01/18/2002 01:05 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 18, 2002
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 85
"An Act relating to conduct directed at a school employee as an
aggravating factor for criminal sentencing purposes."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 85
SHORT TITLE:AGGRAVATING FACTORS IN SENTENCING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/22/01 0143 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/22/01 0143 (H) EDU, HES, JUD
02/14/01 0328 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
04/11/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/11/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee --
Location Change --
04/11/01 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
04/12/01 0986 (H) EDU RPT 4DP 1NR
04/12/01 0987 (H) DP: PORTER, GREEN, GUESS,
BUNDE;
04/12/01 0987 (H) NR: JOULE
04/12/01 0987 (H) FN1: ZERO(COR)
04/12/01 0987 (H) FN2: ZERO(LAW)
04/17/01 1021 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GUESS
04/21/01 1111 (H) HES RPT 6DP 1NR
04/21/01 1112 (H) DP: COGHILL, KOHRING, WILSON,
CISSNA,
04/21/01 1112 (H) STEVENS, DYSON; NR: JOULE
04/21/01 1112 (H) FN1: ZERO(COR)
04/21/01 1112 (H) FN2: ZERO(LAW)
04/21/01 1112 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
04/21/01 1123 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS
04/21/01 (H) HES AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/21/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee --
Time Change --
04/21/01 (H) MINUTE(HES)
01/18/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
VERNON MARSHALL, National Education Association-Alaska
114 2nd Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 85 and responded
to questions.
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent of Schools
Anchorage School District
PO Box 196614
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6614
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 85 and responded
to questions.
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 85 and
responded to questions.
BOB ROSES, President
Anchorage Education Association
1840 South. Bragaw Street, Suite 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 85 and responded
to questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-2, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives
Rokeberg, Ogan, Coghill, Meyer, and Kookesh were present at the
call to order. Representative James arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 85 - AGGRAVATING FACTORS IN SENTENCING
Number 0051
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the committee would hear HOUSE
BILL NO. 85, "An Act relating to conduct directed at a school
employee as an aggravating factor for criminal sentencing
purposes."
Number 0079
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as the sponsor of HB 85,
relayed that HB 85 would add one more category of aggravating
factor to AS [12.25. 155(c)] for the purpose of increasing the
presumptive term. He noted that in working with one of the
members of the National Education Association (NEA), it was
brought to his attention that additional respect should be shown
to people who work within schools. He suggested that HB 85
would round out several things that the legislature has done
with regard to safety in public schools, would "up the level for
those who would direct an assault within the school", and would
be the 30th aggravating factor listed in statute. He added that
HB 85 "ups the level of respect that we would demand within the
public school," and is intended to cover all school employees,
not just teachers, because there are many different kinds of
employees working in schools: teachers, assistants, lunch
attendants, to name a few. He concluded by saying that the
issue of public safety is at the top of his list.
Number 0281
VERNON MARSHALL, National Education Association-Alaska (NEA-
Alaska), began by extending his organization's thanks to the
sponsor for introducing HB 85, to the committee for hearing it
at this time, and to the legislature for efforts to address
issues regarding safe schools, which, at a meeting in 1996, NEA-
Alaska's delegate assembly identified as a topic of real
concern. He relayed the belief that "the union" has a
responsibility to help in the identification and development of
"disciplinary safety programs" within school districts. He also
relayed the hope that HB 85 would act as a deterrent to any
disruption or violence that may occur within school buildings or
within the school system.
MR. MARSHALL suggested that passage of HB 85 would simply make
an assault or violence against a school employee an "aggravator"
that could be considered by a judge in a sentencing procedure,
similar to what is currently done with regard to an assault or
violence against a police officer or firefighter. The
aggravating factor would not be automatic, he added, but could
simply be considered by the court in adjudicating a sentence.
Enacting HB 85, he posited, would assist schools by serving
notice that disturbing the peace in schools is a serious matter.
