Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/23/1996 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
January 23, 1996
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 30
"An Act relating to a dress code for public schools."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 339
"An Act relating to the termination of parental rights of
incarcerated parents."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 60
"An Act relating to impairment rating guides used in evaluation of
certain workers' compensation claims."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 30
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL DRESS CODES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS,Rokeberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 28 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 28 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 28 (H) STA, HES
02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/09/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/23/95 463 (H) STA RPT 1DP 1DNP 3NR
02/23/95 463 (H) DP: ROBINSON
02/23/95 463 (H) DNP: OGAN
02/23/95 463 (H) NR: JAMES, PORTER, WILLIS
02/23/95 463 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
02/23/95 463 (H) REFERRED TO HES
02/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/95 550 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
01/23/96 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 339
SHORT TITLE: TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF PRISONERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG,Mulder
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/08/95 1976 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/08/95 1976 (H) HES, STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/23/96 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 60
SHORT TITLE: IMPAIRMENT RATING GUIDES FOR WORKERS COMP
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS
JRN-PAGE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 36 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 36 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 36 (H) L&C, HES, FIN
03/22/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/22/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/24/95 888 (H) L&C RPT 4DP 3NR
03/24/95 888 (H) DP: ROKEBERG,ELTON,KUBINA,PORTER
03/24/95 889 (H) NR: KOTT, MASEK, SANDERS
03/24/95 889 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LABOR, ADM)
03/24/95 889 (H) REFERRED TO HES
01/23/96 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JONATHAN SPERBER, Legislative Aide
to Representative Bettye Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 430
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3875
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement for HB 30 and HB 60
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 430
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3875
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 30
NANCY BUELL, Director
Teacher and Learning Support
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-8689
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 30
NICLOLE LUCK, Student
Lathrop High School
P.O. Box 72766
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 452-1171
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 30
PEGGY THOMAS
9208 Long Run Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3608
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 339
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 339
TOBY STEINBERGER, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Department of Law
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
Telephone: (907) 269-5100
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 60
GEOFF BULLOCK, Lobbyist
Alaska State Medical Association
201 North Franklin Street, No. 2
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5860
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 60
GARREY PESKA, Lobbyist
Alaska State Hospital & Nursing Home Association
P.O. Box 240185
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Telephone: (907) 364-2244
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 60
PAUL GROSSI, Director
Division of Workers' Compensation
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 25512
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5512
Telephone: (907) 465-2790
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 60
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-3, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
was called to order by Co-Chair Toohey. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Toohey, Bunde, and Rokeberg. A
quorum was not present. Co-Chair Toohey announced the calendar for
today's meeting was HB 339, Terminate Parental Rights of Prisoners;
HB 30, Dress Code for Public Schools; and HB 60, Impairment Rating
Guides For Workers' Compensation. Co-Chair Toohey said the meeting
was being teleconferenced.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted that Representatives Brice and Gary Davis
joined the meeting at 3:02 p.m. A quorum was present to conduct
business.
HB 30 - SCHOOL DRESS CODES
Number 140
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Jonathan Sperber to come forward to testify
and noted that Representative Bettye Davis, Sponsor of HB 30, was
on teleconference.
Number 189
JONATHAN SPERBER, Legislative Aide to Representative Betty Davis,
read brief introductory statements from Representative Davis'
sponsor statement and other materials regarding House Bill 30,
which would provide for a dress code for public school students.
He said it had been noted that the adoption of a optional school-
wide uniform policy is a reasonable and economical way to provide
protection for students without taking teachers away from their
normal duties. This legislation would also put parents in position
to choose the type of clothing they think is most suitable for
their child and their child's school environment. This legislation
grows out from the belief that we live in an increasingly more
violent society and any steps that a school district can take to
protect its students deserves careful consideration by the
legislature. He emphasized the dress code would be completely
optional under this legislation; no student would be forced to
comply. The dress code policy would not be implemented without
less than a six month notice to allow students sufficient time to
purchase uniforms.
MR. SPERBER noted that Representative Davis had stated in
constituent correspondence that as a legislator, she has had the
opportunity to travel widely throughout the United States. She was
appalled at the violence that is spreading out from blighted urban
centers, and she believes that any steps a school district can take
to protect its students should be seriously considered. Mr.
Sperber referred to an article from an issue of last month's
Sacramento newspaper in which U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno,
spoke very positively of the Long Beach School District having
recently adopted a uniform policy. The article further stated
shortly after the policy was adopted, fighting dropped by more than
half from the previous year, suspensions went down 32 percent,
while crime and fighting generally were down 36 percent. Attorney
General Reno said she was convinced that uniforms can make a big
difference. He next referred to a letter from the Office of the
Superintendent of the Long Beach School District which stated that
in evaluating these programs, "the district found that use of
school uniforms enhanced school safety, improved the learning
environment, reduced ethnic and racial tensions, bridged
socioeconomic differences between children, promoted good behavior,
improved children's self-respect and self-esteem, and produced cost
savings for participating families. Schools with greater
compliance levels tended to enjoy commensurately better results."
The Long Beach School District recommended, as Representative Davis
has with this legislation, that each school develop incentives and
positive enforcement measures to encourage full compliance with
uniform policy, should it be adopted by a school district. In
conclusion, Mr. Sperber said Lawrence Wiget, Governmental Liaison
for the Anchorage School District, was scheduled to testify but had
anticipated that HB 30 would be the second bill heard by the
committee. If at the conclusion of public testimony for HB 30, Mr.
Wiget had not yet arrived, Mr. Sperber requested that he be allowed
to read into the record a paragraph from Mr. Wiget's position
statement.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted that Representative Robinson arrived at 3:04
p.m.
Number 478
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he was not in any disagreement with
Representative Davis' attempt. He thought how people dressed had
a direct impact on their behavior. He referred to the voluntary
compliance provision and said he thought the committee should hear
from school administrators and school children and encouraged the
sponsor to get some feedback from the people affected by this bill.
Representative Bunde said when he thinks of uniforms, he envisions
the entire school dressing the same, for the purpose of removing
gang tagging and violence, ego involvement in fashions, etc. He
asked if his understanding was correct that under this legislation
some children may be wearing uniforms and some children may not.
Number 572
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS, Sponsor, testified via teleconference.
She stated this was not the first hearing on this legislation and
there had been previous testimony from school children. She also
noted that in the past students coming to Juneau from the Close-Up
program had reviewed this legislation. She added this is the
second committee of referral, not the first.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS emphasized the word voluntary and said that
school districts are not mandated. She pointed out we are not
passing legislation that would say that every school district has
to adopt a dress code. It would be left up to the district to
decide if they wanted to adopt it as a blanket school district
policy or if they wanted to allow each school to make that
decision. Representative B. Davis noted we are moving now toward
site-based management where the decision would be left up to the
principal, students and parents to decide what the code of dress
would be for that particular school. So if the school decided to
adopt it, then every student that went to that school would have
certain colors they would wear. Based on her experience from
places she has visited, it also helps develop a great sense of
pride in the school. Representative Davis' sister works at a
school that adopted this policy last year, and it is highly praised
by both the teachers and parents. It has cut down on the amount of
money parents have to spend on clothes, and it reduced the
competition for designer clothes, etc. The students wear uniforms
three days a week which could be pants, skirts, dresses, but they
have only certain colors that can to be worn; the next day the
students wear their school colors; and the following day, which was
always Friday, they are allowed to dress down in whatever they
choose. She said that is just an example of how one district has
implemented the dress code.
Number 730
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS said currently some school districts
don't require students to attend the school in their attendance
area. He asked if there were any studies available that indicated
if a school district gained or lost students when a dress code was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS responded she has never seen any
information regarding that, but her feeling is that the effect
would not be that great for the school district or the school,
itself.
Number 810
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he was familiar with the San Diego school
system as he had talked with them when he had a bill regarding
school violence. He noted San Diego solved their problem by
getting rid of lockers and backpacks. He questioned whether Alaska
was at the point where dress codes needed to be addressed or were
we trying to get ahead of the problem and solve it before it got
here. He asked Representative Bettye Davis if she had a
recommendation as far as it being K-12 or K-6, with more options
available at the high school level.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said she thought it might be more
appropriate for K-6; however, there was nothing in this legislation
that would prohibit a high school from adopting a dress code if
they chose to do so. In reference to Co-Chair Bunde's comment
regarding whether or not Alaska was getting ahead of the violence
and related activities going on in their school districts, she
commented that several years ago they were trying to determine if
gangs existed in the Anchorage area. At that time everyone thought
gangs were not present in Alaska, but as everyone is aware there
are lots of gangs in the city now. She said everything that is
done is for the protection of the children and she didn't think it
was too early to start. She commented there is already at least
one site-based school in the Anchorage School District and some of
the school districts are moving in that direction where there will
be a lot more decisions made not only by the school
superintendents, but also the principals, parents and students of
the individual schools.
Number 938
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented that as a child she attended school in
uniforms all the time, and didn't find them offensive at all,
because there was no other choice. She asked Representative B.
Davis if there was anything in the law or regulations that
prohibits this from being done now.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS responded there probably isn't anything
that would keep a school from doing so except the school board,
because they do have some autonomy and they can set a lot of things
up. She felt this was a good way to show they, as state
representatives, are interested in the schools and do care about
what kind of education our children get.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that Mr. Wiget had not yet arrived and asked
Mr. Sperber if he wished to read the statement from Mr. Wiget.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she had just spoken with Mr. Wiget and the
Anchorage School District has absolutely no problem with this
legislation.
Number 1031
NANCY BUELL, Director, Teacher and Learning Support, Department of
Education, said she wanted to address the aspect of prohibiting
certain articles of clothing, and added the Department of Education
is generally supportive of the legislation. Ms. Buell commented
the Executive Director of the Secondary Principals' Association had
recently indicated to her that he had received the department-
mandated student rights and responsibilities documents and
according to his observation it does include dress code. It
generally speaks to prohibited items of dress. Anything to
strengthen that would be welcomed and would be helping promote the
safety of children. She said many of the problems do break out
over slogans on T-shirts, caps, jackets, and other things worn by
students that are associated with social persuasions, points of
view or gangs.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY verified there is nothing in current law that says
we can't do this.
MS. BUELL responded there is nothing in law that states we can't do
this. She added there probably isn't anything in the law that
specifically says we can mandate uniforms, but that would be a
matter of board policy. She agreed with previous statements that
there is plenty of research which indicated that it does tend to
promote a more harmonious climate of less violence.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Buell to address the First Amendment
problems and/or religious freedom problems as they related to the
prohibited items. He noted that while it isn't a large issue in
Alaska, there are sects that choose to have their children dressed
in a certain way.
MS. BUELL said there had been some research of legal issues on this
issue. They have not arisen over dress primarily, but over hair
length, sideburns and beards, which along with arm bands, tend to
be associated with freedom of speech. The courts have given a lot
of support to administrators and teachers, especially in the last
decade, for trying to do whatever they can to make the atmosphere
more safe. Even limiting dress has generally been supported. She
was not aware of any case, where it hadn't been supported.
Religious dress is highly supported among young people, although
not necessarily so for teachers. Dress codes for teachers is a
whole different issue.
Number 1213
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked if there was anything that
needed to be put into this legislation to allow for site specific,
where a school could make the determination. Or, would it have to
be from the school board who would set a policy and then each
school would determine whether or not they wanted to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said when schools go into what is referred
to site-based management, the management of the school (indisc.)
down to the principal, the council, the board and the decisions are
made at that level, so the overall school board would not be making
that mandate; it would be left up to the schools. She said there
wouldn't have to be anything in the bill to specify that a site-
based management school could do it on their own, because they
already have the privilege to do so.
Number 1270
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE said his concerns regarding the bill
revolved around First Amendment issues, like Representative Bunde
brought up. He noted, however, that the bill does allow the
parents to exclude their children from the dress code. It also
ensures that school districts implement some type of policy whereby
a parent could, if for religious reasons, have their children
dressed how they wanted.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she didn't see any need for this bill. This
is already being done at the school district level.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS agreed, but said the reason she introduced
the legislation was because of her concern and involvement. She
felt the legislature should be doing everything they could to show
their support for the issue and there may be some schools who
haven't done it even though they have the authority. This could be
a motivating factor for some of them to actually do it. She does
not feel this is wasted legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS said Representative Bettye Davis had just
indicated that a single site school would have the authority to
impose a dress code, yet the first words of the legislation state
"a governing body may adopt"....
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said it would be a governing body. When
the school board passes business down to site-based, then a
governing body exists. The governing body is made up of the
principal and the council they choose, (indisc.) sit on the council
would be equivalent to a school board and they decide how their
money will be spent, etc.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he agreed with Representative B. Davis.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she would like to finish the teleconference
testimony and then the committee could wrap up their discussion on
the bill. She asked Niclole Luck to testify.
Number 1444
NICLOLE LUCK, Student, testified in support of HB 30. She said
while Alaska may not be as problematic as Long Beach or some of the
other larger cities, she agreed a dress code is something that
should be advocated if it helps avoid or defray the problems and
could help to keep students safer.
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS asked Ms. Luck if she had seen any
indication in her school district that a dress code had been
discussed in the last couple of years.
MS. LUCK responded there are certain things. For example,
supposedly students can't wear bandannas, but it is not enforced at
all. At least she has never seen any enforcement of it.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Ms. Luck what high school she attended
and what brought her down to testify on this legislation.
MS. LUCK replied Lathrop High and they are tracking bills in their
government class.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE encouraged Ms. Luck to contact his office if
there was any information she needed.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he shared Co-Chair Toohey's concern that this
bill was not necessary, other than to perhaps provide an armor for
the school boards in that he felt the school boards would take a
lot of heat if they proposed the legislation. Personally, he would
like to hear from more students and parents in his district before
he moved forward on the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he appreciated the bill and thought it
did two things. He felt it created the public debate on the issue
at the state level to increase the awareness within the public
about the pros and cons of a dress code. Also, he thought it
clarified the statutes as to whether or not it is allowed. The
statutes are not absolutely clear one way or another as to which
way a school district can go. By putting the law on the books, he
thought some of the murky waters on the issue would be clarified.
While school districts may be able to implement a dress code, it is
not clear how they would fare in court if they were challenged on
the legality of whether or not school districts had the power. He
pointed out this legislation would give the school districts that
power and would start the public debate.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY thanked Representative Davis for her comments and
said it was not her intention to move the bill out of committee
today.
HB 339 - TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF PRISONERS
Number 1693
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Representative Rokeberg to give his sponsor
statement on HB 339.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said because of the technical nature of
this bill, he would read his sponsor statement to clarify the issue
and make sure committee members had read the statement. He stated
this particular bill is an act relating to the termination of
parental rights of incarcerated parents. HB 339 gives the courts
the authority to consider incarceration in child custody cases
dealing with termination of parental rights. Currently, the courts
do not have the statutory authority to do this. HB 339 will allow
the courts to look at a parent's imprisonment, whether the length
of the prison term will include a significant portion of the
child's minority, and to consider whether or not the parent has
failed to make adequate provisions for the care of the child during
the prison term. Now if a parent is in prison for 10 or 15 years
and parental rights have not been terminated, the child can linger
in a foster home for years without any sense of permanency and
belonging. This legislation will let the courts look at the effect
on the relationship when a parent is in prison and ultimately, give
them a tool to make custody decisions for children.
Number 1766
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued that in order to terminate
parental rights, the courts have the burden of proof of showing
that the youth is a Child in Need of Aid (CINA) as a result of
parental conduct, and that conduct is likely to continue to exist.
Alaska Statute 47.10.010 says that the court may order the state to
assume custody of a minor who is found to be a child in need of aid
as a result of the child having no parent, guardian, custodian, or
relative willing to provide care, including physical abandonment.
The courts said in the A.M. v. State of Alaska case that "the
destruction must be brought about by the acts of the parent, and in
order to constitute abandonment, the acts of the parent must be
willful." Representative Rokeberg pointed out that being sent to
prison does not, by itself, qualify as willful abandonment, which
is a key point.
Number 1804
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the courts have explicitly asked the
legislature to amend the statutes to cover situations where parents
are in prison. The first time was in 1991 in Nada A. v. State.
Last year, Alaska State Supreme Court Justice Compton again
reiterated his request for legislative relief in A.M. v. State of
Alaska. Representative Rokeberg urged committee members to look at
this legislation and give it consideration.
Number 1820
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the last sentence on page 29 of
the first excerpt from court opinions contained in committee member
packets which states, "In Nada A., I urged the Alaska Legislature
to define more clearly the effect of incarceration on parental
rights. I do so again." He then directed committee members to the
highlighted areas on page 442 of the Pacific Reporter, 2d Series,
where Justice Compton is quoted as saying, "I urge the legislature
to amend AS 47.10.080(c)(3) so that parental rights may be
terminated when a parent destroys the parent-child relationship by
willfully committing a crime and failing to make adequate
provisions for the care of the child during a period of
incarceration." He pointed out the two letters of support
contained in the bill packet.
Number 1928
PEGGY THOMAS testified she had been a foster parent for 12 years
and presently has the children referred to in A.M. v. State of
Alaska in her custody. They have been in her custody for five
years. She said that Mark and Samantha first came to her attention
in July 1990 when their father needed to serve two week-ends in
jail and he requested the state of Alaska to take custody of them
while he was serving his time because he had no relatives to care
for them and their mother was unable to do so. They first became
her foster children in 1990 for the two week-ends. In September
1990, the state assumed care of them again when their father was
arrested for sexual abuse of a minor and theft in the second
degree. It was at this time that Mark and Samantha came into her
care full time. The father was subsequently sentenced to ten years
of incarceration with one year suspended, for a total of nine years
to serve. She explained that means five years in jail and he will
be out of jail on May 14. She said that Mark and Samantha came to
live with her in February 1991 when Samantha was 18-months old and
Mark had just turned 4 years old. Mark began calling her mom about
that time because he obviously needed someone in his life to fill
that role. She commented the children often have phone contact
with their birth mother, who currently lives out of state. There
is a court order by their father for the children to contact him
weekly. She explained that is done because he is serving his time
in Palmer, so every Saturday morning the children have telephone
contact with their father.
MS. THOMAS pointed out that Mark and Samantha have grown up in her
home and she is the only mother that Samantha knows. She does,
however, know she has another mother and she knows her father. The
mother has relinquished her parental rights and has no problem with
Ms. Thomas adopting the children. On the other hand, the father
wants his children back when he gets out of jail. The father had
entered into the sex offender treatment program at Hiland Mountain,
but dropped out because it was too difficult for him. So he is an
untreated sex offender. Ms. Thomas said she wished this
legislation was in effect at this time so the judge could make a
decision that the father is incarcerated, his behavior has not
changed and most likely will not change. He has had a history
since he was a juvenile and it seems likely that it will continue.
The children have become part of her family. Mark feels a loyalty
to his father and really doesn't know where he fits in to the
pattern. It affects him the most because he is the oldest and
remembers being with his mom and dad. Samantha, on the other hand,
is more stable because she has grown up in the Thomas home for five
years, which is the majority of her life.
MS. THOMAS informed the committee they still do not have a decision
from Judge Carpeneti as to the termination of the father's parental
rights. She said at this time she doesn't know if the children
will be living with her nor do the children know if they will be
sent back to live with their father. She felt the Division of
Family & Youth Services would not allow that to happen, but they
don't know at this time. She emphasized the children want
permanency and have both started using Thomas as their last name on
their own.
Number 2117
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that because of the sexual abuse, the
Division of Family & Youth Services would intervene, so even when
the father gets out of jail, the children will still be in limbo.
MS. THOMAS agreed that it will continue on for awhile, because they
are not going to give the children back right away.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG thanked Ms. Thomas for her testimony and
acknowledged her difficult situation.
Number 2150
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section,
Department of Law, testified that her duties were to represent
social workers, Child in Need of Aid cases, and sometimes
termination cases. She was the attorney that represented the A.M.
v. State of Alaska case, which went to the Supreme Court in 1995.
She said this is an excellent example, and hopefully the worst
example, of how complicated a case can get when you are working
with this legal fiction that because the person is in jail, and
since that's an involuntary act, we have to sort of pretend they
are not in jail and look at conduct other than the conduct leading
up to what got them into jail or the conduct they had in caring for
their children before they got to jail. She said the court
constantly focuses on what a person's parental conduct is, which is
a good thing to focus on because you should always look at how a
person's conduct can affect their ability to raise their child.
She said it seemed to her in this case, and she argued this at the
Supreme Court level, that the conduct in committing the act itself
that lead to the incarceration, which obviously was voluntarily,
was in itself a conscious disregard of a parental obligation. If
there is a likelihood of a person committing a very serious crime,
for example, sexual abuse of a minor, and gets caught it will
result in incarceration for a lengthy period of time. That means
an absent father or mother in that child's life. She stated in
this case they were not able to argue that this man had five years
or more to spend in jail, which was a very significant portion and
a very important part of these young children's lives.
MS. RUTHERDALE pointed out this case has become very complicated.
She said the trial was in the fall 1992, the court didn't rule on
it until August 1993. It was argued before the Supreme Court in
March 1994, and even though the rules say that it is expedited in
children's cases, a decision was not issued until February 1995
which was almost a year later. It was remanded - they didn't lose.
The Supreme Court said the court needed to re-look at it. The
remand hearing was in May 1995, and the court has still not ruled.
She commented there is a hearing on Friday, January 26, to deal
with a very minor issue. Once that issue is dealt with, the case
can go various ways from there. She said there is no question that
whatever way the court rules, it will be appealed again. If the
state loses, they will appeal; if the father loses, he will appeal.
No one has any idea how long it will take after that and in the
meantime, these children are getting older and need some permanency
in their life.
Number 2293
MS. RUTHERDALE said this legislation is a very important step
toward freeing children for adoption. She expressed concern with
two different areas of the bill. She referred to subsection 1,
line 9, "(1) parent is incarcerated as the result of a voluntary
act committed by the parent;" and reiterated that a person can
never be incarcerated for a crime without it being a voluntary act.
A person could be in jail on a 24-hour intoxication hold, but that
would not result in someone seeking to terminate parental rights on
that basis. She commented she knew this was put in the bill
because the court says going to jail is an involuntary act, and we
have to look at voluntary conduct. She said the concern is that
perhaps it would muddy the issue.
TAPE 96-3, SIDE B
Number 004
MS. RUTHERDALE added that since all people in jail, having been
convicted of a criminal act, by nature it has to be a voluntary
act, it may not make a difference one way or another. She referred
to subsection (2), "period of incarceration imposed includes a
significant portion of the child's minority;" and said the thought
behind that is for example, if the father of a 15-year-old goes to
jail for two years, it is not that big of a deal because the child
knows who his/her father is, the attachments have been formed and
it would probably do more harm to have the parental rights
terminated than for the child to wait those two years out in state
custody, if need be. On the other hand, in Samantha's case where
she was 18-months-old when she first went into state custody, five
years is a lifetime for a child. It is so important for the
children to have that permanency. The basic thought is that it is
sort of a sliding scale: as they are younger, a less period of time
is more significant; as they are older, a greater period of time
could be tolerated. Last week someone in Ms. Rutherdale's office
who deals with legislation, pointed out it is possible that a court
could read that a different way to say that if a child is two-
years-old and he/she has 16 years before reaching majority, a for
year period of incarceration is a small part of that 16 years. She
pointed out it could almost be read that the older the child is,
the more significant it becomes because it is a greater proportion
of the amount of time left in the child's minority.
Number 085
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Ms. Rutherdale thought that any judge in
his right mind would return a child to a single parent who doesn't
have a job, and is a convicted, untreated sex offender.
MS. RUTHERDALE said she didn't think any judge would do that, but
it doesn't solve the whole problem of foster care.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented that the bill would be going to the
Judiciary Committee next and suggested that Ms. Rutherdale explore
the various possibilities with that committee.
MS. RUTHERDALE said she was certainly willing to work with the
committee and she thought a lot of it was policy call.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked how many cases in Alaska would fall under the
purview of this statute.
MS. RUTHERDALE responded in terms of termination of parental
rights, it is a very drastic measure and isn't done that
frequently. She noted that while she did not have statistics
available for Anchorage, she thought with the larger population in
Anchorage it was probably much more common there. Her colleagues
in Anchorage have indicated they would like to have the bill
changed because they have run into the problem. She added that it
could be perhaps five to ten cases in the last ten years, somewhere
in that range.
Number 171
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he agreed with Ms. Rutherdale's
colleagues regarding the language in subsection (2) and thought Ms.
Rutherdale's testimony conflicted with the way he read it.
MS. RUTHERDALE commented that is the problem.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he would read it that a child who was 15
years of age and only had three more years to majority, two years
would be a significant portion of that child's minority. He asked
what kind of incarceration would not be as a result of a voluntary
act.
MS. RUTHERDALE said that is just the point. She added a person can
be jailed if found drunk on the street and there's no room at the
alcohol facility, or an unruly person who needs to be incarcerated
to be protected from others. In those situations, it would be 24
hours of incarceration at the most. In response to Representative
Vezey's question, she said there really isn't any.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said subparagraph (3) seemed to conflict with
some of the testimony that was given.
MS. RUTHERDALE said the law states that if there is a relative who
is willing and able to care for the child, then the child is not a
child in need of aid. She said she could envision a situation
where the child was placed with the mother, and the parental rights
in that situation obviously could not be terminated. Or there could
be a situation where the mother is out of the picture, and the
child is placed with the grandmother. That would be okay under the
current law. The problem of foster care drift is not present if
the child is with a private arrangement. The state is not involved
and foster care is not involved. On the other hand, with foster
care, there will always be foster care parents who can't deal with
a situation, and then the child has to be transferred.
Number 269
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that doesn't address the problem she
mentioned earlier of the sex offender who had not undergone sex
offender treatment. He thought subparagraph (3) would be a
loophole around that.
MS. RUTHERDALE responded that was true, it would be. She added but
if the parent went to reclaim that child from the grandmother, the
state could step in at that point and place the child back with the
grandmother.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what kind of conduct was referred to on
line 6. He assumed it was an act relating to the incarceration.
MS. RUTHERDALE explained there is another section already in
existence; that being (c)(3) which states that you have to find
that a child is a child in need of aid as a result of parental
conduct, and the courts are saying for purposes of parental
conduct, they can meet that finding if they find these things. It
can be looked at one way as sort of an exception to that general
rule that you have to find parental conduct. The legislature is
saying the court can find parental conduct if these three
provisions are satisfied. She said, "Another way to look at it I
suppose is that parental conduct is the act, the voluntary act in
subparagraph (1), the voluntary act that results in incarceration
is the conduct." That is what the Supreme Court has said. She
said they are not going to read that into the statute. If that is
what is meant, it will have to be spelled out.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the proposed bill says that the
parent's criminal conduct is likely to continue if parental rights
are not terminated. He commented that didn't make any sense to
him.
MS. RUTHERDALE agreed and said she thought it was to prove that the
conduct that got the person into jail in the first place is likely
to continue. You would have to show the person is not
rehabilitated. For example, if a sex offender in jail is not going
through sex offender treatment, the prospects of rehabilitation are
really poor, so his conduct is likely to continue.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to subparagraph (3) "parent has
failed to make adequate provisions for care of the child during the
period of incarceration" and noted that Ms. Rutherdale had said
adequate provisions for child care is a family member. He asked if
that implicitly says foster care is inadequate.
MS. RUTHERDALE said no, but the foster care implies state action
whereas subparagraph (3) implies private action.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how.
MS. RUTHERDALE replied because the parent on their own is making
adequate provisions. She said she may be reading something in to
it, but to call the Division of Family & Youth Services and ask
them to get your child is not an adequate provision. She thought
it should be clarified more that the parent has failed to make
adequate provisions, which would include guardianship with a person
who is suitable to care for the child.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he understood the past program of the state has
been to return a child to their natural parents at all costs, even
if it costs the child. He referred to Co-Chair Toohey's earlier
example and said he disagreed in that he thought the courts have
put children back in the custody of untreated sex offenders. He
limited his previous statement to say that the past state program
has been to return children to their natural parents as much as
possible.
MS. RUTHERDALE said that was right.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE inquired with regard to foster care if there wasn't
a state limitation that only allows a person to care for a child
for so long, it was not to be considered an adoption, and not to
even try to adopt. He asked if that was still a program.
MS. RUTHERDALE said in the case of Ms. Thomas, she was strictly a
foster parent in the beginning, but as time went on and the
decision to terminate parental rights was made, she was looked to
as a permanent placement. So, it can change. She said foster
parents may be told not to get attached to these children. But
psychologically, Ms. Thomas has to protect herself for that awful
day that may happen when she has to give them up.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he was asking if the laws have changed. He
noted that he and his wife had been foster parents in the past and
they were told it was temporary care and not to get attached.
MS. RUTHERDALE commented it was difficult for the children, as
well. Initially, the courts try to reunify the children with their
parents, but hopefully not at all costs. If that is not going to
work, then permanency is looked at and if termination and adoption
is an option, then that is pursued.
Number 569
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented she had a couple of cases in mind
that she wanted to make sure the individuals would testify at the
next hearing because it clearly has happened. She said quite often
what happens is that if the mother is still in the picture, people
wouldn't even be looking to intervene. She illustrated a situation
where the father would get out of jail, the mother and father would
get back together again or the father becomes part of that life,
and there may be another assault, another victim, and the father
goes back to jail again. She commented this was kind of a unique
situation as there are actually two protective parents who are
trying to protect the child, although the mother had made the
determination to relinquish her parental rights. She said she is
aware of another foster care situation where the mother made a
determination to give up her parental rights, the father was in
jail for sexually assaulting the children, got out of jail and got
custody of the children again.
Number 599
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG thanked Ms. Rutherdale for her testimony
and said he had an amendment that corrected Section 1, and he would
be happy to work with her as the bill proceeds. He noted that Ms.
Thomas has an imminent date of May 14 and asked if passage of this
legislation would be helpful to her in her situation.
MS. RUTHERDALE said she thought it was unfortunately too late for
her.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the letter from Kathleen Weeks
in which she stated, "I have seen too many parents that desperately
wanted to adopt a child when the child was prevented from being
adopted by the potential future parenting of a birth parent in jail
for a long term sentence." He asked Ms. Rutherdale if she was
aware of circumstances where the potential of an adoption existed,
but the law is a barrier or an obstacle for that type of activity
to take place.
MS. RUTHERDALE asked if he was referring to a potential adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded affirmatively.
MS. RUTHERDALE said yes, that was right.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it was difficult to get good
statistics on how many people this really affected, because people
are cut off from even pursuing adoptions.
MS. RUTHERDALE said that was true and added she only works with
public adoptions and of course, there are a lot of private
adoptions, too.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to the issue of adequate provision
of care and commented there could be a situation where the only
option available to a parent would be to go to the state and ask
them for child care while the parent goes to jail. To her that
would be adequate care. She thought that section really needed to
be clarified.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she would return this bill to the sponsor for
additional work with Ms. Rutherdale. The bill could be brought
before the committee again. Co-Chair Toohey turned the gavel over
to Co-Chair Bunde for HB 60.
HB 60 - IMPAIRMENT RATING GUIDES FOR WORKERS COMP
Number 740
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said HB 60 was sponsored by Representative Bettye
Davis and asked Jonathan Sperber to present the bill.
JONATHAN SPERBER, Legislative Aide to Representative Bettye Davis,
said that House Bill 60 would provide that the Department of Labor
use the most recently published edition of the American Medical
Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment,
including the most recent supplementary materials in making
impairment rating determinations. He said this legislation is
supported by the medical community, the Department of Labor and
more specifically, the Workers' Compensation office. Mr. Sperber
referenced the Department of Labor's position paper available in
committee packets, which stated in part, "Allowing the use of the
current edition of the publication in effect at the time of the
impairment rating will reduce the need for Board hearings and
ensure that those applicants who meet current requirements will
qualify for benefits. The older version of the AMA guides do not
include some injury types and do not reflect current thinking on
degrees of injury given new medical technology and prognosis for
recovery." He directed the committee's attention to a letter in
their packet from Dr. Roy Schwarz who stated the AMA's position was
clearly stated on page 5 of the Guides 4th edition published in
June 1993. That position being "The American Medical Association
strongly discourages the use of any but the most recent edition of
the Guides, because the information in it would not be based on the
most recent and up-to-date material." Dr. Schwarz went on to say
in his letter that the position of the AMA quoted above reflects
advice that the AMA's staff provided in May 1992 to the staff of
each state medical society. Also, it is AMA's practice to sell or
provide only the most recent Guides edition.
MR. SPERBER read the following statement from Representative B.
Davis' sponsor statement: "There have been significant changes in
diagnostic and evaluation procedures over the six years. One of
the most important, that the Alaska Guide does not address is how
the injury affects the patient's daily activity." He noted that
Alaska regulations currently specify that the 1988 AMA guidelines
were to be used, although there has been a subsequent edition
published.
Number 910
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY inquired as to the cost of the Guides, including
the supplemental, and how often it is published.
MR. SPERBER said each new edition costs approximately $75. The
Division of Workers' Compensation requires three copies of the
latest edition. The last two editions published were the 3rd in
1988 and the 4th edition in 1993. He wasn't sure how much time
elapsed between the 1st and 2nd editions, and the 2nd and 3rd
editions, but noted there was at least a five year period between
the publication of the 3rd and 4th editions. Mr. Sperber said he
would defer the question regarding the cost of supplementary
materials to the representative from the Department of Labor.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented there were individuals in Anchorage
waiting to testify via teleconference.
Number 978
TOBY STEINBERGER, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Department of Law, said at the request of Paul Grossi,
Director, Worker's Compensation Division, she was available to
answer questions.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the regulations require the use of an outdated
version of the AMA Guide, but apparently there is a need for a
statutory change in order to use the current one. He asked Ms.
Steinberger if this legislation should reflect the ability to
update without having to come back for statutory changes.
Number 1010
MS. STEINBERGER responded it is the Department of Law's position
that under the current version of the statute when the new edition
is enforced or used, public notice has to be given. She commented
she is currently reviewing a proposed regulation which has already
been publicly noticed, adopting the 4th edition, 1994. After her
review, the proposed regulation will be sent to Deborah Behr,
Assistant Attorney General in the Legislation & Regulations Section
of the Department of Law. This proposed bill may eliminate the
need to adopt a new regulation each time there is a new edition of
the Guide.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said as he understood it, what was being requested
in the legislation could actually be accomplished now by statute,
but they were looking for a more efficient process.
MS. STEINBERGER said she thought the department, through
Representative B. Davis, was asking for the more efficient process,
but reiterated they are currently reviewing a proposed regulation
to adopt the 1994 edition.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY referred to the supplementary materials and asked
if the supplemental was updated every year and if they were made
available to the medical community and the public. She expressed
concern with a regulation like this being implemented and asked if
the hands of the Workers' Compensation Division would be tied if we
were not able to get the published edition of the 1994 edition or
the 1995 edition or the supplemental material.
MS. STEINBERGER responded the proposed regulations adopt the 1994
edition and she is not familiar with the supplementary materials.
Number 1129
MR. SPERBER said it was his understanding in terms of the
regulatory process, that under the current Department of Law
drafting procedures, a regulation could not be promulgated that
would have similar type wording as HB 60, but rather the far slower
and more cumbersome process would have to be followed. He said in
this case, about eight or nine months had now elapsed since the
request was placed with the Department of Labor to draft a
regulation which required use of the now current 4th edition of the
guidelines. He thought that Co-Chair Bunde was technically correct
in that a regulation could address what is being addressed by HB
60, however, doing so by regulation would be a far slower, more
awkward, inefficient process.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented it is somewhat frightening to think that
regulations take longer than statutory changes.
Number 1203
GEOFF BULLOCK, Lobbyist, Alaska State Medical Association,
testified the Alaska State Medical Association supports this
legislation. The association would like to see the updated
verbiage used in the statutes rather than through the regulation
process, in order to make it clearer. He noted he had just
received the copyright dates of the recent editions, which showed
there is anywhere from a few years to many years lapse between
editions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for verification of the fact there
were representatives of the industry, workmen's compensation
insurance businesses, that testified in support of this bill before
the House Labor & Commerce last year. He asked Mr. Bullock if that
would be a correct statement.
MR. BULLOCK responded he had not been at the hearing last year, but
noted that doctors at the state level seemed very supportive of it.
Number 1273
GARREY PESKA, Lobbyist, Alaska State Hospital & Nursing Home
Association, testified the Alaska State Hospital & Nursing Home
Association supports this legislation. The association would like
to see the most current Guideline be effective, rather than having
to go through the cumbersome process of changing regulations every
time there is a change in the Guidelines.
Number 1309
PAUL GROSSI, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor, testified the Department of Labor supports
this legislation primarily because they view it as a way of
streamlining the regulatory process. They think it is a way to get
an automatic adoption of the most current AMA Guides. The
department is required to do this anyway under the current law
because they are required to use the AMA Guides. The problem is it
requires a regulatory change every time there is a change in the
AMA Guide. While the regulatory process is long and cumbersome, he
doesn't know that it takes as long as a statutory change, but the
fact is once they have the statutory change, it will be there for
the duration. He pointed out the division had proposed regulations
to make it the most current Guide, but that process was started
last August. Mr. Grossi said he talked with representatives of the
AMA Guide last August and they indicated it would probably be
another two years before a new Guide would be in effect.
Number 1411
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Grossi if he thought "At the time
of rating" or similar language should be inserted at the beginning
on subsection (b) on line 5.
MR. GROSSI said he thought the current language would work fine.
He noted they could pass a regulation for an effective date which
would provide some lag time after the publishing, so the medical
community, insurance community, employers' groups, employees'
representatives, and the division could get copies of the most
recent edition. There would probably have to be a little bit of
lag time to allow that to occur.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON verified that Mr. Grossi didn't feel there
was a need for that language. She understood there were people who
thought this should be added.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS interjected it was her understanding based
on the information her staff received from Representative
Robinson's office that the request for the language change
originated from the Department of Labor.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON confirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said if the representative from the
Department of Labor had stated the language change is not needed,
then it is not needed.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Grossi to do some research on the issue
and get back to the committee.
MR. GROSSI replied the Department of Labor would do that.
Number 1524
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted there would be a lag time between the
publication of the new edition and the time it would be available
in offices in which the department would not be able to effect any
work.
MR. GROSSI said he wasn't exactly sure how it would be done. One
of the possibilities was to pass a regulation which stated that
quarterly, by way of a bulletin, the division would publish a
bulletin indicating the AMA Guides that would be in use during that
quarter. He reiterated this was just one possibility. It would be
simple in that it would require passing just one regulation and
that regulation could be used until the law changed.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY differed with Mr. Grossi in that a regulation
that conflicts with statute is not enforceable. He commented he
wasn't sure how to define "most recent published edition" and that
it may not be considered effective until you can reasonably receive
a copy of that edition. He emphasized there would be some lag time
involved.
MR. GROSSI said he agreed it would be difficult. If there was a
rating that was occurring in a doctor's office on the day the new
Guide was being published, there was no way they could possibly be
using the most recent published edition. He said there would have
to be a way to put it in effect and thought it would be relatively
simple to just have a three month lag time.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said an automatic way of handling it would be
to work with the material you have and if the effective date of the
new material was after your termination, an adjustment could be
made.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would like Mr. Grossi to address this lag
time issue before the next hearing on the bill.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY questioned whether the difference would be that
great. She said it didn't seem likely that technology was suddenly
going to develop something in a certain area that would totally
eliminate a person from workers' compensation.
MR. GROSSI interjected it was the most current science at a given
time and added that usually the changes are not dramatic. There
may be new research that comes out, but it was usually incremental
changes.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented on the zero fiscal note and asked if we
start using the new manual and it addresses how these definitions
would affect a person's normal life, is that likely to introduce a
large number of new clients into workers' compensation.
MR. GROSSI said it wouldn't change the number of clients in
workers' compensation. It would depend on the number of injuries
that occur. If there was a permanent partial impairment that was
ratable, then any given injured worker was entitled to a permanent
partial impairment rating.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE directed Mr. Grossi's attention to the sponsor
statement which states the new guide would now address how the
injury affects a patient's daily activity. He asked if Mr. Grossi
didn't anticipate that would significantly increase the number of
people on workers' compensation.
MR. GROSSi said he didn't see how it could. The number of people
on workers' comp is dependent on the number of injuries that occur.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that it would be defining the injury
differently. In other words, it wasn't defined as a workers' comp
injury prior to the new definition, but now it was.
MR. GROSSI didn't think it would have an effect. He said, "The
only possibility would be if there is some new science that came
out that would allow for a type of rating system that formerly they
didn't have the knowledge to do that, then that could possibly
happen."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Grossi to address this issue at the next
hearing.
MR. GROSSI said someone from the medical community would need to
address that.
Number 1844
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he wanted to clarify the effect of the
lag time. As he understood it, a physician would make a judgment
on the rating and depending on which edition that physician is
using, it could have an impact on the judgment of whether there was
coverage or not.
MR. GROSSI said it would depend. They would have to use a version
of the AMA Guide and the rating would have to occur according to
those guidelines.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said one could be out-of-date because of
the mail, and that is why it was important for the timing to be
precise. It could have an affect on a judgment which would result
in a dispute over whether there was coverage or not based on the
rating.
MR. GROSSI said it was important that it be established and thought
it could be done either through statute or regulation. it was
possible to have a regulation that would allow for some period of
lag time. He said it would need to be done that way to ensure that
the ratings would be done systematically.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Grossi wouldn't prefer to have
a specific statutory date certain, to avoid having to publish a
regulation.
MR. GROSSI responded the department would be happy if they didn't
have to adopt a regulation on this.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed the meeting to public testimony. He
reiterated the policy of the House HESS Committee to not pass
bills out of committee on first hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reminded committee members the language had
been changed from workmens' comp to workers' comp.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this bill will be held in committee for an
additional hearing.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced the Joint House/Senate HESS hearing on
Wednesday, January 24 at 9:00 a.m. in the Butrovich Room for a
briefing on the Comprehensive High Risk Insurance Pool. There
would not be a meeting of the House HESS Committee on Thursday,
January 25.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting of the House HESS Committee at
4:26 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|