Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/23/1995 03:05 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 23, 1995
3:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
BRIEFING: Alaska Native Health Board
* HB 104: "An Act relating to disclosures of information about
certain minors."
HEARD AND HELD
* HB 125: "An Act relating to disclosures to school officials of
information about certain minors."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
ANNE WALKER, Executive Director
Alaska Native Health Board
1345 Rudakof Circle, Suite 206
Anchorage, AK 99508
Telephone: (907) 337-0028
POSITION STATEMENT: Briefed HESS Committee members on the Alaska
Native Health Board
ROBERT J. CLARK, Chief Executive Officer
Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation
Alaska Native Health Board member
P.O. Box 130
Dillingham, AK 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5201
POSITION STATEMENT: Briefed HESS Committee members on the Alaska
Native Health Board
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
Room 432, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 104.
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant
Representative Pete Kott's Office
Room 432, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 104.
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Staff Counsel
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 264-8228
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information for HB 104 and HB 125.
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant
Department of Health and Social Services
Alaska Office Building
350 Main Street, Room 229
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 104 and HB 125.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Court Building, Room 717
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information for HB 104 and HB 125.
MELINDA GRUENING, Legislative Assistant
Representative Joe Green
Room 24, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 125.
CATHY TIBBLES, Director
Division of Family and Youth Services
Alaska Office Building
350 Main Street, Room 404
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3191
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information for HB 125.
STEVE McPHETRES, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
364 4th Street, Suite 404
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9702
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 125.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
National Education Association of Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 125.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 104
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE RECORDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT,Bunde,Green
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/20/95 101 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/20/95 101 (H) HES, JUD
01/25/95 136 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
02/10/95 301 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/10/95 301 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/10/95 301 (H) HES, JUD
02/23/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 125
SHORT TITLE: JUVENILE CRIMINAL RECORDS TO SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN,Toohey,Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/26/95 143 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/26/95 143 (H) HES, JUD
02/23/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-10, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY called the meeting of the House Health,
Education and Social Services standing committee to order at 3:05
p.m. Present at the call to order were Representatives Toohey,
Bunde, Davis, Robinson, Vezey and Rokeberg. She announced that a
quorum was present and read the calendar.
HHES - 02/23/94
BRIEFING: ALASKA NATIVE HEALTH BOARD
Number 064
ANNE WALKER, Executive Director for the Alaska Native Health Board
(ANHB), explained that the board was a statewide organization
representing the 12 regional Native health consortiums around the
state, providing health care services to Alaska Natives.
MS. WALKER handed out a briefing booklet to the HESS Committee
members. She said she would not go into detail about their many
priorities. She said the HESS Committee members had heard some of
the priorities over the years, because the ANHB presents to them on
an annual basis. She began with some public policy priorities.
She requested that HESS Committee members, as they look at cutting
the budget, keep in mind the essential public health services. She
requested that the programs not be destroyed without thought. Some
programs have taken many years to build.
MS. WALKER provided the example of the tuberculosis (TB) program.
She commended Co-Chair Toohey for being instrumental in making sure
the current TB epidemic in Northwest and Western Alaska does not
get out of hand and cause the number of deaths experienced in the
1940s and 1950s.
Number 175
MS. WALKER said at this point, there is no multi-drug resistant TB
in this state. There is, however, a strain that is drug resistant
to one drug. The ANHB is making sure that people who have active
TB are quarantined if they are not taking their medications. The
SEARHC hospital in Sitka is again being used as a TB sanitarium.
This is inappropriate for this day and age. Ms. Walker thanked the
HESS Committee members for assisting the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) in putting forth a supplemental to get the
TB program running again.
MS. WALKER said that one of the questions she asked Karen Perdue,
commissioner of the DHSS in their meeting on the previous day was
if this epidemic and response was a forerunner of what will be seen
in the future for all the other public diseases that were scourges
and killed many of the Native people in the 1950s such as polio,
diphtheria and the whooping cough.
MS. WALKER urged the HESS Committee members to look at the budget
carefully and remember that the public health programs are
absolutely essential. They impact every single member of the
Alaska population.
Number 278
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY reminded Ms. Walker of the HIV/AIDS virus. She
asked Ms. Walker to please not forget that disease.
MS. WALKER assured Co-Chair Toohey that she had not forgotten it,
and would discuss it when she spoke of health promotion and disease
prevention. She also expressed great concern over the fact that
Co-Chair Toohey recently withdrew HB 1, which would have mandated
the teaching of HIV/AIDS in public schools. She said that
mandatory school education is something that the ANHB has always
supported. Ms. Walker said that people must be educated at a very
young age about the risks that they run, particularly in the area
of HIV because there is no cure. Ms. Walker was disappointed when
she saw that HB 1 was withdrawn.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY explained that she asked her staff to find out from
the Department of Education (DOE) what schools were not teaching
HIV/AIDS. The DOE was not able to provide that information, so Co-
Chair Toohey's staff called each of the 54 school districts in the
state. Her staff found out that every single school in the state
of Alaska is teaching HIV/AIDS. Most people said that two years
ago they were told a mandate was coming, and they had better begin
teaching now. There is not one school in Alaska that is not
teaching HIV/AIDS.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY stressed that now, it is up to the ANHB, the Native
community, and all communities in Alaska to make sure the schools
are teaching the correct things. That is up to the community,
because HB 1 stipulated that the community would come up with an
instructional program. That is why the bill was withdrawn.
Number 416
MS. WALKER said she knows of schools in Alaska that are not
teaching HIV/AIDS. The ANHB has an HIV/AIDS prevention project for
rural Alaska. They have been denied entrance into schools because
HIV/AIDS must be discussed in terms of sexuality. There are
schools in rural Alaska that refuse to discuss sexuality.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that Ms. Walker needs to speak with a member
of Co-Chair Toohey's staff, Marveen Coggins, and give her the names
of the schools that are not teaching HIV/AIDS. Co-Chair Toohey
said if the schools lied to her, they will end up with no children
in their villages because everyone will be dead from AIDS.
HHES - 02/23/95
ROBERT CLARK, Chief Executive Officer, Bristol Bay Area Health
Corporation (BBAHC), spoke on HB 182, which is an Act allowing a
dentist to delegate certain duties to a dental assistant. Mr.
Clark had spoken to the Chief of Staff at the BBAHC who is tied in
with the dental society. A lot of the bush hospitals work very
closely with the private sector in Anchorage and elsewhere. The
BBAHC serves most people in that area because there is just not any
other place to receive health care. Therefore, it serves both
Natives and non-Natives, even though the BBAHC is technically a
government hospital system.
MR. CLARK said that it was good that they served everyone, and the
hospital association would continue to serve everyone. The BBAHC
has trained a lot of assistants to perform functions that legally
they are not allowed to provide, and particularly, bill for. Most
people, including hygienists who cannot be everywhere, especially
the bush, believe that this practice is safe and it prevents
situations that will cost a lot of money later. He believes the
HESS Committee members will be receiving letters to that effect.
He is excited about the bill.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Clark to provide some people and letters
to testify in favor of the bill.
Number 569
MS. WALKER said that she would also like to address the HESS
Committee members, the House of Representatives and the Senate
about rural village water and sanitation facilities construction.
In fiscal year (FY) 1993, the legislature appropriated $24 million,
in FY 94 $26.5 million, in FY 95 $21.7 million. She is hoping that
the level of commitment be kept as high as possible, perhaps around
$25 million. The ANHB has identified a $1 billion unmet need for
rural sanitation. Last year the ANHB testified for the HESS
Committee members that there were four deaths from Hepatitis A in
rural Alaska. This is unforgivable in this day and age.
MS. WALKER said the federal government has committed to a match of
funds. The Alaska congressional delegation is very supportive and
the delegation looks forward to a match from the state of Alaska of
approximately the same amount of money.
MS. WALKER added the ANHB is beginning to chip away at this
sanitation problem. There are some new technologies coming around
where piped water and sewer is not absolutely required. However,
running water and sewer is necessary so as to decrease the handling
of sewage by humans. This decreases the contact with the Hepatitis
A virus.
