Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/29/1996 02:10 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 29, 1996
2:10 P.M.
TAPE HFC 96-146, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-146, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-147, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-147, Side 2, #000 - #552.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Foster Representative Martin
Representative Brown Representative Mulder
Representative Grussendorf Representative Navarre
Representative Kelly Representative Parnell
Representative Kohring Representative Therriault
Co-Chair Hanley was absent from the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Alli Gordon, Staff, Senator Frank; Diane Worley, Director,
Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health
& Social Services; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney
General, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Bill Ezzell,
Deloitte & Touche LLP, Washington D.C.; Guy Patterson,
Fairbanks; Leslie Drumhiller, Fairbanks; Judy Shiffler,
Fairbanks; Mark Hickey, Alaska Railroad Corporation; Gary
Anglan, American Federation of Government Employees; Senator
Johne Binkley, Board Member, Alaska Railroad Corporation;
Former Governor Bill Sheffield, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Alaska Railroad Corporation; Jeff Cook, Mapco,
Anchorage;
SUMMARY
HB 136 An Act mandating the sale of the Alaska Railroad;
and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 136 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"no recommendation" and with a fiscal impact note
by the House State Affairs Committee for the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
SB 112 An Act establishing a discovery royalty credit for
1
the lessees of state land drilling exploratory
wells and making the first discovery of oil or gas
in commercial quantities.
SB 112 was rescheduled to another time.
SB 186 An Act relating to partnerships; amending Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and 24; and providing
for an effective date.
CSSB 186 (L&C) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with a fiscal impact
note by the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, dated 3/18/96.
SB 229 An Act relating to employment contributions and to
making the state training and employment program a
permanent state program; and providing for an
effective date.
SB 229 was rescheduled to another time.
SB 289 An Act relating to runaway minors and their
families or legal custodians.
SB 289 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 136
"An Act mandating the sale of the Alaska Railroad; and
providing for an effective date."
Representative Martin, sponsor of HB 136, spoke in support
of the legislation. He noted that the legislation was
introduced in recognition of the tenth anniversary of the
acquisition of the Alaska Railroad. He emphasized that land
is available for transferred to the State of Alaska. He
noted that the State paid the federal government $20.0
million dollars for the Alaska Railroad. He maintained that
the State should assess what is the value of the railroad.
The legislation would provide for a commission to assess the
value of the railroad. He noted that the legislation was
changed from providing for the sale of the railroad to a
commission evaluating the asset.
Representative Martin referred to the fiscal note. The
fiscal noted by the House State Affairs Committee for the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development would
provide $250.0 thousand dollars.
In response to a question by Representative Brown,
Representative Martin noted that other assets are addressed
2
on page 4, lines 17 - 27.
Representative Brown asked the status of the accompanying
land. She asked if the land would become state land and be
under existing procedures for disposal of state land.
Representative Martin stated that the intent is to assess
the extent of the assets and their current status.
Representative Brown suggested that the land would fall
under a default status. She expressed concern that the
Commission would recommend procedures for the disposal to
the State. She thought that the State would already be the
owner. She observed that there are existing contracts. She
asked if contracts are addressed.
Representative Martin referred to a memorandum by George
Utermohle, dated 11/9/92. He stated that he did not know
the extent of contracts entered into by the Alaska Railroad
Corporation. He noted that section (B) on page 5 addresses
contracts. He reiterated that the intent is to determine
what is there.
Representative Brown questioned what would happen to assets
that would not be part of the sale.
Representative Mulder pointed out that the current version
does not mandate a sale. The legislation will created a
Commission to provide guidance and counsel.
Representative Brown referred to page 4, line 19. She
suggested that "recommend procedures for the disposal of" be
changed to "inventory real property and contracts of the
Alaska Railroad Corporation that are not necessary for the
operation of the railroad, and make recommendations for
their disposition." She stressed that the amendment would
recognize that there are contracts attached to some of the
real property that is not necessary for the operation of the
railroad.
Representative Mulder questioned if the addition of
"possible" before disposal would alleviate Representative
Brown's concerns. Representative Brown reiterated that her
suggested language would clarify the section. She stressed
that the current language refers to the specific conditions
attached to the sale.
Representative Brown MOVED to delete "recommend procedures
for the disposal of" and insert "inventory real property and
contracts of the Alaska Railroad Corporation that are not
necessary for the operation of the railroad, and make
recommendations for their disposition." There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
3
Representative Brown referred to page 2, lines 23 and 24.
