CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 54(JUD): "An Act relating to violations of laws by juveniles, to the remedies for offenses and activities committed by juveniles and to records of those offenses, and to incarceration of juveniles who have been charged, prosecuted, or convicted as adults; and providing for an effective date." CO-CHAIR DRUE PEARCE announced that the Q-version of CSSB 54 dated 2-24-93 was being brought before the committee. She pointed out seven fiscal notes came with the bill totaling $318.2. Brant McGee, Director, Office of Public Advocacy, joined the committee via teleconference from Anchorage. SENATOR BERT SHARP moved for adoption CSSB 54 work draft "Q". Hearing no objections, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Co-chair Pearce invited Senator Rick Halford, sponsor of SB 54, to join the committee at the table. SENATOR HALFORD said the changes in the Q-version were technical amendments. The first major change is to provide for trial as adults by 16 and 17 year-olds who commit major felony crimes which are essentially unclassified felonies or class A felonies. The second change provides that if an individual had been adjudged to be an adult or is convicted of a felony, he or she will be tried as an adult. Thirdly, it provides for availability of records to victims of delinquent crime, and allows for mandatory restitution including the offender's PFD. Senator Halford stated that SB 54 affected several departments. He said that DPS and DHSS show zero fiscal notes. DOC shows a $10.0 fiscal note increasing over the years. He felt that there should be a savings in DHSS even though it may not be enforced. The largest fiscal notes are from the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA), and the Public Defender's Office (PDO). He said the Department of Law showed a fiscal note. He felt the fiscal notes for OPA and PDO could be reduced. CO-CHAIR STEVE FRANK asked for specific crimes that are covered under SB 54. Senator Halford outlined crimes that were included in the bill. Co-chair Frank asked how many juveniles would be effected by SB 54. JOHN SHEPHERD, aide to Senator Halford, said that DOC anticipates an additional 10 long-term juveniles into the system each year and is reflected in the fiscal note formula. DYFS anticipates 24 per year, DOL 25-30 cases a year. Senator Halford pointed out that some of the cases would be waived up under existing law. Mr. Shepherd said that between 10 and 20 juveniles are waived up each year. Senator Halford pointed out that juveniles unless they are waived are under DHSS not DOC and can be held until a year or two after their eighteenth birthday and not longer than their twentieth birthday. SENATOR STEVE RIEGER asked if you were prosecuted as an adult, and the charges are eventually lowered to a lesser crime, the juvenile would go back into the juvenile system. JACK CHENOWITH, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel and author of SB 54, answered affirmatively. Senator Rieger asked what second-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance and what is kidnapping. Mr. Chenowith was not able to define those crimes without referring to the statute. Senator Rieger asked if the repetitive nature of the crime would effect 16-18 year olds. Mr. Chenowith said that SB 54 stated a minor 16 years of age or older, if charged with a unclassified felony or a class A felony, would be charged as an adult. Co-chair Pearce asked if 16 and 17 year old gang members from another state could be captured if they had been convicted on a lesser charge. Mr. Chenowith answered negatively. He said they would had to have been convicted of a felony. Senator Rieger asked for an explanation solicitation to commit murder. Mr. Chenowith said he would need a statute but essentially it was prompting another individual to commit murder. Senator Rieger directed attention to page 3, line 24, and asked for an explanation. Mr. Chenowith said if a juvenile is charged with an unclassified felony and other charges, the felony causes the minor to treated as an adult. Co-chief Pearce asked what records are sealed and who can get to records that are not sealed. Senator Halford understood that as a minor all records are sealed unless the juvenile is tried in adult court. This would make it difficult for an individual to sue and recover any losses. Mr. Chenowith agreed that minor's records are sealed but if a person can persuade a judge that he or she has a legitimate interest, the records can be opened. He said that in SB 54 a person who had a legitimate interest was better defined. Co-chair Pearce asked if SB 54 gave new responsibility to parents of minors. Senator Halford said increasing the liability of parents for actions of their minor children had been considered. He said he was in support of increasing parental liability but it should be combined with legislation giving parents more control. Co-chair Pearce directed attention to Co-chair Frank's amendment to CSSB 54 and invited Jack Chenowith to explain it. Mr. Chenowith said the amendment he prepared that reversed the presumption as to accessibility of records as to offenses committed by minors 16 years of age and older. He cited the change in amendment #1 by Senator Frank (copy on file), page 1, to be in Section 1. "unless the record is, by law, a public record". This change makes an exception to the public records law under which juvenile records are closed. On page 2, changes to Section 8. amend CSSB 54 by making "the records of a minor 16 years or older at the time of the alleged offense and who was convicted or adjudicated a delinquent for the commission of that offense," a public record. On page 3 of amendment #1, he said the change said that names and pictures of minors who are children in need of aid are not available as public records. Names and pictures of minors who were not 16 years of age or older at the time of an alleged offense are not public record and not available for inspection. Conversely, names and pictures of minors 16 years of age or older are available for public record. Co-chair Frank felt that juveniles should be accountable for their actions as well as adults and the public had the right to know. Senator Rieger pointed out that at the end of page 3 of the amendment #1, the last sentence was not complete. Senator Rieger directed attention to page of CSSB 54. He asked if after 5 years records could be petitioned to be closed. Mr. Chenowith stated that under current law there was a mechanism in place by which criminal proceedings can be sealed after a period of five years. In CSSB 54 that stays in place except if the individual has not complied with the orders of the court, then the record would not be sealable. He reaffirmed that amendment #1 opened the record of a minor 16 years or older at the time he/she was involved in the alleged offense. SENATOR GEORGE JACKO asked if the court records were public record before the minor was convicted. Mr. Chenowith said that only the name and picture would be public record before a conviction. SENATOR TIM KELLY asked if minors were fingerprinted at the time of arrest. Mr. Shepherd believed that minors were fingerprinted but their fingerprints were not entered into the system for tracking purposes unless they are 16 years or older and have already been convicted. Co-chair Pearce asked Brant McGee, Director, Office of Public Advocacy, via teleconference, to respond to CSSB 54. BRANT MCGEE stated that he had doubts about the fiscal notes attached to the bill including the one for OPA and felt they were contradictory. He said if prior testimony was true that stated 10 percent of the felony crimes were committed by juveniles, then the impact on DOL would be more than a zero fiscal note. In respect to OPA's fiscal note, he explained that CSSB 54 would cause more felony trials to take place and felony trials were the most expensive. In looking at numbers generated by Family and Youth Services, FY92 under category 1A, it is stated that 28 of the 60 He said that by changing whole categories of defense into adult court cost would be increased for a number of other larger categories of cases. He said the waiver provisions of the statute were restricted to a small percentage of cases. End SFC-93 #28, Side 2 Begin SFC-93 #30, Side 1 Co-chair Pearce invited Randall Hines, Associate Coordinator, Division of Family Youth Services, Youth Corrections Program, Department of Health & Social Services, and Rick Barrier, Efficiency Analyst, Department of Corrections, to join the committee at the table. RICK BARRIER agreed that several set of numbers appeared in the analysis for CSSB 54. He said that CSSB 54 would cause the Department of Corrections to pick up additional inmates even if the charge is dropped to a lesser offense and the minor is returned to juvenile court. He said the fiscal note does not reflect that fact. He said the long term financial impact could be quite significant. In addition, the time served for juveniles would be longer and that will increases costs. This is a difficult to reflect on a fiscal note. He said some would end up in an adult facility anyway. RONALD HINES offered statistics regarding waivers requested. He said in FY91, there were eleven waivers requested and five granted by the court. In FY92, ten were requested and 9 were granted. In FY87, 8 waivers were requested, and 15 waivers were requested in FY88 & FY89. Senator Rieger asked by DHSS did not show a negative fiscal note. Mr. Hines said the amount of referral that this group of offenders represents is small compared to the caseload. In answer to Co-chief Pearce, Senator Halford said he did not remember if there were any recommendations about juvenile offenders in the Commissioner's task force. In understanding the fiscal notes, Senator Halford stated that two things were happening. One was the transfer of responsibility, and the other the change in length of the sentencing. He felt that there had to be a subsequent reduction in DHSS for any increase there was in DOC. Senator Sharp pointed out that the juveniles considered were serious and repeat offenders. He felt the protection of the public would be served by CSSB 54. Costs incurred may come earlier but would be offset by keeping the minor from committing other offenses at the public's expense. Co-chair Frank MOVED for adoption of amendment 1 dated February 25 1993. Senator Rieger OBJECTED. Senator Rieger was opposed to Section 9. in that protections usually pertaining to minors did not apply just because the juvenile was charged not convicted. Senator Rieger MOVED that an amendment be made to amendment 1 by removing Section 9. Co-chair Frank felt that if an individual was charged, the public had a right to know and proposed that protection of minors had gone too far. SENATOR GEORGE JACKO said he was in favor of the amendment. He felt the individuals' names and pictures should not be released to the public because of the detrimental effects upon them and their families. Senator Sharp confirmed that there was a small number of juveniles waived for judication. Mr. Hines repeated that in FY92 there were 10 requests made to the court to waive juveniles into adult court and 9 were granted. Senator Rieger asked what happened to the one minor that was not waived. Mr. Hines said the department recognizes the potential for humiliation for other family members if the minors' name and pictures are released and was sensitive to that fact. Co-chair Pearce asked for a roll call vote on the adoption of the amendment by Senator Rieger to amendment 1. YEA: Rieger, Kelly, Jacko NAY: Frank, Pearce, Sharp The amendment FAILED to be adopted by a vote of 3 to 3. Co-chair Pearce MOVED for adoption of amendment 1. Senator Rieger OBJECTED. He voiced his objection to Section 9. which removed the protection of public record prematurely before a juvenile is convicted. A roll call vote was taken on amendment 1. YEA: Sharp, Kelly, Frank, Pearce NAY: Jacko, Rieger The amendment was ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 2. Recess 10:20am Reconvene 10:25am