Number 664
MS. WALKER continued that one of the things she is particularly
concerned about is a request that the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) did not put into their budget last year or this
year. This was for $500,000 to hook up village clinics with water
and sewer. Over the last several years, the ANHB has been able to
use funding wisely when they put in village water and sewer
projects. A small amount of money, about $20,000, is added and the
clinics are hooked up as well. Over the last two years, over 20
clinics have been hooked up to sewer and water. Village water and
sewer are still lacking in 37 of the clinics. Currently, this
funding is not in the DEC's budget proposal to the legislature.
MS. WALKER added that $500,000 is not that much money to do so much
good for these villages and to eliminate many of the risks that
these Alaskans face. She urged the legislature to look closely at
this funding when considering cost-effectiveness in safeguarding
the public's health.
Number 743
MR. CLARK agreed with Ms. Walker and said that the rural clinics
are the only facilities which villagers and the public health
nurses and doctors can use. Often, the school is used as a backup
facility, but the school is not really set up for that purpose. It
is so basic to have running water and sewer, and it is necessary to
have it in these areas. They are doing their best to gather
funding from many sources, but it is just not enough. The ANHB is
very close in finalizing this project and it will help rural Alaska
tremendously.
MR. CLARK continued that there are often no roads to and from the
village clinics, and air transport is heavily relied upon. The
airports are often not big enough and the lights are not bright
enough. It seems like most emergencies occur at night, in bad
weather and on the weekends. Twin planes are required to meet
codes, and these villages experience problems with the Federal
Aviation Administration. The private operators are in jeopardy of
losing their licenses if they do not have the right type of
aircraft. In the old days, any plane would do. Today, an air
ambulance must be equipped and that costs a lot of money.
MR. CLARK said that an air ambulance also must have an airport.
Many villages do not have airports, the clinics are often far from
the airports and sufficient vehicles are not present. In some
cases, all the right equipment is not present to make the system
work. The people are good and have good intentions, however
currently factors are not in place to make everything work well.
MR. CLARK stressed that they are trying to save money. Existing
airlines and equipment are being used and reused because he
realizes that new equipment is very expensive. However, a little
more money spread to different areas would help open these
villages, make them more healthy, and even open them up to tourism.
Tourism and other industries would help the villages make money and
make them more self-sustaining. The villages must pay their way as
best they can, but a little bit of funding here and there would
help the villages.
Number 899
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY noticed in the ANHB legislative priority
report that the board has come out in favor of raising state taxes
on alcohol and specifically, tobacco. Representative Vezey said
the amount of money these taxes would generate are pretty trivial.
He asked if the ANHB has thought of any other ideas that would help
increase state revenues.
MS. WALKER said that one of the major reasons the ANHB supports the
increase in state alcohol and tobacco taxes is not necessarily
because they generate the trivial amount of revenue that would go
into the general fund. The state cannot have designated taxes for
designated programs. The major reason they support this is because
it decreases the access for youth to these products. It has been
found that in the majority of the child sexual abuse cases, the
ones who are sexually abused are introduced to alcohol at the time
of their abuse.
MS. WALKER continued that the ANHB has also found it is the youth
that are getting addicted to tobacco. If there is an increase in
the cost of tobacco, there is a decrease in youth access. They
want to tax alcohol simply because the ANHB feels it is subsidizing
alcohol. The prices are based on 1960s prices, and you can
currently purchase vodka cheaper than you can buy a can of Coca-
cola.
Number 1006
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that the programs the state funds for the
ANHB and some of the other priorities expressed in the list
represent a large amount of state dollars. He asked if the ANHB
has expressed favor for anything that would increase revenues or
maintain revenues for the state.
MR. CLARK answered that the ANHB bills for Medicare and Medicaid,
because they clearly do not get enough funding from the government.
In Bristol Bay, one of every five dollars comes from third party
billing to pay and supplement. Out of a $21 million budget, Mr.
Clark receives $2 million from the state. The balance comes from
either third party billing or from the Indian Health Service and
grants. Very little funding is received from the state in relation
to costs.
MR. CLARK continued that rural Alaska does not have many people,
and the cost of living is higher in the rural areas. The costs are
smaller in relation, but nevertheless this is a very important
amount. However, in a sense the tail is wagging the dog because of
the rules of the state which allow the ANHB to modify practices.
The ANHB believes it is important to serve everyone.
Number 1072
MR. CLARK said that although Natives are the majority in those
areas, there are many different rules that must be followed if non-
Natives are to be served. These rules are graciously accepted,
because it is important for a well-rounded program. The ANHB tries
very hard, and although many people do not like any taxes, at some
point it is believed that taxes will be necessary.
MS. WALKER said that on the previous day, they visited with DHSS
Commissioner Karen Perdue and they looked at capturing a greater
percentage of the Medicaid reimbursements through Indian Health
Service (IHS). This is so Medicaid recipients and the ANHB will
not deal with the 50 percent state match with the 50 percent IHS
match. If the person is an IHS beneficiary, the ANHB wants the
state to collect 100 percent rather than have the money come out of
the general fund.
MS. WALKER explained that is one way the ANHB has been working on
decreasing the amount of dollars that come out of the general fund
for IHS beneficiaries who are also Medicaid beneficiaries. Ms.
Walker hopes that soon the HESS Committee members will see a waiver
request before them to submit to the federal government. This is
to be proactive to the federal welfare reform that is coming.
Number 1159
CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE said he was glad that the ANHB separates the
taxing of alcohol and tobacco, because it seems like there is often
no price too high when it comes to alcohol. He does not think that
taxes will have any impact on the consumption of alcohol. He
stressed that he is not worried about the alcohol industry, however
he had people in the past tell him that if alcohol was taxed, the
abuse would decrease. Co-Chair Bunde felt that was shortsighted.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commended the ANHB for its hard work. However, they
are using the government's money. He would like to see the ANHB
promoting private development, perhaps taking a position on ANWR
and other resource development.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE concluded by saying that concerning taxes, Ms.
Walker and Mr. Clark said the amount of state money going into
Native Health is not large in the great scope of the government.
However, airport, water and sewer improvements add up to large
chunks of money. When people have to start paying taxes in this
state, if they feel they do not have access to rural areas as
recreational areas, Co-Chair Bunde did not think people would want
to pay taxes to provide services out there. This is another issue
that Co-Chair Bunde hoped would be taken to the rural communities
and addressed.
MS. WALKER said that would be done.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY announced that Representative Brice joined the
meeting at 3:12 p.m.
HHES - 02/23/95
HB 104 - DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE RECORDS
Number 1258
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, sponsor of HB 104, discussed and read the
sponsor statement:
"The problems with juvenile crime are pervasive in modern
society. Almost on a daily basis a person will see media
coverage of crime committed by juveniles. House Bill 104
calls upon the Alaska Court System to identify juvenile
offenders who, had they committed the same crime as an adult,
would have been charged with a felony. This a first step
toward informing communities and teachers of the severity of
the problems and identify the perpetrators.
"The bill is designed to protect the general public and school
teachers and pupils. That is the major thrust of this bill.
He speculates that if information is released, and juveniles
know that the information will be released and they will be
recognized by their peers and neighbors, perhaps it will have
some effect on deterring juvenile crime. Juvenile crime has
become rampant and out of control."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT understood there has been a legal opinion from
the Department of Law, which he will study further.
Number 1418
CO-CHAIR BUNDE thanked Representative Kott for carrying this type
of bill. When Co-Chair Bunde tried to introduce such a bill last
year he ran up against a fiscal note problem. He wanted to discuss
the fiscal notes, such as the Alaska Court System's fiscal note.
The major area of disagreement would concern the DHSS fiscal note.
He asked for an update on the fiscal notes.
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant for Representative Kott, said
that he just received the court's fiscal note about 10 minutes ago.
He had not seen it, although they did request it in a timely manner
from the courts. He quickly read it before entering the room.
Basically, the contention in the court system fiscal note, which,
for FY 96, totals $162,800, is that there is no automated
communications between the courts in the state of Alaska. That the
courts have never developed a system of sharing juvenile and court
records with each other is fascinating to Mr. Mourant given
Alaska's move toward automation.
Number 1492
MR. MOURANT said it appears the court system's only concern is the
volume and the manner by which it would share the information
between the courts and gather all the information on a single
individual to report to a school district and to the public.
MR. MOURANT did not know how to respond to the court system's not
having an automated system in place.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked about the DHSS fiscal note and the difference
of opinion revolving around that.
MR. MOURANT said he received correspondence this morning from the
Department of Law that summarized all the concerns of the various
agencies affected by the legislation, as well as a variety of
opinions on the fiscal impact on the DHSS programs concerning the
release of juvenile information. Up until the previous morning,
Mr. Mourant knew that the DHSS in Juneau was fearful of the loss of
government funding, likewise Region X (ten) in Seattle shared that
concern with Health and Social Services. However, he had been
advised, while working with other staff related to the same type of
legislation, that Legislative Research had been counseled by the
headquarters of the agency in Washington, D.C., and funding loss
was not the case.
Number 1564
MR. MOURANT said yesterday he was advised that after Washington,
D.C., spoke with Region X in Seattle that maybe there is reason for
concern. They have asked their general counsel to investigate that
concern. General counsel will be issuing an opinion within the
next week to ten days. It does not seem clear at the federal
level, from those who administer the program, how the release of
juvenile information affects the funding. This is specifically
referring to HB 104, and the example of juveniles committing a
crime that would be a felony if they were an adult.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked if other states were currently
implementing this type of program. His understanding was that
there are other states releasing the names of juvenile offenders
under certain circumstances at this time. He asked what was
occurring in those other states. He said that people like to say
that this type of legislation is protecting the public. He asked
for specific information about how such legislation would protect
the public. He also asked for the basis by which the presumptions
were made, that such legislation will deter juveniles from crime.
Number 1643
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT answered there are other states that are
performing similar measures. He is not sure of their exact
statutes, but they are releasing information about juveniles who
have committed crimes. He is not sure about the effects. He
surmised it would be very difficult to comprehensively compile
information about the effectiveness of such programs. Most of the
states who have implemented similar measures have done so very
recently, and Representative Kott did not believe any statistics
would be available.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that as far as protecting the public, all
one has to do is consider a juvenile who committed a crime against
a person which would have been a felony if committed by an adult.
If that juvenile is attending a public school, it behooves everyone
to be aware, especially when the police have probable cause that
this person committed a crime. It is imperative that the school
administrators and the teachers involved with the student be aware
that something is going on.
Number 1718
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if this legislation was dealing
specifically with school situations.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT answered that HB 104 does not deal directly
with schools, but that would be the direct correlation he can make
concerning the protection of the public. Other school children and
teachers are part of the public. There has been a number of cases
in the newspaper over the last two years regarding children who
have gone into schools and shot teachers. There were problems
earlier, but no one knew about those problems. Representative Kott
asked, would a person, in essence, treat the child differently?
There is a direct correlation between understanding and treatment.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said there is also a direct correlation
between the guy who sits in the bushes with an assault rifle and
begins shooting at the school yard. When the cops shoot him, there
is a stop as well.
Number 1760
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE recalled that Representative Kott said that it
was too early to tell about the protection of the public. Then
Representative Kott said there will be protection of the public.
This caused confusion. Representative Brice wondered if it is too
early to tell in other states if these efforts have worked, how
can Representative Kott say that the public certainly will be
protected.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if anyone in the audience knew about the
effects of similar measures in other states.
Number 1796
MR. MOURANT said that in conversations yesterday with the Alaska
Court System, he was informed that departmental and functional
organization within a governmental organizational picture affects
the funding and whether or not funding is lost through the release
of information. Mr. Mourant observed that Chris Christensen, from
the Alaska Court System, was present in the audience. He invited
Mr. Christensen to explain the situation in more detail.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that the funding is a very large concern.
But the concern that has not been addressed is that no one has been
able to point to a single instance across the United States where
similar measures have been implemented and proven successful.
Number 1872
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he was not sure he could address
Representative Brice's concern completely, because he was not a
human behaviorist. However, in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory,
there is a level which designates the need to belong to a group.
Peer pressure is a very strong influence and it can be heavily
applied by other members of a society. If a person knows in
advance, before he or she commits a crime, that he or she will be
seen in the newspaper and everyone will know about that crime, that
may be a deterrent. Representative Kott thought that most people
are law abiding, and most have some respect for family.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT rhetorically asked if capital punishment was a
deterrent. That is a difficult question to answer. Obviously,
there is something to deterrence, however, the effectiveness
remains to be seen. He submitted that legislation such as this
would be effective. When a person thinks about consequences, he or
she may evaluate whether his or her actions are worthwhile based on
the consequences that may be forthcoming.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT continued that if a person were contemplating
committing a crime and knew that everyone would know about that
crime, and that person could potentially be an outcast, and not
well accepted within his/her peer group, he/she might not do it.
That is the deterrence. But, Representative Kott said, a person
cannot actually say that a measure such as HB 104 will reduce
juvenile crime.
Number 1952
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested that when speaking about people who
are committing felonies, we are not talking about people who are
brought to bear under the normal pressures of society. While some
people might view "little hoodlums" as people who will be concerned
with notoriety, it could very well be that these juveniles will
commit crimes to get their picture in the newspaper.
Representative Brice suggested that due to the seriousness of the
acts which result in public knowledge, the type of person
committing these acts is not going to be concerned with having
their picture in the paper.
Number 2007
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT did not argue that the effects of the bill will
be speculative. Representative Kott now had access to information
on the questions asked earlier. Twenty-four states provide for the
release of information about certain crimes to the general public
under certain circumstances. Thirteen states provide for the
release of juvenile records to school officials. Therefore, Alaska
is not being used as a testing ground.
HHES - 02/23/95
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG noticed that HB 15, which was
recently heard and passed out of the House HESS Committee, was very
similar to HB 104. Representative Rokeberg said the differences
appear to lie in the methodologies. He asked if Representative
Kott or any of his staff was familiar with HB 15, and if they could
enumerate the differences between HB 104, HB 15, and HB 125.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he was not familiar with the contents of
HB 15.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked for the name of HB 15.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG read the name of HB 15: "An Act
authorizing the disclosure for the court records of the name,
address and picture of, and other information about certain minors
for whom a delinquency petition is filed." Representative Rokeberg
noted that he was co-sponsor of HB 15, and Representative Gene
Therriault is the sponsor. He noted that HB 15 and HB 104 are very
similar.
Number 2068
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY recalled that with HB 15, the problem lay in
exactly the same area -- the legality of what would occur if the
information was released, and where public funding would be lost.
She called for information on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON said that there are three bills that
are very similar, HB 15, HB 104 and HB 125. In some ways, it is a
shame that HB 15 has been moved already and not kept for a
subcommittee in which all three bills could be studied. In
addition, Representative Robinson asked how all three bills fit
with Senate Bill 54 concerning the juvenile waiver. This was
passed last year. Representative Robinson understands that the
departments are moving to get their regulations in line so they can
begin revealing this information to the school districts. It is
very obvious from communication with school districts that many
districts don't realize what is about to occur.
Number 2133
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel to the Judicial Branch of the
state of Alaska, said that as a matter of policy, the Supreme Court
takes no position on any pieces of legislation that do not directly
affect the internal administration of the Judicial Branch. The
courts believe that bills such as HB 104, that do not affect their
internal administration, are bills which the constitution leaves to
the policy judgement of the legislature and it would be
inappropriate for the court to comment.
MR. CHRISTENSEN continued that however, the courts do provide its
best estimate of what a particular piece of legislation might cost
the court system, as well as point out technical problems and
perhaps make suggestions which could reduce the cost of a bill.
