Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
03/13/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation - Expanding Alaska Native Criminal Jurisdiction to Combat Domestic Violence, Alcohol Abuse, and | |
| Confirmation(s): Lieutenant Governor Successor | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2015
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Lieutenant Governor Successor
Craig Fleener - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
PRESENTATION - EXPANDING ALASKA NATIVE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION TO
COMBAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ALCOHOL ABUSE, AND
SEXUAL ASSAULT
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SAMUEL GOTTSTEIN, Academic Law Fellow
Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy
Boston, Massachusetts
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented his published article in the
Boston Law Review.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the presentation offered testimony.
CRAIG FLEENER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As appointee to the position of Lieutenant
Governor Successor, discussed his qualifications and answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:47 PM
CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representative Keller,
Lynn, Claman, and LeDoux were present at the call to order.
Representative Gruenberg and Foster arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be
a presentation from Samuel Gottstein regarding expanding Alaska
Native criminal jurisdiction to combat domestic violence,
alcohol abuse, and sexual assault.
^PRESENTATION - EXPANDING ALASKA NATIVE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION TO
COMBAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ALCOHOL ABUSE, AND
SEXUAL ASSAULT
1:05:21 PM
SAMUEL GOTTSTEIN, Academic Law Fellow, Clough Center for the
Study of Constitutional Democracy, paraphrased his testimony as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Good afternoon Chair LeDoux, members of the committee.
I'd like to thank you all, especially the Chair, for
inviting me to testify in person this afternoon.
My name is Samuel Gottstein, and I am in my last
semester at Boston College Law School, where I'm on
the editorial board of the Boston College Law Review.
I am also an Academic Law Fellow of the Clough Center
for the Study of Constitutional Democracy. I'm here
to talk about my recent publication in the Boston
College Law Review, which examines Alaska Native
tribal jurisdiction, and illuminates ways the Alaska
State Legislature can, and should, expand that
jurisdiction over certain criminal cases in rural
Alaska Native communities. I realize my time today is
short, so I will do my best to summarize the salient
points as quickly and as thoroughly as I can, to allow
time for questions.
***
To set the stage, I'd like to highlight some
depressing statistics which underscore the importance
of this topic. Although Alaska Natives comprise
approximately 15% of Alaska's population, Alaska
Natives make up 37% of the prison population. 47% of
reported rape victims in Alaska are Alaska Native.
More than half of women in the Nome Census Area have
experienced intimate partner violence, and that is a
conservative estimate. Finally, Alaska Native suicide
rates are 400% higher than the national average. What
we have here is an epidemic. As I will discuss
further, you have a chance to address this problem.
***
Before presenting some options to help solve these
problems, I'd like to offer a bit of background.
American Indian law is known in the legal field for
being particularly complicated, and the legal status
of Alaska Natives, even more so. It is also an area
where, if you put two lawyers together in a room, they
will have five different opinions. And I say this
knowing that there are three attorneys on this
committee [wait for the laugh]
To start with, Congress has plenary power over the
legal status of Alaska Natives. For non-lawyers, this
means that Congress has the ultimate say. However,
Alaska is a PL-280 state, which means that Congress
has also given the State of Alaska criminal
jurisdiction over Alaska Native issues, a role
otherwise reserved for the federal government. Along
with that, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in
1971 is widely viewed as the most important
congressional act in Alaska Native law. ANCSA granted
Alaska Natives 44 million acres of land and the
equivalent of over $5 billion, in today's dollars, in
exchange for extinguishing all other Alaska Native
land claims and sovereignty. This was the foundation
of the 1998 U.S. Supreme Court decision Alaska v.
Native Village of Venetie, where the Court unanimously
held that there is no "Indian country" in Alaska.
