Legislature(1997 - 1998)

02/19/1997 01:07 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                             
                         February 19, 1997                                     
                             1:07 p.m.                                         
                                                                               
                                                                               
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
                                                                               
 Representative Joe Green, Chairman                                            
 Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman                                       
 Representative Brian Porter                                                   
 Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                
 Representative Jeannette James                                                
 Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                
 Representative Eric Croft                                                     
                                                                               
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
                                                                               
 All members present                                                           
                                                                               
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
                                                                               
 HOUSE BILL NO. 3                                                              
 "An Act relating to disclosures of information about certain                  
 minors."                                                                      
                                                                               
      - MOVED CSHB 3(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                     
                                                                               
 HOUSE BILL NO. 6                                                              
 "An Act amending laws relating to the disclosure of information               
 relating to certain minors."                                                  
                                                                               
      - MOVED CSHB 6(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                     
                                                                               
 HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4                                             
 Relating to records generated and maintained by the Department of             
 Health and Social Services.                                                   
                                                                               
      - MOVED CSHCR 4(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
                                                                               
 * SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 58                                    
 "An Act relating to civil actions; relating to independent counsel            
 provided under an insurance policy; relating to attorney fees;                
 amending Rules 16.1, 41, 49, 58, 68, 72.1, 82, and 95, Alaska Rules           
 of Civil Procedure; amending Rule 702, Alaska Rules of Evidence;              
 amending Rule 511, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and                   
 providing for an effective date."                                             
                                                                               
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
                                                                               
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 3                                                                   
 SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURES RE FELONY ARRESTS OF MINORS                          
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT, Kelly, Cowdery                            
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG                 ACTION                                   
 01/13/97        27    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97                           
 01/13/97        27    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/13/97        28    (H)   JUDICIARY                                         
 02/07/97              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 02/07/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/07/97       277    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): COWDERY                             
 02/10/97              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 02/10/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/12/97              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 02/12/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/14/97              (H)   JUD AT  4:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 02/14/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/17/97              (H)   JUD AT  4:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 6                                                                   
 SHORT TITLE: RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS                              
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY, Phillips, Ryan                           
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE         JRN-PG             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                       
 01/28/97              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 01/29/97       175    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): RYAN                                
 01/31/97       185    (H)   HES RPT  CS(HES) NT 4DP 2NR 1AM                   
 01/31/97       185    (H)   DP: DYSON, GREEN, BUNDE, PORTER                   
 01/31/97       185    (H)   NR: BRICE, KEMPLEN                                
 01/31/97       185    (H)   AM: VEZEY                                         
 01/31/97       186    (H)   8 FISCAL NOTES (HES)                              
 01/31/97       186    (H)   3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS, ADM, LAW)               
 01/31/97       186    (H)   CMTE REC FINANCE REFERRAL                         
 02/03/97       228    (H)   FIN REFERRAL ADDED                                
 02/07/97              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 02/07/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/10/97              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 02/10/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/12/97              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 02/12/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/14/97              (H)   JUD AT  9:00 AM ASSEMBLY RM 250                   
 02/14/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/14/97              (H)   JUD AT  4:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 02/14/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/17/97              (H)   JUD AT  4:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 02/17/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
                                                                               
 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                       
 02/10/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/12/97              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 02/12/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/14/97              (H)   JUD AT  4:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 02/14/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/17/97              (H)   JUD AT  4:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 02/17/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
                                                                               
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Room 411                                                              
 Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 465-6589                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime Sponsor HB 6.                                      
                                                                               
 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 HB 6.                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT                                                      
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 302                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 465-6848                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime Sponsor HB 3.                                      
                                                                               
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-21, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee to           
 order at 1:07 p.m.  All members were present at the call to order.            
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN referenced a memorandum located in members'                    
 committee file from Lisa Kirsch, House Judiciary Committee Aide,              
 regarding HB 119, "An Act raising the limit on small claims actions           
 to $10,000; and providing for an effective date."  He advised                 
 members that Representative Mark Hodgins had requested Legislative            
 Research to respond to the six questions, and if committee members            
 had additional questions they wished to present to Legislative                
 Research to contact Representative Hodgins' office.                           
                                                                               
 HB 6 - RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS                                    
 HB 3 - DISCLOSURES RE FELONY ARRESTS OF MINORS                                
 HCR 4 - SEPARATE RECORDS FOR DELINQUENTS & CINA                               
                                                                               
 Number 238                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members the first order of business would be           
 a report by Representative Bunde, subcommittee chairman of HB 6,              
 "An Act amending laws relating to the disclosure of information               
 relating to certain minors," HB 3, "An Act relating to disclosures            
 of information about certain minors," and HCR 4, relating to                  
 records generated and maintained by the Department of Health and              
 Social Services.                                                              
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN excused himself for the purpose of testifying in               
 another standing committee meeting.                                           
                                                                               
