Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/23/1997 08:04 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 23, 1997
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivan Ivan, Chairman
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Al Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Reggie Joule
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 241
"An Act relating to payment assistance for costs of residing in the
Alaska Pioneers' Home, and providing that certain income and assets
of a resident shall be disregarded in determining payment
assistance, including income from any source in an amount up to
$100, cash dividends and other income up to $2,000 received under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, a permanent fund dividend,
an amount for burial expenses of the resident, the resident's
spouse and dependents of the resident, the primary residence of the
resident's spouse or a dependent of the resident, and other
property up to a total value of $5,000; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 241 OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 162
"An Act relating to the sale or purchase of authentic Native
handicrafts on certain licensed premises; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 38
"An Act relating to Statehood Act land selection conveyances to
boroughs and unified municipalities."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 241
SHORT TITLE: PAYMENT OF COSTS ALASKA PIONEERS' HOME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CROFT, Brice, Nicholia
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/09/97 1041 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/09/97 1042 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
04/23/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 162
SHORT TITLE: BAN CRAFT BUYING ON LIQUOR PREMISES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NICHOLIA
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/27/97 509 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/97 509 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/23/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 430
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4998
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 241.
JAMES L. KOHN, Director
Division of Alaska
Longevity Programs
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110211
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0211
Telephone: (907) 465-4400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 241.
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Ivan Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3882
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 241.
ANN ZENSON, Resident, Sitka
Pioneer Home and;
President, Resident Council
Sitka Pioneer Home
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-2105
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 241.
ALTHEA BUCKINGHAM, Resident
Sitka Pioneer Home
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8534
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 241.
MARK NIELSON, Resident
Sitka Pioneer Home
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: Unavailable
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 241.
MARRY SINGER, Citizen
2144 Third Avenue
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-4683
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 241.
KATTARYNA BENNETT, Researcher
for Representative Irene Nicholia
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-5025
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162.
DOUG GRIFFIN, ABC Board
550 West 7th Avenue, Number 350
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (9907) 277-8638
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162.
DON DAPCEVICH, Executive Director
Citizen's Advisory Board on
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Box 110608
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4410
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-19, SIDE A
Number 016
CHAIRMAN IVAN IVAN called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Dyson, Sanders and Ryan.
Representatives Ogan and Kookesh arrived at 8:05 a.m. and 8:14 a.m.
Representative Joule was absent.
HB 241 - PAYMENT OF COSTS ALASKA PIONEERS' HOME
CHAIRMAN IVAN indicated the committee would consider HB 241, "An
Act relating to payment assistance for costs of residing in the
Alaska Pioneers' Home, and providing that certain income and assets
of a resident shall be disregarded in determining payment
assistance, including income from any source in an amount up to
$100, cash dividends and other income up to $2,000 received under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, a permanent fund dividend,
an amount for burial expenses of the resident, the resident's
spouse and dependents of the resident, the primary residence of the
resident's spouse or a dependent of the resident, and other
property up to a total value of $5,000; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 082
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT came forward as sponsor to testify on HB
241. He stated that $100 a month is what some residents of the
Pioneer Home have to spend. The Pioneer Home residents have become
upset about the increase in fees for the services there. This
legislation doesn't address all the difficulties related to these
rising fees, but it does speak to what monies a resident who cannot
pay the fees is allowed to keep for their own use. This is why
this legislation is called the "Pioneer's Dignity Act." It allows
Alaskan elderly to keep a certain (not opulent or excessive) bit of
property which they've saved. The most important provisions allow
a little bit of property to be retained by a resident, no more than
$5,000 worth such as family jewelry, clothing, mementos, etc. It
allows them to keep a certain amount of income they're entitled to
such as the permanent fund dividend, native distributions and
veterans distributions. The status of these income streams is
unclear, but certainly the Pioneer Homes would have the right to
seize these. This would be in the face of costs rising at these
facilities to ensure that they have a minimal income of their own
to spend.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued that the final provision of this
legislation deals with a spouse living outside the home. He didn't
believe that the state ever seized this asset, a home, but if one
of the spouses needs to live in a Pioneer Home, this legislation
allows that the other spouse can maintain their own home. There
was some question as to whether the department could seize this
home to satisfy the debt of a spouse living in a Pioneer Home. A
typical situation involves a wife who can continue to take care of
herself and a husband who can't. She can no longer take care of
him, he goes into a Pioneer Home. If they don't have a substantial
amount of assets and while she lives in this home, it could be
liable for seizure. This legislation makes clear that the
department cannot seize it.
Number 413
JAMES L. KOHN, Director, Division of Alaska Longevity Programs,
Department of Administration, came forward to testify on HB 241.
This division oversees the Pioneer Homes and the Longevity Bonus
Program. The administration is in favor of this legislation
because it reflects the regulations they are putting forward at the
present time. In fact, they've had regulation hearings on all of
the items contained in this bill, as well as many more. The
testimony which they received on these issues contained in the bill
were positive or non-existent. People tended to testify more on
the rate increases rather than on changes in the other sections of
the regulations.
MR. KOHN noted that some of the provisions in this bill reflect
previous regulations in existence for the Pioneer Homes. Some of
the provisions are new. The purpose of putting these items from
regulation in statute is to give Pioneer Home residents, as the
rates at the homes increases, stronger confidence that some of
their assets and income will be preserved for them. Last year,
Representative Rokeberg sponsored a statute that reflected the
division's policies and regulations which prevented the
administration from discharging any resident for an inability to
pay. This reflected their regulations and their long-standing
policy. Putting this into statute brought a certain amount of
comfort to the residents.
Number 615
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN stated that he was disturbed the state
turns people into paupers because of requiring individuals to pay
for their care. He wondered if it was required in statute to take
everything people own.
MR. KOHN responded that this policy would be changed in these new
regulations. This policy was never in statute or regulation. Any
provisions for a spouse who remains in the community was
nonexistent and they were expected to pay for any costs related to
the care of a spouse living in a Pioneer Home. In their present
regulations as put forth on April 16, the spouse in the community
is allowed a number of things they weren't allowed in the past,
such as keeping the home in which they live. They are also allowed
to have $100,000 in assets beyond the home. They are able to keep
a car and they are able to keep up to $2,000 a month in joint
income. Many people in the past have stated that the spouse left
in the community has been devastated financially by trying to keep
up with the costs of the Pioneer Home.
Number 790
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked how long does a person have to
be a pioneer in order to qualify for residence in a pioneer home.
MR. KOHN stated that there have been a number of qualifications
over the last 83 years, beginning with 5 years and at one point
this requirement hit 25 years, most recently it was 15 years and
now it's 1 year because of a legal challenge. A person needs only
to live in the state and become a resident for 1 year before they
can get on a waiting list. However, there are about 2500 people on
the waiting list, of which, 200 are on the active waiting list.
The latter would like to get into the home within the next 30 days
if possible. Out of the 2500, 94 percent of them have been in the
state over 15 years. Most of them much more than 15 years. Six
percent have been in the state for less than 15 years. The average
of this six percent is between 6 and 7 years they've been in the
state.
Number 900
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked if the rate increases have
contributed in the decline of people wishing to become residents on
the residential side, rather than the nursing side.
MR. KOHN responded that what they've experienced in the last four
or five years is a great decline in the popularity of the
residential side of the homes. People tend to want to stay in
their own homes if they have no immediate direct care needs. He
noted senior programs, such as Meals On Wheels, which help
facilitate an elderly person staying in their homes. He also
mentioned "Project Choice," where people are able to get nursing
care in their homes. The residential side of the homes is provided
at a bargain rate and the division has tried to staff these areas
to make them more desirable.
MR. KOHN continued that the most common need people have coming
into the homes are related to Alzheimer's disease. Sixty-one
percent of 600 residents have Alzheimer's disease. Eighty-eight
percent of all the people who are in care areas, non-residential
areas, have Alzheimer's disease. Many of these individuals are
unable to do well in residential or basic assisted living. These
services do not have 24 hour oversight.
Number 1099
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he wanted to set the record
straight on something. He was in his district last weekend and a
spokesman for the Pioneer Home group was adamant that "you folks
were blaming the Legislature for the increases." Since the budget
has been cut the division was forced to raise the rates. He asked
Mr. Kohn to explain this.
MR. KOHN responded that the Pioneer Home Advisory Board in 1995,
during a tour of the homes, spoke to the residents and their
families about raising the rates to the cost of care. He added
that this was not a new idea and noted a study conducted during the
Hickel Administration without conclusion. The board decided at
this time to advise Governor Knowles that the rates should be
raised to the cost of care over a period of time which they
stipulated to be seven years. The division has been doing this.
In FY96, the amount the residents paid was $5.2 million out of an
approximately $30 million dollar budget. In FY97, the residents
will pay about $7.9 million dollars out of this same budgeted
amount. In FY98, the residents are being asked to pay
approximately $9.9 million dollars, about a third of the Pioneer
Home budget.
MR. KOHN offered that no one "would deny that the Legislature is
looking for the general fund dollars to go down and for other
dollars to come into the system and go up." He pointed out that it
seemed the division did the right thing since the Legislature at
this point in FY98 has cut the division's budget a little bit more
than the "rock bottom" budget that they put forward in the
governor's budget. It seems both entities are in close agreement
and he didn't think there was anyone to blame. He stated that the
Pioneer Home Board took it upon themselves to make this happen. He
believed there was some complicity on the part of everyone because
this shift of funding makes sense. To credit the idea, it could be
attributed to the Pioneer Home Advisory Board because they thought
it would be a fair thing to do.
Number 1274
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if this cut was $50,000 out of how much
of a budget.
MR. KOHN responded yes, that this amount was out of approximately
$30 million.
Number 1306
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked him if he had any idea what kind of
percentage this was.
MR. KOHN noted that it was a very small percent, but he pointed out
that this was $50,000 on top of a $1.9 million reduction in general
funds. It seemed as if they took an extra $50,000 on top of $1.9
million there would be agreement on the $1.9 million figure.
Number 1306
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if this $1.9 million cut was proposed by
the governor.
MR. KOHN responded that it wasn't a cut, but a transfer of general
funds for program receipts. He affirmed that this was a governor
proposed increase to the rates.
Number 1326
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON stated that he would like to get an
historical perspective. He assumed that before the turn-of-the-
century there was no governmental care for the elders, but this
concept has accelerated since. He asked for a sketch of this
progression.
MR. KOHN responded that Alaska was ahead of the entire nation by
beginning the Pioneer Homes in 1913. The Pioneer Homes have a
wonderful history and they're a model to the nation. He used to be
a nurse in nursing homes before they were regulated which was
before the federal government became involved. The federal
government became involved in the late 60's, early 70's, when they
began to fund things. Before this it was all private pay but
otherwise people were historically taken care of at home by large,
extended families who weren't as mobile. They were also taken care
of in assisted living homes which were non-medical, social model
type homes where someone, usually a non-relative, who lived in the
home to care for an elderly person.
MR. KOHN continued that now seniors want to remain as independent
as they can within an assisted living environment. Nursing
facilities are mainly used now because of the focus the federal
government has given them through medicaid funding.
Number 1475
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON wondered if there was a disproportionate need
for Pioneer Homes because so few folks in Alaska have extended
families. He asked if there was a tradition in regards to Pioneer
Homes when there is a family or an estate that either of these two
would be responsible for deferring costs.
MR. KOHN responded that he couldn't speak categorically to this but
he did think that this was the case. He also affirmed
Representative Dyson's summation about the lack of extended
families and noted that the Pioneer Homes were formed mainly for
miners who came to Alaska for the gold rush and stayed. At the
present time the people cared for, by and large, in the homes are
individuals with Alzheimer's disease. Families do what they can
but there is a point where this situation becomes unmanageable.
Number 1558
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON suspected that there was some debate that took
place that as a policy decision to care for the elderly must be
taken care of by the state. He asked when this shift took place?
MR. KOHN responded that he thought that this took place during the
60's of "Johnson's Great Society" with the on-set of medicare and
medicaid. This was when the funding for long term care began in
nursing homes. The federal government is now looking at waivered
programs, such as "Project Choice," which is a waivered medicaid
program allowing the care provided in a person's home so that they
don't have to go into a nursing home. This has been very
successful with about 300 participants. For a small amount of
money, comparatively, these people are being cared for in their
homes where otherwise they would have to be housed in a special
facility to hold these 300 people with all the added expenses.
Number 1656
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if there was a policy decision
collectively made that when a senior goes into one of these
facilities that the children of the resident have no requirement to
support their care financially.
MR. KOHN noted that in the non-pioneer home facilities, skilled
nursing care facilities, these are funded mostly by medicaid.
Eighty-five percent of the people in these facilities are on
medicaid which means they have to "spin-down" all of their assets.
Medicaid does not look to the family members of the senior, but to
the assets of the individual and it may look at the assets of the
spouse, however, many of the "things that I explained to
Representative Ryan that we're doing with the spouse is also done
in medicaid." The answer to the question is "no." No one goes
after the family members for financial support.
Number 1724
REPRESENTATIVE AL KOOKESH thanked the sponsor of this legislation.
He thought it was a great bill and one to make Alaskans proud. One
of the things they need to do is recognize the pioneers'
contribution to the state. He understood that this legislation
does two things. It allows the residents of these homes to keep
their permanent fund check which is important to all residents.
Every Alaska should be able to keep it. He noted that some of the
committee members might be concerned about the ANSCA distributions
that are also allowed to be kept. Very few residents of the state
receive up to $2,000. This might not be true in Southeast but
under federal regulation individuals may receive up to $2,000 but
this amount also includes a congressional waiver of up to this
amount for food stamps and social services. Otherwise, very few
residents of the state which are ANSCA members will even receive
$2,000.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said that Alaska Natives usually lead in
prison population, for example, but this is one of the few areas of
the state where Alaska Natives aren't the dominant population in
the Pioneer Homes. One of the nice things about the Alaska Native
community is that they take care of their own. Almost every
community that he's aware of in Southeast has an elderly person at
home or a grandparent will stay with children. Very few Native
people use the Pioneer Home unless they have a severe case of
Alzheimers Disease.
Number 1855
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that this was fine bill, but noted the
lack of a fiscal note.
MR. KOHN stated that the fiscal note his department provided had a
zero fiscal impact. This legislation is a reflection of regulation
which will be place July 1, therefore, whether this bill is in
place or not, the intent of the legislation will be in place
through regulation. It is very important to also have this concept
in statute ensuring a sense of security to the residents of the
Pioneer Home.
MR. KOHN continued that if they figured the cost of the regulation,
it would be very hard to figure. Right now they do consider the
permanent fund as income. They have about 130 people who are on
the stipend program. They don't know how many more people they can
anticipate as residents. This legislation will not increase their
costs. The regulations increase their cost though but it will be
very minimal.
Number 1944
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant, Chairman Ivan, stated that they
received a memo at the beginning of session regarding the request
of fiscal notes which all have to go through the governor's office.
What Mr. Wright placed in the committee's packet is the request for
a fiscal note. According to the memo from leadership, this request
will suffice until a fiscal note is generated.
Number 1984
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he had no problem with the ANSCA.
This is a settlement which the Native population is entitled to.
He thought that the Native people's example of taking care of their
elderly should be followed by everyone. He thought this was a
wonderful example to follow. He asked what the future of the
Pioneer Homes was. He noted there was an attempt to change the
name of these facilities to "Dementia...," he couldn't remember the
exact terminology proposed. It seemed to him that the
administration was setting a policy that they don't want to be in
the residential business but essentially into the full-time nursing
care business.
MR. KOHN responded that the Pioneer Home Advisory Board last
September, in the tour of the homes, heard from a number of people
who pointed out the large population of Alzheimers Disease patients
in the home now. They suggested these were no longer Pioneer Home
facilities and thought the name should be changed. When the
Pioneer Advisory Board deliberated on what they'd heard in public
hearings, they fairly reluctantly decided that they had better pass
onto the governor some advise about what people were saying. He
referred to a letter they wrote the governor regarding the same and
recommended over the next few years that thought should be given to
possibly changing the name of the Pioneer Homes to reflect what the
Pioneer Homes had become. This paragraph is written in very
hesitant and reluctant terms, but they believed it was their duty
to pass on what had been communicated to them.
MR. KOHN continued that a new name had not been suggested. Many of
the people who came forward to suggest a name change after reading
the letter to the governor said it was a terrible idea. He said
they would love to bring more clients into the residential program
of the homes. They are very much a business now collecting rent
which they base their operation. This program does not require
direct care and people don't want it. There hasn't been a change
in policy. They must fill the beds in order to operate this
business. If there is lost revenue they are unable to pay the
staff. It's important that they provide a service to the public
that the public wants and this is care. They are gearing up to use
those rooms that are empty for higher levels of care.
Number 2238
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS voiced his support of this bill and was
seriously considering becoming a co-sponsor of it. He asked about
the concept of grand-fathering individuals into the program at a
fixed rate. Many of the individuals who moved into these
facilities did so with a different understanding of what the costs
would be.
MR. KOHN responded that there might be some legal problems with
allowing various rates of people who enroll into the program at
different times. This would mean two tiers, people who came in
before a certain date and then the people on the waiting list would
need to be considered but can't because of limited space. This
might create a discrimination problem. The other consideration is
money. The Pioneer Home system needs the revenue, the residents
are earmarked to finance a third of the homes in FY98 and if they
grandfather people in this revenue wouldn't be there. They would
be in financial trouble as far as operating the homes.
Number 2317
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what the life span of a person is who
moves into these facilities.
MR. KOHN responded that the average age of a resident coming into
the home is between 83 and 84 years of age. The average age in the
homes is between 86 and 87 years of age. There is a vacancy rate
between 180 and 200 people out of 600 per year.
Number 2341
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN responded to the concept that Pioneer Homes are
a business and noted that businesses evaluate themselves and what
their overhead is. He asked if the staff working for the homes
receive comparable or better wages than those in the private
sector.
MR. KOHN responded that the Alaska Hospital and Nursing Home
Association does a yearly study on compensation packages for
similar jobs. They've seen that the management of the Pioneer
Homes receive quite a bit less in compensation compared to
administrators of long term care facilities. He did note that
these individuals are a very devoted group, but underpaid. In
regards to nurse and CNA staff who provide direct care, they are
about equal to the private sector including benefits. Their
housekeeping staff is paid in excess of those individuals in the
private sector. They are much more expensive. Often times people
look at this group and then assume that the pay scales go up from
here which isn't true.
TAPE 97-19, SIDE B
Number 028
ANN ZENSON, Resident, Sitka Pioneer Home and; President, Resident
Council, testified via teleconference from Sitka on HB 241. She
spoke only for herself. The area of administrative law has grown
enormously as government has grown. At this time, administrative
law performs all of the functions as state government, including
legislative, executive, and judicial. The state officials who make
new regulations also establish the rules for carrying out these
regulations through the court to whom appeals may be made and as a
body enforce rules with penalties. Since many of these rules and
regulations are written in technical and legal language the common
person is helpless in many cases unless there is enough money
available to hire a lawyer. Residents of the Pioneer Homes have
watched helplessly these past few years as the mission of their
home has changed, as well as the security they had hoped for in
their old age has been eroded. They understand that during a
fiscal crisis, which Alaska now faces, there will be changes.
Within administrative law there are a few people who guide these
changes. This legislation helps to guarantee their dignity and
ease the stress under which they now live.
Number 100
ALTHEA BUCKINGHAM, Resident, Sitka Pioneer Home, testified via
teleconference from Sitka on HB 241. She noted that she couldn't
see many difference between the legislation which the
administration provided and that version sponsored by
Representative Croft. She also shares information regarding
directives given to the Pioneer Home Advisory Board by the
Administration to increase the rates. She also heard testimony
that this increase was motivated by the Advisory Board. She didn't
think the latter was correct.
MS. BUCKINGHAM added that she became a resident of the Pioneer Home
out of necessity. She noted that the state would rather show a
large profit reflected in permanent fund accounts and mental health
trust fund accounts to help defray a service that the state said
they wanted to provide their pioneers. Of the $2 million mental
health trust funds spent in the state, most seems allocated to
regional and local facilities other than the pioneer homes. These
facilities provide respite, day care, education and collaboration
with agencies already providing similar services for non-seniors
which goes to the Pioneer Homes, yet they are being designated as
the primary service facility for such things as Alzheimers Disease
and Related Dementia (ADRD). Seventy to eighty percent of all
residents in the Pioneer Homes would qualify. She said if this was
true, why weren't they going after these types of funds vigorously
rather than on the backs of the Pioneer Home residents.
MS. BUCKINGHAM also suggested that with the permanent fund money
that everyone receives she thought that if a certain portion from
every person who receives this money was put aside for health
benefits they could probably fund a great many things for all of
their citizens in the state in regards to health, as well as the
Pioneer Homes.
Number 249
MARK NIELSON, Resident, Sitka Pioneer Home, testified via
teleconference on HB 241. He said consideration of the permanent
fund as income for Pioneer Home residents was "digging into our
pocket money; I wish you folks would leave that alone."
Number 293
MARRY SINGER, citizen, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan
on HB 241. She wished to testify on the new rules and regulations
regarding a home resident with a spouse or a dependent in the
community would be allowed $2,000 to live on. She noted that this
would be an ideal arrangement since her income comes just above
half of this amount. She lost her husband since the last hearing
so this situation no longer applies. This definitely applies to
others though. She noted that she has a home that needs to be
maintained and it requires utility payments. She stated that the
$2,000 which they planned to allow those spouses left in the
community was a good idea and a great benefit.
Number 432
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that he was concerned about an elderly
person, the surviving spouse losing their home. The provision in
this legislation seems to allow them to live in their community
residence for the time that a spouse resides in a Pioneer Home and
then the residence can be used to satisfy a debt. He said he was
not comfortable with this and wondered if there was any way they
could ensure that these homes would stay with the other spouse
rather than leaving them destitute without a place to live.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that they cannot use to satisfy the
debt real property, the primary residence of the resident spouse or
the dependent of the resident. He wasn't sure if this meant that
they can't capture real property until the community spouse leaves
a house or is deceased or whether they can't get it at all. He
said he would check on this.
Number 480
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved and asked unanimous consent to move HB
241 out of committee with individual recommendations and
accompanying zero fiscal note. Hearing no objection, HB 241 was
moved out of the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee.
HB 162 - BAN CRAFT BUYING ON LIQUOR PREMISES
Number 521
KATTARYNA BENNETT, Researcher for Representative Irene Nicholia,
came forward to testify on HB 162,"An Act relating to the sale or
purchase of authentic Native handicrafts on certain licensed
premises; and providing for an effective date." This bill would
make it illegal to buy or sell authentic native handicrafts on
premises which hold beverage dispensary licenses, in other words,
bars. Bars are often used by native artists to sell their art to
local patrons, community members, tourists, and sometimes the bar
owner and their employees. This has been a problem particularly in
rural Alaska and in northern communities where carvers or other
native artisans under the influence of alcohol may be induced to
sell their handicrafts at unreasonably low prices.
MS. BENNETT continued that when people are drinking, their ability
to make good decisions on their own behalf is seriously impaired.
As a result, people are often persuaded to sell their wares for far
less than fair market value. There are some who will deliberately
take advantage of an intoxicated artist to obtain a valuable piece
of native art work at an unjustly low cost. Addiction to drugs,
including alcohol, does make people unprotected victims of their
own irresponsible acts. Although these addictions are not fully
understood by those of us who are not plagued by such diseases, it
is important to understand that this type of activity puts enough
money in the intoxicated person's pockets to allow them to continue
abusing alcohol. In addition to supporting a person's continued
alcohol abuse this activity is degrading to the cultural,
traditional and aesthetic value of the art and the artist.
MS. BENNETT summed up that they can't stop people from abusing
alcohol, but they can however give these individuals the necessary
tools to help them help themselves. This legislation will do that
and more. The Institute of Native Arts, the Alaska State Council
on the Arts and the Citizen's Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug
Abuse support this bill. She urged the committee members to do the
same.
Number 649
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked that if this bill passes, how would an
owner of a dispensary license purchase native origin art to
decorate their establishment.
MS. BENNETT responded that an individual such as this could
purchase Native art work outside the realm of their establishment,
off premises.
Number 675
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked how this situation would be policed?
MS. BENNETT noted that enforcement of a lot of existing laws is
very difficult. For example, in downtown Anchorage, there are
community patrols by bicycle police officers. In rural villages,
there are the Village Public Safety Officers who could easily
police this situation.
Number 700
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if this legislation provided a course of
action for someone who has sold their Native handicrafts to a bar
owner under prohibitive circumstances would they have recourse and
can they go back afterwards and say, "you ripped me off and under
the provisions of this bill I've got a course of action to haul you
before a magistrate both for criminal action and to recover damages
because you got me when I was snookered."
MS. BENNETT responded that this bill does not address this, but in
her own opinion this would probably not be covered because if the
artisan were to make a complaint against a person who bought or
sold a piece of art work, they could also be implicated. This
legislation addresses both buyer and seller.
Number 763
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH agreed that this legislation would be a hard
law to enforce; however, he wanted to state that it's not so much
the buying or the agreement to buy that's going to solve the
problem here, it's the reselling of those items by the person who
holds the dispensary license. It will be hard for a person from a
bar to try to sell those goods. He believed this is where the
enforcement will come in. This legislation would help eliminate
those individuals doing so and this will be beneficial for all of
Alaskans. It's not a catch-all and it will probably not answer all
of the questions out there but it's a step in the right direction.
He thought they should take this step.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if a person could lose their license or
have a sanction against it if they try to sell handiwork. He asked
about a situation where someone else comes into a bar and the owner
has no knowledge about a transaction between buyer and seller.
Number 831
MS. BENNETT responded that under this legislation, it is only if an
owner is directly involved in a transaction will they be held
accountable.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated for the record that he's traveled
extensively in the bush and he felt that this is a common practice
for individuals to sell their art work in bars. He had concerns
about policing these types of situations under these circumstances.
Number 913
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that he doesn't oppose this bill but
what they're basically addressing is personal responsibility.
"Many a country boy has come to town and got skinned." If passing
this law is going to help this situation and people feel it will
help, he doesn't object. On the other hand, they constantly preach
that people have to be responsible for their actions. In this
situation the responsibility shifts.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked whether this legislation was aimed
primarily at liquor establishment owners who take advantage of this
situation or at a bar patron.
Number 994
MR. BENNETT responded that it would be fair to say that this
legislation isn't targeted at either party one way or another.
This legislation is merely to prevent the buying or selling of
Native handicrafts in liquor serving establishments. The bill
wasn't introduced as a result of one particular bar owner, for
example, who was taking advantage of an artisan or a particular
patron. This has just been an on-going problem in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS stated that he would support this
legislation, but questioned the bar owner's ability to stop things
like this from happening. This legislation puts a bar owner in
jeopardy over something he has little control over. One other
question he had was if this is good for the individual and the
private sector, he asked why does this legislation exempt the
state. Why are they allowed to do something that's detrimental to
the Native community when the private sector can't.
Number 1071
MS. BENNETT clarified that Representative Sanders referred to
Section 1, subparagraph (e). She stated that she was not exactly
certain why this section was included in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN explained that there is a presumption in
English Common Law that the King can do no wrong. Since we don't
have a King, government takes his place, the government can do no
wrong. So necessarily, the government is exempt from
responsibility. This may not be fair, but until such time as we
individually address it, this presumption will stay there.
Number 1120
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS suggested then that the committee should
strike this subparagraph (e) as an amendment. On page two, line
10, he suggested they strike this subsection.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that this amendment might affect
Fur Rondy festivities and the convention center functions, for
example. He asked, what if beer was being sold at these places.
He also noted the fact that there were lots of Native handicrafts
sold at these types of events. He noted that this legislation is
intended to prevent the sale of handicrafts for cheap by someone
who needs the money for alcohol but not necessarily at these types
of organized shows.
Number 1210
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN offered that government has the same
responsibility to act in the same manner as it demands from its
citizens. Exempting government all of the time and allowing them
and their employees to do whatever they choose because their exempt
from the law doesn't breed responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS added that people who are authorized to sell
in these situations were required to obtain a permit. He didn't
think this legislation was aimed at these types of individuals.
Number 1309
CHAIRMAN IVAN stated that more work needed to be done on this
legislation to address all of the concerns raised. He also
mentioned the artisans in his district who used every opportunity
and locales to sell their handicrafts. He used the example of
posting signs about the hazards of drinking alcohol when a woman is
pregnant. He wondered if they should post the same types of signs
for the prohibition of the sale of artifacts on particular
premises.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that these efforts which are well
intended will have unintentional, unfortunate results. He read a
note from an Anchorage individual who is a member of the downtown
Community Council. "As a member of the downtown Community Council
that's been dealing with liquor license renewals I am concerned
that this bill will give police another reason to be able to hassle
Native bar patrons. We already have quite a problem with unequal
and discriminatory ways (of how bars are overseen downtown) and
don't need more reasons for police and other authorities to enter
bars that serve mostly Native people and hassle and shake down
those people in there." He thought that this was a legitimate
concern. He noted that they didn't want anyone taken advantage of,
but he also didn't want police either taking a lot of time to go
around and see if anyone's got ivory in their pockets to sell. He
also didn't want overzealous and sometimes "bad attitude" policeman
using this law as another excuse to hassle people they consider
undesirable.
Number 1565
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS withdrew his amendment as proposed until
further notice.
Number 1588
DOUG GRIFFIN, Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage on HB 162. The board is generally
supportive of this bill. Some of the issues raised regarding
enforcement and whether this legislation would actually work are
legitimate but he thought the concept was definitely one that's
unique to Alaska. It's a reality as contributing to alcohol abuse
and the taking advantage of people who are in a diminished
capacity. He suggested that maybe the sponsor or the committee
look at also including liquor stores under this provision. He
stated that a more classic example of buying, trading and selling
of handicrafts does take place in bars, but he was concerned that
if this activity stopped taking place in bars they may see more
people directed towards liquor stores instead. He noted the
section where this language might be inserted, along with reference
to other related statutes. He noted the fiscal note which, from
the ABC Board's perspective, would be the cost of printing of signs
noticing patrons about this policy. He also noted the Department
of Law was looking for a pass through from the board dealing with
administrative actions and explained the remainder of the related
costs.
Number 1821
DON DAPCEVICH, Executive Director, Citizen's Advisory Board on
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, came forward to testify on HB 162. The
Citizen's Board is made up Alaskans from all over the state of
Alaska. They've considered this bill and that it's a good piece of
legislation. They have some concerns with targeting Natives. If
the bill is good on its face, then it should be good for arts and
handicrafts made by non-Natives as well for the same reasons.
Whether someone is Native or not and selling their art and
handicrafts at a disadvantage bears no race. The issue of
diminished capacity from alcohol bears no racial designation.
MR. DAPCEVICH continued that in regard to enforcement, having signs
located in establishments is preventative. This is why they want
emphasis on prevention. In regards to enforcement one would assume
that only the most egregious cases will be pursued. These should
be, especially those who abuse these situations through purchases
in order to re-sell. This is a real concern in rural Alaska where
individuals make it a practice in effect to trade alcohol for
handicrafts and art. This is no less blatant than years ago when
gold was traded for whiskey. There are families who rely on the
proceeds of these sales. When a person is in the situation of
bartering at a diminished capacity, it does the individual or their
families no good.
CHAIRMAN IVAN stated that more work needed to be done on this
legislation before any action could be taken. He assigned a
subcommittee to address this work with Representative Sanders as
chairman, along with Representatives Kookesh and Dyson.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2056
CHAIRMAN IVAN adjourned the House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee at 9:34 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|