Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/28/1997 03:03 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
January 28, 1997
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative J. Allen Kemplen
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 6
"An Act amending laws relating to the disclosure of information
relating to certain minors."
- MOVED CSHB 6(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Relating to records generated and maintained by the Department of
Health and Social Services.
- MOVED HCR 4 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 6
SHORT TITLE: RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)
KELLY,Therriault,Vezey,Ogan,Dyson,Phillips,Ryan
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
01/13/97 28 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 28 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 28 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
01/14/97 59 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS
01/23/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/23/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
01/28/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HCR 4
SHORT TITLE: SEPARATE RECORDS FOR DELINQUENTS & CINA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY,Phillips,Dyson,Ryan
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
01/13/97 21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 21 (H) HES, FINANCE
01/14/97 59 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS
01/15/97 78 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
01/23/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/23/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
01/28/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HCR 4 and HB 6
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Central Office
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Representing the Governor's Children's Cabinet
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3191
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4 and CSHB 6(HES)
TOM BEGICH, Executive Committee Member
Governor's Conference on Youth and Justice
P.O. Box 14277
Anchorage, Alaska 99514-2711
Telephone: (907) 243-7713
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4 and CSHB 6(HES)
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer III
Anchorage Intake Unit
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
2600 Providence Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 562-2285
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 6(HES)
AL NEAR
P.O. Box 80847
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-4090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 6
JUDY SHIFFLER
929 Reindeer Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-6104
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 6
BRUCE FOOTE
P.O. Box 80809
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-6813
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified before the committee
JOAN FOOTE
P.O. Box 80809
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-6813
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 6(HES)
BARBARA BRINK, Director
Alaska Public Defender Agency
900 West Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 264-4400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 6(HES)
LAURA ROREM
9151 Parkwood Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-1647
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 6(HES)
L. DIANE WORLEY, Director
Central Office
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Telephone: (907) 465-3191
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 6(HES) and HCR 4
CHRIS CHRISTNESEN, Staff Counsel
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
820 West Fourth Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 264-8228
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 6(HES) and HCR 4
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-3, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Porter, Dyson,
Kemplen and Brice. Representative Green joined the committee at
3:04 p.m. and Representative Vezey joined the committee at 3:09
p.m. This meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage and Fairbanks.
HB 6 RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS
HCR 4 SEPARATE RECORDS FOR DELINQUENTS & CINA
Number 0042
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the agenda included HB 6 "An Act amending
laws relating to the disclosure of information relating to certain
minors." and HCR 4, Relating to records generated and maintained by
the Department of Health and Social Services. He stated that the
committee had adopted a committee substitute version of HB 6 at the
last meeting. He said there were amendments before the committee
for CSHB 6(HES).
Number 0135
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, sponsor of HB 6 and HCR 4, responded to
questions raised at the January 23, 1997 committee meeting. He
referred to a question raised by Representative Brice regarding
what other states were doing regarding confidentiality. He said
that some people had received a handout from the Division of Family
and Youth Services (DFYS). On page 36 of this handout, it
essentially talks about the fact that in 22 states juvenile court
records are open and 39 states make some provision for disclosure
of youthful offenders. He said that CSHB 6(HES) does not explore
any new territory with the disclosure of juvenile records.
Number 0231
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referred to Representative Porter's question
regarding the federal 4E funds that will be placed in some jeopardy
with the passage of CSHB 6(HES). He referred to an attachment
which provides the language surrounding the 4E funds. He said he
is not an expert of this language and referred any questions
regarding it to DFYS.
Number 0271
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referred to Representative Kemplen's questions
regarding the tiering and why CSHB 6(HES) was not developed more
along the lines of the three strikes and you're out. He said he is
open to a discussion regarding this concept and any amendments
would be given consideration by him.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he believed that covered the questions
from the previous meeting.
Number 0308
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON said testimony given at the previous
meeting indicated a loss of $7 million, and then $900,000 in funds
because the state would no longer comply with federal regulations.
He asked if Representative Kelly's research backed up that loss.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said HCR 4 will prevent the state from losing
$7 million. The $700,000 is still a number for debate. He said he
was not completely convinced that the state will lose the $700,000,
but there are those within DFYS who make a good case that in fact
we will. He said he would defer the question to them. He said, at
this point, he will make the assumption that the state will lose
$700,000 in federal funds. If the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) goes ahead and runs with HCR 4 and reorganize DFYS,
the state will not lose $7 million.
Number 0400
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked him to explain the reorganization of
DFYS. He said he assumed it separates the Children in Need of Aid
(CINA) kids from the kids involved in the juvenile justice system.
He asked how this reorganization solves the problem.
Number 0440
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said it has to do with separating CINA from
the delinquent kids and the records of each. He said DHSS as it is
currently structured does not make consideration for their
difference, it treats them essentially the same for federal
purposes. He said they are kind of mixed together. He said he
would feel much more comfortable, because of the vagaries of the
restructuring, if DHSS answered the question.
Number 0490
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said a major argument against CSHB 6(HES) has
to do with the labeling or branding of kids that will follow them
the rest of their lives and asked him to comment on that.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said it is a possibility that needs to be
addressed. He said he is of the opinion that the protection of the
public is of greater concern to the state. He said there are kids
that are dealing in heinous crimes before they are brought to the
attention of the public by being waived into adult court. He said
these kids are playing with our kids, they are our kids, they are
babysitting our kids, in our kids schools, on the basketball teams
and the like. He said the threat to public safety that is
represented by the public not knowing who these kids are far
outweighs any stigma to them in later life.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the other thing, which was said in
testimony last week, was that as a community we cannot come to the
aid of these kids unless we know who they are. He said if he had
a nephew who was having trouble, he would want to know about it.
He would want to take him out hunting or something like that and
ask him what is going on, what is with you, what can we do to help.
He said, absent the knowledge that this is going on, the community
cannot come to the aid of that kid in even the most rudimentary
fashion of taking him out to have some fries or something if you
know him and want to talk to him.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said, more specifically to address that
question, it has been suggested that we seal the records in the
future. The record is open and if the kid is clean for five years
then the record is sealed back up. Everyone shakes hands says you
did well you came through this and now we're going to just treat
you like everyone else. He said he did not have an objection to
putting that change in CSHB 6(HES). He said it addresses the
problem. Once you add this change then the whole argument over
stigma or whether we open the record regarding misdemeanors or
felonies becomes less important because the kid will then get that
second chance later on.
Number 0662
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he agreed with Representative Kelly and
said there is an additional benefit which is to get the kid's
attention. He said, of the kids he knows that are involved with
criminal activities, the most difficult thing to do is to get their
attention.
Number 0691
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said the committee would take overview testimony
from the bill sponsor, departments, hear from the testimony from
people on teleconference and then the committee would address the
amendments.
Number 0719
CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to the $700,000 potential loss and said he
explored this in a slightly different venue with adult criminals.
He said the costs to catch them, prosecute them, re-catch them, re-
prosecute, ad nauseam and what they cost the public in damages,
lost property, time which are pure financial costs and do not
include the mental and emotional costs. He asked if this aspect
had been looked at that in comparison with the $700,000. He said
it is claimed that a single adult felon does $200,000 worth of
damage a year.
Number 0765
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he thought you could make the case that
there is prevention in CSHB 6(HES), that if a youthful offender was
worried about the stigma they might be less inclined to commit some
crimes. He clarified that Chairman Bunde was referring to the fact
that there would be fewer crimes.
Number 0790
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said yes, or if we don't do something there will be
more crime. He said we might still get the $700,000 but maybe the
state will lose $1 million because of additional property damage
and cost to the community.
Number 0793
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he could not tell him, on a one for one
basis, what the difference of having disclosure would make. He had
not heard of any nationwide statistics that could actually give a
number.
Number 0808
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER said he would address questions
concerning the $700,000 loss to DFYS.
Number 0883
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office, Criminal
Division, Department of Law, Representing the Governor's Children's
Cabinet, was next to testify. She said the Administration
generally agrees with the principle that more public disclosure of
juvenile criminal records. She said this question has been looked
at by DHSS, Public Safety, Department of Law, Department of
Community of Regional Affairs and the Department of Corrections
about where the lines should be drawn. She said an important line
is disclosure of felonies versus misdemeanors. The purpose of
disclosure can be a measure to protect the public and therefore it
makes sense to distinguish between misdemeanors and felonies.
Those who commit felonies present a greater and different risk to
the community than those who are committing misdemeanors.
MS. KNUTH said a second purpose of public disclosure is to use it
as a tool for getting the juvenile's attention. She would suggest
that there are other ways of doing that, especially with
misdemeanants, that can be much more effective because what you
want to do is address that juvenile's circumstances. She said to
go through a public disclosure that says who the child is, who the
child's parents but isn't tailored to that kid's circumstances.
The Administration's position is going to be that we should be
using community action to address, particularly regarding
misdemeanants, a specific intervention for those juveniles.
MS. KNUTH said if you are in Elim or Koyuk it might be a village
community court. If you are in Anchorage it could be a hearing
officer system. She said this action would provide eye to eye
contact and a process to go through where you are ordered to pay
restitution, where you are ordered to perform community work
service and where, if you don't do these things, you can be
sentenced or sent back to DHSS for a juvenile delinquency
proceeding. It would be a hammer to hold over their head. She
said this would be more effective for dealing with those kids than
simply creating a public record for them.
Number 1027
MS. KNUTH said the downside of creating a public record, especially
for misdemeanants, is that every employer is going to want to have
that information when making a hiring decision for kids. She said
ages 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are most important for these kids to
become productive, contributing members of society. She said if
you have this public record forum, these kids are not going to be
hired. These kids might be the ones who need the jobs the most to
be able to turn the corner.
Number 1057
MS. KNUTH said the five year provision for sealing the records does
not address this because you have to be clean for five years. She
said if you are 14, 15 or 16 when you commit the offenses, it will
be on your record for employers, the United States Armed Service to
see until you are 19, 20 and 23. It means that you are going past
a critical time when these kids ought to be able to get good jobs.
Number 1094
MS. KNUTH said, in terms of using disclosure as a tool of
prevention, it assumes a reasonableness in the rationality to a
youthful population that we don't actually have a basis for
attributing them. She said kids are impulsive, hormonally driven
and have bad impulse control. They are judgement impaired. She
said that is why traditionally we have had two systems; the
juvenile system and the adult system. It is like you are crazy
until you get to a certain point of life experience where suddenly
you are able to make the connections, that you say, "Oh, yeah, what
I do today has an impact on tomorrow. Turning in my homework or
not turning in my homework actually makes a difference in my G.P.A.
and what college I get to go to."
Number 1143
MS. KNUTH questioned at what point, physiologically and
sociologically, kids actually are making connections and making
rational decisions. She said it is much closer to 16 than it is to
13 or 14 or even 15. It is for that reason that the Administration
supports a bill that opens the records for those who are 16 and
older because at that point they have been given a lot of
privileges and responsibilities under our existing statutes. It is
at age 16 that you can get a driver's license, you can petition the
court for emancipation, consent to sexual relations and you are
required to get a fishing license. There are a whole host of
activities; both privileges and responsibilities that we peg on
kids at that age. She said this could be one more of these interim
measures which would say that you are not an adult yet, but you are
no longer going to be coddled.
Number 1293
MS. KNUTH said she believed DHSS has some more specific information
they can provide about what group of kids we are talking about and
what their capabilities are. She noted in the material the sponsor
provided, when he talked about 22 states and 39 states, their
disclosure regards serious and violent juvenile crime. She said
when we are looking at what other states are doing, they are doing
the same thing that we are proposing in Alaska. The states are
starting with the kids that are committing the felony offenses, the
felonies that are crimes against a person and basically approaching
this in a multi-step fashion. Let's start with those kids, those
offenses with the possibility of opening up later on. She said it
is awfully hard to unring a bell or to change a practice in the
law, in public disclosure to go back to confidentiality. She said
other states are using a stepping stone approach.
Number 1340
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said all of the things that the Administration
is suggesting would be appropriate public and community responses
to misdemeanor offenses and said there is nothing in CSHB 6(HES)
that would preclude the community from doing all of those things.
Number 1357
MS. KNUTH said there is not, but it could work at cross purposes
with the community's response to the public disclosure. For
example, one of the options that is available is a victim-offender
mediation and there are instances where that is best done privately
rather than in a public forum. She said the victim could feel more
comfortable without that publicity. She said there is nothing
inherently inconsistent, but there might be inconsistencies
depending on what the community approach is going to be.
MS. KNUTH noted that statistically virtually every person in this
room has committed a crime sometime in their life. She said it is
true of all these children here and the question is whether they
got caught and what happened as a result of it. She said we can't
get through our lives without running up against these walls. She
said sometimes what it is to be a kid, is finding out where the
limits are. Sometimes they find these limits by going over the
edge.
Number 1430
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that one of his foster kids did 70
burglaries before he was 12 years old. He was smart and only
ripped off coke dealers because they never went to the cops and
always had lots of cash. He never took all their money and most of
the time they never knew they had been ripped off. He was in the
criminal justice system. When he was 17, he got a job as a
security guard and has been successful at that. He asked if her
position would be that the firm that hired his foster son had no
right to know how successful a cat burglar he had been as a
juvenile.
MS. KNUTH said that is correct. If this person is to have the
benefit of being a juvenile and has not been waived to adult court,
then yes, there are times when we err on one side or the other. We
would like to target that one person. The question is how do you
target just that one person. She said we hear five or six or seven
bad stories like that which make us very uncomfortable. She asked
what we should do about the 35,000 kids that had minor consuming or
shop lifting, the most commonly committed offense in the United
States.
Number 1530
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to another example in his home where
a 6 year old girl was molested by a 13 year old on Christmas Eve.
He said that after the offense they found out that the boy had two
prior convictions in California and his favorite way of expressing
his anger was to set people's house on fire. He said he wished he
had known this information.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he is now dealing with the tragedy of the
6 year old who had been traumatized. He said you cannot make laws
based on the hard cases, but most of the 15 foster kids he had were
sexually molested many of them by other juveniles. He said that is
why many people are concerned and predisposed, for the sake of
protecting against further victims, that we err on the side of the
victims.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said hopefully the boy's attention has been
gotten and that maybe the resources can be gotten. He said unless
you get his attention and put him in a lock-up facility that his
actions will just continue with more and more victims. He said it
is for the concern of the future victims that sets us on this
course and is at the heart of what the sponsor is after. He asked
what she would do.
Number 1597
MS. KNUTH said the first thing she would do is a measure that is
sitting on her desk. The measure would have a juvenile sex
offender task force appointed in this state because Representative
Dyson identified one of the most accessible problems that the state
can start doing something about. She said juvenile sex offenders
do not have any special treatment available to them in this state
at this point. By the time they become adults the number of
victims that they have already can be discouraging. She said we
need to address this problem, both for the offender and for all of
our other children. Somewhere this cycle has to be broken.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he was waiting for her to say that we
need to do something for the potential victims.
Number 1650
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said this shows the intensity of our concern,
however, he felt he needed to bring the testimony back to CSHB
6(HES). He said even though this discussion does impact CSHB
6(HES) on a tangent maybe it doesn't address the focus of what we
are trying to do. He said the committee will have the opportunity
of pursuing this discussion further. He said he keeps saying that
we all have the same goal, but the routes there are probably a bit
different.
Number 1678
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN referred to Ms. Knuth's comment that
statistically everyone in this room has committed a crime. He said
it is a crime, not crimes and said CSHB 6(HES) addresses is the
second time a juvenile is caught, not the second time he has done
something. He expressed concern that we read the statistics saying
that somewhere in the neighborhood of 95 percent of the crimes are
committed by 5 percent of the people. He said a small number of
people do most of the crimes. A lot of us may have statistically
committed a crime, got caught, got our knuckles rapped and decided
we would not do that again. He said, perhaps, if that is true then
the majority of the people that get caught the first time are not
even going to be involved in CSHB 6(HES). It is those people that
repeat the crime and get caught. He asked if we are really looking
at a small segment of the population when we are talking about
repeat offenders as opposed to all juveniles considered.
Number 1734
MS. KNUTH said that if we were talking about adjudications for
delinquency and you were talking about a second one, then that
might be a viable distinction in the population. She said one of
the things that this committee is looking at, and you can make a
strong argument for, is that it ought to include the informal
adjustments as well. She said this would mean backing up into time
to those cases that don't make it to court, but there is action
that is going on. She said there are a number of kids that are in
this hiatus of their life where it isn't simply one offense, but
one peak of an episode of ongoing shoplifting, ongoing acting out.
She said she would be concerned if he was talking about second
adjustments, because that could be just a part of this episodic
incident. She guessed that when we say that people commit one
crime and then don't come back to the system, we mean that they
don't come back to the formal system of getting to court twice for
these convictions. She said there might be kids that are
floundering short of that if we are looking at adjustments.
Number 1792
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said if that was the case, then the system is
not handling them properly. He expressed concern that we are
erring on the side of caution to prevent psychologically marking
these children. We are concerned that society won't let these kids
go into the service or that society will frown on them until they
finally get their act together at age 16 or 17.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked why society had to incur the problems
and make dispensations and compensations for a small group of
people that create crimes or problems, when a vast majority of the
teenagers don't get involved in this. They know what the rules are
and abide by the rules. He said they might push the envelope about
getting in late, but most teenage kids are good kids. He said we
hear about the bad teenage kids. We are trying to do something
about the bad teenage kids to protect society because society has
been taking it on the chin for too long. He said CSHB 6(HES) is an
attempt to address those who are repeat offenders and let society
be aware of them. If society does want to help, and he thinks they
would, they would at least know who they are. He said the Dysons
of the world would know that this boy coming into their home is an
arsonist and someone else knows that this kid has been down the
road a couple of times. He said otherwise we are fat, dumb and
happy and have made ourselves a target.
Number 1913
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE clarified that the Administration does not
have a problem with making public the names of felons. He said we
currently do that under the juvenile waiver bill where unclassified
and Class A felons are automatically waived and their names become
public. He said instances of sexual assault are felonies and
clarified that no one has said that this should not be made
available to a foster parent by any means.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if arson was a misdemeanor or felon.
Number 1958
MS. KNUTH said that arson is a felony.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that no one is saying that information
should not be available.
Number 1967
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said the Administration's bill says that if you are
age 16 and commit one of these felonies, then the information is
available. Currently, if you are 14 and you commit anything, that
doesn't waive you to adult court, it is kept confidential.
Number 1992
TOM BEGICH, Executive Committee Member, Governor's Conference on
Youth and Justice and has also served on the (indiscernible) Health
Advisory Committee and is the National Chair on the Coalition for
Juvenile Justice. He said the issues discussed in the committee
today were discussed at length at the Governor's Conference. He
said, through that process, everyone agreed that more disclosure
was necessary and said they arrived at the benchmark of 16 to 17
year old. He said assault in the third degree, those assaults that
were felonies against a person, etc. were also included in which
names should be disclosed. He said these benchmarks were arrived
at after a lot of deliberation with arguments on both sides. He
said he appreciated that Representative Kelly brought these
arguments forward.
MR. BEGICH said he wanted to express his support for the position
that the Administration has made. He said stigmatization does
exist for less violent juvenile offenders and is something that
needs to be considered. The five year possibility is an issue
because once those records go into the system, they are there
permanently because computer services and other private companies
can draw those records. He said Motznik Computer Services in
Anchorage does this, so the records actually become permanent. He
said if you had a Suspended Imposition of Sentence (SIS) some years
ago, he could go back and pull your record to show that you had a
conviction in the past, regardless of whether your record had been
cleared.
Number 2072
MR. BEGICH said the possibility that you would give a potentially
non-violent offender fame among their peers is another issue. He
said the possibility that you would give them fame among their
peers is another issue. He said he could not stress strongly
enough the ability of community service in turning juveniles
around. He said we have all been concerned about juvenile crime
over the last few years, but records in Anchorage, in 1985, showed
a direct decline in juvenile crimes except the most heinous crime
of murder. He said this figure increased by two actual murders.
He said the first half of 1986 and the last statistics that were
available, showed a continuing rate of decline.
MR. BEGICH said U.S. Attorney General Reno recently in early
December, released information that showed 13 to 14-year-olds led
the decline in the national juvenile crime rate which has reversed
over the last few years and has begun to decline dramatically. He
said, statistically, the community service effort in addition to
more cops on the streets, which has occurred both nationally and in
the state of Alaska, has had an impact specifically on juvenile
crime. He said there is some speculation that programs such as
Youth Court in Anchorage and other programs, which are slapping a
stigma from peers on these first time offenders, are having a
direct impact on those less violent offenders.
Number 2106
MR. BEGICH referred to Representative Dyson's comments and said in
regard to the foster son, California would also have to have a law
that opened up its records. He said you would want the same type
of bill as CSHB 6(HES) would be available in other states. He said
the juvenile that committed 70 crimes and never got caught, never
got caught and those are not records that could not necessarily be
found. "And in terms of the sex offender, I am in complete
agreement. I think that in all three of these incidences, if there
is a criminal record now, I personally believe that a foster parent
ought to know. That is different though than public disclosure.
It is (indiscernible due to coughing) as opposed to something that
goes public, and I think that could probably be accommodated in
your bill."
Number 2194
MR. BEGICH said there are some recent statistics from the Rand
Group of California that indicate the most cost effective way of
reducing the amount of community costs that juvenile crime leads to
over the lifetime of the juvenile, is prevention and incentives in
high school. He said this is precisely the age group that is
effected by CSHB 6(HES). He reiterated his support of CSHB 6(HES),
but perhaps changing the language so that it reads age 16 and above
and for assault in the third degree, keeping in mind that we want
to separate out those who are most violent. He said we all have a
commitment to protect the public from those that are most violent
while trying to insure that we don't continue to shift and divert
costs to stigmatize kids and end up becoming criminals because they
get the tag. He said in a sense they are treated as throw aways by
society.
Number 2238
MS. KNUTH said she felt obliged to note that the Administration's
position isn't to disclose all felonies, but felony crimes against
a person, so it is a little narrower.
Number 2247
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer III, Anchorage Intake
Unit, Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health
and Social Services was next to testify. He said he personally and
professionally has a strong commitment to the protection and safety
of the community. He said that is half of what his job
responsibility is as a juvenile probation officer. The other half
of his job responsibility is to meet the needs of youth in an
endeavor to prevent subsequent delinquent behavior. He said it is
a constant balancing act. He questioned when the need for public
safety outweighs the issue of addressing the treatment needs of the
kid. Some of those decisions are pretty cut and dried when we are
talking about sexual assault in the first degree.
MR. BUTTCANE said sharing that information, as needed, will help
insure the public safety. He questioned whether or not it put the
community at risk when some young person takes their mother's ATM
card and withdraws $20 to go out dancing. He questioned whether
this family condition should be broadcast to the public. He said
it is not an easy thing to decide where to draw the line. He is
glad this issue has come to the public table and it is time to take
at look at what does not suit the conditions of our world today.
MR. BUTTCANE said he had some concerns about Section 2 and Section
5 of CSHB 6(HES). He said when he looks at the issues of balancing
to meet the needs of the youth and to protect the public safety,
these two sections start to move in a direction that throws things
out of balance. He said he would focus on those provisions of
Section 5 regarding second time offenders.
MR. BUTTCANE said it is not an uncommon case scenario for his
office staff in Anchorage to run across a situation where a younger
teenager had been caught shoplifting at the Dimond Center. He said
most of the time these are very minor shoplifts such as a t-shirt,
a candy bar or something of small economic value, but illegal
nonetheless. He said his office gets the original referral, do an
intake interview with the family and in those cases, absent any
other presenting issue, the office refers that juvenile to an anti-
shoplifting class.
TAPE 97-3, SIDE B
Number 0000
MR. BUTTCANE said the juvenile attends the class and that is the
end of it. He said the Dimond Center issues a trespass advisory to
the child saying that for a period of time; sometimes a month, six
months, sometimes a year the child may not set foot on the Dimond
Center grounds and if you do then you will be arrested for
trespassing. He said you get a 14-year-old, who has shoplifted one
time, but days, weeks and months later gets arrested for a criminal
trespass in the second degree. He said, as he understood the
provisions in CSHB 6(HES), at that point the juvenile's name would
be published publicly. He said that 14-year-old does not present
any significant risk to the public's safety given the behavior and
the circumstances that child comes with.
Number 0031
MR. BUTTCANE said what he has found with second time juvenile
offenders typically present themselves with a number of common
issues. Some of those issues relate to family stresses of some
nature, such as parents going through a divorce or have divorced.
It might be an authority control issue between a parent and a step-
parent or a single parent issue. He said there are family stresses
at the parental level. There might be financial issues where the
family is struggling to meet their bills. He said their
interaction within the family home comes out of all these concerns.
There might be other children in the family and added that it is
not so unusual that there is a baby in the family that is requiring
a great deal of extra attention by the parents, so the 14 year old
is left to their own devices.
MR. BUTTCANE said he sees the 14-year-old unsupervised afterschool,
typically not doing well in school, not particularly hooked into
any kind of constructive activity and they tend to associate with
a more fringe or negative peer group. He said it is not that they
are presenting themselves as truly criminally minded, but they are
drifting. They are sort of on the fence of whether or not they are
going to grow up, get their act together and hook into something
positive or whether they are indeed going to go on to take steps to
become career criminals in gangs or whatever.
Number 0102
MR. BUTTCANE said he has found, in those situations, what works
best is when you can sit down with that second time offender and
take real specific corrective action to address the whole variety
of presenting issues. You sit down with the mom and dad and start
to suggest ideas about how to parent an adolescent. He said it is
sometimes a challenge to figure out what a teenager is all about.
Some parents have never had discussions with anyone about what is
the difference between an 8-year-old and the 14-year-old except the
parents know they are going insane while the 14-year-old is growing
up. He said you suggest to the parents that they start looking at
how they might respond to the kid in a different way that will
produce a more positive result. You might discuss with the family
what their options are to provide afterschool supervision. A
special funds request might be sent to DFYS regional office to get
some additional monies to get this kid into karate class. He said
it is those hours between afterschool and before mom or dad get
home when these trespass problems, these little issues. He said
you specifically identify what it is that brought the young person
there, what it was that seemed to contribute to the delinquent
behavior and then you go to work to solve that.
Number 0155
MR. BUTTCANE said if this case moved into the public spotlight, his
ability to be able to engage the parent in a willing process to try
something a little different such as engaging them in a parenting
classes to give them some understanding about adolescents might not
work. Moving the case into the public spotlight gives parents more
reason to say, "You're a bad kid. We don't have anything to do
with this. You're the one that messed up. You're responsible."
He said when you look at the whole picture, it is a lot more
complex than just a black and white, did the kid make the right
decision or not by stepping foot on the Dimond Center grounds after
that initial shoplift.
Number 0188
MR. BUTTCANE repeated that there are circumstances where it is real
appropriate that we release information to the community. There
are crimes and cases where public safety does take a priority in
this balancing act. He said the offenses that are covered in CSHB
6(HES), as it is now worded, does great harm to a number of these
young people that are criminal. Yes, they have stepped out of
bounds, but what they need is to be held accountable for their
behavior. We need to implement appropriate responses that fix some
of those issues which contributed to the reason that they came to
the juvenile intake office or why the police were involved in their
lives in the first place. In this attempt to balance things, he
would recommend a closer examination to the scope that is allowed
for in CSHB 6(HES). He said there needs to be another way that we
can still find that balance.
Number 0234
MR. BUTTCANE said there is another part in CSHB 6(HES) relating to
victim notification.
Number 0247
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said there is a proposed amendment that will address
this concern.
Number 0252
MR. BUTTCANE responded to a comment that Representative Dyson had
made. He said, within the current process of DFYS, when children
are placed as a foster placement it is common sense to let the
foster parent know everything that DFYS knows about that child that
would help them be able to guide and direct that young person or to
control and supervise. He said if that was a DFYS placement it is
inappropriate and even if it wasn't it was absolutely incredible
that someone would put a child in someone else's home and not share
information about him. He said it is that kind of history, that
kind of concern that jeopardizes the whole family. He said you
would certainly let the family know what this young person was all
about when they were put there so the family can make an informed
decision about whether or not they want to provide treatment or
placement for that young person. He said it would be as equally
outrageous if the young person had an allergy to milk and you
forgot to tell the foster parent. He said if this type of thing is
happening it needs to be corrected. He said he is not aware that
this type of information is withheld when a young person is placed
in another family's home. He hoped that his colleagues within the
DFYS are not taking that type of case action.
Number 0339
AL NEAR testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said he
was a recent victim of a crime. He said until about 30 years ago,
our young people were not granted their constitutional rights to
due process. He said this was changed by the U.S. Supreme Court's
Golf decision in 1967. He said having their names made public for
some alleged crime, no matter how trivial, was the least of their
worries. Doing serious time for even a minor offense was quite
real. He said today's kids still do not have equal protection
under the law, their rights exceed those of adults. He said the
pendulum has swung too far. Clearly we must not return to the
kangaroo youth courts of the past, but we need to make some
reasoned adjustments. He said maintaining an uncompromising veil
of secrecy around juvenile proceedings serves no one, least of all
a repeat offender. All to often these young people lose their
juvenile status prematurely by escalating their criminal activity
until the courts must try them as adults. He said he favored the
chair's approach to disclosure as embodied in HB 6.
Number 0386
JUDY SHIFFLER testified next via teleconference from Fairbanks.
She said this bill is a good bill towards helping our kids in
Alaska. She said our communities need to know that we are trying
to prevent reoccurring negative behavior on the part of our
juveniles. We need to provide consistent predictable consequences
for these kids caught breaking our laws. Today we merely tap, not
even slap them on the hand and they so often return to continue an
increased negative behavior. She said the system has become so
worried about hurting a youngster's feelings or impinging on their
rights that now in effect we hurt the youngster's future by letting
them easily perpetuate their problem. She said there might a
stigma attached to public disclosure. She said as a long time
educator and youth worker she felt strongly that these children
will receive plenty of support from their schools, churches,
neighbors and so on as they are straightening up. People will be
paying better and more positive attention to these kids knowing
that they especially need it. Public disclosure is a strong step
towards making our youth more accountable for their behavior and
also makes their parents and guardians more aware of and
accountable for their behavior. She said she saw HB 6 as a
positive step forward for the kids of Alaska.
Number 0462
BRUCE FOOTE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He
questioned what is considered a felony and a (indiscernible) if
someone breaks into a home and destroys a lot of out of date prints
and first edition prints that might value in the thousands of
dollars. "I agree with you in part and a first offense
(indiscernible) not having their name published. I agree with you,
but the (indiscernible) small financial van that you break in and
the person has some counseling and gets out of it. You mentioned
about some of these children paying restitution. Well, you can't
even collect restitution from a uninsured motorist in an automobile
accident, how do you expect a youngster to pay restitution saying
he causes a $120,000 worth of damage on a break-in depending what
a person has in his home at that time. Another thing is when is
individual going to be responsible for their own actions. It seems
like nobody is going to tell these kids, hey you take drugs and you
do a break-in, we didn't tell you to take the drugs, you did that
under your own consensus and you're the one that made the mistake,
we did. When is the victim's rights on being able to protect that
property (indiscernible) nobody has mentioned the victim's rights
on any of this. If I'm sleeping in my house at night, my house is
dark and I double lock and I double bolt my doors if someone can
bust through a window I sleep with a shot gun fully loaded. I
sleep with a 45 caliber pistol fully loaded, I'm not going to break
this who's coming in, I'm going plow them down in the floor. To me
that is an assumed threat and that hasn't been discussed at all on
individual's rights in protecting their own property in their
house."
MR. FOOTE said the military has a problem with these kids coming
into the service without knowing their offenses. He said this is
a problem for the military. He asked if a first offense person
breaks into seven or eight homes whether or not it was considered
an offense per home, or if they were linked together as one
offense. He said it should be eight different offenses. He said
he hoped the committee would consider these things.
Number 0571
JOAN FOOTE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She said
she is very concerned about the youth today and how we can help
them become (indiscernible) citizens. She said when the youth find
themselves in trouble it seemed to her that the sooner we can put
them on a positive foot the better. She said the consequences need
to be real, they need to be immediate, and they need to be
consistent. It is important that they realize that the system is
trying to help them change their behavior, but the community also
is the one trying to help them change their behavior. It is not
necessarily a bad or an evil thing, that you can change. She
thought that if the parents realized that they can get help and
that everybody was working toward changing their behavior. She
disagreed with the witness who said the offender should be
protected from exposure to the public. If we know for a fact the
offender is being helped to move forward and if this community
knows that parent is trying to do things that will help the
offender reform then in the long run the community will realize
that the law is working for everybody; the victim and the offender
and that you will find more community support for the whole
criminal system.
MS. FOOTE said HB 6 is moving in the right direction and she liked
the tiered disclosure which was developed.
Number 0655
BARBARA BRINK, Director, Alaska Public Defender Agency, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. She said that part of what
public defenders do is to represent children who are accused of
delinquent acts. Parents are also represented in CINA cases.
Based on her experience she would like to talk about some, perhaps,
unintended consequences of this particular proposal. She said her
main concern has to do with the loss of privacy without a
determination of guilt. She said she was happy to see the latest
version of CSHB 6(HES) eliminated the ability of law enforcement to
allow release of this information simply after arrest.
Number 0699
MS. BRINK said she still has concerns about the child who has been
informally adjusted and then has a second adjustment referred to
juvenile intake. An informal adjustment does not necessarily
contain any finding of guilt or an admission of wrongdoing.
Informal adjustments are often handled because the state really
doesn't have the proof that it needs to prove that a crime existed.
The witness has left or there are other reasons that it is a shaky
case that wouldn't withstand adjudication. No juvenile that is
adjusted is required to admit that he is guilty, but rather it is
a process where everyone agrees what ought to happen. She said
there is no adjudication, no trial, no trial or determination of
guilt as it really is not important to what needs to be
accomplished.
Number 0729
MS. BRINK said she has concerns about CSHB 6(HES) because it does
allow those children who are informally adjusted to have all this
information be made public. Certainly, she agreed with the
Administration's position that we need to limit the type of cases
that we allow information to be released about. She had some
concerns about releasing information at all. One of the gentlemen
who previously spoke noted that the juvenile justice system has
changed a lot in the last 30 years. Chief Justice Reinquist, who
by no stretch of the imagination is usually considered a friend to
the accused or to the juvenile delinquent, was very protective of
the juvenile justice system.
MS. BRINK read a portion of a conferring opinion Chief Justice
Reinquist wrote about the juvenile system, "It is a hallmark of our
juvenile justice system in the United States that virtually from
its inception at the end of the last century its proceedings have
been conducted outside of the public's full gaze and the youths
brought before our juvenile courts have been shielded from
publicity. This insistence on confidentiality is born of a tender
concern for the welfare of the child, to hide his youthful errors
and `bury them in the graveyard of the forgotten past.' The
prohibition of publication of a juvenile's name is designed to
protect the young person from the stigma of his misconduct and is
rooted in the principle that a court concerned with juvenile
affairs serves as a rehabilitative and protective agency of the
state. Publication of the names of juvenile offenders may
seriously impair the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice
system and handicap the youths' prospects for adjustment in society
and acceptance by the public. This exposure brings undue
embarrassment to the families of youthful offenders and may cause
the juvenile to lose employment opportunities or provide the
hardcore delinquent the kind of attention he seeks, thereby
encouraging him to commit further antisocial acts."
MS. BRINK said that Justice Reinquist, even 20 years ago,
recognized how important the stigmatization or branding might be on
someone. Additionally cited two clinical psychological studies
that talked about the effects of publicity on juveniles. Both of
these studies both concluded that the publicity placed an
additional stress on the juvenile during a difficult period of
adjustment in the community. Even in those children who were
making an adequate adjustment, publicity interfered at various
points when they were otherwise doing well. She said this is the
concern, particularly for these children who are informally
adjusted, if protection of the public is our paramount concern and
it is absolutely a legitimate concern. Let's limit the bill to the
more serious allegations, the more serious offenses and older
offenders after we have actually have proven, fairly, that they did
the crime they are accused of.
MS. BRINK said the unintended consequence of CSHB 6(HES) are very
broad. We have talked a lot about community involvement and said
you have to recognize that we handle things today much differently
than we did in the past. Every fight in a school lunch room, every
taking of lunch money, every time you take mom's car out and joy
ride around the block are all things that used to be handled as a
family and as a community. Today, we call the police. More
children's names be published than could be handled at a local
level.
Number 0892
MS. BRINK said expunging records which has been suggested and
sealing those records later really doesn't unring the bell. The
child gets stigmatized and branded and can have the opposite effect
on this kid than the one we want. He won't be able to get that job
at the local gas station which would help him understand the value
of hard work. He won't be able to join the military which might
help him shape up. Parents won't let their kids play with those
kids, they will be shunned in their own community, shunned at
school. They won't be able to participate in group activities or
meet those kids that would be a positive influence on them. These
are not the kids we want to target.
MS. BRINK said, in summary, what we are doing here is that we are
lumping together the worst of the kids, the ones to be afraid of,
with the ten-year-old who really doesn't have the judgement yet to
make good decisions. She urged this committee to seriously
consider other legislation or amending CSHB 6(HES) to limit public
disclosure to those cases where it will really impact public
safety.
Number 0934
LAURA ROREM said she is the parent of two adopted children, ages 21
and 24, who have suffered from brain disorders their entire lives.
One of the children has a major mental illness and the other lives
with Fetal Alcohol Effects (FAE). She said she is member of the
Alaska Mental Health Board (AMHB) and her husband is a Lutheran
pastor here in Juneau and heavily involved in mental health issues
in the community. She said she is here today wearing her hat as a
family member and an advocate for children of all ages who suffer
from neurobiological and organic brain disorders and their
facilities. She was not speaking on behalf of the AMHB today as
the board has not taken an official position on this bill yet.
MS. ROEM said she wished to thank the committee for this
opportunity to address how HB 6 will adversely effect this special
population of people and their families. Neurobiological Disorders
and organic brain disorders such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS)
and/or FAE are no fault diseases that affect behavior, thinking
processes, mood, judgement, reason, and decision to name only a few
symptoms. They are caused by biochemical and/or structural
abnormalities in the brain. Weakness of will and bad parenting are
not to blame. These illnesses are not caused by problems in
living, bad environment, abuse or neglect. These diseases are
grossly misunderstood, and treatment for them is sporadic,
haphazard, difficult to access and blame oriented.
Number 1043
MS. ROEM asked everyone to imagine for a moment the public response
to heart disease treatment if it were delivered in the same way as
it is to those with brain diseases. First, a bureaucratic red-tape
cluster of community cardiac health centers requiring those with
heart disease or their parents to present medical, legal just cause
which is difficult to obtain for hospitalization or treatment if a
cardiac breakdown occurs. Then once a month, if that, doctors see
the patient for 15 minutes at the center and, of course, it is up
to the cardiac patient to get there on their own, even if it means
walking for miles and it could hurt their heart condition. A
cardiac episode requiring hospitalization specifies stabilization
and discharge in 5 or 10 days, unless the patient is ruled a
criminal, having somehow wound up in jail overnight along the way.
Meanwhile at the state cardiac hospital, criminal patients are
housed on the same grounds as everyone else. At the same time, the
parents are desperately trying to get quick and appropriate
treatment for their child's life threatening disease only to be
blamed for causing their child's heart disease or being told
repeatedly by the cardiac treatment center that "We have to wait
until your child commits a crime first before we can help him."
Then when the child finally commits a crime, in spite of parental
efforts to prevent it, their child's name and their name is
published for all to see. This is done even though appropriate
intervention was repeatedly denied by professional care givers, and
the public shame of their child's heart disease would increase.
MS. ROEM said a child with heart disease is not apt to commit a
crime without treatment, he is apt to die. A brain disease is also
life threatening without appropriate treatment. There is also the
possibility the child may commit some kind of misdemeanor along the
way. This occurs, not because the child is bad, but because a
child with a brain disorder has a diseased organ of decision,
reason and judgement. It is not uncommon for these children to end
up in the juvenile justice system because their parents have been
unable to find, and therefore they have not received appropriate
treatment for their disease.
MS. ROEM said children and adults with brain disorders are good
people, they are not criminals, but their brains are damaged and
wired wrong. They are often incapable of making the distinction
between right and wrong or are unable to understand consequences,
no matter how hard they try to stay on track, and no matter how
hard their parents try to teach them right from wrong.
MS. ROEM said we are good parents with good children. We begged
for help for years without getting any, instead we were offered
blame and the runaround. That would not happen if our child had
heart disease, leukemia, cerebral palsy or diabetes. We did
everything we could, only to be repeatedly told, "you have to wait
until he commits a crime first." Our children did not want to
commit a crime, and as parents, we went above and beyond the call
of duty to prevent it. But there were times his or her brain would
explode and he or she would run away trying to get away from the
pain in their brain and end up doing something wrong because of it.
To prevent them from committing a crime, and as a last resort, we
finally hospitalized them out of state; six months for one and two
years for the other. If they had committed a crime and our child's
name and ours would have been published it would not have served as
a detriment, nor would it have brought about intervention. Instead
our child, and we, would have been further ostracized and blamed,
publicly humiliated and our lives would have been further
destroyed. No one would have cared to help us. It would have
brought punishment rather than treatment.
MS. ROEM said being ostracized only isolates more and accentuates
the possibility of more negative activities. It only adds more
pain and suffering to an already painful, devastating,
misunderstood disease. What is needed is a process of appropriate
intervention and treatment that seeks to restore dignity. Public
testimony is very risky for parents such as ourselves because we
have often been ostracized and criticized when we seek
accountability from the systems intended to help the children and
their families. My children are adults now and never entered the
juvenile justice system. The bill, HB 6 will not affect us, but is
will adversely affect all children with brain disorders and their
parents. It will unjustly punish them for having a disease of
their brain.
MS. ROEM said her testimony reflects not only her reality, but
reflects a painful reality shared by more people than you realize
throughout Alaska. She said when you think about FAS and FAE there
is no place in the state of Alaska that really can diagnose FAS and
FAE and there is no appropriate treatment. She said they have
desperately tried to find treatment for their son. She said there
are only three hospitals in the United States that will
definitively diagnosis FAE and when you have adopted children that
is practically impossible to do. There is a universal fear among
parents of children of brain disorders that the prison system and
court system will become the treatment their child receives, rather
than appropriate treatment and intervention that can, in many
cases, result in a vulnerable, fragile child growing up to be a
productive and respected member of society. Please don't further
diminish the lives of many caring and loving Alaskan parents and
their children who live with a no fault illness for which they will
receive further blame by publishing names.
Number 1312
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said regarding Ms. Brink's testimony that he
did not think that an adjustment occurs and goes into the formal
process without a consensus that there is responsibility on the
part of the juvenile for their act. Either that or through a
petition does it get to a trial in juvenile court and they are
found guilty of having committed a delinquent act. Neither one of
those situations would occur if the child did not have the capacity
to understand the nature and quality of the act they were accused
of doing. He said he recognized the difference of the problem of
recognizing FAS, but a child without the capacity to understand
those things would not be technically guilty and would not, he
thought, under CSHB 6(HES) be subject to release of their name or
their parents' name.
Number 1363
MS. ROEM said her concern is for children with FAE. She said they
are 99 percent sure that their son has it. He just recently got in
trouble with the law. This occurred just before he turned 21, he
got caught for minor consuming. Kids with FAE and kids with mental
illness are not mentally retarded. Kids with FAE have normal
intelligence. She said one of the things about her son is that he
is very charming and verbally capable. It is very difficult for
them to get someone to understand that there is something wrong
with him because he talks better than he thinks and he talks better
than he understands. So, trying to find somebody to diagnosis him
has been a major undertaking. She knew when he was 12 days old
that there was something wrong, but they did not get him diagnosed
with anything until he was 15 and that was after 15 years of pain
and suffering from school, trying to get early intervention when no
one would listen to them. They were told they were a liar, their
son was such a nice kid. She said her son is a good kid, but he
has a problem with his thinking. She said it is not always
possible to tell right away.
MS. ROEM said they presented, when he had his minor consuming, the
fact supported by all kinds of documented evidence that he was FAS.
The judge said he did not buy into FAS, that he did not buy into
mental illness. She said these kids are going into adulthood by
being sent to prison and said that is not where they belong. She
said they did not want him to go to prison because they knew he
would pick up some negative behavior there. They have worked very
hard and he has been doing fairly well, but that is because it
takes them 24 hours a day, seven days a week of constant work to
keep him going. She said he is working now, but close to quitting
again because he cannot handle the stress. She said it is hard
because people don't always see, the kids look normal, that there
is something wrong in the brain which does not allow them to always
tell the difference between right and wrong. The kids might be
able to say they can, but when it comes right down to it they
can't. She said it is one of the things that makes it hard. She
said one doctor will say he is FAE, another will say he is bi-polar
and another will say he has Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
Number 1527
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said her tragic circumstance helps exemplify what
the committee is faced with, of that tight rope between protecting
the public and not unduly penalizing unfairly. He said he
appreciated her pointing out another aspect of the committee's
problem.
Number 1586
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 1 to
CSHB 6(HES).
Number 1586
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected for the purposes of discussion.
Number 1609
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY clarified that Amendment 1 was located on page
two, line 16. He said this was brought up at the hearing last week
and, in subsequent discussions with DFYS, they had felt it would be
more appropriate if the victims sought this information
voluntarily.
Number 1639
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, being somewhat familiar with the
victim's rights area, he has some concerns that this would turn
into a situation where there are victims who would just as soon not
be contacted again, but submitted that there were more of those
victims that would. He said he would be extremely interested what
the actual occurrences in these proceedings are and when the kids
or adults, who have committed crimes against them, are released
what their status is. He said he would be afraid that if the
language was deleted we would be right back at the place we were
before the Victim's Rights Act was put into the constitution where
a victim was never advised of the fact that they had the right to
know this information. Victims have this right to be notified if
they choose. He said, he guessed, that the vast majority would
want to be notified. He asked DFYS whether or not there is a
provision for requiring that victims can be notified.
Number 1727
L. DIANE WORLEY, Director, Central Office, Division of Family and
Youth Services, Department of Health and Social Services, was next
to testify. She said currently notification is done on a case by
case basis. The victim will be informed of that right a majority
of the time, but not always. She said DFYS could put that language
into their policy. She said that one of the problems that DFYS has
is that even when victims tell DFYS that they would like to be
notified they don't keep the division informed of location if they
move. If the victim tells DFYS that they would like to be
notified, then they are asked to take some responsibility to let
DFYS know where you are at to do so. She said DFYS has no problem
to make sure that DFYS is giving that information to the victims at
the time.
Number 1795
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if the language specifying that victims will
be notified or rather that they can be notified at their request
should be put in CSHB 6(HES) so that ten years for now the attitude
will be the same.
Number 1822
MS. WORLEY said she would like to see this happen by putting it
into DFYS policies and procedures that this would be a requirement
of the employees that during this process one more step would be
included. She said this step needs to because then that is where
it needs to be so that the workers have it right in their daily
policy and procedure manual.
Number 1847
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would remove his objection to the
proposed Amendment 1 taking what DFYS said as something that is
going to happen. As departments start dealing with the Victim's
Rights Act they are going to find that it behooves them to do these
things. If they don't, they will be subject to the least criticism
at the worse civil suits.
Number 1879
MS. WORLEY said DFYS is in the middle of revising the Youth
Services Policy and Procedure Manual and could add this
notification policy before they go to the next printing.
Number 1894
REPRESENTATIVE J. ALLEN KEMPLEN said there has been proposed
legislation that would assist in the notification of victims. A
Victim Information and Notification Everyday (VINE) introduced by
himself in the House and Senator Johnny Ellis in the Senate which
would address this issue.
Number 1925
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that Ms. Worley would prefer that
this notification not be in statute but rather in DFYS policy. He
asked if there was any concern on her part to have this
notification in policy without the authority of legislation. He
questioned if she might be reluctant or be hesitant in implementing
such a policy.
Number 1951
MS. WORLEY said she had no problem instituting the policy. She
said, as was pointed out by Representative Porter, that this is an
issue that DFYS is dealing with on a day to day basis. She said
DFYS certainly looks at victims and the rights of victims. It is
an issue that affects the division in many other areas as opposed
to just this one. She said where she needs to have it is in the
policies and procedures manual to get this information out to her
staff and make sure that they know what is expected.
Number 1990
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN repeated that DFYS made public disclosures to
some of the victims and expressed concern that there would be an
objection if this notification was put into statute as well as in
policy. This would give the policy the authority of statute in
case the next director of DFYS would want to do away with.
Number 2030
MS. WORLEY said she would have no objection to that.
Number 2038
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if we could say for the record that it is this
committee's understanding that DFYS will be notifying people of
their option to be notified and that we are cognizant of the
victim's rights amendment that will encourage this activity in the
future.
Number 2062
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he would prefer that the policy be that
the victims be notified unless they have chosen to opt out of being
notified. He said this would make the notification pro-active.
Number 2084
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he believed this would be the result of
the policy and this provision. He said DFYS would notify everyone
of their right to be notified and the only reason why DFYS would
not notify them is if they said they did not want to be notified.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER removed his objection to the proposed
Amendment 1.
Number 2122
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said hearing no further objection to Amendment 1, it
was adopted to CSHB 6(HES) by the House Health, Education and
Social Services Committee.
Number 2132
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved proposed Amendment 2 to CSHB 6(HES).
Number 2136
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY objected to the motion.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said proposed Amendment 2 was addressed last
week by the court administrator. It was suggested to him that the
fiscal impact be removed from the courts. The proposed amendment
takes and makes the release of information referral solely the
jurisdiction of the DHSS and not the courts. This notification is
dealt with by DFYS anyway. Proposed Amendment 2 also sets a date
certain, August 31, for disclosure of records beginning past that
time. This prevents the state from going back in time
(indiscernible due to papers on the microphone) the DHSS is the net
effect of this proposed amendment.
Number 2215
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the effect of proposed Amendment 2 is
that the records will not be available through the court no matter
when the offense occurs.
Number 2248
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said yes, it strictly deals with disclosure in
the DHSS, it is not necessary to have the court disclose the
information as it has already been disclosed thorough DHSS. He
said if the court has to disclose it, unnecessary costs would be
incurred. The courts also said they had some concerns that if you
did not put a date certain on it, you did not make specific that it
was not retroactive, then there would be a great deal of work and
resources expended to go backwards with these documents to make
them public. He reiterated that it would make the records from
August 31 onward available.
Number 2310
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he did not understand that there would be
additional expense to the court for allowing access to court
records provided that they did not have to go back retroactively to
clean up court records. He said if the records were repaired in
accordance with statute requirements beginning with the effective
date of the statute there would be in essence two piles; one that
was accessible to the public and one that would not be accessible
to the public.
TAPE 97-4, SIDE A
Number 0000
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Staff Counsel, Office of the Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System, was next to testify. He said it
would not cost the court anything if DFYS provided the records. If
the courts supplied the records it would cost them a tenth as much
if there was a date certain applied to CSHB 6(HES).
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why there would be costs with the court
records.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said there were associated costs tied to the court
record.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said maybe records could be prepared in the
future with the idea that you are going to have to expose them
anyway.
Number 0089
MR. CHRISTENSEN said there would be some slight additional clerical
costs associated with keeping two sets of records; the confidential
records and then the public records which the public would have
access to. He said the costs statewide would not be substantial in
terms of excess clerical overtime, paperwork and the costs of
buying the materials needed for the 15 locations statewide. He
said they expected costs to be under $20,000, but said there are
some costs associated with it. It is doing something which the
court does not do.
Number 0107
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said if CSHB 6(HES) produced any reduction in
juvenile delinquency crimes the cost would be offsetting very
quickly, we are talking about $20,000 statewide.
Number 0124
MR. CHRISTENSEN said it was a decision for the committee to make as
he would not be willing to speculate as to what the offset might
be.
Number 140
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said $20,000 represents ten days of court
time.
Number 0142
MR. CHRISTENSEN said it is not a great deal of money, but added
that it is a question of dislocation also. He said as he indicated
in Anchorage there are 40,000 records requested. People coming in
and wanting to look at files. He said those folks are then going
to want to move down to the juvenile office and look at the
juvenile records. He said, in Anchorage, there is no space for
people to go into the juvenile office and look at records because
it has never been done before. He said he wouldn't even speculate
on any kind of capital costs to move offices to different rooms,
build counters, etc. He said he wouldn't even include those costs,
so there will be some dislocation.
Number 0189
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he did not know the court system well,
but asked why the records wouldn't be accessible through computer
modems. He asked if we were talking about an electronic data base.
Number 0211
MR. CHRISTENSEN said the court system has historically been the
uncomputerized branch of government. He said it has only been in
the last few years that the legislature has given the courts money.
As of now the records are not computerized. At some point in the
future, hopefully in the next three or four years, it might be but
right now it is not.
Number 0233
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said this doesn't come to the state system,
but you can go to services and get criminal records. You can get
people check to see if they have a criminal records through
commercial services. He asked if they entered this data by hand or
do they get it electronically from the court system.
Number 0259
MR. CHRISTENSEN said he did not know. He said they get a lot of
data from, for example, the Department of Public Safety now that
the Apsin computer base has been opened up within the last few
years.
Number 0291
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Representative Kelly if it was his
understanding that DFYS will gear up to be in this victim
notification mode which they are not presently in.
Number 0309
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY clarified that he was addressing Amendment 1.
He said he believed they had communication with victims now, but he
wasn't sure at what level it was. He said he did not know if this
notification would represent a quantum leap in informing victims
that they can be informed about the outcome later on. He said it
would be a question for DFYS.
Number 0371
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he would vote against the amendment
because it more properly belongs within the court system then with
DFYS.
Number 0390
A roll call vote was taken on proposed Amendment 2 to CSHB 6(HES).
Representatives Bunde, Green, Porter and Dyson, Kemplen and Brice
voted yea. Representatives Dyson and Vezey voted nay. Amendment
2 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said he would turn over the gavel to Vice Chair
Green.
Number 0428
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 3 to
CSHB 6(HES).
Number 0430
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected.
Number 0425
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he supported proposed Amendment 3. He
said the original language had the unintended consequences of
actually releasing information which we would want to keep
confidential. The wording was such that it says that the state
would release confidential information after CSHB 6(HES) takes
place. He said it has been determined that it is the delinquent
information that is open for disclosure, that which remains is CINA
information. He said we certainly don't want to release CINA
information.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said the way the proposed Amendment 3 is written
that the information that normally would be deleted the way CSHB
6(HES) is submitted, you are also wanting to delete that also. You
are taking out all of Section 6.
Number 0497
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the committee adopts the proposed
Amendment 3, if it is making it illegal for a parent or a guardian
to disclose information about a minor of whom they have parental
custody. He said if we adopt the amendment, as he understood it,
the wording would be that this information could be disclosed only
to the Governor or to certain select people.
Number 0544
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said it maintained existing law, it wouldn't
change.
Number 0546
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said it maintains existing law. By saying
that it is legal to disclose to a certain group of people, is it
going to be illegal for a parent or guardian to disclose
information to someone who is not on this list.
Number 0565
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thought that a few years back
Representative Barnes had a problem with a parent not being able to
discuss a case with a state representative. If he was not
mistaken, parental rights were extended to allow them to talk to
anyone about...
Number 0590
MS. KNUTH said the current law is that a parent can make a
disclosure to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a legislator,
the Ombudsmen, the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Health and
Social Services which sounds like a lot of people. Basically it is
people that are involved in the governmental process with a need to
know basis. She said Section 6, as initially drafted, would remove
that list and instead say disclosures can be made to the public, a
step that has not been taken yet. It would be something new. The
problem is that you are talking about confidential CINA information
that the child has a privacy interest in. She said the balance
that was made a couple of years ago was to say that a parent can
discuss that information with anybody in this kind of broad circle
of people with legitimate government interests, but short of
anyone.
Number 0672
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "if we delete this (a), then that is actually
in statute now." If we delete that then by proposed Amendment 3 we
do or don't open it up?"
Number 0699
MS. KNUTH said if you delete Section 6, you leave the law the way
it is now, which is that a parent can discuss the information with
any of these government people, but not the public.
Number 0716
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "I read this as (a)., that there might be
something else in existing law and that is not true. Normally you
don't have (a) under 12.30.320(a), is there a (b) and a (c) under
existing code?"
Number 0730
MS. KNUTH said there is and those matters relate to the same
subject, but what was happening in Section 6 is that it was adding
the phrase, "to the public" and taking out the laundry list of
government officials. She said if you delete Section 6 from CSHB
6(HES), then you would leave (a), (b) and (c). Those would all
continue as they are now on the statute books.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "that's the substance of some of this
questioning. What is left if (a) now is dropped and (b) becomes
(a) and (c) becomes (b)?"
MS. KNUTH said that no one is proposing that (a) be dropped.
Number 0782
A roll call vote was taken on proposed Amendment 3.
Representatives Green, Porter, Brice, Kemplem and Dyson voted yea.
Representative Vezey voted nay. Representative Bunde returned to
the committee meeting for the vote but abstained from voting. Six
votes yea, one nay and one absention. Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 0828
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 4.
Number 0829
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for purposes of discussion.
Number 0840
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said the proposed Amendment 4 would allow
juveniles, whose records have been made public, to petition the
court to have those records sealed five years after the offense
where the juvenile has committed no new offenses and has done
everything the court has ordered him to do. He said it represents
sort of a carrot for the kid, encouraging good behavior and it is
within the court's discretion whether to seal the records or not
and the court gets to look at the kid and all of the circumstances.
He said Representative Kelly voiced his support for this type of
amendment in his earlier testimony.
Number 0885
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he does not have an objection to the
proposed Amendment 4. He said this was not something he was
expecting to see in this committee, but he had voiced that he would
work towards something like this in later committees.
Number 0930
A roll call vote was taken on proposed Amendment 4.
Representatives Bunde, Green, Porter, Brice, Kemplem and Dyson
voted yea. Representative Vezey voted nay. Amendment 4 was
adopted.
Number 0936
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move CSHB 6(HES) as amended
with accompanying fiscal notes.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was an objection. Hearing none CSHB
6(HES) was moved out of the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee with individual recommendations and
accompanying fiscal notes to the next committee of referral.
Number 0981
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move HCR 4.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was an objection. Hearing none HCR
4 was moved out of the House Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee with individual recommendations.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CHAIRMAN BUNDE
adjourned the meeting of the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee at 4:54 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|