Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/23/2001 01:44 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
April 23, 2001
1:44 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chair
Senator Dave Donley, Vice Chair
Senator John Cowdery
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 32(JUD) am
"An Act relating to the forfeiture of property used to possess or
distribute child pornography, to commit indecent viewing or
photography, to commit a sex offense, or to solicit the commission
of, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit possession or
distribution of child pornography, indecent viewing or photography,
or a sexual offense."
MOVED SCS CSHB 32(JUD)
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 116(HES)
"An Act relating to the Alaska temporary assistance program; and
providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 116(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 11
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
to guarantee the permanent fund dividend, to provide for inflation
proofing, and to require a vote of the people before changing the
statutory formula for distribution that existed on January 1, 2001.
MOVED CSSJR 11(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 135(HES)
"An Act relating to mental health information and records; and
providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 135(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 178
"An Act relating to the detention of delinquent minors and to
temporary detention hearings; amending Rule 12, Alaska Delinquency
Rules; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED SB 178 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 32 - See Judiciary minutes dated 4/20/01.
SB 116 - See HESS minutes dated 4/9/01.
SJR 11 - See Judiciary minutes dated 4/18/01.
SB 135 - See HESS minutes dated 4/9/01.
SB 178 - See HESS minutes dated 4/20/01.
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Joe Hayes
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 32
Mr. Jim Nordlund, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health &
Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99801-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 116
Ms. Christine Baumengen, Assistant AG
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 116
Ms. Nicole Nelson
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 116
Senator Jerry Ward
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 11
Ms. Pat Davidson, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Agencies & Offices
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-3300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 135
Ms. Anne Henry, Special Projects Coordinator
Division of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities
Department of Health &
Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99801-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 135
Ms. Holly Morris
Staff to Senator Therriault
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 135
Mr. Robert Buttcane, Legislative & Administrative Liaison
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health &
Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99801-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 135
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-21, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting
to order at 1:44 p.m. Senator Ellis, Senator Therriault, Senator
Cowdery and Chairman Taylor were present. Senator Donley arrived
at 2:02 p.m. Chairman Taylor announced the first order of business
would be HB 32.
HB 32-SEX CRIME AND PORNOGRAPHY FORFEITURES
REPRESENTATIVE JOE HAYES, sponsor of HB 32, said he had new intent
language for HB 32, which had the actual case law without the Latin
word.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he thought the language in the amendment was
much clearer.
SENATOR ELLIS moved to adopt amendment 1, Luckhaupt 4/20/01, which
reads as follows.
Page l, lines7- 12:
Delete all material and insert:
Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended
by adding a new section to read:
INTENT. The forfeitures contemplated by this Act are
intended to be forfeitures imposed in connection with
conviction for a crime. The legislature intends for the
courts to continue to provide hearings to interested
persons who have an ownership interest in equipment
subject to forfeiture under this Act and to allow for
remission to innocent nonnegligent third parties as
applied in State v. Rice, 626 P.2d 104 (Alaska 1981),
Fehir v. State, 755 P.2d 1107 (Alaska 1988), and Baum
v. State, P.2d (Alaska App. 2001).
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted the amendment was a rewrite of the intent
language in the first Section of HB 32. He asked if committee
members had any questions of the sponsor.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he had talked with Representative Hayes
earlier in the week about the new language being wordier than what
was envisioned but he liked the fact that specific cases were
referred to in the bill and he also liked the new intent language.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Representative Hayes for adding this
amendment because he felt the original language was confusing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there were any objections to amendment 1.
There being no objection, amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR COWDERY moved SCS CSHB 32(JUD) from committee with
individual recommendations. There being no objection, SCS CSHB
32(JUD) moved from committee.
SB 116-AK TEMP. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS
MR. JIM NORDLUND, Director, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), said the original
bill was introduced by the governor and dealt with one provision
that had been removed from SB 116, with the concurrence of DHSS.
