Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
02/28/2018 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB122 | |
| SB72 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 122-OCS CITIZEN REVIEW PANEL
[^Includes a motion related to SB 72.]
1:34:38 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced the consideration of SB 122. [SB 122,
version 30-LS0047\J, was before the committee.]
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, provided information on SB 122 on behalf of the
sponsor. She said SB 122 moves the Citizen Review Panel (CRP),
which was created in statute in 1990, from the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) to the Ombudsman's Office. Its
purpose was make sure children did not languish in foster care,
but it was not funded until 1993. It was a pilot project
specific to Anchorage. During a year and a half, it investigated
over 200 cases.
MS. MOSS said because of the remoteness of much of Alaska and
the cost of transportation to communities across the state, the
federal panel was very limited in what it could do. While the
Citizens Review Panel has been enacted several times in state
statute going back to 1990, the current panel was mandated with
the enactment of House Bill 53 in 2005. In that legislation the
legislature not only recognized the importance of a citizen's
review panel, but committed to help fund the process adequately.
It started getting an annual budget, which is now $100,000 a
year. Most meetings are by teleconference, so the panel can use
the money to visit as many areas as possible to meet with
parents, Office of Child Services (OCS) case workers and ICWA
[Indian Child Welfare Act] workers.
She said the CRP is required to examine the policies and
procedures of OCS, evaluate the performance of OCS, and make
annual reports to the legislature. The panel is subject to the
Open Meetings Act and has produced 15 reports so far.
She said SB 122 transfers oversight of the Citizens Review Panel
to the Ombudsman's Office in the legislative branch of
government. There was discussion of locating it in the
governor's office and with the court system, but the missions of
the Ombudsman's Office and CRP complement each other well.
1:38:34 PM
MS. MOSS said the Ombudsman's Office accepts citizen complaints
on a case-by-case basis. The CRP has never reviewed individual
cases, although it has the authority to do that. It has
encouraged the use of the grievance process and contact with the
Ombudsman's Office. She related that of the 250 complaints the
Ombudsman's Office about OCS in 2017, the Ombudsman's Office
investigated 136, or 54 percent. The others were declined because
the person had not complained to OCS or the complaint was being
litigated or otherwise subject to a judge's decision.
She said the agencies complement each other. The role of the
ombudsman is to help ensure that federal, state, and municipal
governments are serving Alaskans as efficiently, effectively,
and equitably as possible. They do this through case-specific
investigations.
1:40:05 PM
MS. MOSS said the role of the Citizens Review Panel has been to
help ensure that the Office of Children's Services is serving
Alaska's families as efficiently, effectively and equitably as
possible. They do this through outreach and advocacy. She said
SB 122 is not intended to criticize the Office of Children's
Services or the Citizens Review Panel. They both can work
better. Senator Coghill introduced the bill to start a dialogue
about strengthening the public acceptance of a review process
for child protection services that should be a review process
that is external to OCS.
SENATOR VON IMHOF noted that the fiscal note for FY 19 is
$143,000 which is $43,000 more than has been budgeted for the
panel.
MS. MOSS said the fiscal note assumes a permanent full-time
position. She said the fiscal note will be discussed in Finance.
CHAIR WILSON suggested Ms. Burkhart address the additional
expense.
KATE BURKHART, State Ombudsman, Alaska Office of the Ombudsman,
commented on SB 122. She said her office prepared the fiscal
note to reflect the expanded duties of the CRP under SB 122. As
written, the CRP would be co-located in the Office of the
Ombudsman for budgetary purposes only. That creates a fiscal
agent relationship and not a supervisory relationship. The
staffing contemplated in the fiscal note is for a professional
level staff that has the experience, expertise, and authority to
operate with minimal supervision from the CRP chairperson. It is
a more expensive way to staff, but the bill is written so that
the ombudsman is the holder of the resources and is not engaged
in supervision of staff. If there is a more supervisory role,
then staff could be a paraprofessional.
1:43:57 PM
CHAIR WILSON opened public testimony on SB 122.
1:44:05 PM
THOMAS GARBER, representing self, supported SB 122. He said he
supports SB 122 but has some concerns. He paraphrased from page
15 of the CRP annual report:
Despite many attempts by the CRP to be involved in
conversations and participate in the federal Child and
Family Services Review( CFSR) process, the panel was
only informed of the progress being made within OCS,
but was not invited to participate. Since CFSR is a
significant review exercise, CRP received an
invitation to attend a quarterly stakeholder
teleconference scheduled in April (but was not able to
participate).
MR. GARBER referred to the investigative report for Ombudsman
Complaint A2016-0923, in which she was requesting a worker's
case be reviewed because of her neglect that resulted in a child
being harmed. The OCS responded that the quality assurance unit
does not have the capacity to undertake that type of review.
Furthermore, given that the office has the highest caseload in
the state it is more likely than not that some cases are not
getting the attention they should. In 2011 the ombudsman
investigated the OCS grievance process and determined that upper
level management did not know how to implement the grievance
process. The CRP annual report three years later stated the
grievance process was not functioning properly. The ombudsman
and CRP pointed out that normal citizens accused of abuse cannot
challenge substantiated findings.
MR. GARBER said in 2011 his son threatened to kill either
himself or his father because his mother would not let him play
video games. His mother called the police, who came to the house
and directed them to take him to the hospital. The next day OCS
interviewed him, his wife, and their 13-year-old and 18-year-old
sons and then interviewed a son in Anchorage. He tried to file a
grievance but could not because there was no grievance process.
Tom Wagoner's office helped him get an administrative review.
During the review he asked for subpoenas, but there is no
subpoena authority; therefore, OCS cannot be challenged. He
recommends that more be done to protect people's due process and
civil rights. He opined that the Office of the Ombudsman and CRP
need more help to do so.
Representative Tammi Wilson said in her request for a grand jury
investigation that OCS has become a protected empire built on
taking children and separating families. Poor children are often
targeted because parents do not have the means to hire lawyers
and fight the system. Parents are victimized by a system that
makes a profit by holding children longer and bonuses for not
returning children. Case workers and social workers are often
guilty of fraud. They withhold and fabricate evidence and seek
to terminate parental rights. OCS can hide behind [a]
confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and
keep the funds flowing. Social workers are the glue that holds
the system together and funds the courts and children's
attorneys and multiple other jobs. The ombudsman and CRP need
their support; more needs to be done to protect due process and
civil liberties.
1:50:10 PM
DIWAKAR VADAPALLI, Ph.D., Chair, Alaska Citizen Review Panel
(CRP), Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Institute of Social
and Economic Research (ISER), University of Alaska Anchorage,
commented on SB 122. He said the difference in missions needs to
be addressed. CRP has a clear advocacy and public outreach role.
He is hopeful that all those elements will be preserved. The CRP
in Alaska has an autonomy that other CRPs in the country do not.
It must be preserved, enhanced, and sustained. The level of
access to OCS leadership and the legislature that CRP has helps
with accountability, although there are still gaps that need to
be enhanced. He said he wanted to address the comment about the
current budget not being utilized to the full extent. He
explained that over the last several years, the budget was not
used because several times the panel felt it was not receiving
enough support from the staff at the time. Since the volunteers
took over many of the functions of coordinator, the coordinator
could not charge for time. The current coordinator is more
efficient. This year they will use all the budget and will be
struggling at the end to make sure they can perform all the
functions they need to.
1:53:46 PM
CHAIR WILSON closed public testimony on SB 122.
CHAIR WILSON asked what OCS's position was on the bill.
TRACY SPARTZ-CAMPBELL, Deputy Director, Office of Children's
Services, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
answered questions about SB 122. She said the administration is
neutral on SB 122.
MS. MOSS said she discussed the comments Senator Giessel made on
Monday about the structure of the CRP with Kate Burkhart and
Senator Giessel's staff. They decided to focus on adding more
structure to the panel in Judiciary.
1:54:59 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked if there were amendments. There being no
amendments, he entertained a motion to move SB 122 out of
committee.
1:55:10 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF moved to report SB 122, version 30-LS0047\J,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
1:55:43 PM
CHAIR WILSON found no objection and SB 122 was reported from the
Senate Health and Social Services Standing Committee with the
understanding that Legislative Legal was authorized to make any
necessary technical or performing adjustments.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 122 Version J.pdf |
SHSS 2/28/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SHSS 2/28/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SHSS 2/28/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 Fiscal Note DHSS OCS.pdf |
SHSS 2/28/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 - CItizens Review Panel Power Point.pptx |
SHSS 2/28/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB122 Fiscal Note-LEG-OMB-02-28-18.pdf |
SHSS 2/28/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |