Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
03/09/2021 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HSCR1 | |
| HB76 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HSCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HSCR 1-DISAPPROVING EXECUTIVE ORDER 119
3:08:42 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Disapproving
Executive Order No. 119.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY explained that she and Co-Chair Snyder would
take turns presenting HSCR 1. She handed the gavel to Co-Chair
Snyder so she could provide her portion of the presentation.
3:09:34 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:09:37 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY began her presentation on HSCR 1. She spoke
as follows:
On December 22, 2020, the governor announced that he
advised the Department of Law to draft an executive
order to reorganize the Department of Health and
Social Services into the Department of Health and the
Department of Family and Community Services. Then on
January 20, [2021], Executive Order [EO] 119 was
transmitted to the Senate where it was introduced on
January 25. Per Article III, Section 23, of the
Alaska Constitution, quite simply HSCR 1 disapproves
of the enactment of Executive Order 119. Given the
enormity of the proposed executive order, I would like
to discuss the basis for the proposed disapproval.
Alaska's Department of Health and Social Services
oversees the delivery of crucial programs that offer
essential services and supports to families, elders,
and vulnerable Alaskans across the state from
overseeing health coverage to low-income Alaskans
through Medicaid, to ensuring permanency and wellbeing
of children served by the Office of Children's
Services [OCS], to providing emergent and court
ordered inpatient psychiatric services at the Alaska
Psychiatric Institute, also known as API. And yet the
department is faced with significant challenges,
including high turnover rates and burnout of OCS
workers, having a significant disproportionate
representation of Alaska Native children in the foster
care system, and significant accreditation and safety
issues that have long plagued API, to name a few.
The breadth of important programs, importance of
finding solutions to much-needed programs in crisis,
and magnitude of resources required by the department
is clear. While the department has clearly
demonstrated the need for improvements in the way and
services Alaska provides for our most vulnerable, what
has not been demonstrated is that Executive Order 119
is the vehicle to do so.
3:12:19 PM
Instead, it has become clear through committee
consideration of the executive order that EO 119 is
wrought with program, legal, and fiscal ambiguities
that carry real consequences for Alaskans. In the
administration's initial announcement about this
executive order and the commissioner's subsequent
presentations to this committee, it was stated that
the reorganization will "streamline and improve the
delivery of critical programs and services while
creating more flexibility and responsiveness that
ultimately result in improved outcomes."
But, as we heard in testimony from Casey Family
Programs, the nation's largest operating foundation
focused on safely reducing the need for foster care,
there is no research or evidence of an ideal
organizational structure which exist. Positive
outcomes cannot be attributed to a particular model
and no research provides evidence that reorganization
improves accountability or service quality. However,
what has been well evidenced is that transition to a
new structure can take ... two to five years with at
least one or more years for planning, preparation, and
stakeholder engagement.
I commend the department for its recent and ongoing
efforts to engage tribes, nonprofits, and healthcare
entities on this proposal, and would like to thank the
department for the March 4 follow-up to the committee
in which they provided their schedule for public
engagement. But as we heard resoundingly from
stakeholders in the field, there was no meaningful
engagement in the development of this executive order.
3:13:53 PM
In fact, the schedule for public engagement provided
by the department shows the majority of work with
stakeholders, including townhalls with employees that
will be impacted, occurred after the governor's press
event announcing this action, effectively cutting the
department's tribal healthcare and nonprofit partners
from having a hand in shaping the future of the
department and attributing to the solutions looking to
be realized across it. As Alaska Native Health Board
chairman Andrew Jimmie wrote in a February 26 letter
to the commissioner on this issue, tribes should have
fundamentally been involved in the decision-making
process. I believe this extends to all stakeholders
impacted by Executive Order 119.
With regard to legal ambiguity, in a February 25 memo
from the Department of Law regarding background on EO
119 Chief Assistant Attorney General Stacie Kraly
affirms that an executive order "may not be used to
enact new substantive law before outlining what
statutes the administration believes have been
properly passed by the legislature." This is in stark
contrast to the March 5 memo provided by the
legislature's nonpartisan Legal Services Division
which outlines in detail multiple examples where
Executive Order 119 "impermissibly creates substantive
changes to existing law." While the governor may
reorganize executive departments "he may not delete or
add functions or make other substantive changes." In
just one example, Section 130 of EO 119 repeals the
definition of crisis stabilization center and does not
replace it anywhere else in Alaska statutes. The
opinion goes on to note that this change will have
unintended consequences.