The governor introduced the bill because there was a 60-month limit
to client benefits under the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program
(ATAP). This program was created with the welfare reform
legislation that passed five years ago. Although ATAP contains a
60-month limit to benefits for clients, 20 percent of those
individuals may be exempt from that limit. Congress recognized
that there would always be people on welfare who would not be able
to support themselves and would need to receive benefits beyond the
60-month limit. The problem is that the 20 percent exemption
applies to the current caseload rather than the caseload "as it was
way back when." And since the caseload had been lowered from
12,000 families to 5,000 families, the number of exempt families is
much smaller. DHSS has a problem with that and Senator Green said
the HESS committee would take that issue up next year. The urgency
would be greater next year because the first families will be
hitting the five-year limit in July 2002.
MR. NORDLUND noted that Section 2 of CSSB 116(HES) dealt with a two
parent court case that DHSS lost. He explained:
During the summer, DHSS reduces benefits for two parent
families by half, a policy choice made by the legislature
and the administration five years ago. That policy was
developed because it was felt that two parent families
were better able to work during the summer months because
there was more employment in Alaska during the summer and
because one of the parents would be able to stay home
with the children.
MR. NORDLUND said that when language regarding two parent families
was put into the new law, antiquated language from the AFDC law was
carried over saying benefits would be provided to two parent
families. The court looked at that language literally and said
that DHSS had to do an eligibility determination of two parent
families to determine who was the principal wage earner and what
the unemployment status was of that person. It was the intent of
the legislature and the administration to say all two parent
families would have their benefits cut during the summer, except
families with one parent who was incapacitated. But the court did
not look at it that way and said that DHSS had to do the
eligibility determination. The determination would have a cost
attached and there would be some two parent families receiving full
benefits through the summer in a way that would be unrelated to the
intent of the legislation.
MR. NORDLUND noted that Section 2 strips the original bill of that
antiquated language and brings the legislation back to the original
intent. If SB 116 does not pass, DHSS would have to do the
eligibility determination this summer and would probably end up
paying benefits to some families who would otherwise not be
eligible.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked about Section 3.
Number 690
MR. NORDLUND said under ATAP, all families are required to develop
a family self-sufficiency plan, which is a plan that charts their
course from welfare to work. The original law exempted families
where one parent was disabled or incapacitated. DHSS thinks it is
a good idea for all families to have a self-sufficiency plan
because it assists DHSS in helping families, even disabled
families, improve their situation in life.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if that was just the exception from the
self-sufficiency plan.
MR. NORDLUND said that is correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Section 4 is a transition section set up
to allow each of the others to go into effect so the department
could draw up new regulations. Mr. Nordlund indicated that is
correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Sections 5 and 6 are effective date
clauses. Mr. Nordlund indicated that is correct.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if Section 4 speeds up the process rather
that waiting for the statutes to become effective. Mr. Nordlund
said that is correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if they even need Section 1 at this time.
MR. NORDLUND replied that Section 1 is an attempt to conform with
federal law.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if that is the section the Senate HESS
Committee would take up next year.
MR. NORLUND indicated that was not correct; that the section they
would take up next year was already taken out of the original bill.
He said they are now looking at the committee substitute.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he thought the first section talked about the
five year program.
MR. NORDLUND replied that it was related to the section that was
stripped out of the bill, but federal law says that anybody who is
living in an Alaska Native village is exempt from the five-year
limit. "That's a provision in federal law."
MR. NORDLUND explained that our state law does not have such a
provision and so that section conforms state law to federal law in
that regard.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if this exempts them from the 20 percent
rule.
MR. NORDLUND responded, "Yes."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that by exempting them for five years, the
administration doesn't have to find a job for any person living in
a Native village.
MR. NORDLUND responded:
It is a two-edged sword, I think. This provision is not
something that we necessarily originally promoted in the
federal law…. Even the Native community would tell you
that they see this as good and bad. The fact of the
matter is that there aren't jobs in so many of those
Native villages and cutting off individuals from public
assistance when there's absolutely no hope of employment
is very harsh.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked about the qualifications of a Native village.
MR. NORDLUND replied, "The reference in the federal law is to
ANCSA, which recognizes the Native communities in the state."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if it was only the village corporations that
would apply.
MR. NORLUND responded, "Locations or communities that are
recognized in the federal law as being Native villages under
ANCSA."
