Legislature(1993 - 1994)

02/17/1993 01:40 PM Senate JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                   SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE                                  
                        February 17, 1993                                      
                            1:40 p.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman                                               
  Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman                                          
  Senator George Jacko                                                         
  Senator Dave Donley                                                          
  Senator Suzanne Little                                                       
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  SENATE BILL NO. 54                                                           
  "An  Act relating to  violations of  laws by  juveniles; and                 
  providing for an effective date."                                            
  SENATE BILL NO. 49                                                           
  "An Act relating to preelection reports; closing the two-day                 
  reporting gap in those reports; setting the date of February                 
  15   for  filing  year-end  campaign  finance  reports;  and                 
  requiring reporting of zero year-end reports."                               
  SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6                                                
  Proposing amendments  to the  Constitution of  the State  of                 
  Alaska authorizing  the use of  the initiative to  amend the                 
  Constitution  of  the   State  of  Alaska  by   approval  of                 
  two-thirds of the votes cast on the proposed amendment.                      
  SENATE BILL NO. 69                                                           
  "An Act  prohibiting employers  from discriminating  against                 
  individuals who use legal products in a legal manner outside                 
  of work."                                                                    
  PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION                                             
  SB 54 - See Judiciary minutes dated 2/8/93.                                  
  SB 49 - See Senate State Affairs minutes dated 1/29/93.                      
  SJR 6 - See State Affairs minutes dated 1/25/93 and 1/27/93.                 
  SB 69 - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 2/2/93.                         
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  John Shepherd, aide                                                          
  Senator Rick Halford                                                         
  State Capitol                                                                
  Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                        
    POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 54.                                        
  Margo Knuth, Asst. Attorney General                                          
  Criminal Division                                                            
  Department of Law                                                            
  P.O. Box 110300                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                    
    POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 54.                                       
  Kenny Leaf, Aide                                                             
  Senator Robin Taylor                                                         
  State Capitol                                                                
  Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                        
    POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 54.                                        
  Randall Heinz                                                                
  Division of Family & Youth Services                                          
  Dept. of Health & Social Services                                            
  P.O. Box 110630                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630                                                    
    POSITION STATEMENT: Had questions about SB 54.                             
  Rick Barrier, Efficiency Analyst                                             
  Department of Corrections                                                    
  P.O. Box 112000                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska 99811-2000                                                    
    POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on SB 54.                                       
  Josh Fink, Aide                                                              
  Senator Tim Kelly                                                            
  State Capitol                                                                
  Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                        
    POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 49.                                        
  Karen Boorman, Executive Director                                            
  Alaska Public Offices Commission                                             
  2221 E. Northern Lights #2221                                                
  Anchorage, Alaska 99502                                                      
    POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 49.                                       
  Chip Toma                                                                    
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
    POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 6.                                       
  Mike McMullen, System Services                                               
  Division of Personnel/EEO                                                    
  Department of Administration                                                 
  P.O. Box 110201                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201                                                    
    POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 69.                                         
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 93-12, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
  Chairman Robin Taylor called the Judiciary Committee meeting                 
  to order at 1:40 p.m.                                                        
  SENATOR  TAYLOR  introduced  SB  54  (OFFENSES  BY  JUVENILE                 
  OFFENDERS) and  invited the prime sponsor,  SENATOR HALFORD,                 
  to testify.   SENATOR HALFORD gave  a short overview on  the                 
  bill, referred to  some amendments from SENATOR  DONLEY, and                 
  asked  his aide,  JOHN  SHEPHERD,  to  review the  bill  for                 
  MR. SHEPHERD explained he would present  a review written by                 
  the  drafter, JACK  CHENOWETH, Legislative  Counsel, and  he                 
  summarized  the  four areas  of  the report,  beginning with                 
  "Automatic Trial of  Juveniles as Adults for  Certain Felony                 
  Offenses."  The remainder of the segments are "Detention and                 
  Incarceration," "Records," and "Restitution."                                
  MR.   SHEPHERD   began   by   reviewing   the   "waiver   of                 
  jurisdiction," which under current law would allow the court                 
  to prosecute the child as an adult if the offense is  deemed                 
  serious enough.  SB 54 mandates that juvenile offenders from                 
  16 to 18 years of age be tried as adults under the following                 
  two conditions, as listed in Section 3:                                      
       A. if charged with an  unclassified or class A  felony;                 
  or   B. if charged with a felony class "crime against a                      
          person" and the minor has been either                                
            1. previously adjudicated as a delinquent or                       
            2.  convicted  as  an adult,  for  a  felony class                 
  "crime         against  a  person" in  Alaska  or  any other                 
  MR. SHEPHERD referred  the committee members to  the list of                 
  definitions, as defined under AS 33.30.901, and continued to                 
  explain the remainder of the provisions in Section 3.                        
