02/05/2020 01:45 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR15 | |
| HB133 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 5, 2020
1:51 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Harriet Drummond (via teleconference)
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Laddie Shaw
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to actions upon veto.
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to care of juveniles and to juvenile justice;
relating to employment of juvenile probation officers by the
Department of Health and Social Services; relating to terms used
in juvenile justice; relating to mandatory reporters of child
abuse or neglect; relating to sexual assault in the third
degree; relating to sexual assault in the fourth degree;
repealing a requirement for administrative revocation of a
minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to drive, or
privilege to obtain a license for consumption or possession of
alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 15
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: VOTES NEEDED FOR VETO OVERRIDE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
04/15/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/15/19 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/23/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/23/20 (H) Heard & Held
01/23/20 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/28/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/28/20 (H) Moved HJR 15 Out of Committee
01/28/20 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/29/20 (H) STA RPT 5DP 2DNP
01/29/20 (H) DP: HOPKINS, THOMPSON, STORY, FIELDS,
KREISS-TOMKINS
01/29/20 (H) DNP: VANCE, SHAW
01/31/20 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/31/20 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/05/20 (H) JUD AT 1:45 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 133
SHORT TITLE: JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SPOHNHOLZ
04/15/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/15/19 (H) HSS, JUD
04/23/19 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/23/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/23/19 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/25/19 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/25/19 (H) Moved HB 133 Out of Committee
04/25/19 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/26/19 (H) HSS RPT 4DP
04/26/19 (H) DP: TARR, DRUMMOND, ZULKOSKY, SPOHNHOLZ
02/05/20 (H) JUD AT 1:45 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HJR 15.
JOSIAH NASH, Intern
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 15 on behalf of
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor.
CRIS EICHENLAUB
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 15.
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 133.
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 133 on behalf of
Representative Spohnholz, prime sponsor.
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 133.
TRACY DOMPELING, Director
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 133.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:51:01 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:51 p.m. Representatives Claman, Kopp,
Stutes, LeDoux, and Shaw were present at the call to order.
Representatives Drummond (via teleconference) and Eastman
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 15-CONST. AM: VOTES NEEDED FOR VETO OVERRIDE
1:51:36 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to actions upon
veto.
1:52:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, Alaska State
Legislature, as prime sponsor, introduced HJR 15. He introduced
his intern, Josiah Nash.
1:52:30 PM
JOSIAH NASH, Intern, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, presented HJR 15 on behalf of
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor. He stated that
HJR 15 proposes a constitutional amendment that would lower the
veto vote threshold for appropriation bills from three-fourths
of legislators, which is 45 votes, to two-thirds, which is 40
votes. He stated that currently vetoes of non-appropriation
bills in Alaska require two-thirds of legislators for an
override. He explained that HJR 15 creates a uniform veto
override vote threshold, for both appropriation and non-
appropriation bills. He stated that Alaska's veto vote
threshold for appropriation bills is disproportionate to every
other U.S. state and territory. Alaska is the only state
requiring three-fourths of legislators; every other state has a
two-thirds, three-fifths, or simple majority vote threshold. He
explained that 38 states have a two-thirds vote threshold, 6
states have a three-fifths vote threshold, and 5 states have a
simple majority vote threshold.
1:54:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HJR 15 is a simple
resolution. He expressed that he thinks the previous year's
budget process was traumatic for most legislators and Alaskans.
He stated that the veto power of the governor of Alaska is, for
all intents and purposes, unilateral, only requiring 25 percent
of legislators' support for a veto to go through. He asserted
his belief that it is important to keep in mind that "this is a
blade that goes both ways." He gave as an example a
hypothetical future governor, who is a strong environmentalist,
that wants to end mining in Alaska. He stated that in this
hypothetical situation, the governor could achieve an end to
mining in Alaska by vetoing out the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), Division of Mining, Land, and Water (DMLW) with
only 25 percent of legislators' support. He stated that the
effective policy making power associated with a line item veto
is profound, and he thinks the separation of powers is slightly
unbalanced in Alaska. He expressed that he thinks this topic is
worth keeping in mind for broader consideration. He added that
he thinks having different override thresholds, for policy bills
and appropriation bills, creates a non-uniform complexity. As
an example, he referenced a line item veto by Governor Tony
Knowles in the 1990s regarding a transfer of land to a
university. He explained that Governor Knowles asserted that
this was an appropriation, whereas the legislature asserted it
was not an appropriation. The legislature did not have the
required three-fourths vote for an override, but it would've had
a two-thirds vote. Ultimately, this case went to the Alaska
Supreme Court, which could have been eliminated by a uniform
threshold for all veto override votes.
1:57:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the Alaska Supreme Court
provided an answer to the case during Governor Knowles'
administration, as she doesn't think there has been much
ambiguity regarding the veto override vote threshold since then.
1:57:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that he thinks the Alaska
Supreme Court answered the question as to whether or not land
transfers constitute appropriation, but he doesn't think a
comprehensive delineation has been issued by the Alaska Supreme
Court in terms of what is and is not an appropriation. He added
that he thinks it is worth noting that there have been very few
veto overrides attempted; mostly the legislature knows that it
cannot get the required three-fourths vote to accomplish an
override. He stated that he thinks, since Alaska's statehood,
there have only been six or seven successful veto overrides. He
expressed that nearly every time the governor wins, while the
legislature loses because of such a high threshold.
1:58:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the six or seven overrides referenced
earlier were finance overrides, and he asked whether
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins has any indication of how many
times there have been overrides of legislative matters subject
to the two-thirds override threshold.
1:58:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS replied that he does not know but
would like to find out. He clarified that he was mistaken, and
only five vetoes have been overridden since Alaska's statehood,
approximately one per decade.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for clarification that these were five vetoes
that required the three-fourths threshold.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that that is correct.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for clarification on how the Alaska Supreme
Court ruled regarding the land issue.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS replied that the Alaska Supreme
Court ruled that land did not constitute appropriation;
therefore, Governor Knowles' veto was overridden because it fell
under the two-thirds vote threshold.
1:59:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that he noticed in the
presentation it was pointed out that Alaska is unique. He
remarked that typically this is viewed as a positive thing. He
said he expected to have heard some discussion regarding why
Alaska chose to be unique during the establishment of its
constitution, the silence on which he finds to be notable. He
asked whether Representative Kreiss-Tomkins could enlighten the
committee as to why Alaska chose to be unique.
2:00:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that he could "create
some noise on the matter." He said that through review of the
minutes from the constitutional convention, he saw that this
very question was considered. He explained that there were two
camps of delegates; the camp that proposed a three-fourths
threshold desired to form a strong as possible executive office,
which is a theme that can be seen throughout the constitution.
He pointed out that the attorney general and all constitutional
officers are appointed by the governor and not elected
positions. He expressed that this creates the strongest
executive office of all 50 U.S. states. He stated that the
other camp of delegates highlighted the fact that it would be
unrealistic for the three-fourths veto vote to ever be achieved,
and this requirement would effectively hand the governor a semi-
unilateral budget veto power. This camp of delegates sought out
a more moderate balance of power. He expressed that after
seeing a track record of so many unsuccessful veto overrides
over the past half a century, it might make sense to bring the
balance of power between the executive and legislative branches
in Alaska more in line with that of other U.S. states.
2:01:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
mentioned it has only been six or seven times the legislature
has reached the threshold for a veto override.
2:02:06 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that the testimony was that it was five
times the vote threshold was reached.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
whether he could offer the committee the number of vetoes
attempted, that were not overridden.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Eastman to clarify whether he
was asking how many times the legislature met and attempted to
override and failed, or asking the "total number of vetoes that
were done, each line item counting as one veto, and out of the
total number of vetoes of Alaska history was a veto overridden?"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he is looking for an answer to
how many times there have been appropriation vetoes, and how
many of those vetoes the legislature has attempted to override.
2:03:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that he does not know how
many times the governor has vetoed an appropriation since
Alaska's statehood, but he can see how that would be helpful to
the conversation and he will try to have an answer by the next
hearing. He stated that the legislature has attempted to
override a veto, and failed, 16 times since Alaska's statehood;
therefore, 5 out of 16 veto overrides have failed. He expressed
that he thinks it is important to bear in mind that an attempt
to override a veto, given a joint session and all of the
procedure involved, takes a lot of energy, and it seems quite
clear that the legislature doesn't even attempt to override
vetoes it sees as hopeless.
