act relating to an aggravating factor at
sentencing for crimes committed at certain shelters and
facilities." [Before the committee was CSHB 213(HES).]
2:39:18 PM
CHRIS ASHENBRENNER, Interim Program Administrator, Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA), Department of
Public Safety (DPS), noted that members' packets contain a
letter of support for HB 213 from the CDVSA. She offered her
understanding that an incident at the AWARE (Aiding Women in
Abuse and Rape Emergencies) shelter in Juneau engendered HB 213,
and, after briefly describing that incident, relayed that such
incidents are not unique in Alaska: perpetrators [of sexual
assault and domestic violence] across the state continue to
pursue their victims even when they are in a safe home or
shelter. She opined that it is important to hold such
perpetrators extra accountable for those crimes; accountability
for such perpetrators is a key factor in stopping such offenses
and helping to make the people in shelters safer.
MS. ASHENBRENNER, in response to a question, relayed that
although perhaps there are other institutions that need
protection from individuals that are angry at the system,
perpetrators of domestic violence and sexual assault are
generally after a particular victim - a victim whom the
perpetrator has victimized and hurt before.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS questioned what the term, "offense", as
used on line 5 of the bill, means.
2:43:53 PM
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), speaking as the drafter of HB 213, offered his
understanding that the term "offense" as used in the bill refers
to any felony offense under Title 11. Thus, he surmised, it
could apply to one who commits embezzlement while at a shelter.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked for clarification regarding the
term, "recognized shelter".
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that the House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee inserted the term
"recognized" because the state doesn't recognize all shelters.
For example, in some rural areas there are certain houses that
are known to be safe houses, and so the state would have to
prove that the crime did occur at a "recognized" shelter.
2:46:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS expressed interest in limiting the bill
such that it only applied to crimes associated with someone at a
shelter - not just all felonies.
MR. LUCKHAUPT surmised that those would be felony crimes against
a person under AS 11.41, or arson in the first degree under AS
11.46.400.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL questioned whether some of the crimes
listed in those statutes fall outside of the realm of domestic
violence acts.
MR. LUCKHAUPT acknowledged that it would be up to the
legislature to decide which felony crimes the proposed
aggravating factor should apply to.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he wants to include just
those felony crimes that are specifically targeted [at the
people in a shelter or at the shelter itself simply because of
the fact that it protects victims of domestic violence and
sexual assault]; for example, committing certain property crimes
could be connected to domestic violence and sexual assault
issues.
MR. LUCKHAUPT, in response to a question, offered his
understanding that it is the prosecutors who have the authority
to decide whether to seek an aggravating factor at sentencing,
and the judge, if that factor is proven beyond a reasonable
doubt, can then take into account that aggravating factor during
sentencing and decide how much weight to give it when
determining whether the sentence should exceed the presumptive
sentencing scheme set out in statute. In response to another
question, he pointed out that the perpetrator to which this bill
applies wouldn't necessarily have had any prior charges related
to domestic violence or sexual assault against him/her before
then committing the felony crime at the shelter, and mentioned
that the crime of burglary consists of breaking into a building
with the intent to commit any crime inside that structure, and
that the crime of burglary is always a felony crime under Alaska
law.
2:56:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that the intent of the bill is to
protect people who are already victims who've sought help at
domestic violence and sexual assault shelters, which are often
run on small budgets; thus even the crimes of burglary and
embezzlement constitute an indirect assault on [all the victims]
because a perpetrator is damaging these facilities via the crime
he/she is committing. He remarked, therefore, that he would
like to see the bill apply to all felony crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS pointed out, though, that under the bill,
a person embezzling from a shelter would be treated differently
than if he/she were embezzling from any other nonprofit
organization regardless that his/her crime has no direct
connection to the victims of the shelter.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM noted that sometimes a victim of
domestic violence or sexual assault will take shelter in
someone's private residence, and so by including the qualifier,
"recognized", an assault on the victim in that home would be
treated like a lesser crime than if the victim were staying at a
"recognized" shelter.
MR. LUCKHAUPT clarified that the crime itself is still the same
regardless of where it occurs. The bill is simply proposing to
provide for an aggravating factor that could be applied if the
crime took place at a recognized shelter, whereas that
aggravating factor [couldn't] be applied in situations involving
someone's private residence - just the presumptive sentencing
scheme for that crime would be used.
3:01:08 PM
SARALYN TABACHNICK, Executive Director, Aiding Women in Abuse
and Rape Emergencies Inc (AWARE), relayed that she would be
speaking in support of HB 213. When people come to AWARE Inc.
for services, there is a higher expectation of and need for
safety - they are a specific high-risk population because of the
domestic violence or sexual assault that they've endured.