  SENATOR  HALFORD  asked  MR.  SHEPHERD  to repeat,  "In  the                 
  immediate previous draft  to this one,  there was a  section                 
  that said, 'When  the minor  says ... I  was not  previously                 
  convicted, or adjudicated delinquent in another jurisdiction                 
  for a felony class  crime against a person,' the  state then                 
  has the burden of  showing that, in  fact it did happen.  In                 
  the   immediate  previous   draft,  there  was   a  standard                 
  mentioned.  The  state had  to do it  by a preponderance  of                 
  evidence - and that has been  lost."  MR. SHEPHERD suggested                 
  the committee might, or not, want to reinstate the standard.                 
  Number 108                                                                   
  MR. SHEPHERD  quoted the  next two  paragraphs, which  would                 
  establish,  "the  state  is  entirely  free  to  employ  the                 
  currently existing procedures for closing a juvenile's  case                 
  in order to prosecuted him as an adult for lesser offenses."                 
  Section 6, of  the same theme states, "... if a minor is not                 
  convicted of the felony charge that  required he be tried as                 
  an adult, but  is only convicted  for lesser offenses,  then                 
  the convictions will be treated as juvenile  adjudications."                 
  This passage would allow that, "...  within five days of his                 
  conviction as a juvenile delinquent, the state has the right                 
  to file a petition for a  waiver to convict the minor as  an                 
  adult  for these  lesser offenses."   MR.  SHEPHERD gave  an                 
  example to explain the provisions of these sections.                         
  SENATOR HALFORD clarified the provisions with MR.  SHEPHERD,                 
  who also explained  the provisions were basically  meant for                 
  the  incorrigible child,  and represented the  philosophy of                 
  the bill.                                                                    
  Number 148                                                                   
  SENATOR  DONLEY restated  the  previous testimony,  and  MR.                 
  SHEPHERD said he was correct.                                                
  MR.  SHEPHERD proceeded to the  second area of detention and                 
  incarceration, in which  he read  the provisions in  current                 
  law as related to  the Department of Law and  the Department                 
  of Health and Social Services in  the Division of Family and                 
  Youth  Services.    He  explained  either  way,  minors  are                 
  required to be kept separate from adults.                                    
  Number 158                                                                   
  MR.  SHEPHERD  said,  "SB 54  eliminates  this  ambiguity by                 
  mandating the minors  either charged or convicted  as adults                 
  be placed in the custody of the  Department of Corrections."                 
  He explained this  would be done  in Section 1 which  would,                 
  "amend the definition  of 'prisoner'  within the custody  of                 
  the Department of Corrections to include a juvenile charged,                 
  prosecuted, or convicted as an adult."                                       
  MR. SHEPHERD explained Section 8 would amend the current law                 
  concerning the detention  of minors to state that a juvenile                 
  held in jail  under the custody of the DOC need not be "held                 
  in custody  in a room or other place apart and separate from                 
  SENATOR  HALFORD  clarified  the  only  juveniles under  the                 
  Department  of  Corrections  would  be  those  convicted  as                 
  MR. SHEPHERD explained it as being a "negative emancipation"                 
  once a minor is convicted as an adult.                                       
  SENATOR  DONLEY  referred   to  previous  legislation   that                 
  elicited a  large amount  of testimony  on  the issue  under                 
  discussion, as to whether the minors would be safe among the                 
  adults.  He said  the only difficulty that  occurred between                 
  minors,  who had  been  waived, was  assaults by  the minors                 
  against other minors, but the minors had not been victims of                 
  adults.  MR.  SHEPHERD said MR.  HEINZ from the Division  of                 
  Family   &   Youth   Services   would   be   discussing  the                 
  rehabilitation aspects of this testimony.                                    
  Number 200                                                                   
  MR. SHEPHERD presented  the third  major area  of the  bill,                 
  Records, and  reviewed the  provisions of  Section 4,  which                 
  provides the court  may not seal  the records of a  criminal                 
  proceeding involving a minor if:                                             
            "1. the minor has not yet fulfilled  the orders of                 
            the  court  connected with  their  adjudication or                 
            2. the minor was convicted as an adult under                       
            AS 47.10.010(e), created in SB 54 for                              
                 a.  an unclassified  or  class  A felony  and                 
                 properly joined crimes, or                                    
                 b.  for  a  second  felony  crime  against  a                 
  person,             or                                                       
            3.  the   minor  was  adjudicated   delinquent  or                 
  convicted           as  an adult  for a  felony class  crime                 
  against a           person   and    had   been    previously                 
  adjudicated         delinquent or convicted  as an adult for                 
  a felony       class crime against a person."                                
