All Advisory Opinions At-A-Glance

Any state may submit an informal written request to the Executive Director for assistance in interpreting the rules of this compact. The Executive Director may seek the assistance of legal counsel, the Executive Committee, or both, in interpreting the rules. The Executive Committee may authorize its standing committees to assist in interpreting the rules. Interpretations of the rules shall be issued in writing by the Executive Director or the Executive Committee and shall be circulated to all of the states.

Disclaimer: Advisory Opinions are written in accordance with how a Rule is currently drafted. They are not intended for speculation or to encompass all scenarios, but are a legal interpretation of a Rule(s).

 

Rule(s):
ICJ Transition Rules / ICJ Rules
Date Issued:
Requester:
National Office
At Issue:

Which Rules Apply According to Effective Date

Since the new rules promulgated by the Commission do not become effective until March 1, 2010, which Rules apply if a referral is received prior to that date, but the placement occurs after March 1, 2010.

Finding:

Since the ICJ statute, adopted by all of the signatory states, expressly provides that "The existing rules governing the operation of the Interstate Compact on Juveniles superseded by this act shall be null and void twelve (12) months after the first meeting of the Interstate Commission created hereunder." (See Article VI, F.).

Thus, the "transition" rules as described above were replaced by the new rules promulgated by the Commission at its 2nd annual meeting in December 2009 at which time the Commission determined that these new rules would not take effect until March 1, 2010.

Clearly, the intent of the Interstate Commission for Juveniles was to apply the newly promulgated rules 'prospectively' beginning on that date.

Rule(s):
4.104*
Date Issued:
Requester:
Pennsylvania
At Issue:

*Rule 4-104 was relocated to 5-101 as of April 1, 2014.

Receiving State's Ability to Sanction Juveniles Under ICJ Rule 4-104.1

Pennsylvania would like to have the authority (as a receiving state) to sanction juveniles who are being supervised and continue to violate conditions of probation/parole. In some situations, the sending state does not have the resources to return the youth for violation hearings and other times the violations are not significant enough to warrant a retaking of the juvenile. This often results in "unsuccessful discharges" and thus not holding the juveniles accountable and putting communities at risk.

1. Does the phrase "same standards . . . that prevail for its own juveniles . . ." allow the receiving state, under this Rule to impose graduated sanctions?

2. Does this Rule or any other ICJ Rule address the receiving state's ability to sanction juveniles?

Finding:

Rule 4-104 (1) in relevant part provides: "Each receiving state will assume the duties of visitation and supervision over any delinquent juvenile, including juvenile sex offenders who it has accepted for cooperative supervision and in exercise of those duties will be governed by the same standards of visitation and supervision that prevail for its own juveniles released on probation or parole."

It is clear that because the ICJ rules do not include a special definition of the terms "same standards . . . that prevail for its own juveniles. . ." the ordinary meaning of those terms leads to the inevitable conclusion that as the supervising State, Pennsylvania is thus permitted, under Rule 4-104.1, to impose 'graduated sanctions' upon any juvenile transferred under the compact if such standards are also applied to its own delinquent juveniles.

Rule(s):
Article VII, Article XIII, Section B., and Article XI, Section C.
Date Issued:
Requester:
Idaho
At Issue:

Whether the failure or refusal of an Idaho county official to properly process the lawful transfer of supervision of a juvenile from Idaho to another state and the failure or refusal of the same Idaho county, in another case, to supervise a juvenile whose supervision was properly transferred to Idaho from another state constitutes a violation(s) of the ICJ which would result in potential liability of the County and/or State of Idaho.

Finding:

As in most states counties are specifically classified and recognized as political subdivisions of the State of Idaho.See for example Bonneville County v. Ysursa, 129 P.3d 1213 (Id. 2005); also Sanchez v. State Department of Corrections, 141 P.3d 1108 (Id. 2006) which unequivocally recognize that a county is a political subdivision of the State.

As a consequence the above ICJ provisions and authority apply equally and coextensively to all Idaho counties as political subdivisions.

Thus, the failure of a county to comply with the provisions of the ICJ and its duly authorized rules is tantamount to a violation by the State of Idaho and a default in its obligations under the compact and authorized rules.

Rule(s):
Article III, Section C. & Section G.
Date Issued:
Requester:
ICJ
At Issue:

Whether Ex-Officio members of the Interstate Commission for Juveniles or its' committees may make motions or cast votes?

Whether 'designees' or 'proxies' who are temporarily substituting for a commissioner at a meeting of the Commission or its' committees may make motions or cast votes?

Finding:

Regarding the first issue, a review of Art. III, Sec. C. of the compact statute indicates the clear intent to provide for participation in Commission meetings by 'non-commissioners' but to limit such participation by classifying those persons as "ex-officio (non-voting)" members. Based on this provision of Art. III, Sec. C of the ICJ, while participation in Commission meetings including providing comments and opinions during debate are permitted, that ex-officio members of the commission are neither eligible to vote nor make motions at Commission meetings.

With respect to the second issue, it is clear that as long as the 'substitute' or 'proxy' has been appointed by the commissioner in consultation with the state council as required by section Art. III, Section G., by definition such person has the authority to both make motions and to vote at ICJ Commission meetings.

Rule(s):
Article III, Section B. & Section G
Date Issued:
Requester:
ICJ
At Issue:

What qualifications are required by the Interstate Compact for Juveniles in order for a commissioner or designee to be eligible to represent and vote on behalf of each member state on the Interstate Commission for Juveniles?

What qualifications are required by the Interstate Compact for Juveniles for another authorized representative of a compact state if a commissioner has decided that it is necessary to delegate the authority to vote and to otherwise exercise the authority of the commissioner from that state for a specified meeting?

Finding:

The determination of whether an appointment of a commissioner is bona fide under the above referenced provisions of the Interstate Compact will depend upon establishing whether adequate documentation has been furnished to establish the 'appropriate appointing authority' has acted with respect to the appointment of the commissioner for that state. This can be demonstrated by such items as a gubernatorial executive order or letter of appointment, a statutory provision which clearly delegates such authority to another state official and proof that the official to who receives such delegated power has in fact issued an appointment letter to the proponent seeking recognition as a commissioner.

The above described procedure for the general appointment of a commissioner to act on behalf of a compact state under Article III, Section B. is a distinctly different process than the process which the compact provides in Article III, Section G. for the temporary appointment of another authorized representative to represent and vote on behalf of a state at a specific ICJ meeting in the absence of the commissioner. This temporary appointment for a specific meeting does not require the action by the 'appropriate appointing authority' and under the compact may be accomplished by action of the commissioner in consultation with the state council.