Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/30/1997 08:07 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 6 RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY, Sponsor, was present at the
table. Testifying were DIANE WORLEY, RUSSELL HUFFMAN,
MIKE CORKILL and ANGELA SALERNO. SENATOR DONLEY MOVED
the bill from committee with individual
recommendations. SENATOR ADAMS objected. By a vote of
6 to 1, SCSCSHB 6(FIN) was REPORTED OUT with a previous
zero fiscal note from the Department of Public Safety,
a zero fiscal note from the Department of
Administration, and fiscal notes from the Department of
Health and Social Services and the Department of Law
(22.9).
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 6(FIN) am
"An Act relating to minors and amending laws relating to the
disclosure of information relating to certain minors."
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, Sponsor, joined the committee at
the table.
DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family and Youth
Services, Department of Health and Social Services,
testified that the division continued to have concerns about
the bill. They recognized the need for some level of
disclosure, the need to protect the public, and levels of
information regarding youths and criminal acts they may be
committing. The conflicts had to do with how far the bill
went related to the mission of the agency to protect and
rehabilitate juvenile offenders while still providing
community protection. She noted the bill was not intended
to deter crime, but to provide public safety. She gave
examples of cases to illustrate the concerns and dynamics
involved with perpetrators who were also victims.
Guarantees needed to be in place to protect those that
needed treatment and services. She also expressed concern
about impeding cooperation with a family when an adjustment
would have to be disclosed. There was also the issue of
petition versus adjudication and whether they would be
disclosing on kids who would later be found innocent of
charges.
SENATOR PHILLIPS commented to MS. WORLEY on the
responsibility of families and what sounded like "social
engineering" on her part. He stated he could barely contain
his emotion on the issue and that his constituency supported
the bill and would "rip" her apart. He thought the public
had a right to know.
SENATOR DONLEY asked what the administration's position was.
MS. WORLEY stated she was speaking for the Department of
Health and Social Services. She noted that previous
testimony from Margot Knuth, of the Department of Law,
reflected the broader administration. MS. WORLEY had
limited her discussion to her department because they felt
it would affect them more broadly and they wanted to bring
up specific points they dealt with on a day to day basis.
SENATOR DONLEY commented that Section 4 related to the
authorized areas for information and development of a clear
protocol. He asked how MS. WORLEY read the language "as may
be necessary." It caused him concern because it gave the
department reason not to do what they didn't like to do.
MS. WORLEY responded that there was a need to make sure
there was reason for sharing information with those that
needed to know. SENATOR DONLEY asked if there would be a
problem with deleting that language in Section 4.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said there would not be a problem and
he was in agreement. He noted it was also in Section 5 and
other parts of existing statute.
RUSSELL HUFFMAN, M.D., Forensic Psychiatrist, Bethel,
testified that he advised the court system regarding
juvenile behavior and treated victims of crime. He had
worked with Representative Kelly to improve the bill. He
believed there needed to be more protection for children.
Children and the mentally ill receive statutory protection.
He felt the bill made it easy for those under the age of 18
to be criminally stigmatized for immature judgment. He
stated that justice was due process and the bill eroded the
steps of due process to protect children. Releasing
information about people and victims hurts people. He
referred to a recent tragedy of February 19 in Bethel as an
example of the ripple effect. No disclosures had been made,
yet everyone knew. Information about other students had
affected families, grandparents, and siblings to the extent
that some would have to leave the community. He had a
petition signed by over a hundred Bethel residents opposing
the release of information about children. He urged the
protection of children by waiting for a conviction before
releasing names. He encouraged the committee to be careful
and go slowly.
SENATOR PHILLIPS gave an example of a simple juvenile theft
and asked how DR. HUFFMAN would handle the situation. There
was brief discussion.
SENATOR ADAMS referred to a proposed Amendment #3 that would
take care of some of DR. HUFFMAN'S concerns by removing
mandatory disclosure on adjusted cases. He referred to page
6, lines 30-31,
regarding disclosure by electronic means that could be
recovered from a computer database and asked if the public
would have access to that information via the internet. He
noted that it would be in the database for five years after
authorization, even though someone could have completed a
sentence and restitution in a shorter period. He believed
it was damaging.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that it would make it easy
for the department to give constructive notice on criminal
activities through an easily accessible and relatively
inexpensive home page on the internet. There was language
in the bill providing that if a minor stayed clean, the
record could be removed from the internet page. It created
an incentive for people not to commit further crimes,
regardless of whether they had completed restitution or not.
SENATOR ADAMS stated that it could greatly affect a child's
ability to go to college, join the military or even get a
job. He suggested holding the bill to work on that and
other issues.
MIKE CORKILL, 1st Sergeant, President, Alaska Peace Officers
Association, testified in support of the bill for several
reasons. He believed the system was broken with regard to
juvenile issues. There were frustrated victims and parents
that needed to protect themselves from further
victimization. He explained that the bill related to those
well entrenched in the system and involved in recidivism.
It was no one individual's fault as to the reason the system
was not working. Juveniles needed to be held accountable
and people needed to know who the criminals were.
End SFC-97 #133, Side 1, Begin Side 2
SGT. CORKILL continued. He had been involved in youth
issues for over twenty years. In reference to a letter in
committee files, he stated the Peace Officers Association
wanted to be able to disclose a juvenile's name at the time
of arrest, just as they did with adults. He had no
objection to a change to a petition process. He noted the
DFYS would have a chance to screen. He had concern with how
and when the disclosure information would be released.
Another concern was with Section 1 regarding controlled
substances, which basically had to do with the sale of
marijuana. He was appalled that it would be added to that
section because he believed any violation of AS 11.71 should
be part of the disclosure information. It was a terrible
message to send out. He believed people had a right to know
if someone was selling any kind of controlled substance.
With regard to rehabilitation and stigmatization, he stated
that the child had "placed themself in the position they
have by their own action" rather than by the actions of
others, and there was still a need for the public to know
what was going on. To illustrate his position, he gave an
example of a Fairbanks youth who had shot a police officer.
COCHAIR PEARCE asked SGT. CORKILL to elaborate on the issue
of disclosure before adjudication. SGT. CORKILL explained
that conviction was way down the road in the course of a
several month process. He believed disclosure should be
made at the time of petition. The initial position was for
the time of arrest, but the compromise was okay. There was
a brief question and answer session regarding various crimes
defined in law.
In response to the same hypothetical theft question from
SENATOR PHILLIPS, SGT. CORKILL offered his philosophical
viewpoint based on personal experience.
COCHAIR SHARP asked when information was available to an
officer with regard to someone criminally entrenched but not
convicted. SGT. CORKILL replied that they had some
capability through the Alaska Public Safety Network. There
was brief discussion on this topic.
ANGELA SALERNO, Executive Director, National Association of
Social Workers - Alaska, testified in opposition to HB 6.
She supported the mission of the juvenile court, that being
rehabilitation and reintegration of a youth into society.
She believed the bill was a serious and radical measure.
She noted that forty percent of the population of the state
was under the age of twenty. The bill would overturn the
mission of the juvenile court. Disclosure compromised
rehabilitation and it was a punishment with far-reaching
effects. She supported Amendment #3 and didn't believe
anyone would be safer after passage of the bill. She
believed the bill may have an unintended outcome by
stigmatizing youth, narrowing options, and that it could
promote crime. MS. SALERNO stated that there was a
misperception that kids were not held accountable for their
crimes, noting there were a variety of dispositions
available for kids who commit crime.
COCHAIR PEARCE introduced members of the Saukhalin Duma from
Russia, escorted and interpreted by former Senator Victor
Fischer.
COCHAIR PEARCE offered a "what if" scenario. REPRESENTATIVE
KELLY responded, noting that many scenarios had come up and
they could not create public policy to cover all the "what
ifs." He explained that second chances had been built into
the bill. He added that serious and dangerous crimes were
addressed by the bill.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if there were any changes the sponsor
wanted in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that many
changes had already been made to address various scenarios.
He opposed large amendments at this time. SENATOR DONLEY
had concern with existing language in Section 4 and the
reluctance of the department to fulfill the intent of the
law.
SENATOR ADAMS reiterated his hope that the bill would be
held for further consideration of issues that had been
brought up. He again expressed his concern about disclosing
information on the internet for five years.
SENATOR DONLEY commented that it applied to serious crimes
and repeat offenders. He believed it was appropriate for
employers to know if they were employing those types of
people. Additional discussion and debate ensued among
SENATORS DONLEY, ADAMS, PHILLIPS and REPRESENTATIVE KELLY
regarding this issue.
COCHAIR SHARP acknowledged that SENATOR ADAMS had asked the
bill be held an additional day. SENATOR PARNELL urged the
bill be moved from committee.
SENATOR DONLEY MOVED the bill from committee with individual
recommendations. SENATOR ADAMS objected.
End SFC-97 #133, Side 2
Begin SFC-97 #134, Side 1
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Phillips, Donley, Torgerson, Parnell, Pearce,
Sharp
OPPOSED: Adams
By a vote of 6 to 1, SCSCSHB 6(FIN) was REPORTED OUT with a
previous zero fiscal note from the Department of Public
Safety, a zero fiscal note from the Department of
Administration, and fiscal notes from the Department of
Health and Social Services and the Department of Law (22.9).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|