Legislature(1997 - 1998)

02/10/1997 01:02 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
          HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                   
                  February 10, 1997                                            
                      1:02 p.m.                                                
                                                                               
                                                                               
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                
                                                                               
Representative Joe Green, Chairman                                             
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman                                        
Representative Brian Porter                                                    
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                 
Representative Jeannette James                                                 
Representative Eric Croft                                                      
Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                 
                                                                               
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                 
                                                                               
All members present                                                            
                                                                               
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                             
                                                                               
*HOUSE BILL NO. 120                                                            
"An Act relating to the power of the attorney general to waive                 
immunity from suit in federal court; and providing for an                      
effective date."                                                               
                                                                               
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                          
                                                                               
CONFIRMATION HEARING BARBARA BRINK, ALASKA PUBLIC DEFENDER                     
                                                                               
     - CONFIRMATION ADVANCED                                                   
                                                                               
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4                                              
Relating to records generated and maintained by the Department of              
Health and Social Services.                                                    
                                                                               
    - HEARD AND HELD                                                           
                                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 6                                                               
"An Act amending laws relating to the disclosure of information                
relating to certain minors."                                                   
                                                                               
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                 
                                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 3                                                               
"An Act relating to disclosures of information about certain                   
minors."                                                                       
                                                                               
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                 
                                                                               
(* First public hearing)                                                       
                                                                               
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                
                                                                               
BILL:  HB 120                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT IN FED COURT                             
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HUDSON, Green, Ogan, Croft                       
                                                                               
JRN-DATE      JRN-PG             ACTION                                        
02/07/97       265    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
02/07/97       265    (H)   JUDICIARY                                          
02/07/97       276    (H)   JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING                          
NOTICE,RULE23                                                                  
02/10/97              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
                                                                               
BILL:  HCR  4                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: SEPARATE RECORDS FOR DELINQUENTS & CINA                           
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY, Phillips, Dyson, Ryan                     
                                                                               
JRN-DATE      JRN-PG             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

01/28/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)

01/29/97 174 (H) COSPONSOR(S): RYAN

01/31/97 183 (H) HES RPT 7DP

01/31/97 183 (H) DP: DYSON, GREEN, BUNDE, KEMPLEN, BRICE

01/31/97 183 (H) PORTER, VEZEY

01/31/97 183 (H) 2 ZERO FNS (ADM, HES) 02/03/97 227 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED 02/03/97 227 (H) REMOVED FROM FINANCE 02/03/97 227 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY 02/10/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 108 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-3744 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 120. JOANNE GRACE, Assistant Attorney General Natural Resources Section Civil Division Department of Law 1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994 Telephone: (907) 269-5100 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 120. SUSAN COX, Assistant Attorney General Special Litigation Section Civil Division Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Telephone: (907) 465-3600 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 120. BARBARA BRINK, Acting Public Defender Department of Administration 900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090 Telephone: (907) 264-4400 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on her confirmation. JOHNNY GRAVES 525 West 3rd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 274-6348 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on the appointment of the State Public Defender. BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Aide to Representative Pete Kelly Capitol Building, Room 411 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-5241 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor HCR 4. REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 411 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-5241 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor HCR 4. DIANE WORLEY, Director 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: Provided testimony on HCR 4. CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel Alaska Court System 820 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2005 Telephone: (907) 264-8228 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HCR 4. ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer McLaughlin Youth Center 2600 Providence Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Telephone: (907) 562-2285 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HCR 4. SCOTT CALDER P.O. Box 75011 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Telephone: (907) 474-0174 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HCR 4. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 97-12, SIDE A Number 001 The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order by Chairman Joe Green at 1:02 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Con Bunde, Brian Porter, Jeannette James, Ethan Berkowitz, and Chairman Joe Green. HB 120 - STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT IN FED COURT Number 100 CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN advised members they would first consider HB 120, "An Act relating to the power of the attorney general to waive immunity from suit in federal court; and providing for an effective date." CHAIRMAN GREEN invited Representative Hudson, prime sponsor, to address the committee. REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON, Prime Sponsor of HB 120, expressed that it had just recently come known that legislative action was necessary in order to protect a broader interest that the state had. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained that the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits suits against states in federal court for damages brought by citizens of the state. He pointed out that recent decisions of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska had prohibited the attorney general from waiving the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit without express authority from the legislature. Representative Hudson stated that although the attorney general had statutory authority to represent the state in all civil actions in which the state was a party, there was no specific legislative authority to waive the Eleventh Amendment immunity where it was in the state's best interest to do so. Representative Eric Croft arrived. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON advised members that from time to time, there were cases where it would be procedurally advantageous for the state to waive that immunity and have a case heard in federal court. HB 120 addressed one case the state would like to be a party of, and Representative Hudson stated that a proposed amendment would include one other case that the state felt it should become a party to. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON advised members that the first case was addressed in the original language of HB 120. The United States was being sued by plaintiffs in Alaska to seek judgment that the United States owns the tidelands in the Tongass National Forest. Representative Hudson reiterated the need to waive the Eleventh Amendment immunity clause in order for the state to become party to that suit to determine the state's title to the lands in dispute. Representative Hudson explained that the only way the state could litigate title to those tidelands was by joining as a defendant in the case. The Quite Title Act requires that the United States claim an interest in the disputed property, and in this particular case, the United States had carefully avoided taking any formal position as to whether it believes it, or the state, has title to the tidelands in question. He stated that by joining as a defendant, the state would secure the opportunity to establish title to lands the state believes it owns. Representative Norman Rokeberg arrived. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON advised members that the second case involved tort claims where the state and the federal government were both, potentially, responsible. Representative Hudson explained that it would be necessary to waive the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity in order to pursue that issue in federal court as well. He pointed out that if the state was unable to waive the Eleventh Amendment and appear and defend in federal court, the state would lose its ability to have a fair allocation of fault among all responsible parties. Number 439 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON concluded pointing out that the purpose of HB 120 was to ask the state legislature to allow the attorney general to give the state's consent to appear in federal court as a defendant in a case that involves the state's title to submerged lands. The proposed amendment would further enable the attorney general to waive the Eleventh Amendment immunity, and litigate in federal court, in cases where the state seeks to allocate fault to the federal government, or a federal employee under AS 09.17.080. Number 586 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the proposed legislation would create the potential for opening the state up to civil litigation, other than the two intended cases, during the time period the Eleventh Amendment immunity is granted. JOANNE GRACE, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. In response to Chairman Green's question, Ms. Grace felt the legislature would be granting the attorney general the authority to consider entering in on a case by case basis, but only in a couple of narrow circumstances. She pointed out that the authority provided would only be in effect until the sunset clause went into effect. Ms. Grace went on to say that she did not think it would induce plaintiffs to sue the state in federal court that they otherwise would not have, because the circumstances were so unusual. Number 860 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked if there was a reason for not specifying the names of the two individual cases in the proposed legislation. He felt that would appear to be the most limited way to address the issue. MS. GRACE could not respond directly to that question; however, did not feel it would make a difference because the intent was for those two specific cases. If Representative Berkowitz would be more comfortable with language that would specifically name the two cases at issue, Ms. Grace did not feel the Attorney General's Office would have a problem with doing that. The submerged lands case was Peratrovich v. United States, A92-734 CV (HRH). REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT stated that it was his understanding that it involved a jurisdictional issue, and the legislature would not be changing the law that would be applied, but simply waiving the state's right to object to appearing in a particular forum. MS. GRACE stated that was exactly correct. She went on to explain that the federal court did not have jurisdiction to hear a case brought by a citizen against the state unless the state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT expressed that the state would be applying the same substantive legal principles, whether federal or state, or a combination, to the case after immunity is waived than they would have before. MS. GRACE stated that it was simply a procedural issue, but if the Eleventh Amendment immunity were not waived, there would not be a case. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that with that in mind, he would not share the concern expressed by Representative Berkowitz because it appeared to be a tactical concern that the attorney general was perfectly able to handle, as to whether he wants to appear in one court or another. Number 1095 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER referenced lines 8 and 9, "The time limitation on the attorney general's power to waive the state's immunity under this subsection does not affect such a waiver given before January 1, 1999." He noted that through research, it was his understanding that what was being proposed was that the waiver, on the two specific cases at issue, would remain in effect if litigation exceeded the date of January 1, 1999. MS. GRACE advised members that would be correct. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Ms. Grace if there was any reason why that language could not be amended to read more clearly. Ms. Grace stated that any language the committee felt would make the statement more clear would be fine with the Attorney General's Office. REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked if the Peratrovich case related in any way to the Dinkum Sands case. MS. GRACE advised members that the Peratrovich case would involve some of the very same issues involved in the Dinkum Sands case, as well as the PL-082 case. She explained that those were ongoing disputes between the State of Alaska and the United States as to whether particular reservations that the federal government created before statehood defeated the state's equal footing doctrine interests in those submerged lands. MS. GRACE stated that in the Dinkum Sands case the pre-statehood reservations were the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA), and the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), whereas the Peratrovich case involved the Tongass National Forest. The PL-082 case, a reservation in Northern Alaska, was also in dispute with the United States relating to pre-statehood reservations. Ms. Grace stated that between those cases, there were general legal issues that were common, so that anytime the state litigates one of those cases it would set a precedent for the other cases that are unresolved. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that it was his understanding that there was not a problem between the state and the federal government regarding Dinkum Sands; that it was whether or not it existed as an island from which to draw a three-mile arc which could create an enclave. MS. GRACE expressed that she may have used Dinkum Sands somewhat loosely, pointing out that that case was actually United States v. State of Alaska, that involved four separate issues, of which one was the Dinkum Sands issue. CHAIRMAN GREEN referenced the language Representative Porter felt could be clarified and asked Ms. Grace if she could provide language for the committee's consideration. MS. GRACE advised members she would give it some thought, adding that the intent was to preclude the United States from arguing that the attorney general would lose his authority of the waiver in those particular cases once he exercised his authority. REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES moved to adopt Amendment 1, HB 120, page 1, line 6, following the word "lands," insert, or in any case in which the state seeks to allocate fault to the federal government or a federal employee under AS 09.17.080,. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted unanimously. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the amendment had nothing to do with the Peratrovich case, and asked if there was a time limit involved with the other cases as referenced in the amendment. SUSAN COX, Assistant Attorney General, Special Litigation Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, advised members that the posture of the Smith case mentioned in the backup documentation for the amendment, was such that a motion to add federal defendants was being filed this date, 02/11/97, in State Superior Court in Bethel. She advised members that they expected, once the motion is served, that the federal defendants and a federal contractor would seek to have the case removed to federal court where the state would then be faced with the Peratrovich case. Ms. Cox stated that the department anticipated that within several weeks to a month they would be looking at a situation in which the federal court would be wondering whether it has jurisdiction over the claims against the state. CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members HB 120 would be considered the following day at noon in order to clarify the language on lines 8 and 9 of the original bill. REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that the legislature waived its rules in order to consider HB 120 in an expedited manner and felt the Attorney General's Office should be aware of that. CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members they would next consider the appointment of Barbara Brink as the state's public defender. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ declared a possible conflict of interest because he has been a friend of Ms. Brink's for some time. CONFIRMATION HEARING BARBARA BRINK, ALASKA PUBLIC DEFENDER Number 1740 BARBARA BRINK, Acting Public Defender, Department of Administration, advised members she was seeking confirmation of that position. Ms. Brink expressed that she had the experience, the desire and the skills to do a good job for the citizens of Alaska. MS. BRINK advised members that she had been an assistant public defender since the early 1980s, and was appointed Deputy Director of the Public Defender Agency by the State Public Defender at that time, John Salemi, in 1988. MS. BRINK informed members that the agency would be submitting a capital project request for the purchase of legal research tools; CD Rom, Brief Banks, Motion Banks, computer hardware and software to allow communication with lawyers throughout the state and country. CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that Ms. Brink would be making a transition from actual trial work to administrative work and asked how that transition might affect her. Number 2020 MS. BRINK stated that over the past eight years she had had the opportunity to be involved in both case-work and administrative responsibilities. She did not know if she would be able to continue to represent clients; however, she felt that was a valuable tool to keep abreast of what was occurring in the trenches, and to have an understanding of what the courts, the clients and her staff were doing. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Brink how much money the agency would be requesting in capital funds, and how those funds would be expended. MS. BRINK's response was that they would be requesting approximately $200,000 for purchase of computer hardware for the purpose of networking the agency's rural offices and the next largest offices which range in size from four to six lawyers. Ms. Brink stated that the agency would also like to have Internet capabilities in the Anchorage office. She stated that the four single lawyer offices would be networked to the entire system. Ms. Brink noted that the Department of Administration supported the capital fund request and were considering having a local network person, from the department, assist in the planning stages and implementation of the project. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE addressed the rate of recidivism among the clients represented by the public defenders office and asked Ms. Brink if she had any suggestion on how to reduce that rate. He also noted the concern of victim's rights not being held on an equal level with criminal rights, and if Ms. Brink might respond to that. MS. BRINK felt that a lot of the proposals she had heard among different committees sounded very promising. She stated that the idea of having more localized community effort and input, not only regarding punishment, but dispute resolutions was an idea whose time had definitely come. Ms. Brink pointed out that that concept had proven to be workable in the Anchorage and Mat-Su youth courts. MS. BRINK, with respect to victim's rights, expressed that the state had made strides in having victims feel and be more a part of the adjudication process. She felt that as the trial court judge is given the ability to waive those competing concerns and assess which interest must take priority at a given moment, that they would continue to have a fair system. TAPE 97-12, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referenced a document submitted in the backup from John Holmes, Esquire and asked if Ms. Brink would provide comments on Mr. Holmes opposition to her appointment as State Public Defender. MS. BRINK advised members that John Holmes was a former assistant public defender who worked in the Ketchikan and Kotzebue office. She felt the letter reflected a deep philosophy of his, of which the two of them had had long conversations about. Ms. Brink pointed out that Mr. Holmes felt that the best way to represent a defendant in the criminal justice system was to take the anarchist approach. She explained that he would concede nothing; file every motion under the sun, and be oppositional at every turn. Ms. Brink noted that Mr. Holmes felt that that was the best method of serving his clients. Ms. Brink agreed that that was one approach; however, not one she had adopted. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referenced a letter of recommendation from what appeared to be a colleague of Ms. Brink's and asked if she felt it was appropriate to write that letter on the agency's letterhead. MS. BRINK felt it was not appropriate to use public defender stationery for the purpose of expressing a personal opinion. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that Mr. Holmes appeared to oppose all candidates for the position of State Public Defender. MS. BRINK felt Mr. Holmes' concerns came from the heart, adding that he was a dedicated public defender and he felt his way was the best way to deal with a system he viewed as unfair. Number 465 JOHNNY GRAVES advised members that he believed there was a gender bias against males in the court system, and law enforcement, generally. He also felt the public defenders office and the district attorneys office had too close a relationship, noting that in some cases it appeared they were actually working together against a defendant. Mr. Graves requested the newly appointed public defender to check into those concerns. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that to him, the appointment of Ms. Brink as the State Public Defender was extremely appropriate, and it was his hope Ms. Brink would maintain her point of view and strong commitment to the charge and function of the public defender's office. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the Governor's appointment of Barbara Brink as the State Public Defender be moved out of committee and on to the Joint Floor Session for confirmation purposes. HCR 4 - SEPARATE RECORDS FOR DELINQUENTS & CINA BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Aide to Representative Pete Kelly, addressed the committee on HCR 4, Relating to records generated and maintained by the Department of Health and Social Services. MR. CAMPBELL advised members that HCR 4 was a companion bill to HB 6 and was a resolution that enables the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) to separate the staff who handle child abuse cases from the staff who manage criminal records within the Youth Corrections division. MR. CAMPBELL explained that the separation of staff and personnel would protect the agency from the loss of most of the federal funds received for out-of-home placement. He noted that currently, over $7 million in federal funds was spent each year for out-of-home placement for abused children, and the separation would protect funds used for children in need of aid cases. Mr. Campbell explained that the separation would not protect funds used for foster placement of delinquent children. MR. CAMPBELL advised members that removing children from dysfunctional homes was an important option for breaking the cycle of violence for children who commit criminal acts. MR. CAMPBELL pointed out that through discussions with the department, he would be offering a technical amendment for the committee's consideration. Mr. Campbell stated that the issue was not so much the separation of records, but the task necessary so delinquency records could be disclosed with a minimal loss of federal funds. He noted that the primary task the department would be taking on was the restructuring of individuals who handle those types of records; personnel dealing with Children in Need of Aid (CINA) records would fall under one section of the department, and personnel dealing with delinquency records would fall under a separate section within the department. MR. CAMPBELL pointed out the restructuring costs and process was explained in detail in the department's fiscal note. Number 1014 Representative Pete Kelly arrived. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that it was his understanding that presently the judge would receive a packet of information in a delinquency proceeding, and CINA records would be included in that file. REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY stated that depending on the case, that would be correct. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Kelly to explain how HB 6 and HCR 4 were interrelated. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that achieving disclosure was a multi-step process. He stated that prior to effective disclosure it would be necessary to reorganize within the division so that a sizeable amount of federal funds would not be jeopardized. Representative Kelly felt HB 6 and HCR 4 would be mutually inclusive and felt HB 6 would not be achievable with out the results of HCR 4. CHAIRMAN GREEN added that he viewed HCR 4 as enabling legislation for HB 6, which the committee would consider the following Wednesday. DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS), Department of Health and Social Services, explained that the issue of restructuring the DFYS was a direct result of HB 6, which would allow the department to disclose information on juveniles involved with the system. She explained that both family services and youth services were administered within the same division of the department. MS. WORLEY advised members that part of the department's function was related to the ability to collect federal 4(e) dollars, which was related directly to children who are in out-of-home placement. She explained that the state receives approximately $7 million in 4(e) funds from the federal government. One of the requirements, in order to access those funds, was to have strict confidentiality regulations regarding clients within the division's care. MS. WORLEY explained that in order to continue receiving those federal funds it would be necessary for the department to restructure the youth and family services division. She advised members that the state currently collects approximately $7 million in federal 4(e) dollars, of which approximately $700,000 were for the juvenile population. MS. WORLEY stated that even with the restructuring, the department would still lose federal 4(e) dollars attached to the juvenile population. The state would not lose the $6 million plus, currently claimed on the CINA families. Number 1520 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if this was an idle threat from the federal government, and questioned whether other states which had failed to comply with the federal requirements had ultimately lost those federal funds. MS. WORLEY stated that the majority of states who were disclosing information on juveniles were not set up with both family services and youth services administered within the same division, so it was not an issue for those states. Those states who had systems similar to Alaska's were considering similar restructure changes. Ms. Worley noted that the federal government was very clear on the issue of confidentiality, and that was one of the primary criteria for receiving those federal funds. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed that it would be possible for a child in need of aid to become a delinquent and asked how the department would accommodate that situation. MS. WORLEY did not feel that would be an issue as long as the department kept their files and accounting explicitly separate between the two segments, which would be the case after restructuring. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES presented a hypothetical situation of a delinquent child becoming a CINA child, at some point in time, and questioned whether that child would be able to go over to the CINA side of the structure after first falling under the division of youth services. MS. WORLEY felt that was an excellent question, and one she had not thoroughly considered. She stated that it was her understanding that if a disclosure occurred in the juvenile section and later became a CINA case, the department would not disclose any further information relating to the juvenile case. Ms. Worley noted that she would research that further and advise the committee if she had any misunderstanding of the process. TAPE 97-13, SIDE 1 Number 000 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, advised members he had worked with Ms. Worley the previous year on the proposed legislation, as well as having several conversations with officials of the Children's Bureau in Washington, D.C. and Region 10 in Seattle the year before that. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked why the courts could not release their records and avoid DFYS problems with release. MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that he was told that any information the court system received from the DFYS could not be re-released without DFYS losing funds. He stated that unlike adult cases where the arresting officer brings the name of the offender to the court's attention, with children's cases the arresting officer does not actually file the charge with the court; the charge would always come from the DFYS. The court system is not allowed to release the name of the child, adding that if one could not release the name of a child it would not make sense to release any other information even if internally generated. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed his dissatisfaction with the federal government's philosophy on that issue. Number 103 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what the juvenile records looked like, who they were generated by and who had access to them. MS. WORLEY advised members that the juvenile record would include the arrest record and any additional information that had been discovered since that point. It would include information regarding discussions with the probation officers, information relating to discussions with the parents and discussions as to the possible outcome of the case; i.e., petition the court or adjust the case. Ms. Worley noted that the file could also include other information relating to psychological evaluations or other testing that might have been done. ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer, pointed out that other documents that might be included in the juvenile file would be a risk needs assessment which involved a formal evaluation of what the individual's needs are, as well as what levels of risk they could present to the community. Medical records could also be found in the file that might indicate special issues that the department would need to be aware of when determining placement or treatment intervention programs, and financial issues relating to parent income. Mr. Buttcane pointed out that a great deal of information relating to victims would be contained in the juvenile file, along with negotiations that had taken place with them; restitution agreements, assignment of restitution levels between multiple co-defendants, and occasionally extensive school records, especially if the youth were deemed a special education student. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ felt that some of the information contained in the juvenile record could be considered privileged or confidential, and asked if that would present a problem within the proposed resolution. MS. WORLEY stated that in the Governor's proposed disclosure of juvenile records there was a distinction as to what could, and what could not be released, such as medical records, psychologic evaluations and information relating to personal family history would not be open to the public. She thought those types of exclusions were included in Representative Kelly's resolution also. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed that she was having a difficult time trying to figure out why the state was attempting to protect personal records for the purpose of not losing federal funds, when what they really want to know are the names of the juveniles who were committing crimes. MS. WORLEY agreed with the statement made by Representative James; however, stated that people also wanted to know how the situation was handled after the juvenile was suspected of committing a crime. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY explained that the juvenile records Representative Berkowitz was referring to are provided to the court system, but HB 6, that would be addressed by the committee at a later date, does not address those records. The context of that proposal was the release of the names of the juveniles and the parents. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the committee was, or would be considering HB 3, HB 6 and HCR 4 as a package, basically, because they were all interrelated. He noted, however, that the Governor had introduced legislation and asked what the department's position was on that. MS. WORLEY advised members that the current position of the Department of Health and Social Services was that they did support the Governor's bill that was developed as a result of the Governor's Conference on Youth and Justice. She also expressed that the department was working closely with Representative Kelly on HB 6, and continue working towards some compromise in that bill. Ms. Worley advised members the department did not support HB 3 because they did not agree with the time of disclosure. Number 1378 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved to adopt Amendment 1 as follows; page 1, line 8, after the word "disclosure;" delete the word [and], delete lines 9 and 10 in total; on line 13 delete [existing CINA and delinquency records are], and insert delinquency information can be disclosed with minimal loss of federal funds., and delete lines 14 and 15 entirely. There being no objection, Amendment 1, HCR 4 was adopted unanimously. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that the Governor's bill was a result of the recommendation of the Juvenile Justice Commission and that he and Representative Kelly served on that commission. He explained that the original organization of the commission had been broken down into three groups. Representative Porter stated that he served on the group that dealt with the issue of the release of juvenile records. The recommendation Representative Porter's group arrived at was somewhat stronger that what was contained in the Governor's bill, and more typical of Representative Kelly's bill. SCOTT CALDER, Fairbanks resident, advised members that one of the primary problems with access to records was the ability of parents to obtain records on their own children. He felt that would be one of the initial problems to resolve, adding that he had not heard any discussion taking place on that issue at all. CHAIRMAN GREEN appreciated the comments of Mr. Calder; however, explained that HB 6 would be considered by the committee the following Wednesday and invited Mr. Calder to provide comments during that hearing. ADJOURNMENT Number 1664 CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting at 3:03 p.m.

Document Name Date/Time Subjects