  SENATOR TAYLOR asked if this might  set up a situation where                 
  a  delinquent  adjudicated  twice,  would,  on   the  second                 
  adjudication,  becomes   an  adult.    They   discussed  the                 
  questions before  MR. SHEPHERD continued  the explanation of                 
  SB 54.                                                                       
  MR. SHEPHERD  said the provisions  of Section 7  would allow                 
  the victims of a  property crime against a  person committed                 
  by  a  minor to  inspect the  official  record of  the minor                 
  related to that  crime in  order to use  the information  in                 
  support of civil action.                                                     
  Number 237                                                                   
  MR. SHEPHERD  quoted from  the fourth  area on  Restitution,                 
  "Courts are not currently required to force juveniles to pay                 
  restitution for property  offenses or  for crimes against  a                 
  person.  It is  also virtually impossible to sue  a juvenile                 
  in civil court for damages resulting from his crimes because                 
  his criminal record  is kept confidential."  He said Section                 
  7, as previously mentioned, would allow permission.                          
  MR. SHEPHERD said Section 5 would require the court to order                 
  a  minor to pay restitution to the  benefit of the victim if                 
  the  minor's  offense   is  the   basis  of  a   delinquency                 
  adjudication.  In  Section 2,  it  allows for  the entirety,                 
  rather  than  the  present  40%,  of a  juvenile  offender's                 
  permanent fund dividend, as well as the dividends of parents                 
  and legal  guardians, be  used to  pay restitution or  civil                 
  damages resulting from the juvenile's criminal activity.                     
  SENATOR  DONLEY questioned  the provision, and  MR. SHEPHERD                 
  said the $2000 cap was unchanged.  There was some discussion                 
  on this provision, and SENATOR  TAYLOR suggested there would                 
  be no incentive for  the juvenile or parents to file for the                 
  permanent fund.  He suggested the sponsor think of this.                     
  SENATOR HALFORD thought  the juvenile  would prefer to  have                 
  the permanent funds executed upon other things such as cars,                 
  and he explained  why it would be  wise for the  juvenile to                 
  apply for their dividend.                                                    
  SENATOR  TAYLOR suggested  something  might  be included  to                 
  allow the victim to  apply for the permanent  fund dividend,                 
  if the  juvenile did not.  There was not a general agreement                 
  on this.                                                                     
  MR. SHEPHERD indicated he was  finished with the overview of                 
  SB 54.                                                                       
  Number 289                                                                   
  SENATOR DONLEY  expressed concern  about the  status of  the                 
  run-away laws  in  relation  to  taking the  dividend  of  a                 
  parent, who is not in control of a juvenile.                                 
  SENATOR HALFORD described how the  provision was reached and                 
  how it  could be improved to  increase the cap to  $4000, as                 
  well as increase the ability of  the parent to control their                 
  child.  He was opposed to the House level of $50,000, unless                 
  there was  a way to  enforce some kind  of standards on  the                 
  person costing the victim that amount.                                       
  SENATOR  TAYLOR  excused  MR. SHEPHERD,  and  invited  MARGO                 
  KNUTH, from the  Criminal Division of the Department of Law,                 
  to testify.                                                                  
  Number 328                                                                   
  MS.  KNUTH said the  Administration anticipates a Governor's                 
  juvenile  waiver  bill  being filed,  and  accordingly,  the                 
  Administration supports the concept of juvenile waiver.  She                 
  said there was room for discussion on how broad a waiver law                 
  should be enacted.  She thought the Governor's bill would be                 
  narrower than SB 54 and only apply to offenses  of murder in                 
  the first degree, attempted murder in the  first degree, and                 
  murder in the second degree.                                                 
  MS. KNUTH reviewed  some problems with the  present juvenile                 
  waiver, such as making the waiver, required by statute, show                 
  the juvenile is unamenable to treatment.  Presently, without                 
  a  track record of prior efforts to rehabilitate the person,                 
  it  is difficult  to say  there  is no  way  this person  is                 
  MS. KNUTH said she had worked with the sponsor, and she felt                 
  the bill, SB 54, does what it should do.  She noted a couple                 
  of technical matters.  On page 2, line 16, in a reference to                 
  a  "minor's  malicious  or  wilful  injury ...,"  she  noted                 
  "wilful" is  not one  of the  mental states  defined in  our                 
  statutes,  and  suggested  it  might  be changed  to  either                 
  "intentional" or "knowingly."                                                
  MS. KNUTH suggested a technical change in Section 6, page 6,                 
  in reference to AS 47.10.080(o), where the state could still                 
  file this  petition  under the  traditional juvenile  waiver                 
  laws to try to make the showing of un-amenability.                           