2:04:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a high override threshold of
three-fourths is meant to protect the rights of not only the
governor, but the rights of the minority as well. She expressed
that she doesn't see much of a difference between the three-
fourths requirement for a veto override, and the three-fourths
requirement for the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBR),
which it is not considered to be in need of change.
2:05:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that the issue of two-
thirds versus three-fourths is more abstract in terms of the
balance between majority and minority. He expressed that it is
a great question to consider and expressed that more than half
of his time working in the legislature has been spent in the
minority and not the majority. He stated that although he is
currently in the majority, he is very aware that roles can flip,
and that it is foolish to make short term decisions which are
beneficial for only one side. He stated that he believes this
proposal does not unduly infringe on the rights of the minority.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS gave an example of a veto override
from a couple of weeks prior, in which a veto override could not
muster the two-thirds required vote. He said that even if this
constitutional amendment were adopted, and Alaska's override
threshold was in line with the rest of other U.S. states, the
override vote would have failed, and the minority would still
have expressed its will. He expressed that even though he does
not agree with the minority's perspective on policies in the
veto override vote from a couple of weeks before, he respects
the outcome. He said that the other 49 states in the U.S. all
have minority caucuses, whereas Alaska has a unique minority
which is less empowered than those in other states. He said
that he thinks there is a better balance struck in the other
states between the executive and legislative offices and, by
extension, the minority caucuses and the legislature.
2:08:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS addressed the other side of
Representative LeDoux's question, regarding the CBR. He
expressed that he thinks taking funds out of the CBR is, in a
way, an additive action, whereas vetoing an action of the
legislature is a subtractive one. He explained that he thinks
it makes sense to have a higher threshold to take money out of a
bank, than it does to have a high threshold to preserve a
decision made by the legislature. He expressed that he thinks
if the legislature were to use a three-fourths vote as the gold
standard for a balance of power between majority and minority,
in a hypothetical situation, it follows that the veto override
threshold for policy bills should increase from two-thirds to
three-fourths. He said that he thinks a historical look at the
balance of power between the majority and minority throughout
Alaska's statehood shows that it is statistically uncommon to
see minority caucuses smaller than one-third, which would not
have the power to be relevant in a veto override vote.
2:10:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for clarification on the example
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins gave regarding the CBR and taking
money from the bank.
2:10:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS replied that he would try to
explain the distinction in another way. He stated that the
power of the legislature to draw funds from the CBR is relevant,
necessary, and frequently used to balance the budget. He said
that because there is a general fund and other revenue coming to
the state annually, it should be possible to balance the budget
without CBR revenue. He added that if the minority doesn't want
to grant the three-fourths vote to approve the withdrawal of
funds from the CBR, the results shouldn't be catastrophic in a
way that disrupts operations. He expressed that a line item
veto is different because it allows entire programs to be
terminated; the stakes are considerably higher than those of the
CBR. He pointed out that several programs could be ended
tomorrow by line item vetoes to their budgets, including: the
Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS), the Alaska State Council on
the Arts (ASCA), and the Division of Mining, Land, and Water
(DMLW). He expressed that the power of a line item veto is far
greater than the ability to take money from a savings account.
He explained that he sees it as a matter of proportionality; the
ramifications of being denied access to the CBR funds, by a
three-fourths override vote requirement, do not carry the same
weight as the consequences of a three-fourths override vote
requirement for a line item veto that can potentially eliminate
entire state programs. He summarized that given what is at
stake with a line item veto override vote, perhaps it does not
make sense to have a threshold that is as high as that of the
vote requirement for the CBR.
2:12:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed that considering the current discussion,
it seems to him that the question of a three-fourths vote
requirement to draw funds from the CBR is quintessentially a
question of legislative function. He explained that the power
of appropriation, under the constitution, is exclusive to the
legislature; the governor cannot appropriate any funds,
regardless of whether he wants to or not. He said the three-
fourths requirement for how the legislature appropriates funds
is a way for the legislature to restrict its own power. The
governor could line item veto what the legislature withdraws
from the CBR, but he/she can't make the decision to appropriate
it. He stated that in contrast, the question of overriding a
veto is a question of the power relationship between the
executive branch and the legislative branch.
2:14:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HJR 15.