MR. NORLUND said there is a list of those communities in committee
packets.
Number 1038
SENATOR COWDERY asked why the term "gainful activity" was used in
Section 2.
MR. NORLUND replied that was a good question and he didn't know why
they couldn't use the word "employment" because that is what it's
intended to mean.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he thought it might be defined somewhere in
Title 47.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if increased employment in Alaska and welfare
have remained in proportion to each other.
MR. NORDLUND replied, "Definitely. The fact that we've had a policy
change, first of all, is a big piece of it, that we're now
requiring clients to look for work."
He said that the fact that the economy has been so good in Alaska
has been a huge contributor to the fact that the welfare cases have
come down so much across the nation. Another reason for success is
that basically the legislature and administration have been willing
to put forward a budget that's necessary to help move folks into
work - money for child care and case management.
MS. KRISTEN BAUMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General, said:
The term "gainful activity" is used in other places in
this particular statute and so it is a kind of term of
art that has been adopted in AS 47.27.015, AS 47.25.025
and AS 47.27.030. It was a part of the original ATAP
bill. The term was used to describe general employment
activities. There is a definition that's been generated
in a substantial section in the regulations that address
this. Using this term now would make it consistent with
the other applications of the terms in the act."
SENATOR COWDERY said that assumes the term was being used correctly
in the other parts of the statute.
MS. BAUMENGEN said she had a reference to the definition as it was
generated in the regulations, if that would helpful. They indicated
assent.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if Mr. Nordlund had addressed the House's
concern about an exemption for caretakers of disabled children.
MR. NORDLUND replied:
Yes, there was a discussion on the House side. The House
version of the bill does have an additional exemption in
here. The exemption you're seeing in this version brings
it back to the status quo situation. That is, in a two
parent family, we will exempt them from getting the two
parent benefit cut in the summer months if one of the
parents is incapacitated. The amendment that was added on
the House side says that as well, if in a two parent
family, if they have a child who has a severe disability,
then that two-parent family is exempt from the two-parent
benefit cut in the summer months. That is not in this
version.
SENATOR ELLIS asked what his position was on that.
MR. NORDLUND said they were neutral on that addition by
Representative Dyson.
SENATOR ELLIS said he raised that as an issue for the committee to
consider because there were some compelling examples, specifically
the Jackson family from Pt. Baker.
MR. NORDLUND said he had an amendment that they prepared for the
House.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said they wanted to make certain that that option
is available.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the federal exemption was over the 20
percent for state exemptions.
MR. NORDLUND answered that is correct.
SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out that language says, "The department
shall disregard the months that are required to be disregarded
under that federal law." He thought Mr. Nordlund explained that it
was just a location-based exemption across the board.
MR. NORDLUND replied:
What we do as long as somebody is living in that exempt
village, we simply do not count that month. We just stop
the clock for those folks. If they move back to an
unexempt village, the clock picks up again. Even though
we consider stopping the clock for purposes of the way
our computer system works, the Department of Law tells us
it doesn't matter. From the state's standpoint, it still
counts on the state clock. So, if they run up to 60
months, for the purposes of the state law, we have to
count those folks within that 20 percent exemption
category. This is just the terminology we use to say that
we're stopping the clock for those families.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if this was an example of lawful
discrimination.
MR. NORDLUND said he wasn't qualified to answer that question.
SENATOR THERRIAULT explained:
We're treating different groups of people differently,
based on some reasoning. If we treat them differently,
we've discriminated between the benefits one group can
get that another group can't get. The Congress has found
that there is justification for doing that and made that
discrimination lawful. Is that a correct interpretation?
MS. BAUMENGEN responded that this was based on federal law and the
special relationship with Native American and the Alaska Native
populations in the Welfare Reform law. She said:
This language was generated after the time the state
accepted its language for the ATAP program and it's a
specific disregard that mandates in 'shall' language that
the states disregard those months.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if it treats individual Alaskans
differently based on some criteria in federal law and this change
to state law would make that acceptable.
MS. BAUMENGEN responded, "Yes, it addresses all adults who live in
an Alaska Native village."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said, "Interestingly, a person need not be a Native
Alaskan, but if you find yourself living in that area, you
qualify."
MS. BAUMENGEN replied that is correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said to Senator Ellis, "If we conform [the
amendment] by putting in page 1, line 13, that's the word
'activity' that we are seeking to modify. Is that right Kristen?"
MS. BAUMENGEN responded that is correct.
SENATOR ELLIS moved to adopt amendment , which reads as follows.
AMENDMENT 1
Page 2, line 7
Following "activity":
Insert "or to be providing care for a child who is
experiencing a disability"
MS. NICOLE NELSON, Anchorage, said she supported the amendment on
caretaker relatives of disabled children and had no further
comments.
SENATOR DONLEY said he didn't agree with the analysis that is
contained in paragraph 3 of the sponsor statement that says Alaska
sets an extremely excessive goal compared to other states regarding
welfare reform. He pointed out, "I have seen several analyses that
have appeared in national publications saying that we were the
least aggressive on welfare of any state in the Union."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the fiscal note confused him and asked how it
could be zero when, if this law was left unchanged, there would be
greater savings. By changing the law, they are going to spend more.
MR. NORDLUND explained the reason is:
Any time the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program is
changed, is because of the way the funding mechanism for
the program works. We get a set block grant from the
federal government regardless of what happens to the case
load and regardless of what we do with that caseload,
what kind of programs we're providing. Also, that's the
federal side. On the state side, we're required to put up
what's known as a maintenance of effort, 80 percent of
the funding that we provided in 1994. So, essentially,
the state amount is fixed, as well.
You have a fixed amount of money, both federal and state
to run this program and if the caseload goes down,
basically what you do is you're freeing up money from the
benefit side of the program to move over to services. In
addition, what the legislature has done in the past few
years is take a lot of those savings, which really are
federal savings, using it to fund other programs in state
government that are allowed under the TANF Program and
there's been some general fund savings to the state in
that way. As an example, we used to fund childcare with
about $10 million from the general fund. With the savings
of welfare reform, we've been able to move those federal
funds over, supplant that, take the G.F. out and you get
a budget savings that way. But the overall amount of
money we have for the program is set. So, as the caseload
goes down, we can shift the money over, but it's internal
to the program. It doesn't really show up in the fiscal
note.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said they understand and commented that they do
an accounting and, at the end of that process, they usually end
up shifting some funds within the budgeting process.
Number 1840
SENATOR DONELY said the sponsor statement, dated February 21,
2001, doesn't say what bill number it's referring to.
MR. NORDLUND explained that this is the Governor's bill and it
usually has the Governor's transmittal letter. He didn't think
they had a sponsor statement, per se.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if there were any parts of the sponsor
statement that were no longer applicable to the committee
substitutes that were produced. He asked for an updated sponsor
statement.
MR. NORDLUND said he would do that; but he didn't know that as a
rule, they rewrite their transmittal letters.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he thought that would be a good idea since
the bill had changed so much.
SENATOR ELLIS moved to pass CSSB 116(JUD) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was
so ordered.
SJR 11-CONST AM: PERM FUND INCOME DISTRIBUTION
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced SJR 11 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the earnings reserve would be
maintained, but would be treated as part of the corpus of the
Permanent Fund now.
SENATOR WARD answered yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said they have a committee substitute that includes
actual language instead of leaving the statutory references within
the Constitution.
SENATOR COWDERY moved to adopt the CS, Cook 4/20/01, to SJR 11.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR DONLEY said drafting the bill in this way has allowed them
to review the existing formula for calculating the dividend on page
2, lines 7 - 9, which says, "The dividend may not exceed the net
income of the fund for the fiscal year just ended, plus the balance
of the earnings reserve account."
He said that language was the basis for the argument during the
September 1999 advisory ballot debate. "It was a complicated
calculation. It was a speculative argument, but people just assumed
it as fact for some of the arguments that were being put out there
to the public. I think that language is problematic…"
SENATOR DONLEY said before he could support that section, which he
disagrees with in current statute, he would want an extensive
analysis. He didn't think the sponsor agreed with the technical way
it might function, either.
SENATOR WARD explained: "I didn't put the language into law and if
there was going to be a simplification of what he was trying to
accomplish and what the people of Alaska were trying to accomplish,
this would be the proper place to do it."
SENATOR TAYLOR said all they did in the bill was state existing
state law.
SENATOR WARD said it would take a constitutional amendment to
change the formula.
SENATOR WARD did not want to change existing law at this time,
because people in his district like it the way it is.
SENATOR DONLEY agreed with Senator Ward, but he thought that there
were very few Alaskans that know the ramifications of those three
sentences for some future calculation of their dividend. "That's
what worries me. That sentence hasn't kicked in yet, but if it did,
I think there would be a lot of shocked people out there."
SENATOR WARD said he didn't disagree with that. "If the Finance
Committee wants to change existing law in the form of a vote of the
people, then I think it's something they, as a committee, need to
come up with - what the ramifications are and the various models of
that, because we're talking dollars now."
SENATOR COWDERY moved to pass CSSJR 11(JUD) from committee with
individual recommendations.
SENATOR ELLIS objected:
This on its face has some popular appeal, but I can't be
the only one at this table who is concerned about the
potential risks and the chain of events this could set in
motion. There was a lot of discussion at the last
committee hearing about the IRS. I got more and more
nervous as that discussion went on. I think if there's
any contact with the IRS, I think that's a bad idea to
start with….If there's any contact to be done, I would
hope it could be done in an institutional fashion, in a
very reserved and careful way so that we ask the right
questions. I think asking the questions is dangerous in
and of itself.
SENATOR ELLIS again said he wasn't the only person at the table
who was concerned about this and he knew there was a perception
in the public, but he didn't think the Permanent Fund Dividend
was in imminent danger from this legislature.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that he also has grave concerns about the
same subject, but he thought they should have the discussion.
There being no further discussion, he asked for a roll call vote.
SENATORS DONLEY, COWDERY, THERRIAULT, and TAYLOR voted yeah;
SENATOR ELLIS voted nay; and the bill was passed from committee by
a vote of 4 to 1.
TAPE 01-21, SIDE B
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that the Trustees had requested that
another proposal be introduced and he said he would move that
alternative also, so that the Finance Committee has different
ideas to look at.
SB 135-MENTAL HEALTH INFO/RECORDS/COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced SB 135 to be up for consideration.
TAPE 01-22, SIDE A
MS. PAT DAVIDSON, legislative auditor, said, "Without data, the
Department is unable to determine if services are being paid dual
billed, paid for both with Medicaid funds and state funds nor can
they offer the providers feedback about services and associated
costs."
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if this concern came from the findings of
an audit.
MS. DAVIDSON answered yes. The first audit was on mental health
services in 1997. Senate Finance was concerned about escalating
costs in that program. They found and in the subsequent follow-up
(January 2001) is that a fee for service Medicaid financing plan
and a state funded grant program are inherently difficult to work
with. Providing client data to the Department to do the analysis
will allow that Department to actually manage the program the way
it needs to be done.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted for the record that he was the one who
requested that audit in 1997. He added that:
We found that the reserve accounts of a couple of our
larger providers had grown significantly to the place
where they had between half and two-thirds of a year cash
income reserves setting in their account. Nobody was
asking them to spend down those reserves before we gave
them state money even though my mental health programs in
Ketchikan and other places where communities assisted
them, before the community would step in and assist, they
would make sure those reserves were spent down to the
place where they had maybe a month or six weeks worth of
reserves. Some of these larger entities had six to nine
months reserves and were paying themselves significant
salary increases. In one year, south central paid a 14
percent across the board salary increase to every one of
the employers, including their executive director, which
would have violated state law, had they been paying it
under state monies…
SENATOR ELLIS asked why the entire mental health record of an
individual client is needed. He asked if it was possible to
transmit only the information that was necessary for the express
purpose. He also said that the broad title of this bill troubles
him, although there was nothing specific he wanted to preclude.