He said, "we don't believe that it's going to stop violence, it
is ... simply maybe one deterrent that would be made available
to the courts... in the event that a judge had to decide a
matter that related to assault as it applies to a school
employee."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that he has a philosophical problem
with creating a "class distinction" in statute based on
someone's choice of profession. He noted that he would probably
be a little bit more supportive if, instead of applying to just
employees of the school district, HB 85 could apply to any
person assaulted on school grounds. He asked whether the idea
behind HB 85 is to keep the kids safe as well as the employees.
He noted that there are other groups of people - for example,
legislators - who could be added to the list of aggravators
based solely on type of employment. He asked why an assault on
a school employee should warrant a bigger sentence in comparison
to an assault on anyone else.
Number 0681
MR. MARSHALL opined that the issue boils down to the fact that
upon being hired, school employees generally have the duty and
responsibility to ensure that classrooms are orderly and that
instruction can take place. As the adult in a classroom, he
added, the school employee is, in a sense, the first line
defense should any kind of violence occur, whether it originates
outside and then comes into the classroom, or originates in the
classroom to begin with. He suggested that with regard to HB
85, the aggravating factor would be applicable to the school
employee relative to the duties and responsibilities of his/her
job. Using the example of an emergency medical technician
(EMT), he pointed out that an EMT has the job of ensuring that
the health and safety of individuals is protected; thus anyone
assaulting an EMT in the context of his/her job would be subject
to an [aggravator]. He suggested that under HB 85, the same
would be true if the victim were a teacher, aide, or other
school employee with a duty or a charge over individuals; a
judge in any resulting court proceeding could then use the
aggravator. He specified that it is the duties and
responsibilities incumbent on a school employee that warrant
inclusion on the list of aggravators.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that legislators have staff who are
the front line and must face people who might be very angry
about government. He reiterated that he would feel better about
HB 85 if the aggravator pertained to anyone who does violence on
school grounds or at a school function, regardless of who the
victim is. In this way, he added, parent-volunteers and
students would also be covered.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that she had been thinking along the
same lines as Representative Ogan. She suggested that the
intent is not necessarily to just protect teachers, but to make
classrooms safe, which would also offer protection to teachers.
She said her inclination would be to broaden the scope of HB 85
to include conduct occurring on school property, when school is
in session, and at any school function. She surmised that the
intent is for HB 85 to act as a deterrent by making the penalty
worse. And to this end, she reiterated that she would be in
favor of broadening the scope of HB 85.
Number 0975
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said he liked HB 85 and that he
appreciated the specificity of it. He noted that under Alaska
law, teachers are held to a higher standard of care when it
comes to children, thus he is in favor of holding "people who
interface with teachers" to a higher standard in order to
protect teachers. He posited that by having legislation such as
HB 85, it gives notice to parents and other people that "if you
come into the school and commit an assault, then be prepared for
the consequences." And while he acknowledged the importance of
being fair to everyone and not creating a special class of
people, he pointed out that teachers are a special class of
people and, thus, there should be legislation that protects
them. He opined that the message ought to be that "if you're a
teacher, we'll hold you to a higher standard of care because of
those children, but we'll also protect you a little bit more
than we would normal people who are outside of that
classification." He said he is very supportive of HB 85 in its
current form and doesn't want to water it down any more than
necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he agreed.
Number 1096
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent of Schools, Anchorage School
District, testified via teleconference. She referred to a
newspaper article in members' packets highlighting an incident
in December at an Anchorage school in which a parent assaulted a
teacher during class and tore a classroom phone out of the wall
when the teacher tried to use it to call for help. Ms. Comeau
noted that the Anchorage School District strongly supports HB 85
[because] it pertains to all school employees. She opined that
adding this class of people to the list of aggravators will help
the courts sentence people more appropriately - depending upon
the situation - offers more protection, and sends the right
message to public employees that work in schools. She added
that HB 85 could even apply to volunteers working in schools,
thus sending the message that "we do not accept anyone coming
into a school and assaulting anybody in the school for any
reason." With regards to the aforementioned incident, she noted
that the Anchorage School District is still providing counseling
and psychiatric assistance to help mitigate the impact which
that incident has had on the students who witnessed it. She
added that even though she has already issued a district-wide
no-trespass letter, some of the students still have quite a bit
of fear that this sort of incident could happen again.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that the defendant in that Anchorage
incident faces two counts of fourth degree misdemeanor assault.
