HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE January 27, 2000 8:05 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative Joe Green Representative Jim Whitaker Representative Beth Kerttula Representative Hal Smalley Representative Scott Ogan MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Bill Hudson COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 259 "An Act relating to a parent's eligibility to be represented by the public defender before and during the probable cause and temporary placement hearing that is held after the state takes emergency custody of a child." - MOVED CSHB 259(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE (NO CHANGES MADE) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 259 SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC DEFENDER CHILDREN'S PROCEEDINGS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/10/00 1887 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/99 1/10/00 1887 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/10/00 1887 (H) STA, JUD, FIN 1/25/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 1/25/00 (H) Moved CSHB 259(STA) Out of Committee 1/25/00 (H) MINUTE(STA) 1/27/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 416 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of HB 259, clarified intent. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-2, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives James, Whitaker, Kerttula and Smalley. Representatives Green and Ogan arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB 259 - PUBLIC DEFENDER CHILDREN'S PROCEEDINGS Number 0017 CHAIR JAMES brought before the committee HOUSE BILL NO. 259, "An Act relating to a parent's eligibility to be represented by the public defender before and during the probable cause and temporary placement hearing that is held after the state takes emergency custody of a child." [Following adoption of an amendment to HB 259 at the previous hearing, CSHB 259(STA) had been moved from the committee; however, a memorandum from Terri Lauterbach, Legislative Counsel, accompanying a draft of the committee substitute (CS), had recommended further clarification.] CHAIR JAMES asked the sponsor whether he believes the parents in question should repay the state if it is determined they aren't eligible for the services of the Public Defender Agency. Number 0185 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, agreed that was his intent. He said although he still believes the language reflects that, he is open to discussion. CHAIR JAMES suggested the committee, if in agreement, could provide a conceptual amendment to Ms. Lauterbach clarifying the sponsor's intention. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA made a motion to rescind the committee's action [moving CSHB 259(STA) from committee on January 25, 2000] and to bring the bill back before the committee for correction. Number 0287 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked whether the new CS would come back for final approval or would simply move from this committee. CHAIR JAMES answered that everyone could look at it as soon as the committee received it, before passing it on. However, she wouldn't expect to bring it back for another meeting. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded that he wouldn't go that route, as he wanted to see the amendment. If it took two minutes to reconvene and bring it before the committee the next time, he suggested that should be done. CHAIR JAMES pointed out a further option of not rescinding the previous action but letting the House Judiciary Standing Committee fix the bill. She mentioned sending along the memorandum from Terri Lauterbach. Number 0453 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Representative Coghill his preference, given those choices. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said it would fit in either case. He expressed willingness to move it along, in conjunction with the concept brought up in Ms. Lauterbach's memorandum, which he indicated meets with his intent. CHAIR JAMES said she doesn't want to be responsible for its languishing in committee, but she likes to pass legislation out of her committee that doesn't need to be fixed. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented, "I tend to agree with the sponsor, because I asked that very question of our attorney, and he said it was covered." He suggested the House Judiciary Standing Committee is the place to determine whether it is or isn't covered. CHAIR JAMES inquired about the wishes of the rest of the committee. She pointed out that they could turn down the motion to rescind the previous action. Number 0657 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said he would support the motion to rescind, however, because he believes it is the committee's responsibility to fix the bill. He suggested that wouldn't delay it that much. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced his opinion that a state affairs committee should look at what is best for the state, regardless of the legal language, which should be addressed by a judiciary committee. CHAIR JAMES said she wishes it were that way, but it isn't. She indicated committees deal with all parts of bills that they pass. Number 0831 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested that when signing the committee report, members put "amend." Furthermore, changes could be made on the House floor. He would have no objection to moving this bill on, he said, with the caveat that the problem be taken care of. CHAIR JAMES noted that a vote would be needed on whether to rescind the previous action. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he would support rescinding the action for purposes of signing the committee report with a recommendation of amending it. He would also support moving it out afterwards. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed support for Chair James' comments, then suggested this might go faster if the current committee fixed it rather than waiting for the House Judiciary Standing Committee to do so. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked whether Chair James agrees that the bill would move more quickly in that case. Number 0909 CHAIR JAMES said her own position is that she doesn't want the bill to languish, as she believes this is important legislation. She doesn't know how soon this could be heard in the House Judiciary Standing Committee, or what the attitudes of those members will be. Another concern is that the sponsor believes and has a legal opinion that the bill covers the intent. Having read the CS, she herself agrees with Terri Lauterbach, however, that it doesn't say that specifically and therefore it must be assumed. "When you assume something, that doesn't necessarily mean it's so," she cautioned. "It could be read either way." She surmised such a decision would be at the policy or regulation level. CHAIR JAMES clarified that her first choice is to rescind the previous action, pass a conceptual amendment, and then have everyone look at the subsequent CS before passing it on to the next committee. On the other hand, if this will make the bill languish - about which she is uncertain - then she is willing to do nothing, which to her means not rescinding the action. She said rescinding the action and saying the bill needs to be amended is embarrassing and would make her feel derelict in her duties. Number 1043 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded that he respectfully but vehemently disagrees. Almost every committee he has served on has passed legislation on to the House Finance Committee, at the least, for review because of a fiscal note or some other issue. Commonly legislation is passed on either with a letter or, as Representative Ogan indicated, with recommendations to amend it. Although he agreed this can be fixed, he emphasized that it isn't uncommon to pass legislation on to the House Judiciary Standing Committee, for example. CHAIR JAMES pointed out that she has been on the House Judiciary Standing Committee most of the eight years of her legislative service too. There, they have passed numerous bills with conceptual amendments, then looked at the CS before it is moved to the next committee. Number 1138 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she views this as the prerogative of the chair. On behalf of both herself and Representative Smalley, she expressed willingness to follow Chair James' decision on this. CHAIR JAMES indicated she would let the vote of the committee decide. She called a brief at-ease. [Small section of blank tape due to recorder malfunction.] After calling the meeting back to order, she requested a roll call vote on the motion to rescind the committee's action on January 25, 2000, in moving CSHB 259(STA) from committee. Voting to rescind the action were Representatives Kerttula, Smalley and James. Voting against it were Representatives Green, Whitaker and Ogan. Therefore, the motion failed by a vote of 3-3. Chair James announced that the committee would move CSHB 259(STA) forward as-is that day. Number 1332 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated: Just for the record, I would like to just say that conceptually I agree that there needs to be an amendment. And what I will be carrying on with this is, "If determination is made that the natural or adoptive parent is not indigent, he or she shall reimburse the Public Defender Agency ... at the applicable billing rate." ... That is my intent anyway. So, if that's needed, I'll take that into the Judiciary Committee. CHAIR JAMES commented that if there is any question about anything, it is always better to make it clearer. "So, if you think it already says that, and other people think it doesn't, you'd better be sure it says that; that's my advice," she concluded. [CSHB 259(STA), unamended at this meeting, was again moved from committee.] ADJOURNMENT Number 1351 There being no further business before the committee, the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 8:25 a.m.