HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE January 28, 1997 3:03 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Con Bunde, Chairman Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman Representative Al Vezey Representative Brian Porter Representative Fred Dyson Representative J. Allen Kemplen Representative Tom Brice MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 6 "An Act amending laws relating to the disclosure of information relating to certain minors." - MOVED CSHB 6(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4 Relating to records generated and maintained by the Department of Health and Social Services. - MOVED HCR 4 OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 6 SHORT TITLE: RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY,Therriault,Vezey,Ogan,Dyson,Phillips,Ryan JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION 01/13/97 28 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97 01/13/97 28 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/13/97 28 (H) HES, JUDICIARY 01/14/97 59 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS 01/23/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 01/23/97 (H) MINUTE(HES) 01/28/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HCR 4 SHORT TITLE: SEPARATE RECORDS FOR DELINQUENTS & CINA SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY,Phillips,Dyson,Ryan JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION 01/13/97 21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/13/97 21 (H) HES, FINANCE 01/14/97 59 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS 01/15/97 78 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON 01/23/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 01/23/97 (H) MINUTE(HES) 01/28/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 411 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2327 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HCR 4 and HB 6 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General Central Office Criminal Division Department of Law Representing the Governor's Children's Cabinet P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Telephone: (907) 465-3191 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4 and CSHB 6(HES) TOM BEGICH, Executive Committee Member Governor's Conference on Youth and Justice P.O. Box 14277 Anchorage, Alaska 99514-2711 Telephone: (907) 243-7713 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4 and CSHB 6(HES) ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer III Anchorage Intake Unit Division of Family and Youth Services Department of Health and Social Services 2600 Providence Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Telephone: (907) 562-2285 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 6(HES) AL NEAR P.O. Box 80847 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 479-4090 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 6 JUDY SHIFFLER 929 Reindeer Drive Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Telephone: (907) 479-6104 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 6 BRUCE FOOTE P.O. Box 80809 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 479-6813 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified before the committee JOAN FOOTE P.O. Box 80809 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 479-6813 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 6(HES) BARBARA BRINK, Director Alaska Public Defender Agency 900 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 264-4400 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 6(HES) LAURA ROREM 9151 Parkwood Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-1647 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 6(HES) L. DIANE WORLEY, Director Central Office Division of Family and Youth Services Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110630 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630 Telephone: (907) 465-3191 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 6(HES) and HCR 4 CHRIS CHRISTNESEN, Staff Counsel Office of the Administrative Director Alaska Court System 820 West Fourth Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 264-8228 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 6(HES) and HCR 4 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 97-3, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Porter, Dyson, Kemplen and Brice. Representative Green joined the committee at 3:04 p.m. and Representative Vezey joined the committee at 3:09 p.m. This meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage and Fairbanks. HB 6 RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS HCR 4 SEPARATE RECORDS FOR DELINQUENTS & CINA Number 0042 CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the agenda included HB 6 "An Act amending laws relating to the disclosure of information relating to certain minors." and HCR 4, Relating to records generated and maintained by the Department of Health and Social Services. He stated that the committee had adopted a committee substitute version of HB 6 at the last meeting. He said there were amendments before the committee for CSHB 6(HES). Number 0135 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, sponsor of HB 6 and HCR 4, responded to questions raised at the January 23, 1997 committee meeting. He referred to a question raised by Representative Brice regarding what other states were doing regarding confidentiality. He said that some people had received a handout from the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS). On page 36 of this handout, it essentially talks about the fact that in 22 states juvenile court records are open and 39 states make some provision for disclosure of youthful offenders. He said that CSHB 6(HES) does not explore any new territory with the disclosure of juvenile records. Number 0231 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referred to Representative Porter's question regarding the federal 4E funds that will be placed in some jeopardy with the passage of CSHB 6(HES). He referred to an attachment which provides the language surrounding the 4E funds. He said he is not an expert of this language and referred any questions regarding it to DFYS. Number 0271 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referred to Representative Kemplen's questions regarding the tiering and why CSHB 6(HES) was not developed more along the lines of the three strikes and you're out. He said he is open to a discussion regarding this concept and any amendments would be given consideration by him. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he believed that covered the questions from the previous meeting. Number 0308 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON said testimony given at the previous meeting indicated a loss of $7 million, and then $900,000 in funds because the state would no longer comply with federal regulations. He asked if Representative Kelly's research backed up that loss. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said HCR 4 will prevent the state from losing $7 million. The $700,000 is still a number for debate. He said he was not completely convinced that the state will lose the $700,000, but there are those within DFYS who make a good case that in fact we will. He said he would defer the question to them. He said, at this point, he will make the assumption that the state will lose $700,000 in federal funds. If the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) goes ahead and runs with HCR 4 and reorganize DFYS, the state will not lose $7 million. Number 0400 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked him to explain the reorganization of DFYS. He said he assumed it separates the Children in Need of Aid (CINA) kids from the kids involved in the juvenile justice system. He asked how this reorganization solves the problem. Number 0440 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said it has to do with separating CINA from the delinquent kids and the records of each. He said DHSS as it is currently structured does not make consideration for their difference, it treats them essentially the same for federal purposes. He said they are kind of mixed together. He said he would feel much more comfortable, because of the vagaries of the restructuring, if DHSS answered the question. Number 0490 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said a major argument against CSHB 6(HES) has to do with the labeling or branding of kids that will follow them the rest of their lives and asked him to comment on that. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said it is a possibility that needs to be addressed. He said he is of the opinion that the protection of the public is of greater concern to the state. He said there are kids that are dealing in heinous crimes before they are brought to the attention of the public by being waived into adult court. He said these kids are playing with our kids, they are our kids, they are babysitting our kids, in our kids schools, on the basketball teams and the like. He said the threat to public safety that is represented by the public not knowing who these kids are far outweighs any stigma to them in later life. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the other thing, which was said in testimony last week, was that as a community we cannot come to the aid of these kids unless we know who they are. He said if he had a nephew who was having trouble, he would want to know about it. He would want to take him out hunting or something like that and ask him what is going on, what is with you, what can we do to help. He said, absent the knowledge that this is going on, the community cannot come to the aid of that kid in even the most rudimentary fashion of taking him out to have some fries or something if you know him and want to talk to him. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said, more specifically to address that question, it has been suggested that we seal the records in the future. The record is open and if the kid is clean for five years then the record is sealed back up. Everyone shakes hands says you did well you came through this and now we're going to just treat you like everyone else. He said he did not have an objection to putting that change in CSHB 6(HES). He said it addresses the problem. Once you add this change then the whole argument over stigma or whether we open the record regarding misdemeanors or felonies becomes less important because the kid will then get that second chance later on. Number 0662 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he agreed with Representative Kelly and said there is an additional benefit which is to get the kid's attention. He said, of the kids he knows that are involved with criminal activities, the most difficult thing to do is to get their attention. Number 0691 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said the committee would take overview testimony from the bill sponsor, departments, hear from the testimony from people on teleconference and then the committee would address the amendments. Number 0719 CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to the $700,000 potential loss and said he explored this in a slightly different venue with adult criminals. He said the costs to catch them, prosecute them, re-catch them, re- prosecute, ad nauseam and what they cost the public in damages, lost property, time which are pure financial costs and do not include the mental and emotional costs. He asked if this aspect had been looked at that in comparison with the $700,000. He said it is claimed that a single adult felon does $200,000 worth of damage a year. Number 0765 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he thought you could make the case that there is prevention in CSHB 6(HES), that if a youthful offender was worried about the stigma they might be less inclined to commit some crimes. He clarified that Chairman Bunde was referring to the fact that there would be fewer crimes. Number 0790 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said yes, or if we don't do something there will be more crime. He said we might still get the $700,000 but maybe the state will lose $1 million because of additional property damage and cost to the community. Number 0793 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he could not tell him, on a one for one basis, what the difference of having disclosure would make. He had not heard of any nationwide statistics that could actually give a number. Number 0808 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER said he would address questions concerning the $700,000 loss to DFYS. Number 0883 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office, Criminal Division, Department of Law, Representing the Governor's Children's Cabinet, was next to testify. She said the Administration generally agrees with the principle that more public disclosure of juvenile criminal records. She said this question has been looked at by DHSS, Public Safety, Department of Law, Department of Community of Regional Affairs and the Department of Corrections about where the lines should be drawn. She said an important line is disclosure of felonies versus misdemeanors. The purpose of disclosure can be a measure to protect the public and therefore it makes sense to distinguish between misdemeanors and felonies. Those who commit felonies present a greater and different risk to the community than those who are committing misdemeanors. MS. KNUTH said a second purpose of public disclosure is to use it as a tool for getting the juvenile's attention. She would suggest that there are other ways of doing that, especially with misdemeanants, that can be much more effective because what you want to do is address that juvenile's circumstances. She said to go through a public disclosure that says who the child is, who the child's parents but isn't tailored to that kid's circumstances. The Administration's position is going to be that we should be using community action to address, particularly regarding misdemeanants, a specific intervention for those juveniles. MS. KNUTH said if you are in Elim or Koyuk it might be a village community court. If you are in Anchorage it could be a hearing officer system. She said this action would provide eye to eye contact and a process to go through where you are ordered to pay restitution, where you are ordered to perform community work service and where, if you don't do these things, you can be sentenced or sent back to DHSS for a juvenile delinquency proceeding. It would be a hammer to hold over their head. She said this would be more effective for dealing with those kids than simply creating a public record for them. Number 1027 MS. KNUTH said the downside of creating a public record, especially for misdemeanants, is that every employer is going to want to have that information when making a hiring decision for kids. She said ages 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are most important for these kids to become productive, contributing members of society. She said if you have this public record forum, these kids are not going to be hired. These kids might be the ones who need the jobs the most to be able to turn the corner. Number 1057 MS. KNUTH said the five year provision for sealing the records does not address this because you have to be clean for five years. She said if you are 14, 15 or 16 when you commit the offenses, it will be on your record for employers, the United States Armed Service to see until you are 19, 20 and 23. It means that you are going past a critical time when these kids ought to be able to get good jobs. Number 1094 MS. KNUTH said, in terms of using disclosure as a tool of prevention, it assumes a reasonableness in the rationality to a youthful population that we don't actually have a basis for attributing them. She said kids are impulsive, hormonally driven and have bad impulse control. They are judgement impaired. She said that is why traditionally we have had two systems; the juvenile system and the adult system. It is like you are crazy until you get to a certain point of life experience where suddenly you are able to make the connections, that you say, "Oh, yeah, what I do today has an impact on tomorrow. Turning in my homework or not turning in my homework actually makes a difference in my G.P.A. and what college I get to go to." Number 1143 MS. KNUTH questioned at what point, physiologically and sociologically, kids actually are making connections and making rational decisions. She said it is much closer to 16 than it is to 13 or 14 or even 15. It is for that reason that the Administration supports a bill that opens the records for those who are 16 and older because at that point they have been given a lot of privileges and responsibilities under our existing statutes. It is at age 16 that you can get a driver's license, you can petition the court for emancipation, consent to sexual relations and you are required to get a fishing license. There are a whole host of activities; both privileges and responsibilities that we peg on kids at that age. She said this could be one more of these interim measures which would say that you are not an adult yet, but you are no longer going to be coddled. Number 1293 MS. KNUTH said she believed DHSS has some more specific information they can provide about what group of kids we are talking about and what their capabilities are. She noted in the material the sponsor provided, when he talked about 22 states and 39 states, their disclosure regards serious and violent juvenile crime. She said when we are looking at what other states are doing, they are doing the same thing that we are proposing in Alaska. The states are starting with the kids that are committing the felony offenses, the felonies that are crimes against a person and basically approaching this in a multi-step fashion. Let's start with those kids, those offenses with the possibility of opening up later on. She said it is awfully hard to unring a bell or to change a practice in the law, in public disclosure to go back to confidentiality. She said other states are using a stepping stone approach. Number 1340 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said all of the things that the Administration is suggesting would be appropriate public and community responses to misdemeanor offenses and said there is nothing in CSHB 6(HES) that would preclude the community from doing all of those things. Number 1357 MS. KNUTH said there is not, but it could work at cross purposes with the community's response to the public disclosure. For example, one of the options that is available is a victim-offender mediation and there are instances where that is best done privately rather than in a public forum. She said the victim could feel more comfortable without that publicity. She said there is nothing inherently inconsistent, but there might be inconsistencies depending on what the community approach is going to be. MS. KNUTH noted that statistically virtually every person in this room has committed a crime sometime in their life. She said it is true of all these children here and the question is whether they got caught and what happened as a result of it. She said we can't get through our lives without running up against these walls. She said sometimes what it is to be a kid, is finding out where the limits are. Sometimes they find these limits by going over the edge. Number 1430 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that one of his foster kids did 70 burglaries before he was 12 years old. He was smart and only ripped off coke dealers because they never went to the cops and always had lots of cash. He never took all their money and most of the time they never knew they had been ripped off. He was in the criminal justice system. When he was 17, he got a job as a security guard and has been successful at that. He asked if her position would be that the firm that hired his foster son had no right to know how successful a cat burglar he had been as a juvenile. MS. KNUTH said that is correct. If this person is to have the benefit of being a juvenile and has not been waived to adult court, then yes, there are times when we err on one side or the other. We would like to target that one person. The question is how do you target just that one person. She said we hear five or six or seven bad stories like that which make us very uncomfortable. She asked what we should do about the 35,000 kids that had minor consuming or shop lifting, the most commonly committed offense in the United States. Number 1530 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to another example in his home where a 6 year old girl was molested by a 13 year old on Christmas Eve. He said that after the offense they found out that the boy had two prior convictions in California and his favorite way of expressing his anger was to set people's house on fire. He said he wished he had known this information. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he is now dealing with the tragedy of the 6 year old who had been traumatized. He said you cannot make laws based on the hard cases, but most of the 15 foster kids he had were sexually molested many of them by other juveniles. He said that is why many people are concerned and predisposed, for the sake of protecting against further victims, that we err on the side of the victims. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said hopefully the boy's attention has been gotten and that maybe the resources can be gotten. He said unless you get his attention and put him in a lock-up facility that his actions will just continue with more and more victims. He said it is for the concern of the future victims that sets us on this course and is at the heart of what the sponsor is after. He asked what she would do. Number 1597 MS. KNUTH said the first thing she would do is a measure that is sitting on her desk. The measure would have a juvenile sex offender task force appointed in this state because Representative Dyson identified one of the most accessible problems that the state can start doing something about. She said juvenile sex offenders do not have any special treatment available to them in this state at this point. By the time they become adults the number of victims that they have already can be discouraging. She said we need to address this problem, both for the offender and for all of our other children. Somewhere this cycle has to be broken. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he was waiting for her to say that we need to do something for the potential victims. Number 1650 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said this shows the intensity of our concern, however, he felt he needed to bring the testimony back to CSHB 6(HES). He said even though this discussion does impact CSHB 6(HES) on a tangent maybe it doesn't address the focus of what we are trying to do. He said the committee will have the opportunity of pursuing this discussion further. He said he keeps saying that we all have the same goal, but the routes there are probably a bit different. Number 1678 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN referred to Ms. Knuth's comment that statistically everyone in this room has committed a crime. He said it is a crime, not crimes and said CSHB 6(HES) addresses is the second time a juvenile is caught, not the second time he has done something. He expressed concern that we read the statistics saying that somewhere in the neighborhood of 95 percent of the crimes are committed by 5 percent of the people. He said a small number of people do most of the crimes. A lot of us may have statistically committed a crime, got caught, got our knuckles rapped and decided we would not do that again. He said, perhaps, if that is true then the majority of the people that get caught the first time are not even going to be involved in CSHB 6(HES). It is those people that repeat the crime and get caught. He asked if we are really looking at a small segment of the population when we are talking about repeat offenders as opposed to all juveniles considered. Number 1734 MS. KNUTH said that if we were talking about adjudications for delinquency and you were talking about a second one, then that might be a viable distinction in the population. She said one of the things that this committee is looking at, and you can make a strong argument for, is that it ought to include the informal adjustments as well. She said this would mean backing up into time to those cases that don't make it to court, but there is action that is going on. She said there are a number of kids that are in this hiatus of their life where it isn't simply one offense, but one peak of an episode of ongoing shoplifting, ongoing acting out. She said she would be concerned if he was talking about second adjustments, because that could be just a part of this episodic incident. She guessed that when we say that people commit one crime and then don't come back to the system, we mean that they don't come back to the formal system of getting to court twice for these convictions. She said there might be kids that are floundering short of that if we are looking at adjustments. Number 1792 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said if that was the case, then the system is not handling them properly. He expressed concern that we are erring on the side of caution to prevent psychologically marking these children. We are concerned that society won't let these kids go into the service or that society will frown on them until they finally get their act together at age 16 or 17. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked why society had to incur the problems and make dispensations and compensations for a small group of people that create crimes or problems, when a vast majority of the teenagers don't get involved in this. They know what the rules are and abide by the rules. He said they might push the envelope about getting in late, but most teenage kids are good kids. He said we hear about the bad teenage kids. We are trying to do something about the bad teenage kids to protect society because society has been taking it on the chin for too long. He said CSHB 6(HES) is an attempt to address those who are repeat offenders and let society be aware of them. If society does want to help, and he thinks they would, they would at least know who they are. He said the Dysons of the world would know that this boy coming into their home is an arsonist and someone else knows that this kid has been down the road a couple of times. He said otherwise we are fat, dumb and happy and have made ourselves a target. Number 1913 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE clarified that the Administration does not have a problem with making public the names of felons. He said we currently do that under the juvenile waiver bill where unclassified and Class A felons are automatically waived and their names become public. He said instances of sexual assault are felonies and clarified that no one has said that this should not be made available to a foster parent by any means. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if arson was a misdemeanor or felon. Number 1958 MS. KNUTH said that arson is a felony. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that no one is saying that information should not be available. Number 1967 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said the Administration's bill says that if you are age 16 and commit one of these felonies, then the information is available. Currently, if you are 14 and you commit anything, that doesn't waive you to adult court, it is kept confidential. Number 1992 TOM BEGICH, Executive Committee Member, Governor's Conference on Youth and Justice and has also served on the (indiscernible) Health Advisory Committee and is the National Chair on the Coalition for Juvenile Justice. He said the issues discussed in the committee today were discussed at length at the Governor's Conference. He said, through that process, everyone agreed that more disclosure was necessary and said they arrived at the benchmark of 16 to 17 year old. He said assault in the third degree, those assaults that were felonies against a person, etc. were also included in which names should be disclosed. He said these benchmarks were arrived at after a lot of deliberation with arguments on both sides. He said he appreciated that Representative Kelly brought these arguments forward. MR. BEGICH said he wanted to express his support for the position that the Administration has made. He said stigmatization does exist for less violent juvenile offenders and is something that needs to be considered. The five year possibility is an issue because once those records go into the system, they are there permanently because computer services and other private companies can draw those records. He said Motznik Computer Services in Anchorage does this, so the records actually become permanent. He said if you had a Suspended Imposition of Sentence (SIS) some years ago, he could go back and pull your record to show that you had a conviction in the past, regardless of whether your record had been cleared. Number 2072 MR. BEGICH said the possibility that you would give a potentially non-violent offender fame among their peers is another issue. He said the possibility that you would give them fame among their peers is another issue. He said he could not stress strongly enough the ability of community service in turning juveniles around. He said we have all been concerned about juvenile crime over the last few years, but records in Anchorage, in 1985, showed a direct decline in juvenile crimes except the most heinous crime of murder. He said this figure increased by two actual murders. He said the first half of 1986 and the last statistics that were available, showed a continuing rate of decline. MR. BEGICH said U.S. Attorney General Reno recently in early December, released information that showed 13 to 14-year-olds led the decline in the national juvenile crime rate which has reversed over the last few years and has begun to decline dramatically. He said, statistically, the community service effort in addition to more cops on the streets, which has occurred both nationally and in the state of Alaska, has had an impact specifically on juvenile crime. He said there is some speculation that programs such as Youth Court in Anchorage and other programs, which are slapping a stigma from peers on these first time offenders, are having a direct impact on those less violent offenders. Number 2106 MR. BEGICH referred to Representative Dyson's comments and said in regard to the foster son, California would also have to have a law that opened up its records. He said you would want the same type of bill as CSHB 6(HES) would be available in other states. He said the juvenile that committed 70 crimes and never got caught, never got caught and those are not records that could not necessarily be found. "And in terms of the sex offender, I am in complete agreement. I think that in all three of these incidences, if there is a criminal record now, I personally believe that a foster