Legislature(2007 - 2008)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/04/2007 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB215 | |
| SB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 215 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 215(HES)
"An Act relating to the establishment of a task force to
review the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ANNA FAIRCLOUGH, the bill's sponsor, informed the
Committee that this bill would establish a task force to review
the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (the
Council). Section 1 of the bill addresses the State's
"unfortunate" distinction of being ranked number one in the
nation for rape for the past 20 years and in the top five for
the past 27 years. The State is also experiencing an increase in
domestic violence, sexual assault, and interpersonal violence.
Representative Fairclough deemed this legislation as "an
opportunity to bring together Legislative bodies to look at how
the Council is functioning now" to address interpersonal
violence" in Alaska. The bill is supported by the Council and
the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
(Alaska Network).
Representative Fairclough stated that the "seven distinct areas"
depicted in Sec. 2 subsection (c)(1) through (c)(7), page 3
lines 9 through 15, have been identified in either Legislative
Audit Division reports or by Legislators as issues of continuing
concern. They have been points of contention each time the
Council has been considered for reauthorization.
Representative Fairclough contended that the Council is burdened
by having to comply with approximately 30 audit recommendations.
This legislation would present an opportunity to "streamline"
the Council's duties in "responding to crisis intervention" and
"prevent or change the way that society looks at interpersonal
violence".
9:27:07 AM
Senator Thomas agreed that a review of the Council was
warranted, as, in a statistical sense, it has not appeared to
have had much impact on interpersonal violence.
Senator Thomas asked how the make-up of the proposed task force
was determined. Even though the individuals might represent
pertinent entities, a 15 member task force might prove unwieldy.
9:28:00 AM
Representative Fairclough worked with the executive directors of
the Council and the Alaska Network to determine the make up of
the task force. The 21 member programs of the Alaska Network had
also been conferred with about who should have "a seat at the
table". All current members of the Council were deemed
appropriate for inclusion on the task force. For example, the
Department of Public Safety could provide hindsight as well as a
look forward since they would be responding to domestic violence
and sexual assault occurrences and the Department of Law would
be involved in trying the cases.
Representative Fairclough advised that the only new entity on
the task force beyond existing Council members would be the
Department of Corrections.
Representative Fairclough advised that the executive directors
of the Council and the Alaska Network would be designated ex
officio members in order to avoid having "too much bias in the
vote". The executive director of the Alaska Network represents
victim services while the executive director of the Council
represents the administrative side of equation. Their membership
on the task force would provide insight to things such as
criticism that grants have been inappropriately managed or the
issue of internal turnover.
Representative Fairclough specified that the task force would
address criticisms about the Council and assist in developing
positive solutions to the issues.
9:29:28 AM
Senator Elton also supported a review of the Council's work. One
area of concern identified in one of the audits, but not
included in the list in Sec. 2 is the concern about "conflicts
of interest in terms of having people who are going to benefit
from decisions made by the Council"; specifically the Alaska
Network member programs.
Senator Elton was also uncertain whether the seven identified
issues addressed two other concerns he deemed important: one
being "the number of State personnel who serve on the Council
and the other is having representatives of Departments who also
benefit from the dollars distributed by the Council".
Representative Fairclough thought that item (3) of the list,
which was "the appointment process for members of the council",
would partially address Senator Elton's concerns. The current
appointment process had been altered to address the conflict of
interest concern raised in the audit process. Names of non-State
entity individuals proposed for membership on the Council are
submitted to the governor for approval. The names of State
personnel are forwarded to the Legislature for approval.
Representative Fairclough communicated her desire to be
appointed a member of the task force if the legislation was
adopted. She hoped to serve in a facilitator capacity rather
than a voting capacity to avoid any chance her past service in
victims' rights issues might be considered a conflict. The goal
is to achieve the "appropriate" balance between "the people who
direct the money" and the people who work on the issues.
9:31:41 AM
Representative Fairclough stated that in addition to enhancing
services provided by the 21 member programs, there was a desire
to uncover new funding sources and suggest ways to change and
educate society to decrease interpersonal violence. These
efforts might address some of Senator Elton's concern.
Representative Fairclough noted that the bill is supported by
numerous House of Representative members, the Council and the
Alaska Network. She could address the concern about the balance
of State employees on the Council further if necessary. To that
point, she shared having served on a committee that primarily
consisted of private sector members. "That committee was not
very functional…"
9:32:29 AM
Senator Elton appreciated the sponsor's remarks, but considered
the language in Sec. 2(c)(3) to speak in general to the
appointment process rather than to specify "who shall be
appointed or who shall serve."
9:32:48 AM
Representative Fairclough stated, "for the record", that she was
"happy to say that the intent, if I serve on that body, is to
address the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault's ability to move forward to the Governor a
recommendation", as directed in a finding of a Legislative Audit
Division report.
Representative Fairclough stated that if this intent was not
sufficient, she would welcome a clarifying amendment.
9:33:10 AM
Senator Elton spoke to another item in the list of seven
concerns, that being the geographic location of the council's
office as addressed in Sec. 3(c)(4) page 3 line 12. This issue
was of high interest to him, and, since it is seldom discussed,
he wondered why it was deemed important enough to be included in
the list.
9:33:45 AM
Representative Fairclough stated that the geographic location of
the Council's office was added during the bill's progression in
the House of Representatives in response to the issue of
turnover raised in an audit report. There was an
"unsubstantiated" allegation that the significant turnover in
the executive director's position might be the result of not
"drawing from the right employment pool".
Representative Fairclough considered the office's location in
Juneau "appropriate"; however, agreed with those in the House
who thought the issue was worthy of discussion. If she was
appointed to the task force, she would continue to support the
office remaining in Juneau since "the heart of the State is in
Juneau as far as legislative action". Juneau is also the site of
the Alaska Network office.
Representative Fairclough reiterated that this item was included
due to concern in the House about the turnover in the executive
director position. It was not an effort on her part to move the
office out of Juneau.
9:35:18 AM
Senator Elton asked regarding the use of the word "shall" in
Sec. 2 subsection (c) page 3 line 8. This language specifies
that "the task force shall consider and develop recommendations
that address" the seven items might "preclude" discussing other
issues.
9:35:52 AM
Representative Fairclough did not consider the use of the word
"shall" to be "confining". The endeavor was to create an
environment in which the issues identified in the audits would
be addressed. The size of the task force, as previously
discussed, was an effort to include advocates from both sides of
an issue, those in support of the recommendation and those
against it, to engage in "a healthy debate" and ultimately
present findings that would be supported by both the House and
the Senate.
Representative Fairclough voiced that the Council has been
conducting business in the same manner for at least ten years.
Programs are operating with limited resources and are not
keeping pace with inflation. Including three members from both
the House and the Senate on the task force would further enhance
the opportunity "for healthy discussion". The goal is that the
State would consider different opportunities through which "to
really start turning the tide on interpersonal violence".
9:37:17 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman agreed with the findings depicted in Section 1
of the bill. One issue not addressed is "the magnitude of the
problem in rural areas of the State". While the seven issues
identified in Sec. 2(c) have merit, consideration should be
given to reallocating resources to rural areas as that is where
the problem is most prevalent.
9:38:39 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman questioned why the problems being experienced
in rural areas were not specifically identified as a focus item,
since the problems experienced in Bethel, for example, have been
documented in "newspapers and other agencies in the State".
9:39:10 AM
Representative Fairclough agreed with Co-Chair Hoffman's point.
Alaska Native women are "disproportionately over represented in
a population for rape". She was unsure whether that was also the
case for domestic violence incidences. However, she was
uncertain whether a "consensus" could be reached about
increasing funding to address such issues in rural Alaska. She
encouraged Co-Chair Hoffman to develop and provide language
specific to his concern for consideration.
Representative Fairclough informed the Committee that Council
resources are limited. To that point, she noted that a
representative from rural Alaska who is on the Council has been
"very influential in the funding process". There is awareness on
the Council about the difficulty experienced in delivering
services to rural areas.
Representative Fairclough disclosed that an individual in the
City of Fairbanks is more likely to be raped than anywhere else
in the nation. Anchorage is number six on that list. The
reporting of assaults in these higher population bases tends to
lead to increased levels of funding. Thus, while more funding is
desired in rural Alaska, the Council is challenged by the
limited resources that are available to the support programs
throughout the State.
Representative Fairclough communicated that alternative funding
opportunities would be welcome. This was the reason grants and
grants management issues were included in the list. In her
opinion, the Council was "leaving a lot of money on the table at
a nationwide level, specifically with the Center for Disease
Control and looking at bringing education dollars and prevention
dollars into our State."
Representative Fairclough clarified however, that her primary
focus when developing this legislation was the task force. The
funding issue could be more extensively addressed if the
Committee desired. The programs were "certainly under-funded".
9:41:05 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman pointed out that the language in Sec. 2(c)(6),
page 3 line 14, simply referenced "compliance to grant
management"; there was no reference to grant allocation. That
was his concern.
9:41:29 AM
Representative Fairclough was unsure whether the task force
"could bring more money to the table". They could ask that the
Council "be managed and formed in a way that provides the
opportunity" for the State, including rural Alaska, to receive
more funding. An amendment in this regard would be welcome.
Representative Fairclough considered the issues identified in
the bill to be those she "could bring to the House and the
Senate with a list of criteria that you could look at to say
that this is why we support doing things this way".
Representative Fairclough believed "the funding issue will get
politicized". Addressing the funding issue would add
complexities, but would not be "inappropriate". While she was
willing "to look at making recommendations in regards to
allocation", she worried it "might expand" the scope of the bill
beyond where she thought success could be achieved in a one year
time period.
Representative Fairclough, as the facilitator of the bill,
thought success could be achieved were the discussion limited to
the seven focus areas identified in the bill.
9:42:41 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman reminded Representative Fairclough she had
"alluded to addressing hard issues". The allocation issue "is
one of the hardest and that is not being addressed".
9:42:55 AM
Senator Dyson considered the issues raised by the Committee and
the bill's sponsor to be "valid". In consideration of the
approaching adjournment of this Legislative Session, he asked
whether not passing the legislation this year would have any
detrimental affects.
Representative Fairclough thought that, absent this legislation,
the "same fights" would ensue when the issue of reauthorizing
the Council came before the Legislature again. The Legislature
would likely reauthorize the Council "for a shorter period of
time" based on their position that the Council has not reacted
how each body or each individual representative of our State
believed that they should do".
Representative Fairclough deemed moving this legislation forward
to be important. The fiscal impact of the bill was small in
comparison to the benefits that would be gained. Having the
support of both the House and the Senate in this effort could
allow the funding issue to be addressed. A lack of support from
either body would negate the effort to have the task force
provide recommendations in one year's time that could be debated
for the good of the State.
Representative Fairclough identified her impetus for advancing
this legislation, even this late in the Legislative Session, as
being the desire to educate the Legislature about the issue,
particularly as 25 percent of the people in the House of
Representatives this year were new. Even were this legislation
not passed this year, it would still put us "ahead of the
curve".
9:45:15 AM
Senator Dyson asked when the Council would next be considered
for reauthorization.
Representative Fairclough thought the next reauthorization date
was 2010.
Senator Dyson concluded that the intent of this bill was "to
empower and direct the Council" to address "issues that have not
been adequately dealt with". He asked whether the Council could
accomplish that without this legislation.
Representative Fairclough clarified that the goal of this
legislation was to generate "buy-in from the political body that
reauthorizes" the Council. The task force would develop
recommendations that would be debated by both the House and the
Senate. The outcome of that effort would be that the Legislature
would be advocating the Council "to do the right thing".
Senator Elton asked why there was no client representation on
the 15 member Task Force.
Representative Fairclough pointed out that the Task Force would
include two members of the private sector appointed by the
governor: one would represent a rural community and the other an
urban community. One of those individuals would represent
victims.
9:46:41 AM
Senator Elton expressed that the language in question, Sec. 2
subsection (a)(3) page 2 lines 23 through 26, specifies that
these individuals must "either be involved with, or have a
history of involvement in, the delivery of services to victims
of domestic violence and sexual assault". "It doesn't say the
acceptance of services."
Representative Fairclough appreciated the observation. The
intent is that these individuals either be a victim or someone
who receives services. "It can be both." It is common that a
person working in this field "had a personal experience" with
domestic violence or sexual assault. The language was not
intended "to preclude a victim".
9:47:34 AM
Senator Thomas corrected previous information regarding the next
reauthorization date for the Council. It would be in 2011.
Senator Thomas suggested that, in order to better understand
reasons for the turnover in the executive director position,
previous executive directors should be interviewed.
Representative Fairclough acknowledged that such input would be
welcome.
9:48:19 AM
Senator Olson, noting that the task force would be required to
provide a report to the Legislature by March 1, 2008, asked what
might occur were the report not provided by April 16, 2008 when
the Act establishing the task force would be repealed.
Representative Fairclough asserted that the report would be
provided by the date specified in the bill.
Representative Fairclough noted that even if the Task Force was
dismantled and the report was incomplete, it would still be
presented.
9:48:51 AM
Co-Chair Stedman directed attention to the five fiscal notes
accompanying the bill. The fiscal notes from the Department of
Health and Social Services, the Department of Law, and the
Legislative Affairs Agency reflect no fiscal impact. The
Department of Public Safety and the Department of Corrections
reflect fiscal impacts of $8,000 and $3,000 respectfully.
9:49:26 AM
Representative Fairclough informed the Committee that each of
the affected departments has agreed "to internalize" travel
costs. In order to avoid penalizing the budgets of the Council
and the Alaska Network, the expenses for their executive
directors would be assumed by the Department of Public Safety.
9:50:04 AM
Co-Chair Stedman suggested that the costs associated with this
effort be revisited in a year, particularly as the cost of
traveling to rural communities might increase expenses.
Representative Fairclough clarified that the location of the
Task Force meetings would rotate to specific communities in the
State. The rural community that would host one of the meetings
has not been identified, as the desire is that the task force
would make that determination.
Representative Fairclough stated that this bill would provide "a
framework" through which the task force could develop
recommendations, including those acknowledging the "unique
challenge" of providing services to rural Alaska.
9:51:31 AM
Amendment #1: This amendment deletes language directing the Task
Force to consider and make recommendations regarding the
geographic location of the council's office, as specified in
Sec. 2 subsection (c)(4) on page 3 line 12.
Senator Elton moved Amendment #1.
Co-Chair Stedman objected for purpose of discussion.
Senator Elton repeated his concern that the inclusion of the
word "shall" in the language in Sec. 2 subsection (C) tended to
mandate the Task Force to address the seven focus items. He
would be more comfortable had the word "may" been utilized.
Senator Elton has never heard anyone attribute the Council's
employee turnover to the location of the office. Furthermore,
concern about the location of the office has never been raised
in any audit or by any Council client.
Senator Elton also shared the "philosophical problem" he had
with things like this. Recalling that the bill's sponsor had
suggested that a change of venue might "expand the pool of
potential applicants", he voiced being sensitive "to the notion
that we hire people and we do it based on the convenience of
those people who may be willing to serve". He was unsure whether
that should be "a threshold issue in the hiring of somebody".
For these reasons, and specifically because "no one has
demonstrated that the location of the office" was a detriment to
the Council, he was offering the amendment.
9:53:31 AM
In response to a question from Co-Chair Stedman, Senator Elton
stated that the Council's office was currently located in
Juneau.
9:53:44 AM
Senator Dyson advised that he would be objecting to the
amendment because he "trusted" that the task force, with their
"expertise and perspective", would conduct "a rational and fair
discussion" on the issue.
Co-Chair Stedman removed his objection.
Senator Dyson objected.
9:54:24 AM
Senator Olson asked whether "a more centralized executive
office" location might provide "better coverage and certainly a
greater sensitivity" to some of the issues being experienced in
the State.
Senator Elton responded that while this might be a legitimate
observation in some circumstances, it did not apply in this case
"as the Council's function is bureaucratic" rather than one of
delivering services to clients. The Council consists of
government public servants, most of who currently reside in
Juneau, "who are making a decision on the allocation of
dollars".
9:55:33 AM
Senator Olson observed that the majority of the expenses
depicted in the fiscal notes were travel related. A more central
location might reduce those costs.
9:55:54 AM
Senator Elton clarified that the expenses depicted in the fiscal
notes accompanying the bill were for travel associated with the
task force. The location of the Council office would not affect
this bill's fiscal notes.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Thomas, Senator Elton, Senator Olson, and Co-
Chair Hoffman
OPPOSED: Senator Dyson and Co-Chair Stedman
ABSENT: Senator Huggins
The motion PASSED (4-2-1)
AT EASE: 9:57:06 AM / 9:58:51 AM
Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Hoffman moved to report the bill, as amended, from
Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes.
Senator Elton objected to thank the bill's sponsor for
presenting the bill. He has worked on similar issues for quite
some time and appreciated Representative Fairclough's effort to
codify such issues in this bill.
Senator Olson, who as a medical professional has worked in
hospitals and witnessed the adverse affects of interpersonal
violence, also objected to thank the bill's sponsor for
presenting the bill.
Both objections were removed.
Without objection, SCS HB 215(FIN) was REPORTED from Committee
with five previous fiscal notes: zero fiscal note #1 from
Department of Health and Social Services; zero fiscal note #2
from the Department of Law; zero fiscal note #5 from the
Legislative Affairs Agency; $3,000 fiscal note #6 from the
Department of Corrections; and $8,000 fiscal note #7 from the
Department of Public Safety.
10:00:25 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|