HOUSE BILL NO. 92 "An Act removing the victims' advocate and the staff of the office of victims' rights from the jurisdiction of the office of the ombudsman in the legislative branch." Vice Chair Stoltze, co-sponsor, spoke about his and Representative Samuels' work on victim's rights. He explained how the first ombudsman position was determined. The intent of the bill is to exempt the Office of Victim's Rights (OVR) from jurisdiction of the Ombudsman's Office. He related the purpose and mission of the (OVR). 2:36:26 PM Representative Kelly noted the zero fiscal note. Vice Chair Stoltze explained how the OVR is funded by PFD's of convicted felons. He emphasized that the bill is not about increasing responsibilities in the OVR. 2:38:20 PM Representative Crawford wondered about the history behind the need for the bill. Vice Chair Stoltze explained that the problem is a clash within agencies. The caseload for the ombudsman consists predominantly of prisoners and the caseload for the OVR is victims. There are some inherent conflicts of interest. This bill clarifies the original legislative intent. In response to a question from Representative Gara, Vice Chair Stoltze replied that the selection of the ombudsman was not a "political" process. 2:41:24 PM KATHY HANSEN, OFFICE OF VICTIMS RIGHTS (OVR), testified in favor of HB 92. She explained that OVR is a satellite office of the legislative branch, was created to assist crime victims with legal assistance free of charge, and is patterned after the ombudsman's office. She referred to a case in district court and highlighted conflicts between the two agencies. She noted statutes which prevent attorneys from accessing victims' files. OVR has access to records such as active criminal investigations and clemency files, which the ombudsman does not. She related an inappropriate use of the ombudsman's office. Ms. Hansen emphasized that the OVR reports to the legislature and that there is oversight by the Alaska Bar Association. Any fiscal impact would be negative, as there would be no duplication of efforts. 2:47:52 PM LINDA LORD JENKINS, STATE OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, spoke in opposition to the legislation. She reiterated that the legislation resulted from the sexual assault of a mentally impaired individual, who felt that OVR did not adequately review the complaint. She observed that the Office of the State Ombudsman issued a subpoena, which has not been honored by OVR. She noted that they continue to refer individuals to OVR, but emphasized that independence is needed to allow review of OVR. She suggested that OVR statutes do not allow OVR to speak to legislators about complaints without the victim's consent. She added that OVR is required to keep confidentiality and that legislative oversight would not fall within the narrow exception in AS 24.65.120. She urged a legal opinion by legislative counsel regarding OVR's ability to discuss specific case information with legislators. It is not within the power of the Office of the State Ombudsman to contravene a discretionary action taken by a governmental agency. She related further the reasons behind that opinion and when alternate courses of action could be taken. She maintained that the large caseload has led to complaints. She maintained it is not an issue of importance between the agencies, or a turf war, but that the ombudsman does have authorization to investigate complaints against OVR. 2:55:15 PM Representative Gara questioned if the concern investigated was valid. Ms. Jenkins stated that they were not able to investigate the case because OVR has not released records. REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, co-sponsor explained that the constitutional amendment in 1994 - the Victim's Rights Amendment - led to the creation of the OVR, which was intended to be an ombudsman's office and answer directly to the legislature. He maintained that the intent was clear. The bill makes it clear that both agencies answer to the legislature. The intent was for them to be sister agencies with separate functions. 2:59:24 PM In response to a question by Representative Gara, Ms. Jenkins said she could not answer regarding the substance of the complaint, but noted that there had only been two complaints about the quality of OVR's reviews. The prior complaint was decided in support of OVR. Representative Gara spoke in sympathy for the ombudsman's position, but also understood the reasoning behind the bill. 3:02:21 PM In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Ms. Jenkins reiterated her concern that there is a gap in review for the investigation of complaints regarding OVR. Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HB 92 out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HB 92 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal note #1 by the Legislative Affairs Agency. 3:05:47 PM