  SENATOR  TAYLOR  asked  if  she  could  make  the change  in                 
  committee, and MS. KNUTH said she would.                                     
  Number 383                                                                   
  SENATOR DONLEY said  the clause in  Section 6 triggered  his                 
  question on a motion to waive a child to adult court, and he                 
  expressed concern about  the problems with the  recent Court                 
  of  Appeals  decision  stating  the   juvenile  can  not  be                 
  compelled to take  the psychiatric analysis the  court needs                 
  to  make a rational  decision.  He  made a suggestion  for a                 
  change in presumption.                                                       
  SENATOR  TAYLOR  clarified  a juvenile  would  only  have to                 
  refuse to cooperate, thus denying  the state evidence needed                 
  to hear the waiver.                                                          
  SENATOR HALFORD discussed provisions  for 14 to 16  year old                 
  juvenile, and SENATOR DONLEY agreed with his conclusions.                    
  In answer to a question from SENATOR LITTLE, SENATOR HALFORD                 
  explained the presumption about whether  a minor is amenable                 
  to  treatment, and he  reviewed the  old the  standard under                 
  which a  minor could  be prosecuted  as an  adult.   SENATOR                 
  LITTLE clarified the change with the burden of proof falling                 
  on the individual.                                                           
  MS. KNUTH said there  would also have to be  an amendment to                 
  the  court rules,  and SENATOR  TAYLOR  asked how  the Equal                 
  Protection arguments could  be addressed.  MS. KNUTH said it                 
  was an  issue yet to  be solved,  and both  she and  SENATOR                 
  DONLEY agreed the burden shifted for a whole class of people                 
  -  juveniles.   This  elicited  a  discussion of  the  steps                 
  involved in the issue.                                                       
  Number 439                                                                   
  MS.  KNUTH  said  the  Department  of  Corrections  and  the                 
  Department of Health and Social  Services have some concerns                 
  about placements of  the juvenile offenders, back  and forth                 
  as  juveniles and adults,  and have been  working to address                 
  the  problem.   She  suggested  making the  automatic waiver                 
  provision for a narrow class of  offenses, and if a juvenile                 
  was waived  to an adult status, it would be for the duration                 
  of the case.                                                                 
  SENATOR  HALFORD  asked  how  they   could  beat  the  equal                 
  protection  argument,   and  he   outlined  a   manslaughter                 
  scenario.    MS.  KNUTH  indicated  the juvenile  should  be                 
  narrowly indited to hold the  juvenile on that offense,  but                 
  she suggested someone  from the  Court System should  answer                 
  his questions.                                                               
  SENATOR  HALFORD   said  he  felt   uncomfortable  with  her                 
  argument, and he described a deferential in charges.  He was                 
  still concerned about equal protection and the constitution.                 
  Number 470                                                                   
  SENATOR DONLEY described the strong protection clause in the                 
  constitution, and a judiciary that tends to enforce it.                      
  SENATOR  HALFORD  said  the  conviction  requirement  was  a                 
  standard for  equal protection,  but he  outlined where  the                 
  problems began with the conviction of  a lesser offense.  He                 
  discussed the equal protection criteria with SENATOR TAYLOR.                 
  SENATOR DONLEY thought the public  safety threat overrides a                 
  pure  equal  protection  argument.   MS.  KNUTH  agreed with                 
  SENATOR DONLEY and suggested the indictment follow a finding                 
  of  fact.   SENATOR  TAYLOR didn't  agree and  described his                 
  ideas on the problems as discussed.                                          
  Number 514                                                                   
  SENATOR HALFORD suggested fixing some of the "little things"                 
  and take up the amendments by SENATOR DONLEY.                                
  First, SENATOR HALFORD  moved to  adopt 8-LS0384\D, a  draft                 
  dated 2/16/93, as  a working  draft version  of a  potential                 
  committee substitute for SENATE BILL 54. Without objections,                 
  so ordered.                                                                  
  SENATOR HALFORD referred to page 2 and the term, wilful.  He                 
  said  the two  potential substitutes  were "intentional"  or                 
  "knowing."  There  was some  discussion among the  committee                 
  members on these words.  MS. KNUTH explained intoxication is                 
  a  defense  to "intentional"  and  not  to "knowing."    She                 
  suggested dropping the "or wilful" and leave it "malicious,"                 
  but she thought the law would imply a knowing standard.                      
  SENATOR HALFORD moved to delete the word "wilful" and insert                 
  the  word  "knowing."   After  some  discussion,  the motion                 
  SENATOR HALFORD suggested a change in the burden of proof on                 
  page  3,  line  17, and  read  the  section  dealing with  a                 
  preponderance of evidence.                                                   
  There was some  discussion on this language with  MS. KNUTH,                 
  and the language was amended to insert on line 17, after the                 
  word true, a new sentence, "At a hearing on a petition under                 
  this subsection, the state bears the burden of proving, by a                 
  preponderance of  the evidence,  that the  allegations of  a                 
  sworn  statement  under  (g)  of  this  section  are  true."                 
  SENATOR DONLEY  moved the  motion.   Without objections,  so                 
  SENATOR LITTLE clarified  this was a separate  amendment and                 
  different from the previous discussion.                                      
  TAPE 93-12, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
  SENATOR  HALFORD said  the  new  amendment incorporates  the                 
  provisions, on which  he had previously worked  with SENATOR                 
  DONLEY, concerning 14 to 16 year old juveniles.                              
  SENATOR  TAYLOR  stressed  the  amendment  was involved  and                 
  SENATOR LITTLE asked for  further clarification, and SENATOR                 
  DONLEY explained.  (The explanation has been quoted from the                 
  actual amendment.)                                                           
  Page 2, line 26 through page 3, line 1:                                      
  Delete all material and insert:                                              
  "does not apply when a minor                                                 
       (1) is 16 years of age and older and is charged with                    
            (A) an unclassified felony or a class A felony; or                 
            (B)  a crime  against a  person that  is a  felony                 
  other than an unclassified  felony or a class A  felony, and                 
  the minor has been previously adjudicated as a delinquent or                 
  convicted as an adult, in this or another jurisdiction, as a                 
  result of an  offense that is a  crime against a person  and                 
  was  a felony  under  the laws  of  this state,  or that  in                 
  another jurisdiction is an offense with similar elements and                 
  would be a felony if  charged under the laws of  this state;                 
       (2) is 14 years of age and older but has not reached 16                 
  years of age and is charged with                                             
            (A) the  offense of  murder under  AS 11.41.100  -                 
  11.41.110 or  an attempt  or solicitation  to commit  murder                 
  under AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.110;                                              
            (B) an unclassified  or a class A  felony, and the                 
  minor has  been previously  adjudicated as  a delinquent  in                 
  this  or  another jurisdiction  is  an offense  with similar                 
  elements and would be a felony if charged under the laws  of                 
  this state;                                                                  
            (C) a felony of any degree, and the minor has been                 
  previously prosecuted and convicted as an adult of  a felony                 
  in this state, or of an offense in another jurisdiction with                 
  similar elements that would be a felony if charged under the                 
  laws of this state."                                                         
  SENATOR DONLEY explained to SENATOR LITTLE the importance of                 
  the amendment based  on the statistics of  juvenile violence                 
  in the age  category, but  due to a  recent court  decision,                 
  juveniles  may  not  be  compelled  to  take  a  psychiatric                 
  examination.   This  makes  it difficult  for  the state  to                 
  present  a case,  by a  preponderance  of evidence,  to meet                 
  their burden  of  proving  a juvenile  is  not  amenable  to                 
  treatment by age 20.                                                         
  SENATOR DONLEY  further explained  there were  fewer waivers                 
  because  of  the new  Court of  Appeals  ruling, and  put an                 
  unfair burden on the judge.                                                  
  Number 062                                                                   
  SENATOR TAYLOR again  raised the issue of  equal protection,                 
  and  SENATOR DONLEY  explained  how  using the  severability                 
  clause would not violate equal protection.                                   
  MS. KNUTH  said the discussion of the amendment was tracking                 
  all of the points that have  been discussed.  SENATOR DONLEY                 
  said, if the committee adopted the  amendment, he would work                 
  with MS. KNUTH to inject additional safeguards to  help meet                 
  the equal protection criteria.                                               
  Number 090                                                                   
  SENATOR HALFORD  moved to  adopt the  amendment numbered  8-                 
  LSO384\D.1  drafted by  CHENOWETH, dated  2/17/93.   Without                 
  objections, so ordered.                                                      
  MR. LEAF, aide to  SENATOR TAYLOR, brought up a  question on                 
  page  6,  Section 6,  which was  clarified  by MS.  KNUTH in                 
  amending  the sentence  to include,  "and if  the  motion is                 
  granted."  She explained the amendment.                                      