She noted that the contract for evaluation is exempt from AS
36.30, Procurement Code.
Representative Mulder asked how long it would take to issue
a request for procurement. He questioned if the procurement
bid could be finished by the November 1, 1996 target date.
Representative Martin stressed that there are a limited
amount of people that specialize in railroad properties and
functions.
Representative Brown noted exceptions for professional
services on page 2, lines 16 and 17. She questioned the
need for this exception. She noted that (d) is out of
railroad receipts, (c) states that it is subject to
appropriation. She asked if subject to appropriation
includes the $250.0 thousand dollar fiscal note.
Representative Martin stated that the reference is to the
$250.0 thousand dollar fiscal note. He noted that (c) and
(d) would both be covered by the $250.0 thousand dollar
fiscal note.
Representative Brown asked why it was necessary to give
consideration to persons with experience in corporate
mergers and acquisitions. She questioned how many
individuals would have the required experience.
Representative Mulder stressed the logic of having persons
with experience in business practices.
Representative Brown stated that it would be at least as
important to have people who are familiar with the local
communities and the issue of land disposition. She
emphasized that the needs of communities be taken into
account.
Representative Martin observed that a wide range of
individuals and communities would want to participate. He
emphasized that everyone will have opportunities in open
meetings to express their concerns.
Representative Therriault stated that it was unclear if all
the individuals should have experience. He suggested that
"at least one person" be inserted.
Representative Martin stressed that all user groups cannot
be represented on the Commission. He reiterated that all
will be able to testify in open meetings.
Representative Mulder pointed out that the language does not
mandate that all members have experience.
4
Representative Brown questioned how open the Commission's
proceedings would be. She noted provisions on page 5 that
the Commission could discuss in executive session. She
stressed that it could be argued under subsection (1) that
the entire conversation has an adverse effect on the Alaska
Railroad Corporation's finance. She added that subsection
(5) and (6) would cover large portions of the discussions.
She maintained that the whole conversation could take place
in secret. She asserted that it is a valid concern that
public members be involved. She questioned why land
acquisition or disposal needs to be included in allowances
for executive session.
Representative Martin expressed concern that the discussions
be open. He pointed out that page 2, line 1 states that the
Commission "shall" give consideration to the appointment of
persons who have experience involving corporate mergers and
acquisitions.
Representative Therriault MOVED to delete "persons who have"
and insert "at least one person who has" experience on page
2, line 1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Martin emphasized that it is important to
know what is available. He observed that the language on
page 5, lines 7 - 19 is taken from the Corporation's by
laws.
Representative Therriault questioned if the Corporation's
concerned regarding negotiations currently under discussion
for purchase of or disposal of a piece of property. He
stated that the language could be expanded to clarify that
only those things that are currently in negotiation would be
allowed discussion under executive session.
Representative Therriault expressed support for the addition
on page 5 line 15, of "currently under negotiations." He
added that consideration should be given to the customer or
customers that pay the majority of the freight costs.
Representative Parnell MOVED to adopt Amendment 3 (copy on
file). He explained that the amendment would require that
reports be given to the Speaker of the House and the
President of the Senate as well as the Governor. The
amendment would also require that copies of the report be
made available for the public. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
BILL SHEFFIELD, FORMER GOVERNOR, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION testified via the
teleconference network. He noted that a number of
5
individuals were interested in testifying on the
legislation. He gave a brief history of the creation of the
railroad. He noted that the State purchased the railroad to
obtain ownership of an important transportation corridor in
the Interior of Alaska. He noted that the railroad was
built to allow expansion where needed. He maintained that
the railroad is a performing asset. He observed that the
railroad has only lost money in two years while under
ownership by the State. He asserted that the railroad will
continue to make a profit. He emphasized that the railroad
is a major player in the State's economy.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-147, Side 2)
Mr. Sheffield noted other functions of the Alaska Railroad.
He emphasized that the Corporation is developing real
estate. He discussed land managed by the Corporation. He
observed that all the land was transferred to the State
owned Corporation. If the Corporation is disposed of then
the land would also have to be disposed. He stressed that
the sale raises public questions.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he is opposed to the sale of the
Alaska Railroad. He maintained that the membership of the
Commission is too small. He did not think that a five
member commission would allow for sufficient representation.
He maintained that it is wrong to require the Corporation to
pay for a fast track appraisal. He noted that the federal
government paid $850.0 thousand dollars for the first cut of
an appraisal of the fair market value of the Alaska Railroad
in 1984. Mr. Sheffield emphasized that money spent for an
appraisal will reduce funding available for railroad ties
and other expenses.
Mr. Sheffield stressed that the Corporation could convene a
Committee to address the issue and make recommendations.
Mr. Sheffield viewed plans for expansion and improvements.
He discussed efforts to obtain federal funds for passenger
service. He clarified that the reversionary clause is in
relationship to the land ownership. He noted that if there
were a sale of the railroad prior to ten years then the
difference between what was paid for the railroad and what
was received for the railroad would go to the federal
government. After ten years any profits would remain with
the State.
Mr. Sheffield reiterated that the Corporation could appoint
a committee consisting of legislators, users and the public
to address the issue at no cost to the State.
Representative Therriault referred to page 5, line 15. Mr.
6
Sheffield observed that lines 7 - 15 are in the
Corporation's by-laws. He acknowledged that some of the
items are more important than others in regards to
confidentiality. He stressed that matters related to
personnel or finances are of most concern.
Representative Brown questioned if the discussion of the
possible sale of the railroad would have an adverse effect
on the finances of the railroad. Mr. Sheffield responded
that discussion of the sale could have an adverse effect.
Representative Brown observed that the Commission is not the
same as the Board of the Alaska Railroad Corporation. She
acknowledged that the Corporation would want to keep items
(1) - (7) in executive session. She maintained that there
should be a different standard for the Commission than for
the Board.
Mr. Sheffield acknowledged that some of the items could be
revised.
JEFF COOK, VICE PRESIDENT, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND
ADMINISTRATION, MAPCO PETROLEUM testified via the
teleconference network. He noted that Mapco paid the
railroad approximately $23 million dollars in 1995. He
stressed the need for efficiency. He expressed concern
about any sale of the railroad. He emphasized that Mapco
has an excellent relationship with the railroad. He
stressed the quality of service and partnership. He
expressed concern that the Commission's membership is too
small. He questioned if the Commission should first see if
it is in the State's best interest to sell. He stated that
the provisions of subsection (g) would best be addressed if
a decision is made to pursue a sale. He stressed that the
Commission should be big enough to represent the diverse
users that have an interest in the railroad. He reiterated
that he did not see a reason for the sale.
JOHNE BINKLEY, EX-SENATOR, BOARD MEMBER, ALASKA RAILROAD
CORPORATION testified via the teleconference network. He
spoke in opposition to the legislation. He observed that
the railroad has been instrumental in the development of
Fairbanks. He stressed that the railroad is an important
transportation corridor. He maintained that the railroad
should not be sold. He asserted that the railroad is an
important asset that should be protected. He stated that he
has been impressed with the management of the Alaska
Railroad. He observed that the railroad made a profit in
the current year. He stressed that the Board protects the
public's interest. He agreed that the Board should look at
the issue. He observed that $250.0 thousand dollars could
be used to purchase needed equipment.
7
GARY ANGLAN, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
(AFGE) testified via the teleconference network. He noted
that AFGE represents many of the employees on railroad
property. He expressed concern with the legislation. He
noted that the transfer from the federal government was an
agonizing experience for the railroad employees. He noted
that employees were retained in the Civil Service Retirement
System during the transfer in 1985. He emphasized that the
stress and uncertainty that accompanied the transfer
resulted in the loss of qualified employees. He noted that
there was an unfunded liability for the employees in the
Civil Service Retirement System. He emphasized the
difficulty of ascertaining the unfunded liability for these
employees. He maintained that in the advent of a sale the
new owner should assume the cost of the employee's
participation in Civil Service Retirement System. He noted
that employee unions are actively engaged in collective
bargaining. He stated that the discussions regarding sale
of the railroad is having a destablizing effect on the
negotiation process. He asked if the railroad is currently
running okay and what is the potential to Alaska if the
railroad was free of legislative interference and
regulation. He noted that the railroad received $10.0
million dollars for tie upgrades. He asked the total worth
of these improvements for future operations. He observed
that Governor Sheffield indicated that the railroad would
fall apart if this money is not spent.
MARK HICKEY, ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION discussed item (6)
on page 5, line 15. He stated that the additional language
recommended by Representative Therriault should not create a
problem. Representative Therriault asked if a problem would
be created if (6) was deleted. Mr. Hickey pointed out that
the language is not mandatory. He stated that there could
be a matter pending that would need to be discussed in
executive session.
Representative Martin stressed that once the guidelines are
placed into law there would be a greater barrier.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-147, Side 1)
Representative Brown referred to subsection (1) on page 5.
She suggested that "except as related to the potential
sale," be added to the beginning of line 7. She stressed
that it should be clear that discussions should take place
in public.
Mr. Hickey stated that the intent is clear that to the
extent possible the proceedings are to be public. He
emphasized that subsection (1) states, would "clearly" have
8
an adverse effect upon the finances of the Alaska Railroad
Corporation. He emphasized that assuming that the
Commission intends to operate to the extent practical in a
public way, that the language is adequate. He observed that
the application of the Corporation Act in relating to its
work with the Commission needs to be considered.
Representative Brown clarified that her concern is that the
Corporation, with all its concerns, by laws, and practices
will want to go into executive session in its discussions
with the Commission.
Representative Brown referred to subsection (5) on page 5,
line 14. She suggested the addition of "current litigation
involving the Alaska Railroad Corporation". She stated that
the entire issue addresses the legal position of the Alaska
Railroad Corporation.
Mr. Hickey stressed that current litigation may be too
narrow. He observed that there could be legal matters
pending.
Mr. Sheffield noted that the Corporation discusses in
executive session matters under litigation and matters that
may be potential subjects for litigation.
Mr. Sheffield noted that $250.0 thousand dollars represents
25,000 railroad ties or 40 miles of track.
HB 136 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 186
"An Act relating to partnerships; amending Alaska Rules
of Civil Procedure 20 and 24; and providing for an
effective date."
BILL EZZELL, PARTNER, DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP testified via
the teleconference network. He spoke in support of SB 186.
(Mr. Ezzell's complete written remarks are on file.) He
noted that 41 states have passed limited liability
partnership (LLP) legislation. He noted that in a general
partnership, all the partners are personally liable for all
the obligations of the partnership and for damages caused by
the actions of any other partner acting in the scope of the
partnership business. In a LLP, a partner is not personally
liable for those partnership obligations arising out of
negligence, wrongful acts, wrongful omissions, malpractice
or misconduct committed by another partner of the
partnership. The partnership itself remains fully liable to
the extent of its assets, capital and insurance for the
obligations of the partnership. Personal assets of the
9
partner or partners directly involved in the negligent acts
that cause the obligation are not protected by the LLP
status. The legislation provides for insurance or other
financial assets to be set aside to substitute for the
personal assets of any partner not involved in acts causing
the obligation.
Mr. Ezzell compared LLP's to limited liability corporations.
He maintained that other forms of organization provide
greater protections of personal assets of their owners.
Representative Therriault observed that similar legislation
was passed on limited liability for corporations. Limited
liability partnerships were not included.
Mr. Ezzell noted that protections offered a partner are not
as extensive as protections afforded a share holder in a
limited liability company. The legislation would provide a
similar form for partnerships.
Representative Martin MOVED to report CSSB 186 (L&C) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 186 (L&C) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, dated
3/18/96.
HOUSE BILL NO. 136
"An Act mandating the sale of the Alaska Railroad; and
providing for an effective date."
Representative Therriault MOVED to delete subsection (6) on
page 5, line 15. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Representative Brown MOVED to delete "the legal position of
the" and insert "current or potential litigation involving."
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Therriault MOVED to report CSHB 136 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. Representative Brown OBJECTED.
She noted that the legislation is structured into two parts.
Section (f) provides for a determination of best interest.
Section (g) contains the particulars related to the
determination to sell. She asserted that subsection (3) on
page 4, lines 17 and 18 should be moved under section (f).
She noted that subsection (3) allows for a broader
10
interpretation.
Representative Therriault WITHDREW his motion to move CSHB
136 (FIN). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Brown MOVED to move subsection (3) on page 4,
lines 17 and 18 to be placed under section (f) on page 2,
line 31. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Kohring MOVED to report CSHB 136 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. A roll call vote was taken on the
MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault,
Foster
OPPOSED: Brown, Navarre
Co-Chair Hanley and Representatives Kelly and Grussendorf
were absent for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-2).
CSHB 136 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal impact note by the House
State Affairs Committee for the Department of Commerce and
Economic Development.
SENATE BILL NO. 289
"An Act relating to runaway minors and their families
or legal custodians."
Members were provide with a proposed committee substitute,
Work Draft 9-LS1635\D, 4/27/96 (copy on file).
JUDY SHIFFLER, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference
network. (Ms. Shiffler's written testimony is on file.) She
expressed concern that section 6 of the proposed committee
substitute on page 5 would not adequately slow down or stop
the revolving door. She stated that SB 289 needs to provide
clear and immediate consequences. She stressed that the
section allows to much time to pass before consequences
occur. She maintained that the bills should be designed as
an early intervention measure. She emphasized that the bill
does not replace other facilities that troubled kids can
turn to on a voluntary basis.
GUY PATTERSON, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference
network. He observed that there are two classes of
children. The abused child that is running from an abusive
situation and those that are out on the street because they
11
do not want to follow their parent's rules. He maintained
that children are encouraged to run away by other kids. He
suggested that the process be simplified. He emphasized
that it should not be assumed that the parents are at fault.
He stated that when the State takes custody the State should
provide a safe place. He maintained that the State should
know where the child is in the middle of the night. He
spoke to the expense of lock up facilities. He asserted
that children would not leave home if they knew that they
would be placed in lock up facilities.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr.
Patterson clarified that Fairbanks does not have children on
the streets that are under 12 years old.
LESLIE DRUMHILLER, FAIRBANKS testified via the
teleconference network. She noted that she is the parent of
a 15 year old runaway. She recounted experiences with her
child. She emphasized that early intervention can protect
children. She stressed that the threat of lock up can
persuade children to seek help.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-147, Side 2)
ALLISON GORDON, STAFF, SENATOR FRANK testified in support of
SB 289. She observed that the legislation was introduced to
address the growing concern among parents for the safety of
their runaway children. She maintained that: "The runaway
epidemic is a significant problem in our communities that
needs serious consideration. The overwhelming frustration
parents currently feel can be best attributed to the lack of
support they receive from the government. Parents are held
accountable for their children's actions yet they are not
given the necessary tools to exercise authority and instill
guidance in their children's lives. Current law provides
minors with the ability to thumb their noses at figures of
authority, whether they be parents, teachers, law
enforcement or otherwise. Their freedom is guaranteed and
they have learned how to exploit and manipulate the system
in order to get what they want. We feel that parents should
be the ones who should decide what is best for their
children and be able to nurture and guide them in a manner
they see fit until the child is old enough to make their own
decisions, support themselves, and be on their own. Senate
bill 289 tightens existing law in an attempt to close the
revolving door that currently allows runaways the freedom to
avoid having to abide by rules and parental authority."
Ms. Gordon noted that the legislation strengthens the
language within AS 11.51.130 regarding contributing to the
delinquency of a minor. "By discouraging people from
harboring runaways, it will compel these children to take
12
advantage of available services that are necessary for
assessing the individual's situation and beginning the
process of reconciliation with the child's family."
Ms. Gordon stressed that the legislation clarifies that a
police officer's first course of action, after picking up a
runaway, will be to take that child back to his or her
parents unless the officer believes that there has been
abuse to the minor. If the parent will not accept the
child, then the second course of action will be to take the
minor to a safe place agreed to by the parent. If this
cannot be accomplished then the police officer must take the
child to a semi-secure shelter for assessment of the child's
situation and determination of the course of action that is
in the best interest of the child.
Ms. Gordon noted that various ways to address the secure
placement of a minor who is a habitual runaway were
addressed. The version that passed the Senate would place
runaways who run from placement in semi-secure shelters into
secure placements. This provision jeopardized OJJDP funding
from the federal government in the amount of $600,000. The
Department of Health & Social Services also attached an
extremely high fiscal note.
Ms. Gordon noted that members were provided with a proposed
committee substitute, Work Draft 9-LS1635\D, dated 4/29/96.
This version authorizes law enforcement to temporarily
detain a minor who has fled from a semi-secure shelter
pending a court hearing to ascertain whether probable cause
exists to conclude that the child is a child in need of aid.
At the hearing the court is required to determine placement
of the minor and to order that minor to remain in that
placement. If the minor runs from placement they will be in
violation of a court order and will be picked up and
detained in a secure environment, thus shutting the
revolving door.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW expressed concern with revisions to the Contributing to
the Delinquency of a Minor statute on page 3. She urged the
Committee to change this provision to make it easier to
prosecute individuals who contribute to the delinquency of a
minor and encourage children to be absent from the custody
of their parents. She stressed that "just cause" needs to
be defined. She observed that new language on page 3, line
30 - page 4, line 1 is not clear enough. She noted that it
is easier to prove lack of knowledged than lack of
permission. She suggested that on page 3, line 1 after
"custodian" that "or without the knowledge of the parent,
guardian or custodian" be added. Representative Parnell
pointed out that Representative Kelly has an amendment to
13
that effect.
Ms. Carpeneti referred to page 6, lines 10 and 11. She
noted that the Court can order the child to remain in the
custody of the parents or another party without a finding of
probable cause if the child is a child in need of aid. She
stated that this language is problematic. Under AS
47.10.010(A)(2)(a) a finding of probable cause is needed for
the court to have jurisdiction over the issue and child.
Ms. Carpeneti observed that page 4, lines 21 - 25 takes away
the provision that the sole fact that the child is a runaway
is not enough to justify emergency custody. She stated that
it is unclear of the effect of this deletion.
Ms. Carpeneti suggested that on page 6, line 9 that the
court when making its order, should specify the terms and
conditions that must be followed by the minor and the parent
or guardian. She observed that there are cases where the
parents are as much of the problem as the child.
DIANE WORLEY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FAMILY AND YOUTH
SERVICES clarified that the Division supports the House
Judiciary version of SB 289. She expressed concerns with
the proposed committee substitute. She acknowledged the
need for legislation. She stated that the Division supports
parents having more control over their children. She
asserted that some of the new amendments are going to
complicate the issue and set up false expectations. She
emphasized that the State cannot make children follow the
rules any more than the parents can. The State can provide
early intervention, counseling and support.
Ms. Worley referred to page 2, lines 12 - 14. She
emphasized that the requirement that the Division take
emergency custody of a minor who has previously left a semi-
secure program without permission would take away any
discretion from the Department. She noted that there are
no cases where the Division is currently required to take a
child into custody. She observed that language on page 5,
lines 27 - 30 also removes discretion from the Division.
Ms. Worley expressed concern that if children know that they
will be detained and taken into state custody if they run
from semi-secure shelters that they will not use the
shelters. She acknowledged frustration of parents with the
revolving door syndrome. She emphasized that semi-secure
shelters provide safety for children that would be on the
streets. Children have the opportunity for counseling and
intervention services in the semi-secure shelters.
Representative Therriault noted that children often go to
14
shelters only after being picked up by enforcement officers.
Ms. Worley agreed and added that the police will have to
take the child home. Children will only go to a shelter if
the parent refuses to accept the child. She maintained that
many children use the Family Focus shelter in Fairbanks on a
voluntary basis. She noted that all the children at
Covenant House in Anchorage are voluntary.
Ms. Worley observed that the legislation will only apply to
children that are running from a semi-secure facility. Only
five facilities around the State would be under the mandate
to become semi-secure. She observed that children in other
parts of the State will not be affected by the law.
Ms. Worley referred to page 7, lines 9 - 12. She observed
that Covenant House operates on a voluntary basis. This
language would exempt Covenant House from the provision to
maintain a semi-secure facility. She noted that Covenant
House stated that they would end operations if they were
forced to operate a semi-secure facility. She pointed out
that Covenant House serves 84 percent of the State's
runaways.
Ms. Worley summarized that the Division supports tougher
consequences for adults that harbor runaways and more
parental involvement and responsibility. The Division has
concerns regarding the mandate to take runways into
protective custody.
Representative Mulder asked if the fiscal note would change.
Ms. Worley estimated that it would cost $250.0 thousand
dollars to implement the proposed work draft. This
represents an increase of three social workers, two in
Anchorage and one in Fairbanks.
Representative Martin spoke in support of the provision
exempting Covenant House.
Ms. Gordon noted that language on page 2, lines 13 - 15 was
a drafting oversight based on a previous version. She
observed that the requirement that the Division take
children into emergency state custody was removed. She
observed that this provision should be deleted. She added
that the Department of Health & Social Services is
instructed to file a child in need of aid petition with the
court. The legislation requires that a law enforcement
officer take into protective custody a minor that has fled
from a semi-security shelter. A minor that has fled a semi-
secure shelter after placement could be arrested as a
delinquent and could be detained under AS 47.10.080.
Representative Therriault noted Representative Kelly's
15
intent to delete (4) on page 2, lines 3 - 5 and lines 12 -
15.
Ms. Worley clarified that the requirement to file a petition
is a higher standard than the Division is currently under
for child in need of aid cases. Ms. Gordon responded that
the sponsor feels that something needs to be done to require
the Department to take action in these situations.
SB 289 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
16
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|