MS. COMEAU added that the Anchorage School District is working
very closely with the police department and the municipal
prosecutor's office, and that a trial date has been set for
3/11/02.
CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that HB 85 as it is currently written
would not have any impact on that case; HB 85 only applies to
felonies and if the committee wished for the aggravator to apply
in the aforementioned case, the legislation would have to be
amended.
MS. COMEAU said that the Anchorage School District wants to
ensure that there is some penalty - some jail time - for these
kinds of offenses. "This is absolutely egregious behavior and
it just can't happen again," she stated.
Number 1307
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL confirmed that HB 85 would apply to "all
the felony counts and sexual assault."
CHAIR ROKEBERG, after noting again that HB 85 would not apply to
fourth degree [misdemeanor] assault, said that his
recommendation would be to expand the scope of HB 85 so that it
would apply to that type of offense. He then asked Ms. Comeau
to describe an incident that took place at Mountain View
[Elementary] and the resulting charges.
MS. COMEAU explained that on 5/7/01:
Jason Prichard (ph) came onto the school grounds
before there was supervision on the playground -
students were there too early and they were lining up
for the breakfast program - and he basically started
slashing children, and he sounded very deranged (as I
understand it) ... saying that he was going to kill
children so that they would be sure to go to heaven.
... He got into the school and ended up in a classroom
and slashed one young man quite severely after he had
already slashed three other boys in the throat. There
was immediate medical assistance there for the office
staff who called 911, and the emergency personnel,
police, and EMTs were there within [a] very short
time, and they did subdue the man and he was arrested
and taken away. ... He's gone through the trial, as I
understand it, and his sentencing has not happened
yet, so he's under custody. ... I don't have the
specific charges as far as what was filed, but he has
been adjudicated, and I'm not sure where exactly that
is in the process.
CHAIR ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Comeau check to see what the
ultimate charges were - what the indictments read - "because
that's when the aggravators would come into play."
Number 1453
MS. COMEAU, in response to questions, confirmed that she would
like all school employees to be covered, not just teachers and
principals. She stated that there are a number of
paraprofessionals who could potentially be assaulted, and,
therefore, should also be covered under HB 85: teacher's
assistants; noon-duty attendants; custodians; and, through
"school business partnerships," community members.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER pondered whether HB 85 should include a
definition of school employee. He noted that volunteers might
not technically fit the definition of a school employee, and
that half of the school bus drivers [in Anchorage] are employees
of a private company.
MS. COMEAU acknowledged that there have been "some close calls
with some of our bus drivers when parents try and get on the bus
and accost our drivers or attendants." Therefore, she opined,
HB 85 should cover contracted employees as well as anybody else
who has business with the schools.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that Ms. Comeau is making his case:
HB 85 should cover anybody who is assaulted on school grounds,
not just school employees. He requested that the sponsor
consider creating a committee substitute (CS) so that if a
person commits a violent act on a school ground, on a school
bus, or at any school function, he/she would be subject to HB
85. "I think we should cover the kids and the people that are
around schools; schools should be safe places," he stated.
Referring to the Mountain View Elementary incident, he also
stated that, "there should be an aggravator for weirdoes that
come on school grounds and try to cut kids' throats."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that parents spend time on
school grounds too. She surmised that there are two sides to
the issue raised by HB 85: one, to make school employees feel
more comfortable and protected; and two, to ensure the emotional
and physical well-being of the children. She said, "It seems to
me like we ought to be all-inclusive," which she then defined as
expanding HB 85. To further her point, she offered the examples
of kids on a bus attending a ballgame at another school and of
volunteers who assist at schools.
Number 1688
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency (PDA),
Department of Administration, testified via teleconference and
said that the PDA objects to HB 85. She explained that this
opposition is not meant to imply anything negative about school
employees; however, if the goal is to instill respect and deter
people [from violence], HB 85 is not an effective way of meeting
the problem - it will not deter people. She said:
I wish that people thought before they acted;
unfortunately, most of the time, crimes are committed
by people who do not think before they act. They are
acting in the heat of passion; they're not thinking
about whether ... there's going to be an aggravating
factor involved in their punishment.
MS. WILSON continued:
In terms of instilling respect, certainly it is very,
very important that our community respect staff at
school [and] teachers; they are deserving of utmost
respect. They are critical to our society. They are
one of the most important things that we have in terms
of ... what we do with our children. But the problem
is that this bill punishes somebody after the fact.
It seems that effort should be made more at the front
end in terms of protection/public safety; ... giving
somebody a more severe sentence after something bad
has already happened seems to miss the point.
This particular legislation does not just address
assaults, which seems to be one of the goals of it,
this would also affect felonies involving theft. ...
There are thefts that arise to the felony level. If
somebody who worked in the school committed a theft
against another school employee and it rose to a
felony level, this aggravator could apply if it was
directed at a teacher because [he/she was] a teacher
[or] at a janitor because [he/she was] a janitor. So
... it seems to be more inclusive than it need be.
Number 1814
... All victims deserve respect. Carving out factors
that deal with a specific interest group - or because
somebody has particular job - is problematic. ...
There already is provision in the aggravators for
police officers, firemen, emergency medical
technicians, those types; but certainly all people
have value. What about social workers that deal with
kids? What about daycare providers that are working
with children off school [grounds]? What about
legislators and their staff? What about postal
workers? What about doctors at hospitals? What about
treatment providers? Transportation employees?
Airport workers? Public utility workers?
What this does is that every time something happens,
there's new legislation to cover that particular job.
This piecemeal approach to the criminal sentencing
code is problematic. Perhaps there should be an
overall look at the sentencing scheme. One of the
purposes it seemed - or one of the goals of this - was
to provide discretion to a judge. Maybe there needs
to be a rethinking of felony presumptive sentencing
that make these aggravators and mitigators come into
question.
Number 1893
MS. WILSON went on to say:
There are a number of states across the country that
have recently rethought presumptive sentencing or
mandatory sentencing schemes. Recently, this last
year, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, and North
Dakota have repealed certain mandatory-sentencing laws
because ... the legislature has determined that too
many dollars are being spent on prison operations, and
[that] there needs to be some alternative sentencing
programs. We already have 29 aggravators to felony
presumptive sentencing, and now we're going to add one
more for a particular job. Are we going to recognize
other people now, piecemeal, for their jobs? This is
a piecemeal approach for special interest, and even
though we all agree that teachers are valuable, this
legislation is not necessary. There are other
aggravators that certainly could apply that already
exist, but maybe rethinking how we look at aggravators
would be a good approach.
And ... I just thought I'd do a little bit of
education on ... this felony sentencing scheme....
Aggravators apply to felonies; they do not apply to
misdemeanors. So, [for] the instance referred to in
December, [HB 85] would not be applicable - ... it
certainly doesn't address that. The questions about
moving towards legislation [pertaining to] ... what
happens on school grounds - well again, that may also
come to needing to be modified. What about sports
events? What about things that occur off school
grounds but are school related? ... There are
oftentimes offenses that occur against school
employees that are not related to school.
MS. WILSON, in response to a question, said that aggravators do
not apply to misdemeanors, adding that there is already a lot of
discretion in misdemeanor sentencing. Aggravators only apply to
felony presumptive sentences; thus there are felony situations
in which there is no need to go to aggravators because they are
not presumptive-sentencing situations. She also pointed out
that aggravators do not apply to "city cases" either. In
response to whether anything precludes aggravators from applying
to misdemeanors, she said simply that current law doesn't
provide for it. She acknowledged, however, that the legislature
could provide for it [via legislation].
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked for an explanation of the distinction
between "presumptive and non-presumptive."
MS. WILSON explained that for a class A felony, the sentencing
range is up to twenty years. If the offender has a prior felony
conviction, the presumptive sentence is ten years. If it is a
person's first felony conviction, the presumptive sentence would
be five years. If a first-time felony offender used a firearm
or a dangerous instrument, or inflicted a serious physical
injury, the presumptive sentence would be seven years. Those
are mandatory minimum sentences. For some felonies, for
example, a class C felony, the sentencing range is zero to five
years. However, she added, there are presumptive sentences that
would require that a second-time felony offender receive a
presumptive sentence of two years. In that example, the
offender could not receive less than two years (unless there are
mitigators), or over two years (unless there are aggravators).
She also pointed out that a third-time felony offender would
receive a presumptive sentence of three years.
Number 2123
BOB ROSES, President, Anchorage Education Association, testified
via teleconference and said that he represents 3,500
certificated employees in Anchorage. He reported that many of
his members have made it perfectly clear that they feel that
they need increased deterrents for acts of violence or assault.
He noted that there are many situations in which verbal
confrontations could easily escalate into physical
confrontations. "We think that these types of deterrents that
are clearly articulated may help deter some of that from
happening," he added. He went on to say that there are very few
topics that emotionally charge adults as much as issues
regarding their children. He opined that educators should be
set aside as a special group, noting that for him, the term
educator means anybody working with children in an educational
environment even if he/she is a volunteer, a counselor, or a
coach.
MR. ROSES recounted that there has been a lot of discussion with
legislators and among educational advocates regarding teacher
recruitment and retention. He suggested that HB 85 is a simple
way of showing educators, and anybody else that works with the
schools, that they are indeed valued and supported. He referred
to the previously mentioned fact that there are already other
groups that have been singled out via legislation for
[aggravating factors], and to the existence of legislation that
has created drug-free and weapon-free zones around schools.
Using the last point as an example, he suggested that it is time
to create a violence-free zone for schools. And while he
acknowledged that such zones might not eliminate the occurrence
of violence on schools grounds altogether, he posited that
posting notice that violence will not be tolerated within a
certain perimeter could deter its occurrence and allow school
employees and children to feel safer. He also suggested that
prosecution of people who commit violent acts within a violence-
free zone could become easier.
Number 2302
MR. ROSES mentioned that there are already safety procedures in
place by which anyone who comes into the building is supposed to
check in. He pointed out that these procedures were not
effective in preventing the aforementioned incident that
occurred in December; in that incident, the parent did check in
and was delivering her child to the teacher. He posited that
having "strongly, well-articulated deterrents" may make people
think twice before they go to a school already angry - that
perhaps they would "try to do something to defuse themselves
before they get there." In response to a question, he explained
that at weapon-free school zones in the Anchorage School
District, the only people who may come within those posted
perimeters with weapons - regardless of an individual's weapons
permits - are on-duty law enforcement officials.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN again related that he would prefer to have
an aggravator apply to acts committed on [school grounds] rather
than just apply to acts committed against a [school employee].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that HB 85 is not intended to be a
"panacea for school safety." He acknowledged that school safety
has become one of the legislature's focuses over the years
because of school shootings and drug use. He pointed out that
the responsibilities laid upon Alaska's schools are to "detect,
deter, protect, and teach." Most school employees have to go
through extensive training, they are the ones that are shoulder
to shoulder with the students, and they are ones that know
what's going on in the building. He said, "There are
requirements put on these folks that aren't put on anybody else
with regard to children."
TAPE 02-2, SIDE B
Number 2472
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that the comments regarding
daycare brought up a good point. He then said he agreed with
Ms. Wilson that "if we go down this road of aggravators, or
almost any delineation of any category, we kick open the
discussion" regarding presumptive sentencing and aggravators.
He noted, however, that the point he is trying to make is one of
showing respect for those who have to deal with the increasing
occurrence of violence in schools. "We're talking about holding
[perpetrators] ... accountable to the highest degree, especially
when we hold those employees so highly accountable," he stated.
He suggested that this discussion is about giving judges another
tool to use in sentencing felony offenders. He added that
although he is open to discussing whether HB 85 should cover
anyone on school grounds, he thinks that having it applicable
only to school employees is sufficient.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that providing an aggravator for
behavior directed against school employees matches the level of
responsibility placed on them. He posited that HB 85 is
intended to honor the victim and the law, "not any class of
people...." He noted that he is willing to hold HB 85 and
discuss it further, and suggested assigning it to a
subcommittee. In conclusion, he offered the point that AS.11.61
regarding weapons misconduct already contains the language:
... within the buildings of, on the grounds of, or on
the school parking lot of a public or private
preschool, elementary, junior high, or secondary
school, on a school bus while being transported to or
from school or a school-sponsored event, or while
participating in a school-sponsored event....
Number 2314
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that although she is sympathetic to
this issue, she did not want to "put something down here that
isn't going to do anything." She noted that she has respect for
teachers and people who work with children, and that she wants
them to be assured that if they are mistreated, there will be
some penalty attached. She pointed out though, that she'd
rather figure out a way to protect them from violence in the
first place. Referring to the aforementioned incident in
December, she said that she is bothered by the fact that HB 85
as currently written would not affect that sort of situation
because it only resulted in misdemeanor charges. She opined
that the term "school employee" is not broad enough to "get who
we really want to cover," adding that she does not necessarily
want to have six lines of definition but she is willing to
discuss the issue further in order to achieve the desired goal.
Legislation needs to have a positive effect, she opined; if it
just says something to make people feel good, it is not worth
the paper it is written on.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he agrees with Representative James.
He added however, that he would like a better definition of what
a school employee is because there are so many different kinds
of people involved in the educational system these days. He
asked whether HB 85 would pertain to both public and private
schools. He noted that he agrees with the intent HB 85 and the
idea that "we have to protect our kids and the people who are
overseeing our kids."
Number 2184
CHAIR ROKEBERG observed that the issue of broadening HB 85
revolves around the definition of what a school employee is. He
opined that broadening the scope of HB 85 as Representative Ogan
has suggested would have it become "extremely difficult to use
in ... terms of an aggravator." He noted that he is inclined to
keep HB 85 simple and focused. On a slightly different topic,
he mentioned that hate crimes, which the committee is seeking to
address via other legislation, are currently only addressed in
terms of aggravators. And on that topic, he also mentioned that
since some thought is being given to expanding aggravators as
they pertain to hate crimes so that misdemeanors are included,
perhaps the same could be done for aggravators relating to
assault.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that he thinks any discussion about
having aggravators apply to misdemeanor assaults should be
separate from the issue of HB 85. Noting again that HB 85 only
applies to felony behavior, he said that any deviation from that
should be in the form of a totally different bill. He
stipulated that he wants HB 85 to address "after-the-fact"
sentencing and respect for those individuals in the educational
system. He opined that HB 85 as written "fills a place because
we have ratcheted up the responsibility [level] in the school"
for those that work there. On the point of keeping HB 85
simple, he said, "let's take this one law that's already there,
and these people who're already employed that we require so much
of, and just follow suit with the aggravators," rather than
rewriting the current statute completely to include more people
and more circumstances.
Number 1984
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that she is in a quandary because
although she agrees with the sponsor's intent, she is not
convinced that HB 85 does anything. She said that she wished
someone from the Department of Law (DOL) were present to answer
questions on this issue, one of them being how many cases there
have been that would have been affected by HB 85. She surmised
that if HB 85 is going to come into play frequently, then there
may be an increase in associated costs.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered that with an aggravator, the
issue is sentencing and therefore the biggest cost would be
whatever the added incarceration engendered.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that HB 85 has two zero fiscal notes,
one of which contains the comment that not many such cases are
anticipated.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "If we're going to pass a piece of
legislation today and ten years from now we have never used it,
I'm not sure we're using our time and the money of doing this in
the best interest of the people in this state." She suggested
that if all HB 85 does is make the statement that, "We like you
a lot and we're not going to let this [violence] go unnoticed,"
then the discussion today accomplishes that goal.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered to have the DOL available for
questions at the next meeting on HB 85.
Number 1642
CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that it might be possible to have the
aggravator in HB 85 apply to misdemeanor assaults (rather than
all misdemeanors) as well as felony assaults.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he objected to the idea of including
misdemeanors in HB 85; he only intended to have the aggravator
apply to felony sentencing. He then said he would be glad to
hold HB 85 for further review and request another hearing when
he has answers to the questions raised.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that the committee process works.
[HB 85 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1572
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:11 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|