Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/11/2011 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB86 | |
| HB127 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 86 | ||
SB 86-PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE ADULTS/MINORS
1:34:46 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 86 and asked for
a motion to adopt the new work draft committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt CS for SB 86, version 27-
GS1722\X, as the working document.
1:35:03 PM
CHAIR FRENCH objected for the purpose of an explanation. He
directed attention to a memorandum from his office, which
outlined the basic changes between the previous version B and
the current version X, and noted that each change was carefully
examined at the last hearing. First, the CS clarifies the
references to the three types of protective orders: 1) ex parte,
2) six-month, and 3) permanent. Some of the language in [Sec.
13.26.209] was redrafted to correspond to similar provisions for
modifications in the domestic violence [protective order]
statutes. The second change removed the seemingly redundant
phrase, "at the earliest opportunity," from the reporting
requirements [in AS 47.24.010(e)], because there is a clear 24-
hour deadline for [police officers or village public safety
officers to notify the department] when a report of harm is
received. It's a potentially chargeable offense for police
officers who fail to do this. Finally, the CS clarifies that the
September effective date applies only to Sections 16 and 20 of
the bill.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection and announced that without
further objection, version X was before the committee. He noted
that Elizabeth Russo and Scott Sterling, with the Office of
Public Advocacy, and Brenda Mahlatini, with Adult Protective
Services, were available to provide information and answer
questions.
1:36:42 PM
ELIZABETH RUSSO, Supervising Attorney, Public Guardian Section,
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA), Department of Administration
(DOA), stated that SB 86 would be a great help to their clients
and people who would become their clients.
1:37:43 PM
SCOTT STERLING, Supervising Attorney, Elder Fraud and
Assistance, Department of Administration (DOA), stated support
for the changes reflected in version X, CS for SB 86.
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and announced that further
testimony would be by invitation. He asked Ms. Henriksen to
discuss the remaining housekeeping issue.
1:38:24 PM
KELLY HENRIKSEN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law (DOL) informed the committee that she
represents Health and Social Services (DHSS). Directing
attention to the span site on page 6, line 11, she suggested
that it would avoid conflict to narrow the citation to include
just the new protective order rules, Sec. 13.26.207 - 209.
Including the existing AS 13.26.165 would cause confusion
because it relates to protective orders for conservatorships,
she said.
CHAIR FRENCH recapped the suggestion and noted that the span
site appears in a number of other locations after the initial
reference on page 6, line 11.
1:40:27 PM
CHAIR FRENCH offered Conceptual Amendment 1.
Replace the span site citation AS 13.26.165 -
13.26.209 with AS 13.26.207 - 13.26.209 in conformity
with the discussion about referring to ex parte, six-
month and permanent protective orders.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI objected. He noted that page 6, line 16,
refers to AS 13.26.185, which is outside the span site. That may
or may not be an issue.
MS. HENRIKSEN said that particular provision deals with notice,
and she isn't suggesting a change to that citation.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted additional references to AS 13.26.165
on page 7, including a reference in the definitions section.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Henriksen if she intended to change the
reference on page 7, line 16.
MS. HENRIKSEN answered yes, and added that she would suggest a
change anywhere it occurs in AS 13.26.209.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out that the same issue occurs on
page 8, line 16, and page 8, line 23.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Henriksen if she was seeking to change
those references.
MS. HENRIKSEN answered yes.
1:42:49 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN referenced page 8, line 16 that talks about a
central registry, and asked if she wanted the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) to maintain a central registry of protective
orders for any statutes between AS 13.26.165 and 207.
MS. HENRIKSEN answered no.
SENATOR FRENCH cited eight references to AS 13.26.165 on page 6,
lines 1 and 31; page 7, lines 3, 4, 8, 16; page 8, lines 16 and
23 and noted that there were potentially others.
1:43:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out an additional reference on page
2, lines 18 and 23.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that there were at least 10 references,
and potentially more, for the drafter to change.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if these deletions would be a simple
drafting issue or a substantive change.
MS. HENRIKSEN replied the change is substantive in effect,
because it removes substantive provisions from applying to AS
13.26.165.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that the definition of "protective
services" includes a reference to AS 13.26.165 under AS
47.24.900(11)(E) on page 19. He asked if the intention was to
remove 165 from the petition for protective orders under that
definition.
MS. HENRIKSEN said no; Sec. 47.24 deals with the protection of
vulnerable adults, and is different than a protective order
under the conservatorship statutes.
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that it can't be a bill-wide
amendment, because Title 18 and Title 47 are different than
Title 11 in that regard.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked for confirmation that the reference to AS
13.26.165, on page 19, line 18, should be retained.
MS. HENRIKSEN replied it's appropriate to include AS 13.26.165
in the span site in that location.
1:46:17 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI suggested the committee get a clean draft
before moving the bill.
CHAIR FRENCH said he'd hold that thought until the motion on the
conceptual amendment to fix the span sites was complete.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if separate motions would be necessary
since the span sites appear in more than Title 13.
1:47:55 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI reiterated that he would be more
comfortable if the drafter were to prepare a new CS.
CHAIR FRENCH agreed it was appropriate to get a clean CS that
incorporates the changes that the committee made.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented that, at this point, he wasn't
sure what the amendment includes.
1:48:29 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Henriksen to state the basic idea of the
amendment.
MS. HENRIKSEN said the basic idea is to consider a change
anyplace a span site includes AS 13.26.165 because that section
of statute deals just with protective orders in
conservatorships. Those are a different type than the new 20-day
and six-month protective orders that the bill seeks to address.
She offered to walk through the bill.
CHAIR FRENCH said he understood, but he wanted to make sure that
the committee members do too.
1:50:01 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said it would be helpful to understand the
context for 209 under Title 13 as opposed to Title 18.
SENATOR COGHILL moved an amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1 to
take up amendments for just Sec. 13.26.209 on pages 6 and 7.
CHAIR FRENCH said he'd accept that as a friendly amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 1. Finding no objection, he announced that
the committee would consider just the span site changes within
Sec. 13.26.209 located on pages 6 and 7. He noted that there was
still a motion to change the initial citation from Sec.
13.26.165 to 207.
SENATOR COGHILL said his understanding was that this is a
compliance form dealing with protective orders that do not
relate primarily to conservatorships.
MS. HENRIKSEN said that's correct.
SENATOR COGHILL said he had no objection.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if there was further discussion or debate on
the proposed amendment.
MS. HENRIKSEN added that any changes to Title 18 that include
that span site would need to be amended because those only apply
to the 20-day or six-month protective orders.
1:52:21 PM
CHAIR FRENCH acknowledged the suggestion and announced that
without further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1, [as amended]
was adopted.
CHAIR FRENCH directed attention to Sections 13 and 14 on page 8,
that amend Title 18. He asked Ms. Henriksen if the same span
site reference, [AS 13.25.165] was inappropriate with respect to
the types of protective orders that should be maintained within
the central registry.
MS. HENRIKSEN answered yes.
SENATOR COGHILL asked what the title heading is for AS
18.65.540(a) and (b).
1:53:36 PM
CHAIR FRENCH reviewed the statutes and reported that Sec.
18.65.540 is entitled "Central registry of protective orders."
He asked Ms. Henriksen why the protective orders in AS 13.26.165
shouldn't be included in the central registry.
MS. HENRIKSEN replied that is existing law on conservatorships,
and it's not clear how "protective order" is defined in AS
13.26.165 in terms of context, but it talks about having a
conservator appointed or a single order from the court to have a
trustee changed. It's substantively different than what would be
in either the 20-day or six-month protective orders.
CHAIR FRENCH stated that when he read AS 13.26.165 he wondered
why the idea of a protective order shouldn't be removed from
that section altogether. It doesn't seem to be the right concept
for what's happening as opposed to what the bill does in Sec.
207 - 209.
SENATOR COGHILL said that was his thought as well.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if, in part, it's because violation of some
protective orders don't rise to the level of a crime.
MS. HENRIKSEN said she believes so, but it's doesn't necessarily
involve a third party committing fraud against someone who is
the subject of a petition. It's much broader than that, and
would change the intent of these particular changes to Sec.
13.26, she said.
1:56:08 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if the idea is to keep someone's name out
of the central registry if the protective order is related to
becoming a trustee or conservator as compared to the protective
orders issued under AS 13.26.207 - 209.
MS. HENRIKSEN reiterated that the subject, intent and context of
the protective order under AS 13.26.165 are completely
different. The registry is intended to keeping a bad actor from
harming someone who is the subject of a petition, which is
similar to a domestic violence protective order.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if the intent of the registry set out on
page 8, lines 16-17, is that law enforcement can know who is
potentially violating a court-ordered protective order.
MS. HENRIKSEN said she believes that is the intent.
1:57:57 PM
CHAIR FRENCH called an at-ease from 1:57 p.m. to 2:01 p.m. to do
some research on protective orders.
2:01:55 PM
CHAIR FRENCH moved Conceptual Amendment 2.
Page 8, lines 16 and 17: Replace the span site AS
13.26.165 - 209 with Sec. 13.26.207 - 209.
Page 8, line [23]: Replace AS 13.26.165 - 208 with
Sec. 13.26.207 - 208
Narrow the span site throughout the rest of the bill
where appropriate.
2:02:48 PM
MS. HENRIKSEN asked if the motion is to narrow the span site
anywhere it occurs.
CHAIR FRENCH replied the intent of the amendment is to change
the citation where it's appropriate in order to confine
prosecutions to just the new references, Sec. 13.26.207 - 209.
MS. HENRIKSEN asked for confirmation that it wouldn't include
the reference on page 19, [lines 18-19].
CHAIR FRENCH said that's correct, it would not include that
citation. The amendment would pick up the references that appear
in court rule changes. He noted that the court rule changes on
pages 22 and 23 look correct.
MS. HENRIKSEN said she would possibly have a conversation with
the drafter.
CHAIR FRENCH found no objection and announced that Conceptual
Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:04:03 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for some discussion of the
legislative reason, in Section 46 on pages 21-22, for addressing
advanced age or extreme youth.
MS. HENRIKSEN deferred to Ms. Carpeneti.
2:04:43 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law (DOL), recalled that the discussion centered
on the notion that the very old and the very young are
particularly sensitive to time. The provision asks the court to
give consideration to a victim's circumstances in every case,
and to give special consideration to a very old or very young
victim, because of the effect that a continuance or delay of
trial would have on a person in those age groups.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the rationale for including a
victim of extreme youth is to wait until the individual is old
enough to verbalize his or her testimony.
MS. CARPENETI replied the rationale is to take age into account
and set the trial earlier rather than later. Time is different
for children than for adults and a bad situation has a much
stronger effect on a young person, she stated.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said that's what he wanted to hear; a case
involving a child in a bad situation would be heard more
quickly.
MS. CARPENETI confirmed that is the intent.
2:07:33 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 86 in committee awaiting
a new CS that incorporates the conceptual amendments.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|