Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/23/2004 01:34 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 513 - CSED NAME CHANGE/DRIVER'S LIC.SUSPENSION Number 2342 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 513, "An Act relating to the enforcement of support orders through suspension of drivers' licenses; changing the name of the child support enforcement agency to the child support services agency; amending Rules 90.3 and 90.5, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date." Number 2327 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, referred to HB 513 as an administrative bill and said that it does two things. Within the Department of Revenue, HB 513 changes the name of "Child Support Enforcement Division" (CSED) to "Child Support Services," and it closes what he termed a loophole in the CSED's licensing program. He opined that the name change is an important change in that the new name sends a strong message to the public that the "we are here for the kids," adding that a lot of states have either undergone or are currently making such a change. He relayed that his staff, former director of the CSED, John Main, would be assisting with the presentation. Number 2187 JOHN MAIN, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said that the name change is intended to foster the attitudes that "we're here to serve," and that [the CSED] is an agency that does more than just enforce collection of child support; "we do paternities, we do establishments, ... [and we] work with employers." He, too, mentioned that several states are looking at making such a name change. On the issue of the aforementioned loophole, he said: What that amounts to is that ... we have a period of time in which we are able to ... [revoke] an individual's driver's license; however, we have to stop that process when that individual agrees to a payment plan. The problem we run into is when the person has agreed and then pays maybe one payment and then stops again, we have to start all over with the process again. [Instead] ... we would like to start from when we stopped; that way, we [revoke] the driver's license faster versus [allowing] an individual ... [to] have as many as 300 days ... before we would finally be able to pull their driver's license. And [revoking] a driver's license is one of the ways in which we're able to force people to come to [the] table to pay child support and be responsible for their children. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he wants to make sure that if someone is mistakenly thought to have stopped paying child support, that there is an inexpensive way for that person to challenge the revocation process. He asked what happens to someone who is paying child support but then the agency mistakenly comes to believe that he/she has stopped paying. MR. MAIN replied that normally, the agency only takes action against someone's driver's license when he/she hasn't been paying child support at all for some time. In response to a further question, he indicated that there is an appeal process, which can include going to court if the agency's initial review of the situation produces a decision that the person disagrees with. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that according to his interpretation of the sponsor statement, it appears that a person would have to go to court to stop the license revocation. Number 2032 MR. MAIN said that is correct - the person would eventually have to go through the courts to stop the revocation process. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether that would be the first step or whether there is an administrative process first. MR. MAIN replied: This is the administrative process in which ... [the CSED] is in the process of [revoking] their driver's license. It takes up to 150 days in which to [revoke] their driver's license. We give them a period of time in which to respond back to us; ... we set up a payment plan. This is not a quick process; it's a very lengthy process, and it was designed to be a lengthy process. CHAIR McGUIRE asked for a hypothetical example showing how the process currently works. She asked whether the driver's license revocation process is begun on the basis of an amount of money owed or on a length of time without a payment being made. She added: I think we all grasp the problem, which is that someone comes in and says, "Okay, I've been out of compliance - I agree to be on a payment plan," and then within 30 days they fail to meet that requirement again, and now the department's got to back through those steps of revoking their driver's license. Number 1952 JOHN MALLONEE, Acting Director, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), Department of Revenue (DOR), said that the CSED maintains a list of obligors who are not in substantial compliance. Substantial compliance regarding a support order payment schedule means that with respect to periodic payments required under the support order or the negotiated payment schedule, there are no arrears in an amount that is four times the amount of the monthly obligation, or the person has been determined by the court to be making the best effort possible. Thus, for example, if the support obligation was $200 a month, the arrears would have to be $800. CHAIR McGUIRE asked for a hypothetical example showing how the current license revocation process works in comparison to the process proposed via HB 513. MR. MALLONEE said: Basically, what we do right now is ... we issue a ... written notice of arrearage at least 60 days before we place them on this list of people who are not in substantial compliance. During that period they have the ability to appeal ... on the statement of fact, i.e. they are not the individual who owes the support or the amount is not the amount that we say it is. ... Once we do that, then they can get a 150-day temporary license ... and only one temporary license can be given at a time. So they have that ability anytime, and this is where this amendment [to current statute] comes into effect. ... [It's where] let's suppose that they make this one payment - so now they have a payment agreement with us [and] if they come in and make a payment agreement, we take them off the list and we don't suspend their license - if they cease to make this payment, say the second or the third month, then we have to start over again: we place them on the list and they have 60 days, we start the 150-day period all over in which they can bring this current. CHAIR McGUIRE said she sees the problem. Number 1820 REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if, during the 60-day window for appealing the notice, the person can get the 150-day temporary license while the appeal is pending. MR. MALLONEE said yes, adding that the temporary license would give the person the opportunity to bring his/her child support payments back into substantial compliance. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Section 12 of HB 513, and said he'd not ever seen such language in a bill before. He suggested that the revisor of statutes and the regulations attorney would normally do what is being proposed via Section 12, which is to make conforming amendments to the statutes and administrative code. He asked that committee staff investigate whether a letter of intent to the revisor of statutes and the regulations attorney would be sufficient. CHAIR McGUIRE posited that perhaps the language was included in the bill for clarity. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that it would be preferable if the aforementioned individuals didn't have to wait another year before making the conforming amendments. CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that staff would also be looking to see whether similar language was included in the legislation that would change the name of the Department of Community & Economic Development. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, on another issue, said: It looks to me like these changes you're making concerning payment schedules, you're just doing some technical changing around but you're going to keep the practice of payment schedules in place, and this just makes the same change with them as with court orders, right? MR. MAIN said, "I believe that's CSED's intent, yes." Number 1671 REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked how a person who's had his/her driver's license revoked is expected to get back and forth to work in order to earn the money to make child support payments. MR. MAIN pointed out that driving is a privilege and that driver's license revocation is mandated by the federal government as one way of getting the attention of those who are in arrears and not honoring their responsibility to their children. The mandate does not involve requiring that people go to work; the mandate involves requiring that people support their children. How those people go about making their child support payments is up to them, and thus it is their responsibility to figure out how to get back and forth to work. That being said, throughout the nation right now there are several programs that help low-income parents meet their obligations, such as busing programs and job-training programs, he added. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he agrees with the intent of the bill and with getting rid of "perks" for people who don't pay child support. CHAIR McGUIRE surmised that what is being asked of a person is that he/she contact the division and, if not pay off the amount in arrears, at least create a payment schedule. She suggested that HB 513 creates another incentive for people to come in and pay and to, if setting up a payment schedule, be careful about what they agree to so as not to default on that agreement. MR. MAIN confirmed that the intent is to get those that are in arrears to at least come to the table and discuss payment schedules. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS suggested that the people who will be affected by HB 513 are those that have simply been refusing to pay any child support, and indicated that he thinks taking away those people's driver's license is a good idea. MR. MAIN, in response to questions, said that the people the bill is intended to affect are those that have the ability to pay but simply aren't, and that most of those people are self- employed in some fashion. Number 1437 REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked why they are limiting license revocation to driver's licenses. Why not also things like commercial-fishing crewmember licenses, or why not also limit someone's ability to practice law, dentistry, or medicine. MR. MAIN said that driver's licenses are not the only things being affected by the federal mandate requiring payment of child support. The bill, however, is simply addressing what is perceived to be a loophole in the process of revoking driver's licenses; the process of revoking occupational licenses does not have such a loophole. On the issue of crewmember licenses, though, the problem there is that they are sold just like hunting licenses and fishing licenses, and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) does not have a database similar to what the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has for driver's licenses; "you won't find out a person has a crewmember license until after the fishing season is completely over." In addition, fishing permits are different than occupational licenses, he relayed, and so the CSED has not been able to have the same effect on permit holders as it does on occupational license holders or driver's license holders. CHAIR McGUIRE suggested to Representative Ogg that he work with the CSED and investigate the possibility of tightening up those "loopholes" as well. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he agrees with the policy that if one does not pay one's child support, then driver's license revocation is an appropriate penalty. He explained, however, that he is concerned that those who are making a good faith effort to pay but find themselves unable to pay, for a rational reason, will have to go through an expensive court process to stop the revocation. He asked whether someone who is given a notice of arrears would still keep his/her driver's license until the court hearing. MR. MALLONEE replied: Once we ... give notice, ... they have 60 days in which to come and contest this. After we ... render a decision saying, "No, we still think you're in substantial noncompliance," [then] from that point ... we're still not going to get rid of that driver's license for 150 days. During that 150 days, they have the opportunity to appeal to a court and ask for expedited consideration. The problem that we then have is that we're on the 149th day and we make a payment agreement, and [if] they do not live up to their payment agreement, we start off the next time with the 60-day notice, doing another administrative review, and starting the entire 150 days all over for them to have the ability to ... ask for expedited consideration from the court. What we're really trying to do with [HB 513] is, if you say no, you're not going to pay after you've made this agreement, ... if we were on the 120th day, [then] we only want to give you 30 more days in which to finish that up. You either have to appeal to the court or we're going to get rid of the license. Number 1108 REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he understands the current process and the problem. What he'd like to know, he remarked, is how things would work under the proposed solution. MR. MALLONEE said he envisions that what would occur under HB 513 is that when the person failed to make a payment as agreed upon in the payment agreement, the CSED would send out a notice informing that person that he/she is not living up to the agreement. In the aforementioned example, that person would then have 30 days in which to request, in writing, a review, and the CSED would, in writing, inform the person of the its findings. So the person would again have the ability to contest a claim of noncompliance. In response to a further question, he said that the person's driver's license is valid up until the 150th day, and that this is the case both currently and under HB 513; the only change the bill proposes to the current process is to eliminate having to start counting the 150-day period from the beginning. MR. MAIN, in response to questions, confirmed his earlier comments regarding crewmember, fishing, and hunting licenses, and added that the question of whether it would be possible to start revoking those types of licenses would be best answered by the ADF&G. He also mentioned that revocation of private pilot licenses is something that is not being done now because of current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) restrictions. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested the possibility of the legislature urging Congress, via a resolution, to pass a law instructing the FAA to remove those restrictions. MR. MAIN noted that in addition to those four types of licenses, there are also various federal certificates and licenses that the state has no control over, and when the issue of revoking those certificates and licenses was raised with the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the response was that it would not be cost effective to pass a mandate requiring revocation of those licenses and certificates. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked, "For whom?" The children who are not being supported or some government agency? Number 0776 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked whether confiscating the vehicles of those whose driver's licenses have been revoked could be another option, since, he opined, without a driver's license, those people don't need a vehicle. MR. MALLONEE, on the issue of crewmember licenses, pilot licenses, and other federal licenses and certificates, concurred with Mr. Main that at this time, nothing can be done. He mentioned that being able to revoke business licenses and crewmember licenses might be useful as long any such revocation program garnered results in terms of more child support payments being made. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS suggested that the Division of Occupational Licensing would be able to provide a list of those licenses that are now subject to revocation. CHAIR McGUIRE after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify and that representatives from the Department of Revenue, the Department of Law, and the Division of Motor Vehicles were available to answer questions, closed public testimony on HB 513. Number 0528 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report HB 513 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 513 was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|