Alaska House Bill 7: A BILL THAT WOULD PROVIDE DUE PROCESS FOR JUDGES TO AVOID GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS

 Alaska House Bill 7: A BILL THAT WOULD PROVIDE DUE PROCESS FOR JUDGES TO AVOID GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS

By Jessica Schultz Pleasant

The State of Alaska has been a circus fair grounds for officials within the government and its courts. Citizens are feeling they are the enemies of their own State. Previous articles have described the Supreme Court Order 1993 controversy. A grassroots Alaska Grand Jury Association has been fighting against the new authorities given to the Alaska Attorney General and approved prosecutors. The new powers include a DA refusing requests against his client [THE STATE] from going before the grand jury for civil investigation into the state. Unbeknownst to many is Alaska House Bill 7 (HB 7).

SCO 1993 changed Criminal Rule 6.1, which prevented Alaska’s 35 year judicial investigator Marla Greenstein just days before her subpoenaed testimony before the grand jury. Greenstein would be considered an “administrative judicial officer”. HB 7 doesn’t use the DA as a power to silence Alaskans. Instead the bill attacks grand jury investigations by changing the due process of judges.

HB 7’s short title is:

“An Act relating to the office of administrative hearings; relating to the types of proceedings handled by the office of administrative hearings; relating to the entities that may use the services of the office of administrative hearings; relating to the duties of the chief administrative law judge, including the power to hire professional staff; relating to the qualifications and powers of administrative law judges, including subpoena power; relating to the compensation of the chief administrative law judge; relating to complaints against administrative law judges and hearing officers; relating to reimbursement for costs incurred by the office of administrative hearings; relating to procedures for requesting and conducting proceedings of the office of administrative hearings; and providing for an effective date."

HB 7 looks tailored to respond to present dissatisfaction among many Alaskans. This dissatisfaction led to the creation of the Alaska Grand Jury Association. A standard bearing group against SCO 1993. HB 7 shows all the signs of creating laws to avoid government accountability.

The bill adds terms, such as, “entity”, “professional staff” and “other proceedings” to expand the statute’s language in application. These terms can be subjective. Situations can be finessed to fit the statutes.

Pursuant to proposed AS 44.64.030(b), an agency or entity may request the office conduct an administrative hearing; arbitration, or alternative dispute resolution [OR OTHER] proceedings under statutes or ordinances not listed in (a) of this section.

Most concerning for Alaskans is the Amendment to AS 44.64.050(c), this amendment is meant to focus on the “due process” of accused officials. When determining an argument, one should approach cases from both parties’ perspective. The changes will now create a statute of limitations against complaints. A judged accused of violations can now claim AS 44.64.050(c)(1):

The complaint alleges a violation that occurred

(A) not more than three years before the complaint was filed; or

(B) in connection with an adjudication or other proceeding, and the complaint was filed not more than two years after Conclusion of the adjudication or other proceeding, including resolution of an appeal.

The bill goes on to make Alaskan’s choose if they want to recover damages or have an agency, like the office of Children Services, investigated. This could be considered “unconstitutional conditions” forced upon Alaskans.

These changes within HB 7 will only make the process for grand jury investigations more difficult. This bill must be stopped before it is used to shut down grand jury investigations that often require administrative hearings. With these Amendments, ciizens must decide if they want a grand jury investigation or make a claim for damages caused by the government. This is an underhanded way of “unconstitutional Conditions”. This determines if the State makes you choose between your constitutional rights.

The amendment to AS 44.64.060(d), With the approval of the chief administrative law judge, an administrative law judge may stay a proceeding to allow related criminal prosecutions or civil litigation to proceed first. The running of the 120 day deadline under this subsection is suspended during a stay.

A statute of limitations is the time period after an injury that one may seek damages against them. These dates vary from state to state. Generally the statute of limitations are 2 or 3 years. The amendments below are meant to hinder a person seeking damages at the same time as a judicial complaint.

The last actions taken on HB 7 was January 19, 2023. If this bill is not taken up by the legislature, it may be introduced again in the next legislative session. Therefore, citizens must be aware of the intentions of some current public officials to pass a bill similar to HB 7. HB 7 was introduced by Democrat Representative Sarah Hannan.

Hannan began her position in 2019. She did so at he same time OCS cases of government abuse and the Alaska Grand Jury Association really picked up steam to hold corrupt judges accountable. In 2023, huge developments in the perjury case against former judge Margaret Murphy, leading to many questioning the intentions of HB 7. To make your voice heard about this bill you can visit her official page on the Alaska Legislature. Further contact information is below.

https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Member/Detail/32?code=HNN

Toll-Free: 877-465-4766

Session Contact

State Capitol Room 400

Juneau AK, 99801

Phone: 907-465-4766

Interim Contact

State Capitol Room 204

Juneau AK, 99801

Phone: 907-465-4766

The Powers and Duties of Chief Administrative Law Judges

Duties include, but not limited to:

• Supervision, training and employing staff.

• Presiding over hearings and proceedings.

• “Protect, support, and enhance the decisional independence of the administrative law judges.

• Monitor quality

• Advise on legislation

According to AS 44.64.020(b) includes provisions that work in tandem with the DA’s new Duties. These new Duties were outlined in SCO 1993. Previously the DA didn’t have legislative authority to prevent evidence getting to a grand jury. It also gave the DA the final decision maker if a case goes before the grand jury and the final decision maker if a subpoena against an official is served. (6)

As 44.64.020(b)(2), the chief administrative law judge will “ensure respect for the privacy and dignity of the individuals whose cases are being adjudication and protect them from threats, intimidation and harassment.”

Project on Government Oversight published is article, Accountability: The Path to Improve Government Effectiveness and the Antidote to Authoritarianism, explained, A fundamental first step in this direction is strengthening the accountability measures – the checks and balances – that curb abuses of power and ensure our institutions are responsive to the people.

On July 30, 2024, the Alaska Grand Jurors Association will be gathering at Anchorage’s Boney Courthouse, 5th floor, at 2 pm. This event involves multiple OCS family victims denied a civilian grand jury investigations into OCS misdeeds. These families are not requesting damages from the State. They are only requesting an investigation into OCS. Investigations through a civil grand jury are meant to identify what needs to be done to prevent the harm done to families.

According to the Department of Political Science at Colgate University, good governance is developed by the cooperation between citizens and the government. AGJA’s success to overturn SCO 1993 is essential to achieve the participation of the people and its governing institutions. The consequences go beyond the jury room.

“Open debate airing real difference, while engendering some controversy, can elicit sustained participation- particularly if it has clear-cut effects upon the decisions and policies eventually implemented: In both established and renewed democracies citizens will be the final arbiters of what is, and is not, credible governance reform: thus it is important to involve citizens and NGOs in the shaping of reform agendas from the start.*

The grand jury is often considered a person’s last chance for justice. Every Alaskan expects government transparency. The fight against SCO 1993, and, now HB 7, defies a citizen’s expectation of checks and balances.

Sources:

1. https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Detail/33?Root=HB%20%20%207#tab1_4

2. https://www.state.gov/combating-corruption-and-promoting-good-governance/

3. https://www.pogo.org/issue/exposing-corruption-and-preventing-abuse-of-power

4. https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Member/Detail/32?code=HNN

5. Alaska Supreme Court Order 1993

6. Alaska Criminal Rule 6.1