Indeed, in that opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court said
that "Congress stated explicitly that ANCSA's
settlement provisions were intended to avoid a
'lengthy wardship or trusteeship.'" However, the very
next year, in John v. Baker, the Alaska Supreme Court
ruled that Alaska Natives still retained the ability
to regulate "domestic relations among members." This
decision, which has been unanimously affirmed, gives
Alaska Natives jurisdiction over child custody and
family law cases related to their members. That,
however, is about as far as Alaska Native tribal
jurisdiction goes today. Recent congressional
legislation, like the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
and the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women
Act of 2013, is in line with the powers provided to
Alaska as a PL-280 state. Even though the Alaska
exemption to the Violence Against Women Act was
recently repealed, because there is no Indian country
in Alaska, further state or federal action is still
required for that legislation to become a meaningful
tool in Alaska for addressing domestic violence and
sexual assault.
***
Charged by Congress with assessing American Indian
criminal justice systems, the Indian Law and Order
Commission published its report in November of 2013,
and spent a whole chapter on the status of Alaska
Native tribal jurisdiction. I believe the Chair of
that Commission (Troy Eid) testified before the
Legislature last session. That report strongly urges
Congress to solve some of the problems with what it
sees as Alaska's overly centralized administration of
justice. Then, this past December, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs added to the mix by adopting a final
rule allowing Alaska Native tribes to petition the
Secretary of the Interior to put land into trust.
This may give Alaska Natives the ability to assert
some level of sovereignty, although any laws,
regulations, or contracts would be subject to the
Secretary's approval. Although it is possible that
the federal government could step in to take
meaningful action to address this epidemic in rural
Alaska, there are two general problems with waiting
for the federal government to act. As a practical
matter, it is unlikely that Congress will act. In a
post-ANCSA world, on the heels of the repeal of
Alaska's exemption from the Violence Against Women
Act, I would be surprised if Congress has the will to
change the status quo in the near future.
Secondly, if the federal government did step in,
either through congressional action or through taking
lands into trust, those actions would be unappealing
to Alaskans. A trust designation or extension of
American Indian policy from the Lower 48 would not
only create a jurisdictional maze that would likely
complicate matters, it would fail to tailor a solution
to the needs of Alaska, and also lack necessary
guarantees of constitutional protections for all
Alaskans in tribal courts. In short, federal action
would be like using a hammer to kill a mosquito. It
might get the job done, but in the process, it will
likely also cause a great deal of collateral damage.
***
Rather than wait for the federal government to come up
with an imperfect solution, the Alaska State
Legislature should act preemptively to grant limited
criminal jurisdiction to rural Alaska Native
communities to allow them to combat domestic violence,
alcohol abuse, and sexual assault. Doing so would not
only avoid federal overreach, but would offer a cost-
effective way to make rural Alaska Native people and
communities safer by more directly involving people
who live in those communities.
***
In addition to increasing public safety in rural
Alaska and giving the Feds less reason to meddle in
our affairs, State legislative action would bring the
benefit of preserving the State's sovereignty. The
details would naturally need to be worked out, but the
Legislature could, for example, mandate that such an
expansion of tribal jurisdiction is subject to
Legislative approval which could be revoked or cut
back at any time. Under such a scenario, the State
would call the shots as to what crimes and who could
be prosecuted in Alaska Native tribal courts. To
ensure that Alaskan's constitutional rights are
protected, the State could require that all tribal
court decisions are appealable to State courts. The
State could also dictate exactly where such tribal
authority would apply and define the specific
geographic scope of each of tribal court. Most
importantly, this decentralization could be done at
minimal cost, and lead to substantial additional
benefits in the form of lower recidivism rates,
decreased court costs, and safer, healthier
communities.
***
In her State of the Judiciary address this year, Chief
Justice Dana Fabe underscored both the importance and
the benefits a limited expansion of criminal
jurisdiction for tribal courts could bring.
"[S]olutions we impose from afar will continue to miss
the mark if they fail to take local [communities] . .
. into account." "[S]olutions to the problems of
rural Alaska lie in collaborative efforts that bring
local people . . . to the table." "[A]s the state
system endeavors to do more with less, . . .
[expanding the role of tribal courts] presents an
opportunity for significant cost savings. . . ."
***
From an academic perspective, what is most interesting
to me is just how ripe this issue is for Legislative
action. The current administration here in Alaska is
actively examining the issue as we speak, and with
recent rule changes by the Feds, we are presented with
an unusual opportunity to help solve a serious,
longstanding systemic public safety problem in rural
Alaska Native communities. And, again, of crucial
importance during this time of tight budgetary
constraints, this can all be done while actually
saving money.
In short, you are presented with a unique opportunity
to take action now that will have a real impact on the
lives of Alaska Natives at a time when there are life-
threatening problems that "'cry out' for meaningful
solutions." I strongly believe that expanding limited
tribal jurisdiction over selected criminal matters in
rural Alaska Native communities is a practical,
common-sense idea whose time has come.
***
This concludes my presentation. I am happy to try to
answer any questions the Committee may have.
1:15:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if Metlakatla [m
0DD[áDN[DDáD6DOWZDWHUSDVV ] was considered Indian country.
MR. GOTTSTEIN responded that it is the one exception to rule,
that it is a reservation and is considered Indian country.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN confirmed that the presentation would not
apply to Metlakatla.
MR. GOTTSTEIN answered in the affirmative.
1:15:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered a scenario of a non-native
committing a crime under Mr. Gottstein's plan and asked if they
would be subject to tribal law or only Natives.
MR. GOTTSTEIN answered that it would be up to the legislature to
decide. He opined it would make sense for it to apply to non-
members as well as members. He opined that the key under this
idea is that the state can ensure the constitutional rights of
all Alaskans are protected. He explained it could be
accomplished by saying that everyone has a right to an attorney,
and abides by the United States Constitutional rights. In the
case of a violation, it could be appealed in state court to make
sure there are no problems, he said.
MR. GOTTSTEIN responded to Representative Lynn's question in the
affirmative in that people would be covered under the United
States Constitution and the Alaska State Constitution.
1:17:01 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to Mr. Gottstein's appeal response and
stated that sometimes things can be appealed and the appeals
court does not consider facts, yet other times they do consider
facts within an appeal, but actually it is another trial. She
asked if he envisioned it as another trial or where deference is
given to the decision of the tribal court.
1:17:31 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN said the legislature could decide what level of
deference to give. He opined that it made sense not to have a
de novo trial right away, and not to give it much deference.
CHAIR LEDOUX opined that in legal parlance there is a middle
ground, but she was not certain.
1:18:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered that philosophically he moves
toward local control whether judicial, enforcement, or
educational, and there is a fascinating element of what you
bring forward. He said the link was not clear between tribal
sovereignty increase and reduction of recidivism rates in
prison, suicide rate, and rape, and assumed there was
information as to whether Metlakatla is doing better than
others. The United States of America jurisdiction, and by
default Alaska, is based on equality of all human beings,
inherent rights, and natural law, and ultimately, he pointed
out, that is the foundation of who Americans and Alaskans are.
Sovereignty of the United States and Alaska is "we the people"
based on "we the people." He said he struggles with how tribal
sovereignty would improve, how it would collaborate, and how it
would maintain those values under which we all have, and opined
are ultimate rights for everyone no matter what tribe or race.
He asked how tribal sovereignty will maintain those things
rather than become a divisive issue.
1:20:32 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN agreed with Representative Keller and advised it
was Governor Hickel who gave an administrative order that Alaska
is one nation and one people. He expressed that the beauty of
this plan is that the state would not give up any sovereignty as
it would be a delegation of limited criminal jurisdictions,
depending on what the legislature and limits as to how far the
tribal courts could go. He related that part of the problem
with finding a study that says "this" will absolutely going to
solve problems is the small number of times people have gone to
tribal court. He explained that Kake has been doing circle
sentencing for approximately 10 years and there have been under
50 cases. It is hard in the sense of minor consuming cases to
take that data and say this is definitely the projection going
forward, he said. Conceptually, he related that he agrees with
Representative Keller in giving more power back to the community
as it would be helpful, rather than the community deciding it
can't do anything about the problem and wait for the Village
Public Safety Officer (VPSO) or the Alaska State Troopers to
take care of the problem. Therefore, he remarked, giving the
communities the power and ability to determine different
solutions to help solve these problems, it is worth a shot and
if nothing else have a pilot program.
1:22:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated he felt a little uncomfortable with
the idea that pilot programs and government proposed operations
would actually save money. He related that he is all for circle
justice and reform justice and believes it is a fantastic idea,
but he has been told they are expensive. Even though the
legislature does not put money into it, the principles are free
to be applied in any community in the State of Alaska right now
and that a community could do this without legislation and
changing its structure, he offered.
MR. GOTTSTEIN responded that in terms of the money aspect he
agrees with Representative Keller and noted that in Arizona one
tribe has a $21 million court building and Alaska doesn't have
anything like that. In terms of funding a pilot program, it
could just be legislation allowing it to happen and allowing the
tribal courts to prove that they could take it on. Yes, he
stated, the community can come together and attempt to stop
having these problems, but on the other side they would not have
the ability to say a person has to be incarcerated.
1:24:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER related that he could envision this in
many of his communities like Wales where most of the people
living there are part of the tribe. He questioned how Mr.
Gottstein envisioned this working in a town like Nome, Kotzebue,
Bethel, or Barrow, where most people living there are probably
not part of the local tribe, and have a local court there
already. He continued that there is the issue of the Kawerak,
Inc., non-profit in Nome which helps to represent a lot of the
tribes in the region in terms of collectively bringing resources
together to administer different programs. He opined they might
be the obvious choice in terms of a tribal court that would be
part of their program, but then there is also the Nome Eskimo
community which is the actual tribe in Nome. It gets
complicated and he asked Mr. Gottstein's thoughts in terms of
what it would look like in a place that is more mixed, like a
hub.
MR. GOTTSTEIN responded that it does get more complicated when
there is a hub and it is the same reason why some sort of circle
sentencing would not work in Anchorage. In Anchorage, for
example, there is not the same kind of tight-knit community bond
between everyone. He noted that as the community expands it
gets harder to have something like what is existing in Kake.
Yet, on the flip side there are more people to have a base and
create more infrastructure. He commented for something like
this, it depends upon the various communities and mindful of the
different players and stakeholders.
1:27:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that joint jurisdiction means
that someone could be considered both within the existing state
courts, or by agreement or designation have their case heard in
a tribal court or tribal entity. He questioned if that is what
has been going on in Kake as his general understanding is that
when all parties agree it will go to circle sentencing. He
surmised that the community is much more engaged in the
defendant's follow up and aftercare. He asked whether Mr.
Gottstein was looking at broader jurisdiction than just
voluntary jurisdiction where the parties agree to circle
sentencing.
MR. GOTTSTEIN responded that he is looking at something more
broadly than what currently exists. He noted there was a recent
rule change for the Criminal Rules of Procedure that gives a
trial judge discretion to send a case down to a tribal court as
long as all parties agree. He further noted the tribal court
would have the authority to impose a fine of up to $250, which
is the current status quo. He reiterated that it is all
voluntary, but his plan would change it a bit and move the
needle toward allowing more tribal jurisdiction.
1:28:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that in the scheme of things a $250
fine is not a lot of authority to impose a penalty. He asked if
the idea is a hybrid of the state allowing municipalities to
take on some misdemeanor crimes, but no felony jurisdiction. He
questioned whether the tribal courts would receive some lower
level jurisdiction, but possibly not as great a jurisdiction
depending upon what the legislature decides.
MR. GOTTSTEIN answered that right now it is in the lower level
misdemeanor category of up to a $250 fine and the legislature
could determine which crimes it would be. He opined it would
have to start off at a low level with caps, for example, in the
lower-48 states within Indian country, the caps are three years
of incarceration per offense which was recently increased from
one year. He further opined that is a good starting point in
looking at the issue in terms of maximum penalties.
