HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE April 6, 1994 1:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Brian Porter, Chairman Representative Jeannette James, Vice Chair Representative Gail Phillips Representative Pete Kott Representative Joe Green Representative Cliff Davidson Representative Jim Nordlund MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT Representative Con Bunde COMMITTEE CALENDAR HJR 48: Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to revenues from natural resources, the Alaska permanent fund, the appropriation limit and the budget reserve fund; and providing for an effective date for the amendments. PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 337: "An Act relating to the possession of controlled substances within 500 feet of recreation and youth centers; and permitting municipalities to install `drug-free recreation and youth center zone' signs." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 153: "An Act relating to sentencing." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 417: An Act relating to the possession of weapons within the grounds of or on the parking lots of preschools, elementary, junior high, and secondary schools or while participating in a school- sponsored event; and relating to school lockers and other containers provided in a public or private school by the school or the school district." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 534: "An Act relating to insurance, to the licensing, accreditation, examination, regulation, and solvency of persons engaged in the insurance business, including insurers, nonadmitted insurers, purchasing groups, risk retention groups, and United States branches of alien insurers; relating to the management of and the filing of reports by persons licensed or otherwise doing business under the insurance code; amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 45; and providing for an effective date." NOT HEARD WITNESS REGISTER MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Aide Representative Ramona Barnes State Capitol, Room 208 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Phone: 465-3438 POSITION STATEMENT: JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Attorney Division of Legal Services Legislative Affairs Agency 130 Seward Street, Rm 401 Juneau, AK 99801 Phone: 465-2450 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 153 PATTY SWENSON, Legislative Aide Representative Con Bunde State Capitol, Room 112 Juneau, AK 99801=1182 Phone: 465-4843 POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed CSHB 417 MARGOT KNUTH, Attorney Criminal Division Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811-0300 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSHB 417 LARRY WIGET Division of Governmental Relations Anchorage School District P.O. Box 196614 Anchorage, AK 99519-6614 Phone: 269-2255 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSHB 417 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 112 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Phone: 465-4843 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSHB 417 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HJR 48 SHORT TITLE: RESTRUCTURE PERMANENT FUND SPONSOR(S): FINANCE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/11/94 2032 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/11/94 2032 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 02/02/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120 02/02/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 02/04/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120 02/04/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 02/07/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120 02/07/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD) BILL: HB 337 SHORT TITLE: DRUG FREE RECREATION AND YOUTH CENTERS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)NORDLUND,Porter,Finkelstein, Martin,Brown,Ulmer,Brice,Hudson,Menard,Sitton,Navarre, Davies, Phillips,B.Davis,Green,Nicholia,G.Davis,Toohey, Mulder JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/03/94 2015 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/10/94 2015 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/10/94 2015 (H) HES, JUDICIARY 01/13/94 2055 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B. DAVIS 01/14/94 2084 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN 01/18/94 2101 (H) COSPONSOR(S): NICHOLIA 03/02/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/02/94 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/03/94 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/04/94 2603 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NEW TITLE 4DP 4NR 03/04/94 2603 (H) DP:G.DAVIS,TOOHEY,NICHOLIA, BRICE 03/04/94 2603 (H) NR:VEZEY,KOTT,BUNDE,OLBERG 03/04/94 2603 (H) -3 ZERO FNS (LAW,DPS,CORR) 3/4/94 03/04/94 2625 (H) COSPONSOR(S): G. DAVIS 03/23/94 2952 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY 03/25/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/06/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 153 SHORT TITLE: GOOD TIME: PT. MACKENZIE REHAB PROJECT SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/15/93 345 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/15/93 345 (H) STATE AFFAIRS,JUDICIARY,FINANCE 02/27/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/27/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/01/93 481 (H) STA RPT 4DP 03/01/93 482 (H) DP:VEZEY,B.DAVIS,OLBERG,G.DAVIS 03/01/93 482 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COURT) 3/1/93 04/06/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 417 SHORT TITLE: POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN SCHOOL LOCKERS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/31/94 2205 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/31/94 2205 (H) HES, JUDICIARY 02/17/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 02/17/94 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/22/94 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/24/94 2518 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NEW TITLE 4DP 4NR 02/24/94 2518 (H) DP:G.DAVIS,BUNDE,TOOHEY,BRICE 02/24/94 2518 (H) NR:KOTT,VEZEY,OLBERG,NICHOLIA 02/24/94 2518 (H) -2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, DPS) 2/24/94 04/06/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 534 SHORT TITLE: OMNIBUS INSURANCE REFORM SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/18/94 2868 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/18/94 2868 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/29/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 03/29/94 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/06/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 94-57, SIDE A Number 000 The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order on April 6, 1994. A quorum was present. CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee would be hearing HJR 48, HB 337, HB 153, and HB 417. He said the committee would not be hearing HB 534 because the Labor & Commerce Committee did not get it out of committee. CHAIRMAN PORTER called on Representative Phillips, chairperson of the subcommittee for HJR 48 to talk about the subcommittee's work. HJR 48 - RESTRUCTURE PERMANENT FUND REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS: "Mr. Chairman, that was an interesting subcommittee, because we had to deal with an awful lot of material and come up with a workable decision for the House Judiciary Committee to take a responsible position. After meeting quite a few times and coming up with what we think is a workable solution, we did put together a packet that includes the bill as originally presented to us. It includes a letter of intent that is fairly comprehensive as to what we think needs to be done. It includes a resolution that we would like to see addressed, a like resolution to be addressed by the Finance Committee with a general fiscal note on it. Basically, what we said is this legislative body does not have time or the wherewithal to deal with this subject during the legislative year, that we would recommend the bill go on to Finance, and that Finance look into creating a blue ribbon task force comprised of major Alaskans that are knowledgeable about the state government and state budgeting process, out of the private sector; and then highly technical members of both the legislative and administrative staffs that comprise this blue ribbon task force, that will look at not only the CREMO plan, but maybe other plans that have been turned in, and come up during their investigation. And they be required to spend a lot of time looking at all the ramifications of the CREMO plan. We did list quite a few policy issues that we felt should be addressed before we have a document that is ready to take to the public, and we would like to pass the letter of intent with our recommendations with the bill onto the Finance Committee." Number 091 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "As a member of the subcommittee, I support that, and would certainly hope that the Finance Committee can do what we suggest, and if they have time in the evenings, or whatever, to take a look at the CREMO proposal itself, and try to begin to answer some of these questions, or at least begin the research or get the wheels in motion to answer some of these questions. I certainly support passing out the bill today. I would like the opportunity to add a couple of things to the letter of intent. I am sorry I did not get that done. I apologize. I was given plenty of opportunity and I was late, but I would really appreciate it if we could take action to pass the bill out today. One of the questions I think should be asked is - it's not clear in the legislation - `What are the sources of revenue that would be required to go into the principal of the permanent fund under the CREMO plan?' There is some question that income taxes that would be derived from people who earn income off of resource related jobs would go into it, that some similar sales taxes could possibly be construed as needing to go into the fund, and it would be my hope that that wouldn't happen, and I think that's an issue that should be addressed. I had a couple of notes on other things that I would want to add there. Again, they are just questions. They are not controversial, so I would like to bring those up with the Chair of the subcommittee and add them to the letter. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said she had no problem with that at all. CHAIRMAN PORTER said what he would do then would be to initially entertain a motion to adopt the draft letter of intent as a working document for the letter of intent. Number 132 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the draft letter of intent. Number 143 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was any objection. He said, "If not, we have a letter of intent before us. I think for just purposes of consensus, if there is no objection, I will finalize the letter of intent with the items that Representative Nordlund would like to add and attached that to the bill and pass it along. So with that in mind, I would entertain a motion to move the bill with the adopted letter of intent." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed to move the letter of intent and HJR 48 to the Finance Committee. Number 180 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "The only discussion necessary would be the Chairman's thanks and sincere appreciation to the subcommittee for working diligently on what had to be quite a task, and I thoroughly agree and support your decision. This is something of the magnitude we should not try to resolve at one of our round tables in the Judiciary Committee, although we are good at that. This might be a little bit more expansive than that process would allow for accomplishment. With that in mind, is there objection? If not, HJR 48, with the letter of intent is moved on to the Finance Committee. Now, we have HB 337, Drug free recreation and youth center." HB 337 - DRUG FREE RECREATION AND YOUTH CENTERS Number 184 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman for scheduling this bill. It's really a pretty simple concept. It's an expansion of the current law we have which provides for drug free schools. It expands that concept to include an area 500 feet around youth and recreation center that are operated by a municipality or by the state. Basically, it increases the penalties by one notch, for instance from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C felony for possession of controlled substances. It increases the penalties for possession in those zones. The need for the bill, Mr. Chairman, comes from a problem in my district surrounding the Spenard rec center. I've gotten reports that, ironically, the place where you send kids to play and have recreational activities, are actually being approached in the parking lot by people wanting to sell drugs. It is an expansion of the drug free zones around the schools presently. There is no fiscal note with the bill. The bill does provide for municipalities to erect signs if they so choose, and in the case of our community, I'm sure they will probably choose to do that. They can also post signs in the rec centers, themselves, that would alert potential drug dealers that this is not a place that they are invited, by any means, to do business. That is basically what the bill does." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Nordlund, I certainly agree with the concept of your bill, and will support it. I have one question, however. On the designation of recreation or youth center, will there be any problem with private versus public facilities? Are we making this inclusive to any kind of facility, regardless of ownership?" REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's a good question. When we originally had the bill drafted, it included all recreation centers, regardless of whether they would be operated by nonprofit, or whatever. In talking to the Departments of Law and Public Safety, they thought the definition was too broad, so we narrowed it down to rec centers that are operated by municipalities, or by the state. Otherwise, it would be virtually impossible to enforce all the areas that were included in the original version of the bill." Number 252 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I've got a couple of questions that the sponsor might be able to answer. Do we have any estimate as to what these signs might cost? I envision actually allowing municipalities to post signs at recreational facilities or youth center, ballparks, playgrounds, and what not. But when we look at the total numbers and the total cost, because this is a little bit different than hanging a sign like `School Zone', where it's just attached to the post, we are talking about a whole new feature, if in fact, we are talking about the same kind of vehicle for the sign to be embedded on. Or are we talking about placing a sign on, let's say, a building. I'm not clear." Number 275 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I have something here from the Department of Transportation that says, `large sign contracts average approximately $50 per square foot for installed sign. Including the need to locate signs rather accurately, the estimated cost per sign is conservatively $150 a piece.' Again, this is something that would be up to the municipality to decide the size of the sign, where they would be located, and even whether or not they wanted to put the sign up, given their own budget constraints. There is no mandate here." Number 292 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT: "And that kind of is what I'm leading to. I certainly support the idea. I am just wondering how effective it would actually be, considering the budget constraints of many municipalities around -- and just $150 per -- and I don't know how many facilities this would apply to. Do you have any numbers just for Anchorage alone?" REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "No, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any numbers as to how many signs would be necessary to effectively post the area, or not necessarily an indication of whether or not they would, other than the fact that we got letters of support from Chief O'Leary, and the Department of Parks and Recreation, and various entities in our community, indicating they would like to have this as an additional tool for enforcement." Number 316 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "As Representative Nordlund points out, the city of Kenai goes along with it. There is overwhelming support from various types of groups, as well as various cities." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Nordlund. The permissiveness in the signage, that was done in order for us not to do an unfunded mandate necessarily." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, these are programs that are operated by municipalities, and I think it should be up to them to decide how - including this particular aspect of signage for a criminal offense - it should be up to the municipalities to decide on whether on where to put them and if they want to put them..." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering if I might offer what I call a friendly amendment to page four, line 19, and insert after `may' the word `prominently' post a sign. We are in fact, increasing the penalty. I think at least it should be apparent that we are, in fact, entering a drug-free recreational zone or area. And if it is going to be on a building, let's not put it on the side of a door, where you can't see it from the front of the building." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, I would certainly consider that a friendly amendment." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Let me see if I understand the amendment. On page four, line 19 we would be inserting the word `prominently' -- `may prominently post a sign at each recreation and youth center.' Is there any discussion on the amendment? Is there objection to the amendment?" REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, the word `prominently' might fit in better after the word `sign.' `May post a sign prominently.'" CHAIRMAN PORTER AND REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with that. CHAIRMAN PORTER: "So, the amendment to the amendment would be to move `prominently' the word, not the act, `may post a sign prominently at each recreation and youth center.'" REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "To the maker of that amendment, is there any merit to doing that in both one and two?" REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I suppose as the maker of the amendment, there could possibly could be some merit with the exception that I believe that when we look at the drug-free zone signs, they are generally attached to the school or entering the school zones, so I think in those cases, it would be fairly prominent." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "The reason I brought that up is in two they `may' and in one they `shall' and it seems almost backwards that you may post a prominent sign, but in the other one, you shall post a sign, it just doesn't have to be prominent." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Well, I would be hesitate to (indiscernible) right now, because that is existing law and it may affect signs already up." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, they might have to (indiscernible), they might have to go back and take another look at where they're posting a sign and somebody might argue that they are not prominently posted, and get into all that...." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Okay, with no objection, we will consider that we have adopted amendment number 1, which is now placement of the word `prominently' between `sign' and `at' on line 19, page four. And Representative Phillips." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "I would be honored to move the bill, if that would be appropriate at this time. I would move that we move HB 337 out of Judiciary, with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Is there discussion? Is there objection? HB 337 is moved." HB 153 - GOOD TIME: PT. MACKENZIE REHAB PROJECT Number 417 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "We have next, HB 153 reduction of presumptive sentences and we have with us, a representative of Madam Speaker, who is going to tell us about this bill." Number 420 MEL KROGSENG, Staff assistant to Speaker, Ramona Barnes. She said, "The Speaker would ask that the Committee Substitute in lieu of the original bill, a Committee Substitute with a new title, which would read, "An Act related to the awarding of special good time deductions for prisoners participating in the Point MacKenzie Rehabilitation Project, and providing for an effective date." The reason for this Committee Substitute is basically that, according to letters that have been sent by some of the superintendents in institutions to the chief classifications officer of the Department of Corrections, there seems to be reluctance on the part of inmates wanting to volunteer to go to Point MacKenzie because of a perceived notion - some of it is not perceived, some of it is actual - that there are not the same benefits at Point MacKenzie that there are in the regular conventional institutions. The reason that those benefits are not there, is that Point MacKenzie is a farm. It is a prison farm, it is not an institution. Therefore, we believe that it does not fall under the Cleary decision. We are not required to have a library there, and all the other requirements of Cleary. In order to keep this in this category, it is thought that it is essential that inmates volunteer to go there, rather than be simply assigned there. I have provided you with a packet which is labeled, `Active Inmate Profiles' which was run from the state OBSCIS system, Correction's computer system, on inmates, and if you would look at the second page two, you'll notice that there is the custody level classification on the left side at the top. There are 481 minimum custody prisoners as of March 28, and 96 community custody prisoners sitting in hard beds in our institutions last week. That's a total of 577 under the existing classification system, who would be eligible to go to Point MacKenzie. However, again, I believe there is a letter in your file that Mr. Ken Brown, Superintendent at Wildwood wrote to Bob Spinde who is our chief classification officer, saying that the inmates were reluctant to volunteer to go to Point MacKenzie. So Speaker feels very strongly that it would be appropriate to develop an incentive program. The incentive program that is being proposed in this Committee Substitute is a special good time incentive. For each full month for an inmate who volunteers to go to Project Hope - for each full month of participation at Project Hope, the inmate, upon recommendation of the project manager, would be credited with three days of special good time. This would be in addition to the regular good time that they are already eligible to receive. This good time would not be revocable unless the inmate were involuntary removed from Project Hope or Point MacKenzie for bad behavior. The project manager would post a set of rules which would list appropriate behavior and inappropriate behavior examples. As long as the inmate was not involuntarily removed for inappropriate behavior, then the good time would be irrevocable. So that should be a pretty good incentive. "I might tell you that as of this morning there were 54 prisoners at Project Hope. You were, I believe, given a copy of the proposed CS yesterday - that was changed this morning for two reasons. One, Point MacKenzie was spelled incorrectly in the original proposed CS, and additionally, no provision had been made for the inmates who are already there who volunteered to go there with no additional incentive. And we certainly didn't want to penalize those people because they have been doing a real bang up job for us and the program is starting to move forward. We had a visit yesterday from Mr. Bernie Carl from Fairbanks, who donated the first set of ATCO trailers. He tells us the state owns another camp at Prudhoe Bay - the Prudhoe Bay Hotel, I believe it's called. It is owned by DOT at this point. He has offered to house, feed, help in any way he can for us to go up with inmates, as we did before and remove that camp, and bring it down to either be used at Project Hope or at Palmer Minimum, as a potential minimum custody facility. There are some real good things happening out at Project Hope. We just simply need to have a little further enticement to get inmates out there and the Project Director, Mr. Michael Dindinger tells me he feels very comfortable that they could use 160 prisoners total out there this year, as long as we can sort of give them the enticement to come out there." CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Krogseng to give the executive summary for the record. MS. KROGSENG read the following Sponsor Statement: "The Department of Corrections is currently experiencing a problem with overcrowding in our institutions. The proposed Committee Substitute for House Bill 153 (Judiciary) is introduced to address two issues. First, it will help alleviate the overcrowding problem, and secondly, it will help attract volunteers for the Point MacKenzie rehabilitation project. Presently, inmates appear concerned that the benefits at Point MacKenzie are fewer than those in the conventional institutions. Consequently, they are hesitant to volunteer. This proposed legislation will provide an incentive for inmates to participate in the program. By implementing a special good time statute, we believe inmates will volunteer to serve their time at the Point MacKenzie rehabilitation project instead of in one of the conventional institutions. At Point MacKenzie, there are no fences, other than for the reindeer. There are no lock-down facilities, and all inmates must be minimum custody level, or lower. Presently, there are over 550 inmates in our system that are classified appropriately, for placement at Point MacKenzie, but some form of incentive is needed to entice volunteers. Under this legislation, each inmate who participates in the Point MacKenzie rehabilitation project will be entitled to three days of special good time for each full month served at Point MacKenzie. This good time will be irrevocable once credited against the inmate's sentence, unless the inmate is involuntarily removed from the project for inappropriate behavior. The inmate's record will be reviewed by the project manager to determine if a recommendation is to be forwarded to the commissioner for the crediting of the good time against the inmate's sentence. Not all inmates who volunteer will be selected. Each inmate will be thoroughly screened by the chief of security at Point MacKenzie and/or his or her designee. If the chief of security feels that an inmate will not be a suitable candidate, that inmate will not be selected for placement at Point MacKenzie." Number 551 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shouldn't there be some fiscal savings?" Number 558 MS. KROGSENG: "Mr. Chairman, Representative Nordlund. Yes, I would think this would provide the department with a cost savings, how much I can't say for certain at this time, but it certainly will not, I don't believe it will cost us any money, but it should save money, because our inmates would be getting out earlier than they would otherwise." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "But their fiscal note is not complete yet, is that...." MS. KROGSENG: "I guess I would ask the committee to adopt a zero fiscal note and say that it was an oversight on our part yesterday, not to have that done." Number 571 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How many people are out at Point MacKenzie right now? And how - - currently how many can they house?" MS. KROGSENG answered that there were 54 inmates at present, and as soon as the kitchen is complete, the capacity will be 160. She said the department does not oppose this legislation. Number 594 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "When we need these kinds of minimum security beds so badly, why do we have a facility that people have to go to voluntarily, though. Why do we not just mandate that they go there?" Number 600 MS. KROGSENG: "Chairman Porter, Representative Phillips, if we were to mandate it, there is concern that the counsel for the inmates who represented them in Cleary, might then say this is an institution, which would then require us to provide all the same programs and services, facilities, libraries, and so forth, that are provided in all the other institutions. We believe very strongly, that the inmates will volunteer to go if there is a little more incentive. We have been told, according to Mr. Brown, as I mentioned in the letter that you have, that the reason the inmates don't want to go there are thus and such. However, we have also received calls from employees within the Department of Corrections, whose names will remain anonymous, who tell us that although the material is being provided to them that says Point MacKenzie is thus and so, that by word of mouth they are being told, `Why would you want to go to Project Hope? All you're going to get to do is work 12 hours a day, seven days a week. It's a long way out there, there are no programs, your family cannot visit' -which is not true - it's been made into a very doom and gloom type scenario. There is a prisoner who was scheduled to go to Project Hope, and had been screened by security, who was a master mechanic, who they really needed out there, and just before he was to be transferred out there, he changed his mind because somebody talked him out of it. I don't have any concrete evidence, but that's the sort of thing that's happening, and it's not just in one institution, we've had calls from employees in several institutions. Speaker felt very strongly that this is a good program. We think there's a lot of potential at Project Hope, given the opportunity to have the program really get going, so consequently the idea for some kind of incentive." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "And I should add, when you mentioned the requirement for libraries, this doesn't presume normal libraries - the Cleary requires for law libraries, with a law clerk." MS. KROGSENG: "Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, if I might take just take another moment of the committee's time, just to bring you up to date on a couple of things that are happening out at Project Hope already. There is, as you may or may not have heard, in each institution we have to provide an educational counselor. I think you'll find that this `Active Inmate Profile' is very interesting, if you can take the time to look through it because it tells you how many people in the institutions, out of our almost 3,000 inmates, have a GED, how many have completed a high school education, how many have not, how many have a four-year degree, how many do not. We're paying thousands of dollars for education programs. We have 47 inmates out of almost 3,000 who've gotten a GED. That seems to be, I'm told, the biggest issue in the institutions as far as education is concerned. There is a program at Project Hope right now - a GED program - being run by the inmates, it is accredited by the State Board of Education and inmates are teaching other inmates and helping them to get their GED. There is a fire training program which will provide forest fire training. The inmates will get a state certificate that has no reference to Project Hope, or to the Department of Corrections. They will be certified firefighters. They will, in addition to being able to, when they complete their sentence, go out and obtain work in this area of labor, they will also provide volunteer firefighter services for the Point MacKenzie area. There is no fire department out there at all. There's just a tremendous amount of potential to be had at Project Hope, if we can get it really rolling. It's picking up steam - it just needs a little more impetus. And the people that are out there - Mr. Carl that I referenced before, has two men right now who have been released, who are working for him on the North Slope. He said he would like to hire everyone who's released because when the men went up and took down the camp to bring it down, they did such an excellent job. Give them a little incentive. Give them the idea that they're worthwhile and they can make a contribution. There is potentially hope for some of these folks down the road." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If this can be brought about, there's 110 or so beds in other institutions that would be freed up and I think this is an excellent, excellent chance to do that." Number 674 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "The good time reduction of the sentence here amounts to three days out of a month is essentially 10 percent. Under the regular good time, what is the reduction for that?" Number 680 JERRY LUCKHAUPT: "For the record, my name is Jerry Luckhaupt, Division of Legal Services. Right now, inmates get one-third of whatever their sentence is. One-third comes off the top. When they come in the institution -- it's a record keeping measure -- they take one-third off. When the person finishes serving the two-thirds of their sentence, they are then released on mandatory probation, if they haven't screwed up while they've been in the penitentiary and they serve out on mandatory parole that remaining one-third of their sentence. Add on -- this extra three days a month would add on to that period of time and so it would be subtracted off of that one-third, it would continue stair-stepping down, so it would actually increase their time on mandatory parole. In a lot of cases, that mandatory parole gives you a bit of a hammer over the inmate when he gets out and back into society. They know that they just can't revert back to their previous bad behavior. In a lot of situations that mandatory parole is not supervised in most cases, right at first it is, and then gradually moves into an unsupervised sort of routine." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "What kinds of folks go to Point MacKenzie - you know, what kind of crimes have they committed. Any time you have another bill dealing with furloughs and we're talking about good times, and basically relieving people of their sentences, it's always a concern to the public that you're letting people back in society sooner than maybe you want to and I'm just trying to figure out who we're letting off the hook here." Number 706 MS. KROGSENG: "Mr. Chairman, Representative Nordlund, it's my understanding that the department's policy is that no untreated sex offenders would be allowed out there regardless of custody level, but they must be minimum custody or lower, which would be community. And as I said, as of March 28, there are 577 inmates at those two custody levels - community and minimum. I might also tell you that on this run that I had done, there's a crime category and out of the 2800 inmates that were in the institutions on March 28, 1414 were crimes of violence, 283 crimes against property, 314 crimes of substance abuse, crimes of other categories were 793. Now part of those could be unsentenced, certainly because we've had 700 and some inmates who had not been sentenced yet and they're not classified until after that. There were 577 with the appropriate classification." Number 721 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "So the decision on who can participate in the program is made on the security risk, as opposed to the crime they committed?" Number 724 MS. KROGSENG: "Yes, that's correct. And as I understand it, Mike Newman who is the chief of security, goes personally and interviews each potential candidate to go to Point MacKenzie, and I'm told that he looks them eyeball to eyeball and says to them, `Are you ready to be my roommate for a month?' And he's been a CO, I believe, for about 17 years. He has, I believe, a very good understanding of who would be a potentially good candidate and who would not. And he has, in fact, rejected someone that was brought out there, stayed for one day, and was returned to the institution because they did not like the behavior he was displaying immediately. And that's very critical for this project to succeed, because there are no fences." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one of my questions has already been answered, but the subsequent one is, can you tell us what you used as a yard stick or measurement to come up with three days. What's so magical about the three days?" Number 738 MS. KROGSENG: "Mr. Chairman, Representative Kott. The old statute - the old good time statute which, I believe a copy has been put in your packet, allowed for crediting of three days for each month of actual (indiscernible) in a prisoner camp project or activity for the first year or any part of it and not to exceed five days for each month of any succeeding year. Now, we've left it at three. We've not provided for any increase." Number 748 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON: "Ms. Krogseng, why is it that there are not these facilities -- we saw this list in here of the things people were not going there because of -- why aren't those other than what we've mentioned as far as the law library. Is that why there isn't kind of a -- can we get by with a partial type of library -- or some of these other substance abuse programs or other educational programs available at Point MacKenzie?" Number 762 MS. KROGSENG: "Mr. Chairman, Representative Davidson, I believe that eventually probably some of them will be available, especially the substance abuse counseling. I know there is a plan to have a substance abuse program there. However, we don't want to have it mandated. Because if one is mandated, then the next thing you know, another requirement will be added, we believe, and another, and another, and another. It's a farm - a work farm. The idea is that in addition to providing training for the inmates, it could and hopefully should, and will in the long run provide sufficient food to feed the prison population, at least up in the central and northern part of the state. That's basically why. I'm sure there will be a library of sorts out there, but we don't want it to be mandated. We don't want it to be anything considered to be even remotely close to Cleary." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the whole concept and (indiscernible) keeping it away from Cleary is an outstanding idea, because it's about half the cost of a regular institution. We go a screen..." MS. KROGSENG: "One-third." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "One-third. The incarceration time dropped from 33 1/3 percent to 40 percent and they'll serve 60 percent. That seems to be a real good compromise to accomplish two things. I think it would be a benefit to those who are incarcerated, as well as to the state, obviously in a fiscal crisis year, without jeopardizing safety to the public. So, it seems like it's about a three- way win, win, win situation." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a very good idea. I know if I was in jail, I certainly would much rather go out to a work farm than I would to sit in jail - in a prison all day. And I would move that we move House Bill 153, Draft K dated 4/6/94 and no fiscal note, out of Judiciary with individual recommendations." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Is there discussion? Representative James." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, I would move that we adopt the CS if we haven't already done so." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Well, I think that was part of the motion -the CS, dated 4/6/94." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "Yes, I just have only one comment. I grew up in Oregon where we have the prison farm which is a very successful operation. It was fenced, however, but I know that they were very productive, and they did pay their own way in many of the years, so I support this concept." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "I guess just for the record, I should add that the first ten years or so of my time in Anchorage, the Police Department ran an honor farm with the same principles. And on most occasions, there was one person looking after about 50 guys. No problems." MS. KROGSENG: "Mr. Chairman, if I might, I believe Mr. Dindinger on the farm that he ran back in Wyoming or Oklahoma had 130 some inmates, had 10 personnel, and in the two or three years he was there, had one minor incident and that was it. And it is very cost effective. The beds, we anticipate, should run about $35 a day and then..." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if this was the only committee of referral for this bill. CHAIRMAN PORTER responded he did not know. MS. KROGSENG: "Mr. Chairman, Representative Nordlund, yes, it was." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I think we need to have a fiscal note before we pass it out." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Very good idea. Within the discussion of the motion, could we say that we will include a zero fiscal note signed by the committee?" The committee was in agreement. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Although one from Corrections would be good - I think it'd be a positive fiscal note and that would do more good for the bill than just a zero fiscal note from this committee." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "We'll endeavor to do that." MS. KROGSENG: "I will contact the department. Thank you." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Which would negate the zero from us. Is there further discussion? If not, the bill is moved." CSHB 417 - POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN SCHOOL LOCKERS Number 833 PATTY SWENSON: "My name is Patty Swenson, and I'm a member of Representative Bunde's staff. HB 417 basically allows school lockers to be searched after the publication of a notice for at least two weeks. And it makes the existing crime of misconduct involving a weapon in the fourth degree, a Class A misdemeanor. I think that - please just ask me some questions and I'll try to answer them. Margot Knuth is here to also answer questions." Number 846 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Thank you. I didn't see anything in the back-up regarding any possible constitutional problems of search and seizure issues and it wasn't addressed in any of the back-up and I was wondering what the answer to that..." Number 852 MARGOT KNUTH, Criminal Division, Department of Law: "There is a United States Supreme Court decision indicating that searches such as this are not violative of rights of privacy, or the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizures under the United States Constitution. And we also have two Alaska Supreme Court decisions that have touched on this issue. Neither of them directly, but both of them are indicative that this would be constitutional. And the reason has to do with the school owns these lockers, and they are provided to students. If you provide notice that lets the students know that their lockers may be searched, this is considered reasonable balancing between the student's right of privacy in the space that they are using, with the state's need for providing a safe area for education to be going on. The fourth amendment protections are greater for searching the student's person than they are for searching the locker. There is sort of a continuum, and school lockers are beneath both the student's car and searching the student's person in terms of the amount of protection that they are getting. This bill essentially is setting out specific guidelines and parameters for something that is allowed under constitutional law already, but it will increase the schools' comfort with the practice, and it increases our comfort that there are guidelines set out, and now they know what to do. "Speaking to the other part of the bill, the Department of Law had, in fact, supported making it a felony instead of just a Class A misdemeanor for there to be a possession of firearms on school grounds, but the sponsor of the bill was reluctant to go that far, for reasons... TAPE 94-57, SIDE B Number 000 MS. KNUTH continued "when this type of violation occurs, right now it has been a Class B misdemeanor, which is the very lowest level of offense, and it hasn't allowed authorities any flexibility in trying to deal with what they consider to be a serious matter. To have a gun on school grounds is the antithesis of what we are trying to accomplish in education and the more serious an offense level it is, the more flexibility authorities have in trying to deal with the situation, so just moving it up to a Class A misdemeanor helps a great deal." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "This bill moves the offense to a Class A misdemeanor, of having a firearm on school property period, let alone a locker." MS. KNUTH: "That's right." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND inquired what is was now. MS. KNUTH responded is was a Class B. Number 028 LARRY WIGET, Director of Governmental Relations for the Anchorage School District testifying via teleconference. He said that their executive director wrote a memorandum of support for HB 417 which would provide statutory support for administrative procedures already in place in the Anchorage School District. The Anchorage School District parents and students have discussed and approved the concept of locker searches in the Anchorage schools. At the request of one of the legislators, they hired attorneys to take a look at this. They provided a letter of support, also. Schools have had problems with people having guns in school parking lots who are not even students. Therefore, the gun owners are not subject to the school's administrative rules. Law enforcement officers are not able to assist in helping school officials until some altercation breaks out, and the school administrator makes a citizens arrest for trespassing under local ordinances. By the time a situation gets to the point of an altercation where a citizens arrest is necessary, the safety of school personnel and students has already arisen. But local law enforcement agencies have no criminal law to enforce those situations. The proposed law would be a meaningful remedy and aid to school administrators. If the bill was passed, the school would be able to call the local law enforcement agencies, who would be able to intervene with possession of a deadly weapon law. Moreover, such a law would have a deterred impact, particularly on the non-students. MR. WIGET stated briefly, regarding the possession of school lockers, the proposed law would grant broad authority for school officials to conduct general random searches of school lockers with advance notice. Although there has not been an exhaustive constitutionality analysis of this measure, then (indiscernible) cases have greatly expanded the authority of school officials to conduct random searches. In Isaiah B. v. State of Wisconsin, 500 North West 2nd 637, Wisconsin, 1993, the proposed law would undoubtedly serve as a significant deterrent to students bringing weapons, drugs, or alcohol within the school. If the school districts adopt appropriate policy to implement this provision, they are confident the legislation could be applied in a constitutional manner. MR. WIGET commented that the section on the locker searches could be made more broad so as to allow notification of the searches through the student handbook and perhaps permanent posting of notices of a right to search in each school. Number 130 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON: "Mr. Wiget, how many incidents of weapons possession problems did you have within your school district this past school year?" Number 138 MR. WIGET: "I don't have those figures before me. We had provided them to someone else...I know there have been several and I don't have the specific number at the tip of my tongue. If you'd like, I could have that information sent down to you." Number 147 MS. SWENSEN: "I have those numbers here and they're also included in your packet, I believe. For 1993, there was a total of 106 suspensions for all types of weapons-related incidents, and for this year, the only numbers we have available, the breakout is minimal for the first two quarters of the year, and they went down significantly. As a matter of fact, there were 36 in the second quarter, 32 in the first quarter." Number 173 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I'm kind of curious about the section of the bill that requires the posting of signs. Was that done for some concern about the possible constitutionality of the bill?" MS. KNUTH: "I don't know if it's constitutionally required, but it is an appropriate measure to, as I say, balance the student's right of privacy against the interest we're trying to protect in searching the lockers. I don't know if it's mandatory, but it's something that the ACLU is behind, and there has been no objection to the concept by the school district." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, I guess my concern is that it says you should post a sign two weeks before the search is going to be conducted, or that you can leave a sign up continuously, so you can search any time. I mean, I think that's kind of (indiscernible). Basically, a search can be conducted any time as long as there is a sign up. I don't understand that. It seems that you're trying to have it both ways or something." Number 203 MS. KNUTH: "All you're trying to do with the sign is to let the student know at any time during the semester that their lockers are subject to inspection, and, if you provide that notice on the first day, or if you provide it two weeks before, the point isn't, `Everybody clean out your lockers and carry the gun in the back belt for this one day when we're doing the search and then put it back in there, and feel comfortable about that;' it's to say that `at no point should you have contraband like this on school grounds and you should know now and for the next 250 days of the school session that your interest in privacy in your school locker is minimal.'" Number 222 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "So why not just notify the students that their lockers can be searched and dispense with the whole notion of the two weeks in advance business? It makes it seem like they have some warning when they - in practical - they probably wouldn't. I imagine the Anchorage School District would make that a standing policy that their lockers could be searched at any time, which apparently, is constitutional, so why provide the two week notice business?" MS. KNUTH: "To make sure that the student does know and otherwise what - send a note home..." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Leave a sign up permanently so the students are notified." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "Mr. Chairman, that is one of the options that the sign can be posted permanently." Number 238 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "The question was since that would seem to be the less - would cause the least amount of activity for the school, and that's probably what they would do. But it isn't necessarily so, I mean these signs might - we might want to work something out with the kids where they wouldn't want to do that all the time, but if they had some more problems... What I guess this does guarantee is that you can't put up a sign at 9 o'clock and search the lockers at 9:05. Not that I'm necessarily opposed to that, but...." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "They're going to be searching lockers at any time, anyway. It doesn't really make any difference. If they could be given notice aside..." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "No, not under this law. They will not be able to search lockers unless they have posted a sign to these dimensions for two weeks or have one posted permanently." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Well, once the sign is posted permanently, then it's...(indiscernible) posted, I think it's a fine idea, but I'm just kind of curious...." Number 265 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "I guess that I'm having the same concern that Representative Nordlund is. I don't see - I mean I can visualize now - I guess they come to school and you put a sign up and that means the first two weeks you can't search their lockers. I see that as a loophole however, and I would like to have it be so that you must have a permanent sign up, so they always know that their locker can be searched. I'm not going to object to this bill, I'm not planning an amendment, I'm just making that statement. But I would feel a lot more comfortable if that was the requirement. And I'm a little uncomfortable with the two weeks, when school starts, that you can't (indiscernible) the lockers. I'm a little uncomfortable with that, I'd rather have it be that you could always do it. And whatever is required to make that happen, I would feel a lot more comfortable." Number 287 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT: "I was going to bring up basically the same point that my colleague from North Pole brought up (indiscernible) and go a step further. Why even post any signs? Don't we have a provision right now where school officials can search lockers or is there some probable cause that's required we can actually search a locker - like for illegal substances - don't we have some kind of provision this is somewhat mirroring that application?" MS. KNUTH: "Mr. Chairman, there was a time when we thought that school officials could go into lockers with no articulable basis at all, and that because they were not law enforcement officials, that this should be acceptable. And that is a ruling from the Alaska Supreme Court. There was a subsequent decision to cast doubt on that, that essentially school officials are acting in much the same capacity as law enforcement officials and therefore, you need either something short of probable cause, either an articulable reason for this given search, or you need to be conducting a random wholesale inspection program. And this is more what is being authorized under this bill, and what's being clarified here is the random searches where you are trying to deter students from using their locker for these items at all, because they don't know whether theirs is the one that is going to be searched or not. We don't anticipate every locker being inspected, although that is possible. But just enough to deter students from bringing contraband and weapons to school." Number 332 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "I guess a question either the sponsor or you, Margot, having a general feeling for these cases, I would have been under the impression that a school would be within its constitutional rights in the normal course of furnishing information to parents and students - bulletins, whatever - at the beginning of the school year to say that - and maybe even require a signature and return or something - that school property, including lockers are subject to random searches at any given time; and that would suffice without any need for signs or anything else. Is there something I'm missing?" REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "If I could respond as one (indiscernible), getting signed notices back is not an easy thing to do and certainly if it didn't come back, that would be a loophole there." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Well, I meant - I said that, but I quickly wanted to retract it. What I meant was the normal course of supplying information would suffice, to me." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "Proving that they received the information, I think...I would expect that it would be part..." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "I don't think that that would be a requirement - that you wouldn't have to prove that they got it. If this is the way that a school normally provides information to kids and parents, tough. Ignorance of a...that would be my..." MS. KNUTH: "I think you're correct, and then Mr. Chairman I think that this is codifying existing law and it's adding some safeguards that people have expressed concern about that schools are willing to do, but - right - this is more a comfort zone bill than any change in the law and in terms of the concerns expressed by Representative James, if we find that there is a first two week high incident period of weapons on school grounds, there will be a change requested." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "My preference would be to write a bill that reflects the laws that exist and allow schools to go further, if they so choose, by virtue of their advice that they receive from their own legal people. But why should we try to - by perhaps trying to be so protective of individual rights - just write a law that has loopholes in it." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "...a couple of items here. One is the loophole of two weeks, as I envision it, once that loophole only exists for the first time that the sign is posted, if it's going to be posted as an ongoing thing. And then the next year, that sign is then policy for an entire year. So, I don't see that the first two weeks.." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "(Indiscernible) the question, why is there a two week interval?" REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "If I could just finish on the sign notification. Again, dealing with students - sending information home at the beginning of the year is (indiscernible) - it's good, but I think there's a deterrent affect if there's a reminder - a posted sign - that the new kid in school, somebody who - it's now spring and they forgot about the regulations. If they have a posted sign it encourages compliance." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I'd like to offer an amendment. On page three, line 26, put a period after school and delete the rest of that paragraph." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "That would then read, `Notices and letters, at least two inches high stating the right and the intention of school and school district officials to permit searches and examinations under (a) of this section shall be posted in prominent locations throughout a school.'" REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "And I might add, Mr. Chairman, I think it's a good place to - I don't know if we can meet the two inches high criteria - but a good place to post the signs, would be on the inside door of the locker. Just plaster it on there and say, every time a kid opens their locker, they're going to see a sign that says `Be aware, this locker could be searched.'" REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "I have a friendly amendment." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Representative James has a friendly amendment to the amendment." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "Well, in the second sentence, I'd rather take `may' out and put `shall.' Notices under this subsection `shall'...." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "That's out." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "Oh, you're taking that out, as well?" CHAIRMAN PORTER: "I believe so." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I'm taking out the entire rest of the paragraph." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "Okay, not a problem." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "...for two weeks on line 26, all of 27 and all of 28." CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Wiget if he was familiar with the notice provision - posting of a sign on page three of the bill - line 24, page three? "I don't know if you're familiar with this portion of the bill, but there's a portion of the bill that says that a school will post a sign in the school for at least two weeks or either that or continuously, to notify of the schools' right and intention to search lockers. We're taking out the two weeks, or there's an amendment proposed to take out the two weeks that would just leave it to say that notices in letters of at least two inches high, stating the right and intention of the school and district officers to permit searches and examinations under (a) of this section shall be posted in prominent locations throughout the school, period." MR. WIGET: "That is consistent with my conversation with Dr. (indiscernible) in which we were talking just about the permanent placement of a sign in the building, or perhaps even notification in the student handbook, to deal with this issue." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Okay, very good. That seems..." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Can I move the amendment?" CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Move the amendment? We'll call it amendment number 1 which for the record, is removing `for two weeks' on line 26, all of line 27, all of line 28 on page three of CS for HB 417(HES), which is in front of us. Representative Phillips." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Mr. Chairman, if we could ask the sponsor what his thoughts are on that?" Number 477 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "Thank you. We have, I think addressed that somewhat in our previous conversation. I'm just wanting to try to be as bullet proof as possible, so if someone's caught with contraband, that there won't be a legal challenge and that the - without the two week proviso, is there some possibility that this was capricious or arbitrary... I don't oppose the amendment, certainly in concept, I just want to make sure that we don't create loopholes, as I mentioned earlier." Number 485 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "For the record, it certainly is my opinion and agreed upon by the Department of Law representative here, that this goes beyond the requirement. The resulting section (b) here on page four of section four, still goes beyond the requirement that my impression of the law requires." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: "I'd certainly defer to people with more experience in the law, than myself." Number 492 MS. KNUTH: "I do believe that that's accurate. I would be slightly more comfortable if only the two weeks - the word `two weeks' was taken out and if the rest of it were left. But that's probably just a lawyer who loves words, and gosh you're taking out 16 of them or..." Number 520 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "We would end up with the same intent. Jim, would you consider that a friendly amendment?" REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Mr. Chairman, we could add one word in to take the place of the 16 words out. We could add `continuously' on line 26 - `shall be continuously posted.'" REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "I have a problem with that. I don't know how many of these kids will climb up and take the sign down and, you know, I think that that might be a problem." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Let's leave it out then, Mr. Chairman." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, I guess my only concern about - I think there might be some expectation that, with Margot's suggestion, there might be some expectation that there be some posting of signs before a certain search was going to happen. And if it's just a standing policy that any time you beware that your locker can be searched at any time, you're just better off." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "I think so, too. Is there further discussion of the amendment? Is there objection? Hearing none, we have adopted the amendment. We have in front of us the bill, as amended, what's the wish of the committee? Representative James." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would move that we move the CS, version R, as amended with a zero fiscal note out of committee, with individual recommendations." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Motion to move, with individual recommendations, zero fiscal notes. Is there discussion? Representative Phillips." Number 530 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Mr. Chairman, may I to the sponsor, or to Margot, I don't see any policy statement or any statement of support from the Department of Public Safety. Did you have any interaction with them and - I have a fiscal note, but I don't find a statement from them." Number 534 MS. SWENSON: "Mr. Chairman, Representative Phillips, I spoke with the Department of Public Safety and they said they had no interest either way in the bill." Number 540 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Further discussion? Is there objection? Hearing none, the bill is moved. Anything for the good (indiscernible)? Seeing none, we are adjourned."