Legislature(2021 - 2022)
2022-05-17 House Journal
Full Journal pdf2022-05-17 House Journal Page 3013 HB 172 Representative Tuck moved and asked unanimous consent that the House consider the Senate message (page 2971) on the following: CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 172(FIN) am "An Act relating to crisis stabilization centers, crisis residential centers, and subacute mental health facilities; relating to representation by an attorney; relating to the administration of psychotropic medication in a crisis situation; relating to hospitalizations for mental health evaluation; relating to licensed facilities; relating to a report to the legislature on psychiatric patients and patient rights; and providing for an effective date." 2022-05-17 House Journal Page 3014 and SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 172(FIN) "An Act relating to crisis stabilization centers, crisis residential centers, and subacute mental health facilities; relating to evaluation facilities; relating to representation by an attorney; relating to the administration of psychotropic medication in a crisis situation; relating to the use of psychotropic medication; relating to licensed facilities; relating to psychiatric patient rights; amending Rule 6(a), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date." (SCR 23 - title change resolution) There being no objection, it was so ordered. Representative Tuck moved that the House concur in the Senate amendment and recommended that the members vote yes. The question being: "Shall the House concur in the Senate amendment?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 172(FIN) Concur YEAS: 36 NAYS: 2 EXCUSED: 1 ABSENT: 1 Yeas: Carpenter, Claman, Cronk, Drummond, Edgmon, Fields, Foster, Gillham, Hannan, Hopkins, Johnson, Josephson, Kaufman, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeBon, McCabe, McCarty, McKay, Nelson, Ortiz, Patkotak, Prax, Rasmussen, Schrage, Shaw, Snyder, Spohnholz, Story, Stutes, Tarr, Thompson, Tilton, Tuck, Vance, Wool, Zulkosky Nays: Eastman, Kurka Excused: Merrick Absent: Rauscher And so, the House concurred in the Senate amendment, thus adopting SCS CSHB 172(FIN). Representative Tuck moved and asked unanimous consent that the roll call on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call on the effective date clause. There being no objection, it was so ordered. 2022-05-17 House Journal Page 3015 Representative Tuck moved and asked unanimous consent that the roll call on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call on the court rule change. There was objection. The question being: "Shall the court rule change be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 172(FIN) Court Rule(s) Concur YEAS: 37 NAYS: 2 EXCUSED: 1 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Carpenter, Claman, Cronk, Drummond, Edgmon, Fields, Foster, Gillham, Hannan, Hopkins, Johnson, Josephson, Kaufman, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeBon, McCabe, McCarty, McKay, Nelson, Ortiz, Patkotak, Prax, Rasmussen, Rauscher, Schrage, Shaw, Snyder, Spohnholz, Story, Stutes, Tarr, Thompson, Tilton, Tuck, Vance, Wool, Zulkosky Nays: Eastman, Kurka Excused: Merrick And so, the court rule change was adopted. The Chief Clerk notified the Senate. The bill was referred to the Chief Clerk for enrollment.