 VICE CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE, chairman of the subcommittee assigned to             
 HB 6, HB 3 and HCR 4, advised members that Representative Pete                
 Kelly had provided an updated list regarding the release of                   
 information on felonies to the subcommittee.  The subcommittee                
 presented several language adjustments to Representative Kelly and            
 asked that he incorporate them into the original version of HB 6,             
 and provide a draft committee substitute for the full committee's             
 consideration.  The draft committee substitute could be found in              
 members' bill files.                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 376                                                                    
                                                                               
 VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE advised members that the subcommittee also                
 recommended that a draft committee substitute be prepared on HB 3,            
 "An Act relating to disclosures of information about certain                  
 minors," which would incorporate the same list of crimes that would           
 trigger the release of information as in HB 6.                                
                                                                               
 VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE pointed out that the subcommittee did not take            
 a position as to endorsing one bill over the other.                           
                                                                               
 Number 418                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER, member of the subcommittee, pointed              
 out that there was a substantial amount of discussion regarding the           
 criteria relating to the appropriate point to release information.            
 He added that the criteria in both bills was the majority opinion             
 of the subcommittee.                                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER reiterated that the Prime Sponsor of HB 3,              
 Representative Pete Kott, agreed with the recommendations of the              
 subcommittee and a draft committee substitute had been prepared.              
 Representative Porter noted that if both HB 6 and HB 3 passed the             
 legislature, there would not be any confusion or contradiction over           
 what the criteria was for the release of information.                         
                                                                               
 Number 519                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT expressed his apologies for the inability           
 to attend Monday's committee meeting because of weather conditions            
 and the need to overhead to Sitka, Alaska.  He pointed out that he            
 had been particularly concerned with the lower levels of burglary             
 and arson on buildings other than homes.                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members he had some additional                   
 language changes to HB 6 relating to the burning or burglarizing of           
 a shed, and also the ability to adjust a first time drug offender.            
                                                                               
 HB 6 - RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS                                    
                                                                               
 Number 652                                                                    
                                                                               
 VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE advised members they would now proceed with HB
 6, "An Act amending laws relating to the disclosure of information            
 relating to certain minors."   He asked that Representative Pete              
 Kelly comment on the draft committee substitute for HB 6 which                
 incorporated the recommendations of the subcommittee.                         
                                                                               
                                                                               
 Number 720                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, Prime Sponsor, referenced Section 4 of             
 the draft committee substitute, CSHB 6 (), Version "T".                       
                                                                               
 Number 734                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG moved to adopt CSHB 6 (), Version              
 "T" for the purpose of discussion.  There being no objection, CSHB
 6 (), Version "T" was adopted.                                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referenced Section 4, page 2, line 19, and               
 advised members that the new language would give the department the           
 discretion to say when someone was not in compliance.                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY continued on page 2, line 22, and advised                
 members that the word "previous" had been added to make clear it              
 was from a prior offence.                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that on page 2, line 29,                 
 language was incorporated which would allow the release of                    
 information about minors who commit felony crimes, not                        
 misdemeanors.                                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that there had been concerns                 
 raised regarding the use of the term "dangerous instrument" as                
 being too broad, so that had been changed to "deadly weapon" on               
 page 2, line 30.                                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referenced page 3, line 8, advising members              
 there had been concern regarding the possession of a marijuana                
 plant.  If the plant was alive it would be considered as                      
 manufacturing, and if the plant was dead it would be considered               
 possession of marijuana.  Representative Kelly advised members they           
 deleted the "manufacturing" language of the original bill, and the            
 "intent to deliver" replaced that language on page 3, line 8.                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that individuals who sought              
 the route of petition rather than adjustment was addressed on page            
 3, line 9.  Page 3, lines 11 and 12, addressed the names that would           
 be released at the petition phase.  Representative Kelly pointed              
 out that the difference at petition involved the minor's alleged              
 commission of a felony if the minor was 16 years old who had been             
 previously convicted or adjudicated as a delinquent minor.                    
                                                                               
 Number 1307                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES asked for clarification regarding              
 the release of information for serious crimes.                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that if a heinous crime was                    
 committed, the person's name would be released at adjustment and if           
 the department chose to take the individual through the petition              
 process the minor's name would be released as well.  He pointed out           
 that there would be no advantage to opt out of the adjustment phase           
 to go to the petition process on the more serious crimes.                     
 Representative Kelly explained that that addressed a concern                  
 expressed by the department.                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 1407                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that at the point of adjustment or                
 petition that punishment had not yet been established.                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY directed members attention to page 3, line 11,           
 which reflects, "the outcome of proceedings before the court", and            
 also on page 2, line 16, states, "the action required by the                  
 agency".                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked to be excused for the purpose of                   
 testifying in another standing committee meeting.  Her request was            
 granted.                                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 1473                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ was concerned that there would be no           
 incentive on the defendant's part to cooperate if disclosure took             
 place both at the adjustment stage and the petition phase.                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY felt language existed in the original bill               
 which provided an incentive to the defendant to go to the petition            
 phase rather than the adjustment phase, and he thought that was a             
 flaw in the bill.  The draft committee substitute would not provide           
 that incentive because both phases were basically equal.                      
                                                                               
 Number 1704                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that with information he                 
 received from the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS), he            
 had provided a breakdown which reflected the percentage of                    
 petitions dismissed by the court.  He pointed out that                        
 approximately 20 percent of the petitions filed by the department             
 were ultimately dismissed by the court for lack of evidence,                  
 innocence, or other reasons.  Representative Croft noted that in              
 the criminal system, cases were dismissed not because the                     
 individual was possibly innocent, but that there was insufficient             
 evidence to prove one guilty.  He pointed out that approximately 60           
 percent were adjudicated guilty on a petition, 20 percent found               
 insufficient evidence and approximately 20 percent included a                 
 variety of things, such as dismissal and waivers to adult court.              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT expressed that his question during the                   
 previous hearing regarded how many cases lacked evidence to pursue,           
 compared to how many, during the time period between petition and             
 adjudication, might be committing other crimes and asked if there             
 was any data relating to that scenario.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 1807                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that information would not be            
 available because the records were presently secret.  He noted                
 that, anecdotally, he was aware of individuals going through the              
 adjustment phase committing other crimes while going through that             
 process.  Representative Kelly assumed that would occur during the            
 petition process as well, although he felt there would be fewer               
 cases in that sense because once a petition is filed the individual           
 would know that action would be forthcoming.                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, with regard to a space problem, when              
 deciding to detain a minor, if the proposed legislation was solving           
 a space problem through the disclosure requirement.                           
                                                                               
 Number 1807                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY did not believe so.  He expressed that the               
 juvenile crime system, as he understood it, was that for a lack of            
 inadequacies in the system of law that had developed over 30 years,           
 that the system was kind of teaching minors to be juvenile                    
 criminals.  It says if you commit a bad act, the punishment would             
 probably not be that great.  Representative Kelly advised members             
 that what he learned from people who deal with those juvenile                 
 situations was that when a minor finally comes before a judge,                
 he/she may have committed dozens of crimes previously, and when a             
 judge reviews a particular crime record and sentences the                     
 individual to jail, the juvenile is completely "flabbergasted".  He           
 noted that through a flawed system, flawed philosophy or limited              
 space, the state was not able to deal with the minor until a                  
 serious crime was committed, which results in teaching the minor to           
 elevate their level of criminal activity because crime does pay if            
 there is no down-side to it.  Representative Kelly referenced a               
 quote as follows:  "This was the first generation that will not do            
 as well as its parents."; and someone else said, "This is the first           
 generation that is afraid of its children."                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that the point of the proposed               
 legislation was to correct a system that had been in existence for            
 decades that basically protected criminal juveniles.  The proposed            
 legislation would expose the individual's name, along with the                
 crimes they commit for the purpose of providing safety to the                 
 public.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 2158                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed that there was a space problem for                
 those who go to petition and found guilty; however, pointed out               
 that the majority of the individuals were taking the adjustment               
 route and he felt that was where the preventative measure came into           
 effect, and space had nothing to do with that.                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER did not agree with the chart reflecting the             
 percentage of petitions dismissed by the court.  He felt many of              
 cases that might have been dismissed was because there was not                
 enough time on the court's calendar to consider them, as well as              
 finding no probable cause to pursue a hearing.  Representative                
 Porter felt that people could be filing for petition too soon and             
 the department should look into that possibility.                             
                                                                               
 Number 2275                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly how many of the           
 56 individuals interviewed were delinquents.                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that he did not interview a lot of             
 juveniles.                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what response Representative Kelly             
 received from the juveniles he did interview.                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said that those he interviewed did not like              
 the idea of having their names released.                                      
                                                                               
 Number 2394                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that with the Governor's                 
 Commission on Juvenile Justice, that the public, in every community           
 in the state cautioned against disclosure.  He advised members that           
 gave him a great deal of pause before he could endorse anything,              
 such as the proposed legislation which suggests disclosure as being           
 appropriate.  Representative Berkowitz noted that the task force              
 spent a lot more time than committee members had sifting through              
 evidence, and had come to the conclusion that disclosure was not in           
 the best interest of the state.                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that he was a member of that task            
 force, as was Representative Porter, and there had been a lot of              
 discussion relating to disclosure and he did not hear that much               
 objection to it.  He advised members he was on the Youth at Risk              
 Task Force and Representative Porter was on the Offenders Task                
 Force which specifically addressed the issue of disclosure.                   
                                                                               
 Number 2444                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that as a member of the                 
 Justice Commission he attended the community meeting in Anchorage.            
 The method of getting at the opinion of release of juvenile records           
 was done through a series of scenarios, or fact situations.  He               
 advised members that in Anchorage, as well as other communities,              
 the public did not disagree with the release of information of the            
 records of juvenile offenders for serious violations, but felt it             
 was appropriate.                                                              
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-21, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that one of the scenarios asked about            
 involved a case of malicious mischief felony and if a 12 year old's           
 name should be released.  The public's response was that it should            
 not be.  Representative Porter stated that that type of situation,            
 under the proposed legislation, HB 3 and HB 6, the individual's               
 name would not be released.  However, he stated that for serious              
 offenses there was a fairly good consensus that the names should be           
 released.                                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that both adjustment and adjudication             
 provided a fairly high confidence of guilt.  In adjustment, the               
 juvenile has admitted to the crime, and in adjudication the court             
 has found guilt.  The petition stage would still be an allegation             
 by the department.  He asked what the approximate ratio was from              
 adjustment to petition cases.                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated that the ratio of referrals to petition           
 was approximately 15 percent.                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that juveniles going into the                
 petition phase involved juveniles who were adamant about their                
 innocence, and those who admit guilt go through the adjustment                
 process.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY agreed; however, pointed out that it would be            
 after a preliminary investigation had taken place in both cases;              
 i.e., petition and adjustment.                                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that of the crimes enumerated at the           
 bottom of page 2 and top of page 3, that they were all felonies               
 with the exception of misconduct involving a controlled substance,            
 subsection (G), page 3, line 6.  He pointed out that there is                 
 misconduct in the fifth degree, which was a Class A Misdemeanor and           
 felt that was somewhat anomalous.                                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked if that involved delivery of a                     
 controlled substance.                                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that it was a delivery charge,             
 AS 11.71.050.  He stated that if they were going to attack felony             
 charges, was it the intent to leave that charge unaddressed in the            
 proposed legislation.  Representative Berkowitz explained that the            
 delivery of an item did not necessarily mean the sale of that item,           
 adding that handing a book to someone would mean the same as                  
 delivering the book.                                                          
                                                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members he would have to give that               
 some thought and could address the issue at a later time; however,            
 expressed that it could be something that should be included.                 
                                                                               
 Number 245                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned the fiscal note dated 2/18/97,             
 which reflected $1,038,900 as being the total cost of both the lost           
 revenues and the restructuring costs of the department.  He asked             
 the department to explain that amount.                                        
                                                                               
 Number 273                                                                    
                                                                               
 DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family and Youth Services,                
 Department of Health and Social Services, advised members that the            
 total cost column figure of $1,037,900 included $698,200 of revenue           
 loss and $339,700 of restructuring costs.                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the restructuring figure of                  
 $339,700 was a one-time cost.                                                 
                                                                               
 MS. WORLEY advised members that it would involve a one-time expense           
 for the restructuring changes, and the department saw that as                 
 becoming a part the department's budget in an ongoing way.                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that $339,700 would be an                 
 annual increment in the future and not involve a one-time charge.             
                                                                               
 MS. WORLEY stated that was correct.                                           
                                                                               
 Number 328                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved Amendment 1, page 4, line 12 after the             
 words "the public", delete [the name of the minor, the name or                
 names of the parent, parents, or guardian of the minor, information           
 about the offense alleged to have been committed by the minor,                
 and].                                                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected.                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that he believed that Amendment 1              
 and Amendment 4 were primarily technical in that they modify page             
 4, line 12.  He noted that currently the section read "If the minor           
 makes a request under this subsection, the department shall                   
 disclose to the public the name of the minor, the name or names of            
 the parent, parents, or guardian of the minor, and information                
 about the offense", or any information as appropriate.                        
 Representative Croft pointed out that the subcommittee was                    
 concerned that it might not always be appropriate for all of those            
 and that it simply be information about the disposition of the                
 matter, or case as appropriate.                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT expressed that to some extent the language               
 presented a problem with lists by listing some of the things that             
 might be appropriate, but not all others.  He pointed out that they           
 were addressing the exoneration category, that they were releasing            
 information when a mistake had been made and would be disclosing              
 innocence.  Representative Croft advised members it was not giving            
 anymore discretion to the department to avoid releasing evidence of           
 guilt, but simply when it would be appropriate to release                     
 exonerating evidence as appropriate.                                          
                                                                               
 Number 437                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER withdrew his objection after hearing the                
 explanation given by Representative Croft.  There being no                    
 objection, Amendment 1, was adopted.                                          
                                                                               
 Number 446                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to adopt Amendment 2, to CSHB 6(JUD);              
 page 3, line 1, delete [11.46.410], page 3, line 2, delete                    
 [11.46.310], page 3 line 27, delete [11.46.410] and page 3, line 28           
 delete [11.46.310].  Representative Porter objected.                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 2 was categorized as            
 the "shed amendment" by his office.  He pointed out that they were            
 dealing with two categories; burglary in the first and second                 
 degree and arson in the first and second degree.  Representative              
 Croft advised members that second degree burglary and arson would             
 be eliminated by the proposed amendment.                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that in both charges, the second               
 degree charge was a base, generic form; burning of a building or              
 breaking into any structure or building with the intent to commit             
 a crime.  He pointed out that breaking into a "shed" to steal a               
 hammer, or burning a "shed" where no one lives, would fall under              
 the second degree category.  Representative Croft advised members             
 that arson in the first degree would include the possibility of               
 causing harm to a person, or acting with recklessness towards                 
 someone.  Burning a "shed" where someone lives would be first                 
 degree arson.  He stated that second degree burglary involved                 
 burglary of any structure, and first degree involved the burglary             
 of a house or dwelling, using a dangerous weapon to commit the                
 crime, confiscating a dangerous weapon upon leaving the dwelling,             
 or breaking into a "shed" to cause someone bodily harm.                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that the question Amendment 2            
 addressed was what manner of punishment should be imposed on                  
 juveniles committing "shed" crimes.  He pointed out that DFYS had             
 requested that some discretion be allowed for first time "shed"               
 offenders, although second time offenders who had not complied with           
 their restitution from the first offense, would be automatically              
 disclosed under the proposed legislation.                                     
                                                                               
 Number 575                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN posed a hypothetical situation whereby a minor                 
 burned a "shed" just for the purpose of burning it, and found later           
 that someone had been injured, or something valuable destroyed in             
 the fire.  He asked if a situation such as that would change the              
 offense.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members it would not be dependent on             
 the damage caused, but dependent on some knowledge about the                  
 likelihood of causing injury.  He noted that first degree arson               
 involved reckless threat to human life.                                       
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that the primary intent of the                 
 proposed legislation was to make juveniles responsible and                    
 accountable for their acts, and make them realize what the                    
 potential consequences might be, which was one of the reasons for             
 disclosing their names.                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 656                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed that the law, for the same offense,           
 would allow the substitution of "shed" with "bank".  He explained             
 that if a person burglarized a bank and did not threaten anyone on            
 the way out, it would be a charge of 2nd degree burglary. It was              
 not a residence, the person was not armed and did not confront a              
 person.                                                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that the definition of 1st degree            
 arson involves starting a fire, and by that act, recklessly places            
 another person in danger of serious physical injury.  He advised              
 members that it would more closely parallel a crime against a                 
 person.  Representative Croft expressed that he was trying to find            
 the crimes that were the biggest threat to public safety.  He                 
 pointed out that what the amendment would provide was the capture             
 of both the shed and the nonviolent, non-dwelling place.                      
 Representative Croft stated that the proposed amendment would allow           
 the department to work with the "shed" burglar by allowing the                
 ability to work with the individual to make them appreciate what              
 they had done and by keeping them out of the papers the first time,           
 there might not be a second time.                                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out that arson and burglary were                 
 serious crimes and young people that seem to be involved in burning           
 things often had serious problems.  He spoke against Amendment 2,             
 adding that he understood the intent of the proposed amendment;               
 however, when a young person was committing burglary or arson, even           
 though they were not hurting a person, that a call for help was               
 necessary.  Representative Bunde noted that part of the purpose of            
 the proposed legislation was to discourage the young person from              
 getting involved in criminal acts, as well as to protect the                  
 public.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 898                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER spoke against the proposed amendment,                   
 pointing out that when they were talking about 1st and 2nd degree             
 arson, they were not talking about careless smoking juveniles, that           
 it would involve an intentional torch of a building.  He stated               
 that burglary, statistically, if one could catch him or her, was              
 probably the fifth time the individual had burglarized.                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with the statements of both                       
 Representatives Bunde and Porter, even though Representative Croft            
 did an excellent job of explaining the "shed" amendment.                      
                                                                               
 Number 1024                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG called for the question.  Representative              
 Porter maintained his objection to the adoption of Amendment 2.  A            
 roll call vote was taken.  In favor:  Representatives Croft and               
 Berkowitz.  Opposed:  Representatives Bunde, Porter, Rokeberg,                
 James and Chairman Green.  Amendment 2, CSHB 6(JUD) failed adoption           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved Amendment 3, page 3, delete lines 6                
 through 8.  Representative Porter and Rokeberg objected.                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that the prior amendment affected both            
 the adjudication and adjustment categories; affecting the list for            
 both.  He explained that Amendment 3 would only affect the                    
 adjustment category and would not affect the petition category.               
 Representative Croft advised members that it would give the                   
 division the ability to adjust the first time drug offender.  He              
 noted that if the drug offense was serious enough that a petition             
 was filed, it would still remain on the list.  Representative Croft           
 advised members that by deleting the drug crimes from the                     
 adjustment category of required disclosures, it would allow the               
 division the discretion to see if they could work out an                      
 arrangement with the child, rather than disclosing his name on a              
 first time drug offense.                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that in talking with the department,              
 they had said that a minor theft crime and a first time drug                  
 offense were two of the larger categories they found happening.  If           
 the department was able to confront the child with what had been              
 done, and advise him or her of the possible consequences and                  
 working with the first time offender without disclosing to the                
 community, they felt it would provide a better chance of                      
 rehabilitating the juvenile.                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed that her concern would be if it                
 actually was a first time offense or, in fact, the first time the             
 juvenile was caught.  Secondly, she considered a crime involving a            
 controlled substance especially damaging, in particular who it was            
 being sold to.                                                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE spoke against the amendment also, noting that            
 he saw a great deal of difference between possession and the intent           
 to sell.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that delivery could be as simple as           
 two persons sharing a joint which would be charged as a                       
 misdemeanor.  He noted that it would be felonious if it involved              
 one person carrying crack-cocaine for another person, so delivery             
 and the way it is argued in front of juries was entirely separate             
 from sale.                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the concept was a person involving            
 another person, which takes it out of incidental use or a mistake.            
 He stated that it was an overt act of taking an illegal product to            
 someone else, and should be worthy of note.                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ advised members that there was somewhat of           
 a disparity.  He stated that if he handed someone a pencil, he                
 delivered that pencil.  And in his mind, the receiver of the pencil           
 was equally culpable for accepting it; however, the legislation               
 would not reach the acceptor of the pencil because he did not                 
 deliver the pencil.                                                           
                                                                               
 Number 1262                                                                   
                                                                               
 The objections were maintained, so Chairman Green called for a roll           
 call vote.  In favor:  Representatives Croft and Berkowitz.                   
 Opposed:  Representatives Bunde, Porter, Rokeberg, James and                  
 Chairman Green.  Amendment 3, CSHB 6(JUD) failed adoption.                    
                                                                               
 Number 1283                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved Amendment 4, CSHB 6(JUD), page 4, line             
 31, following "(1) has", insert good cause for not complying with             
 restitution payments or has.  Representative Porter objected for              
 the purpose of discussion.                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that he felt it was a technical                
 matter, but the amendment inserted language in the exoneration                
 clause and intended it to be identical language from the prior                
 restitution, rehabilitation and probation sections.  In the prior             
 sections, it stated that if a juvenile violated his punishment or             
 penalty without showing good cause, that would become a new crime             
 and would be disclosed.  Representative Croft felt there was good             
 reason to include good cause language because there could be a very           
 technical or minor violation of a restitution or rehabilitation               
 order and those should be taken into consideration.                           
                                                                               
 Number 1362                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER removed his objection with the explanation              
 provided by Representative Croft.  There being no objection,                  
 Amendment 4, CSHB 6(JUD) was adopted.                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ requested a brief at ease for the purpose            
 of discussing a possible amendment.                                           
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN called an at ease at 2:25 p.m. and called the                  
 meeting back to order at 2:28 p.m.                                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved Amendment 5, CSHB 6(JUD), page 3, line             
 12 following "the", delete [department files with the court a                 
 petition seeking adjudication of the minor as] and insert court               
 adjudicates the minor; page 3, lines 14 and 23 following "minor's",           
 delete [alleged]; and page 4, line 4, following "minor's", delete             
 [alleged].  Representative Porter objected.                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 5 was discussed in              
 subcommittee hearings and would make the change of whether to                 
 disclose at petition or adjudication.  He stated that the                     
 distinction was simply between an accusation by the department on             
 some evidence that the child had done something, and a finding by             
 the court that the child was, in fact, guilty.  Representative                
 Croft stated that fundamentally, and more appropriately, was it               
 right to release a child's name at conviction rather than                     
 accusation.  He noted that in the adjustment phase the child had              
 admitted the charge.                                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out that the process the department              
 goes through was fairly lengthy and the public would not be aware             
 of an incident, in order to protect itself, for the period of time            
 the juvenile was going through the process and could operate in a             
 vacuum during that period of time.                                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY agreed that there would be that concern.  He             
 noted that the department and Representative Berkowitz had                    
 expressed that there would be a log jam at petition because                   
 everyone would attempt to take that route.                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that did present a concern               
 because she had the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty, and           
 she was having a struggle as to how she would vote on that                    
 particular amendment.                                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that disclosure was not an imposed           
 sentence, but simply a disclosure of a juvenile's name, and he did            
 not believe the same equality of innocent until proven guilty                 
 existed.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that if a juvenile self                       
 adjudicates, it would accelerate the process and a log jam would              
 not occur that might otherwise take place with people backing up to           
 go to trial.  He noted that if there was going to be a weakness in            
 the system because of a time delay, a situation would take place              
 where the defense bar would get together and jam the system,                  
 because that was just the way it worked.  Representative Berkowitz            
 stated that there were great odds for someone to be not guilty, and           
 that by itself, was an incredible reason to support Amendment 5,              
 adding that one out of 5 was a lot of people who were wrongfully              
 accused.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER did not believe that one out of five of the             
 petitions filed involved an innocent person.  He felt the vast                
 majority of the dismissals were because of some other reason.                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that he had heard two                    
 rationales for the proposed legislation; protection of the public             
 and punishment for crimes committee, which were both articulated              
 reasons for disclosure.  He stated that disclosure was a form of              
 punishment which was being delivered prior to a conviction.                   
 Representative Croft stated with respect to public protection, that           
 in the area of petition to adjudication, the protection was in the            
 hands of the courts and whether they keep the individual                      
 incarcerated or not.  He pointed out that judges were making that             
 determination based on a threat to public safety.                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed with Representative Porter in that it             
 was possible that not all 20 percent of the petitioned cases were             
 innocent; however, stated that was never what the state's                     
 constitution had required and never the basis of the state's system           
 of government.                                                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that they were not talking about                   
 incarceration, but a notification for the purpose of public safety.           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE called for the question.                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER maintained his objection, so a roll call vote           
 was taken.  In favor:  Representatives Croft and Berkowitz.                   
 Opposed:  Representatives Bunde, Porter, Rokeberg, James and                  
 Chairman Green.  Amendment 5, CSHB 6(JUD) failed adoption.                    
                                                                               