1:30:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN quiered how the tribal circle sentencing
experiment in Kake is working.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Mr. Gottstein to describe circle sentencing.
MR. GOTTSTEIN explained that circle sentencing is when all of
the stakeholders meet together including interested community
members who sit in a circle and have one turn to talk each and
talk through what the problems are with the specific offense.
It is not so much of a focus on whether the defendant is a bad
person, but that the person did something bad. The goal is to
show the community cares about the person and wants the person
to know they are cared for, but their behavior was not
acceptable, he explained. In terms of how well it is going, he
reiterated that there is limited data and it is hard to draw any
conclusions based off of 10 years of data and less than 50
cases. Although, he related, it has shown that 1 year out,
recidivism rates are much lower than they would be in the
traditional setting.
1:31:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said an element of circle sentencing is
that it gets the victim and the perpetrator together in the
circle so instead of a crime against the state, what is
emphasized is a crime against a person. He described the
process as refreshing and labor intensive, although a
perpetrator of a violent crime would not be put together with
the victim. In the event significant others from both parties
are able to work it out reduces recidivism because there is a
chance for the perpetrator to pay his/her debt on a personal
basis. He stated he would like to go in the direction of
borough courts, and borough law enforcement, as it would bring
the level of sovereignty and jurisdiction down to the local
level and remove some of the red flags. He asked Mr. Gottstein
to consider proposing legislation on that issue and to look him
up.
1:33:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN followed up on Representative Keller's
comments in that sentencing factors, AS 12.55.005, are community
condemnation of the offender and reformation of the offender so
there is less re-offending. He opined that the experiment in
Kake has been successful on both counts because the offender is
integrated into the community and recognizes they have more
accountability with other people in the community.
1:34:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he was somewhat following along
with the comments of Representative Claman, as it follows the
phrase in the Alaska State Constitution, Article I, Section 12
concerning community condemnation where the community becomes
more involved which brings the community standards. He opined
that when the result is less recidivism by bringing more
involvement into the community, then the process is more
meaningful to the defendant.
MR. GOTTSTEIN agreed with Representative Gruenberg that there
have been studies as to how well the tribal court process has
been perceived and it appears there is a strong preference from
the community, victims, and defendant, that the tribal court
process was a better process and had more legitimacy to a
certain extent.
1:36:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the sociological makeup of the
smaller rural Native American communities may vary as there
could be a small community that doesn't have one particular
tribe. He opined it would be interesting to see how models like
this could be carried out in various sizes and sociological
mixes where it would and wouldn't work. He asked where this
works and why.
1:37:56 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX said the more local control the better, but she was
concerned about cases wherein a tribal court is involved, but
not everyone is a member of that tribe, or they belong to
another smaller tribe from Southeast and living in Nome. She
said her concern is that these folks do not get a chance to vote
in the local elections. The country has a long history of no
taxation without representation and, she stated, finds it
applicable. She questioned how this could be crafted so people
could vote in circumstances in tribal government whether or not
they are not part of the tribe. They couldn't vote on financial
issues, but possibly people could vote on criminal issues. In
that manner, she remarked, everyone under the jurisdiction of
this tribal justice has some representation in how it is formed.
MR. GOTTSTEIN responded that it goes back to the duty of the
state solution which is that the state can determine who would
be subject to the tribal courts and what protections would be in
place. In terms of voting on some of the criminal aspects, it
is more a question of traveling to a jurisdiction and accepting
whatever the rules and laws are of the land there.
1:41:10 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that if a person travels to Virginia and
stays in Virginia that person can obtain Virginia residency and
vote.
MR. GOTTSTEIN responded that in this case the state would
determine all of the criminal jurisdictional questions. As a
resident of Alaska, in a sense, a person has a say in his/her
representative who then has a say in how the laws would work.
1:41:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, Alaska State Legislature, said the
committee should take a "go slower" approach as there are still
outstanding jurisdictional issues, issues with authority, and
relationships with the 100 or so active tribes in the state that
vary from one end of the spectrum to the other. The opportunity
is significant in that the criminal justice system in Bush
Alaska is already overburdened and it is at the cusp of cutting
back corrections, public safety, courts, Department of Law
(DOL). He used the scenario of the "broken window syndrome" in
that people going to jail from Bush villages initially go to
jail for small and insignificant items tied to substance abuse
or alcohol, and over a period of events end up being hard core
felons. He argued that there is a better way of doing it
through education, working with various agencies, and building a
stronger understanding of what is out there and what legally can
be done at this point.
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUCCESSOR
1:44:17 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX brought before the committee the appointment of
Craig Fleener to the position of Lieutenant Governor Successor.
[Packets contain biographical information on Mr. Fleener.]
CHAIR LEDOUX advised the committee that it would be hearing the
qualifications of Mr. Fleener today and recommending his name be
referred to the Joint House and Senate for consideration. Chair
LeDoux reminded the committee that its job is only to review the
history and qualifications of Mr. Fleener. She stated there
will be no vote for or against his confirmation in this
committee. She highlighted that committee members should feel
free to ask questions as they arrive, but to bear in mind that
the committee is not voting on his qualifications, merely
reviewing them.
^CONFIRMATION(S): LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUCCESSOR
CONFIRMATION(S):
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUCCESSOR
1:45:06 PM
CRAIG FLEENER said he is originally from Ft. Yukon and currently
resides in Anchorage. He explained that he has had two parallel
career paths, in the military and as a civilian. He stated he
has served a total of 27 years in the military with the majority
being in the National Guard. He is currently a Major and is
Chief of Wing Intelligence for the 176th Wing out of Joint Base
Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER). On the civilian side he has been a
diesel mechanic, janitor, fur buyer, involved in natural
resources tribal work, and has a wildlife degree. He said he
has completed substantial work towards a master's degree at the
University of Calgary in Alberta but did not graduate as he was
activated by the National Guard a couple of times. Although, he
does have a master's degree in International Intelligence and
his focus has been on Artic Sovereignty and Alaska's place in
the Artic. Most recently he was Deputy Commissioner at the
Department of Fish & Game, prior to that he was the Director of
the Division of Subsistence, served on the Alaska Board of Game
and the Eastern Interior Federal Regional Advisory Council,
including a wide array of boards and committees, served on his
tribal council in Ft. Yukon, and was on the Ft. Yukon City
Council.
1:48:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER remarked that Mr. Fleener has a diverse
background and that in rural Alaska it is called being a
Renaissance person who can do a bit of everything.
1:48:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he recognizes that the position Mr.
Fleener is being considered is one in which he is able to carry
on with his regular job, and hopefully is never called upon to
perform.
1:49:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if he had any "off the cuff" comments
regarding anything he may have heard in the previous discussion
on tribal courts.
MR. FLEENER responded that he has thought about this issue for
most of his life because there are communities in peril. One of
the big issues in helping communities do a better job is
localize discipline on how these things are handled or meted
out. He noted that the farther away a person has to travel
outside of their community to receive their fine or attend court
becomes is not being tried by a jury of your peers. When a
defendant travels far from the community he/she doesn't have the
community looking at them as part of their place and loses
responsibility to their own community. If it was me, he said,
and I did something crazy and had to look across the room at my
grandmother I would be ashamed. He opined that shaming in a
community is a powerful thing so he has always supported
localizing or staying as close to the individual as possible for
justice or many things. He further opined that Alaskans try to
do things at too high of a level. He likes the idea of pushing
it down to the local level and local people holding a local
person responsible for their actions, and then paying back to
the community because it will last.
1:51:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony, and after ascertaining no
one wished to testify closed public testimony.
1:52:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to forward the name of Craig Fleener
to the joint session of the House and Senate for confirmation.
There being no objection, the confirmation of Craig Fleener is
advanced from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:53:26 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 1:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|