Number 2165
MR. CHRISTENSEN also noted there are a number of bills that have
been introduced this year that relate to the release of juvenile
records. The first one the HESS Committee heard was HB 15, and HBs
104 and 125 are before the committee today.
MR. CHRISTENSEN asked to discuss the basic problems that exist with
the court system's juvenile records, as well as to speak on how
those problems tie in with this legislation. Most of the bills, as
they were introduced, put the duty on the court system to release
its records as opposed to putting the duty on the Division of
Family and Youth Services (DFYS) to release its records. The one
exception was the original version of HB 104. As introduced, that
would have the DFYS release its records to the public.
Number 2192
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that a short time ago, a sponsor substitute
for HB 104 was released that shifted the responsibility to the
courts. Mr. Christensen spoke with the staff of the bill's prime
sponsor to ask why this was done. He assumed it was done because
there has been a great deal of discussion around the legislature in
the last few weeks as to whether or not the DFYS can actually
perform this function.
MR. CHRISTENSEN was advised that the burden was shifted to the
courts because it was assumed that the court records were far more
complete and would give the public more information. He said that
unlike the DFYS, which has a statewide, computerized juvenile
records system, court records are all paper files. They are not
computerized, and there is no statewide repository or statewide
index. If a person asks for information to be released from a
juvenile's records, as would be the case under HB 104, essentially,
instead of having a clerk punch a name into a computer, receiving
a printout and handing it to the inquirer, a range 8 counter clerk
would have to look through the index of names which is usually on
microfilm or on hard copy. The court system cannot let a member of
the public look through the index because most of the names in it
are secret.
MR. CHRISTENSEN continued that the clerk would then have to find
and pull the file. Next, since a range 8 would not be qualified to
determine what is in the file, the file would be given to a range
14 legal technician. This technician leafs through the file, page
by page, trying to determine what the child had been convicted of
or adjudicated for, whether or not it met the parameters of the
legislation and whether or not the information could be released.
Information would then be put on a form and provided to the public.
Number 2260
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that obviously this is an involved process.
Many individuals have 2-inch thick files, unfortunately, which
would take a lot of time to look through. The second problem is
that the court does not have a statewide records repository or
index. The significance of that is if a person in Anchorage goes
into the courthouse and asks if his next door neighbor has a felony
record, the only thing the court can tell him is if the neighbor
was adjudicated delinquent of a felony in Anchorage. There are 14
juvenile courts around the state. If a person wanted to know if
the child had a record in the state, you would have to contact all
14 courts.
MR. CHRISTENSEN added that these are the underlying problems the
courts have with the juvenile records system. The courts have
submitted a fiscal note which is based, in part, with the court's
experience with release of adult records and the court's experience
with the Victim's Rights Act. This was passed about five years
ago.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained that before the Victim's Rights Act,
adult records were completely open to the public. However, this
Act required that certain parts of those records were to be made
secret. Each year since that, the courts have had from $120,000 to
$150,000 in clerical overtime to implement that legislation. This
overtime is unfunded. No funding was received for that overtime
pay.
MR. CHRISTENSEN assured the HESS Committee members that therefore,
the court system is sensitive to the whole issue of making parts of
files open and parts secret.
TAPE 95-10, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that based on statistics from DFYS it has been
determined there are roughly 250 juveniles each year that are
actually adjudicated delinquent for a felony, aged 14 and above.
This is not very many children. The problem is a member of the
public can come in and ask about any child. Right now there are
about 38,000 juveniles between the ages of 14 and 18 in Alaska. Of
course, there are many more people aged 18-25 that members of the
public might be curious about.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that the court must attempt to locate records
on any child, and if there is a record, leaf through it page by
page.
Number 046
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that each year the court receives about 3,500
written requests statewide for adult criminal records. The courts
will only accept a written request if the requestor does not live
in a community where the court is located. However, in Anchorage
alone, approximately 75 people each day come in to look at adult
criminal files. Those 75 people look at a total of about 500
different criminal files every day. Most of those people represent
credit agencies and employment services, which is why they are
requesting multiple files. These numbers add up to about 100,000
requests to look at adult files every year statewide.
MR. CHRISTENSEN continued that with adult files, the people who do
the requesting do all the work. They look into the index
themselves, they tell the clerk the name. A counter clerk walks
back, picks up the file, gives it to the person and the person
looks through the file. The only time spent is the five minutes
for the retrieval and replacement of the file.
Number 138
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that in the case of the juvenile records,
someone from the court system is going to have to leaf through
every file and separate what is disclosable and what is not. The
court expects a substantial number of juvenile records to be
requested.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that an employer who is hiring a 22-year-old
right out of college may customarily send someone to see if that
person had an adult record. The potential employer may also want
to check if he or she had a juvenile record if that was an option.
It may be very significant if a potential employee was adjudicated
a delinquent for felony theft or sexual assault of a co-worker five
years earlier, when he or she was 17 years old.
Number 190
MR. CHRISTENSEN expects people to look at juvenile records if that
is an option. He expects the numbers will be very substantial.
There is one change that does not relate to this whole issue of
which agency is best suited to release information. This change
could bring the cost downs dramatically.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained that currently, HB 104 is drafted so that
it applies to any juvenile record the courts have, regardless of
how far back the crime goes. If the bill were drafted so it only
applied to children who were convicted of felonies after the
effective date of the Act, as each child was adjudicated a
delinquent, a one-page form would be prepared that could be placed
on the front page of the file. This form could be prepared either
by the DFYS or the courts. There could also be a public index on
those 250 kids each year.
MR. CHRISTENSEN continued that the public could look through the
index and determine if a child was in there or not. If the child
was in there, it would merely be a matter of pulling that one piece
of paper off the top of the file, photocopying it, and handing that
photocopy to the requestor. The problem of having to leaf through
files page by page only arises in reference to files that are
already in existence.
Number 269
MR. CHRISTENSEN allowed that the big issue still remains of which
agency is allowed to release the information. He has spoken with
the Deputy Commissioner of the Children's Bureau for the Department
of Health and Social Services in Washington, D.C. He indicated
there would be an opinion from their general counsel in the next
week and a half. The Deputy Commissioner would not tell what the
opinion was yet, however he indicated to Mr. Christensen that
probably any state agency that received its information from the
DFYS would receive the same treatment regarding the release of
information.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that all of the court's records are from DFYS.
The only knowledge the courts have on a juvenile is from DFYS. It
is the understanding of Mr. Christensen that the opinion from the
Deputy Commissioner will be if DFYS cannot release the information,
the courts cannot release it either. Mr. Christensen understands
that the reason the final opinion is taking so long is because the
research is being expanded. There is a secondary question of
whether or not the police agencies can release this information.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that the police agencies do not get their
information from DFYS. They generate it on their own. That is the
additional issue being studied currently, resulting in delays.
Number 347
MR. CHRISTENSEN continued that one alternative from having either
DFYS or the courts release the juvenile records might be to place
just the names, addresses and the crime each of the 250 children
each year who are adjudicated delinquent for felony were convicted
of in the Alaska Public Safety Information Network, (APSIN), the
state's adult criminal computer. Legislation was passed last year
which said as of July 1, 1995, APSIN is going to available to the
public, resulting in current criminal information being available
to the public.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained that putting the names, addresses and
crimes of the 250 juvenile delinquent names into the computer would
be a very inexpensive way for the public to access the information.
However, a problem may still exist in that the APSIN system must
get the juvenile information from either DFYS or the courts, so the
system may still not be able to release that information. Mr.
Christensen said that more would be known in about a week's time,
and he would try to answer the questions of the HESS Committee
members.
Number 410
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if it would simplify matters if the
juvenile restriction on releasing information and special
considerations for juveniles was simply done away with. Mr.
Christensen asked for clarification, and if Representative Vezey
was suggesting making juvenile records public, just like adult
records.
MR. CHRISTENSEN answered that if those special considerations were
removed, someone could ask for a record and a member of the court
system would hand it to them. Although, there are public policy
implications present in that situation that the court system would
not address. Those would be under the jurisdiction of another
system.