2:14:32 PM
CRIS EICHENLAUB testified in opposition to HJR 15. He expressed
that he thinks special interest groups have currently taken over
Alaska. He said that he feels HJR 15 circumvents the will of
the people by changing the constitution. He explained that it
seems to him like special interest groups are trying to change
the rules in order to get one over on the majority. He
expressed that the House, as constructed, does not represent the
will of the people. He stated that he thinks the Senate has
also taken power from the Senators who represented the people's
voice. He said that he thinks HJR 15 intends to take power from
the governor, who was elected by the people and represents their
will. He summarized that essentially, he wants to see a
government that is of, by, and for the people.
2:16:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 15.
2:16:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Representative Kreiss-Tomkins why
HJR 15 includes a change to the threshold for new tax bills,
which wasn't discussed in his presentation.
2:17:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that the discussion on
the threshold change for new tax bills was omitted because it
has not ever been a factor in Alaska's statehood; all five of
the successful veto override votes have been related to
appropriation items. He expressed that Alaska seems to have a
history of failing to enact revenue bills to begin with, much
less allow them to be vetoed. He said that it makes sense to
have a uniform threshold more in line with many other states.
He asked the committee to consider the question: What is it
that makes Alaska so exceptional as to have the highest override
threshold in the entire country for appropriation and revenue
bills?
2:18:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
whether both issues addressed in HJR 15 are equally important to
him. He expressed that he thinks the resolution might have a
better chance of passing, in the current political environment,
if he were to choose one or the other. He said if the increase
to taxes were dropped, there might be less opposition, at least
from his district.
2:18:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that he is willing to be
flexible; given the political history, appropriation vetoes are
likely to be far more relevant in the future than revenue bills.
He stated that as an observer of Alaska's politics, if a revenue
bill manages to make it across the finish line from the
legislature "it's probably going to be pretty shot up, and
limping, and dragging a leg, and maybe two votes over a simple
majority." He said that at that point, if the revenue bill gets
vetoed, it will likely be dead regardless of whether there is a
two-thirds or three-fourths vote requirement. He reiterated
that he is willing to be flexible and open to the possibility of
changes to the resolution, if it will engender a broader base of
support. He summarized that from an academic constitutional
perspective, a uniform vote threshold seems cleaner, simpler,
more straightforward, and makes sense.
2:20:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that if a revenue measure came up that was
a modification of oil and gas taxes, the public perception and
desire for the governor to have a stronger veto authority would
be different than if it were an income tax modification. He
predicted that some of Representative Eastman's constituents
wouldn't be opposed to a two-thirds override for an oil and gas
tax bill but would probably prefer a three-fourths override for
an income tax bill.
2:21:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that Chair Claman made an
important distinction about constituencies. He reiterated a
concern raised earlier by Representative LeDoux, and he said
that HJR 15 wouldn't change the governor's power to line-item
veto, it would only change the ability of a minority vote to
affect the outcome of an override vote. He said that he is
sensitive to the fact that that is where the main issue lies.
2:22:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS remarked that he would dispute
this characterization but acknowledges that this is the way
Representative Eastman views HJR 15. He expressed that the
bottom line is that the governor is the one who puts ink on the
paper of a budget bill, and it becomes the legislature's
decision to either sustain the governor's decision or override
it. He said that the legislature is secondary to the governor's
decision, and the legislature ultimately becomes a referendum on
the governor's will. He expressed that he sees the veto power
as an executive power and the legislature as "the tail on the
dog," but he understands what Representative Eastman is saying.
2:23:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that he thinks personality should
be taken out of this discussion entirely and the focus should be
on what the balance of power should look like in the structure
of government between the legislative, executive, and judiciary
branches. He said that in 1997 the legislature overrode
Governor Knowles' veto of the parent notification bill on
abortion. He expressed that he imagines the legislature was
very glad this was not an appropriation bill and they could
reach the two-thirds limit. He added that if there were an
appropriation bill to fund Planned Parenthood, there would be
many people happy for a two-thirds vote on an appropriation
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed that he thinks it is important to
think larger than specific issues, such as ferries and abortion,
and focus on what is a fundamentally fair and balanced
threshold, which would represent the will of the majority of
Alaskans. He remarked, "It's easy to think about how you want
the council shaped if you have the king in place that you want.
