This past legislative session I introduced House Bill 18 in an effort to deter vandalism on school property. The original intent was to allow entities such as the Anchorage School District to recover unlimited civil damages from the parents of children who cause extensive damage to facilities. I would like to explain the concerns of members of the Legislature and the public and provide some insight on how the final agreement of a $15,000 limit on liability was reached.

Sen. Fred Dyson, R-Eagle River, and Rep. Bob Lynn, R-Anchorage, introduced similar legislation and were instrumental in the passage of HB 18.

The Anchorage School District could sue for as much as $10,000 prior to the passage of HB 18. As the bill progressed through the committee process, however, several contentious arguments were raised about the responsibility that parents, and ultimately juveniles, face in cases of intentional vandalism.

Current Alaska statute makes the issue of responsibility two-fold in cases where minors vandalize facilities: There is the parents' role in civil proceedings, where civil damages can be sought by an injured party; and there is the juveniles' role in juvenile justice proceedings, where restitution can be ordered by a court if the child is found guilty of a crime.

With unlimited civil liability, the Anchorage School District could sue a minor's parent or parents for the full cost of damages. So if a single parent raising four children and working two jobs were sued for damages in excess of $50,000, one can only imagine the hardship this would place on the family.

At the same time, the parent, not the child, carries the burden of the child's crime. Members of the Legislature were not entirely comfortable making this policy decision because of the adverse effects it could potentially have on a family.

The potential effect of unlimited liability caused members of the Legislature to look closely at the juvenile justice statutes. If a child is adjudicated as a delinquent, and found guilty of intentional vandalism, the amount of restitution that can be ordered for a child to pay is unlimited. The minor could be ordered to pay for the full cost of damages. This restitution also may be ordered on the parent as well.

Because of legislation that I sponsored and that was passed by the Legislature in 2002, when a minor "ages out" of the juvenile justice system, any restitution that is owed does not disappear. The restitution still must be paid to the victim of the crime.

Many comments have been made recently that the child who causes the damage should carry the burden of responsibility, and in fact the courts can require them to. If restitution is ordered, the minor will have to pay until the order is satisfied, be it five years down the road or 30.

Another factor is the school district's ability to seek criminal and civil recourse from each child and the parents. In cases such as Dimond High School's, more than one child apparently was involved with the vandalism. If the School District elects to sue the parent of the vandals, it could bring separate, individual civil suits against each of the families involved.

So, given that $15,000 is the limit on liability, if there were five minors involved, the Anchorage School District could receive up to $75,000 in judgments, and this amount does not include what the courts may order in restitution.

HB 18 accomplishes the initial goal of allowing the Anchorage School District to recover an increased amount in liability from the parents of children who cause major damage. While a $5,000 increase may not appear to be substantial, the final legislation that passed is good public policy. The legislation addresses the chief concern that the minor and the parents are apportioned fair shares of responsibility when intentional vandalism occurs.

# # #

Rep. Kevin Meyer is a Republican representing Midtown Anchorage.