Number 447
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what the impact would be on the court
system.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that the courts would expect many requests for
records, just like it does for the adults. However, currently the
problem lies in the fact that the courts have to do the research
for the public if the juvenile records are still sealed. If the
records were open, a member of the court system could simply give
the file to the requestor, just like is done currently with adult
records.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY understood from Mr. Christensen's testimony
that the criminal computer system is going to be open for public
use soon. It appears that the courts are moving toward a system in
which the public does its own research.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that the computer he referred to is the
Department of Public Safety's computer, The Alaska Public Safety
Information Network. This is the state's criminal records computer
for all adults. Juveniles are not in the system currently. The
computer system has been in existence for many years, but as of
July 1, the public will be able to access certain adult records in
that computer.
Number 520
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the current burden on the court
system will be reduced when APSIN is opened to public use. He
asked if the burden would be reduced further if juveniles were
included in that system.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that remains to be seen. He suspects that
professionals, like the credit and employment agencies, will very
likely ask for information from the Department of Public Safety
rather than go through the court system. They will receive a
printout of what the person did. If the agencies want copies of
the documents such as the charge or record of conviction, which
they often do, they will have to come to the court system to get
copies of those documents.
Number 625
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that several more people were available to
testify, including Melinda Gruening from Representative Joe Green's
office. Ms. Gruening offered to discuss similarities and
differences between House Bills 15, 104 and 125.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that he would like to hear testimony and
discuss HB 104 completely before hearing a comparison between the
three bills. In that way, the HESS Committee members will have
more knowledge of what they are comparing.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that the committee will not pass HB 104 out
today, because there will be other testimony. It would be best to
wait the two weeks for the rest of the information from Washington,
D.C.
Number 643
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to Department of Health and
Social Services Commissioner Karen Perdue, said the Department of
Law (DOL) will also be testifying. The DOL has done research in
this issue as well as other bills on juvenile records.
MR. LINDSTROM said there has been much discussion during this and
other hearings about what other states do in this area. While Mr.
Lindstrom does not have a complete record of the other states'
activities, he does have some information about some states.
MR. LINDSTROM said that during the hearing on HB 15, several states
were cited as providing open and essentially unlimited public
access to juvenile records with no apparent impact on their federal
funds. Those states were called.
Number 717
MR. LINDSTROM explained that the DHSS spoke to a person in
Colorado's Juvenile Justice Planning Department. In 1993, a
special session of the legislature made several changes in the
disclosure statutes. Legislation was also enacted to meet the
federal mandates regarding the Safe Schools Act, which requires
automatic expulsion for the possession of weapons.
MR. LINDSTROM said a side effect of the legislation has resulted in
a 160 percent increase in expulsions in their schools. This was
not anticipated, and now Colorado is scrambling to assemble some
sort of alternative schooling for those individuals. To have these
expelled students not in school and not working has created some
new problems to be addressed.
MR. LINDSTROM continued that in Kansas, the entire juvenile code is
under revision. Currently, open inspection of court records is
available for any juvenile above 14 years of age. Staff in
Illinois advised that only court records of juveniles waived to
adult court could be opened to the public without court order. In
Rhode Island, this same policy was enacted.
Number 809
MR. LINDSTROM provided general information on states with
legislation concerning disclosure of juvenile records to school
districts. The DHSS does not have details, however there are
certain states with statutes concerning that area, such as
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and a number of
others.
MR. LINDSTROM also said that the DHSS believes there are 28 states
which release the name and/or picture of juveniles under certain
conditions. He is sure those conditions vary widely. Nineteen
states have no statutes whatsoever in this regard, and four states
by statute do not allow any publicity in this regard.
MR. LINDSTROM said there is very little to report concerning fiscal
notes. Currently, the fiscal notes prepared for HB 104 are
identical to the fiscal notes prepared by the DHSS for HB 15.
Those fiscal notes anticipate the loss of federal funds, based on
DHSS understanding from Region X. The DHSS will revise those
fiscal notes if they receive contrary information from the federal
agencies. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not an expert in the DHSS
juvenile records system. It is an automated system, but the
information available does not go much farther back past 1990.
Number 917
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General with the Department of
Law, Criminal Division, said the release of juvenile information
was currently a problematic area. There are four bills pending
which relate to the disclosure of information about juveniles. Ms.
Knuth feels that the bills can be looked at as relating to two
different types of release of information.
MS. KNUTH said that HB 15 and part of HB 104 would like to create
a categorical release of information about juveniles who have
either been adjudicated of a single felony or a second felony. The
second area these bills are addressing is what information may be
released about these individuals on a case-by-case basis. A year
ago in Alaska, the school districts expressed tremendous
frustration because there was case-by-case information they were
unable to get about students attending their schools because law
enforcement agencies and the DHSS were saying it was not clear,
under existing state law, whether information could be released or
not.
MS. KNUTH said that different interpretations of the law was taking
place around the state. In some places, cooperation was prevalent.
In other places, the agencies flatly declined to release
information on the fear that the agencies would incur liability.
Number 1025
MS. KNUTH continued that at the same time, there was a provision in
the statute that allowed the court to publish the name of a
juvenile and the offense for any second felony and the
adjudication. That statute has been on the books for many years.
Juvenile waiver was a major theme last session. There were a
number of bills addressing this issue. The executive branch took
advantage of the interest and the opportunity to put together a
comprehensive amendment regarding the disclosure of juvenile
records.
MS. KNUTH said that a task force met around the state for months.
About 25 people met each time, all concerned about clarifying the
law on the disclosure of juvenile records. The task force came up
with legislation and asked the committees to append this
legislation to the juvenile waiver bill that was passed. For the
last five months, there has been a new and different law on the
disclosure of juvenile records.
MS. KNUTH added that one of the things that Senate Bill 54 did, was
it repealed the provision that allowed for the categorical release
of second adjudication information because of the jeopardy it
brought to the Title IV federal funds. At that point last year,
there did not seem to be any confusion in the federal system that,
in Alaska, categorical release of the identity of juveniles for
offenses did jeopardize the Title IV funds.
MS. KNUTH said this has to do with several things, one of which is
the fact that juveniles are handled out of the DHSS in Alaska,
rather than the Department of Corrections. If all children were
passed to corrections, there would not be an intermingling of "help
the kids" and "punish the kids" programs. It is the combination in
Alaska that has raised the concerns.
Number 1127
MS. KNUTH said that at this point, the federal government is
revisiting the issue and they hope to have an answer within the
next week. With respect to discretionary releases of information,
and making information available on a case-by-case, need to know
basis, Alaska is now as liberal as any state in the Union. Alaska
gave the agency and law enforcement the explicit authority to make
disclosures. The problem is that it has only been five months.
There are regulations being promulgated, however the process takes
time. There has been a communication failure.
MS. KNUTH explained that the system Senate Bill 54 brought last
year has not been tried yet. Ms. Knuth thinks that all of the
agencies in the executive branch are sensitive to the issue and
want to cooperate in any way possible. If there are gaps or
problems in SB 54, the executive branch is flexible. At this
point, it seems there has been an initial education gap or failure,
and a lot of the school systems do not know that five months ago
the system changed.
Number 1207
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY closed testimony on HB 104 and announced that the
bill was being held pending further information. Representative
Rokeberg and Representative Davis left the meeting at 4:10 p.m. A
quorum was still present.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the intent of the committee was to
put all the bills into a subcommittee in an attempt to come up with
an overall ruling.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that decision would be made shortly. She
called for further testimony and clarification.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for clarification on the similarities and
differences between Hbs 15, 104 and 125.
HHES - 02/23/95
HB 125 - JUVENILE CRIMINAL RECORDS TO SCHOOLS
Number 1306
MELINDA GRUENING, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe
Green, passed along Representative Green's regrets that he could
not personally testify at the HESS Committee.
MS. GRUENING said that one of the leading problems that school
administrators face is violence in the schools and how to deal with
it. Currently, there is no requirement that a school principal be
given records regarding an adjudicated delinquent who is attending
his or her school. Some juvenile offenders have committed very
serious crimes and are in schools, and school officials are left
out of the information loop and do not know who those students are.
MS. GRUENING said that HB 125 helps to address this problem. Last
year the legislature passed SB 54, the Juvenile Waiver Bill, which
has been already discussed. This bill requires serious juvenile
offenders over 16 years of age be automatically waived into adult
court. However, there is no automatic waiver for juvenile
offenders aged 15 and under, some of whom have committed very
serious crimes.
Number 1360
MS. GRUENING continued that also included in SB 54 was a section
that did address the disclosure of state and agency records.
However, the statute that deals with juvenile disclosure created by
the passage of SB 54 makes such disclosure discretionary, not
mandatory. That is why Representative Green felt the issue needed
to be further addressed beyond what was addressed last session.
MS. GRUENING said the crimes covered by this mandatory disclosure
would include homicide, assault, reckless endangerment, kidnapping,
sexual offenses, robbery, extortion, offenses against property,
controlled substance offenses and possession or use of a deadly
weapon. It is these records with which HB 125 is concerned. HB
125, if enacted, would require mandatory disclosure of an
adjudicated juvenile's court records to school officials if the
offense was committed on school property or if the minor had
committed offenses that, if committed by an adult, would be
considered a serious felony.
MS. GRUENING said that additionally HB 125 would require mandatory
disclosure by law enforcement agencies to school officials if the
agency had probable cause to believe that the minor had committed
an offense that would be a crime if committed by an adult and the
victim is a student or staff member of the school, or the
disclosure is necessary to protect the safety of school students
and staff.
MS. GRUENING said that HB 125 places limits on further disclosures
by those school officials, and since schools already adhere to
strict confidentiality standards, the disclosure would fall under
their existing confidentiality policies. The information provided
by mandatory disclosure would protect the victims of juvenile
crime, protect students, protect teachers, and give the principal
information that would allow him or her to use the school's many
resources to provide help for the adjudicated delinquent.
MS. GRUENING said that if schools are held responsible for the
safety of students and faculty, school officials must have the
necessary information about student violence to do their job
properly.
MS. GRUENING pointed out that, unlike the previous bill, DHSS
provided HB 125 with a zero fiscal note. The DHSS does not feel
this bill would affect the Title IV funds.
Number 1465
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if Ms. Gruening has heard of the
Challenge Program offered through the Alaska State National Guard.
MS. GRUENING said she had not.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained that this was a program that offers
at-risk youth the possibility of a boot camp-like scenario as well
as educational opportunities. Individuals can receive their
Graduate Equivalent Degree (GED), or maybe learn some vocational
skills, as well as come out of the program with a fairly
substantial stipend to be put toward further education. This
program cannot access records of at-risk youth as well.
Representative Brice wondered if Ms. Gruening would be willing to
discuss a type of amendment of HB 125 which stipulated that as long
as the files are kept confidential and the DHSS does not attach a
substantial fiscal note, the program would be able to access
juvenile records.
MS. GRUENING said she would have to speak with Representative Green
and do research to see if such an amendment would affect the Title
IV funds. She thinks that currently, the reason HB 125 does not
affect those funds is because it specifically releases information
to school officials. The whole emphasis of the bill is to try to
provide information that the administrators need. The purpose of
the bill is not to have a public file. All information would
remain confidential, but the administrators would be given the
information they need to keep students safe and to help the person
who had committed the offense.
Number 1564
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if testimony should be heard again from Mr.
Christensen, Mr. Lindstrom and Ms. Knuth on HB 125.
HHES - 02/23/95
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would like to hear a comparison between HB
15, 104 and 125 from Ms. Gruening. He also called for further
testimony on HB 125.
MS. GRUENING said the differences are very confusing. There are
four bills that relate to the disclosure of juvenile information.
There are Hbs 15, 104 and 125, and SB 29. Senate Bill 29 and HB
125 deal specifically with disclosure to school officials. The
difference between HB 125 and SB 29 is that part of SB 29 is still
discretionary. Part of the disclosure, the disclosure of law
enforcement, is discretionary. HB 125 stipulates for mandatory
disclosure on the part of law enforcement and the court system.
Those are the two that are specifically school disclosure bills.
Number 1635
MS. GRUENING continued that HB 104 is a general disclosure and a
school disclosure in one bill. It is a public disclosure that
would take place through the court system, and also disclosure
would take place to school officials. The portion of HB 104 that
relates to school disclosure, compared to HB 125 which calls for
school disclosure, is that HB 104 is partially mandatory to the
schools, and partially discretionary. HB 125 is completely
mandatory. That is a comparison of only those two sections of Hbs
104 and 125.
MS. GRUENING explained that HB 15, which had been already heard and
passed out of the HESS Committee, is a general public disclosure.
It does not address school issues. Ms. Gruening said she had
research done on what other states are doing. She offered to make
copies for the HESS Committee members as the bills were addressed.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY appreciated her offer and asked her for that
information.
Number 1712
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that HB 125 causes the court system
"substantially less heartburn." This bill will not result in the
potential of tens of thousands of records requests every year. He
estimates there might be 350 cases each year when the court system
has to send a document to a school official. The costs associated
with this are relatively small. As indicated previously, with the
Adult Victims' Rights Act, the court system is spending about
$120,000 to $150,000 each year.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that the reason the cost of HB 125 would be so
low is the court system has figured out a way to place 75 percent
of the burden on the attorney's in Alaska. Mr. Christensen
suggests that at the time of an adjudication by court rule, DFYS be
required to provide the courts with a document that states that
this is a qualifying crime and provides the name of the juvenile's
principal and the address of the school. The court system will
simply drop that document into the mail.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that the middle man could be further
eliminated by simply having DFYS drop the document into the mail.
Number 1761
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he is not sure why DFYS would have
records that the court does not have. He asked why a middle man is
used. He wanted to know why disclosure wouldn't be required from
whoever originates the record.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that under his understanding, the reason HB
125 was drafted the way it was is because people were assuming DFYS
could not release records, while the courts could do so. However,
testimony has now been heard that suggests that the DFYS could
release such information to schools. DFYS would have information
concerning the school principal's names. The court system would
not know this information unless they asked DFYS. All the
information the court would have, it would get from DFYS and then
pass along. If it is legally possible, it may be easier to have
DFYS release information and eliminate the court's role as a middle
man. This is only if this would be legally possible.
Number 1804
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why it would not be easiest to simply
have the police records available for public release, and not
involve any bureaucracy. If there is an arrest, there will be a
report.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that it was his understanding that HB 125 is
requiring a copy of the court's adjudication order. This is the
finding that the individual was guilty and had been adjudicated a
delinquent.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought the individual had to be charged of a
crime, when in fact the person must be adjudicated.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said the records that the court is supposed to
provide is a copy of the adjudication order. The court system
would generate that based on information from DFYS. This order
would then be passed on.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that at this time, police are prohibited
from releasing information on juveniles. He asked why that
prohibition could not be repealed, and the records could be made
public from that avenue.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said he was not qualified to answer such a
question.
Number 1880
MR. LINDSTROM said his previous remarks generally dealt with both
Hbs 104 and 125. To reinforce some of Ms. Knuth's statements, Mr.
Lindstrom said that the DHSS believes that once the regulatory
scheme is put into place, and the opportunity to work with
individual school districts and other local law enforcement as
well, the existing law will allow the courts to do what the intent
of the bill really is.
MR. LINDSTROM said there is a perception that DHSS does not share
any information at all with school districts at this time. That is
not true. Individual probation officers from the DFYS are
constantly speaking with school personnel such as counselors and
teachers. Perhaps communication does not take place so much with
principals. Mr. Lindstrom does not know if concern for this
information is originating from teachers or administrators. DHSS
believes that given time and the ability to communicate, a lot of
contentions can be set right.
Number 1930
MR. LINDSTROM said that DHSS recognizes on a need-to-know basis
that the DHSS not only has the ability to share, but the DHSS ought
to be sharing information with school districts to protect the
public, students and faculty.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if DHSS had a time frame in mind.
MR. LINDSTROM answered that the DFYS is currently going through a
massive regulatory project. HB 412 allowed the DHSS to rewrite all
licensing regulations. There are regulations which will result
from SB 45, the runaway bill from last year. Regulations are
resulting from SB 54, the waiver bill. The DHSS is doing
everything at once, and this massive program is going to take
longer than both the DHSS and the legislature would like.
Certainly, over the next interim, all those regulatory items will
be moving forward from the DFYS.
Number 1986
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the DHSS becomes involved in the
adjudication process, perhaps shortly after an arrest.
MR. LINDSTROM asked if he could have the Director of the Division
of Family and Youth Services testify, as she is more knowledgeable
in this area.
CATHY TIBBLES, Director of the Division of Family and Youth
Services, said the division does become involved after a police
report. Probation officers are participating in an investigation
to see whether there is sufficient evidence to go forward. They
also work with the DOL concerning the charges to be filed and how
likely it is a case will proceed through the court process.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the DFYS gets involved in every
juvenile arrest, or just if the courts order the DFYS to do so.
MS. TIBBLES said the DFYS receives every police referral. Some are
handled very informally, perhaps with parental meetings. Those
that contain serious charges are handled with the DOL and go before
the court for a petition. The court then decides what happens from
there. The referral moves from the DFYS to the court, rather than
from the police to the court, and then to the DFYS.
Number 2046
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the referral ever goes from the
police to the courts without being sent to DFYS.
MS. TIBBLES said it is possible for a person other than a DFYS
employee to petition the court on a juvenile or a child in need of
aid. It is rarely done. Generally, a division employee files a
petition to the court. The court does not and cannot hear matters
without a petition being brought before it.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY understood that if a person is arrested, there
is a period in which either bail is made or he or she is
restrained. They don't just arrest you and say, "Sign here, you
can go home now," unless perhaps it is a misdemeanor or a traffic
violation. If you are arrested for a felony, you have lost your
civil rights until somehow the court is satisfied. Representative
Vezey said he was not familiar enough with the system. He wanted
to know if DFYS gets involved every time, how a juvenile is
released from police custody, and does the court bring in a
guardian of the juvenile.
TAPE 95-11, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. TIBBLES knew of instances, possibly just with misdemeanors,
where juveniles are not taken to a juvenile facility and booked.
She did not know about every single felony offense. It seems that
Hbs 104 and 125 are speaking of felonies and she does not know the
level of seriousness of those felonies. She did not know if all
arrests ends up in an overnight at a youth facility and a petition
to the court. It often depends on the responsibility shown and
accepted by a parent, whether or not the child will be released to
a parent or taken to a facility.
MS. TIBBLES does not believe that the system operates exactly as an
adult felony arrest, although the processes are very much alike.
As in the adult system, the DOL would be involved in terms of what
charge will be brought to the court for the court to then resolve.
For example, is the crime a felony, would it be reduced to a
misdemeanor, would there be a plea, would there be bail, etc.
MS. TIBBLES said the legalities of the juvenile system are not that
different than the adult system.
Number 100
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the point he was attempting to resolve is
what will have to be done to allow the police to release juvenile
information.
MS. TIBBLES said one of the issues is a policy call, which is
whether or not the legislature wants police to release the
information. It also depends on whether or not the legislature
wants police to release information to schools, or if the
legislature wants to mandate that police release this information.
It depends on whether the legislature wants the police to release
information to schools prior to an adjudication.
MS. TIBBLES said often, the initial charge does not end up being
the final charge. She said it could probably be mandated that
police release information to schools at any desired level, however
the DOL could answer that question better than she.
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he has been trying to find the answer to
this question and cannot.
Number 210
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said there is a very low number of intake
staff people at the DFYS, and that can also cause a major delay in
the process.
MS. TIBBLES said there is definitely a shortage of staff. The
speed with which an investigation is completed, processed and a
determination is made about the final charge depends on the
seriousness of the initial charge. The DFYS responds in some
fashion to every referral. Misdemeanors and offenses such as
shoplifting very often result in a letter sent to a parent saying,
if this happens again, a heavier penalty will occur.
MS. TIBBLES continued that she does not know how fast the process
is. The DFYS must set up some sort of prioritization for the
juveniles and offenses that must be taken up quickly. Some have to
do with the amount of time a child is detained before the DFYS can
proceed further.
Number 304
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON clarified that in a misdemeanor case the
process may be slower than if the offense committed would be a
felony had it been perpetrated by an adult. If a juvenile
committed a serious felony offense, such as murder, Representative
Robinson finds it difficult to believe that in a community such as
Juneau that information would not be transmitted quickly "through
the grapevine" to the principals and the counselors at the youth's
school.
MS. TIBBLES thought it would be difficult in Juneau for the school
administrators and faculty not to find out about a serious crime.
It is possible, however, in Anchorage. There is a difference
between what principals may know and what teachers and counselors
know by working day-to-day with probation staff. That is a gap in
information that needs to be addressed.
Number 412
MS. KNUTH said the fact that DHSS is working on regulations that
are not yet completed does not mean that AS 47.10.90 and AS
47.10.093 cannot be implemented right away. To the extent that
there is a communication/information lag, steps can be immediately
taken to remedy that. For example, a memorandum can be sent to
school districts, or calls can be made. Given that the DHSS
backlog is considerable, the DHSS does not have to be assigned that
task.
MS. KNUTH continued that the DOL has a concern in all the bills
that requires disclosures to school principals in certain
circumstances. The law passed last year, AS 47.10.093, gives both
state and municipal agencies and law enforcement agencies the
authority to disclose, to school officials, information regarding
the case as may be necessary to protect the safety of school
students and staff. There has not been an occasion under this new
statute where a school wanted information and it was withheld.
There just has not yet been any implementation of the law.
Number 513
MS. KNUTH said that any time there is a mandatory disclosure, one
of the first concerns is, what effect might that have on an ongoing
investigation or other investigations. Obviously, you do not want
to make a disclosure that may impede a very critical investigation.
If it is a violent offense, the thing to do is make the disclosure
a matter of timing. These bills have all been amended through
Sponsor Substitutes (SS) or Committee Substitutes (CS) to have a
provision saying notwithstanding the mandatory disclosure
provision, an agency is not required to notify a principal if the
agency determines that notice would jeopardize an ongoing
investigation.
MS. KNUTH felt this was a good provision, however she did not know
if it was an adequate provision. It is something that may warrant
further study.
MS. KNUTH addressed the wholesale opening of police records
relating to juveniles. There currently is a statute that prohibits
this, but that can be changed by the legislature. The only
concerns after that would be in regards to the withholding of
federal funds. Ms. Knuth is not aware of any such federal act that
would stipulate the withdrawal of those funds.
MS. KNUTH said finally, one would have to ask, does such a
disclosure violate the Alaskan or United States Constitution. Ms.
Knuth is not aware of any federal constitutional provision that
could present a problem in this respect. It is possible, in
Alaska, for the Supreme Court to say that the right of privacy
requires a different treatment of juvenile records than adult
records. Our hopes for rehabilitation is greater in juveniles, and
more emphasis should be placed on privacy.
MS. KNUTH said the argument in either direction would be strong,
and she can speculate that the Alaska Supreme Court would stand
behind the privacy issue. Aside from that, Ms. Knuth is not aware
of any other factor that would not allow the release of information
through the police agencies, if the policy were changed by the
legislature.
Number 644
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why the arrest reports cannot simply be
made public.
MS. KNUTH believes that involves the constitutional issue, of
whether people who have been arrested, but either not charged or
not convicted, have an interest in not having that information be
made public, and possibly tarnishing their reputations. Everyone
hears about a juvenile who has been arrested for shoplifting or a
more serious offense. Very few people hear that the person was not
guilty.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that if a person was over 18 years old,
there is no question that a police report is public record.
MS. KNUTH said that the police report is not public record. In
fact, there is an entire mass of opinion which was she authored
concerning the public disclosure of police records. There is not
one answer. There is a continuum concerning how long ago the
offense occurred, whether the defendant was a public figure, if
there was a conviction, if there was a charge, and what is the
likelihood that the allegations are true. All these factors must
be weighed in order to decide whether information is disclosable or
not.
MS. KNUTH said a question always exists regarding whether a police
record in Alaska is public knowledge.
Number 747
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said perhaps he was using the wrong term when
he said "police report." He was under the impression that all
arrests in a community were made public in the newspaper if the
person was over 18 years old.
MS. KNUTH said Representative Vezey was referring to the "Police
Blotter." There are three rules applied. The police blotter is a
daily record of arrests. That is made public, including adult
arrests. The actual report of the arrest and investigation is
probably not public at that time.
MS. KNUTH said that regarding convictions, the United States
Supreme Court said that for federal purposes, a person could go to
any court and find out what conviction a person has. However, an
individual cannot go to one agency, such as APSIN, and ask for a
person's history of criminal convictions. Essentially, that is too
easy, according to the Supreme Court. An individual can search and
go through a tough process of individual courts, and one by one
look for convictions. However, people have an expectation of
privacy and personal matters, including these criminal activities
such that the information is available, it is just not easily
available.
MS. KNUTH said someone is going to make that suggestion, in respect
to the law that comes into effect on July 1 when APSIN becomes
public.
Number 844
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked where it says the disclosure of juvenile
arrests is not permitted in the police blotter or anywhere. This
issue is not being addressed in any of the statutes discussed.
MS. KNUTH said AS 47.10.095 concerns the arrest of a minor. It
says the arrest of a minor, other than for a traffic offense, is
not considered an arrest for any purpose except for the purpose of
the disposition of a proceeding arising out of that arrest. She
said that is one statute that is cited when someone purports
juvenile arrests are different from adult arrests in terms of what
information is disclosed and what is not. There are probably other
statutes as well.
Number 911
STEVE McPHETRES, Executive Director of the Alaska Council of School
Administrators, said the council is in support of HB 125. The
principals across the state of Alaska believe this is very
important information to share with school officials. For years,
principals and other administrators have provided much information,
but have rarely, if ever, been the recipient of information when it
comes to children with a DFYS background.
MR. McPHETRES said that agencies have come to schools asking for or
requiring confidential information. When a principal asks why the
information is needed, the agency will say, "We can't tell you,
it's confidential." This has plagued teachers and administrators.
If the school system is going to work with the whole child, it
needs all the information necessary. If there is some information
that is lacking, the ability to work with that child in the best
way possible is impaired.
Number 965
MR. McPHETRES said the schools are dealing with situations that
were not present 20 years ago. Youth are creating violent acts,
yet the school administrators are required to provide a safe
environment in which all children can learn. If administrators do
not have information about youth in the schools that have been
convicted of felony crimes, it is not possible to properly
supervise and design intervention programs for them, and provide a
safe environment for all students.
MR. McPHETRES believes it is time for the sharing of information to
become a two-way street. The State of Georgia Division of
Protection conducted seminars across the country for many years.
This provided training for community groups regarding protection,
courts, juveniles and schools. The seminars created committees
that worked with juvenile issues and problems. It has been
documented that these programs have helped lower crime rates within
the school communities.
MR. McPHETRES stressed that the sharing of information does help.
It is time that confidence is placed in each other's abilities,
talents, skills and expertise, so the nature of the concerns before
the school systems today can be addressed.
Number 1043
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he has heard varying opinions expressed. He
asked if the relationship between the DFYS is cooperative or
adversarial.
MR. McPHETRES answered that the relationship is cooperative up to
the point that the schools provide the information requested. In
some cases there are some off-the-record comments made which help
administrators deal with the school's youth. However, Mr.
McPhetres does not believe the relationship is an open, two-way
street. Obviously, this is because of the confidentiality which
exists in DFYS records, but somehow that logjam must be broken, and
two-way communication must be established.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if Mr. McPhetres believes that,
instead of passing another law, that maybe there could be a meeting
set up between himself and the DHSS and the two-way information
exchange could be established. There is an existing law that
starts the process immediately, perhaps another law is not needed.
Number 1114
MR. McPHETRES said the school districts are aware of this piece of
legislation passed last year. In fact, he was called and asked to
get copies of that legislation so the administrators could take it
down to their local law enforcement agencies and show that there is
something on the books that opens the door to sharing.
MR. McPHETRES said the problem lies in the fact that the
legislation is very permissive. It says "may." Whenever pieces of
legislation are created that say "may," that means the sharing of
information is up to the discretion of the individual. The
information being requested is very important. That factor must be
addressed in some way, and Mr. McPhetres does not know how it is
addressed in the current legislation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented on the difference between HB 125 and SB
54. First, not all felonies are waived to adult court, and SB 54
changed the burden of proof to the juvenile. If the juvenile can
prove they are amenable to rehabilitation they will not be placed
in the adult court. Therefore, serious crimes may be committed by
individuals who remain in the juvenile system. In this case, the
information may not be available to the school district.
Number 1197
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director of the National Education
Association (NEA) of Alaska, echoed a comment made relative to HB
15. When children are disruptive, they are generally in a
classroom with other children and teachers. NEA Alaska supports HB
125 and the concept of allowing teachers and other school staff
access to legally permissible information that is subject to
disclosure under the proper means. The problems are in the
classroom, and he wants to know if the information would also be
provided to teachers so both teachers and principals will be able
to deal with problems in terms of a corrective approach as well as
an information approach.
MR. MARSHALL thinks that in sharing concerns with Ms. Gruening, she
can take care of NEA's concerns in the Judiciary Committee. It is
fine to give information to principals. But he hopes the principal
is not paralytic to the point that he or she is trying to figure
out what to do with the information.
MR. MARSHALL read page 4 of HB 125, line 29 which reads "...notify
the principal, who shall notify the staff of the school attended by
a minor...." A person in that system needs to know that
information. This is a concern of the NEA. Mr. Marshall agrees
with those testifying previously, it seems like teachers and
principals often do not share information. Sometimes teachers do
not know the kinds of information that is critically needed for
them to address the problem and also be aware of the problem.
MR. MARSHALL suggests a clause be added to HB 125 to insure that
the principal pass the information on to the staff of the school
relative to what is legally permissible to disclose.
Number 1346
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if Mr. Marshall thought that this
lack of information sharing was within the school system, and if
legislation and mandates were necessary. She is concerned with
schools, and thinks that right now, information could be exchanged
if people could talk. A parent simply needs to sign a waiver and
all information could be exchanged.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it seems this lack of information
sharing is a structural problem within the school system that needs
to be worked on. If the principal or the counselor gets
information and is unwilling to share or does not know they should
share, that is a school system problem, and does not have to be
fixed through legislation.
Number 1392
MR. MARSHALL said this is an issue that frustrated teachers one
year ago. NEA participated in discussions relative to SB 54. As
early as a month ago, the frustration level has not diminished.
The violence or disruption issue is of great concern to teachers
and staff members. People in addition to teachers can be
victimized by disinformation or the lack if information. There is
a change in process, but there are also bills pending currently and
Mr. Marshall has a responsibility to convey that something is not
working. Teachers in classrooms must be made aware of what is
going on.
MR. MARSHALL agrees that legislation is not necessary in all steps.
But this is a concern, and NEA wants to insure that information
reaches the classroom where it can do the most good. This may be
through legislation or regulation.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY wanted to set up a working group after the meeting.
Obviously, many groups have many concerns, and she thinks that the
group can come up with one bill that will suffice for everyone.
The bill will need to keep teachers and students safe, the court
system happy and the funding flowing.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON hoped that Vernon Marshall would meet with
the other people who testified and attempt to solve the
communication problems.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY wanted to bring all interested parties back to the
meeting. She urged everyone to come up with good ideas for a bill
that is meaningful to communities and the juveniles.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY announced that next Thursday's meeting, on March 2,
will begin at 2:30 p.m. All Thursday meetings after that will
begin at 2:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|