Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/04/1995 02:05 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 104 - DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE RECORDS CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced the bill had been heard previously in the HESS Committee, along with similar legislation. Number 1641 ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott, said at the last hearing on HB 104 the committee asked Representative Kott to work with the Department of Law (DOL) to specify what type of information was being referred to in disclosing information concerning a juvenile arrested for a crime that would have been a felony had the juvenile been an adult. MR. MOURANT said he worked with Ms. Knuth of the DOL, and now HESS Committee members will find the information in question on page 1, line 14 of version K of the bill. The information for disclosure now includes the juvenile's name, the date and place of the offense, and the description and nature of the offense. Number 1670 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked if this information was proper. He asked if Mr. Mourant was referring to the offense, or the alleged offense. MR. MOURANT said the disclosed information would include the offense with which the juvenile is charged. It is an alleged offense at that stage, and it is the offense named in the charge. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY questioned that there may be trouble with the interpretations of that. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said representatives from the DOL were available to answer questions. Number 1689 MR. MOURANT said basically, those are the only changes in the legislation that was presented previously to HESS Committee members. He pointed out, however, that changing the focus of HB 104 to what amounts to "police blotter" information should quell the concerns of the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) agencies threatened with the loss of funding because of the source of the information. He also noted that the fiscal notes should be zero. MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, said she would read the offense of line 15 to relate back to line 10, which says, "notwithstanding AS 47.10.093(a), when a juvenile has been arrested by a peace officer for commission of an offense...." She would infer that it is an alleged offense. To have or not have the word "alleged" would not make a difference, but it could certainly be added without a negative impact on the bill. MS. KNUTH said the point of the CS was to narrow the information being released by the police so it was not the full report. The CS mandates "police blotter" information. There is still the problem, however, that the police will not be able to disclose further information such as the dismissal of charges on the next day if the arrest was the result of a mistaken identity, or if the charges are reduced. That is just the inherent problem with the disclosure of juvenile information in this situation. Number 1822 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if it was therefore Ms. Knuth's testimony that HB 104 would not authorize the release of subsequent police findings. MS. KNUTH said he was correct. This is because those subsequent actions are going to be taken by the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) and by the DOL, and that is the type of information the federal government has held cannot be distributed to the public without jeopardizing federal funds. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Mourant why the legislature would want to limit the release of such information to the commission of a felony. Misdemeanors are certainly not as serious as felonies, but they are certainly offensive crimes. At this point, the policy of Alaska has been to protect minors from their own acts of irresponsibility. Representative Vezey thinks the approach of this bill is to bring public and peer pressure on board as a force in trying to get people to conform to society's rules and laws. He asked again why disclosure would be limited to felonies, when most violations will be misdemeanors, including car theft. Number 1895 MR. MOURANT said the intent of restricting the scope of disclosures to felonies was for two purposes. The first was to just disclose the nature of extremely serious crimes that fall into the felony category. The second was to not cause disclosure of minor offenses committed by juveniles. MR. MOURANT said he was not sure about Representative Vezey's juvenile history, but Mr. Mourant got arrested during spring break in Fort Lauderdale, Florida for throwing water balloons at passing cars. Co-Chair Bunde said the Chair would make a note of that. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what punishment he received. MR. MOURANT recalled that unfortunately, the police officer notified the local police, and they greeted Mr. Mourant at the door of his house with his parents. The punishment was justly rewarded by his father. Number 1930 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if Mr. Mourant did not therefore think it appropriate for that type of information to be in the police blotter. MR. MOURANT did not feel the appropriateness was the issue of the legislation. The intent of the legislation is to notify educators and the general public of extremely serious offenses, not to pass judgement on what is appropriate in the big picture of arrests and charges. Number 1964 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the disclosure was only to school records. MR. MOURANT answered no. This is police blotter information, therefore it is all crimes that would have been felonies had the offender been an adult. Number 1988 MARGARET BERCK, Attorney, Representative of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), urged the committee to not pass the bill. She asked the committee whether permanently labeling children is really the answer they seek, and if that is good public policy. MS. BERCK noted the current CS would allow for the release of arrest information with respect to juveniles to be made public. She said arrest information is the kind of information that has not been tested by a grand jury proceeding, a preliminary hearing or prosecutorial screening. In essence, arrest-type information is shaky at best. It reminds her of a very famous line in the movie "Casablanca." The movie ended with, "Round up the usual suspects." MS. BERCK asked to share with HESS Committee members a conversation she had with a respected Juneau businessman last week about the disclosure of juvenile records. As a juvenile, this man had many problems with the law. However, because juvenile records were kept confidential, he was able to put his past behind him. He became an Alaska State Trooper, a top level official in the U.S. military service, and today he is a respected businessman in Juneau. Number 2070 MS. BERCK said that man's position is that if the information about him had been released, he would not have been given many choices. Who knows where he would have ended up. However, it would not be in the position he is in today. For these reasons, the ACLU would ask the committee to consider whether or not making public juvenile arrest records is really going to resolve the problems that exist in the juvenile justice system today. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how old the trooper was. MS. BERCK said the man is probably in his early 50s. Number 2107 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY felt the world was a lot safer 35 years ago. Juveniles threw water balloons, and were spanked by their father. It was a gentler, kinder world at that time. Today, car theft or assault on a 13-year-old girl is not something that can be tolerated anymore. The world is different now, and HB 104 is addressing this different world. It is not addressing the pranks of a 12-year-old. It is addressing murder, rape, assault, car theft, and everything else committed by a 13-, 14-, or 15-year-old. MS. BERCK understand the legislature passed a bill last year that made some of the most serious felony offenses public. Ms. Berck recently represented a 16-year-old robber in juvenile court. All of that was public under the new bill. Therefore, under what the legislature did last year, some of the felonies Co-Chair Toohey just mentioned are already covered under existing laws, and subject to considerable disclosure. Those hearings are even made public. MS. BERCK said HB 104 expands disclosure even more. If someone breaks a window, more likely than not he/she has committed a felony due to the high costs of windows. Somebody who steals a car valued over $500 is committing a felony also. MS. BERCK did not know what the gentleman did when he was a youth. His position also was that he would not want his children's ability to go forward in their lives impacted by labeling such as disclosure of juvenile arrest records in felony cases. Number 2203 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if SB 54 (the juvenile waiver bill passed last year) covered what HB 104 covers. MR. MOURANT said HB 104 does touch on some of the elements, but it does not nearly encompass all the possibilities that are in HB 104. DENNIS GREGORY, Teacher, Butte Elementary School, Mat-Su Valley; and Member, Juvenile Violence Task Force; spoke in favor of HB 104. He recognizes the rights of Alaska's youth, and he wants to defend the youth just as much as everyone else. However, the world of today is very different, as Co-Chair Toohey said. As an example of that, in Mat-Su Valley this year there has been over 45 expulsions from the school district as a result of violent crime or drug use. MR. GREGORY noted that those students can go to another school district anonymously, without the teachers knowing any information about them. As a school district representative, Mr. Gregory can attest that the school district does not want to pry into the private lives of families or children. However, certain information is necessary in order to educate those children properly and completely. By the word "completely," Mr. Gregory meant knowing the students "hot buttons, cold buttons, and by knowing what they might necessarily require in terms of special help and assistance." MR. GREGORY said the task force he is on is not just a school task force. It is a community and business task force. The people who are running shopping centers do not want some of the expelled students hanging out in their shopping centers, which is what is currently happening. The task force would like to have enough funding to keep the students in the school district in alternative types of programs. Since that is not the case, the security help in the shopping areas needs to be able to go to a source to find out the child's past run-ins with the law. MR. GREGORY continued that the security people need to know if the child has a history of being a drug pusher or has a history of petty theft. The security people need to know if the child is even more dangerous than that, if he or she has violent or sexually aggressive tendencies. Mr. Gregory feels very strongly that this bill is necessary. Number 2311 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that HB 104 only relates to people being arrested, not convicted. Therefore, the public does not know whether or not these youth, who have been exposed for one reason or another, have been convicted of a crime. They might have been arrested, but maybe the law has not been able to find them guilty. Representative Brice asked if the bill should not state that the information is released upon conviction of a crime, versus the mere arrest. TAPE 95-34, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that his question was posed as consideration to the sponsor of the bill, to Mr. Gregory, and to the Chair. However, it was a rhetorical question, as he knew at the time of conviction, information could not be released without loss of federal funding. MR. GREGORY said business people would like to know if students have been arrested and are hanging out in their shopping centers. Mr. Gregory said the teachers would like to know if students are currently involved in the court system. In his opinion, the public needs to know whether students have been arrested as well as convicted. CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt what is being left unsaid by those who sit at the table with Co-Chair Bunde is that if any legislator was arrested, it would be on the front page. However, if the charges were removed, that news would be on the back page. Co-Chair Bunde said he is very aware of the different world of today. He is also very concerned about establishing and requiring personal responsibility. People who operate under a heavy cloak of anonymity are able to do things they would not do if their parents and the community knew what they were up to. Number 099 CO-CHAIR BUNDE conceded that on the other hand, he does not want anyone branded. The younger the person is, the greater the chances of rehabilitation. People do live up to or down to the expectations placed upon them. It is a balancing act. Co-Chair Bunde asked everyone to keep in mind the phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty." Co-Chair Bunde asked Mr. Mourant to speak on whether conviction would be a more appropriate time to share the information rather than the time of arrest. MR. MOURANT asked Representative Brice to recall previous hearings on HB 104. The intent of the bill was initially to display records after the court proceedings had taken place. The sponsor of the bill was informed by the DHSS that disclosure at that time would cost the state literally millions of dollars of federal funding for programs in that agency. For that reason, the legislation was changed to police blotter information. Number 189 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said the bill clearly states that in an offense that would have been a felony if committed by an adult, the following information about a juvenile may be disclosed by the entity employing the police officer. She asked how much he felt that "may" is going to be used. She also asked who is going to determine whether the name of the youth, etc., is going to be placed into the police blotter. MR. MOURANT assumed that if a publication contacts a local police department for information on police blotter arrests, this type of information would be included with that. However, it is certainly not required that the information be included. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the way he reads it, if the police department is asked, it may provide the information. However, he thinks most police departments are very busy and they would not be offering that information through press releases. MR. MOURANT felt Co-Chair Bunde was correct. His office assumes the disclosure would be in response to public inquiry. Number 272 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE assumed it would only take the filing of one Freedom of Information request to make the police departments discontinue the use of that discretion. He asked why there was no fiscal note associated with disclosure prior to conviction. There is only a fiscal note attached after conviction. While the "may" might allow permissiveness, it will become, without a doubt, a wide-open door for the disclosure of all juvenile matters. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE knows of incidences in which juveniles have been arrested, not convicted, for doing silly things. Those juveniles have since become very productive citizens. Their chances may have been hampered had their crimes been disclosed. Those juveniles were never convicted, but they were arrested. Representative Brice felt the "may" in the bill is just as good as a "shall." To say that the bill is permissive is misleading. CO-CHAIR BUNDE respectfully disagreed. He viewed the bill as stipulating if there is public interest, and the press desires the information, then the information will be requested. At that point, the police department "may" give that information. It may be that there is community outrage. In Fairbanks, the community was outraged when vandals tore up a school. If there was that much public interest, the press would go to the police department. Once the police department was asked, the department "may" give that information. CO-CHAIR BUNDE still did not feel, however, that the police department would disseminate the information without a request. Therefore, if a crime involves minor shoplifting or a window- breaking, that information would be available should the press ask. However, if the press does not ask, that information will probably not come out. Number 459 CO-CHAIR BUNDE is of the understanding that the information must be disclosed before the trial because juveniles are adjudicated in the DFYS arena. If the information is released after the child is involved with DFYS (which occurs immediately after arrest), there will be a loss of millions in federal funding. If disclosure happens before the juvenile is adjudicated, that threat does not come into play. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if she was assuming the fiscal notes in the bill packet are no longer applicable to the CS HB 104. Number 510 MR. MOURANT said he would prefer to have the agency answer that question, but he would assume the fiscal notes are no longer valid as the new bill no longer risks federal funding. He would assume DHSS fiscal notes would now be zero. Number 527 LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant to Commissioner Ronald L. Otte, Department of Public Safety (DPS), addressed Representative Brice's question. It is her understanding that currently, as a matter of course, if a juvenile is charged as an adult at the time of arrest, the troopers automatically do a press release. That press release is placed automatically on the Alaska Public Safety Information Network (APSIN). Then that press release is placed on a police blotter, so the press can glean information. She believes that is how the bill would work for the DHSS. MS. LUCAS said the DPS does not anticipate any fiscal impact. The department would simply perform the same actions it does for adults at this time. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he stood corrected. However, he asked how there could be no fiscal impact. If all the juveniles are placed into the system and then press releases are published, there are going to be many more press releases. MS. LUCAS said, as a matter of course, when a case report is done, this press release is something that is done as part of that report. It would not require any additional work than is currently performed for these felony crimes. Number 600 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the assumption is then in reality (pragmatically speaking) the bill is a "shall" disclose rather than a "may" disclose. MS. LUCAS believed the information would be handled in the same way adult information is handled. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if therefore, the information release was not discretionary. She indicated he was correct. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY submitted that there would perhaps be a reduction in cost to the state and the DPS, if the juvenile arrest did not have to be sorted out from all the other arrests before a press release was made. All the information would be available to the public, and there would be little editing. Therefore, there may be less total work involved. Number 646 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Lucas if she could see a way in which the disclosure of the information was permissive, and the juvenile information would be available upon request, but it was not offered. MS. LUCAS felt she could not respond to that at this time. She would have to check. CO-CHAIR BUNDE did not think it was as important that "Johnny broke a $500 window," as "Johnny broke into the high school and destroyed $50,000 worth of computers." MS. LUCAS felt that would be the intent of the legislation, and policies and procedures could be adopted to carry that out. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY repeated that the world is not so kind anymore. If Johnny is going to break a $500 window, there is going to have to be punishment, unless the window was broken by a softball on accident. If the police or state troopers are involved, however, Johnny's vandalism is a problem. The boy's name gets in the paper. A neighbor may call another neighbor and ask, what happened with Johnny? The neighbor would then reply, "Oh, he broke a window." CO-CHAIR TOOHEY felt these things can be explained. The state is hiding these juveniles to the point where they are killing people. She has heard many of her constituents ask why the names of juveniles are not released. The names should be released. Number 756 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE followed up on the last comment by saying, "Maybe if they are found guilty." ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to Commissioner Perdue, DHSS, believed HESS Committee members were previously provided with a set of fiscal notes from DFYS that referred to the Sponsor Substitute (SS) for HB 104. At that point in the bill's evolution, the DHSS believed the bill would jeopardize approximately $6 million in federal funding. The belief was based on an opinion from the federal government relating to disclosure (what is and is not permitted). MR. LINDSTROM said basically, as soon as a juvenile comes to the attention of the DHSS and the DHSS becomes involved in that juvenile's situation, the door slams shut on confidentiality. It would jeopardize federal funds to release information about that juvenile. The latest CS of HB 104 is constructed to attempt to identify the single point in time the DHSS can identify in which information can be shared but it is not yet in the possession of DHSS. There is no involvement of the DHSS at this time, and therefore, federal funding is not jeopardized. MR. LINDSTROM fully anticipates a zero fiscal note on CSHB 104 as it is currently presented. Having said that, he knows the DFYS shares the unease of the DOL and the DPS. He does not know how to get out of that box. Under this bill, information would be released about a juvenile who has been charged with a crime by the police. If subsequent proceedings show the juvenile did not do what was alleged, there is no opportunity to correct the record for that juvenile. It is an issue of fairness, and truly a balancing act. Number 922 CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony and opened committee discussion. He said he is torn on the balancing act. He has heard from his constituents as well--they are tired of the serious juvenile offenders hiding in the system. Co-Chair Bunde feels (acknowledging he grew up in another era) that if the juvenile's friends, peers, family members, etc., knew of the crime, they would place public pressure on the juvenile. Maybe that would save some children from the pattern of unpunished behavior which escalates to serious crime with serious consequences. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the committee felt it was possible to write intent language. Where it says "may," the police department would release information upon request, rather than release information as a matter of course. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said all that would need to be done is amend the CS to state, after "may," "upon the request of interested parties," "...be disclosed." There are a few things Representative Brice would like to bring up. First, juvenile misconduct does not necessarily go unpunished. It is not heard about because that information is sealed. However, the youth facilities are full. The social workers are quite busy keeping up with these children. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that when the persons who damaged the school in Fairbanks were apprehended, it was, as expected, a 21- year-old and a 19-year-old who were fully disclosed. Those two were leading that group. Number 1055 CO-CHAIR BUNDE understands the facilities are full. Unfortunately, he feels they are filled up with those who have committed a lot of serious crime. Co-Chair Bunde remembers testimony at a town meeting in Anchorage in which a 21-year-old said he began breaking the law when he was about 13, and he would be in and out of the youth facility before the paperwork was done. It was a challenge and a joke. Human nature tends to be such that if you get away with a little bit today, you will try a little bit more tomorrow. That individual kept getting away with crimes until finally he was placed in jail for one year. It was serious. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said whether that man would have been one in which the consequence of having his name disclosed would have affected him is open to discussion. However, that early intervention is what Co-Chair Bunde is trying to reach. Number 1117 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that HB 104 in no way addresses that. He has continually asked the sponsor of this legislation to provide some empirical proof. This type of disclosure is being done in other states. Every time Representative Brice asks if this disclosure works, the sponsor's office does not know. It would be nice, if HESS Committee members are going to make decisions of this magnitude, to at least have some understanding as to the effectiveness of the action. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said Co-Chair Bunde brings out a very important point. The system does not recognize juvenile problems until it is too late. He could not agree with Co-Chair Bunde more about the need to address that problem. However, he does not see that publishing the names of possibly innocent people could be any deterrence. CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt the committee was in agreement right up to the topic concerning whether disclosure is a deterrent, and whether more good will be accomplished through disclosure. Obviously, some people will suffer. However, will there be more good accomplished than harm? That is a question HESS Committee members must wrestle with. Number 1202 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY has a lot of faith in the police department. She does not think the police are arresting teens who have just come from a Boy Scout meeting. They are arresting teens who are in precarious positions. This bill will address those kids, and shake them up so they realize maybe they are going to be treated like adults. It is necessary. Co-Chair Toohey feels it is about time something is done, and she supports the bill. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Mourant how he felt on the proposed change in the CS, that information "may be disclosed upon request." MR. MOURANT said that would be under Co-Chair Bunde's discretion. He does not think the change is necessary because his office feels police officers are carefully conducting their role in society and their charge. However, if the committee thinks it is in the best interest of the public to put such an amendment in the bill, that is entirely up to the committee's discretion. Number 1260 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the Chair will propose just such an amendment, and see what the wisdom of the committee determines. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said on line 12, page 1, after "may" would be an appropriate place for the amendment. CO-CHAIR BUNDE agreed. He suggested, "may be disclosed upon request," or "may, upon request, be disclosed by the entity." CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said the juvenile's name, date and place of offense is going to be listed. She asked if it was going to be made clear in the police blotter that this was a juvenile. She asked how the public is going to know if the person is a juvenile. MR. MOURANT said the public will not know it is a juvenile. The age of the offender is not called for. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said therefore, a broken window is not going to be public news. A stabbing is public news, or of interest to the newspaper. A broken window would not necessarily be of interest to the newspaper. MR. MOURANT would assume she is correct. Number 1348 CO-CHAIR BUNDE moved on page 1, line 12, the line be amended to read, "...about the juvenile upon request may be disclosed by the entity employing the peace officer...." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY spoke against the amendment. He felt the amendment only adds confusion. He surmised that reporters only go to the police station and ask for the police blotter. They don't ask that people be put in or taken out. He does not feel the police will ask if the reporter wants the juvenile information also, and the reporter will say, don't give me the names of the nice children. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the reporter may, under this amendment, have to name the juvenile he or she wants the information about. The reporter would not have that information. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the reporter could, however, name the offense. He would surmise that a major felony could occur that was of interest to the community. That is where disclosure would be requested. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt unless HESS Committee members were successful in changing the law, vandalism in any degree is still a misdemeanor. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said if the damage amounted to over $500, the vandalism is a felony. Co-Chair Bunde said he has never been in the news business, but he cannot imagine a reporter asking the police to tell him/her about all the felony arrests made the previous night. He feels reporters would request specific information. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what the reporters are going to request. If there is not a police record, the reporters are not going to know there was a crime. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the police records are there, but the report is not turned out as a press release. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the bill does not allow for the police records to be released. It only allows for police blotter information to be released. He submitted police reports for juveniles are not available under current law. Number 1489 MS. KNUTH noted that police departments do prepare police blotters. That is a listing of all the arrests made in the last 24 hours. If the list contains juveniles, the names are crossed out. Reporters do go to the police and ask for lists. If the statute was changed to read, "upon request," that would be the type of request. The reporter would get the blotter that shows what all the arrests were. The reporter would then note that in certain cases of interest the names have been blocked out because the arrests involved minors. He or she would then request the names. The reporter would then get the names. MS. KNUTH said therefore, the "upon request," does not make disclosure discretionary. It simply adds a layer of work to the process. Number 1530 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Ms. Knuth if that would, in turn, add to the fiscal note. MS. KNUTH felt expense would be added, but it would most likely be municipal expense. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said the state certainly does not want to pass that cost onto the municipality. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said his goal is to allow disclosure, but to minimize the impact in instances where disclosure was not appropriate. MS. LUCAS said she cannot speak for local law enforcement as to how much more work this would require. She surmises it would result in some additional work. The additional language may slow down other tasks in order to accommodate the requests. If the information was simply part of the police blotter, the reporter could request the names of the juveniles if they were blocked out. CO-CHAIR BUNDE did not wish to have police departments "jumping through hoops." It appears that his amendment would not accomplish what he is hoping to resolve. He withdrew the amendment. Number 1600 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved CSSSHB 104(HES) be passed from the House HESS committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. He added that the new fiscal notes should be zero. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected in order to make a quick point. He asked if the bill had not been passed from committee before. He asked what the difference was between HB 104 and HB 15. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the previous bill addresses only schools. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that bill was HB 124, not HB 15. HB 15 was Representative Therriault's bill, and it was moved from committee early in the session. Representative Brice was concerned the HESS Committee was repeating tasks. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY remembered Representative Therriault's bill dealt with the release of records at a different stage in adjudication. It did not deal with this particular section of the statute. Number 1654 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said when HB 104 came to the HESS Committee, it dealt with the exact same stage of the process as Representative Therriault's bill. Representative Brice is concerned that efforts are being duplicated, and time is being wasted. He said both bills are probably going to be going to the same committee, and that would waste more time for those committees. CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt there was an important difference in the bills. Representative Therriault's bill involved court records. HB 104 involves arrest records. HB 15 would run afoul with the federal prohibitions, and would have millions of dollars of impact. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt that was the point. HB 104, in its earlier version, dealt with the exact same thing. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said HB 15 dealt with court records. That would disclose information after the adjudication. The state cannot release information after the adjudication without serious federal penalties. Number 1718 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the two bills were very close. One has been passed, and now another is going to be passed. He asked why the earlier bill cannot be changed in the committee in which it sits. CO-CHAIR BUNDE could not predict the actions of another committee. However, he did not feel these discussions wasted time. If there have been three bills about this topic by representatives reflecting the concerns of their various constituencies, this is obviously an important issue to the people of Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the problem is that one bill moves, not all three. The HESS Committee has already moved one bill. Number 1750 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that at the time when that bill was moved, the HESS Committee members thought there would be no impact on federal funds. However, because those problems cannot be addressed, the bill is, in Co-Chair Bunde's mind, moot. HB 104 has a zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE withdrew his objection. CO-CHAIR BUNDE reminded HESS Committee members there had been a motion to move CSSSHB 104(HES) from committee with accompanying fiscal notes, and the understanding that the fiscal notes will change. He expressed continuing frustration with the bill, but as there was no objection to its passage, it passed. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Mourant to provide new fiscal notes to the members of the Judiciary Committee, which is the next committee of referral.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|