Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/22/1996 01:35 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 289 - MINORS, ESP. RUNAWAYS, & THEIR FAMILIES Number 365 ALLISON GORDON, Legislative Assistant to Senator Steve Frank came forward to testify on SB 289. She stated that they had prepared a few amendments based on the last hearing which would satisfy the Department of Health & Social Services, Covenant House Alaska and other facilities like the Covenant House. The first amendment prepared would reflect the Department's fiscal note and their wishes to grant or contract with residential care facilities within communities for the secure placement of run aways, the idea being to keep run aways out of the already crowded detention centers and away from children who have committed more serious crimes. This would still allow detention of habitual run aways in a secure environment pending a detention hearing which would assess the best interests of this child. MS. GORDON noted that there were, taken out of the guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious violent and chronic juvenile offenders, references to community based residential facilities throughout the legislation. She noted that this was something already in place in other states, in their community based residential facilities. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if this would potentially have an effect on the fiscal note which is quite large. MS. GORDON offered that this was based on the department's fiscal note, based on her understanding of their fiscal note. CHAIRMAN PORTER thought that one of the department's concerns was that they would have to build new secured facilities. MS. GORDON stated that they thought they would need 20 new secure placement beds. She was not sure if they would need to upgrade certain existing facilities in some communities to meet regulations. Number 593 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move amendment number one as described. Representative Finkelstein requested a response from the department before making a decision. Chairman Porter agreed and requested that they review the amendments prior to this response. MS. GORDON then outlined amendment number two. This amendment addressed the concerns of Covenant House, an organization which is funded by private donations and federal grants as opposed to state funds. They receive a very small amount of state funding. The department's fiscal note reflects their intent to convert six state funded facilities to semi-secure. Covenant House was not one of them. The legislation as it's written gives the authority to the department to develop regulations regarding requirements for compliance. Covenant House was not comfortable with the fact that this would be left up to the department to decide about who would be forced to comply. This fiscal note would reflect that a facility which receives an amount in the excess of one quarter of their program's cost shall maintain semi-secure portions, meaning that, if they aren't a state funded facility they don't necessarily have to maintain portions of semi-secure. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that as a practical matter this would put Covenant House in the exception area. MS. GORDON responded that yes, it would. In the bill itself it states that on page 5, beginning on line 10, the officer will give highest priority for taking the minor to a facility that is semi- secure which would lead one to believe that there would be facilities which don't have semi-secure portions, these other facilities which are not for habitual run aways. Number 760 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that he did still have a concern over the "sending to jail" circumstance and he was hoping to get the department's testimony on what the existing conditions they can ever detain someone are, especially for chronic run aways. Number 815 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law testified on SB 289. She requested to speak to the criminal ramifications of this legislation. The Department had two comments. The first dealt with the section about contributing to the delinquency of a minor on page 2, line 30. Paragraph (a) (3) prohibits a person over the age of 19 encouraging, inducing, or causing a person under 16 to be repeatedly absent from school. The statute presently reads "without just cause." The Senate Finance Committee removed this phrase "just cause," and inserted the "permission of the parents, the child's parent, guardian or custodian." The Department objects to this because there is no reason why a parent should not be subject to prosecution for contributing to the delinquency of a minor if he or she engages in conduct which actually induces or aids his or her child to stay away from school. There is a procedure under the delinquency statutes, but this is not as serious as the consequences of prosecution under this statute. By adding this permission of the child's parent, guardian or custodian they would essentially be removing the possibility of prosecuting the parent under this statute. The Department would recommend they remove the change in paragraph (a) (3) and leave it to be "just cause." MS. CARPENETI stated that their second concern dealt with paragraph (4). The department had worked with the sponsor and his aide with this change in the delinquency statute under paragraph (4), on page 2, line 31 and on page 3, lines 1 through 11. Generally they thought that this was a good modification to be made to the statute, but she had one request for an additional change. They originally drafted it on line one, to read, "under eighteen years of age to be absent from the custody of a parent, guardian, or custodian without the knowledge or permission of the parent, guardian, or custodian." This was removed from the Senate Finance Committee with the very logical justification that permission includes knowledge, but her prosecutors tell her that it's easier to prove knowledge than it is permission. In proving the state's case beyond a reasonable doubt the state could base it's case on proof beyond a reasonable knowledge rather than permission. She didn't think this took away from the statute. Number 1096 MS. GORDON responded to Ms. Carpeneti's concern. She noted that they had worked with the department of law on these changes contributing to the delinquency of a minor statute. They appreciated the input which they received, especially on subparagraph (4) which was a good change. They've had overwhelming support and no opposition to this change of the bill. Regarding the knowledge or permission they would object to changing it back to it's original language. They felt as though there knowledge exists if someone is given permission. Ms. Gordon spoke specifically about a mother who's daughter was a runaway. Her daughter would leave and say she would be back at a particular time, but never returned. The mother said she would not be sure where knowledge comes to play, is she suppose to report her daughter as a runaway immediately, what type of time frame does this give her? The daughter obviously didn't have the permission, but the mother did have the knowledge that her daughter had not returned home as expected. Number 1177 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that he understood what she was saying, but that what they were referring to was a different section of the law. What they were referring to was the delinquency of a minor. In committee what they try to provide is, "if it is that we have decided from a policy standpoint that that's going to be a crime, we want to give the prosecutors and law enforcement as many tools as they can have to make sure that they can accomplish that, so if the Department of Law says it would be easier for them to establish that crime has occurred with only having to establish knowledge as opposed to permission, it isn't the state of mind of the parent that's in question here, it is what it is that the prosecution can prove to a jury. Because the fact that there is sometimes a lack of understanding on the part of the parent as to what it was that they're knowledge was, whether they had actually given permission or not, it would be an easier thing to prove to have 'knowledge or' as opposed to just permission. It makes it a tougher standard to prove than if" (indisc. - trailed off.) He didn't think that leaving these phrases in would affect the position which Ms. Gordon stated. It would just add to the prosecution. Number 1254 MS. GORDON stated that in relation to subsection (3) about the "just cause" language. They would object to putting this back in. They feel parents are held accountable through truancy laws and there really isn't a "just cause" for encouraging a child to be repeatedly absent from school. They feel it's a stronger statute the way it's written in this version. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if a parent required their child to not attend school, that this could be an element at least in contributing to the delinquency of a minor. MS. GORDON stated yes. CHAIRMAN PORTER pointed out that by this wording they are eliminating this from being an element, because they're saying that repeated absences with the permission of a parent is o.k. MS. GORDON stated certainly not and she stated that this where Alaska's truancy laws step in. CHAIRMAN PORTER again noted that this was the section dealing with contributing to the delinquency of a minor as a crime as opposed to the truancy statute. MS. GORDON stated that the language of "just cause" creates a loop- hole where the prosecution is non-existent. Number 1340 CHAIRMAN PORTER outlined the two suggestions from the Department of Law. He asked what the wish of the committee was. Number 1360 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move amendment number one which would consist that on page 2, line 30 to strike the following language, "the permission of the child's parent, guardian, or custodian," and insert the phrase "just cause," and on page 3, line 1 after the word 'the' to insert the phrase "knowledge or permission." There being no objection, it was so moved. Number 1420 L. DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family & Youth Services, Department of Health & Social Services testified on SB 289 and responded to the two amendments before the committee previously discussed by Ms. Gordon. She stated that the department does have some concerns and initially addressed amendment number 3. This amendment would establish two classes of run away shelters in Alaska. This amendment was developed to waive Covenant House from the necessity to become a semi-secure facility since this is outside of their philosophy. They ran some figures on all of their facilities around the state. Covenant House deals with eighty-four percent of the state's run aways. "By introducing this amendment we have eliminated pretty much most of the run aways who deal with our run away programs from being exempt from this law, because the way the bill reads is that they would have to run from a semi- secure facility which would not be Covenant House because they are saying they would not become semi-secure and they would then not be part of the later lock-up and arrest for running away from a semi- secure facility." She wondered why if this was such a good idea why were they eliminating the majority of their run aways from this bill. MS. WORLEY quoted from the text which discussed the amendments, "the department's fiscal note reflects their intent to convert six state funded facilities to semi-secure." Their fiscal note was to allow this money to be available if the facilities chose to be semi-secure. All of the facilities have not said that they would even want to become semi-secure. If these other state funded facilities said they would not want to become secure, but that their philosophy was volunteerism, they would then loose their state funding whereas Covenant House because they don't have state funding could continue operating in this way. This sets up an inequity in their facilities and their ability to provide equitable services across the board for all of their run aways. MS. WORLEY referred to the other amendment which ties back into the definition of what they were talking about. Currently there are run away shelters which are voluntary, they are not semi-secure. These facilities are staff secure which means that if the child runs again, there is not a quick way to know that they've left the facilities. Many of the state's facilities have no problem with becoming semi-secure, but when they get into secure facilities currently they do not have any locked secure facilities for run aways, except for state run youth facilities for adjudicated delinquents. The way this legislation has now been changed it would take the current residential care facilities which are treatment programs for delinquent youth with mental health problems placed in these residential care facilities and converting them to essentially 48 lock ups for run aways. This totally changes what their residential care programs will be and the department did not ever anticipate converting these. The department drafted their last fiscal note to establish up to 20 new beds which would be locked facilities. Potentially these beds could be placed in existing facilities, but from talking with the funded facilities most of them are not interested in going with this route. What they are looking at is to establish 5 beds in Fairbanks, 5 in Juneau and 10 in Anchorage. MS. WORLEY stated that if they pass this into legislation, first of all, they don't have current regulations which allow them to fund locked facilities. New regulations would have to be established. Then they would have to go through an Request for Proposal (RFP) and granting out money. This would establish a lag time between when they would have locked facilities available for run aways. If this bill is passed with this lag time she asked where these run aways would go to be detained in the interim. Her guess would be the state's five locked facilities with delinquent youth. These are the department's concerns. Number 1715 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that he couldn't let this go and noted that the department should do a better job with their math when allotting beds to their facilities. He pointed out that the Judiciary Committee was made up of all Anchorage representatives. He questioned the 5-10-5 equation which probably had no relevance to need. It should be more like 1-2-17, with Anchorage on the heavier side. MS. WORLEY stated that in reality if they were developing a system with one locked bed in a facility, it's not very cost efficient. Number 1747 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "if you have a few beds as opposed to the whole process now, does that do the same thing that you don't want done within the facility, in other words, you don't want a lock up, you want, what I thought I heard you say, kind of goes against the principle of what you're trying to do there, but almost that way, because we've got these 5, or 10 over here which are lock ups, so we're really a pretty easy going group here, we want you to regain your responsibility in society, but not quite because we've got some of your peers over here. Is that a dual standard? It seemed to me that you were concerned about full lock up or secure, excuse me, and yet you want to have some security." MS. WORLEY stated that she was not quite sure she understood the question, but responded that they do not want to criminalize run aways. They don't feel as though this is philosophically where they need to be going in this state. They understand that the run away problem is a big one and they want to give parents more authority to get their children back. They feel that through the semi-secure process where if the facilities that the state currently funds choose to become semi-secure, this would mean they would put alarm systems on the doors, the staff would know very quickly if someone ran. In some cases these systems might secure children. The department felt as though the semi-secure concept can meet their needs and can assist in them responding more quickly and assist them in getting the information out to pick the children up or getting them back to the facility or their homes. The state does not philosophically support holding children in a lock up facility and detaining them for running away. The state supports the semi-secure and they support the strengthening of the family's role in this process, they support getting services to these families, but they don't feel the lock up concept is conducive. They see this as slowing down the process. Number 1883 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked under current law when does a chronic run away now end up in a secure facilities, or do they ever? MS. WORLEY responded if they commit a delinquent act and become an adjudicated delinquent then they would be housed in a lock up facility. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked about a repeat run away and where would they end up? MS. WORLEY said that they could certainly end up in a short term detention, but they wouldn't be placed in a permanent lock up. Number 1915 DONNA SCHULTZ, Juvenile Probation Officer, Division of Family & Youth Services, Department of Health & Social Services testified on SB 289. One of the ways a Child in Need of Aid or a chronic run away can get into secure detention is through a valid court order. A first time run away does not come under this auspicious, but it takes a child who runs several times to come before the court. If the court states in an order that they are to not to leave placement and they do, then this child can be detained. Number 1949 CHAIRMAN PORTER recollected on occasion that this had occurred. MS. SCHULTZ said that this was not used a lot. Number 1950 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what the percent of repeat runaways was. MS. SCHULTZ said that maybe 50 percent. MS. WORLEY noted that when speaking to Diedre Phayer of Covenant House she said about 64 percent have been repeat run aways, but this is after their first exposure to the program when they leave. Then they come back. This is why they believe in volunteerism because if a child wants to be in the program and makes this choice then they are more likely to respond to the help which Covenant House provides. Number 2015 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that maybe if these kids didn't have some place to "crash" they'd stay home. Having said this it was his understanding that it's not a crime to run away, but what they're saying is it's a crime to run away repeatedly. CHAIRMAN PORTER clarified that once a court order has been violated a child can be confined. Number 2098 MS. WORLEY added that most of the cases where they would use a valid court order is when a child is in their custody under a child in need of aid, abandonment, etc., under some special circumstance. Once this child has come into the system and are required to stay within a particular facility and then run, this is when a valid court order would be instituted. MS. WORLEY then addressed an amendment which Representative Finkelstein made reference to. Basically, the department did support the bill which came out of the Senate Judiciary. They felt it was a strong beginning in dealing with the issue of run aways, it did not include the locked facility component. It did include semi-secure, harder penalties for those who harbor run aways, and more parental involvement. The department assisted in developing an amendment that basically takes this legislation back to it's original version. This would eliminate the aspects of a locked up portion of this bill, the area which the department cannot support. The second part would address the Covenant House issue, it would change the language regarding the state's facilities from "shall become secure" to "may become secure." The word "shall" puts Covenant House out of business. Number 2197 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that this second section which Ms. Worley referred to was not in the amendment, the "shall" to "may" language. He also asked what the amount they spoke about last week regarding the loss of federal funds. How much money is involved? MS. WORLEY stated that this amount was around $600,000 to $700,000 of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funds, which funds about 30 community based, early intervention programs that deal with run aways currently. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if this was standard in keeping the federal funds related to the idea that they can't jail minors for violations which aren't crimes if they aren't an adult. Number 2237 MS. SCHULTZ stated that this was true and the technical term used for this status was de-institutionalization of status offenders which means those children should not be in a jail or a detention facility. Status offenders means offenses committed by someone only because of their age as opposed to offense for everyone. In context of the money lost, the way a valid court order works now under law allows them to meet the requirements. "If we do have a child that met this and we go through the valid court order and that his behavior was based on run away or leaving the placement, we've got that in. That still leaves us in compliance for our federal funds." Number 2298 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked a question which could not be heard on tape and a brief conversation followed as a result. He then stated that he thought the reason why there was a 60 percent recidivism rate at the Covenant House was because there's no "teeth." CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that this was the amendment in front of the committee, as well as two and three. He thought that they could call this amendment as previously outlined by Ms. Worley as number four. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN moved amendment number four. Representative Bunde objected for discussion purposes. The text of this amendment number four was as follows: Page 1, line 13 to page 2, line 6: Delete all material Insert ": and Renumber the following subsections accordingly. Page 2, line 13 following "facility.": Delete "It is also the purpose of this Act to authorize temporary secure detention of a minor who has previously left a semi-secure program without permission. Page 3, lines 12 to 24: Delete all material Renumber the following sections accordingly. Page 4, line 5: Delete "or a child in need of aid" Page 4, line 14: Delete "If the court finds probable cause to believe the child is a child in need of aid, it shall proceed under AS 47.10.142(e) and order the minor to remain in the placement chosen for the minor by the department or the minor's parent or guardian, as applicable." Page 4, line 18 following "delinquent" Delete "or for believing that the minor is a child in need of aid" Page 4, line 20 following "case.": Delete "If the court orders release of a minor who was arrested under (a) of this section based on an alleged violation of AS 47.10.141 (g), the court shall advise the minor and the minor's legal custodian of available mediation services and of the right to social services under AS 47.10.142 (b). Page 5, line 25 following "AS 47.10.142 (b)." to page 6, line 3: Delete all material Page 6, line 20 to 31: Delate all material Page 8, line 11 to 14: Delete all material" Number 2324 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN argued the 60 percent recidivism as being a positive thing. He asked when they'd ever seen this type of success and noted that this was short term treatment. It's the half empty, half full analogy. MS. CARPENETI stated that the Department of Law supported the original version of the legislation which came out of the Senate. It was determined that the sponsor did not support amendment number four. Number 2443 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made the argument that this would take away their federal funding, but "then there's the great hope that if we don't spend federal money maybe they won't take it from us." There being no further discussion regarding amendment number four a roll call vote was taken. Representatives Davis, Finkelstein, Green and Porter voted yes. Representatives Bunde and Toohey voted no. Amendment number four passed. TAPE 96-56, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN then gave an explanation about amendment number 3. He requested that on page 7, line 27 to change the word "shall" to "may," after the word program. Representative Toohey objected for discussion purposes. MS. WORLEY added that with the wording "shall" this would require that all of their run away facilities become semi-secure, Covenant House has stated that their philosophy is based on a voluntary basis and this would put them out of business. Number 071 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated for the record that Covenant House as an organization that's provides a service which the state doesn't want, they should either change or go out of business. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN quoted a section of the amendment, "in a proportion that meets regulations established by the department." He asked if this doesn't give them the flexibility that they need. It says shall, but he wondered if this still didn't give them discretion. MS. WORLEY stated it was their understanding in discussing this with the word "shall," some portion of every facility would have to have a semi-secure element to it. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that in three places they indicated that they were in favor of this. MS. WORLEY said that the Department doesn't have a problem with the semi-secure component, but they also believe that Covenant House offers a wonderful service in Alaska. Covenant House does serve a large number of their run aways and do have a great success rate even after the initial recidivism, but they have stated that if they are forced to provide semi-secure services they would not continue to provide services in Alaska. Their philosophy nationwide is to provide volunteer services. Number 134 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he was having difficulty with what he was hearing because the department is stating that it would be good to have most of the facility unsecured except for a few areas, but on the other hand they're saying they can't do this. MS. WORLEY said that the number given earlier when talking about "the 20," this number was for secure lock up only, not the semi- secure. Currently they have five or six run away facilities which are funded partially by the state, Covenant House is another one and they don't receive any state funding. These facilities as mentioned are all functioning as volunteer run away shelters. The children make the choices to receive services on a run away basis. Chairman Porter added for clarification that these facilities do require that the child's participation is reported to the parents and the state. MS. SCHWARTZ offered that if a couple of the facilities as mentioned took children on a semi-secure basis these facilities would maybe only designate one or two rooms equipped with alarms. MS. WORLEY continued that the department does not have a problem with establishing semi-secure facilities, but Covenant House as one of the largest providers of run away services does have a problem with this requirement. Number 172 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that this conversation raises new issues such as the confusion surrounding the language in this amendment, whether they are talking about a portion of each facility or a portion of the total facilities. The department interprets this to mean a portion of each facility. If the word "may" is added to this amendment they are definitely referring to a portion of the facilities. MS. SCHWARTZ stated that it was her interpretation that if the word "may" was inserted this would mean that their six or eight facilities out there could decide whether or not they wanted to comply, as well as apply for the grant funds and they could decide how much of their facility they wanted to make secure. CHAIRMAN PORTER pointed out that if one of those facilities wanted to say no they could under the "may" language. Number 278 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that in essence this does legislate specifically an exemption for Covenant House. "I'm sorry, I know they are well intentioned people but, they're also enablers and if these kids didn't have 'three hots and a cot' they might work it out and stay home." Number 290 CHAIRMAN PORTER pointed out that without Covenant House there would be an immediate drain to the system in Anchorage. MS. WORLEY said she didn't know in detail the Covenant House program, but from what she does know once a child has decided to stay there and within an eight day period can hear some counseling, get the parents involved, this program can be successful, but to go to the locked up facility concept of 48 hours. This is not even time enough for the child to even cool off. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that there are hour long telephone services set up to talk to children who are contemplating running away. He wondered why if these work, why 48 hours wouldn't be enough. Number 369 MS. WORLEY said there are a lot of reasons. One of the things they need to realize is that adolescents don't always think rationally. Once they've made the choice to run and then they get picked up and locked up. What this does for a short period of time is escalate their anger at the situation, the authorities, the parents, etc. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he didn't want to start a debate here, but "it just seems to me then that if you shall be required to maintain a portion that's different than saying they all will be, everything in there, or if this person has the mentality that being caught and confined whether it's open or not they're still going to harbor that and if there, you have the discretion in there, you have a few places. 'This one is going to run, this one's really bad, or this one just needs some time to cool down and get away from whatever they're running from.' It just seems to me that 'shall' in there is actually a benefit from 'may' because 'may' tells me that you won't do anything." MS. WORLEY offered that adding "may" gives the facilities options to become a semi-secure function. Number 441 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN pointed out that Covenant House made a deal with the state that when they were given the capital money to get started they wouldn't ask for any additional state money. MS. WORLEY believed that they do receive some monies from the Department of Education for some educational type programming. CHAIRMAN PORTER summed up the discussions concerning amendment number 3 which consisted of changing the word "shall" to "may," which would allow one or more of the facilities they've been discussing to not become proportionately or at all semi-secure and that others may become totally semi-secure or partially semi-secure as is worked out by the department. He then requested a roll call vote on amendment number three. Representatives Davis, Finkelstein and Porter voted yes. Representatives Green, Bunde and Toohey voted no. Amendment number three failed due to a tie. Number 522 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN moved amendment R2 which Chairman Porter referenced as number four although an amendment number four had already been passed. This amendment was as follows: Page 7, line 27, following "program" Delete "shall maintain semi-secure portions of its facilities in a proportion that meets regulations established by the department" Insert "that, as determined by the department, regularly receives state money in an amount that exceeds one-quarter of the program's costs shall maintain semi-secure portions of its facilities in a proportion that meets regulations established by the department and the needs of the community;" MS. CARPENETI came forward and stated that the Department of Law had a problem with this amendment since it would probably be found unconstitutional since it could possibly give a competitive advantage to one particular program by exempting them from the requirements of providing semi-secure portions as compared to other facilities. Number 577 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that recognizing there can be constitutional questions with everything they do, they're not saying that they will accept the Covenant House, but they're saying they will accept every program which receives less than 25 percent of their program receipts from the state. MS. CARPENETI said that this was true, but in effect what they are doing is exempting only Covenant House. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said, "it isn't clear to me what the constitutional problem is, but there is, I realize now that, my goal is to make sure Covenant House gets, I'm not sure this is worth it if it's at the expense of setting up this odd system where 16 percent of the programs have to meet this requirement. If it has the effect of driving those under or being any impediment to the existing, the other 16 percent I think it would be counterproductive so, I will withdraw the amendment." Number 659 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to rescind the action of amendment number 3. There being no objection it was so moved. This recision brought the amendment back on the table as described, substituting the word "may" instead of "shall." Representative Green objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Finkelstein, Toohey, Davis and Porter voted yes. Representatives Green and Bunde voted no. Amendment number three passed. Number 710 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move CSSB 289 from the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes as amended. There being no objection it was so moved. Chairman Porter asked the Division of Family & Youth Services to make the necessary changes to their fiscal note for the House Finance Committee.