 Number 1870                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved Amendment 6, CSHB 6(JUD), page 3,              
 line 8 and page 4, line 3, following the word "deliver" insert                
 other than an offense under AS 11.71.050.  He pointed out that it             
 was a conceptual amendment in an attempt to ensure consistency with           
 the enumerated list of crimes in the proposed legislation.  It was            
 his intent to make sure the crimes listed were all felony crimes.             
 He advised members that the amendment would delete the charge of              
 misconduct involving a controlled substance because that was not a            
 felonious charge.  There being no objection, Amendment 6, CSHB
 6(JUD) was adopted.                                                           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to report CSHB 6(JUD), Version "T", out           
 of committee as amended, with the attached fiscal notes and                   
 individual recommendations.                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of making a                  
 statement.  He advised members he was concerned with the fiscal               
 notes, and in particular, the ongoing costs and the downgrading of            
 a Superintendent II at the McLaughlin youth center.  With that,               
 Representative Rokeberg withdrew his objection, so CSHB 6(JUD) was            
 reported out of committee.                                                    
                                                                               
 HB 3 - DISCLOSURES RE FELONY ARRESTS OF MINORS                                
                                                                               
 Number 2115                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next order of business would be HB 3,            
 "An Act relating to disclosures of information about certain                  
 minors."                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, sponsor of HB 3, explained the                      
 subcommittee on HB 3 met and the recommendation was to include the            
 list of offenses that are in HB 6.  He said that is the only                  
 addition to the committee substitute that is before the committee.            
                                                                               
 Number 2167                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said as she understands, the two bills have              
 the same lists.  She pointed out the committee did make some other            
 amendments to HB 6 and questioned whether it would be appropriate             
 to include those amendments in HB 3.  She said HB 3 makes the                 
 disclosure by the police department and HB 6 makes the disclosure             
 by the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS).                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated that is correct.  He said it is done            
 on arrest.  The law enforcement agencies may release the                      
 information.  The bill does not directly have an affect on the                
 federal funding of the DFYS and it does not have the intent of                
 restructuring the DFYS.  Representative Kott said, "The previous              
 version essentially said that any crime committed, if it would have           
 been a felony if committed by an adult would have been releasable,            
 would have fallen into that category.  I think with the new list              
 that we have, some of the discussion that took place - one out of             
 five basically were found innocent.  I would submit that if you               
 look at this list and compare this list with the number of folks              
 who have moved through the system, I would say it's going to be               
 very small."                                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated she had a problem with that because            
 she would like to see the CINA (Children in Need of Aid) and the              
 delinquency separated for other reasons than the committee has                
 heard.                                                                        
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-22, SIDE A                                                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the public wants this disclosure and if             
 the public didn't, the committee wouldn't be dealing with it.  Not            
 only does the public want to know who these delinquent kids are out           
 there doing things, but they also want to know what the punishment            
 will be.  She pointed out there is more than the public's right to            
 know as there is the punishment.  She explained her concern is that           
 had there been a sufficient amount of penalty for bad behavior, as            
 determined by the DFYS in the courts up until now, we wouldn't have           
 had such a push from the general public.  Representative James                
 explained a situation where she had a house sitter who kept a snow            
 machine in the garage and it was stolen.  The kid who sold the snow           
 machine was caught driving it.  The house sitter wanted to be sure            
 that kid was punished and filed a charge against him.                         
 Representative James said absolutely nothing was done.  The case              
 was turned over to the DFYS and absolutely nothing was done.  She             
 noted she supports HCR 4, relating to separate records for                    
 delinquents and CINA.  Representative James said losing federal               
 funds never breaks her heart because there is always something you            
 have to do to get them.                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 230                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the measure before the committee doesn't             
 carry a fiscal note.  He said he thinks what Representative James             
 is talking about is having the punishment fit the offense at the              
 end.  He said that's the reason why there is a public outcry for              
 the release of information at the beginning.  If there was this               
 kind of punishment at the end, then perhaps the cry at the                    
 beginning wouldn't have been so loud.  If that's the case, he                 
 doesn't believe splitting the DFYS is necessary in order to provide           
 that additional punishment.                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained one of the bills addresses                    
 releasing general information by law enforcement and the other                
 addresses releasing information by the DFYS.  Representative Porter           
 said by passing HB 3, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't pursue HB
 6 and they could pursue both.  The amendments made in the criteria            
 of HB 6 would be appropriate to make in HB 3.                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to adopt CSHB 3, Version F,               
 dated 2/19/97.                                                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none, CSHB
 3, Version F, was before the committee.                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would like to make a conceptual                 
 amendment to include, in the appropriate portions of the bill, the            
 amendments that were made to HB 6 in the similar provisions.                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if all of the provisions were                   
 applicable.                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said he thinks Representative Porter said "as                  
 appropriate."  Where the bill talks about a misdemeanor or a                  
 felony, those would be sifted through by the drafter and that's not           
 a major issue.  It is the intent.  Chairman Green asked if there              
 was an objection to that concept.                                             
                                                                               
 Number 450                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she appreciated the comments by                     
 Representative Porter that HB 3 and HB 6 are not mutually                     
 exclusive.  She said what her real belief is about this issue is              
 that it already distresses her to punish before they're proven to             
 be guilty.  Representative James said, "I agree with Representative           
 Porter in his assessment of the discharge of some of these issues             
 that that is probably part of the reasons why were here today, is             
 because many of these offenses are not properly treated."                     
 Representative James indicated if the young people had not been               
 getting away with these offenses over the years without any                   
 apparent punishment, the public wouldn't be distressed.  The public           
 wants it because they have the right to know and they want don't              
 want these kids to be harbored and protected.  She said HB 3 and HB
 6 doesn't do it for her.  She stated she is "more happier with HCR
 4 all by itself."  Representative James said the DFYS and the                 
 courts could have been doing a better job and they haven't been.              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated the public is not universally              
 behind any idea of disclosure.  He read from information on the               
 Governor's Conference on Youth and Justice titled, "Thoughts on               
 Confidentiality of Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings From Around the           
 State:  Anchorage, report the incident but not the juvenile's name;           
 Bethel, don't publish names; Fairbanks, names in the paper may                
 create a hero syndrome; Juneau, do not publish names, it                      
 stigmatizes the child; Ketchikan, too much is hidden now but                  
 unfettered disclosure would create problems with labeling and                 
 racial discrimination; Kotzebue, serious offenses in older kids               
 should be made public; Nome, want reporting of outcome, whether               
 names should be reported depends of seriousness of offense, age of            
 offender and whether this is a repeat offender."  Representative              
 Berkowitz noted that the problem is in small towns where people               
 know of the incident already.                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she attended the Governor's Conference on           
 Youth and Justice and that is not what she heard.  She noted she              
 has read parts of the information and that is not what she heard at           
 the conference.  Representative James said she would have to                  
 disagree that that was the message out of Fairbanks.                          
                                                                               
 Number 707                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said having voted to move HB 6 out of                    
 committee, he questions the need for HB 3.  As he understands, it             
 was originally meant as a way not to lose our funds.  With the                
 passage of HB 6, it would mean that when a child admits guilt or              
 when there is such a frustration with it that they file a petition,           
 their name is going to be disclosed on identical standards.  In               
 terms of either punishment or protection, he would question what              
 would be gained by doing that from arrest.  There is a branch point           
 where both ends are covered fairly quickly with just a couple of              
 checks to make sure we have the right person.  He said, "Why we               
 would need to disclose it at arrest when have that bill preceding,            
 I seriously question."                                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he believes it is a policy call.  If an              
 arrest has been made based on probable cause and based on the seven           
 listed items, he thinks there is substantially good evidence that             
 would be available.  He noted probably most of the perpetrators               
 would have been caught in the act.  Again, the operative word is              
 "may."  If the law enforcement agency doesn't have a suspect or if            
 there is any question, he is sure they won't release the name.                
 They are not going to arbitrarily and capriciously release the name           
 of everybody they apprehend.                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the other difference between HB 3 and HB
 6 is that it isn't a mandatory release.  It says "may."  He said it           
 would be his guess that most law enforcement agencies would utilize           
 the release in conjunction with contact and discussions with the              
 DFYS.                                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 860                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what the liability would be to the             
 state if there is no probable cause for arrest and disclosure is              
 made.                                                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded, "The same liability that would               
 accrue, whether it was an arrest where there wasn't a release, you            
 have the potential for an improper arrest.  If you have released              
 the name, I don't know that there is a distinction between an                 
 improper arrest, in an adult's case whether the name was released             
 or not.  I don't think that there is such a distinction and I don't           
 know that there would be with a juvenile."                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks that is probably right.  It               
 would be a question of greatly increasing the damages, but the                
 liability wouldn't be any different.                                          
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was any further discussion on HB 3.             
 There being none, he asked what the will of the committee was.                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSHB 3(JUD), as                 
 amended, out of committee with the accompanying zero fiscal notes.            
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said there was objection and asked for a roll call             
 vote.  Representatives Porter, Rokeberg, James and Green voted in             
 favor of the motion.  Representatives Croft and Berkowitz voted               
 against the motion.  Chairman Green announced CSHB 3(JUD) was moved           
 out of the House Judiciary Committee with individual                          
 recommendations.                                                              
                                                                               
 HCR 4 - SEPARATE RECORDS FOR DELINQUENTS & CINA                               
                                                                               
 Number 943                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed that the committee had discussed HCR
 4 extensively and moved to report CSHCR 4(JUD) out of committee               
 with individual recommendations.  There being no objection, it was            
 so ordered.  CSHCR 4(JUD) was reported out of committee.                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER felt that his presentation on HB 58 would               
 take at least a half hour, and with several members needed in other           
 committees, he would suggest the bill be held and brought up at the           
 next meeting.                                                                 
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed, HB 58 would come before the committee the              
 following Friday, February 22, 1997.                                          
                                                                               
 ADJOURNMENT                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 1109                                                                   
                                                                               
 There being nothing more to come before the committee, Chairman               
 Green adjourned the House Judiciary Committee meeting at 2:59 p.m.            
                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects