ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 20, 2002
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 242
"An Act relating to concealed handgun permittees."
- MOVED SB 242 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 341
"An Act relating to assault in the fourth degree that is a crime
involving domestic violence."
- HEARD AND HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 36
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to limiting the rate of state individual income
taxes and sales taxes.
- MOVED CSSSHJR 36(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 197
"An Act relating to directives for personal health care services
and for medical treatment."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 242
SHORT TITLE:CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITTEES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/02 1962 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/02 1962 (S) JUD
01/23/02 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/23/02 (S) <Above Item Removed from
Agenda>
02/01/02 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/01/02 (S) <Bill Postponed to 2/11/02> -
- Meeting Canceled --
02/11/02 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/11/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
02/11/02 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/13/02 2173 (S) JUD RPT 5DP
02/13/02 2173 (S) DP: TAYLOR, THERRIAULT,
DONLEY,
02/13/02 2173 (S) COWDERY, ELLIS
02/13/02 2173 (S) FN1: ZERO(DPS)
02/21/02 (S) RLS AT 11:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/21/02 (S) -- Meeting Postponed to
2/22/02 --
02/22/02 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/22/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/25/02 2298 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/25/02
02/25/02 2300 (S) HELD TO 2/27 CALENDAR
02/27/02 2319 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/27/02 2319 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/27/02 2320 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 242
02/27/02 2320 (S) PASSED Y16 N3 A1
02/27/02 2320 (S) HOFFMAN NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
03/01/02 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/01/02 2343 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
03/01/02 2344 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1
UNAN CONSENT
03/01/02 2344 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y5 N13 E2
03/01/02 2344 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD
READING
03/01/02 2345 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15
N3 E2
03/01/02 2350 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/01/02 2350 (S) VERSION: SB 242
03/04/02 2459 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/04/02 2459 (H) JUD
03/20/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 341
SHORT TITLE:FELONY 4TH DEG DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ASSAULT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HAYES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/18/02 2007 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/18/02 2007 (H) JUD, FIN
01/18/02 2007 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
01/28/02 2087 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GUESS
03/20/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 36
SHORT TITLE:CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT : TAX CAPS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CROFT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/01/02 2115 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/01/02 2115 (H) JUD, FIN
02/19/02 2306 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/19/02 2306 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2306 (H) JUD, FIN
02/22/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/22/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(JUD)
02/22/02 2368 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HALCRO
03/01/02 2448 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
03/20/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 197
SHORT TITLE:HEALTH CARE SERVICES DIRECTIVES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HUDSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/19/01 0649 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/19/01 0649 (H) HES, JUD
03/28/01 0762 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
04/10/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/10/01 (H) <Bill Postponed to 4/17>
04/17/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/17/01 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/01 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/19/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/19/01 (H) Heard & Held
04/19/01 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/19/01 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/24/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/24/01 (H) Moved CSHB 197(HES) Out of
Committee
04/24/01 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/25/01 1196 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 3DP 2NR
1AM
04/25/01 1197 (H) DP: JOULE, CISSNA, DYSON; NR:
COGHILL,
04/25/01 1197 (H) STEVENS; AM: KOHRING
04/25/01 1197 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.HES/HSS)
01/28/02 2086 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CRAWFORD,
LANCASTER
03/20/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CAROLYN THOMAS, Staff
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 242 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Taylor.
CHARLES KOPP, Lieutenant
Vice President
Alaska Peace Officers Association (APOA)
PO Box 1030
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 242.
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison
Institute for Legislative Action
National Rifle Association of America (NRA)
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 625
Sacramento, California 95814
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that his testimony on HB 346,
companion bill to SB 242, would stand for his testimony on SB
242; and responded to questions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE HAYES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 422
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 341.
MELINDA BRUNO, Staff
to Representative Joe Hayes
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 422
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 341 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Hayes.
DANTE FOSTER
PO Box 83940
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 341.
ROBYN SMITH
115 Bridget Avenue, Number 2
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 341.
JANET BAIRD
306 Slater Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 341.
SHANNA KARELLA
PO Box 75449
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 341.
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
341.
JULIA P. GRIMES, Lieutenant
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
341.
WILLA FREY, Minister
Community of Christ
PO Box 71714
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 341.
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director
Interior Alaska Center for Non-Violent Living
717 9th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 341.
SHEILA KIVI, Facilitator
Alternative Behaviors & Choices [Services]
1616 Cushman Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 341.
JOAN ADAMS
PO Box 70894
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 341.
SUSAN SCUDDER, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
PO Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 341 and
responded to questions.
LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
130 Seward Street, Room 209
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 341 and
responded to questions.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 341 provided
comments and responded to questions.
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator/Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner - Juneau
Department of Corrections (DOC)
431 North Franklin Street, Suite 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 341 responded to
questions.
MELANIE LESH, Staff
to Representative Bill Hudson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 197 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Hudson.
SIOUX PLUMMER, President
Board of Directors
Foundation for Hospice and Home Care of Juneau Alaska
5050 Thane Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 197,
testified in support, and responded to questions.
RICHARD BLOCK
Christian Science Committee on Publication
for the State of Alaska
360 West Benson Boulevard, Suite 301
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 197.
MARK JOHNSON, Chief
Community Health & Emergency Medical Services
Division of Public Health
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS)
PO Box 110616
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0616
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the intent of HB
197.
LYN FREEMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Commission on Aging
Division of Senior Services
Department of Administration
PO Box 110209
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0209
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Version O of HB
197.
MARIE DARLIN
AARP Capitol City Task Force
415 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Version O of HB
197.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-33, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. Representatives
Rokeberg, James, Coghill, and Meyer were present at the call to
order. Representatives Berkowitz and Kookesh arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
SB 242 - CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITTEES
Number 0042
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 242, "An Act relating to concealed handgun
permittees."
Number 0098
CAROLYN THOMAS, Staff to Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, read the following sponsor statement:
A statutory revision is needed to further clarify the
recognition of concealed handgun permits from other
states. The 21st Legislature passed SB 294, a bill
sponsored by Senator Taylor, which provided for the
recognition of permits from states with permit
requirements similar to Alaska, and from states which
recognize Alaska's permits. Senate Bill 294 also
directed the department of Public Safety to determine
which states and political subdivisions grant
reciprocity to Alaska permit holders and distribute
the list to each law enforcement agency in this state.
The department has yet to fully implement this
statutory requirement, some 16 months later.
This legislation will simplify the process by plainly
recognizing all permits issued by other states. In so
doing, the burden on the department of having to
evaluate all the other states' laws to determine which
ones recognize Alaska permits, as well as the
subjectivity on the part of the department in
determining which other states' statutes are similar
to Alaska law will be removed.
SB 242 will better serve the public and permit
holders.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether SB 242 is identical to HB 346.
MS. THOMAS replied yes.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that the House Judiciary Standing Committee
has already had a public hearing on HB 346.
Number 0275
CHARLES KOPP, Lieutenant; Vice President, Alaska Peace Officers
Association (APOA), testified via teleconference. Lieutenant
Kopp announced that APOA originally supported SB 242 because of
the checks and balances. However, the removal of important
screening criteria such as verification of age and eligibility
requirements [is cause for concern]; although it takes time to
implement the screening criteria, it promotes safety
nonetheless. He said the APOA opposes reciprocity to another
state if the screening criteria of [that state] isn't equal to
or greater than that of Alaska.
Number 0454
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison, Institute for Legislative
Action, National Rifle Association of America (NRA), testified
via teleconference. Mr. Judy reminded the committee that he
provided fairly lengthy testimony on HB 346, the companion to SB
242, and thus that testimony would stand for SB 242.
Number 0510
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt
Amendment 1, which reads as follows:
"Section 1. Amend AS 18.65.748 to read:
Sec. 18.65.748. Permit holders from other
jurisdictions considered Alaska permit holders. A
person is exempt from the requirements in AS 18.65.710
if the person is a nonresident who is at least 21
years of age, has successfully completed a handgun or
firearms safety course, has been subject to a
fingerprint-based criminal records search and who has
a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun from
another state; however, a permit under AS 18.65.710
must be obtained by the end of a 120-day period after
entry into the state."
REPRESENTATIVES JAMES and COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ recalled testimony on HB 346 regarding
an analogy about driver's licenses. Upon review of the driver's
license statutes, Representative Berkowitz discovered that
people are allowed to drive in Alaska without an Alaskan
driver's license so long as the nonresident is at least 16 years
of age and has a valid driver's license issued by another state.
However, [a nonresident] must obtain an Alaska driver's license
after being in the state for a 90-day period. Therefore, for
driver's licenses a minimum age is required and another state's
driver's license is recognized for a maximum of 90 days in the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that parallel to the driver's
license [statute], Amendment 1 would ensure that [nonresidents]
comply with Alaska's age standard of 21 [for concealed handguns]
and would allow a period of 120 days in the state [before
requiring an Alaskan concealed handgun permit]. Representative
Berkowitz felt that the concealed handgun permit should be
treated as the driver's license is [with regard to nonresidents
in this state].
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH commented that this makes sense.
CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised, then, that Amendment 1 adds back some
of the provisions that were repealed, and requires [nonresidents
with concealed handguns], who stay in Alaska for more than 120
days, to obtain an Alaskan concealed handgun permit.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he wasn't sure about "the repealer
portion," only that he wanted to ensure that these concealed
handgun requirements parallel the driver's license statutes.
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that people don't have to get
fingerprinted to obtain a driver's license.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reiterated that in order to get an
Alaska driver's license, people are required to be 16 years of
age whether they are Alaskan or nonresident.
Number 0692
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH inquired about the intent to stay. He
posed a situation in which a person with a concealed handgun
permit from another state has no intent to stay, but decides to
act as if he/she is.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ returned to the driver's license
analogy, which requires a nonresident to obtain a driver's
license after being in the state for more than 90 days. He
suggested that if one is here for more than 90 days, then the
individual is going to stay and if not, the individual will be
leaving shortly. Therefore, he felt the 120-day requirement in
Amendment 1 provided an additional buffer. Representative
Berkowitz said he didn't know what would happen if there wasn't
an intent to stay. He noted that he would accept [intent to
stay] language as a friendly addition to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES relayed her belief that SB 242 has nothing
to do with whether one intends to stay but rather with whether
the individual is in the state and has a [concealed handgun]
permit from another state.
MR. JUDY announced that he opposes Amendment 1 because he views
it as unnecessary. He said that people from other states,
regardless of whether those states have [concealed handgun
permit] processes that are less or more difficult than Alaska's,
aren't causing problems in their states and won't cause problems
in Alaska. Mr. Judy informed the committee that if the time
limitation is included, there is at least one state, Texas, that
won't reciprocate and recognize Alaska's permit because Alaska's
law would be more rigid than that state's law. Mr. Judy urged
the committee to pass SB 242 unamended.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if it was fair to say that most other
states have these provisions [such as those proposed in
Amendment 1] in order to obtain a permit.
MR. JUDY answered that most states with a specific law require a
background check. Most states require fingerprints and training
courses. Regardless of the level of the criteria, the empirical
data illustrates that permit holders are responsible individuals
and aren't causing problems and thus won't cause problems when
in Alaska.
CHAIR ROKEBERG related his understanding, then, that adoption of
Amendment 1 would defeat the purpose of SB 242 because it
hampers reciprocity with other states.
MR. JUDY answered, "more or less." He remarked, "What we
believe ... [is that] self-defense is a fundamental right and
the right should not stop at the state borders." Ideally, every
state would recognize every other state's permit, which is what
SB 242 would accomplish in Alaska. "The more states that we can
get to adopt clean bills, clean laws of that type, the easier
it's going to be to pass those types of laws in other states;
the quicker we can do that, the quicker Alaskans will have their
permits recognized by more states," he said.
Number 1008
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that he has never asserted
that people with concealed handgun permits are anything other
than more law-abiding than the rest of the population. However,
there is the consideration of being a sovereign state and the
responsibility of exercising independent judgment regarding the
best interest of Alaskans. Representative Berkowitz pointed out
that [the legislature] decided that concealed handgun permit
holders who are Alaska residents have to follow certain
requirements; thus it would seem that visitors should follow the
same rules. He reiterated the driver's license analogy: those
who stay beyond a certain time period must obtain an Alaska
driver's license.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that although she understood
Representative Berkowitz's argument, she didn't believe it is
[relevant] in this case. She explained:
The reason for that is: We put these rules and
regulations on our own people, and in order for our
own people to have the full protection of being able
to go anyplace and take their 'concealed-carry' permit
and have it mean anything, ... we have to agree that
we're going to have this reciprocal agreement. So,
saying this amendment is to protect us ... is false in
a way because what [SB 242] really does is allow us to
carry [concealed] in other states.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asserted that if one assumes that these are
the "good people" that have these concealed-carry permits, then
Alaska has to have a provision that allows reciprocity with each
state that allows the same. Representative James noted her
opposition to Amendment 1.
Number 1158
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that Representative James's
argument invites an equal protection challenge on the grounds
that an Alaskan who doesn't qualify for a concealed-carry permit
in Alaska may be able to obtain the permit from another
jurisdiction, which would be recognized here. Therefore, that
individual would be in a different position. Representative
Berkowitz explained that he is thinking in terms of what occurs
when the aforementioned differential between "our citizens" is
created.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that [SB 242] is a benefit and
recognizes concealed-carry permit holders are law-abiding
citizens. She opined that Representative Berkowitz's example is
absurd.
CHAIR ROKEBERG inquired as to the costs of such a permit in
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recalled that her renewal was only $25.
CHAIR ROKEBERG indicated that the initial fee is $99. He also
indicated agreement with Representative James that someone isn't
going to cross state lines to find lower standards to obtain a
concealed-carry permit for a $99 fee.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ emphasized that the difficulty with
this issue is that it involves guns and thus people focus on the
gun part of it rather than the law part. Upon reviewing the law
aspect of SB 242, Alaskans are placed in a different posture in
their ability to comply with the law. Representative Berkowitz
clarified that he has never said that people who carry concealed
handguns are completely law-abiding; however, he acknowledged
that they are more law-abiding than the general population.
Representative Berkowitz said, "I think that the state has a
responsibility; when we have laws, regardless of the subject
matter, we ought to make sure that those laws are enforced."
Therefore, if people wanted to visit Alaska they could do so,
but those who stay here have to live by our laws.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked, "If the length of residency and not
fulfilling the duties of a new citizen of Alaska was your
intention, you could perhaps modify this amendment and might
have greater legs [to stand on]."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ announced, "I would accept that as a
friendly amendment to my amendment." He clarified that he would
be willing to amend Amendment 1 such that it would read as
follows: "A permit under AS 18.65.710 must be obtained by the
end of a 120-day period after entry into the state."
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH commented that he felt that would clarify
it. If a person comes to Alaska and stays more than 120 days,
then what they bring with them should eventually become Alaskan.
CHAIR ROKEBERG recalled Mr. Judy's testimony that there may be
some states that run afoul of that.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that those states, then, could
modify their laws to come into compliance with Alaska.
Number 1403
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to amend Amendment 1 such that it
would read as follows: "A permit under AS 18.65.710 must be
obtained by the end of a 120-day period after entry into the
state."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected, noting that a number of [seasonal
workers] come to Alaska for less than 120 days. She said she
interpreted the [amendment to Amendment 1] to [mean] that if
that person was here once and returned 120 days later, that
person would have to get a local permit. She said she didn't
believe it should work that way. Furthermore, obtaining
reciprocity is the thrust of this legislation. Although the
amendment to Amendment 1 is less onerous than Amendment 1
itself, she said that it remains too onerous for her to support.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH expressed concern with Representative
James's last comment because it illustrates that she is worrying
about people from other states. He said he felt that the worry
should be in regard to Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER relayed his understanding of Representative
James's comments to be that there is a certain amount of trust
with regard to other states [with concealed-carry laws] trusting
Alaska and vice versa. This legislation protects Alaskans in
the sense that other states aren't going to make outlandish
requirements on Alaskans traveling through that state.
Therefore, he felt that [SB 242] should be left alone unless it
is found not to work.
Number 1536
MR. JUDY pointed out that with or without "this amendment"
regarding the 120-day limitation, Alaska will recognize every
state's permits, although only for a limited amount of time.
For example, someone from Texas with a permit could come to
Alaska and carry a [concealed handgun]. However, because Alaska
imposes that restriction on Texas, Texas will not recognize
Alaska's permits. Therefore, a permit holder from Texas will
still be able to come to Alaska for 120 days, but Alaskans won't
receive the benefit of reciprocity. Mr. Judy said that he
didn't understand the issue of 120 days because he believes the
majority of those coming to Alaska will be present significantly
less than 120 days. "To me the whole thing seems to be really a
non-issue," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated her thoughts regarding
reciprocity, and said that "any of these kinds of things
destroys the intent."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Whose intent?"
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered: The intent of the sponsor of SB
242.
CHAIR ROKEBERG called the question.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz and
Kookesh voted for the amendment to Amendment 1. Representatives
James, Coghill, Meyer, and Rokeberg voted against the amendment
to Amendment 1. Therefore, the amendment to Amendment 1 failed
by a vote of 2-4.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew Amendment 1.
Number 1732
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report SB 242 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, SB 242 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 341 - FELONY 4TH DEG DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ASSAULT
Number 1747
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 341, "An Act relating to assault in the fourth
degree that is a crime involving domestic violence."
Number 1757
REPRESENTATIVE JOE HAYES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
thanked the committee for hearing HB 341, and indicated that
while he was available for questions, his staff, Melinda Bruno,
would be presenting the bill.
Number 1777
MELINDA BRUNO, Staff to Representative Joe Hayes, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Hayes, sponsor, said
that as a deterrent to continuing cycles of domestic violence
(DV), it is imperative that Alaska adopt legislation that will
make punishments more severe. Increased penalties may
discourage abusers from committing an offense and encourage them
to seek necessary and appropriate treatment programs. She
explained that the primary reason for introducing HB 341 is to
provide a tool to help break the cycle of domestic violence.
Currently, a person can have any number of "fourth degree
assault convictions" related to DV, and each successive
conviction for assault in the fourth degree related to DV is
still subject to the same punishment as the previous
convictions. She posited that this is completely unacceptable;
therefore, the sponsor is introducing HB 341, which will amend
AS 11.41.230(b) so that the third conviction of fourth degree
assault involving DV is a class C felony. In conclusion, she
said that HB 341 is necessary to help protect Alaska's families,
especially those that have already been victimized by domestic
violence.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER, referring to a letter in members' packets
from William R. Satterberg, Jr., asked Representative Hayes to
comment.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said that he would be working with Mr.
Satterberg over the upcoming interim in an effort to address
some of the concerns expressed in the aforementioned letter.
Noting that one of those concerns pertained to charging acts of
nonphysical [behavior] in DV situations as assault in the fourth
degree, Representative Hayes pointed out that in Alaska, the
courts have never tried such cases because those situations have
always been resolved out of court. He also pointed out that HB
341 is not intended to address DV situations involving
nonphysical [behavior]. In response to a question, he assured
committee members that he is primarily concerned with addressing
physically violent DV situations. Because DV situations tend to
escalate, he said, one of his ultimate fears is that by the time
a DV situation is dealt with, it may be too late and someone has
been killed. He indicated that his hope is that HB 341 will
prevent people, after a second conviction for assault in the
fourth degree involving domestic violence, from committing
subsequent acts of DV.
Number 1979
DANTE FOSTER testified via teleconference in support of HB 341,
and read the following testimony regarding the economic
consequences of domestic violence:
Nothing comes for free, not even a bill as promising
as this one. But the costs associated with [HB 341]
must be considered within the appropriate context.
You see, domestic violence does not come for free
either. It exacts a tremendous economic toll on our
nation and represents nothing less than a pervasive
drain on our economic resources. According to the
American Institute on Domestic Violence and the Bureau
of National Affairs, the corporate cost of domestic
violence is in excess of $67 billion per year. This
includes $3-5 billion in domestic-violence-related
medical expenses and $100 million in lost wages, sick
leave, and absenteeism. It does not include the
social, political, or judicial costs associated with
domestic violence.
The first systematic study of the relationship between
abuse and employment was conducted in 1987 by Friedman
and Couper. The pair found that 56 percent of women
seeking counseling assistance at a victims' services
agency had lost at least one job because of domestic
violence, [and] 54 percent reported missing three or
more days of work per month because of domestic
violence. In a comparable study, Shepard and Pence
found that 58 percent of shelter residents were
working at the time that they were abused and that
their work performance was seriously compromised by
absenteeism and tardiness related to their abuse.
The Effects of Violence on Work and Family Project,
which was conducted in Chicago, found that battered
women are more likely to have been unemployed and to
suffer from a range of physical and mental health
problems known to affect employability and job
performance. While 57 percent of women interviewed
reported having been unemployed when they wanted to be
working, 70 percent of battered women reported having
been so unemployed. Additional studies found that
battered women are more likely to collect public
assistance and that abuse increases the length of time
and the number of times that women return to welfare.
MS. FOSTER concluded:
Reliance on public assistance, decreased productivity,
increased medical expenses and absenteeism all come at
a price - a price we will pay whether or not it is
included in state budgets or appears on the national
balance sheet. The only way to reduce the price is to
stop violence. House Bill 341 is an excellent place
to start. While it may increase the amount spent on
incarcerating repeat offenders, it will also ensure
that their victims have time to assess their situation
and, perhaps, move on to more secure circumstances in
which they can lead productive, violence-free lives.
Any increase in the cost of incarceration will be
offset by their unfettered participation in the
workforce. I therefore urge you to do everything in
your power to advance [HB 341], and thank you very
much for taking domestic violence seriously.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that for "such a small bill, it's got a
big price tag," with the fiscal notes totaling over $2 million.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES agreed that the fiscal notes were
relatively large.
Number 2163
ROBYN SMITH testified via teleconference and indicated simply
that as a victim of domestic violence herself for two and a half
years, she is in support of HB 341. She also made mention of
fact that she has scars on her forehead and cigarette burns on
her arms that she has to live with and look at everyday. She
said she believes that abusers need to have "successive scars"
attached to their records so that they can "pay for the scars of
what they've done to other people."
Number 2196
JANET BAIRD testified via teleconference in support of HB 341.
She noted that she was speaking on behalf of herself, on behalf
of the "Domestic Violence portion of the Equal Justice Committee
at the New Hope Methodist-Presbyterian Church in North Pole, and
... as chair of the Social Concerns Committee for the Yukon
Presbyter." She noted that in most of the statistical charts
that she sees, Alaska is at the top in terms "violence, domestic
violence, and child abuse." She said she did not like living in
a state that is number one in "that category," nor did she think
Alaska's women and children should be treated "that way." She
urged the legislature to do everything it could to change this
situation.
MS. BAIRD offered that there are three things that HB 341 would
accomplish. One, it would increase awareness that domestic
violence is a serious crime. Two, it would raise the stakes for
the perpetrators. And three, it would create a deterrent. For
all these reasons, she said, HB 341 is a very useful bill and
one that is worth working on. She posited that it would also be
useful to see what domestic violence is not: It is not random
and it is not a result of uncontrollable emotions or moods.
Rather, domestic violence is a learned behavior that is
controlling and strategically planned.
MS. BAIRD said that domestic violence has devastating effects on
children; in Alaska the statistics show that 60 percent of child
abuse occurs in homes where domestic violence exists. She noted
that nationally, there are up 10 million children who will
witness domestic violence, and that in homes where a batterer is
abusing a partner, the batterer is also abusing the children in
that home. She mentioned that in Fairbanks, there are many
people who work very hard in setting up networks in order to
have a coordinated plan against domestic violence, and she
invited the legislature to join in on that effort by voting for
HB 341.
Number 2303
SHANNA KARELLA testified via teleconference and read the
following testimony in support of HB 341:
I am a domestic violence and stalking victim. I am
here to testify in favor of [HB 341]. There are many
domestic violence victims who are unable to voice
their own needs and concerns. Although this bill does
not benefit me personally in any way, I testify today
on behalf of those who are unable to speak to you for
themselves.
The hardest thing for a domestic violence victim to do
is to get out of the relationship. It is easier and
safer to stay. Statistics show that the victim's
likelihood of being killed by their partner increases
when they try to leave. I was lucky in one respect.
My relationship had not progressed to violence before
I was able to get out. Even so, it took me two and a
half years to leave after I began to think I needed to
leave. It is much more difficult for someone who has
been terrorized, threatened, and beaten to leave; the
fear is overpowering.
Once a victim does manage to leave their batterer, he
or she is met with a frustrating lack of legislation
or legal support. As a victim, I have followed all of
the recommendations from the court, the troopers, and
the local women's shelter. I have a restraining
order. I have changed and unlisted my phone number.
I sold my house and moved. I have informed my
children's schools, and provided them copies of the
restraining order and a photo of the perpetrator. I
log blocked phone calls that I continue to get at
work. I report every new violation of the restraining
order to the troopers. My teenage daughters and I
have changed our e-mail addresses more than once. I
vary my route to work and school. In short, I do
everything I am supposed to do, but that isn't enough.
Legislation needs to change.
When domestic violence victims do make the effort to
get away from their batterer, they put themselves and
perhaps their children at greater risk of violent
reprisal and death. They need legislative support.
Current Alaska state law offers an incredible lack of
serious consequences for those convicted of domestic
violence assault. This leaves both victims and
perpetrators of domestic violence with the accurate
impression that the perpetrator can basically "get
away with it."
MS. KARELLA concluded:
House Bill 341 will change that. Domestic violence
batterers will know that there are serious legal
consequences to their actions. Domestic violence
victims will be safer, and will have the support and
protection they desperately need. I urge you to vote
to pass [HB 341]. Thank you.
Number 2440
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency (PDA),
Department of Administration, testified via teleconference,
noting that the PDA certainly agrees that Alaska - in both rural
and urban areas - suffers from a high rate of domestic violence.
She commended Representative Hayes for bringing forth [HB 341],
and acknowledged that domestic violence affects a vast number of
federal, state, and local organizations that strive to deal with
its many ramifications. There certainly is a need for effective
intervention and deterrence, she said, and that should be the
goal of any legislation addressing domestic violence. The
million-dollar question, however, is: what is effective?
Citing the Domestic Violence Caucus and the Domestic Violence
Committee, she acknowledged the efforts of these and other state
and local agencies and partnerships to look into domestic
violence issues and try to improve treatment, services, access
to treatment and services, and monitoring.
MS. WILSON pointed out, however, that increasing penalties and
jail time has not been proven to be effective as a deterrent to
domestic violence; instead, increasing the "consequences to a
felony," she warned, would have many accompanying costs. She
remarked that the fiscal note submitted by the PDA is a
[conservative] estimate.
TAPE 02-33, SIDE B
Number 2510
MS. WILSON continued, saying that most of the domestic violence
cases that occur in Anchorage are handled by the city, but they
may very well wind up being handled by the state should HB 341
come to pass. Thus the fiscal repercussions might be even
higher than estimated. She said that certainly efforts need to
be made to create fundamental, long-term changes that will prove
to be effective deterrents to domestic violence, such as
education and treatment.
Number 2471
JULIA P. GRIMES, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), testified via teleconference,
and concurred that domestic violence is an enormous problem,
both statewide and nationally. In fact, she said, domestic
violence has been a big enough problem in Alaska that in 1996,
the legislature passed the Domestic Violence Prevention and
Victim Protection Act, and within that Act there were many
changes to the approach taken to domestic violence. The most
significant, from a law-enforcement perspective, was the
mandatory arrest. With mandatory arrest, in a domestic violence
case, she explained, "we were looking for greater and more
immediate consequence for the batterer - for the offender; we're
looking for something that's going to cause change in behavior
for these folks" so that their battering behavior does not
continue.
LIEUTENANT GRIMES noted that previous testimony has indicated
that domestic violence is not only a continuing problem in many
families, but it is also an escalating problem in that the
violence escalates in severity. The hope was that the
mandatory-arrest provision would reduce the potential for future
domestic violence offenses to occur within a family. This [type
of intervention] was needed because escalating violence in DV
situations ultimately results in homicide; unfortunately, Alaska
is very much in line with the rest of the country in terms of
U.S. Department of Justice statistics which show that
nationally, 30 percent of homicides are DV-related. She relayed
that even according to the Anchorage Police Department (APD), 30
percent of homicides occurring within its jurisdiction are DV-
related. She relayed, however, that within the Alaska State
Troopers' jurisdiction, just under 50 percent of the homicides
that occurred in 2001 are DV related.
LIEUTENANT GRIMES stated that these statistics are unacceptable,
and recounted that on November 24, 2001, Alaska State Trooper
Hans Roelle was killed while responding to a domestic violence
call that ended in the murder of a one-year-old and a three-
year-old and the suicide of the children's father. Lieutenant
Grimes opined that HB 341 would allow for greater periods of
confinement, which equals less exposure for the victim, and,
more significantly, with the class C felony there would be
supervised probation for offenders, which would allow for a more
structured enforcement of treatment programs and other
successful interventions. She relayed that a July 2001 National
Institute of Justice study has concluded that arresting
batterers is consistently related to reducing subsequent
domestic violence assaults.
Number 2312
WILLA FREY, Minister, Community of Christ, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 341. She noted that she is also
president of the Tanana Valley Conference of Churches. She said
that over the years, [her organizations] have developed several
committees that try to improve the lives of those in the
community. She remarked that HB 341 is one way in which the
legislature can join in with their efforts to eliminate the
problem of domestic violence.
Number 2260
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director, Interior Alaska Center for
Non-Violent Living, testified via teleconference in support of
HB 341. She said that batterers need to experience the
consequences of their actions. Currently, however, that does
not occur; when a batterer goes to court, he/she is perhaps
sentenced to three days in jail - although most of the time it
is just overnight due to credit for time already served upon
arrest - and must attend "Alternatives to Violence." And
although this is a good step in the right direction, it is not
enough because it is simply a misdemeanor charge and does not
contain any follow-up or oversight. She recounted that in her
community at a recent point in time, there were over 350 men and
women who, after being convicted of domestic violence and
ordered by the court to go to treatment, were noncompliant. She
said that consistently, intervention is not occurring.
MS. STANFILL said that although putting money into education is
key to solving the problem of domestic violence, there also has
to be a way of ensuring that people receive that education once
they go through the court system. Without a felony charge,
there is no supervised probation and no way to track whether
people are complying. She remarked that any follow-up that is
currently occurring is being done by local agencies that are not
receiving any funds for this extra activity. She said her
agency is doing this on its own, doing its best to try to make
sure that the proper authorities are notified when people are
noncompliant, but it doesn't have the resources to serve
warrants. "So when you're looking at a fiscal note saying, 'We
can't afford this,'" she remarked, a way simply must be found.
She reiterated that she is in support of [HB 341], and urged
members to pass it out of committee for further consideration.
Number 2185
SHEILA KIVI, Facilitator, Alternative Behaviors & Choices
[Services], testified via teleconference in support of HB 341,
and suggested that the economic penalties on batterers could be
set high enough so as to offset HB 341's fiscal notes. She
opined that batterers need more jail time, and that if HB 341 is
not passed, the situation will remain the same and more women
are going to die and more families are going to be harmed. She
said that she has to deal with noncompliant batterers, and noted
that the rate of noncompliance has risen this year. Because the
offense is just a misdemeanor, most people play it off as, "It's
just family violence, it's just not our business"; however, "we
need to make it our business," she stated, adding that
legislators in Alaska need to make it their business without
worrying about the cost, because "we'll find a way" to pay for
it. She opined that everyone needs to help find a way to stop
the crime of domestic violence.
Number 2128
JOAN ADAMS testified via teleconference in support of HB 341,
noting that she supervises three batterers intervention
programs: one in the Fairbanks Correctional Center, one in the
Northstar Center - a halfway house, and one program offered to
the [Fairbanks] community. She explained that the first time a
batterer stands before a judge is not the first time that he/she
has been abusive; it is likely that the emotional/psychological
abuse has been going on for months and possibly years, and it is
simply the first time that the victim has finally reached out
for help from law enforcement. She relayed that the dynamics of
domestic violence are such that over time, it gets more serious
and more frequent. The danger, even, with having a third
conviction be a felony is that it is not known how much abuse
must be suffered before even that threshold is reached.
MS. ADAMS said that there seems to be a double standard with
regard to how regular assaults between strangers are treated
when compared to how DV assaults are treated. Why is it that
there are not the same sort of consequences for people who
assault their intimate partners, over whom they have power and
control? She also relayed her feeling that there is a lot of
minimization and denial, not only in the batterers' and victims'
minds, but also from a systems standpoint; often, the
professionals who work with DV issues attempt to minimize how DV
impacts victims, and deny the seriousness of the DV behavior.
She noted that because of the "Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde" aspect of a
batterer's personality, it has often been a real challenge to
get assistance for a victim, simply because when he/she goes for
help, those that know or have met the batterer say that that
person is so nice, he/she couldn't possibly be abusive.
MS. ADAMS remarked that one of the things that can make a
difference in changing the behavior of a batterer is creating an
opportunity for him/her to be accountable for the abusive
behavior; unfortunately, at least in Fairbanks, there is not yet
a very good system in place to provide that accountability. She
noted that batterers have relayed that one of the things that
would assist them in changing their behavior is to have a system
in place that consistently shows them that battering behavior is
wrong and comes with severe consequences. In conclusion, she
said she strongly supports HB 341, and thinks that a message
needs to be sent to batterers that domestic violence is not
acceptable.
Number 1956
SUSAN SCUDDER, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault (CDVSA), Department of Public Safety (DPS),
said that the CDVSA is in favor HB 341. She relayed that last
year in Alaska there were more than 7,000 women and children who
sought direct services from shelters for more than 50,000
"shelter nights." The vast majority of perpetrators of domestic
violence are not charged; they don't end up in court.
Therefore, when someone is in court for the third time, she
opined, it is not unreasonable to raise the punishment to the
felony level. She surmised that doing so will make Alaska's
women and children safer, if for no other reason then the
batterer is out of their lives for a longer length of time.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Scudder: "If you had all your
druthers, of all the different methodologies that you think
would assist in eliminating or at least reducing ... domestic
violence ..., where would you begin?"
MS. SCUDDER said that that was a difficult question because
there are so many choices. She observed that the punishment
portion of the solution, such as is found in HB 341, is
certainly one aspect to consider; simply getting batterers off
the street and out of the households should be considered.
Another aspect of the solution is educating both the public and
those affected by DV that Alaskan's are being hurt and that DV
should [not] be considered an "okay way" to hurt one another:
DV is not a family issue, it is not a private issue, it is a
criminal issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that domestic violence is a very
stressful issue to her. She acknowledged that many families are
destroyed by DV, and that it is a difficult issue to find a
solution for. She said, however, that although more rules and
regulations are being created, it just seems as though the
problem is getting worse. Because of this, she said, she is not
totally convinced that increasing penalties is "getting us where
we want to go." She suggested that perhaps education should
start at the elementary-school level; people should be taught at
a very young age that violent behavior against anyone is
unacceptable. She said that at least by putting money into
education, it will result in reducing this problem in the
future.
MS. SCUDDER said that currently, programs throughout the state
are in the school system at all levels, and that this is part of
breaking the cycle of domestic violence.
Number 1786
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES opined that assertiveness training for both
boys and girls is essential to ending the problems caused by
living in a combative society. She remarked that she is looking
for alternatives to simply increasing punishment, because that
alone does not seem to be working.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked whether a counseling option could be
added to HB 341 as a mitigating factor. In this way, if someone
agreed to attend counseling, the charge could be reduced down
from a felony level, which would in term help mitigate the cost
of HB 341. He asked whether counseling really helps.
MS. SCUDDER said that there are batterers' intervention programs
throughout the state, but cautioned that it is still a fairly
new concept. She also recalled that previous testimony
indicated that one of the problems is that recidivism and
noncompliance rates are high because there is no tracking of
misdemeanants to ensure that they follow through with
counseling/treatment programs. Felons, on the other hand, are
tracked to ensure that counseling/treatment requirements are
met.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether there is any way to have
individuals tracked without going to a felony charge.
MS. SCUDDER mentioned that there are a variety of programs that
have been offered [to that effect] and there are some pilot
programs that are usually done at one specific court; however,
there is not a statewide program at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether such could be done on a
statewide basis via legislation.
MS. SCUDDER replied that that is a question for the Alaska Court
System.
Number 1633
LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), said that the ANDVSA
supports HB 341, raising assault in the fourth degree involving
domestic violence (DV) from a misdemeanor level to a felony
level on the third conviction. She opined that three times in
front of a court is plenty for a batterer to get the idea that
he/she has made a mistake. She explained that the first time
someone is before the court for this crime, he/she does not "get
any time; you can read your local daily paper where they print
the criminal records and you can see, 'DV assault - 30 days/30
days suspended, one year probation,' or, '[DV assault] - two
weeks/time served, one year probation.'" When one looks at
these types of sentences day after day, month after month, she
remarked, it is apparent how people could be left with the
impression that nothing is being done to perpetrators of DV.
MS. HUGONIN said that there is a responsibility on the
community's part to tell the court that it needs to pay more
attention to this serious crime. She recounted that in 1998,
Representatives Berkowitz and Dyson passed legislation that said
a person [shall be sentenced to] 30 days in jail for a second
conviction of DV assault, and 60 days for a third conviction.
This was done as a way to try to help both the court and the
perpetrator see that the community took these crimes very
seriously and wanted to make an impact in such a way that
perpetrators would be less likely to re-offend. She observed,
however, that with misdemeanants, there is no probation and
there is no way to monitor their activity to see whether they
are going to batterers' intervention programs.
MS. HUGONIN remarked that even on a national level, there are
not very many studies that prove one way or another how
effective batterers' intervention programs are. So, even if
someone does attend such a program for 26 weeks with up to a
year of follow-up, there is still a certain amount of continuing
violence that he/she perpetrates - maybe not on the original
victim, but on someone new. She opined that these batterers are
not changing their behavior due to intervention programs; thus
giving them a longer period of jail time at least has the effect
of giving their victims more time in which to be safe and move
forward with their lives.
MS. HUGONIN, with regard to the concern that fourth degree
assault might simply refer to instances in which someone is
being yelled at, pointed out that fourth degree assault can also
refer to instances in which someone is beaten in the face so
badly with a broom handle that his/her face is swollen to twice
its normal size. It can also refer to instances in which
someone is thrown down a staircase and has his/her ribs broken.
It can also refer to instances in which someone is kicked so
badly in the stomach that his/her spleen must be surgically
removed. "Misdemeanor fourth degree assault can be very serious
physical injury," she stated. So it's not just "a slap" or just
"a little yell"; those kinds of cases don't get into the court,
she remarked. With HB 341, "we're talking about serious crime
where there's definite injuries"; currently, people have to live
with the knowledge that there is no justice: the perpetrator is
just getting a slap on the wrist after breaking someone else's
bones or destroying someone else's internal organs. It doesn't
seem quite right, she stated.
Number 1410
MS. HUGONIN recalled that prior testimony indicated that one of
the advantages of raising the third offense of this nature to a
felony level is that it would provide for supervision and
probation. She noted that in Palmer in 1997, there was a pilot
project involving supervised, misdemeanant-level probation for
batterers specifically. However, after the pilot program
lapsed, the Department of Corrections (DOC) indicated that
statewide misdemeanant probation would be too expensive because,
at the time, the DOC did not see any way of singling out
domestic violence offenders; it was either all misdemeanants or
no misdemeanants.
MS. HUGONIN relayed that there have been studies that looked at
the effectiveness of incarceration. From these studies, it
appears that when there is an incident of domestic violence, if
there is an immediate arrest, if there is a short time to wait
for the trial, and if there are fast consequences - meaning
immediate sentencing - then incarceration is more effective than
merely talking to the offender about how he/she got into that
situation to begin with. She pointed out that "we don't talk to
burglars; we don't send them to an intervention program to say,
'Now, why did you feel compelled to break into that house and
steal that piece of jewelry,' and give them ten steps to not
[repeat that behavior]." She acknowledged, however, that some
people feel that there is some efficacy in trying to help people
who batter choose a different way of behaving.
MS. HUGONIN pointed out that there are some felonies currently
on the books that certainly seem less important than keeping a
violent person in prison. One involves writing a bad check for
$500; that's a class C felony. One involves being a concert
promoter who waits more than 10 days to return concert proceeds
totaling at least $1,000 to the entity entitled to those
proceeds; that's a class C felony. One involves being a
telephone solicitor who does not register with the Department of
Law 30 days before beginning solicitations; that's a class C
felony. However, "you can beat your partner to within an inch
of her life, break her bones, bruise her body," and it's just a
class A misdemeanor. She acknowledged that there is a high cost
associated with providing higher penalties for domestic
violence, but remarked nonetheless that at some point this
[discrepancy between violent DV misdemeanors and the
aforementioned nonviolent felonies] should be questioned. "Just
because it costs a lot doesn't mean that we shouldn't be having
these violent people under more serious supervision and
incarceration," she concluded.
Number 1210
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that it isn't the cost by itself
that causes her concern, it is that she is not yet convinced
that just increasing penalties is going to bring results.
MS. HUGONIN said that the ANDVSA agrees that "there needs to be
several different things going on at the same time," and thus
supports and provides prevention and education programs in the
schools.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that because of the complexity of
domestic violence issues, it is difficult to look at just one
aspect of the solution and think that it will be applicable in
all cases.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER indicated that he would like to be creative
and look at other possible solutions rather than just throwing
people in jail.
MS. HUGONIN replied:
I think the first time you're in front of the court,
let's be creative. This bill is even saying the
second time you're in front of the court, you can
still be creative. It's saying the third time you're
in front of the court, it's time that you have a
serious-penalty wakeup call; you need to be out of the
community for a while. And I think that's the
difference. You know, I think in the first and second
instances, people are still willing to try to see what
can work. ... [With regard to the victim], when are
we going to say it's her turn now? Three times is a
lot of times; I mean, it's not easy to get somebody to
the place where they're in court in front of the
judge.
Number 0991
It's not: the first time a person commits that act,
the police come in and have a flawless investigation,
and it's right there for the prosecutor and the
prosecutor gets that conviction or gets that plea
bargain. ... I wish that was how our judicial system
works, but it's not. So even to get to court in the
first place, you're going to have a lot of violence
that has gone on before, and a lot of ugliness that
has happened. And then you're going to ... [be in
front of a court] a second time, which is not going to
be the second time [DV has] happened; it's going to be
the second of this long process of getting there. And
then the third time -- and at some point you just have
to say, you know, enough is enough.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER indicated he agreed. He mentioned that
even if programs in the school do try to teach alternatives to
violence, if children then go home and witness domestic
violence, that training in the school doesn't do any good; thus
sometimes the only solution is to remove the perpetrator from
the home.
MS. HUGONIN remarked that [society's] language and customs also
contribute to the prevalence of domestic violence. As an
example, she recounted that the previous day, in another
committee, someone who was testifying kept saying: "My rule of
thumb is ...," and, "This is the rule of thumb...." She
explained:
Violence against women permeates our communities so
completely that I bet he didn't even know the source
of that phrase, which we take to mean, "Well, the
general way of doing things, the accepted way of doing
things, how you usually do things." That's from a
court ruling in England in the 1700s where a judge
said, "Yes, you do have a right to beat your wife, but
let's not do it with a switch that's any bigger around
than your thumb." And that's where the "rule of
thumb" comes from: it's actually a measurement of the
instrument that you can use to beat you wife. ... Our
violence is everywhere. So it's not just educating
our children; it's educating us to pay attention to
what we say.
Number 0838
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said
that because a lot of the issues surrounding HB 341 have already
been discussed, she didn't have much to add, although she did
want to address the issue of proportionality that had been
raised by Ms. Hugonin. She elaborated:
I was thumbing through Title 11 this morning and I
noticed that first-time car theft is a class C felony,
and first-time first degree harming a police dog is a
class C felony. So, my proportionality argument is
the same as [Ms. Hugonin's]: we have to set our
values in this state, and I don't think they're set in
a proportional way to the harm that's caused by
domestic violence.
MS. CARPENETI pointed out that there is also an issue regarding
the drafting of HB 341. She remarked that if a third-time
offense is going to become a class C felony, "you ought to put
it in 'third degree assault' so that you don't have police
officers and records [keepers] having to figure out whether
conviction of [AS] 11.41.230 is a misdemeanor." She added that
she would be happy to help draft that language.
CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that it looked to him as though all the
DV assault statutes need to be reviewed, and perhaps rewritten,
for proportionality and symmetry, and that to just "tweak" this
one statute is not going alleviate the problems highlighted by
the testimony.
MS. CARPENETI remarked that at least a third DV assault
conviction should be a felony.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that the statutes ought to be able to make a
distinction between the levels of violence in a DV situation.
MS. CARPENETI said that the statutes do that, although it is
true that some really shocking behavior only gets prosecuted at
a misdemeanor level. In response to questions, she relayed that
"Nygren credit" can apply to all felony sentences and perhaps to
misdemeanors as well; however, in order for "Nygren time" to
count, it has to be "similar to incarceration" and must be
served in a court appointed treatment program. She said she did
not know whether just volunteering to go to a treatment program
before the criminal procedure takes place would automatically
qualify a person for Nygren credit.
Number 0552
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator/Legislative Liaison, Office
of the Commissioner - Juneau, Department of Corrections (DOC),
added that it's automatic if it's been court-ordered and they go
to treatment. And treatment is confinement, essentially, in
most in-patient treatment programs, and is particularly
restrictive for convicted offenders. But if a person
voluntarily attends a treatment program prior to
conviction/sentencing, she relayed, it would be up to the judge
to decide whether to give Nygren credit for that time served.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to earlier comments regarding
instituting education and prevention programs in the school
system, relayed that she has heard from children of various ages
that such programs do exist in the Juneau school system.
CHAIR ROKEBERG, after mentioning that the sponsor is willing to
work further on some of the issues raised, announced that HB 341
would be held over.
HJR 36 - CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT : TAX CAPS
Number 0441
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 36,
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to limiting the rate of state individual income
taxes and sales taxes.
Number 0420
CHAIR ROKEBERG moved to adopt committee substitute (CS) for
SSHJR 36, version 22-LS1402\P, Kurtz, 3/20/02, as a work draft.
There being no objection, Version P was before the committee.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that in Version P, [subsection] (a) of
Section 1 has been rewritten and now reads: "The rate of an
individual income tax levied by the State may not exceed five
percent of an individual's taxable income, as that term is
defined in federal law." He indicated that this constitutes a
flat tax rate not to exceed 5 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that using an individual's
[federal] taxable income as a basis by which to determine
whether a state income tax had reached its cap was fine with
her.
Number 0092
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Representative
Ogan's Amendment 1, 22-LS1402\L.1, Kurtz, 2/22/02, [which would
need to be altered to conform with line numbers in Version P].
Amendment 1 read:
Page 1, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "limiting the rate of"
Page 1, line 6, following "Tax Caps"
Insert "; Voter Approval of New Taxes and Rate
Increases"
Page 1, following line 14:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) A new individual income tax or sales tax or
an increase in the rate of levy of an individual
income tax or sales tax enacted by the legislature
does not take effect unless ratified by a majority of
the voters at the first statewide election held
following enactment of the tax or the tax increase."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Amendment 1 simply asks
that any individual income tax or sales tax, or any increase in
such, would not take effect unless ratified by a majority of the
voters at the next statewide election held following enactment
by the legislature of the tax or tax increase. He remarked that
because citizens don't currently pay a state tax, they are
disconnected from state government; he suggested that Amendment
1 would help reestablish that connection.
TAPE 02-34, SIDE A
Number 0016
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned that he was pleased to see
that some of his colleagues were interested in putting matters
to a public vote, and that he hoped they would "carry that logic
through in other matters." He remarked, however, that he is
concerned with whether [Amendment 1] would fit in with the
current Alaska State Constitution, which precludes the public
from voting on appropriation matters.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said he tends to agree that [Amendment 1] cedes
the legislature's power of appropriation to the public and,
thus, the legislature would not be doing its job by adopting it.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER remarked that the Municipality of Anchorage
(MOA) is doing something similar to what is being attempted via
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that a statewide issue cannot
be compared to municipal issue. She opined that adoption of
Amendment 1 would be abdicating the legislature's
responsibility. She also noted that one of the problems with
putting an issue before the voters is that not everybody that
can vote does so.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered that having an issue like
Amendment 1 on the ballot might increase voter turnout.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES argued, however, that less than 20 percent
of eligible voters even voted [on the advisory vote of September
1999] regarding use of the permanent fund. And so although 83
percent voted "No," it was merely 83 percent of a very small
portion of the population.
CHAIR ROKEBERG, after noting that he was speaking in defense of
the Alaska State Constitution, said that Amendment 1 would be
abdicating the legislature's responsibility; he then asked
Representative Coghill to withdraw Amendment 1.
Number 0312
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, after arguing that Amendment 1 is merely
"ratification" rather than "installation," nonetheless withdrew
the motion to adopt Amendment 1.
Number 0351
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to report committee substitute
for SSHJR 36, version 22-LS1402\P, Kurtz, 3/20/02, out of
committee [with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note].
CHAIR ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of stating: "What this
does is make this a 5 percent cap on an individual's taxable
income, as opposed to the aggregate."
CHAIR ROKEBERG then withdrew his objection and noted that there
were no further objections. Therefore, CSSSHJR 36(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 2:55 p.m. to 2:57 p.m.
HB 197 - HEALTH CARE SERVICES DIRECTIVES
Number 0413
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the last order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 197, "An Act relating to directives for
personal health care services and for medical treatment."
[Before the committee was CSHB 197(HES).]
Number 0430
MELANIE LESH, Staff to Representative Bill Hudson, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, noted
that [the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 197, version
22-LS0712\O, Bannister, 2/26/02,] is quite expanded from CSHB
197(HES). She mentioned that [Version O] incorporates [the
Uniform Health Care Decisions Act], which is national model
language that other states have also adopted. She relayed that
there is also a proposed amendment that speaks to concerns
raised by the Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS)
regarding the emergency medical technicians' protocol for
responding to do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders.
Number 0582
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 197, version 22-LS0712\O, Bannister,
2/26/02, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version O
was before the committee.
Number 0600
SIOUX PLUMMER, President, Board of Directors, Foundation for
Hospice and Home Care of Juneau Alaska, relayed that during the
time she'd worked for Representative Hudson, she'd also chaired
the Juneau End of Life Task Force. She said that she, along
with other likeminded people, supports HB 197. Because of her
interest in issues related to death and dying, she said, it
became evident to her that "we could improve existing statute in
Alaska for persons who wish to die here." "We could make dying
better, if you'll forgive the phrase, but, in fact, dying can be
improved if you would accept that language," she added. The
fundamental intent of HB 197 is to clear up, improve, and make
more readily available to Alaskans this language based on the
idea of the "Five Wishes," language which currently exists in
the state laws of 35 or more states.
MS. PLUMMER reiterated her support of HB 197, and relayed her
hope that HB 197 would be reported out of committee after
serious consideration. She mentioned that on a personal level,
she hadn't been very familiar with death and dying until [she
watched] the "Bill Moyers special," which addressed dying in
America and which was broadcast on public television a couple of
years ago. As a result of that program, here in Juneau as well
as across the nation in many cities, local groups formed to
learn more about issues of death and dying. She said it was at
one such conference that she learned about the Five Wishes,
about why the notion of theses wishes is so prevalent throughout
the United States, and about why there is a new trend in the
country relating to improving issues pertaining death and dying.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what the Five Wishes are.
MS. PLUMMER, noting that they were listed in the sponsor
statement, said that the wishes include: "The person I want to
make care decisions for me when I can't"; "The kind of medical
treatment I want or don't want"; "How comfortable I want to be";
"How I want other people to treat me"; and "What I want my loved
ones to know." These are wishes that persons who are terminally
ill or who know they are going to die soon would want to express
to their caregiver, their medical provider, their family, and
their loved ones. These Five Wishes are the premise upon which
HB 197 is based.
MS. PLUMMER relayed that within the last three years, she lost
four of her closest family members: her husband, her brother,
her mother, and her father. Up until that time, she said, she
had never paid attention to what it must be like to die; now,
because of her recent personal experiences, she has a real
strong feeling about the necessity of having very clear language
and clear law that enables people to die the way they would like
to.
Number 0823
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Ms. Lesh to comment on the DHSS's concerns
and the proposed amendment.
MS. LESH said that she has just spoken with almost everyone in
the "Comfort One Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) program" affected by
the proposed amendment as it relates to Version O. She
explained that [HB 197] repealed the statutes for the Comfort
One DNR program, the Organ Donation program, and the Living Will
program and re-enacted them in one new chapter. More
importantly, the legislation added the expanded health care
directives in which one can write his/her health care wishes
succinctly. Ms. Lesh noted that in repealing and reenacting the
aforementioned programs, the very important Comfort One DNR
program was [inadvertently] left out. Under this program an
individual, with a physician's consent, can obtain a bracelet
and documentation which specifies that the individual has
chosen, with a physician's concurrence, to not have CPR
administered. Ms. Lesh said that the intent of [Amendment 1] is
to [reenact] the Comfort One DNR program since the sponsor did
not wish to impact the DNR protocol already existing in statute.
Number 0982
RICHARD BLOCK, Christian Science Committee on Publication for
the State of Alaska, testified via teleconference in support of
[Version O]. First, it places the four statutes, which are
currently in different locations and [are] in conflict with one
another, together in harmony. He opined that that is reason
enough alone to adopt the bill. Second, the bill grants a great
deal of latitude to the person preparing a health care directive
document in regard to how that person wishes his/her surrogate
to make health care decisions on his/her behalf. Furthermore,
it allows persons with religious considerations to express those
and to have those protected through the health care directive.
Therefore, Mr. Block said, he viewed [Version O] as positive
because it returns to individuals the ability to make provisions
for their own care. Mr. Block reiterated support for [Version
O] and urged its adoption. Mr. Block mentioned that he couldn't
comment on the amendment since he hadn't yet seen it.
Number 1186
MARK JOHNSON, Chief, Community Health & Emergency Medical
Services, Division of Public Health, Department of Health &
Social Services (DHSS), announced support of the intent of HB
197. As mentioned earlier, the Comfort One DNR program is
already in place for the EMS (Emergency Medical Services)
community, and seems to be working. He noted that there had
been a discussion with the sponsor [regarding working out that
issue]. He informed the committee that EMS providers are
trained to restore life whenever possible, but there is no
desire to prolong suffering at the end of someone's life.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if Amendment 1 satisfies [the DHSS's]
concerns as relayed in the letter in the committee packet.
MR. JOHNSON answered that he believes the sponsor intends to
satisfy those concerns, although it still needs to be sorted out
a bit. He remarked that it's clear to him that the sponsor
shares [the DHSS's] goal.
Number 1262
LYN FREEMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on Aging,
Division of Senior Services, Department of Administration,
testified in support of Version O. She relayed that the
commission feels that it's very important and meaningful that
this draft incorporates the Uniform Health Care Decisions Act
and includes the Five Wishes form. Specifically, the commission
is pleased with the thoroughness, completeness, and
understanding of the Five Wishes component for the general
population. She relayed the importance this kind of direction
has for the individual and their family members. Ms. Freeman
encouraged the committee to support Version O.
Number 1402
MARIE DARLIN, AARP Capitol City Task Force, informed the
committee that AARP was one of the organizations that pushed for
this legislation to be introduced last year. Ms. Darlin said
AARP wants to urge the committee's support. She pointed out
that the committee should have a letter from AARP's legislative
committee, which supports the bill. The idea of placing all the
directives in one location [in statute] is very important. She
explained that the AARP really likes the Five Wishes because it
opens up the opportunity for families to discuss what an
individual's last wishes would be in a situation in which the
individual can't make his/her own decisions. Ms. Darlin relayed
the belief that discussions regarding amendments will take care
of most everything of concern.
Number 1462
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 1, 22-
LS0712\O.1, Bannister, 3/20/02, which read:
Page 7, line 19:
Delete "do not resuscitate protocol"
Insert "protocol for do not resuscitate orders"
Page 10, line 30:
Delete "orders not to resuscitate"
Insert "do not resuscitate orders"
Page 18, following line 29:
Insert new paragraphs to read:
"(4) "cardiopulmonary resuscitation" means
cardiopulmonary resuscitation or a component of
cardiopulmonary resuscitation;
(5) "do not resuscitate order" means a
directive from a licensed physician that emergency
cardiopulmonary resuscitation should not be
administered to a qualified patient; in this
paragraph,
(A) "qualified patient" means a patient who
has been determined by the attending physician to be
in a terminal condition;
(B) "terminal condition" means a
progressive incurable or irreversible condition that,
without the administration of life-sustaining
procedures, will, in the opinion of two physicians,
when available, who have personally examined the
patient, one of whom must be the attending physician,
result in death within a relatively short time; in
this subparagraph, "life-sustaining procedures" means
medical procedures or interventions that, when
administered to a qualified patient, will serve only
to prolong the dying process; "
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 19, lines 2 - 3:
Delete "do not resuscitate protocol"
Insert "protocol for do not resuscitate orders
that is"
Page 19, line 12:
Delete "orders not to resuscitate"
Insert "do not resuscitate orders"
CHAIR ROKEBERG, noting that there was no objection, stated that
Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that public testimony would be held
open for HB 197. [HB 197, Version O, as amended, was held
over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1515
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.