parent ought to know. That is different though than public disclosure. It is (indiscernible due to coughing) as opposed to something that goes public, and I think that could probably be accommodated in your bill." Number 2194 MR. BEGICH said there are some recent statistics from the Rand Group of California that indicate the most cost effective way of reducing the amount of community costs that juvenile crime leads to over the lifetime of the juvenile, is prevention and incentives in high school. He said this is precisely the age group that is effected by CSHB 6(HES). He reiterated his support of CSHB 6(HES), but perhaps changing the language so that it reads age 16 and above and for assault in the third degree, keeping in mind that we want to separate out those who are most violent. He said we all have a commitment to protect the public from those that are most violent while trying to insure that we don't continue to shift and divert costs to stigmatize kids and end up becoming criminals because they get the tag. He said in a sense they are treated as throw aways by society. Number 2238 MS. KNUTH said she felt obliged to note that the Administration's position isn't to disclose all felonies, but felony crimes against a person, so it is a little narrower. Number 2247 ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer III, Anchorage Intake Unit, Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health and Social Services was next to testify. He said he personally and professionally has a strong commitment to the protection and safety of the community. He said that is half of what his job responsibility is as a juvenile probation officer. The other half of his job responsibility is to meet the needs of youth in an endeavor to prevent subsequent delinquent behavior. He said it is a constant balancing act. He questioned when the need for public safety outweighs the issue of addressing the treatment needs of the kid. Some of those decisions are pretty cut and dried when we are talking about sexual assault in the first degree. MR. BUTTCANE said sharing that information, as needed, will help insure the public safety. He questioned whether or not it put the community at risk when some young person takes their mother's ATM card and withdraws $20 to go out dancing. He questioned whether this family condition should be broadcast to the public. He said it is not an easy thing to decide where to draw the line. He is glad this issue has come to the public table and it is time to take at look at what does not suit the conditions of our world today. MR. BUTTCANE said he had some concerns about Section 2 and Section 5 of CSHB 6(HES). He said when he looks at the issues of balancing to meet the needs of the youth and to protect the public safety, these two sections start to move in a direction that throws things out of balance. He said he would focus on those provisions of Section 5 regarding second time offenders. MR. BUTTCANE said it is not an uncommon case scenario for his office staff in Anchorage to run across a situation where a younger teenager had been caught shoplifting at the Dimond Center. He said most of the time these are very minor shoplifts such as a t-shirt, a candy bar or something of small economic value, but illegal nonetheless. He said his office gets the original referral, do an intake interview with the family and in those cases, absent any other presenting issue, the office refers that juvenile to an anti- shoplifting class. TAPE 97-3, SIDE B Number 0000 MR. BUTTCANE said the juvenile attends the class and that is the end of it. He said the Dimond Center issues a trespass advisory to the child saying that for a period of time; sometimes a month, six months, sometimes a year the child may not set foot on the Dimond Center grounds and if you do then you will be arrested for trespassing. He said you get a 14-year-old, who has shoplifted one time, but days, weeks and months later gets arrested for a criminal trespass in the second degree. He said, as he understood the provisions in CSHB 6(HES), at that point the juvenile's name would be published publicly. He said that 14-year-old does not present any significant risk to the public's safety given the behavior and the circumstances that child comes with. Number 0031 MR. BUTTCANE said what he has found with second time juvenile offenders typically present themselves with a number of common issues. Some of those issues relate to family stresses of some nature, such as parents going through a divorce or have divorced. It might be an authority control issue between a parent and a step- parent or a single parent issue. He said there are family stresses at the parental level. There might be financial issues where the family is struggling to meet their bills. He said their interaction within the family home comes out of all these concerns. There might be other children in the family and added that it is not so unusual that there is a baby in the family that is requiring a great deal of extra attention by the parents, so the 14 year old is left to their own devices. MR. BUTTCANE said he sees the 14-year-old unsupervised afterschool, typically not doing well in school, not particularly hooked into any kind of constructive activity and they tend to associate with a more fringe or negative peer group. He said it is not that they are presenting themselves as truly criminally minded, but they are drifting. They are sort of on the fence of whether or not they are going to grow up, get their act together and hook into something positive or whether they are indeed going to go on to take steps to become career criminals in gangs or whatever. Number 0102 MR. BUTTCANE said he has found, in those situations, what works best is when you can sit down with that second time offender and take real specific corrective action to address the whole variety of presenting issues. You sit down with the mom and dad and start to suggest ideas about how to parent an adolescent. He said it is sometimes a challenge to figure out what a teenager is all about. Some parents have never had discussions with anyone about what is the difference between an 8-year-old and the 14-year-old except the parents know they are going insane while the 14-year-old is growing up. He said you suggest to the parents that they start looking at how they might respond to the kid in a different way that will produce a more positive result. You might discuss with the family what their options are to provide afterschool supervision. A special funds request might be sent to DFYS regional office to get some additional monies to get this kid into karate class. He said it is those hours between afterschool and before mom or dad get home when these trespass problems, these little issues. He said you specifically identify what it is that brought the young person there, what it was that seemed to contribute to the delinquent behavior and then you go to work to solve that. Number 0155 MR. BUTTCANE said if this case moved into the public spotlight, his ability to be able to engage the parent in a willing process to try something a little different such as engaging them in a parenting classes to give them some understanding about adolescents might not work. Moving the case into the public spotlight gives parents more reason to say, "You're a bad kid. We don't have anything to do with this. You're the one that messed up. You're responsible." He said when you look at the whole picture, it is a lot more complex than just a black and white, did the kid make the right decision or not by stepping foot on the Dimond Center grounds after that initial shoplift. Number 0188 MR. BUTTCANE repeated that there are circumstances where it is real appropriate that we release information to the community. There are crimes and cases where public safety does take a priority in this balancing act. He said the offenses that are covered in CSHB 6(HES), as it is now worded, does great harm to a number of these young people that are criminal. Yes, they have stepped out of bounds, but what they need is to be held accountable for their behavior. We need to implement appropriate responses that fix some of those issues which contributed to the reason that they came to the juvenile intake office or why the police were involved in their lives in the first place. In this attempt to balance things, he would recommend a closer examination to the scope that is allowed for in CSHB 6(HES). He said there needs to be another way that we can still find that balance. Number 0234 MR. BUTTCANE said there is another part in CSHB 6(HES) relating to victim notification. Number 0247 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said there is a proposed amendment that will address this concern. Number 0252 MR. BUTTCANE responded to a comment that Representative Dyson had made. He said, within the current process of DFYS, when children are placed as a foster placement it is common sense to let the foster parent know everything that DFYS knows about that child that would help them be able to guide and direct that young person or to control and supervise. He said if that was a DFYS placement it is inappropriate and even if it wasn't it was absolutely incredible that someone would put a child in someone else's home and not share information about him. He said it is that kind of history, that kind of concern that jeopardizes the whole family. He said you would certainly let the family know what this young person was all about when they were put there so the family can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to provide treatment or placement for that young person. He said it would be as equally outrageous if the young person had an allergy to milk and you forgot to tell the foster parent. He said if this type of thing is happening it needs to be corrected. He said he is not aware that this type of information is withheld when a young person is placed in another family's home. He hoped that his colleagues within the DFYS are not taking that type of case action. Number 0339 AL NEAR testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said he was a recent victim of a crime. He said until about 30 years ago, our young people were not granted their constitutional rights to due process. He said this was changed by the U.S. Supreme Court's Golf decision in 1967. He said having their names made public for some alleged crime, no matter how trivial, was the least of their worries. Doing serious time for even a minor offense was quite real. He said today's kids still do not have equal protection under the law, their rights exceed those of adults. He said the pendulum has swung too far. Clearly we must not return to the kangaroo youth courts of the past, but we need to make some reasoned adjustments. He said maintaining an uncompromising veil of secrecy around juvenile proceedings serves no one, least of all a repeat offender. All to often these young people lose their juvenile status prematurely by escalating their criminal activity until the courts must try them as adults. He said he favored the chair's approach to disclosure as embodied in HB 6. Number 0386 JUDY SHIFFLER testified next via teleconference from Fairbanks. She said this bill is a good bill towards helping our kids in Alaska. She said our communities need to know that we are trying to prevent reoccurring negative behavior on the part of our juveniles. We need to provide consistent predictable consequences for these kids caught breaking our laws. Today we merely tap, not even slap them on the hand and they so often return to continue an increased negative behavior. She said the system has become so worried about hurting a youngster's feelings or impinging on their rights that now in effect we hurt the youngster's future by letting them easily perpetuate their problem. She said there might a stigma attached to public disclosure. She said as a long time educator and youth worker she felt strongly that these children will receive plenty of support from their schools, churches, neighbors and so on as they are straightening up. People will be paying better and more positive attention to these kids knowing that they especially need it. Public disclosure is a strong step towards making our youth more accountable for their behavior and also makes their parents and guardians more aware of and accountable for their behavior. She said she saw HB 6 as a positive step forward for the kids of Alaska. Number 0462 BRUCE FOOTE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He questioned what is considered a felony and a (indiscernible) if someone breaks into a home and destroys a lot of out of date prints and first edition prints that might value in the thousands of dollars. "I agree with you in part and a first offense (indiscernible) not having their name published. I agree with you, but the (indiscernible) small financial van that you break in and the person has some counseling and gets out of it. You mentioned about some of these children paying restitution. Well, you can't even collect restitution from a uninsured motorist in an automobile accident, how do you expect a youngster to pay restitution saying he causes a $120,000 worth of damage on a break-in depending what a person has in his home at that time. Another thing is when is individual going to be responsible for their own actions. It seems like nobody is going to tell these kids, hey you take drugs and you do a break-in, we didn't tell you to take the drugs, you did that under your own consensus and you're the one that made the mistake, we did. When is the victim's rights on being able to protect that property (indiscernible) nobody has mentioned the victim's rights on any of this. If I'm sleeping in my house at night, my house is dark and I double lock and I double bolt my doors if someone can bust through a window I sleep with a shot gun fully loaded. I sleep with a 45 caliber pistol fully loaded, I'm not going to break this who's coming in, I'm going plow them down in the floor. To me that is an assumed threat and that hasn't been discussed at all on individual's rights in protecting their own property in their house." MR. FOOTE said the military has a problem with these kids coming into the service without knowing their offenses. He said this is a problem for the military. He asked if a first offense person breaks into seven or eight homes whether or not it was considered an offense per home, or if they were linked together as one offense. He said it should be eight different offenses. He said he hoped the committee would consider these things. Number 0571 JOAN FOOTE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She said she is very concerned about the youth today and how we can help them become (indiscernible) citizens. She said when the youth find themselves in trouble it seemed to her that the sooner we can put them on a positive foot the better. She said the consequences need to be real, they need to be immediate, and they need to be consistent. It is important that they realize that the system is trying to help them change their behavior, but the community also is the one trying to help them change their behavior. It is not necessarily a bad or an evil thing, that you can change. She thought that if the parents realized that they can get help and that everybody was working toward changing their behavior. She disagreed with the witness who said the offender should be protected from exposure to the public. If we know for a fact the offender is being helped to move forward and if this community knows that parent is trying to do things that will help the offender reform then in the long run the community will realize that the law is working for everybody; the victim and the offender and that you will find more community support for the whole criminal system. MS. FOOTE said HB 6 is moving in the right direction and she liked the tiered disclosure which was developed. Number 0655 BARBARA BRINK, Director, Alaska Public Defender Agency, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She said that part of what public defenders do is to represent children who are accused of delinquent acts. Parents are also represented in CINA cases. Based on her experience she would like to talk about some, perhaps, unintended consequences of this particular proposal. She said her main concern has to do with the loss of privacy without a determination of guilt. She said she was happy to see the latest version of CSHB 6(HES) eliminated the ability of law enforcement to allow release of this information simply after arrest. Number 0699 MS. BRINK said she still has concerns about the child who has been informally adjusted and then has a second adjustment referred to juvenile intake. An informal adjustment does not necessarily contain any finding of guilt or an admission of wrongdoing. Informal adjustments are often handled because the state really doesn't have the proof that it needs to prove that a crime existed. The witness has left or there are other reasons that it is a shaky case that wouldn't withstand adjudication. No juvenile that is adjusted is required to admit that he is guilty, but rather it is a process where everyone agrees what ought to happen. She said there is no adjudication, no trial, no trial or determination of guilt as it really is not important to what needs to be accomplished. Number 0729 MS. BRINK said she has concerns about CSHB 6(HES) because it does allow those children who are informally adjusted to have all this information be made public. Certainly, she agreed with the Administration's position that we need to limit the type of cases that we allow information to be released about. She had some concerns about releasing information at all. One of the gentlemen who previously spoke noted that the juvenile justice system has changed a lot in the last 30 years. Chief Justice Reinquist, who by no stretch of the imagination is usually considered a friend to the accused or to the juvenile delinquent, was very protective of the juvenile justice system. MS. BRINK read a portion of a conferring opinion Chief Justice Reinquist wrote about the juvenile system, "It is a hallmark of our juvenile justice system in the United States that virtually from its inception at the end of the last century its proceedings have been conducted outside of the public's full gaze and the youths brought before our juvenile courts have been shielded from publicity. This insistence on confidentiality is born of a tender concern for the welfare of the child, to hide his youthful errors and `bury them in the graveyard of the forgotten past.' The prohibition of publication of a juvenile's name is designed to protect the young person from the stigma of his misconduct and is rooted in the principle that a court concerned with juvenile affairs serves as a rehabilitative and protective agency of the state. Publication of the names of juvenile offenders may seriously impair the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system and handicap the youths' prospects for adjustment in society and acceptance by the public. This exposure brings undue embarrassment to the families of youthful offenders and may cause the juvenile to lose employment opportunities or provide the hardcore delinquent the kind of attention he seeks, thereby encouraging him to commit further antisocial acts." MS. BRINK said that Justice Reinquist, even 20 years ago, recognized how important the stigmatization or branding might be on someone. Additionally cited two clinical psychological studies that talked about the effects of publicity on juveniles. Both of these studies both concluded that the publicity placed an additional stress on the juvenile during a difficult period of adjustment in the community. Even in those children who were making an adequate adjustment, publicity interfered at various points when they were otherwise doing well. She said this is the concern, particularly for these children who are informally adjusted, if protection of the public is our paramount concern and it is absolutely a legitimate concern. Let's limit the bill to the more serious allegations, the more serious offenses and older offenders after we have actually have proven, fairly, that they did the crime they are accused of. MS. BRINK said the unintended consequence of CSHB 6(HES) are very broad. We have talked a lot about community involvement and said you have to recognize that we handle things today much differently than we did in the past. Every fight in a school lunch room, every taking of lunch money, every time you take mom's car out and joy ride around the block are all things that used to be handled as a family and as a community. Today, we call the police. More children's names be published than could be handled at a local level. Number 0892 MS. BRINK said expunging records which has been suggested and sealing those records later really doesn't unring the bell. The child gets stigmatized and branded and can have the opposite effect on this kid than the one we want. He won't be able to get that job at the local gas station which would help him understand the value of hard work. He won't be able to join the military which might help him shape up. Parents won't let their kids play with those kids, they will be shunned in their own community, shunned at school. They won't be able to participate in group activities or meet those kids that would be a positive influence on them. These are not the kids we want to target. MS. BRINK said, in summary, what we are doing here is that we are lumping together the worst of the kids, the ones to be afraid of, with the ten-year-old who really doesn't have the judgement yet to make good decisions. She urged this committee to seriously consider other legislation or amending CSHB 6(HES) to limit public disclosure to those cases where it will really impact public safety. Number 0934 LAURA ROREM said she is the parent of two adopted children, ages 21 and 24, who have suffered from brain disorders their entire lives. One of the children has a major mental illness and the other lives with Fetal Alcohol Effects (FAE). She said she is member of the Alaska Mental Health Board (AMHB) and her husband is a Lutheran pastor here in Juneau and heavily involved in mental health issues in the community. She said she is here today wearing her hat as a family member and an advocate for children of all ages who suffer from neurobiological and organic brain disorders and their facilities. She was not speaking on behalf of the AMHB today as the board has not taken an official position on this bill yet. MS. ROEM said she wished to thank the committee for this opportunity to address how HB 6 will adversely effect this special population of people and their families. Neurobiological Disorders and organic brain disorders such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) and/or FAE are no fault diseases that affect behavior, thinking processes, mood, judgement, reason, and decision to name only a few symptoms. They are caused by biochemical and/or structural abnormalities in the brain. Weakness of will and bad parenting are not to blame. These illnesses are not caused by problems in living, bad environment, abuse or neglect. These diseases are grossly misunderstood, and treatment for them is sporadic, haphazard, difficult to access and blame oriented. Number 1043 MS. ROEM asked everyone to imagine for a moment the public response to heart disease treatment if it were delivered in the same way as it is to those with brain diseases. First, a bureaucratic red-tape cluster of community cardiac health centers requiring those with heart disease or their parents to present medical, legal just cause which is difficult to obtain for hospitalization or treatment if a cardiac breakdown occurs. Then once a month, if that, doctors see the patient for 15 minutes at the center and, of course, it is up to the cardiac patient to get there on their own, even if it means walking for miles and it could hurt their heart condition. A cardiac episode requiring hospitalization specifies stabilization and discharge in 5 or 10 days, unless the patient is ruled a criminal, having somehow wound up in jail overnight along the way. Meanwhile at the state cardiac hospital, criminal patients are housed on the same grounds as everyone else. At the same time, the parents are desperately trying to get quick and appropriate treatment for their child's life threatening disease only to be blamed for causing their child's heart disease or being told repeatedly by the cardiac treatment center that "We have to wait until your child commits a crime first before we can help him." Then when the child finally commits a crime, in spite of parental efforts to prevent it, their child's name and their name is published for all to see. This is done even though appropriate intervention was repeatedly denied by professional care givers, and the public shame of their child's heart disease would increase. MS. ROEM said a child with heart disease is not apt to commit a crime without treatment, he is apt to die. A brain disease is also life threatening without appropriate treatment. There is also the possibility the child may commit some kind of misdemeanor along the way. This occurs, not because the child is bad, but because a child with a brain disorder has a diseased organ of decision, reason and judgement. It is not uncommon for these children to end up in the juvenile justice system because their parents have been unable to find, and therefore they have not received appropriate treatment for their disease. MS. ROEM said children and adults with brain disorders are good people, they are not criminals, but their brains are damaged and wired wrong. They are often incapable of making the distinction between right and wrong or are unable to understand consequences, no matter how hard they try to stay on track, and no matter how hard their parents try to teach them right from wrong. MS. ROEM said we are good parents with good children. We begged for help for years without getting any, instead we were offered blame and the runaround. That would not happen if our child had heart disease, leukemia, cerebral palsy or diabetes. We did everything we could, only to be repeatedly told, "you have to wait until he commits a crime first." Our children did not want to commit a crime, and as parents, we went above and beyond the call of duty to prevent it. But there were times his or her brain would explode and he or she would run away trying to get away from the pain in their brain and end up doing something wrong because of it. To prevent them from committing a crime, and as a last resort, we finally hospitalized them out of state; six months for one and two years for the other. If they had committed a crime and our child's name and ours would have been published it would not have served as a detriment, nor would it have brought about intervention. Instead our child, and we, would have been further ostracized and blamed, publicly humiliated and our lives would have been further destroyed. No one would have cared to help us. It would have brought punishment rather than treatment. MS. ROEM said being ostracized only isolates more and accentuates the possibility of more negative activities. It only adds more pain and suffering to an already painful, devastating, misunderstood disease. What is needed is a process of appropriate intervention and treatment that seeks to restore dignity. Public testimony is very risky for parents such as ourselves because we have often been ostracized and criticized when we seek accountability from the systems intended to help the children and their families. My children are adults now and never entered the juvenile justice system. The bill, HB 6 will not affect us, but is will adversely affect all children with brain disorders and their parents. It will unjustly punish them for having a disease of their brain. MS. ROEM said her testimony reflects not only her reality, but reflects a painful reality shared by more people than you realize throughout Alaska. She said when you think about FAS and FAE there is no place in the state of Alaska that really can diagnose FAS and FAE and there is no appropriate treatment. She said they have desperately tried to find treatment for their son. She said there are only three hospitals in the United States that will definitively diagnosis FAE and when you have adopted children that is practically impossible to do. There is a universal fear among parents of children of brain disorders that the prison system and court system will become the treatment their child receives, rather than appropriate treatment and intervention that can, in many cases, result in a vulnerable, fragile child growing up to be a productive and respected member of society. Please don't further diminish the lives of many caring and loving Alaskan parents and their children who live with a no fault illness for which they will receive further blame by publishing names. Number 1312 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said regarding Ms. Brink's testimony that he did not think that an adjustment occurs and goes into the formal process without a consensus that there is responsibility on the part of the juvenile for their act. Either that or through a petition does it get to a trial in juvenile court and they are found guilty of having committed a delinquent act. Neither one of those situations would occur if the child did not have the capacity to understand the nature and quality of the act they were accused of doing. He said he recognized the difference of the problem of recognizing FAS, but a child without the capacity to understand those things would not be technically guilty and would not, he thought, under CSHB 6(HES) be subject to release of their name or their parents' name. Number 1363 MS. ROEM said her concern is for children with FAE. She said they are 99 percent sure that their son has it. He just recently got in trouble with the law. This occurred just before he turned 21, he got caught for minor consuming. Kids with FAE and kids with mental illness are not mentally retarded. Kids with FAE have normal intelligence. She said one of the things about her son is that he is very charming and verbally capable. It is very difficult for them to get someone to understand that there is something wrong with him because he talks better than he thinks and he talks better than he understands. So, trying to find somebody to diagnosis him has been a major undertaking. She knew when he was 12 days old that there was something wrong, but they did not get him diagnosed with anything until he was 15 and that was after 15 years of pain and suffering from school, trying to get early intervention when no one would listen to them. They were told they were a liar, their son was such a nice kid. She said her son is a good kid, but he has a problem with his thinking. She said it is not always possible to tell right away. MS. ROEM said they presented, when he had his minor consuming, the fact supported by all kinds of documented evidence that he was FAS. The judge said he did not buy into FAS, that he did not buy into mental illness. She said these kids are going into adulthood by being sent to prison and said that is not where they belong. She said they did not want him to go to prison because they knew he would pick up some negative behavior there. They have worked very hard and he has been doing fairly well, but that is because it takes them 24 hours a day, seven days a week of constant work to keep him going. She said he is working now, but close to quitting again because he cannot handle the stress. She said it is hard because people don't always see, the kids look normal, that there is something wrong in the brain which does not allow them to always tell the difference between right and wrong. The kids might be able to say they can, but when it comes right down to it they can't. She said it is one of the things that makes it hard. She said one doctor will say he is FAE, another will say he is bi-polar and another will say he has Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Number 1527 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said her tragic circumstance helps exemplify what the committee is faced with, of that tight rope between protecting the public and not unduly penalizing unfairly. He said he appreciated her pointing out another aspect of the committee's problem. Number 1586 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 1 to CSHB 6(HES). Number 1586 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected for the purposes of discussion. Number 1609 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY clarified that Amendment 1 was located on page two, line 16. He said this was brought up at the hearing last week and, in subsequent discussions with DFYS, they had felt it would be more appropriate if the victims sought this information voluntarily. Number 1639 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, being somewhat familiar with the victim's rights area, he has some concerns that this would turn into a situation where there are victims who would just as soon not be contacted again, but submitted that there were more of those victims that would. He said he would be extremely interested what the actual occurrences in these proceedings are and when the kids or adults, who have committed crimes against them, are released what their status is. He said he would be afraid that if the language was deleted we would be right back at the place we were before the Victim's Rights Act was put into the constitution where a victim was never advised of the fact that they had the right to know this information. Victims have this right to be notified if they choose. He said, he guessed, that the vast majority would want to be notified. He asked DFYS whether or not there is a provision for requiring that victims can be notified. Number 1727 L. DIANE WORLEY, Director, Central Office, Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health and Social Services, was next to testify. She said currently notification is done on a case by case basis. The victim will be informed of that right a majority of the time, but not always. She said DFYS could put that language into their policy. She said that one of the problems that DFYS has is that even when victims tell DFYS that they would like to be notified they don't keep the division informed of location if they move. If the victim tells DFYS that they would like to be notified, then they are asked to take some responsibility to let DFYS know where you are at to do so. She said DFYS has no problem to make sure that DFYS is giving that information to the victims at the time. Number 1795 CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if the language specifying that victims will be notified or rather that they can be notified at their request should be put in CSHB 6(HES) so that ten years for now the attitude will be the same. Number 1822 MS. WORLEY said she would like to see this happen by putting it into DFYS policies and procedures that this would be a requirement of the employees that during this process one more step would be included. She said this step needs to because then that is where it needs to be so that the workers have it right in their daily policy and procedure manual. Number 1847 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would remove his objection to the proposed Amendment 1 taking what DFYS said as something that is going to happen. As departments start dealing with the Victim's Rights Act they are going to find that it behooves them to do these things. If they don't, they will be subject to the least criticism at the worse civil suits. Number 1879 MS. WORLEY said DFYS is in the middle of revising the Youth Services Policy and Procedure Manual and could add this notification policy before they go to the next printing. Number 1894 REPRESENTATIVE J. ALLEN KEMPLEN said there has been proposed legislation that would assist in the notification of victims. A Victim Information and Notification Everyday (VINE) introduced by himself in the House and Senator Johnny Ellis in the Senate which would address this issue. Number 1925 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that Ms. Worley would prefer that this notification not be in statute but rather in DFYS policy. He asked if there was any concern on her part to have this notification in policy without the authority of legislation. He questioned if she might be reluctant or be hesitant in implementing such a policy. Number 1951 MS. WORLEY said she had no problem instituting the policy. She said, as was pointed out by Representative Porter, that this is an issue that DFYS is dealing with on a day to day basis. She said DFYS certainly looks at victims and the rights of victims. It is an issue that affects the division in many other areas as opposed to just this one. She said where she needs to have it is in the policies and procedures manual to get this information out to her staff and make sure that they know what is expected. Number 1990 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN repeated that DFYS made public disclosures to some of the victims and expressed concern that there would be an objection if this notification was put into statute as well as in policy. This would give the policy the authority of statute in case the next director of DFYS would want to do away with. Number 2030 MS. WORLEY said she would have no objection to that. Number 2038 CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if we could say for the record that it is this committee's understanding that DFYS will be notifying people of their option to be notified and that we are cognizant of the victim's rights amendment that will encourage this activity in the future. Number 2062 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he would prefer that the policy be that the victims be notified unless they have chosen to opt out of being notified. He said this would make the notification pro-active. Number 2084 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he believed this would be the result of the policy and this provision. He said DFYS would notify everyone of their right to be notified and the only reason why DFYS would not notify them is if they said they did not want to be notified. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER removed his objection to the proposed Amendment 1. Number 2122 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said hearing no further objection to Amendment 1, it was adopted to CSHB 6(HES) by the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee. Number 2132 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved proposed Amendment 2 to CSHB 6(HES). Number 2136 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY objected to the motion. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said proposed Amendment 2 was addressed last week by the court administrator. It was suggested to him that the fiscal impact be removed from the courts. The proposed amendment takes and makes the release of information referral solely the jurisdiction of the DHSS and not the courts. This notification is dealt with by DFYS anyway. Proposed Amendment 2 also sets a date certain, August 31, for disclosure of records beginning past that time. This prevents the state from going back in time (indiscernible due to papers on the microphone) the DHSS is the net effect of this proposed amendment. Number 2215 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the effect of proposed Amendment 2 is that the records will not be available through the court no matter when the offense occurs. Number 2248 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said yes, it strictly deals with disclosure in the DHSS, it is not necessary to have the court disclose the information as it has already been disclosed thorough DHSS. He said if the court has to disclose it, unnecessary costs would be incurred. The courts also said they had some concerns that if you did not put a date certain on it, you did not make specific that it was not retroactive, then there would be a great deal of work and resources expended to go backwards with these documents to make them public. He reiterated that it would make the records from August 31 onward available. Number 2310 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he did not understand that there would be additional expense to the court for allowing access to court records provided that they did not have to go back retroactively to clean up court records. He said if the records were repaired in accordance with statute requirements beginning with the effective date of the statute there would be in essence two piles; one that was accessible to the public and one that would not be accessible to the public. TAPE 97-4, SIDE A Number 0000 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Staff Counsel, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, was next to testify. He said it would not cost the court anything if DFYS provided the records. If the courts supplied the records it would cost them a tenth as much if there was a date certain applied to CSHB 6(HES). REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why there would be costs with the court records. MR. CHRISTENSEN said there were associated costs tied to the court record. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said maybe records could be prepared in the future with the idea that you are going to have to expose them anyway. Number 0089 MR. CHRISTENSEN said there would be some slight additional clerical costs associated with keeping two sets of records; the confidential records and then the public records which the public would have access to. He said the costs statewide would not be substantial in terms of excess clerical overtime, paperwork and the costs of buying the materials needed for the 15 locations statewide. He said they expected costs to be under $20,000, but said there are some costs associated with it. It is doing something which the court does not do. Number 0107 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said if CSHB 6(HES) produced any reduction in juvenile delinquency crimes the cost would be offsetting very quickly, we are talking about $20,000 statewide. Number 0124 MR. CHRISTENSEN said it was a decision for the committee to make as he would not be willing to speculate as to what the offset might be. Number 140 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said $20,000 represents ten days of court time. Number 0142 MR. CHRISTENSEN said it is not a great deal of money, but added that it is a question of dislocation also. He said as he indicated in Anchorage there are 40,000 records requested. People coming in and wanting to look at files. He said those folks are then going to want to move down to the juvenile office and look at the juvenile records. He said, in Anchorage, there is no space for people to go into the juvenile office and look at records because it has never been done before. He said he wouldn't even speculate on any kind of capital costs to move offices to different rooms, build counters, etc. He said he wouldn't even include those costs, so there will be some dislocation. Number 0189 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he did not know the court system well, but asked why the records wouldn't be accessible through computer modems. He asked if we were talking about an electronic data base. Number 0211 MR. CHRISTENSEN said the court system has historically been the uncomputerized branch of government. He said it has only been in the last few years that the legislature has given the courts money. As of now the records are not computerized. At some point in the future, hopefully in the next three or four years, it might be but right now it is not. Number 0233 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said this doesn't come to the state system, but you can go to services and get criminal records. You can get people check to see if they have a criminal records through commercial services. He asked if they entered this data by hand or do they get it electronically from the court system. Number 0259 MR. CHRISTENSEN said he did not know. He said they get a lot of data from, for example, the Department of Public Safety now that the Apsin computer base has been opened up within the last few years. Number 0291 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Representative Kelly if it was his understanding that DFYS will gear up to be in this victim notification mode which they are not presently in. Number 0309 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY clarified that he was addressing Amendment 1. He said he believed they had communication with victims now, but he wasn't sure at what level it was. He said he did not know if this notification would represent a quantum leap in informing victims that they can be informed about the outcome later on. He said it would be a question for DFYS. Number 0371 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he would vote against the amendment because it more properly belongs within the court system then with DFYS. Number 0390 A roll call vote was taken on proposed Amendment 2 to CSHB 6(HES). Representatives Bunde, Green, Porter and Dyson, Kemplen and Brice voted yea. Representatives Dyson and Vezey voted nay. Amendment 2 was adopted. CHAIRMAN BUNDE said he would turn over the gavel to Vice Chair Green. Number 0428 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 3 to CSHB 6(HES). Number 0430 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected. Number 0425 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he supported proposed Amendment 3. He said the original language had the unintended consequences of actually releasing information which we would want to keep confidential. The wording was such that it says that the state would release confidential information after CSHB 6(HES) takes place. He said it has been determined that it is the delinquent information that is open for disclosure, that which remains is CINA information. He said we certainly don't want to release CINA information. CHAIRMAN GREEN said the way the proposed Amendment 3 is written that the information that normally would be deleted the way CSHB 6(HES) is submitted, you are also wanting to delete that also. You are taking out all of Section 6. Number 0497 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the committee adopts the proposed Amendment 3, if it is making it illegal for a parent or a guardian to disclose information about a minor of whom they have parental custody. He said if we adopt the amendment, as he understood it, the wording would be that this information could be disclosed only to the Governor or to certain select people. Number 0544 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said it maintained existing law, it wouldn't change. Number 0546 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said it maintains existing law. By saying that it is legal to disclose to a certain group of people, is it going to be illegal for a parent or guardian to disclose information to someone who is not on this list. Number 0565 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thought that a few years back Representative Barnes had a problem with a parent not being able to discuss a case with a state representative. If he was not mistaken, parental rights were extended to allow them to talk to anyone about... Number 0590 MS. KNUTH said the current law is that a parent can make a disclosure to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a legislator, the Ombudsmen, the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Health and Social Services which sounds like a lot of people. Basically it is people that are involved in the governmental process with a need to know basis. She said Section 6, as initially drafted, would remove that list and instead say disclosures can be made to the public, a step that has not been taken yet. It would be something new. The problem is that you are talking about confidential CINA information that the child has a privacy interest in. She said the balance that was made a couple of years ago was to say that a parent can discuss that information with anybody in this kind of broad circle of people with legitimate government interests, but short of anyone. Number 0672 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "if we delete this (a), then that is actually in statute now." If we delete that then by proposed Amendment 3 we do or don't open it up?" Number 0699 MS. KNUTH said if you delete Section 6, you leave the law the way it is now, which is that a parent can discuss the information with any of these government people, but not the public. Number 0716 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "I read this as (a)., that there might be something else in existing law and that is not true. Normally you don't have (a) under 12.30.320(a), is there a (b) and a (c) under existing code?" Number 0730 MS. KNUTH said there is and those matters relate to the same subject, but what was happening in Section 6 is that it was adding the phrase, "to the public" and taking out the laundry list of government officials. She said if you delete Section 6 from CSHB 6(HES), then you would leave (a), (b) and (c). Those would all continue as they are now on the statute books. CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "that's the substance of some of this questioning. What is left if (a) now is dropped and (b) becomes (a) and (c) becomes (b)?" MS. KNUTH said that no one is proposing that (a) be dropped. Number 0782 A roll call vote was taken on proposed Amendment 3. Representatives Green, Porter, Brice, Kemplem and Dyson voted yea. Representative Vezey voted nay. Representative Bunde returned to the committee meeting for the vote but abstained from voting. Six votes yea, one nay and one absention. Amendment 3 was adopted. Number 0828 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 4. Number 0829 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for purposes of discussion. Number 0840 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said the proposed Amendment 4 would allow juveniles, whose records have been made public, to petition the court to have those records sealed five years after the offense where the juvenile has committed no new offenses and has done everything the court has ordered him to do. He said it represents sort of a carrot for the kid, encouraging good behavior and it is within the court's discretion whether to seal the records or not and the court gets to look at the kid and all of the circumstances. He said Representative Kelly voiced his support for this type of amendment in his earlier testimony. Number 0885 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he does not have an objection to the proposed Amendment 4. He said this was not something he was expecting to see in this committee, but he had voiced that he would work towards something like this in later committees. Number 0930 A roll call vote was taken on proposed Amendment 4. Representatives Bunde, Green, Porter, Brice, Kemplem and Dyson voted yea. Representative Vezey voted nay. Amendment 4 was adopted. Number 0936 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move CSHB 6(HES) as amended with accompanying fiscal notes. CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was an objection. Hearing none CSHB 6(HES) was moved out of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes to the next committee of referral. Number 0981 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move HCR 4. CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was an objection. Hearing none HCR 4 was moved out of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee with individual recommendations. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, CHAIRMAN BUNDE adjourned the meeting of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee at 4:54 p.m.