Legislature(2005 - 2006)
04/12/2005 03:10 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB54 | |
| HB130 | |
| HB109 | |
| HB225 | |
| HB210 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 12, 2005
3:10 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 3:10:56 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Reggie Joule
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Sponsor; Representative Jay
Ramras; Dick Mylius, Deputy Director, Division of Mining
Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources; Pete
Kelly, Director, State Relations, University of Alaska;
Moira Smith, Staff, Representative Woodie Salmon; Stephanie
Birch, Section Chief, Women's, Children's and Family Health
Care Services, Division of Public Health, Department of
Health & Social Services; Jane Pierson, Staff,
Representative Jay Ramras
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Dr. Don Rogers, Anchorage; Officer Mike Couturier, Vice-
President, Anchorage Police Department Employees
Association, Anchorage
SUMMARY
HB 54 An Act relating to bail review.
HB 54 was POSTPONED.
HB 109 An Act relating to establishing a screening,
tracking, and intervention program related to the
hearing ability of newborns and infants; providing
an exemption to licensure as an audiologist for
certain persons performing hearing screening
tests; relating to insurance coverage for newborn
and infant hearing screening; and providing for an
effective date.
CS HB 109 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal
note by the Department of Health & Social
Services, a new indeterminate note by the
Department of Education & Early Development and a
new zero note by the Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development.
HB 130 An Act granting certain state land to the
University of Alaska and establishing the
university research forest; and providing for an
effective date.
CS HB 130 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation". a House Finance Committee
Letter of Intent, zero note #1 by the Department
of Fish & Game, fiscal note #2 by the Department
of Law, fiscal note #3 by the Department of
Natural Resources and fiscal note #4 by the
University of Alaska.
HB 210 An Act relating to blood testing of certain
persons alleged to have committed certain offenses
directed toward peace officers or emergency
workers.
CS HB 210 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with zero note #1
by the Alaska Court System, zero note #2 by the
Department of Corrections, zero note #3 by the
Department of Law and zero note #4 by the
Department of Public Safety.
HB 225 An Act relating to medical examiners and medical
death examinations.
HB 225 was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with zero note #1 by the
Department of Health & Social Services.
3:11:37 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 130
An Act granting certain state land to the University of
Alaska and establishing the university research forest;
and providing for an effective date.
Co-Chair Chenault MOVED to ADOPT work draft #24-GH1034\X,
Bullock, 4/12/05, as the version of the legislation before
the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Weyhrauch explained the changes, deleting
Page 6, Lines 12-18; deleting Page 6, Lines 25-26; Page 7,
Line 5, deleting "shall"; Page 7, Line 6, deleting material
after (1) and inserting "shall"; Page 7, Line 7, after (2)
inserting "may".
3:15:51 PM
He indicated that the Native allotment language had been
added back and the lands conveyed are included under
Subsection (e), which simplified the bill.
Representative Weyrauch noted that initial testimony related
to the 250,000 acres in the bill. The draft committee
substitute identifies specific parcels outlined in
Subsections N & O on Pages 5 & 6. Those sections remove
parcels based on that information.
In adopting the committee substitute, it became a public
policy call that the University receives land for
development, promotes private investment and increases the
tax base of the State. All those things must overlay with
concerns regarding quick development and insure that the
communities that have lands adjacent can get the lands for
borough formation. Subsection N identifies parcels that
would be deleted from University lands while Subsection O
addresses if a borough forms. The language provides a four-
year opportunity for specifically Wrangell and Petersburg so
they can move forward in forming boroughs.
3:19:07 PM
Representative Weyhrauch informed members that there are
more requests for exclusion of certain lands.
3:20:29 PM
Representative Weyrauch addressed language on Page 7,
Subsection C, before the Board of Regents offers a parcel
for sale, they "shall" offer the right of first refusal to
the municipality. That language encourages and allows the
Board of Regent to give the first right of refusal to
develop land for municipal purposes. The second thing it
does is offer the second right of refusal to non-profit
organizations to develop the land for purposes consistent
for historic uses. That would be a discretionary offer. In
the Committee's Letter of Intent, it does not indicate that
the University should convey land to a non-profit
corporation for conservation uses or non-productive
purposes. He noted he had worked closely with the
University of Alaska on that language.
3:22:33 PM
Representative Weyhrauch addressed the Letter of Intent,
which indicates that land, conveyed for the Coldfoot node
area would not be used for businesses that would compete
with other business already there. He explained why that
language had been included in the Letter of Intent and not
in the body of the bill. The Department of Natural
Resources and the University of Alaska are working out
arrangements for the provision.
Representative Weyrauch advised that Sections #1 and #2
inserted in the House Resources Committee had been deleted
in the proposed committee substitute.
3:24:32 PM
DICK MYLIUS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING LAND AND
WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, stated that the
Department is "generally satisfied" with the changes,
however, he had not yet seen the committee substitute nor
the Letter of Intent.
Representative Croft questioned making the change from
"shall" to "may". Representative Weyhrauch referenced
Subsection C, Page 7, explaining that language was:
· When the University receives the lands from the
Department of Natural Resources and they decide to
dispense of them, they must offer the first right of
refusal to the closest municipality; and
· They may offer the second right of refusal to a non-
profit organization.
Representative Weyrauch continued, Version X does not
include all lands that Wrangell and Petersburg want.
3:29:20 PM
Representative Croft pointed out that the old version used
"shall". Representative Weyhrauch explained that "shall"
was used in the version to which statewide testimony had
th
been taken on April 9. He noted that "may" had replaced
"shall" in the version before the Committee as requested by
the University.
3:30:11 PM
PETE KELLY, DIRECTOR, STATE RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA,
commented that the changes seemed consistent with
conversations between Representative Weyrauch, the
University and the Department of Natural Resources. He
pointed out concern on Page 2, regarding the duties of the
Board as the new language represents a departure from the
rules for that board. He thought that it would direct the
resources from the University's budget in statute rather
than through an appropriations bill.
Representative Weyhrauch responded that the duties of the
University's Board of Regents could insure that they
adequately fund the Cooperative Extension Service. The
University "shall" hire any vacant position within the
Cooperative Extension Service within 90-days of vacancy.
That language was removed because of concerns from the
University. However, the duties of the Board of Regents to
insure that the Cooperative Extension Service is staffed are
broader language and became the compromise.
Representative Weyrauch believed that the entire "notion" of
the University lands bill would generate income to the
University of Alaska. That is integrative to the public
support of the University and the public's support of a
strong and healthy University system. He thought that one
of the best ways would be to work with the Cooperative
Extension Service.
3:33:57 PM
Mr. Kelly interjected that the Board of Regents duties are
very broad; they do not get into the hiring of chancellors
or vice presidents, however, the proposed version regulates
that the Board of Regents "shall" attend to specific
staffing of a low level position. That would be directing
appropriations, which is a far departure for the duties of
the Board of Regents.
3:34:58 PM
Representative Croft asked the relationship between the
Cooperative Extension Service and the management of the
proposed lands. Representative Weyhrauch emphasized that
the lands are connected to the people and the people use
those lands.
3:36:12 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the University was willing to accept
that "fit". Mr. Kelly replied that the University does not
accept the language. He stressed that this is a lands bill
and that the proposed language could fit under the title.
He reiterated that inclusion of that language would make the
bill address duties for the Board of Regents. There is a
far distance between the general duties of the Legislature
and the specific duties for such a low level position.
3:36:58 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze appreciated the proposed language.
Co-Chair Meyer stated the language would remain in the bill
and if a Committee member wanted to make an amendment, they
could.
3:37:44 PM
Representative Moses MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #24-
GH1034\F.4, Bullock, 4/8/05. Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
MOIRA SMITH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE WOODIE SALMON, explained
the amendment, which takes into consideration testimony
received from residents in and around McCarthy regarding the
land in that area intended to be transferred to the
University of Alaska. The residents are opposed to that
land being included.