  SENATOR HALFORD moved the amendment by  MS. KNUTH on page 6,                 
  Section 6, line 24, which would delete the (.) at the end of                 
  the sentence,  and insert  "and if  the motion  is granted."                 
  Without objections, so ordered.                                              
  SENATOR TAYLOR opened  the meeting to testimony,  and called                 
  on  RANDALL  HEINZ from  the  Division of  Family  and Youth                 
  Services, to testify.                                                        
  MR. HEINZ said  he had attended  to answer questions and  to                 
  present some concerns from the department on the housing, as                 
  to  when children  under the  bill would  be transferred  to                 
  adult Department  of Corrections.   He  hadn't analyzed  how                 
  many children would be affected.                                             
  SENATOR LITTLE asked how MR. HEINZ thought the changes would                 
  affect  the costs.  MR. RANDALL said they found in the first                 
  age group of  16 years and  up, there were approximately  60                 
  juveniles in that  category, but the  addition of 13 and  14                 
  year old's would  require more  analysis to come  up with  a                 
  real cost  of the impact.   He described  how they  might be                 
  able to issue a positive fiscal note.                                        
  SENATOR LITTLE  clarified the  present  situation and  asked                 
  about the potential of having  60 additional minor prisoners                 
  in our system.  MR. RANDALL explained there were 60 children                 
  referred to Youth and Family Services (DFYS) from the police                 
  agencies on unclassified or classified  class A felonies for                 
  fiscal year 1992.   He said they were using  those juveniles                 
  to judge the impact of the legislation.                                      
  Number 120                                                                   
  SENATOR HALFORD said  those children  would stay where  they                 
  are, and SENATOR LITTLE  asked if that would justify  a zero                 
  fiscal note  from  the department.    MR. RANDALL  said  the                 
  number of juveniles based on the 1992 numbers was relatively                 
  small, but  the changes in  the age grouping,  and offenses,                 
  has made the group  grow.  SENATOR LITTLE was  interested in                 
  seeing those finished figures.                                               
  SENATOR  TAYLOR  expressed  concern   about  the  number  of                 
  waivers,  and  MR.  RANDALL explained  in  fiscal  1992 they                 
  requested 10 kids  to be waived  into the adult system,  and                 
  nine of the  waivers were granted.   He also explained  this                 
  was all juveniles, not  just those who would fall  under the                 
  SENATOR TAYLOR asked for his estimation on a possible number                 
  of juveniles under SB 54, and MR. RANDALL explained it would                 
  be the charge at arrest which would determine where the case                 
  would be  handled.   In their  discussion, MR. RANDALL  said                 
  there would have been 60 kids for FY92.                                      
  SENATOR HALFORD questioned in to which category the 60  kids                 
  would fit.   MR. RANDALL explained,  in FY92, there were  60                 
  kids referred to DFYS by police agencies for unclassified or                 
  class A felonies  that were 16 years  old or older -  in new                 
  SENATOR LITTLE discussed with MR.  RANDALL how he personally                 
  felt about the bill, and MR.  RANDALL thought children of 13                 
  and 14 years old were  better candidates for rehabilitation,                 
  but the older offenders  were less likely to be  amenable to                 
  treatment.  He said  his department still needed to  analyze                 
  the facts before coming up with a position.                                  
  Number 180                                                                   
  SENATOR TAYLOR asked RICK BARRIER, an efficiency analyst for                 
  the Department of Corrections, for his comments.                             
  MR. BARRIER explained he had worked on the bill, but at this                 
  point he  thought the impact of the legislation was unclear.                 
  He said the department  had submitted a zero fiscal  note on                 
  the bill without any certainty it  would be accurate, but if                 
  the proposed statistics  were accurate,  it would cost  more                 
  money.  He thought  part of the cost  would be reflected  in                 
  the increased length  of terms, and  he indicated more  work                 
  was needed with DFYS.                                                        
  SENATOR  DONLEY  suggested  in their  analysis  it  would be                 
  appropriate  to  consider  how many  of  the  juveniles, who                 
  commit  these serious  crimes, fail  to be  waived to  adult                 
  court, and released when  they are 20 years old,  commit the                 
  same crime again and return to jail in their 20's.                           
  MR. BARRIER said  they could include a factor of recidivism,                 
  but it wouldn't  take many of  the unclassified and class  A                 
  felonies to impact their systems v. to spend less money.  He                 
  agreed with DFYS they would like  to see the waived juvenile                 
  remain in adult status.                                                      
  SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. BARRIER to comment on the necessity                 
  for  segregating  the  younger  offenders,  and MR.  BARRIER                 
  reported  his   department  had  a  policy   of  segregating                 
  juveniles  entirely from  the  adult population.   Juveniles                 
  adjudicated as adults  are also segregated to  the extent of                 
  being maintained in separate  cells until the age of  18. He                 
  thought the new legislation would bring more flexibility.                    
  SENATOR LITTLE wanted to know how many person years would be                 
  added to the Department  of Corrections if the  bill passed,                 
  and  MR.  BARRIER  said they  planned  to  try  to get  that                 
  SENATOR  TAYLOR thanked the  participants and  entertained a                 
  motion to move the bill from committee.                                      
  SENATOR HALFORD moved to pass CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 54(JUD)                 
  from committee with  individual recommendations.   There was                 
  one objection, and the bill passed on a 3 to 1 vote.                         
  Number 329                                                                   
  SENATOR TAYLOR introduced  SB 49 (YEAR-END  CAMPAIGN FINANCE                 
  REPORTS)  and invited  JOSH FINK,  aide to SENATOR  KELLY to                 
  review the bill.                                                             
  MR.  FINK  explained  SB  49  would  make  some long  needed                 
  adjustment to the campaign reporting  laws, the main feature                 
  being  the  closing of  the  reporting  gap.   He  gave some                 
  history on the  fate of similar legislation  from last year,                 
  and  some general history  on the APOC  reporting gap, which                 
  occurs between the 7 day pre-election report and the 24 hour                 
  He explained how this obscures the public's right-to-know.                   
  MR. FINK said the bill would  change the deadline for filing                 
  year-end campaign reports from December 31 to February 15th,                 
  and  he  explained the  advantages  of  such  actions.    He                 
  reported APOC  had requested  a couple  of amendments  which                 
  were included in  the legislation.   The first in Section  1                 
  has new  language which clarifies the scope  of the year-end                 
  report, and the second, also in  Section 1, makes the filing                 
  of zero reports  mandatory.  MR. FINK  described the reasons                 
  for the amendments.                                                          
  SENATOR  LITTLE  asked if  there  would  be  a problem  with                 
  including left-over information  on the  April report.   She                 
  explained it would be any information from the last deadline                 
  for the year-end report and the April deadline.                              
  MR. FINK said her year-end report wouldn't really be a year-                 
  end report then, and he  outlined the statutory problem with                 
  her question.  He deferred to  KAREN BOORMAN, from APOC, for                 
  additional answers.                                                          
  Number 312                                                                   
  MS. BOORMAN, Executive Director for  the APUC, explained the                 
  deadline on  the report  and the  April 15  report were  two                 
  separate laws.   The Conflict  of Interest Law  statement is                 
  due April 15, and the other  deadline refers to the Campaign                 
  Disclosure Law.  The February 15  deadline was the result of                 
  issues  raised by legislators giving reasons  for a delay in                 
  their records, and  she said the commission was  amenable to                 
  the delay.  She said the  information was still available to                 
  the public in a timely manner.                                               
  MS. BOORMAN reported a zero fiscal note.                                     
  SENATOR TAYLOR said  the bill would be  moved from committee                 
  as soon as there was a quorum.                                               
  SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SJR 6  (USE OF INITIATIVE TO AMEND                 
  CONSTITUTION).  The prime sponsor is SENATOR RICK HALFORD.                   
  SENATOR TAYLOR  opened the  bill to  testimony, and  invited                 
  CHIP TOMA to speak.                                                          
  Number 340                                                                   
  MR.  TOMA  testified  in  support  of  SJR  6,  which  would                 
  authorize the use of initiatives  to amend the constitution,                 
  and he distributed a list of 17 states which currently allow                 
  constitutional amendments  by initiative.   He reviewed  the                 
  statistics  which   indicated  most   states  passed   their                 
  initiatives by a majority vote.                                              
  MR. TOMA  explained how  the bill  would assist  him in  the                 
  recall of the governor and the lieutenant governor, since he                 
  found the process  as specified, presently in statute, to be                 
  onerous and in the case of  legal challenges to be dilatory.                 
  He described  how  the proceedings  had been  turned into  a                 
  court case, which he thought was unnecessary.                                