Alaska's constitution charges the legislative branch
with crafting the broad contours of Alaska's policy
and budgetary direction, and the executive branch with
the enactment of the policies and budgets that the
legislature directs. By allowing the executive to
usurp the legislature's constitutionally mandated
powers we would be violating the systems of checks and
balances laid out by the framers of our constitution
as well as potentially putting at risk a number of
programs that are essential to Alaskans across the
state at a time when they rely on them the most.
3:16:19 PM
Finally, the administration has claimed that while
some costs come along with this reorganization,
ultimately, they say, the budget for two departments
would be less than the FY 21 [fiscal year 2021] DHSS
budget. Yet the cost savings referred to in the
presentation on this proposal hinge on the elimination
of positions that exist under the department's current
structure, and instead we know the committed
investments through this proposal are for high-cost
executive positions. So as the legislature continues
our work to diligently comb through agency budgets to
find cost savings and cut programs that serve Alaskans
directly, this proposal would guarantee we are adding
top heavy government salaries in perpetuity. Cutting
frontline positions like public assistance eligibility
specialists and clinicians or psychiatrists at API in
favor of increases to overhead expenses and leadership
positions is neither a fiscal nor policy practice I
can support.
It is also worth considering what we are putting at
risk if the department fails to deliver on the promise
to reorganize seamlessly, which could mean a massive
reorganization of the state's largest department
costing an unforeseen amount of money than what is
ambitiously projected. This means more waste for
administrative time and less resources for enacting
desired solutions for children and families in crisis,
supports for seniors and disable Alaskans, and
ensuring staff and patients at high needs facilities
like API are safe and care for.
Further, we would be losing funding for these programs
during an economic and public health crisis at a time
when Alaskans are relying on essential services more
than ever. The programs overseen by the Department of
Health and Social Services, from Medicaid and
Behavioral Health to the Alaska Pioneers' Home and the
Office of Children's Services, play a vital role in
keeping Alaska communities across the state healthy.
The department has clearly demonstrated a need to
evaluate the way programs are administered, however
they have not been able to meet the policy, legal, and
fiscal thresholds that would allow the legislature to
sign off on this substantial reorganization without
putting Alaskan families and the legislature's
constitutional authority at risk. I would like to
thank the committee for their time and ask that we all
support passing House Special Concurrent Resolution 1.
3:18:50 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease. [Co-Chair Snyder returned
the gavel to Co-Chair Zulkosky.]
3:19:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER began her portion of the presentation on HSCR 1,
disapproving Executive Order (EO) 119. She thanked committee
members for their thoughtful consideration of EO 119. She also
thanked those who provided written and oral testimony as well as
the leadership and employees of DHSS. She offered her gratitude
to DHSS employees for their tireless work through the COVID-19
pandemic, noting that they have provided critical evidence-based
guidance and communications, implemented essential mitigation
measures, ensured access to testing, promoted access to
vaccinations, and connected Alaskans to needed support services.
Co-Chair Snyder said the department's efforts in combination
with tribal partners have resulted to date in the third lowest
death rate in the country, successful efforts at flattening the
infection curve, and one of the highest vaccination rates in the
country. She stated she is grateful for the department's
dedication and expertise as everyone works to ensure these
trends continue and Alaska can begin its road to recovery.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER emphasized that she doesn't want her support for
HSCR 1 to overshadow her gratitude for the department. Rather,
she continued, her support of the resolution reflects the value
placed on the work of the department and her respect for the
people who carry out that work in the service of Alaskans, the
many partner organizations that facilitate connections with the
public, and the public themselves. She added that the pandemic
has truly highlighted the importance of the department's many
moving parts and the services it provides to Alaskans, and that
all Alaskans need DHSS to succeed. Co-Chair Snyder continued
her summary of the motivations for HSCR 1 as follows:
3:21:43 PM
Similarly, the questions we have asked of the
department regarding EO 119 is a reflection of the
seriousness with which we legislators take our duty to
helping ensure our governmental agencies meet the
needs of Alaskans. The questions we have asked have
been direct, intentional, and reasonable. What is the
plan? How have stakeholders been engaged? What will
it cost? What is the evidence supporting this plan?
And what are the metrics for success?
Knowing the department's successes, I think many of us
can agree that the department, for all of its
fantastic services and accomplishments, also has room
for improvement, as we all do. Improvement in
efficiencies. Improvement in timely, thorough, and
compassionate care for Alaskans. And improvement in
access and communication.
I understand that these needs for improvement are what
motivated the creation of EO 119. These proposed
changes would automatically go into effect if the
legislature does not vote to disapprove by March 21,
less than two weeks away. These proposed changes
would also coincide with changes currently outlined in
the FY 22 budget, including the elimination of over
100 department positions affecting the Division of
Public Assistance, Juvenile Justice, and the Alaska
Psychiatric Institute.
While it is clear that changes need to be made to the
operations and possibly to the organization of the
department to improve services and functionality, it
is not clear that bifurcation and the addition of
several new high-level positions is the answer. And
make no mistake, if we get this answer wrong the
victims of the fallout most likely aren't most of us
sitting in this room today. Those negatively impacted
are vulnerable Alaskan children in unsafe homes.
Children and families who don't know where their next
meal is going to come from. A caretaker of an Alaskan
with mental health challenges who has nowhere to turn.
Elders facing increased uncertainty about how they
will live out their golden years. And the father and
his son who is struggling with addiction and finding
treatment. I want to keep these Alaskans in the
forefront of our minds today. We owe it to them to
get this right.
3:24:02 PM
The resolution is not a complete disapproval of
department reorganization. Rather, it's a way to give
us the time needed to make the best decision for
Alaska. While the discussions in this committee have
been a great starting point, they are just that a
starting point. There are still many questions that
have been left unasked and unanswered. We need to
give the public, stakeholders, and the legislature the
time to ask them, and the department and
administration the time to answer them. With the
looming deadline of the EO we have not been afforded
that time.
As Co-Chair Zulkosky said and is highlighted in the
legislative legal memo, there are significant legal
concerns around the EO. There are substantive changes
to existing law, which impedes on the legislature's
authority. There is also mention of significant
litigation risk, which would take away from the
department, the administration, and the legislature's
time and resources. If we are aiming to be efficient,
risking a lawsuit is not the way.
In addition to what [Co-Chair] Zulkosky covered, it's
also worth highlighting that there is a lack of
clarity regarding authorities between the two newly
proposed departments and the creation of new board
positions and resulting imbalance in representation
regardless of whether the new member can vote or not.
The savings or costs of EO 119 are still unclear. The
plan relies on a net loss of 139 full-time positions,
positions that work directly with providing services
for Alaskans. But it adds 13 new executive branch
positions that would cost $1.8 million. The
department is already understaffed. It is difficult
to see how cutting positions even with bifurcation
would increase the quality of services provided to
Alaskans. Additional cost associated with bifurcation
will include, but are not limited to, changes in
signage, IT licensing, and recruitment, but these
costs are unclear.
3:26:06 PM
[Co-Chair] Zulkosky clearly outlined the concerns
regarding the approach taken to stakeholder
engagement. While we commend the submitted plans for
including continued engagement the cart was put before
the horse, so to speak. With EO being crafted and
announced prior to meaningful engagement with
stakeholders to inform it. And as a reminder to those
members of the public who are following along, an EO
cannot be amended. As a result, we've heard
overwhelming pushback or concern from a broad suite of
partners, many of whom are on the stakeholder list
provided by the department.
Please let me be clear, this is a committee that wants
to find responsible effective solutions, and we thank
leadership at the department for initiating this
important and long overdue discussion. I look forward
to continued conversations with the department and the
administration, the public, and other stakeholders to
find ways to improve the Department of Health and
Social Services as well.
Again, while we currently lack the evidence that the
EO is the best path forward for the department, EO 119
started an important conversation, and we need to
continue having it. I welcome continued engagement
with stakeholders, more detailed reports of major
findings or transition plans for review, or even a
task force like the ones we've seen in previous
administrative orders and economic development
initiatives in Alaska.
We look forward to contributing to this effort,
recognizing that HSCR 1 is not a no on reorganization,
but a vehicle for increasing public trust, time,
transparency, and stakeholder engagement for any
significant department changes. I urge a yes vote
from committee members.
3:27:52 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
3:27:56 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY invited committee members to ask questions in
relation to HSCR 1.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether the lack of a severability
clause potentially puts the entire EO at risk if any of EO's
individual provisions were challenged by a party with standing.
3:29:04 PM
ANDREW DUNMIRE, Legislative Counsel, Legal Services, Division of
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, replied
he would like the opportunity to do more research before he
gives a formal answer. He said his sense is that because this
is an all or nothing proposition in the way that the EO either
gets disapproved by the legislature or becomes effective by law,
and because theoretically speaking there should be no changes to
the law in an executive order, he does think there would be that
kind of risk if the EO goes through.
3:29:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX requested Mr. Dunmire to summarize the legal
challenges/substantive changes he sees with EO 119.
MR. DUNMIRE responded with his belief that there are four boards
which would be impacted by EO 119 by increasing the number of
members serving on each of the boards. He said there are some
changes to substantive law. For example, he stated, Section 2
changes which nurses are allowed to pronounce a patient dead;
the definition of "crisis stabilization center" is deleted and
that would have an impact on Title 12 which is the Code of
Criminal Procedure has a provision that relies on that
definition to give peace officers the authority, he believes, to
arrest people without a warrant. There are several substantive
changes in the EO, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated he is looking for a list of Mr.
Dunmire's concerns so the committee could discuss each one. He
inquired whether crisis [stabilization] center, as mentioned by
Mr. Dunmire, is defined in any of those statutes.
MR. DUNMIRE answered he would have to get back to the committee
with an answer. He said his [legal memo dated 3/5/21] is
available on BASIS and that it details all the substantive
changes to the law that would be enacted by EO 119.
3:33:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the crisis [stabilization]
center itself would go away if there was no definition of it in
statute. He further asked what the effect would be if crisis
[stabilization] center is not defined in statute.
MR. DUNMIRE replied that the fallout would be that an existing
statute that relies upon that definition by directly citing to
it would no longer have a definition. So, it would render a
statute that currently has a definition to be more ambiguous.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated that somebody taking a person to a
crisis [stabilization] center would still know where to take
that person. He said a definition therefore doesn't strike him
as important or significant and that it could be sorted out in
regulation or in the court. He requested Mr. Dunmire to explain
the importance of a definition.
MR. DUNMIRE responded that AS 12.25.031(a) currently allows a
police officer as an alternative to an arrest to deliver someone
to a crisis stabilization center under certain circumstances.
This is a procedure that police officers would use instead of
taking somebody to jail, he explained, but to follow the law,
police officers must know what the law is. Currently that
provision of the statute cites to the definition of crisis
stabilization center that would be repealed under EO 119, which
would cause some ambiguity in those types of situations. But,
he continued, the facilities that are crisis stabilization
centers would still exist.
3:35:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that his reading of EO 119 is that
the intent is there to find ways to resolve issues to help
people in Alaska. He said EO 119 is not to avoid responsibility
of services, but to find other ways of organization management.
Regarding crisis stabilization, he noted that the Mental Health
Trust and various institutions throughout Alaska have spent much
time and money on "a Crisis Now program, which the whole concept
seems to be in that format there." He said he also knows "words
mean a lot and funding for different programs have to be defined
in the words." This is an all or nothing type of proposal, he
continued, with great things in it, things in question, and
things that still need to be defined. As to EO 119 removing
[crisis stabilization center], he asked Mr. Dunmire whether it
is accurate to say that words mean a lot as far as the state's
ability for being able to collect for services like Crisis Now.
He further asked Mr. Dunmire to respond to the concern that it's
all or nothing.
MR. DUNMIRE answered he doesn't know how the removal of that
definition might impact funding but said Legal Services can
investigate that and provide a thorough legal analysis. As to
whether this would be severable or subject to being repealed in
whole in a lawsuit, he said he certainly thinks that is a risk
that could happen.
3:38:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS followed up on Representative Prax's
question by referring to a letter written by the Anchorage
Police Department Employees Association (APDEA). He specified
that the concern is not so much the physical facility but the
authority. He said the letter states:
I write today my support for HSCR 1 and my disapproval
of EO 119's potential negative impacts. The language
in AS 12.25.031 which allows for police offers to use
their discretion to take a person suffering from an
acute behavioral health crisis to a crisis
stabilization center in lieu of arresting them is
necessary and fully supported by APDEA.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS interpreted this to mean that the police
are telling the committee that it is very risky for a police
officer to do something for which the officer doesn't have clear
statutory authority. He related that in his district behavioral
health issues and public safety are intimately connected and it
is important for the police to have that ability. He said he
doesn't want to endanger what the municipality and others have
done in terms of crisis stabilization. Obviously, the
facilities are going to be there, he continued, but if the
police don't have authority to take folks there then they don't
function.
3:40:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that currently the state
doesn't have any actual crisis stabilization centers. She
related that it's a goal of the administration and the Mental
Health Trust Authority to create crisis stabilization centers
and be able to divert people away from emergency departments,
in-patient psychiatric facilities, and jails so that mental
health can be decriminalized, and people can get the treatment
they need. She said important reform being advanced by this
administration and the Mental Health Trust Authority would be
seriously undermined if creating the new crisis stabilization
centers, envisioned as a part of Crisis Now, is not allowed in
statute when it was passed by the legislature just last year.
3:41:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether anyone is online from the
administration who could address the points brought up in the
Legal Services memo.
3:41:50 PM
HEATHER CARPENTER, Healthcare Policy Advisor, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
replied that the Department of Law (DOL) received the Legal
Services memo on Saturday [3/6/21], is still doing internal
analysis, and has a meeting scheduled with Legal Services for
tomorrow [3/10/21]. She related that DOL has been asked by the
Senate Finance Standing Committee to testify next to DHSS on
these questions on Thursday [3/11/21]. So, she continued, a
speedy turnaround is expected to the questions raised by Legal
Services.
3:43:01 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
3:43:35 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY opened public testimony on HSCR 1.
3:44:02 PM
MIKE COONS, President, Mat-Su Chapter of Association of Mature
American Citizens (AMAC) Action, related that his organization
has been briefed by Commissioner Crum on the splitting of DHSS.
He said working toward billing the work in a timely and cost-
effective manner is good business practice. Government is not
business, he continued, and that explains the over-the-top costs
to government versus businesses which give out services and do
so with a profit. This split, he asserted, will give all
Alaskans a far better "bang for the buck" that government so far
has not ever given. He stated that his organization supports
the splitting of DHSS in the manner that the governor and
Commissioner Crum have done. He urged the committee to vote no
on HSCR 1.
3:44:55 PM
KIM KUKLIS testified it is wrong to extend this executive order
and keep facilities and assistance closed to the public. She
said she works in healthcare, and it is unreal when watching
people on the streets with doors closed, facilities closed,
support systems closed, and seeing sadness in the eyes of little
ones in the schools knowing what they're going to at home.
"Some of the top healthcare providers that are running this
whole executive COVID thing," she continued, "it's just
disheartening, and it hurts my heart to even be affiliated with
some of the healthcare because it's just become such a power
link." She stated she wants the governor and all the folks who
are giving out information to keep things closed to realize that
they're in their positions because they are supposed to be
serving the needy public that needs advocates. She said she
hopes somebody does the right thing.
3:48:45 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY closed public testimony after ascertaining no
one else wished to testify on HSCR 1.
3:48:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER moved to report HSCR 1 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
3:49:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected. He said it seems the discussion
and testimony on Executive Order 119 is either too far down into
the details that cannot be known at this time or concern about
the level of services. He stated he hasn't seen any indication
that the department intends to reduce or eliminate any services
at the service level and the intent is to help the department
run more efficiently. He said it makes sense for a department
this large to have its own director so that that person can pay
attention to fewer things and pay closer attention to the fewer
things. With one commissioner in charge of a very broad range
of services, it's very difficult to focus on any one thing, he
argued. It is his experience, he related, that when large or
small companies are structured with smaller units where people
can focus on a specific thing those units tend to run better.
This is a sound idea in principle, he stated, and he supports
the administration's efforts. Regarding the general public's
concern about the level of service, Representative Prax said he
doesn't think there's any intention to lower those services. He
maintained it would not work to have dozens or hundreds of
stakeholders engaged in the process of trying to determine
something at the end. It must be allowed to play out, he added,
and odds are it will be found that some changes need to be made.
3:52:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX continued speaking to his objection. He
stated the committee should wait until [3/11/21] to hear the
discussion about the specific legal objections. For example, he
explained, his focus on the definition of a crisis center is
because he is pretty sure that the Fairbanks police do deliver
people to places other than jail. Functionally it would be
understood as a crisis center, he asserted, and might be a place
that deals with alcoholism or something else. There might be
lots of facilities that are understood to function as a crisis
center and could be defined in regulation or contract.
Therefore, he argued, crisis center should not be defined in
statute because there are many variations to what it could be.
It is an example of getting too far into the details when the
focus needs to be on the higher level.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX further stated that the purpose of an
executive department is to review its organizations and come up
with how to run the business that the legislature has directed
the executive department to run. He maintained it doesn't work
to have 60 people trying to figure out how to tell the executive
to do something. That's the executive's job and that's what has
been done, he added, and the legislature should support that.
3:54:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asserted that words, details, and
language matter and are literally the work that the legislature
does. On the House floor and in committee, she pointed out,
legislators have had detailed substantial conversations about a
single word because the words that the legislature approves or
disapproves impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
Alaska has sobering centers, addiction treatment centers, and
in-patient psychiatric institutions, she continued, but Alaska
does not currently have crisis stabilization centers, which are
needed to divert people away from prisons and emergency
departments.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ specified that the [Legal Services]
memo has identified many flaws and numerous unconstitutional
provisions in the EO. These are not unsubstantial changes, she
stressed, but changing law in a way not permitted by the
Constitution of the State of Alaska. There are very significant
errors. As was said in testimony, she continued, if it's a good
idea now it will still be a good idea in 6-12 months when there
has been a chance to do the work and engage stakeholders.
3:56:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ outlined the things she believes are
particularly saliant about the EO. She pointed out that
drafting errors in an executive order cannot be corrected by the
legislature, it is an "all or nothing" vote, a yea or nay.
There are substantial changes in the EO that are problematic,
she said, so she will oppose EO [119] and support HSCR 1. One
problem is the changing of board membership from nine to ten
members, she opined, which is a significant expansion of power
on the administration's part. Not only is an odd number
important for resolving issues, she said, but it would add
additional administrative members. She recalled [Commissioner
Crum] stating that it shouldn't matter because the legislature
confirms members of those boards. She allowed that that's true
but noted that every one of those boards was crafted in law in a
very carefully negotiated compromise. So, she argued, the EO to
expand those boards and have additional administrative positions
on them is a massive expansion of power, and the EO would change
multiple boards in that way. Representative Spohnholz noted the
committee has already discussed the elimination of the crisis
stabilization centers which are important to the reforms being
looked at. She said the EO also eliminates the Criminal Justice
Commission and creates the Criminal Justice Information Advisory
Commission. While this was recommended by legislative auditors,
she maintained that it needs to be done in statute because it is
a very significant change that needs to be discussed in detail.
Representative Spohnholz further pointed out that the EO
dramatically expands the administration's authority to issue
regulations and that the administration has said not to worry
because there's an extensive public review process for approving
new regulations. However, she continued, this administration
has advanced numerous emergency regulatory packages, including
rate cuts and new regulations for implementation of the
[Medicaid] 1115 Waiver, and didn't respond to the public input
on those, creating much heartache and headache for the people
providing those services and who didn't have a chance to get
their input delivered. It's a disingenuous statement to say
[DHSS] has a robust public process, she charged.
3:59:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ added that she is not opposed to
reorganizing DHSS and agrees with the commissioner's position
that additional leadership is needed to manage some of the
complicated challenges had by the department, given it is
roughly a $3.4 billion organization. But how that is done
really matters, she said. Last year the administration proposed
adding a couple executive positions, she stated, but this year a
massive expansion of 13 new senior executives is proposed.
There are many problems with this, she asserted, and it's such a
massive expansion of power on the administration's part that it
would be irresponsible to approve it. She stated that voting
for HSCR 1, declining EO 119, is the only responsible thing to
do for the people of Alaska and to avoid the risk of certain
lawsuits that would happen if this executive order were allowed
to go through.
4:00:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS thanked the stakeholders who weighed in.
He said he is particularly concerned about the ability of police
to deal with people in mental health crisis, about impacts on
foster care articulated by Facing Foster Care, and about impacts
on OCS and vulnerable children as heard from tribal leaders. He
acknowledged DHSS has many hard working and inspiring staff who
have done incredible work in the last year. He said he hopes it
is ensured that any proposed reorganization has sufficient time
to be executed smoothly and in coordination with stakeholders.
4:01:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA explained he is conflicted because of the
big concerns about legislative authority brought up by Mr.
Dunmire. There has been a lot of long-term erosion of things
that are clearly the legislature's responsibility in the
constitution, he opined. He said he would like to hear the
Department of Law answers before deciding whether to support
the current version of EO 119 and, until he hears those answers,
he cannot support HSCR 1.
4:02:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY offered his understanding that only the
executor can amend the executive order and legislators have many
questions but cannot make any changes to the EO. However, he
opined, in just a few days people will be presenting to the
questions and it would be appropriate to postpone this vote to
give fair audience to those people and the questions. He stated
he is concerned about several things in the EO and sees the
expeditious need to serve the people of Alaska. He said many
interesting things have happened with COVID-19 and reassessing
management of operations of different things. He suggested the
vote be postponed until after the answers are heard.
4:03:27 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:06:52 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER said she appreciates the desire to wait to vote
until hearing from the Department of Law regarding the Legal
Services memo. However, she stated, the committee is in a
predicament with the timing and looming deadline of 3/21/21. If
HSCR 1 isn't passed out of committee today, she continued, being
able to vote on this in joint session would be in serious
jeopardy given the remaining steps that must be taken.
Something might be heard from the Department of Law this week
that puts Representative McCarty in opposition to EO 119, she
said, but there wouldn't be the chance to consider it together
in joint session. It isn't just issues with the Legal Services
memo, she opined, but also the issues around stakeholder
engagement, details of the plan, and unknown and unclarified
costs that are enough for her to want to be able to bring this
to a vote in joint session.
4:08:09 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked whether Representative Prax maintained
his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX appreciated folks wanting to be cautious,
and that members' only options are do nothing or say no, and
that the deadline is 3/21/21. He suggested there would be
enough time for committee members to listen to the discussion in
the Senate hearing [on 3/11/21] and then the committee could
meet that afternoon or the following day [3/12/21] to pass or
not pass [HSCR 1].
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY noted the concerns are about constitutional
authority, fiscal ambiguity, and program ambiguity. She said
the House has an opportunity to consider HSCR 1, the Senate will
be considering a special concurrent resolution, and then the
bodies meet in joint session, so there is nothing that goes to
the floor. She specified that the 3/21/21 deadline is a
deadline that is set in constitution and is what puts the
legislature against a timeclock that otherwise wouldn't be
there. She reiterated that if this is a good idea now, it will
continue to be a good idea six months from now. She offered her
belief that the committee intent is to make a consideration on
HSCR 1. She surmised Representative Prax maintained his
objection to moving the resolution from committee today.
4:10:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX maintained his objection. He stated he
would like to ask the administration what the consequences might
be of the legislature declining [the EO] and whether it could be
brought back the next day and the process started over again or
a significant setback if this turns out to be a good idea.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY outlined the timeline under which the
administration proposed EO 119: EO announced by the governor on
December 22, [2020], work done with the Department of Law for
about a month, EO read across the Senate floor on January 25,
[2021]. It is now the beginning of March and there has been
ample opportunity for engagement on this issue, she said. She
stated she would not entertain prolonged discussion as the
committee has had opportunity for dialogue today. She stated
that consideration and clarity will be forthcoming in the Senate
and recommended that this body tune into that and follow along
in the process.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER pointed out that the committee is required to
give adequate notice if it holds additional meetings, which adds
additional days when calculating backward from the deadline.
4:13:03 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:16:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA stated that considering the schedule he
would like the opportunity to vote on the floor on HSCR 1 but
has not yet decided whether he supports the executive order. If
the resolution is not passed out of committee, he continued,
then members will not have the opportunity to stop the executive
order if that is what they want to do, and therefore he will
support the resolution.
4:16:45 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Spohnholz, Fields,
McCarty, Kurka, Zulkosky, and Snyder voted in favor of reporting
HSCR 1 from committee. Representative Prax voted against it.
Therefore, HSCR 1 was reported from the House Health and Social
Services Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.