Confirming that the Aware Inc. shelter did suffer a break-in the
summer of 2005 to the administrative side of the facility, she
expressed support for the concept of holding such perpetrators
accountable.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that he agrees that certain
crimes are not particularly related [to the issues of domestic
violence and sexual assault] - for example, the crime of forgery
- said he's been reviewing the range of felony crimes that the
bill should apply to because those crimes could have a nexus
with a domestic violence shelter, and a number of them are not
considered to be crimes against a person: criminal mischief,
solicitation, conspiracy, and various weapons offenses. He
opined, therefore, that it is important to determine which
specific crimes should be subject to this proposed aggravating
factor.
3:04:24 PM
PEGGY BROWN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), relayed that statewide,
there is an increased level of violence, and that when people
come to a shelter for help, there is a presumption of safety.
House Bill 213 is intended to address acts of terroristic
threatening or other kinds of misbehavior towards shelter
inhabitants and staff by those who have broken into a shelter.
She indicated that HB 213 will send a clear message that one
shouldn't break into a place of safety - it won't be tolerated.
3:06:05 PM
DON SHIRCEL, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. (TCC), relayed that
over the years, tribal leaders of Interior Alaska villages have
passed numerous resolutions at the TCCs annual convention
focusing on the need to provide safety to residents of rural
Alaska. Unfortunately, women and other victims of domestic
violence who reside in Alaska's rural communities have nowhere
near the access to the protections and services afforded other
Alaskan citizens who reside in the state's more metropolitan
areas. Many victims of domestic violence living in remote
villages of the Interior rely on local safe homes which have
been established through federal funding obtained by their
tribal governments under the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act.
MR. SHIRCEL said that local individuals who work with their
tribal government to provide a safe place for victims of
domestic violence do so with the knowledge that they have little
or no backup from state law enforcement and only limited support
from its judicial system in the event that a perpetrator elects
to violate the haven they provide to victims and children.
House Bill 213 is a step in the right direction and at the very
least sends a strong message that the consequences for felonious
acts perpetrated at a shelter or safe home can and should be
based on what they really are - escalated acts of violence which
can result in harsher penalties. The TCC, he concluded,
strongly supports HB 213 and hopes the committee will move the
bill from committee and support its passage into law.
3:08:19 PM
LINDA STANDFORD, Program Coordinator, Arctic Women in Crisis
(AWIC), relayed that in addition to [AWIC's main] shelter, AWIC
has safe homes in all of the region's villages; these safe homes
are not funded - volunteers simply open up their homes anytime,
day or night. She said she is speaking in support HB 213, and
hopes that the state will send a strong message that offenders
will be held accountable. Safety must be the primary goal and
concern. When women and children arrive at AWIC's doors, they
are expecting to find a safe haven, so when individuals
terrorize staff and clients, everything is changed. She then
mentioned a couple of instances of the sort of behavior that HB
213 is meant to address. Last July, a perpetrator was angry at
another of AWIC's clients for giving his victim a ride, and so
he beat in her windshield and threatened shelter staff and other
residents - this perpetrator's behavior terrified all the women
and children at the shelter. Four years prior to that incident,
a perpetrator attempted to break into the shelter - he was
totally focused on getting a hold of his victim - and he almost
got through the door before the police arrived; this, too, was
terrifying for the residents and staff. Criminals know how far
they can go and how much they can get away with, so if the state
sends a strong message to them, they will probably hear it.
MS. STANDFORD relayed that there have been several instances of
this sort of behavior occurring in the volunteer safe homes,
which, again, are not funded. In one instance, a perpetrator
beat on the house all through the day and night for two days.
In these outlying villages, these volunteer homes are known by
all in the community as a safe home - as safe shelter. There
have even been instances of women and children running to these
shelters with their perpetrators still chasing them. "We really
do need additional help in keeping the victims safe and also
keeping shelter staff safe," she said, and asked the committee
to send a strong message that acts of violence and/or
trespassing will be taken seriously. She asked the committee to
give strong consideration to ensuring that the bill applies to
any acts of violence on a shelter's premises, not just crimes
against persons.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 213.
3:13:11 PM
RICK SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL), relayed
that the term, "recognized" was added to delineate between
someone's private home and a shelter situation. When criminal
laws are drafted, he explained, the DOL attempts to define each
term as best it can so that a case won't be voided for
vagueness, and surmised that by including the term,
"recognized", a jury will be instructed to use a person's common
understanding of that term and will then have to consider
whether the incident involved a person who merely allowed a
victim on the run from a perpetrator to stay in the back of the
person's store for a few minutes, for example, or whether it
involved a facility that is specifically operated to provide
shelter for people.
MR. SVOBODNY suggested that one way of easily dealing with the
issue of which offenses are covered is to say that they must be
crimes that involve domestic violence as defined under Title 18.
And because HB 213 proposes to add an aggravating factor to
statute, it will only legally apply in felony cases, although in
situations where a perpetrator is only charged with a
misdemeanor crime, a prosecutor could then point out to the
sentencing judge that an aggravating factor would have applied
had the same crime risen to a felony level.
MR. SVOBODNY, with regard to the question of what would happen
if a victim sought shelter in a someone's private residence and
the victim's perpetrator attempted to get at him/her, explained
that the DOL already treats crimes that occur in private
residences as more serious than crimes that occur in some other
type of building, and HB 213 will do something similar but via
the proposed aggravating factor. In other words, regardless of
what the ensuing crime is, if an offender unlawfully enters
and/or remains in a private residence to commit a crime, it
would be considered a class B felony simply because the offender
entered and/or remained in a private residence to commit that
crime. Currently, without HB 213, if a perpetrator broke into a
shelter, he/she could be charged with a class A misdemeanor.
However, such an incident could involve circumstances about
which a prosecutor could argue that a shelter is also a dwelling
depending on what part of the shelter the perpetrator entered.
3:19:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether, if the committee goes with
Mr. Svobodny's suggestion to have the bill apply only to crimes
that involve domestic violence as defined under Title 18, the
bill would apply to someone who broke into a shelter with the
intent to commit another crime even if no further crime is
committed, and whether it would apply to arson at a shelter.
MR. SVOBODNY indicated that it would apply to instances
involving arson, and reiterated that entering or remaining in a
building unlawfully in order to commit another crime is in and
of itself an offense, though there could be difficulty in
proving a person's intent. For example, if a person is outside
a shelter creating a disturbance and promising to break in and
promising to hurt someone once inside, that behavior could rise
to the level of a class C felony, or, if the person gets inside
and gets as far as attempting to break into the victim's
individual room, that crime could rise to the level of burglary
in the first degree.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said:
This generally looks like a good starting point, but
it doesn't look to me like it covers some crimes that
ought to be covered, and it covers [some] that [it]
shouldn't because they're misdemeanors. For example,
harassment under subsection (h) is a misdemeanor, I
believe; (g), violating a protective order, is a
misdemeanor. Certain crimes against the person would
be misdemeanors, too, but that would shake itself out
if you just said, "under 11.41". But I think there
are some others that are not included in here that
ought to be, such as solicitation to commit any of
these crimes - which means getting somebody else to do
it - ... any of the conspiracy statutes that apply
ought to be on here, and I think there's some weapons
offenses that aren't on here that ought to be.
MR. SVOBODNY said he agrees with those comments in part,
specifically with the idea of including crimes involving
solicitation. With regard to the misdemeanors that
Representative Gruenberg mentioned, he pointed out that they
wouldn't be covered anyway because aggravating factors only
apply to felony crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether crimes involving
conspiracy or crimes involving weapons ought to be included.
MR. SVOBODNY said that with regard to conspiracy, there are only
a few crimes that conspiracy applies to, one being homicide and
another being sexual assault. With regard to weapons offenses,
he indicated that he would have no opposition to including them,
adding that if a convicted felon possesses a firearm and takes
it onto a shelter's premises, it ought to be treated as an
aggravated offense.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Conceptual Amendment 1, and
explained that it would make the bill also apply to offenses
that affect persons or property on the premises; Conceptual
Amendment 1 read [original punctuation provided]:
p 1 l 5 after "on" add "or to affect persons or
property on"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Svobodny whether any crimes
other than those that have already been discussed ought to be
added to HB 213.
MR. SVOBODNY indicated that he knows of no other crimes.
3:26:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, and explained that it would cover someone who is
not physically on the premises but who takes an action that
affects persons or property on the premises: for example,
someone standing across the street from a shelter and shooting a
gun at the building or its residents or staff.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL characterized the change proposed by
Conceptual Amendment 1 as a good idea, conceptually. She
mentioned, though, that she doesn't want the bill changed such
that it gets out hand and applies to "twenty other kinds of
crimes."
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether there were any objections to
Conceptual Amendment 1. There being none, Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:28:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2 such that proposed AS 12.55.155(c)(34) would apply
to crimes that involve domestic violence as defined in AS
18.66.990, solicitation to commit "any of these domestic violent
crimes listed," conspiracy as it would apply already to certain
of these crimes, and felony weapons offenses.
MR. LUCKHAUPT, in response to a question, said that the problem
with using the definition of a crime involving domestic violence
is that it requires the victim of the crime to be a household
member of the offender, and so if the intended victim of the
perpetrator's act is an employee, the crime would no longer be
covered.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL, in response to a question, concurred that
Conceptual Amendment 2 is too broad.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report CSHB 213(HES), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
213(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:31 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|