Number 364
MS. ANN HENRY, Special Projects Coordinator, Division of Mental
Health and Developmental Disabilities, answered Senator Ellis'
question saying:
The information that we gather is demographic information
that uses a unique identifier rather than the
individual's name and social security number. We use
initials, the last four digits of the social security
number and the person's birth date to identify that
person and then link that person to subsequent documents,
which give information about the kind of encounters they
have had, the duration of the encounter, that sort of
thing…
She said they don't request the entire file or go through progress
notes. "It's just the diagnosis, the person's housing situation,
their legal status, things like that that allow us to determine
what kind of help different communities need and what we're seeing
in the big picture for the mental health situation for the state."
SENATOR THERRIAULT said, "We need to get enough information so that
we can track how services are being offered to this person. If
we're looking for some accountability, you've got to know what the
person is getting."
He also explained regarding the title, that when he had the bill
drafted, he wasn't anticipating any chicanery or things tacked on.
He wasn't opposed to tightening the title.
MS. HENRY continued saying that her division had worked with the
community mental health providers for several years trying to get
this data from them and haven't been successful for various
reasons. She said the lawsuit by the Board of the Mental Health
Center that was suing will be put aside with passage of this bill.
That is why the bill covers some of the issues that it covers. She
explained that they had also amended the initial bill to include
requiring that the mental health centers provide data for the last
two years.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said that the lawsuit was initiated by a
Fairbanks provider and he concurred that they backed away from the
litigation with the introduction of this bill.
SENATOR ELLIS moved to tighten up the title to SB 135. There were
no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR COWDERY moved to pass CSSB 135(JUD) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
SB 178-DETENTION OF DELINQUENT MINORS
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced SB 178 to be up for consideration.
MS. HOLLY MORRIS, staff to Senator Therriault, sponsor, said:
SB 178 doesn't change our statute. What it does is it
brings us into compliance with a federal law and, in
doing so, allows us to access some regulatory time
exemptions to lower violation rates and preserve our
federal funding. It is in regards to juveniles being
detained in rural areas in an adult lock up facility.
They have 24 hours to, as quickly and safely as possible,
move those juveniles to a juvenile detention center. Our
current statute allows us up to 48 hours, if that is
necessary. However, in changing the statue to match the
federal language, we don't extend the time that a
juvenile may be held in an adult lock up facility. In
fact, it allows, if a juvenile is going to be held in an
adult lock up facility for longer than 24 hours, they are
to be given an arraignment in that period. So, it speeds
up their due process if they can't get to a juvenile
detention center. In changing the statute to comply with
this federal law, it allows us to optimize our federal
funding possibilities.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said that federal law says that for those states
that require an initial hearing within 24 hours, if the state
statute says 24 hours, we have access some federal exemptions. Our
statute currently says 48 hours. So, we don't have access to that
wiggle room to deal with our remote rural lock up situations where
a juvenile might be housed while they are waiting for the weather
to clear or a plane to be available to transport them to a juvenile
detention facility. "We're in danger of losing about $160,000 of
federal funds that can be used for alternatives - youth courts and
things of that nature. In addition, if we don't come into
compliance, an additional $500,000 of federal funds will be
mandatorily steered to state moving towards compliance."
Mr. ROBERT BUTTCANE, Division of Juvenile Justice, said that
Senator Therriault did an excellent job of explaining the bill and
he didn't have anything to add.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if this would "prevent us from handcuffing
them to a D8 Cat in Yakutat."
MR. BUTTCANE answered that he hoped they didn't ever have that
authority, but when it has happened, they have probably had some
time limits to deal with.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked him for the things that he had done over
the years and noted that his division had gone a long ways towards
restructuring the state's criminal justice system for juveniles and
making it more accountable.
SENATOR THERRIAULT wanted verification that this would not change
the speed with which juveniles who are in a more urban setting,
where a youth facility is available, get to initial arraignments.
MR. BUTTCANE responded that was right. The 24-hour arraignment
would apply only to those juveniles who would be housed in an adult
facility in a remote part of the state. "We would continue the
current law as it would apply to juveniles who would be
incarcerated in a youth facility in an urban area."
SENATOR ELLIS moved to pass SB 178 with individual recommendations.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 2:51 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|