Co-Chair Chenault inquired what that area currently was
being used for. Ms. Smith responded that it is used
primarily for gravel and wood. Currently, those residents
apply for permits from the Department of Natural Resources
to extract gravel and take wood. Co-Chair Chenault inquired
if the residents tend to own their own lands. Ms. Smith
believed that many of them do. She noted that the amendment
would add a new parcel to the list.
Mr. Mylius interjected that the bill must come up with
250,000 acres in order to make the requested amount for the
University. The McCarthy parcel that is being requested is
12,500 acres. He stated that the Department of Natural
Resources was opposed to the amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Croft, Foster, Moses
OPPOSED: Hawker, Holm, Kelly, Stoltze, Weyhrauch,
Chenault, Meyer
Representative Joule was not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-7).
3:42:22 PM
Representative Croft clarified the changes necessary to
Amendment #2 in order that it fit the version before the
Committee.
3:43:31 PM
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, #24-
HB1034\L.2, Bullock, 4/12/05. Vice Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Croft stated that Amendment #2 would provide
a change in direction for the legislation. He acknowledged
that if the lands were in the University's hands, they would
be more aggressive in their management. When addressing
State lands that have not been developed to the support of
the people of Alaska, is not okay. By giving the
University, Point Thomson, the University might be more
successful in getting the value from that resource
production. He declared there was no better potential the
State could offer.
Representative Croft pointed out that the amount of funding
needed by the University is substantial at $225 million
dollars a year. Let the University do the development that
has so far eluded the State. If the State develops it, the
University could continue the arrangement and in addition,
25% of the remainder would go into a trust fund. He
acknowledged that the amendment was aggressive, but
suggested what is needed is "real development with real
resources".
3:48:38 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the amendment would totally
change the direction of the bill. He asked the State's
share of Pt. Thomson. Representative Croft replied that
they would own the land. The University is a State entity.
The Legislature can transfer State lands or sub-surface
rights between the pockets of State government entities.
Co-Chair Meyer recalled that the area is Exxon's gas field.
Representative Croft advised that the State of Alaska owns
the land and it is leased out.
Representative Holm questioned if it is possible to transfer
the sub-surface rights.
3:50:26 PM
Mr. Mylius responded that the Legislature could do that.
The prohibition of transferring the mineral, oil and/or gas
rights is somewhat restricting and that it could not be
transferred to an out of State ownership. Since the
University is an entity of the State, legally it could be
done; however, he clarified that the Department of Natural
Resources does not support the amendment.
Representative Kelly thought that the proposed amendment
would destroy the bill.
Representative Weyhrauch hoped that the State could endow
the University with income producing properties to help make
it a wealthy institution so that it could do all the
necessary research programs. He aspired to that. He
thought that the amendment sometime could provide that seed;
however, said it would be better in another bill at another
time. He indicated that he would support pursuing that
idea.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed.
3:53:39 PM
Representative Croft distributed a handout: "The 15-year
Forecast of Point Thomson Unit Royalty Revenues" from the
Department of Natural Resources projections. (Copy on
File). He disagreed that Amendment #2 would be a major
shift of direction for the bill. If the University could
get that land, it could be more aggressive. There could be
$1.2 billion dollars in that trust fund; nothing in the
proposed bill could come close to that amount. He urged
reconsideration of the amendment.
Representative Croft pointed out how the University of Texas
had obtained their wealth from sub-surface rights. He
thought that the amendment encourages an alternative and
that the core title of the bill would continue to be the
same. The Senate could place other parcels back into the
bill.
Representative Croft referenced the suggestion of creating a
new bill including the concept and questioned why do that.
Since the University needs substantial funding and if
development is important, then the University would be more
aggressive getting it done. The amendment should be
adopted. He commented that the amendment provides an
opportunity to do the largest land grant for the University.
He urged that the Legislature "put their money where mouths
are".
3:58:38 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze understood that the bill was a companion
to federal legislation and asked how it could merge with the
federal proposal. Representative Croft replied that he had
spoken with the Department of Natural Resources and if the
State gives 250,000 acres, the federal government would
match that. If the State put up the Point Thomson land that
would not qualify under that bill; however, if the State did
put up Point Thomson, it would be known that land had
greater potential then the other. He did not think it would
be an impediment, but would indicate that the State of
Alaska was doing a significant amount to provide land at
that value.
4:00:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Moses, Croft
OPPOSED: Foster, Hawker, Holm, Kelly, Stolze,
Weyhrauch, Meyer, Chenault
Representative Joule was not present for the vote
The MOTION FAILED (2-8).
4:01:42 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to DELETE language on Page 2,
Lines 24-25: "ensure that the University of Alaska's
Cooperative Extension Service is adequately staffed to meet
the needs of the public". Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Weyhrauch explained that the purpose of the
bill is to deal with land and resources in the State of
Alaska. The Board of Regents is in charge of governing
those lands. The agency between public lands and the
University is the Cooperative Extension Service. He urged
inclusion of that language. Vice-Chair Stoltze added that
the language was a good way to remind the University of
their obligation to public lands.
4:03:53 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kelly, Croft, Foster, Chenault, Meyer
OPPOSED: Hawker, Holm, Moses, Stoltze, Weyhrauch
Representative Joule was not present for the vote
The MOTION FAILED (5-5).
4:05:17 PM
Representative Weyhrauch pointed out that the Committee had
received much attention regarding inclusion of Thoms Place
near Wrangell.
4:05:52 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 130 (FIN) out of
Committee, the House Finance Committee Letter of Intent,
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 130 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation", a House Finance Committee Letter of Intent,
a zero note #1 by the Department of Fish & Game, fiscal note
#2 by the Department of Law, fiscal note #3 by the
Department of Natural Resources and fiscal note #4 by the
University of Alaska.
AT EASE: 4:06:41 PM
RECONVENE: 4:13:09 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
An Act relating to establishing a screening, tracking,
and intervention program related to the hearing ability
of newborns and infants; providing an exemption to
licensure as an audiologist for certain persons
performing hearing screening tests; relating to
insurance coverage for newborn and infant hearing
screening; and providing for an effective date.
4:14:12 PM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired about the Department of Health &
Social Services fiscal note.
STEPHANIE BIRCH, SECTION CHIEF, WOMEN'S, CHILDREN'S AND
FAMILY HEALTH CARE SERVICES, DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES, explained that the
finance portion of the bill would change in 2008. The
Division has been successful in the last four years by being
awarded two federal grants; however, the second grant is
scheduled to expire in 2008. The half time positions funded
uses federal grant money and would be lost. The program
manager runs the program that tracks all newborns, which is
mandated by the State.
Co-Chair Meyer referenced Page 2 of the fiscal note. Ms.
Birch clarified where those funds would pay for the early
intervention programs and would primarily be treatment
services. The Early Intervention Program has a newborn
hearing screening service for children needing hearing
support services. Co-Chair Meyer asked about the half-time
position and if it would be picked up by the State general
fund.
4:18:16 PM
In response to Vice-Chair Stoltze, Ms. Birch explained that
the newborn screening program has been in effect since 1998
in many hospitals. At present time, 23 communities have
that screening equipment in their hospitals. Through
federal funding, the Division purchased additional equipment
for nine communities. The screening test prices range
between $20 and $40 dollars and no money is paid to
providers. The federal grants provided equipment and
training.
4:19:52 PM
Representative Hawker indicated his confusion with the
fiscal note, the language regarding that "public record and
requiring a "reporting and surveillance system for tracking
all newborns". He questioned that choice of words,
recommending that the verbiage be revised.
4:21:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, SPONSOR, shared concerns with
personal privacy issues. He understood that the legislation
would provide statistical tracking of the number of newborns
needing services for congenital birth defects. He assured
members that the intent was not to use surveillance.
Ms. Birch interjected that the word "surveillance" is used
as a public health term and is one of the four functions of
public health. The intention is to determine how large the
statewide problem is by having a methodology.
4:24:42 PM
Representative Hawker pointed out an additional provision in
the bill, which could solve some problems. The Department
proposed that Subsection G be deleted and asked if that had
happened. Ms. Birch replied that in the House Labor and
Commerce version, on Page 5, Lines 15-19, there was wording
in the original bill, discussing how the Department would
track any newborns needing financial support. She clarified
that the payment methodology was established in a recently
revised Medicaid manual. It would not be feasible for the
Department to take on the reimbursement costs to the
hospitals.
Representative Hawker asked if Subsection G had been
eliminated from the bill. Ms. Birch affirmed.
4:26:47 PM
Representative Hawker suggested that the fiscal note should
indicate removal of that language.
Co-Chair Meyer requested a more detailed budget outline
starting with FY08.
4:27:35 PM
Representative Holm asked if there would there be savings at
some point, noting it was not indicated in the fiscal note.
4:29:02 PM
Representative Ramras appreciated the remarks. He stated
that if the birth defect condition were caught early, the
State would be able to mitigate some hearing loss to
diminish the severity and cognitive development of the young
child. By the time the child hits school age, they become
a problem of the State of Alaska through one mechanism or
another. He believed that there would be a positive fiscal
note showing savings to the State at some point.
4:30:40 PM
Ms. Birch advised that it had not been reflected in the
fiscal note, however, she had looked at Medicaid claims for
children who had received treatment in FY03 and FY04. There
were a total of 946 recipients with an average cost of $582
dollars each. The number compares to about $760 dollars
each in FY02. The preliminary review indicates that if
caught early, treatment dollars required for these children
would decrease.
Representative Holm thought that information should be
reflected in the fiscal note.
Representative Ramras commented that they could work on that
as the bill makes its way to the other body.
4:33:16 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze suggested the note indicate
indeterminate.
Representative Hawker referenced Page 5, Lines 12-19,
stating that the parent could opt out of the procedure if it
conflicts with a religious tenet of that family. He warned
that language could deny a parent the right to object on
grounds other than religious.
4:34:59 PM
Representative Ramras stated there was no disagreement in
modifying that language. The verbiage was lifted from
regulations in the Newborn Metabolic Screening.
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment
#1, Page 5, Line 15, following "religious" adding language
"or other". There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 109 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 109 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal note by the
Department of Health & Social Services, a new indeterminate
note by the Department of Education & Early Development and
a new zero note by the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development.
4:37:00 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 225
An Act relating to medical examiners and medical death
examinations.
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL MCGUIRE, SPONSOR, noted that last year
alone, there were nearly 1,100 cases filed with the State of
Alaska's medical examiner's office. All of the cases
require responsibilities ranging from autopsies,
administrative duties and legal responsibilities. With such
a sizeable caseload, one more medical examiner is needed.
The one State medical examiner has been stretched thin with
the caseload. Currently autopsies are required only when
the death was suspicious or if there was a crime involved.
When forced to pick and choose cases, something could be
overlooked in the remaining cases that did not receive
needed attention. Additional consideration needs to be
given to what happens if medical examiners became ill or for
any reason cannot fulfill their duties.
Representative McGuire continued that the position of the
State medical examiner is a critical function in the State
and has a tremendous responsibility. The fact that there is
such as large caseload for only one medical examiner has
become a growing concern for policy makers, law enforcement
officials and the community. Under current State law, the
commissioner of Department of Health & Social Services is
required to appoint only a medical examiner. HB 225 would
require that the commissioner appoint both a chief medical
examiner and a deputy medical examiner to share the
extensive workload.
4:40:47 PM
OFFICER MIKE COUTURIER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
VICE-PRESIDENT, ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE, voiced the Department's need and
support for a new deputy medical examiner. There is an
operative margin for first time responders for the City of
Anchorage and the State at large. He urged the Committee's
support.
4:44:40 PM
DR. DON ROGERS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CORONER,
ANCHORAGE, spoke in support of the bill. He pointed out
that when the function was shifted from the Court System to
the Department of Health & Social Services, the coroners
were instructed to do less; they, at that time, were doing
more autopsies than anyone in the country. He pointed out
that until an autopsy is performed, the family does not know
whether it is needed or not. He added that he performs
approximately 25 autopsies per year; most are people that
die suddenly and/or unexpectedly. He recommended that there
needs to be a change of policy within the Department of
Health & Social Services and the bill would help to address
that policy. He urged support of the legislation.
4:47:01 PM
Representative Hawker indicated that the subcommittee had
attempted for two years to get the funding into the budget
for the position. He noted that the House had included the
$100 thousand dollar funding, however, it did not survive
the Senate.
4:47:47 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the fiscal note does not
indicate the request in the 2006 budget. He noted for the
record that the House intends to fund the position and that
it will be addressed in Conference Committee.
4:48:44 PM
Co-Chair Chenault commented that it is a justifiable
position and that the Legislature should mandate that the
Department's commissioner to address it.
Co-Chair Meyer suggested the note be modified.
Representative Hawker did not think the bill should require
additional personnel.
4:50:29 PM
Representative McGuire agreed with the comments of
Representative Hawker. If the Department wanted to pull
someone from within the ranks and make them deputy medical
examiner, that could work. She noted that it was not the
intent to micromanage the Division.
4:51:36 PM
Representative Hawker recommended that the note as written,
suits the system.
Representative Kelly agreed it should be addressed, however,
cautioned that the language should indicate the Committee's
intent.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 225 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HB 225 was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with zero note #1 by the Department of
Health & Social Services.
4:53:08 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 210
An Act relating to blood testing of certain persons
alleged to have committed certain offenses directed
toward peace officers or emergency workers.
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL MCGUIRE, SPONSOR, stated that HB 210
takes policies and procedures for testing for blood borne
pathogen exposure to correctional officers that was passed
rd
by the 23 Alaskan Legislature and expands it to include
peace officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians
and mobile paramedics.
The bill first establishes procedures for determining if the
first responders were exposed to blood borne pathogens in
the course of their work. Once it is reasonably concluded
that such exposure has occurred, the bill sets procedures
for obtaining the consent of the person who exposed the
first responder to have their blood tested. These
procedures protect the identity of the person tested and
pass on only the results of the test to the first responder
exposed to the blood borne pathogens. The results of the
test are also passed on to the person tested.
Representative McGuire noted that the bill also provides
procedures for court ordered testing of the person who
exposed the first responder to blood borne pathogens if that
person refuses to be tested. The bill does not enact any
new policies or procedures for blood borne pathogen testing.
4:54:40 PM
Representative McGuire continued comments. She referenced
Page 4, Section 3, which is the area that has been most
questionable. She thought that the process had been well
thought out. The definition of a juvenile offender can be
found in Title 47: "A delinquent minor is someone under the
age of 18 and who is determined by the Court to be a
delinquent minor as a result of violating criminal law of
the State of municipality".
4:56:40 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if there was any ambiguity between
a juvenile and a delinquent minor. Representative McGuire
stated there was not.
4:58:34 PM
OFFICER MIKE COUTURIER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
VICE-PRESIDENT, ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE, spoke in support of the legislation.
The bill would provide for the testing of an officer and the
individual exposed. The provisions follow those from other
states.
5:00:02 PM
Co-Chair Chenault questioned if probation officers are
included under the definition of Peace Officers.
Representative McGuire stated that language on Page 7, Lines
4-8, indicates they would be covered.
Representative Holm inquired if officers would be required
to be tested. Representative McGuire did not think that any
officer had refused to be tested.
5:02:11 PM
Officer Couturier explained that the policy was testing for
exposure to bodily fluids. He pointed out that HIV testing
actually takes 72 hours and that he could not imagine a
police office refusing the test.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 210 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 210 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero note #1 by the Alaska
Court System, zero note #2 by the Department of Corrections,
zero note #3 by the Department of Law and zero note #4 by
the Department of Public Safety.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:06 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|