  MR.  TOMA gave  some history  from the  standpoint of  being                 
  employed by the  Department of  Elections during the  recall                 
  case,  Minors v. the Bering Straits  School District, and he                 
  reviewed his position  on how a recall should  work - not by                 
  making court cases on every single  issue.  He explained how                 
  he would proceed with his recall  by initiative in the event                 
  the bill was passed.                                                         
  MR. TOMA urged  the passage of  SJR 6 and suggested  the two                 
  thirds vote  be changed  to a  majority vote,  since it  was                 
  difficult to get anything passed with this number.                           
  Number 435                                                                   
  SENATOR TAYLOR clarified  MR. TOMA'S concern was  the recall                 
  question,  but  he said  the  legislation was  primarily for                 
  amendments  to  the   constitution.    They  discussed   the                 
  resolution as opening up  government to the people, but  MR.                 
  TOMA explained why the two thirds vote would never work.                     
  JOHN SHEPHERD, aide  to SENATOR  HALFORD, reviewed the  good                 
  points presented by  MR. TOMA, and thought  the constitution                 
  should  be  a living  document  reflecting the  will  of the                 
  people.    He   explained  the  principal  reason   for  the                 
  resolution,  and he reviewed  the statistics  on all  of the                 
  constitutional amendments  since Statehood.   He thought 80%                 
  of the people would  vote on an initiative to limit terms of                 
  TAPE 93-13, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
  SENATOR LITTLE asked if a person  could use an initiative to                 
  change  the  permanent fund,  and  MR. SHEPHERD  said people                 
  could try  to amend the constitution.   He explained several                 
  changes that could be made by initiative.                                    
  MR.  TOMA  responded by  explaining why  he thought  the two                 
  thirds vote  was destroying the  ability of people  to vote,                 
  and  he  reviewed  the  prevailing  fears  at  amending  the                 
  constitution. He said he trusted the  voters of the state to                 
  make the decisions and should be done on a 50% vote.                         
  There being no quorum, the bill stayed in committee.                         
  SENATOR  TAYLOR introduced  his  bill, SB  69 (RIGHT  TO USE                 
  LAWFUL   PRODUCTS)  and  invited  MIKE  MCMULLEN,  from  the                 
  Department of Administration, to testify.                                    
  MR.  MCMULLEN explained some  history on related legislation                 
  from  the previous  session, and he  said the  Department of                 
  Personnel had a problem  with the legislation, having to  do                 
  with off-duty conduct by law  enforcement officers.  He said                 
  off-duty conduct was recognized in other places, and he gave                 
  an example.  He thought the employer should be  able to take                 
  MR. MCMULLEN explained some amendments were offered in Labor                 
  and Commerce Committee and refused,  but the amendments have                 
  since been rewritten by the Department  of Law.  He reviewed                 
  the provisions  in the new amendments, with one dealing with                 
  job  performance  standards in  on-the-job conduct,  and the                 
  other dealing with health  insurance issues.  He  proposed a                 
  third amendment parallel  to number  one, which would  allow                 
  employers to take  disciplinary action  for conduct in  off-                 
  duty  hours  under  certain  circumstances.    MR.  MCMULLEN                 
  defended the amendments.                                                     
  Number 150                                                                   
  SENATOR  TAYLOR  and  MR.  MCMULLEN  discussed  examples  of                 
  discipline,  probationary  periods,   poor  judgement,   and                 
  standards  of  conduct on  the  part  of the  people  in the                 
  SENATOR TAYLOR said he was not able to move the bill because                 
  of a lack of quorum.                                                         
  MR. TOMA  quoted a  caller on  a call-in  program as  asking                 
  whether it was proper  for foster parents to smoke,  and MR.                 
  TOMA said he  didn't think foster  parents, as employees  of                 
  the state on  a 24 hour  basis, should be allowed  to smoke.                 
  He suggested the bill  was a smoker's and drinker's  bill of                 
  rights, but  he thought  the conduct  should be  considered.                 
  MR.  TOMA  didn't think  a child  should  be subjected  to a                 
  person who smokes  or drinks  - especially if  the state  is                 
  paying for the conduct.                                                      
  Number 214                                                                   
  SENATOR TAYLOR  asked MR. MCMULLEN  to respond, and  he said                 
  the  Division  of Personnel  didn't  view foster  parents as                 
  employees.  MR. MCMULLEN explained  the distinction was off-                 
  duty  conduct.   They  continued  to discuss  MR. MCMULLEN'S                 
  objections to the legislation.                                               
  There  being  no   further  business  to  come   before  the                 
  committee, the meeting was adjourned  without a quorum about                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects