Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/23/1995 02:05 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 23, 1995
2:05 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
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 62: "An Act relating to birth certificates for certain
foreign born persons who are adopted."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 231: "An Act relating to the interview requirements of the
State Medical Board."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 87: "An Act authorizing youth courts to provide for peer
adjudication of minors who have allegedly committed
violations of state or municipal laws, and renaming the
community legal assistance grant fund and amending the
purposes for which grants may be made from that fund in
order to provide financial assistance for organization
and initial operation of youth courts."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 228: "An Act reducing payment levels for the program of aid to
families with dependent children and the adult public
assistance program."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 104: "An Act relating to disclosures of information about
certain minors."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR LYDA GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
Room 423, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SB 62.
MAXINE DEVILBISS, Parent
HC04-9302
Palmer, AK 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-3483
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 62.
DR. DAVID McGUIRE, Chairman
State Medical Licensing Board
3601 C Street, Suite 722
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 561-2878
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 231.
BARBARA GABIER, Program Coordinator
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and
Economic Development (DCED)
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, AK 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2572
POSITION STATEMENT: Indicated the DCED didn't have a
problem with HB 231
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Room 430, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3875
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 87.
LIZ ROBERTS, Legislative Aide
Office of Representative Bettye Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Room 430, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3875
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
LINDA EGAN, Adult Representative
Youth Commission
3136 Pioneer
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-3780
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
AMY MacKINNON, Student Representative
Youth Commission
1114 Glacier Avenue
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3902
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to Commissioner Perdue
Department of Health and Social Services
Alaska Office Building
350 Main Street, Room 229
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
CURTIS LOMAS, Program Officer
Welfare Reform Program, Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
Alaska Office Building
350 Main Street, Room 317
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3347
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 228.
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant
Representative Pete Kott's Office
Room 432, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 104.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Court Building, Room 717
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 104.
LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant (Legislation)
Department of Public Safety
450 Whittier Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4322
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 104.
MARGARET W. BERCK, Representative
American Civil Liberties Union, Alaska Chapter
227 7th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3309
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 104.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 62
SHORT TITLE: BIRTH CERTIFICATES FOR CERTAIN ADOPTEES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/03/95 164 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/03/95 164 (S) HES
02/15/95 287 (S) HES RPT 3DP 1NR
02/15/95 287 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DHSS - #1)
02/15/95 (S) HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/15/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/20/95 (S) RLS AT 11:25 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
02/20/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/21/95 349 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/21/95
02/21/95 353 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/21/95 353 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
02/21/95 353 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 62
02/21/95 354 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E1 A1
02/21/95 354 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
02/22/95 373 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
02/22/95 374 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/27/95 479 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/95 479 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
03/23/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 231
SHORT TITLE: INTERVIEWS BY THE STATE MEDICAL BOARD
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) TOOHEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/03/95 566 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/03/95 566 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
03/23/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 87
SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZING YOUTH COURTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS, Davies, Robinson
01/17/95 51 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/17/95 51 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
01/18/95 76 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAVIES
02/06/95 256 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROBINSON
03/23/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 228
SHORT TITLE: REDUCTION IN PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/03/95 565 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/03/95 565 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/14/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/14/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/16/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/16/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/16/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/23/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 104
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE RECORDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT, Bunde, Green
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
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/23/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-27, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the meeting of the House Health,
Education and Social Services standing committee to order at 2:05
p.m. Present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde,
Toohey, Rokeberg and Davis. A quorum was present to conduct
business.
HHES - 03/23/95
SB 62 - BIRTH CERTIFICATES FOR CERTAIN ADOPTEES
Number 060
SENATOR LYDA GREEN presented her bill. She said it has been her
pleasure to sponsor this bill. Before 1982, Alaska did not have a
provision for granting birth certificates to foreign born adopted
children. In 1982 when Alaska passed such a law, it was the first
state to do so. At that same time, a provision was included that
prohibited anyone over the age of 18 from applying for a birth
certificate.
SENATOR GREEN explained those persons who were over 18 at that time
were excluded from ever receiving an Alaska birth certificate.
This bill allows those who were adopted as children, but who are
now adults, to not be excluded from receiving a birth certificate.
Both the U.S. Immigration Office and Division of Vital Statistics
anticipate no great impact. This does not allow individuals over
the age of 18 to be adopted, since federal law prohibits anyone
over that age from being adopted.
SENATOR GREEN said this bill would not be an avenue by which a
person living in this country could adopt his/her grandmother to
make her an automatic citizen of the U.S. This bill is designed
for that very small group of people who fell through that window of
time and are not allowed to get an Alaska birth certificate.
Number 187
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Senator Green to remain at the meeting for a
moment. He noted the presence of Representatives Robinson and
Brice, who joined the meeting at 2:08 p.m.
Number 219
MAXINE DEVILBISS, Parent, testified via teleconference. She and
her husband adopted their son Brian from Korea when he was three
years old. At the same time, there were a number of other
adoptions from Korea. These are children of American Servicemen
and Korean women, conceived during the Korean War. When Brian was
adopted, Mr. and Mrs. Devilbiss assumed he would receive a birth
certificate. They found out they could not get a birth certificate
for him.
MS. DEVILBISS worked for many years to get a bill through that
would allow overseas children to receive Alaskan birth
certificates. However, she was amazed to find out that the
situation was not retroactive. She appreciates the bill that
Senator Green has put forth. The bill will allow Brian, who is 35
years old, to have a birth certificate. There have been times when
he has needed one. This measure will be appreciated by Brian and
by other adoptees who were over 18 when the 1982 bill was passed.
She really appreciates the consideration of this bill.
Number 352
CO-CHAIR BUNDE thanked Ms. Devilbiss for her kind words and for her
testimony. There were no questions for Ms. Devilbiss, and there
was no further public testimony.
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY apologized for waiting this long to pass a
bill such as this. She motioned that the bill be moved to the next
committee of referral with individual recommendations and
accompanying fiscal notes. There were no objections, and the bill
was so moved.
Number 433
MS. DEVILBISS thanked HESS Committee members on the behalf of her
son. She said her son is a very wonderful Alaskan citizen. He has
his own business, and Alaska can be proud of him. She wished HESS
Committee members good luck and thanked them again.
HHES - 03/23/95
HB 231 - INTERVIEWS BY THE STATE MEDICAL BOARD
Number 519
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said under existing law, physicians applying for
permanent licensures must be interviewed in person by the Alaska
State Medical Board or a member of the board. The board, a member
of the board or an alternative designated interviewer must
interview, in person, the locum tenant physician's interns or
resident applicants.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY explained the mandate interview is cumbersome,
expensive and of limited value since the license application
process, which takes place prior to the applicant being
interviewed, is extensive and thorough. An interview is unlikely
to reveal any information not already known. HB 231 would allow
the interview process to be discretionary. This would relieve the
applicant, the board members and the board staff of a significant
amount of work. Interviews could be conducted when the Alaskan
Medical Board deems it necessary.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said HB 231 is supported by the Alaska State
Medical Association, the Alaska State Medical Board, and by the
Division of Occupational Licensing (DOL). There is a zero fiscal
note.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY announced that the chairman of the State Medical
Board was on-line to testify and respond to questions.
Number 597
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that this bill was heard by the HESS
Committee members last year. There is a cumbersome process where
someone comes in for a temporary arrangement, perhaps a month or
two of filling in for a doctor in a rural community, and they must
get to the Medical Board, have an interview, and then return to the
rural community. This adds up to considerable cost.
Number 640
DR. DAVID McGUIRE, Chairman, State Medical Licensing Board,
testified via teleconference. The board has endeavored to do the
best it could to be certain licensed physicians in the State of
Alaska are appropriately licensed. Members of the board have
viewed their job principally as one of patient and consumer
protection. The board continues to do so.
DR. McGUIRE wanted to reassure all the representatives that this is
something which has been considered from a position of patient
protection. Patient protection will not be compromised, yet the
board and the individuals will be saved a lot of unnecessary
hassle.
Number 719
DR. McGUIRE said the opinion on this matter was arrived at through
research. Dr. McGuire asked his secretary to help him review the
licenses issued and to see if there was ever a single instance in
which there was an adverse action on a license solely as the result
of the interview. To put it another way, if the board thought the
application was "clean," meaning problem-free, the doctor wanted to
know if there was ever a single time in which the interview
discovered something that would cause the board to deny the
application. The answer was no.
DR. McGUIRE said that situation never occurred, and he cannot find
a single instance of that occurrence in the history of the board.
From the opposing point of view, if the board receives an
application and questions arise about the applicant, the board
absolutely wants the prerogative, without any discussion or appeal
on the part of the applicant to be able to interview that applicant
personally.
DR. McGUIRE said there have been many instances in which questions
have risen on the application, the applicant has been interviewed
by the board and, as a result of the application and the interview,
the license has been denied.
Number 804
DR. McGUIRE stressed it is therefore imperative that the
prerogative be present to interview any person with whom the board
does not feel 100 percent confident. They should be required to
attend that interview without an explanation from the board.
However, if an application is clean and everything is in order, the
board would like to have the ability to conduct interviews at the
board's discretion. In the past, however, the board has been going
through this constant exercise, and they cannot demonstrate that it
does any good to anybody.
DR. McGUIRE said he would be happy to answer questions.
Number 855
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were questions of Dr. McGuire, and
there were none. He asked for further public testimony, and noted
that Barbara Gabier of the Division of Occupational Licensing in
Juneau was also available to answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked Ms. Gabier to indicate with a nod
that the Department of Commerce does not have a problem with the
bill.
BARBARA GABIER, Program Coordinator, Division of Occupational
Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED),
did so.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said this bill made it all the way to the floor of
the Senate last year, and ran out of time.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony, and asked for the wish of
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS motioned for the committee to move HB 231 to
the next committee of referral with individual recommendations and
accompanying fiscal note. There were no objections. HB 231 was
moved out of the House HESS Committee.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called a five minute at-ease at 2:20 p.m. in order
for the sponsors of the next bill to prepare for a videotaped
presentation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE reconvened the meeting at 2:25 p.m.
HHES - 03/23/95
HB 87 - AUTHORIZING YOUTH COURTS
Number 969
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS, sponsor of the bill, said this bill
was carried all the way through the House and died in Senate Rules
last year. This bill had been introduced by then-Representative
Joe Sitton. Representative B. Davis said youth courts is a program
that means a lot to her. She was in Anchorage when youth courts
began there. The program has been very successful. Anchorage is
the only Alaskan city that has the program, and she wanted to put
it into statute so other cities and areas may also be able to have
this model.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said this program works. It creates pride
in students. Some children who previously experienced problems in
school have gone through the program and have changed. It does not
matter under what capacity they served. Perhaps they were a juror,
or a judge, or a lawyer. Whatever role they participated in, the
students participated wholeheartedly. In fact, some of the
punishments the students come up with are more restrictive than
what is handed down in adult courts.
Number 1035
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS added that many of these youngsters have
gone to college and have decided to be lawyers, judges, etc., due
to their experiences in the program. Representative B. Davis was
pleased to present a videotape that explained youth courts. This
has been one of the most popular bills for student study when they
participate in the Close-Up program. Representative B. Davis' aide
has had many students inquiring about the bill, and asking how they
could help get it passed through the House and Senate.
Number 1081
LIZ ROBERTS, Legislative Aide to Representative Bettye Davis, said
the Close-Up students really liked the fact that Youth Courts
represent real democracy. Youth offenders were really going to be
tried by their peers, instead of by grownups who live in a
different generation and frequently, a different kind of world.
MS. ROBERTS explained defendants have to be first-time offenders,
they must be charged with a misdemeanor, and they must get
permission to be tried in Youth Court. The wonderful thing about
being the defendant in Youth Court is that when it is all over and
the defendant is found guilty, there is nothing on the individual's
criminal record. The person only has community service to perform.
The recidivism rate is about 38 percent less than for children who
go through the regular juvenile courts.
MS. ROBERTS added this is a learning experience for all involved.
Number 1140
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he has been previously involved with Youth
Court. One of the things he liked the most is that kids can fool
adults, but they are not very good at fooling other children. Co-
Chair Bunde endorsed the statements of Representative B. Davis in
that sometimes young people call for a more severe and/or realistic
penalty whereas adults are more inclined to make excuses.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS added that it is a good way for adults to
help students learn and respect the law. This program works. She
spoke of a friend's daughter who was having some problems as a
teenager. She was running with the wrong crowd. A flyer was sent
around to the schools about Youth Courts, and the girl decided she
wanted to be involved. Her parents got all the information and got
her enrolled. This girl has gone from a "C" student to an "A"
student because she now wants to be a lawyer.
Number 1209
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON said Youth Courts originated in
Texas. Representative Robinson had looked into the program while
she was working for Representative B. Davis. That program was just
beginning, and it was experiencing incredible success. It was
beginning to expand all over Texas. Representative Robinson asked
if Ms. Roberts had looked at the Texas program, or if only the
Anchorage model was used for the drafting of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said only the Alaska model was used, but
there are many states that are starting Youth Courts.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she may still have some information.
Texas was starting to set up training programs for people to visit
communities, train the youth, set up the programs and start the
operation of the programs. Clearly, the program in Texas was
experiencing incredible successes.
Number 1261
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noticed there were three fiscal notes amounting to
zero in the packet. She asked if those would carry through for the
next ten years, if the program were to continue in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said this program will never have a state
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE commented that while the fiscal notes are
currently zero, HESS Committee members need to remember that in the
future this program will have a negative impact on state funds.
Considering the level of recidivism coming with the bill, the state
will see less impact on the juvenile system in the future. The
fiscal note, therefore, should be negative.
Number 1322
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the program is funded through federal
grants.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said the City of Anchorage has received
money for this program in a variety of ways. The municipality does
give some money toward Youth Courts, but mostly funding comes from
volunteers and professionals who want the program to succeed.
Donations are also accepted. Therefore, as a whole this program is
privately funded.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the bill passes a mandate onto the city
that says it must provide Youth Courts.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said no. No mandates are being passed.
This is a program that is being picked up by the community. If a
community does not choose to implement Youth Courts, that is fine.
Number 1354
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG said on page 4, lines 1 through 4 of
the bill, it reads of a legal assistance grant fund that will be
created within the department, and there will be legislative
appropriations to the fund. There is a provision in the bill,
therefore, to allow for such a fund, and Representative Rokeberg
was curious about where this money comes from. This section
appears to allow for legislative appropriations if the program can
get some.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said he was right. Apparently, there is a
national organization that provides monies for Youth Courts. That
national organization wants the statute to stipulate that if a
grant comes through, it is to come through the state agency and
then filter down to the organization that organizes the Youth
Courts. That is the understanding of Representative B. Davis. If
the program never got any money there would be no need to have the
statute. However, if the statute is already set up, a system is
already in place and the money can filter through the state.
Number 1401
CO-CHAIR BUNDE observed that the government will not give the
grants directly to non-profits. Money has to filter through the
state. For the record, there is no fiscal note involved with these
programs, and no general fund expenditures are anticipated with
this bill.
Number 1420
LINDA EGAN, Representing the Youth Commission in Juneau, said she
is one of two adult members of that commission. She introduced a
student member of the commission, Amy MacKinnon. Ms. Egan said
this has been one of the main projects of the Youth Commission, and
a lot of time has been spent in pursuit of the Youth Courts
program. The same videotape which will be seen shortly by the HESS
Committee members was also seen by Juneau assembly members, school
board members and the superintendent of schools. They have been
very supportive of this program.
MS. EGAN said the law community is very supportive of this concept
also. The program on the video is different than the program in
place in Anchorage. The video shows a scaled-down version of the
program in which the students have already pleaded guilty. In
Anchorage, the program is different. However, this type of
smaller-scale program is being investigated for Juneau, because of
Juneau's smaller population.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE summarized the program. He said basically, someone
enters the Youth Courts, pleads guilty, and then throws him or
herself on the mercy of the Youth Court.
Number 1472
AMY MacKINNON, Student representative, Youth Commission,
acknowledged that was the way the program would work in Juneau.
However, the accused is supposedly going to get more benefit out of
their punishment, and they will not have a criminal record.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said whatever the punishment might be, it will not
include a criminal record. Ms. MacKinnon acknowledged that he was
correct. Co-Chair Bunde asked about Ms. MacKinnon's involvement
with the Youth Court.
MS. MacKINNON said this was her first year on the program. She
began in September.
MS. EGAN said Amy was on the Youth Commission, however, she is not
involved in the Juneau Youth Court Program.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Egan and Ms. MacKinnon to talk HESS
Committee members through the video.
MS. EGAN said the video speaks for itself.
Number 1535
A video was presented about Youth Courts, showing how they work,
how students can get involved, and a true Youth Court case of a
basketball player who was involved in stealing money from a girl's
purse. Because it began as a practical joke, and the boy did not
want to jeopardize his basketball season, he asked to work through
the Youth Court.
Number 2041
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Amy MacKinnon could tell the HESS Committee
members what happened to the basketball player.
MS. MacKINNON said the boy had to pay restitution, apologize to the
girl and perform community service.
Number 2080
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to Commissioner Perdue,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), said the
department is supportive of the bill.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to move HB 87 from committee
with individual recommendations and suggested a "strong letter" to
the Judiciary Committee to move the bill along. There were no
objections, and the bill was passed out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted the bill also had a Finance Committee
Referral. She felt the bill is important, and asked if it would be
within the bounds of the HESS Committee members to write a letter
to the Chair of the Finance Committee saying there is no need to
send the bill to that committee.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that was not the role of the HESS Committee,
however, he was sure Representative B. Davis would look into that
option.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON offered the HESS Committee's assistance in
such a case.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said she thought the bill may be waived
from that committee, but it was not. She said she would continue
to look into the matter.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Egan and Ms. MacKinnon to give HESS
Committee members an update on Juneau's Youth Court program next
year. They said they would be happy to do so.
Number 2147
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if any student, whether they be a freshman or
a senior, can be on the Youth Court as long as their grades are up.
The answer was yes.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if, as a freshman, Ms. MacKinnon would be
brave enough to sentence a senior, especially a high school jock.
MS. MacKINNON explained that the "jock" would not know who,
exactly, handed down the sentence because everyone is in a jury
with 11 other people.
HHES - 03/23/95
HB 228: REDUCTION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
Number 2169
CO-CHAIR BUNDE introduced the bill and noted it had been heard
previously, and was held until this meeting. He asked for public
testimony, and there was none. Co-Chair Bunde therefore closed
public testimony and committee discussion began.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that a similar bill, HB 78, is currently
being examined by the committee, however, Co-Chair Bunde would
prefer to have HB 228 available should it be needed. If the
federal block grants that were discussed come through, HB 228 may
provide a useful mechanism for the subsequent processes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what Co-Chair Bunde was talking
about.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he was talking about HB 228. The other bill to
which he was referring was HB 78, which is the combination of one
of the Governor's welfare reform bills, and Representative Mark
Hanley's bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that bill would affect HB 228.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said no, they are two entirely different bills. Co-
Chair Bunde distributed an amendment.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved Amendment 9LS0831-F.1, Amendment 1.
Number 2239
CO-CHAIR BUNDE explained that Amendment 1 would remove adult public
assistance (APA) from the purview of this bill. APA assists
individuals with disabilities. These people do not have many
options, and this bill focuses on people who have more options.
The amendment has been offered by Co-Chairs Bunde and Toohey.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for a brief at-ease, and it was
granted. It was 2:53 p.m.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting back to order at 2:54 p.m. He
recapped that the amendment would cut APA from reductions. There
were no objections to the amendment. Now before the committee was
HB 228 as amended. Co-Chair Bunde asked for further discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the committee is looking at version
(f) of the bill. Co-Chair Bunde said yes.
Tape 95-27
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS moved that CSHB 228(HES) be moved from
committee with accompanying fiscal notes and individual
recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected for purposes of discussion. He
noticed that representatives from the DHSS had arrived at the
meeting. He asked if one of those representatives could answer a
questions regarding how many recipients receive both APA and Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
CO-CHAIR BUNDE reopened the meeting to public testimony.
CURTIS LOMAS, Program Officer, Division of Public Assistance, DHSS,
said he did not have an exact figure to give Representative Brice.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he is not talking about specific people,
he wanted to know about families.
MR. LOMAS said his guess would be somewhere in the area of 400 to
500 families. That guess, however, is just off the top of his
head. There is a total of about 800 situations in which the adult
is not included in the assistance unit because the adult is on APA,
or the children are housed with another relative who is not needy.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he would contact Mr. Lomas at a later
time to discuss this.
Number 122
CO-CHAIR BUNDE reiterated the motion to move CSHB 228(HES). A roll
call vote was taken. Voting "yes" on the bill were Representatives
Rokeberg, Toohey, Bunde and G. Davis. Voting "no" were
Representatives Robinson and Brice. The bill moved from committee.
HHES - 03/23/95
HB 104: DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE RECORDS
Number 160
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott,
said HESS Committee members should have before them the proposed CS
for the Sponsor Substitute (SS) for HB 104. This CS was drafted
after the last HESS Committee hearing on this bill. At the last
hearing, testimony and concerns were heard from the Department of
Law (DOL) and the DHSS about the impact of the disclosure of
juvenile felony crimes by the DHSS and the effect this would have
on federal funding.
MR. MOURANT said while Representative Kott still strongly believes
educators and the general public have the right to know who the
serious juvenile offenders are in society, he does not want to
disclose that information at the risk of federal funding for
important programs. Therefore, Representative Kott's office is
offering version "G", a proposed CS.
Number 263
MR. MOURANT explained the way the bill is currently written, it
pertains to the statutes that deal with disclosure of information
and the public's right to know information. The amendment
stipulates that records relating to a juvenile who is arrested for
a felony are public information which may be released by the
employing agency of the arresting officer in the case of a juvenile
committing a felony.
MR. MOURANT noted that in a report called "Releasing Juvenile
Delinquent's Names to the Media," which was a study done in 1994,
by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, only four states and
the District of Columbia still forbid the release of serious
offender information in the case of juveniles. Those states are
Hawaii, North Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Number 324
MR. MOURANT said comments were solicited from the agencies through
the committee staff. The proposed CS was circulated early, and
comments were asked for. Mr. Mourant was told prior to the HESS
Committee meeting that the DOL still had a concern about the
impacts of this legislation on potential funding. This is because
evidently, even though a juvenile is charged with a felony, the
prosecution is not conducted by the District Attorney's (DA's)
Office but rather by the Division of Family and Youth Services
(DFYS).
MR. MOURANT said his office was not aware of that, even at this
late date. However, this is an important consideration and it will
be brought up in the next committee of referral, which is the
Judiciary Committee. That would be the recommendation of
Representative Kott, if the HESS Committee members were gracious
enough to allow the Judiciary Committee to address the issue of the
prosecution of juvenile felons.
Number 396
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, said the situation is that law enforcement
officials would be making these arrests. That is the first step.
Therefore, the release of their police blotter information would be
coming from the law enforcement agencies instead of from the DHSS
DFYS. That avoids the issue of the loss of federal funding,
because the DFYS is not releasing that information.
MS. KNUTH said she previously pointed out that if the wrong
juvenile was arrested, or if it was obvious that the wrong charge
was leveled against the juvenile (it should have been a misdemeanor
charge) and the charge is reduced right away, that is going to
happen once the DFYS is involved in the case. The division is
going to reduce the charge, acting with the civil side of the
Attorney General's Office. Because they are under that penalty of
jeopardizing federal funds, juveniles are going to be in a unique
situation, different from that of adults.
MS. KNUTH explained that the original arrest information can be
released, but correcting information, either immediately or down
the road, will not be available for juveniles because it will come
from the DFYS and that will jeopardize the funds. This is sort of
an anomaly, and the consequences must be weighed.
Number 504
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted the situation is much like the daily news
reporting the arrest of a legislator, but news of his/her
vindication is usually found in the depths of the paper. Co-Chair
Bunde asked for Ms. Knuth's recommendation to cure this problem.
MS. KNUTH said there does not seem to be a cure. All that can be
done is balance the situation, and decide whether or not the
release of information to the public is more important even if
there is going to be some mistaken information that cannot be
undone. On the other hand, the legislators could decide that the
possibility of wrong information is a significant enough factor
that they are not comfortable releasing that information.
MS. KNUTH added she knows of at least one case in Juneau in which
this type of situation occurred. She was working in the DA's
Office when an officer from the Juneau Police Department simply
arrested the wrong juvenile on a serious offense. He had come to
the DA's Office for a warrant, and then he came back the next week
asking for another warrant.
MS. KNUTH asked the officer why he needed another warrant, and he
said, "Oh, that wasn't the right guy after all." Ms. Knuth was
horrified. It had not occurred to her that this happened in
modern-day law enforcement. Part of the problem is that there are
basically two types of law enforcement officers. There is a "new
school" of pretty competent people. These people have a fair
amount of education and view their job very carefully. There is
still, however, an "old school" that the officer of which she spoke
would belong to. Things like the arrest of the wrong juvenile did
not seem to matter as much.
Number 616
MS. KNUTH said part of the officer's analysis had been based on the
fact that a juvenile's arrest would not be public anyway,
therefore, there was not as much at risk. Ms. Knuth hopes that if
this information is publicized, officers like him would take
greater care.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked her for a guess on the number of juveniles
charged with what would be a felony, if they were an adult, who
have their charges reduced. He asked if that was an infrequent
occurrence.
MS. KNUTH said that was a fairly frequent occurrence, however, more
often than not it is a matter of negotiation rather than the
initial charge having been incorrect. There is simply a decision
to treat it as a lessor offense. Sometimes, the crime was not the
higher offense, and that is fairly infrequent. Most of the time,
the charge is accurate. However, in terms of what the adjudication
ends up being, Ms. Knuth would say as often as half of the time,
the charge ends up being reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor for
juveniles. This is not because the conduct was not felonious, but
because that is the way the system functions.
Number 707
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said anybody can look at the records. Before a
juvenile is tried, the crime he has committed is listed as a felony
as if he were an adult. This is put in the record. However, the
non-felony juveniles are not put into the same record. Therefore,
this is an arbitrary decision by the police officer.
MS. KNUTH interjected that hopefully, the decision is not
arbitrary. Sometimes, however, it is a judgement call.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the juvenile has not gone through the process
of adjudication.
Number 749
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Knuth to talk about cases in
which she has been involved where information would be released
under HB 104.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged the presence of Representative Vezey,
at 3:10 p.m.
MS. KNUTH said burglary in the first degree would be a class B
felony. This would be the burglary of a residence. The burglary
of a business would be a class C felony. In the case of theft, if
the amount stolen is over $500, the theft is considered a felony.
Under $500, and it is a misdemeanor. Possession of any illegal
drug except marijuana, whether you were going to sell it, use it or
give it away, is a felony offense. Most weapons offenses that
juveniles will be involved in would be a misdemeanor.
Number 869
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON recounted a case in which a group of young
men visited an island near Juneau and took a shovel to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Building. The vandalism was a
felony.
MS. KNUTH said it is not very difficult to do more than $500 worth
of damage to property. For example, if a juvenile goes joyriding
and damages the car to an amount over $500, that is a felony.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to line 9 of the bill, which says
"records relating to the arrest of a juvenile...." He asked if an
indictment or arraignment level is reached after the arrest. He
does not know the criminal law procedures in various jurisdictions,
however, Ms. Knuth brought up the potential for a false arrest
situation. Representative Rokeberg asked if there is one more step
that could be taken before the information is released. Perhaps
this step would help overcome the possibility.
Number 939
MS. KNUTH said that is what happens in adult cases. Because the
Civil Division of the DOL works with the DHSS on juvenile cases,
she does not know if there is a counterpart like that for
juveniles. She said she does not know if they are placed before a
Grand Jury or not. However, if they are, this is still at a point
where the DFYS is involved in the case. She understands the
federal government has said the moment documents generated by or
going through DHSS are released, the funds are jeopardized. That
is why people were trying to work backwards to the arrest, which is
about the only thing that happens before DHSS gets involved.
Number 993
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY commented it is important to remember that
destroying federal property is a federal crime, not a state crime.
state and federal statutes are not necessarily the same across the
board.
Number 1036
LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant (Legislation), Department of
Public Safety (DPS), said the department has no philosophical
objection of the disclosure of information to identify juvenile
felons. As a matter of course, at the time of charge or arrest a
press release is generated which is a brief summary of the
incident, the date, and time. If the accused was an adult, it
would include identifying information. The only difference is for
a juvenile, their name is not mentioned. If the intent of this
legislation is to just identify the juvenile, the DPS would simply
add that information to the press release.
MS. LUCAS said on line 9 of the bill, which refers to "records
relating to the arrest," it was unclear to the DPS if the bill was
referring to the information included in the press release, or if
the bill stipulated that more information than that would be
released.
MS. LUCAS suggested that perhaps the bill could state more
specifically what information is released on the juvenile, rather
than "records relating to the case."
Number 1108
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if anyone in the room could tell her how
often innocent juveniles are labeled felons, and how often children
are wrongly accused.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked them also to give a number on how many people
are charged and not convicted.
MS. KNUTH said those are two different questions. She said she
does not know how many people are arrested who had nothing to do
with the incident. She stated she would like to think the
incidents are unusual. Perhaps someone from the DFYS or someone
from the Human Services Division of the Attorney General's Office
would be able to answer that question.
MS. KNUTH said the vast majority of cases are those that are
charged with a felony and the charge ends up something short of an
adjudication for that felony. This is because on first offenses,
there is a fair amount of desire to not go all the way to
adjudication. The courts try to use the leverage of the charge and
the threat of adjudication to accomplish a number of rehabilitative
goals such as restitution, treatment, etc.
Number 1189
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if it was being assumed that the crime is a
first offense.
MS. KNUTH said not necessarily.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said the juvenile could be a hard-core 16-year-old
who has lived a life of crime since he was 12.
MS. KNUTH said she believes that most individuals are first
offenders. Those who are repeat offenders occupy a great deal of
paperwork and the attention of the system. However, in terms of
numbers coming through, there are a lot of first offenders who are
not seen again.
Number 1219
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS noted on page 1, line 9, where it says,
"records relating to the arrest...", Representative G. Davis said
he supposed the bill assumes the records being released are the
same as what is being released in an adult case.
MS. LUCAS said that is the intent of the bill, but the DPS would be
more comfortable if the bill was more specific.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would be more comfortable too. For example,
in a rape case, the entire record cannot be made public. Those
records could not be released in an adult case; however, this bill
says, "records relating to the arrest...." A person could point to
the statute and demand that it be followed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said (A) on page 1 may give some direction.
There is a standard procedure now set about in existing statutes.
Representative Rokeberg said he felt that is what is being
reflected.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for correction if he was wrong, but he did not
believe if someone is the victim of a crime, they wouldn't want
their personal lives available to the public as part of the arrest
record.
Number 1295
MS. KNUTH said this type of information is certainly not available
while the investigation is going on, before the case has gone to
trial and has been completed. This is because it can interfere
with the investigation, it can interfere with a fair trail. If
there is a conviction, some records become public at that point.
However, the privacy interests of the victim would be weighed with
whatever the interest in disclosure is. Generally, the victim's
name is going to be retracted. That is required under the Victim's
Rights Act for certain cases of sexual abuse and sexual assault
offenses.
MS. KNUTH said the state would not want a statute that authorizes
the disclosure of that type of information in juvenile cases when
the state has decided, as a matter of policy, that it does not want
that information released in adult cases.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that the bill does refer to after the arrest,
therefore, it does seem to broaden the scope of information that
may be released.
Number 1340
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked what new crimes are being added over
and above what is included under the jurisdiction of SB 54, passed
last year, which was the automatic waiver bill. She asked if rape
cases would not automatically fall under that bill.
MS. KNUTH said the automatic waiver is for juveniles 16 and older.
Therefore, this bill could affect an offense committed by a
juvenile who is under the age of 16. In addition to that, felonies
covered would be the possession of drugs, burglary offenses,
property damage and theft of over $500.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said therefore, everyone under the age of
16 who commits crimes that would be felonies, if they were adults
are being included, plus all those new crimes.
MS. KNUTH noted the sponsor has made it very clear he did not
intend for any more than police blotter information to be released.
Therefore, this is a drafting problem from Legal Services. They
have written language which provides for a broader release of
information than simply blotter information. Police blotter
information basically only includes the name of the juvenile, age
and the name of the offense. Ms. Knuth knows the sponsor was only
looking to release that information. The bill reflects an
inadvertently broader scope.
Number 1405
CO-CHAIR BUNDE agreed. However, the state does not want to create
statutes that assume goodwill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that subsection (6) lays out the law
enforcement disclosure criteria. The statute could refer into the
new addition for the requirements of that criteria.
MS. KNUTH said the concern is that (2) is on equal footing with
(6). One is talking about juveniles, and the other is talking
about everything except juveniles. Therefore, as a matter of
statutory interpretation the court would say, "what relates to
juveniles is more specific and therefore controlling."
MS. KNUTH said what would be most clear would be to amend (2)(A) so
it is only authorizing the disclosure of police blotter
information, specifically name, age, and offense. This would be
better than saying "records relating to the arrest."
Number 1462
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said Ms. Knuth has given some direction to the
bill's sponsors as far as language, and there is some drafting that
does not need to be done at the table. Co-Chair Bunde asked that
the last person wishing to testify does so, and the bill will be
held until the language is tightened up. Co-Chair Bunde said he is
still concerned about the release of information at the time of the
arrest and not at the time of the conviction. He does not know if
there is a way that can be worked around. It does not appear so.
MS. LUCAS said the DPS shares the concerns of the DOL concerning
the correction of public misinformation.
Number 1509
MARGARET W. BERCK, Representative, American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), Alaska Chapter, said her organization is essentially
opposed to what this bill does for the wholesale release of
juvenile records and information regarding juveniles.
MS. BERCK had been working with the bill available on the ground
floor of the Capitol Building, noted as SSHB 104. She now
understands there is a working draft that changes some provisions.
However, some general comments she has regarding an earlier version
of this bill may be of some assistance to HESS Committee members in
making their decision.
MS. BERCK said when the bill talks about age 14 and up, and all
felony cases, that would include perhaps most juvenile cases. She
said she has been practicing criminal law in Juneau since 1976.
Ms. Berck indicated she has done many court appointments and has
represented many juveniles. Rarely is a juvenile in the court
system under age 14. Occasionally someone would be younger, but
the incident would stick out in her mind. Therefore, the bill
covers about all cases.
Number 1578
MS. BERCK said pretty much all of the juvenile cases are initially
dealing with felony cases. Rarely is there a juvenile who is in
juvenile court because of multiple minor offenses, has been through
the revolving door, and who will be shipped off to the juvenile
correctional facility. That has happened, however, it is highly
unusual. Most juveniles are charged with felonies. If a juvenile
is not charged with a felony, he or she does not even get a court
appointed attorney. Therefore, most of the cases are charged as
felonies, and this bill would sweep in pretty much the entire
system.
MS. BERCK said Co-Chair Toohey had asked how many juveniles may
have been wrongly arrested, at least as far as the initial charges.
That is difficult to say. However, as far as Ms. Berck knows, in
the last ten years in Juneau, she is aware of only three juvenile
cases that actually went to jury trial. Most cases result in some
sort of plea-bargaining mechanism. As Ms. Knuth indicated, most of
the time juveniles are charged with a felony, the charge is reduced
to a misdemeanor, and something is worked out. These cases do not
go to trial.
Number 1642
MS. BERCK recalled that of the three she knows did go to trial,
every single one was acquitted. Because Juneau is a small
community, everyone knows who these people are. In one case,
although the records were confidential, everyone knew who the
alleged perpetrator was and what he had done. Therefore, he waived
his own confidentiality because he wanted it in the press that he
had been acquitted.
MS. BERCK said traditionally, arrest records are much more shaky
than the records resulting from the prosecutor's review, the
evidence and the charge reviewed by a Grand Jury. In this type of
procedure, things are looked at more carefully. Charges are
adjusted to particular facts.
MS. BERCK said traditionally, arrest records have always been
somewhat suspect. In adult cases, arrest records may not
necessarily be considered without a subsequent conviction when an
adult criminal is being sentenced. Last week, Ms. Berck was
involved in a case in which a very old arrest record was
considered. The person appealed, and the conviction was
overturned. The judge did not consider that arrest record.
MS. BERCK continued that in the U.S. Supreme Court decisions
regarding Title VII, arrest records have been frowned upon by use
of employers because the people who get arrested tend to be non-
caucasians. There are many racial problems with arrest records
that have been considered in Title VII litigation.
Number 1738
MS. BERCK reiterated that traditionally, arrest records have a much
more shaky footing because they have not gone through a more
detailed analysis by perhaps a Grand Jury or a review by a
prosecutor.
MS. BERCK responded to the question about what happens in juvenile
court, and whether or not there is some sort of mechanism such as
an indictment or Grand Jury proceeding. The juvenile procedure
does not work that way. There is a petition filed alleging the
child to be a delinquent minor as a result of having committed some
particular act. The act is described with some detail in the
petition, and basically that is it. There is no preliminary
hearing or Grand Jury process in the juvenile proceeding.
MS. BERCK explained the juvenile is brought into court under that
petition. He/she admits or denies the allegation, and then usually
returns to court 30 days hence. The judge is told whether or not
he/she is going to plea bargain or go to trial. If trial is
chosen, the case is set for trial. However, that does not often
happen.
Number 1790
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Ms. Berck was basically referring to a
child who is guilty.
MS. BERCK said a judge once told her, "Everybody is guilty of
something. You just have to make sure you have the right charges
on them." That is something Ms. Berck often remembers. She
referred HESS Committee members back to the bill, the video tape
presentation, and earlier discussion about the kinds of felonies.
It does not take much to step over the line from a misdemeanor to
a felony. It takes one dollar--$499 versus $500. In the
circumstance of what the basketball player in the video was charged
with, having taken $48 dollars from a purse, she asked HESS
Committee members to remember that it all started out as a joke.
MS. BERCK said if those boys had taken a backpack with a pair of
prescription glasses inside, perhaps also a calculator, and the
backpack cost $80, it does not take much to get up to $500. If
those boys had taken a credit card and charged $20 worth of gas on
that card, it would be a felony. Forgeries are felonies. It does
not take much. The question is whether the state really wants to
label a boy such as the basketball player for the rest of his life.
Does the state want to prevent him from getting a basketball
scholarship?
Number 1862
MS. BERCK continued that one of the benefits of the Youth Courts
was that these children are given the opportunity to work their way
out of acquiring a record. These individuals can have a youthful
indiscretion that does not affect the rest of their lives.
Juvenile records are not necessarily kept completely confidential.
The court has the ability to order the release under existing law.
On behalf of the ACLU, she asked HESS Committee members to
seriously consider whether or not they really want to allow for the
wholesale release of all juvenile records, because basically that
is what this bill does.
Number 1899
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she thinks most children are not felons.
However, if disclosure were to deter one child from stealing, maybe
it is worth it.
MS. BERCK did not mean to suggest that all children are felons, and
Co-Chair Toohey acknowledged that.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that however, most charges are going to fall
under felonies.
MS. BERCK said if most of the juvenile cases filed are studied,
they will involve individuals aged 14 to 18, and they are going to
be charged with felony offenses. The question is, how much would
this really deter the person? Oftentimes, teenagers do not realize
the consequences of their actions. Ms. Berck is of the personal
opinion that this is primarily the fault of educators.
Number 1942
CO-CHAIR BUNDE thanked those who participated. If he had his
preference, juveniles who were convicted of felonies would be
subject to disclosure. However, he has problems with the release
of information based on the arrest record. There are things that
need to be worked out in this bill. There are language and
drafting questions, and he would like the bill to be sent back into
the subcommittee to see if the problems can be addressed. He said
the bill will be held in committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he has not seen an NCAA scholarship
contract, and he is not aware of any restrictions concerning felony
convictions or arrest records.
MS. BERCK did not know of any. She referred Representative Vezey
back to the videotape, which he was absent for. One of the
concerns raised in this videotape was that a juvenile record may
make a difference whether the basketball player would get a college
scholarship. Ms. Berck said she would think such a situation may
affect scholarships. However, this would probably vary from one
university to the next, and also vary with how well one plays
basketball.
Number 2009
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG assumed there are procedures to remove
felony convictions from a juvenile record, if in fact a juvenile
has been convicted of a crime that is a felony. He asked if this
was possible if an appeal is made to the court to that effect. He
asked about the procedures for that.
MS. KNUTH said if this is an adjudication on a felony offense, the
record is sealed and remains sealed. It is only used by
prosecutors and the judge if one is prosecuted as an adult for a
felony. Generally, however, if an individual is being treated as
a juvenile, all of the proceedings have been confidential. The
record is sealed.
MS. KNUTH said if the individual is waived and treated as an adult,
he/she can be prosecuted. If he/she is convicted of a lessor
offense or acquitted, he/she can have the records sealed. Frankly,
this may not be worth much after the fact. However, the provision
exists in the waiver bill.
Number 2062
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was trying to collect a fact pattern
concerning the experience of a friend of his. When his friend was
18, he had a minor traffic violation that ended up affecting his
military service career. He subsequently found out the violation
had been removed from his record and he did not know it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he is interested in the affect of
that. If, in fact, these names were divulged and became part of
the public record, would there be any procedure to make amends as
a juvenile or young adult? Currently, those records can be sealed.
He stated it is his understanding that the records have not been
removed, they are only sealed.
MS. KNUTH said everybody who learns that your son has been arrested
for a felony offense is supposed to bear in mind that he is
presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is the protection he
is offered.
Number 2109
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reiterated the case in which a young man
broke out the window at the FAA building. The agreement was he
should go into the military, and he was subsequently honored two
years later in Juneau's Fourth of July Parade when he came home
from the Gulf War. Representative Robinson said we must constantly
remember who we could be talking about. The man now has a four-
year college degree and is doing well.
MS. BERCK asked to respond to Representative Rokeberg. It seemed
to her, from her earlier version of the bill, it talks about the
provisions for sealing the records. This would delete the
information set out in (f).
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said there is a new CS for that bill, that is a
totally new bill.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2151
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|