But then, when you don't have the king that you want, you think,
'Oh, I wish that we'd never messed with that.'" He expressed
that he could see uniformity being very desirable, depending on
the issue, on both appropriation and non-appropriation bills.
He summarized that he appreciates the sponsor bringing HJR 15
forward and thinks it presents an important discussion.
2:25:39 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HJR 15 would be held over for
further review.
HB 133-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
2:25:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 133, "An Act relating to care of juveniles and to
juvenile justice; relating to employment of juvenile probation
officers by the Department of Health and Social Services;
relating to terms used in juvenile justice; relating to
mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect; relating to
sexual assault in the third degree; relating to sexual assault
in the fourth degree; repealing a requirement for administrative
revocation of a minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to
drive, or privilege to obtain a license for consumption or
possession of alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective
date."
2:27:00 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:27 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.
2:29:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 133. She stated that she was introducing
HB 133 at the request of the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
[within the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)].
She said the bill had been heard as House Bill 351 in the
previous legislature. She pointed out that the three main
purposes of HB 133 were to: close loopholes relating to the
sexual abuse of a minor and sexual assault in the third degree,
update terminology that defines and references DJJ facilities
and staff, and codify in law some of the best practices the DJJ
has undertaken in the past couple of decades.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that she thinks the most
important aspect of the bill is that it would close loopholes
relating to sexual abuse and sexual assault of a minor. She
explained that this issue came to light in 2003 [during the
Carey case] when a DJJ staff member had an inappropriate sexual
relationship with a minor, in a DJJ facility, and was unable to
be convicted due to loopholes in the law.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that there is some outdated
terminology used to describe DJJ facilities, and HB 133 would
update the statutes to accurately reflect the authorities and
responsibilities of the DJJ. She explained that HB 133 would
not substantially modify the way the DJJ operates, but the bill
would work to improve the DJJ's ability to complete its mission.
She stated that the majority of HB 133 would update language in
Alaska's statutes, which describes facilities operated by the
DJJ that is inaccurate, outdated, and obsolete. She explained
that this language is used several times throughout the bill,
which is one of the reasons it is so lengthy.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that in addition to updating
definitions, HB 133 would make some policy clarifications which
were raised due to issues that appeared over time and reflect
the standard operations of the DJJ. She said that HB 133 would
add DJJ staff and probation officers to the list of mandatory
reporters of child abuse and neglect and would clarify that DJJ
probation officers have the authority to file amended petitions
in court. She stated that HB 133 would add secure residential
psychiatric treatment facilities to the list of facilities for
released juveniles. She said that the bill would correct
language authorizing the DJJ to disclose confidential
information related to the offence, when a minor has received an
adjudication, rather than the offence a minor was alleged to
have committed. She summarized that HB 133 would improve the
DJJ's ability to complete its mission, by codifying best
practices, ensuring juveniles are safe and secure when they're
in the DJJ's custody, and closing loopholes relating to sexual
abuse of minors supervised by the DJJ.
2:33:06 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 133 on behalf of Representative
Spohnholz, prime sponsor. She offered a PowerPoint presentation
titled, HB 133: Division of Juvenile Justice Clean-up Bill [hard
copy included in the committee packet].
2:33:47 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 2 of the PowerPoint presentation,
said that HB 133 closes two loopholes regarding sexual assault
in the third degree, as well as sexual abuse of a minor relating
to the DJJ staff. She pointed out that these two changes can be
found in section three and Section 6 of HB 133. Section 3
repeals the outdated definition of juvenile probation officer
which, under current state statute, limits them to a person
assigned to supervise another person of 18 or 19 years of age;
this definition is outdated because the DJJ regularly oversees
people ranging from 16 to 20 years old. She stated that the
individual in the Carey case was 17 years old, which allowed the
DJJ staff member to be acquitted of the charge. She explained
that Section 6 of HB 133 closes the loophole related to sexual
abuse of minors, which is accomplished by clarifying that the
DJJ staff are in a position of authority over minors in their
custody. She expressed that even though common sense might
dictate that the DJJ staff are in a position of authority, the
lack of clarification in statute allowed for the acquittal of
the abuser in the Carey case. She expressed that Section 6
contains a statute that was written 30 years ago, which is a
great example for why the statute needs to be updated.
2:35:34 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 3, pointed out a comprehensive
list of the definitions that would be repealed, amended, and put
into place by HB 133. She said some of the definitions were 30
to 50 years old, and HB 133 would update them to reflect the
many changes to the DJJ over that time period.
2:36:08 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 4, pointed out the terms that
would be repealed by HB 133. She said that Section 24 would
repeal the position of youth counselor, which has not been a
part of the DJJ since 2003. She explained that the duties
currently described for a youth counselor are those of a
probation officer, which is not a DJJ position. She stated that
Section 3 of HB 133 repeals the inaccurate definition of
juvenile probation officer, as mentioned previously. She said
that multiple sections of HB 133 would repeal the terms juvenile
detention home, youth detention facility, correctional school,
and juvenile work camp. She explained that these terms are
either antiquated or don't accurately describe the facilities
that the DJJ currently operates. As an example, she said that
Alaska has never had a juvenile work camp and the DJJ does not
currently operate a correctional school; HB 133 would replace
those terms with "juvenile detention facility" and "juvenile
treatment facility" to more accurately reflect the facilities
the DJJ operates.
2:37:40 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide [5], she pointed out the
definitions that would be amended by HB 133. Section 28 would
amend the definition of minor to include a person who was under
the age of 18 at the time he/she committed an offense and
continues to be subject to the jurisdiction of the DJJ. She
explained that this would not affect the definition of minor in
other statutes; it would just clarify that after a convicted
minor turns 18, he/she will continue to be treated as a minor
for his/her crime, and not as an adult. Ms. Holland said HB 133
also amends the definition of the term juvenile detention
facility, broadening it to be a secure facility for the
detention of minors. She explained that the current definition
in statute for this term limits it to separate quarters within a
city jail, which does not accurately reflect the facilities the
DJJ currently operates; some communities don't have a city jail
that meets the standards for separation of sight and sound from
adults.
2:38:58 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 6, pointed out the new
definitions that would be presented by HB 133. Section 29 would
present the definition for juvenile treatment facilities. She
said this was recommended by the DJJ to more accurately reflect
some of the facilities that it operates. Current terminology in
statute refers to juvenile treatment institutions; however,
there is a difference between a treatment institution and a
treatment facility. Section 29 also presents the definition for
a temporary secure juvenile holding area. She said that the DJJ
currently oversees over 30 temporary secure holding areas across
Alaska, and it partners with local law enforcement officials to
provide training and compliance for temporary holding areas
before juveniles can be moved to a secure detention area.
Section 24 would replace the definition for youth counselors
with an updated definition for juvenile probation officers,
which does not limit them to overseeing individuals of 18 and 19
years old, accurately reflects the positions, provides them with
the powers and authorities of probation officers, and describes
their duties.
2:40:39 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 7, pointed out the policy updates
of the DJJ to codify its best practices and resolve issues that
have arisen over time. She said that Section 5 of HB 133 would
clarify that employees of juvenile treatment institutions and
juvenile and adult probations officers qualify as legal
guardians. She stated that Section 8 would clarify that secure
juvenile treatment facilities are being added to the list of
facilities excluded from compliance related to the definition of
"private exposure," which is where an individual exposes his/her
body under circumstances in which he/she would reasonably
believe he/she would not be viewed or photographed. She
explained that prisons and psychiatric institutions are also on
the list of facilities excluded from compliance related to the
definition of "private exposure". She stated that Section 9
would include the DJJ in the list of places where public
education must be provided. Sections 16 and 17 of HB 133 would
clarify that juvenile probation officers have the authority to
file amendments and supplemental petitions; there have been
instances in the past where it has been argued in court that the
DJJ does not have this authority. Sections 22 and 23 of HB 133
would clarify that the authority to arrest and detain a minor
rest with juvenile, not adult, probation officers.
2:42:43 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 8, stated that Section 25 of HB
133 would add secure residential psychiatric treatment centers
to the list of facilities from which, when a juvenile is
released, the victim(s) will receive notification. Section 26
would correct language authorizing the DJJ to disclose
confidential information related to an adjudicated offense,
rather than the offense the minor was alleged to have committed.
She said that Section 38 would add juvenile probation officers,
the DJJ office staff, and staff of juvenile facilities to the
list of mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect. She
explained that this is already a common practice of the DJJ; it
regularly reports to the Office of Children's Services (OCS),
and all DJJ staff are trained on detecting child abuse and
neglect. She explained that in 2016 Senate Bill 165 repealed
the revocation of juvenile driver's licenses for offenses
involving controlled substances that were non-driving related.
As an example, she offered her understanding that before Senate
Bill 165, a 14-year-old could be convicted with possession of
marijuana and lose the privilege to have a driver's license for
the rest of his/her life. She stated that Senate Bill 165 did
not repeal the revocation of juvenile driver's licenses in cases
that were handled informally by the DJJ, in which there was no
proven guilt, thus creating an issue of unequal protection under
the law.
2:45:21 PM
MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 9, summarized the goals of HB
133. She reiterated that HB 133 would close existing loopholes
regarding sexual assault in the third degree and sexual abuse of
a minor, update terms and definitions pertaining to the DJJ
facilities and staff, and codify the DJJ's best practices to
improve it's ability to complete its mission.
2:46:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification on the topic of
the permanent revocation of driver's licenses for juveniles
convicted of possession of an illegal substance.
2:46:49 PM
MS. HOLLAND answered that it was in relation to non-driving
possession offenses.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification on whether the
repeal of the revocation of driver's licenses for juveniles was
only for convictions that were handled through the courts. She
also asked whether the revocations that were still being issued
were handled through the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
2:47:36 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services,
replied that historically driver's license revocation was
defined in two sections of statute: the DMV statute and DJJ
statute. He clarified that the revocations that occurred for
juvenile offenses were temporary; there were no lifetime
revocations as previously stated by Ms. Holland. He explained
that Senate Bill 165, which was passed in 2016, removed a crime
called "habitual minor offending," which revoked driver's
licenses for juveniles who were adjudicated delinquent for
habitual minor offenses. He said that this was a very small
number of juveniles. Responding to a follow-up question from
Representative LeDoux, he clarified that these revocations were
not permanent and usually lasted six months to a year during the
convicted juveniles' probation.
MR. DAVIDSON said that Senate Bill 165 also repealed the
revocation of driver's licenses for juveniles who were
adjudicated for substance abuse and possession of illegal
substances unrelated to driving. He explained that what was
mistakenly left in statute, which HB 133 would fix, is the
revocation of driver's licenses for youth whose substance abuse
cases were handled "informally." These were cases that never
went to court; the youths were cited by the police and referred
to the DJJ, and the statute still states juveniles' driver's
licenses should be revoked, even for charges unrelated to
driving.
2:49:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the DJJ was supposed to seek
revocations through the DMV, and whether the DJJ did seek those
revocations.
MR. DAVIDSON answered yes, the DJJ has revoked juveniles'
driver's licenses for possession and habitual minor consumption
offenses. He said that since the passage of Senate Bill 165 in
2016, when the issue was identified, the DJJ has tried to avoid
seeking revocation because of the question of unequal
protections.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that what she meant to ask was
whether the DJJ revoked licenses after the changes of Senate
Bill 165.
2:50:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the informal system
requires a plea agreement and whether - if the convicted minor
protests the conviction - the DJJ still has the power to revoke
his/her driver's license.
2:51:04 PM
MR. DAVIDSON replied that the juvenile system is different from
the adult system. He explained that the DJJ tries to reach out
to youths in order to meet them where they are and assess the
nature of their substance abuse issues. He stated that it was
decided that revocation of a driver's license, for an offense
that was unrelated to driving, was not an appropriate
consequence and was an unnecessary burden. He explained that
the DJJ has many ways to work with convicted minors and their
families and help to set them on the right track; the revocation
of driver's licenses was not a method the DJJ probation staff
found to be effective or appropriate for offenses unrelated to
driving. He stated that offenses related to driving are not
handled by the DJJ; they are handled by the district courts.
2:52:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that what he would like an
answer for is whether it is required, in cases that are not
going through the court process, for a minor to consent to the
revocation of his/her driver's license.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that Tracy Dompeling, Director of the DJJ,
was a former probation officer, who is probably in a better
position to answer the question.
2:53:22 PM
TRACY DOMPELING, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice,
Department of Health and Social Services, explained that the DJJ
receives all the referrals from law enforcement for allegations
of criminal offenses that are committed by juveniles. She
clarified that the DJJ does not receive referrals for offenses
related to status, alcohol, driving, and other similar offenses;
it only receives referrals for criminal offenses. She said that
the DJJ's position is that low-level offenders are best treated
outside of the formal judicial system. The DJJ has the
authority to work with youth and parents to informally adjust
cases, with various levels of intervention, with the intent of
preventing repeat offenses. She said the DJJ has an "intake
interview" process involving a probation officer and the youth
and his/her parents. She explained that if the youth is adamant
that he/she did not commit an offense, the DJJ cannot impose any
type of sanction, consequence, or requirement on the youth or
his/her family. At this point, the DJJ can choose to either
dismiss the charge, due to the lack of an ability to move
forward with the case, or, if the DJJ strongly feels there is a
case to be made, the youth will be appointed an attorney and the
case will be taken to the courts to determine guilt or
innocence.
2:54:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 133. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he
closed public testimony.
2:56:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, knowing now that the driver's
license revocations are not permanent, how long they are being
revoked.
2:56:28 PM
MS. DOMPELING reiterated what Mr. Davidson had stated before,
and said the licenses are revoked for approximately six months.
This process required the DJJ to send the paperwork to the DMV,
which would either revoke the youth's current license or have an
impact on the youth's ability to obtain a license in the future.
She explained that Senate Bill 165 repealed the revocation of a
youth's driver's license, when he/she was formally adjudicated
delinquent through a court. She reiterated the point on
inequality that Mr. Davidson had made previously and said that
the DJJ recognizes it is not in compliance with the statute
involving revocation of driver's licenses in informal cases;
however, the DJJ understands it is not appropriate to revoke a
license in an informal case, when a youth adjudicated through
the courts is not subject to the same consequence.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what the consequences are for youths
who are adjudicated through the court system.
MS. DOMPELING answered that youths adjudicated through the court
system have several consequences, including: they are usually
on formal probation, they may need to have a substance abuse
assessment and follow up with recommendations, they may be
placed in an out-of-home care facility, they could have to pay
restitutions to a victim, they may have community service
ordered, and they may have to meet other various requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that there are real legal
consequences for those youths.
MS. DOMPELING replied that that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether it were worth considering
the possibility of revoking driver's licenses for shorter
periods of time, such as a couple of weeks, equating it to being
like, "When you screw up at home, you get grounded."
MS. DOMPELING answered that she understands the idea behind what
Representative LeDoux suggested, but she recognizes that a lot
of administrative paperwork is involved in the process; however,
she said that given her current understanding of the process, it
would take longer than two weeks for the DJJ to even process the
paperwork. She expressed that when working with youth involved
in the cases handled informally, the DJJ can still require the
same consequences as through a formal court, it is just not
legally mandated through a court. She said that this gives the
DJJ several ways to hold minors accountable when they are
willing to work with the DJJ and its probation officers.
3:00:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that Ms. Dompeling came with a statement on
the DJJ's position on HB 133 and this would be the last thing
the committee would hear this meeting.
3:00:58 PM
MS. DOMPELING stated that she had been given approval to say
that the DJJ does support HB 133, and it believes the bill is
important to reflect the work being done by the DJJ. She
pointed out that the DJJ is seeing a positive change in
recidivism rates from youth in its secure treatment; in Fiscal
Year 2013 (FY 13) recidivism rates were at approximately 76
percent; in FY 19 that rate had decreased to approximately 36
percent. She summarized that the DJJ is doing positive work
with youths and would like to see that work reflected in current
statute.
3:01:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 133 would be held over for
further review.
3:02:11 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 15 v. M 1.21.2020.PDF |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Sponsor Statement 1.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Sectional Analysis v. M 1.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Supporting Document - NCSL Table 1.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Presentation 2.5.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 1.29.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HB 133 v. M 2.3.2020.PDF |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Sponsor Statement 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Sectional Analysis v. M 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - One-Sheeter 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - Carey Case 4.22.2019.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Areas 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - Questions and Answers 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - DJJ Letter 5.13.19.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 PowerPoint Presentation 2.4.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 1.16.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |