Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
04/07/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB86 | |
| HB144 | |
| HB201 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 86 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 191 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 238 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 201 | ||
HB 86-OMBUDSMAN HOTLINE 8:06:19 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 86, "An Act establishing in the office of the ombudsman a state executive branch employee fraud, waste, and abuse report hotline program." 8:07:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, testifying as sponsor of HB 86, told the committee that a constituent who works for the federal government indicated that that entity has a fraud, waste, and abuse program, in which employees can anonymously report and fraud, waste, or abuse, in order that it may be investigated and appropriate action may be taken. He said HB 86 would establish a similar method for state employees. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said currently, under the state's whistle blower laws, a state employee who wants to raise a concern must first speak to his/her supervisor. The proposed bill would allow that employee to call a hotline. He indicated that the state ombudsman would receive that information and report it to "us" through the normal reporting process. He commented, "We're constantly trying to reduce [state] spending where we can, and I think a program like this can give us some ideas that we may not have ever thought of." He noted that Oregon saved $4.3 million by introducing a similar program. He said he believes there are a lot of good state employees who want to do what's right, but don't want to jeopardize their jobs. 8:10:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said the military has a "suggestion program," which is similar. He pondered whether some kind of award could be offered. For example, if a person's reporting fraud saves the state a certain amount of money, that person could be given a percentage of the money. 8:10:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE MEYER responded that he thinks that is an excellent idea, and he said he would need more time to explore how that money would be measured. 8:11:36 AM LINDA LORD-JENKINS, Ombudsman, Anchorage Office, Office of the Ombudsman, Alaska State Legislature, in response to a question from Representative Gatto, said the office has a total staff of seven: the ombudsman, an administrative staff person, four investigators, and one intake officer. She added that she has requested additional staff "in this funding cycle." 8:12:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked for an estimate of savings to the state. 8:12:23 AM MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska State Legislature, testifying on behalf of Representative Meyer, sponsor of HB 86, responded that he is not certain he would [be able to make that estimate], because it is difficult to surmise where savings would be made. He said he thinks Oregon is a good example. He said he is not sure the money is as important as the confidence the bill could give back to people. 8:13:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked Mr. Pawlowski if he would describe HB 86 as an empowerment bill. 8:13:22 AM PAWLOWSKI said he would. 8:13:52 AM MS. LORD-JENKINS said the legislation is compatible with the Office of the Ombudsman. 8:14:59 AM MS. LORD-JENKINS, in response to Chair Seaton, reviewed her recommendations for the bill. First, she suggested that the proposed legislation be amended so that the hotline include the legislative and judicial branches of government. Second, she recommended that the municipalities be removed from the hotline jurisdiction, because the ombudsman can contract with them to provide services. 8:16:24 AM MS. LORD-JENKINS, in response to Chair Seaton, detailed where these suggested changes can be found in a memorandum she sent to Chair Seaton [included in the committee packet]. 8:17:23 AM MS. LORD-JENKINS said her third recommendation relates to a timeframe. She stated that currently, the ombudsman takes into account the timelines of a complaint; under regulations, a complaint is considered to be timely if it has been filed within a year of the complainant's last action to try to rectify the complaint. The proposed legislation would eliminate that time frame. She said: I've recommended that, at the very least, ... if it is the intent of the legislature to extend timeframes, that ... [they] only be extended for the fraud aspect of the hotline reporting. And I recommended that (indisc. -- coughing) possibly consider the timeframes to be equal to those of the statute of limitations in Alaska, which is five years. However, when considering general issues of ... waste and abuse, [I recommended] that we stick to the existing ombudsman timeframes of one year. 8:19:14 AM MS. LORD-JENKINS, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, confirmed that she is saying it is good to have timeframes so that somebody doesn't call the ombudsman to complain about something that happened eight years ago, for example. She said that does happen and it's impractical for the ombudsman's office "to even think about investigating." She offered further details. She added, "I think that if you want to extend the timeframe regarding fraud - which generally ... would be considered a criminal matter - ... you [would] match the timeframes to the criminal statute of limitations." 8:20:32 AM MS. LORD-JENKINS directed attention to page 2, beginning on line 24, which is language that would exempt the existing provision in [AS] 24.55 regarding judicial appeal. The existing statute says that ombudsman action does not extend any judicial appeal process available to a complainant. She recommended, "If the legislation intends to extend any relevant judicial appeal, then HB 86 should specifically be amended to reflect that intention." 8:21:50 AM CHAIR SEATON asked, "If this did extend judicial appeal, and yet it's totally anonymous, ... how would you handle that?" MS. LORD-JENKINS said, "Practically speaking, if it was anonymous, it ... wouldn't be relevant; but we have also recommended that the language of HB 86 be softened at proposed Section 24.55.222(c)," [on page 2, beginning on line 10]. She stated that the proposed legislation prevents the ombudsman from attempting to identify anyone contacting the hotline. She said her recommendation is that the language be changed so that the ombudsman is allowed to inquire about the identity of someone "coming to the hotline" and explain that the ombudsman statute, as it exists currently, keeps confidential the identities of any complainant coming to the ombudsman for action. She added, "We would not decline to act on a complaint if the complainant ... desired anonymity." 8:24:08 AM MS. LORD-JENKINS, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, said, based on her experience, that if a complainant presents his/her name to the manager of a hotline program, that name is kept confidential and is not presented to other agencies. She added, "We can only divulge a complainant's name if they specifically authorize us to." 8:25:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for clarification regarding "extending judicial appeal." MS. LORD-JENKINS explained, "We don't want our office to be used as a conduit to extend judicial timeframes if it's not appropriate." CHAIR SEATON said a number of the recommendations are good and he thinks that the bill sponsor would like to talk to the ombudsman in detail and possibly incorporate those recommendations into a committee substitute. He asked Ms. Lord- Jenkins to work with the sponsor to that end. 8:27:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered a scenario in which an employee is not productive, but when that employee is let go, he/she complains to the ombudsman of being a victim of discrimination. He offered further details. 8:29:20 AM CHAIR SEATON responded that that relates to the Human Rights Commission and not the Office of the Ombudsman, and he said he wants to ensure the focus is on a fraud, waste, and abuse hotline. 8:30:11 AM MS. LORD-JENKINS noted that [the Office of the Ombudsman] does have a provision in statute and regulation that allows for the office to decline complaints that are made in "bad faith." She said the office realizes the potential of someone to abuse the program, but she said she thinks "we're pretty good at detecting that." 8:31:28 AM CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony. [HB 86 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|