Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/20/2004 02:15 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 20, 2004
2:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 543
"An Act relating to medical assistance coverage for prescription
drugs; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 543(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 176
"An Act providing that certain obligors can receive credit
against their child support obligation for certain types of
noncash child support; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 176(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 373
"An Act relating to residency and internship permits issued by
the State Medical Board; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 373 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 179(FIN)
"An Act relating to criminal history records and background
checks; allowing persons to teach in the public schools for up
to five months without a teaching certificate if the person has
applied for a certificate and the application has not been acted
upon by the Department of Education and Early Development due to
a delay in receiving criminal history records; allowing teacher
certification for certain persons based on a criminal history
background check without fingerprints; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB179(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 543
SHORT TITLE: MEDICAID AND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
03/25/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/04 (H) HES
04/01/04 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/01/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/06/04 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/13/04 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/13/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/13/04 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/20/04 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 176
SHORT TITLE: NONCASH CHILD SUPPORT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
03/07/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/07/03 (H) HES, JUD
04/13/04 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/13/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/20/04 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 373
SHORT TITLE: PHYSICIAN INTERNS AND RESIDENTS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
03/19/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/19/04 (S) HES
03/22/04 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/22/04 (S) Moved SB 373 Out of Committee
03/22/04 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/24/04 (S) HES RPT 4DP 1NR
03/24/04 (S) DP: DYSON, GREEN, WILKEN, DAVIS;
03/24/04 (S) NR: GUESS
03/26/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/26/04 (S) VERSION: SB 373
03/29/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/04 (H) HES
04/06/04 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/20/04 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 179
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS/TEACHERS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) THERRIAULT
04/08/03 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/08/03 (S) HES, FIN
04/16/03 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/16/03 (S) Moved CSSB 179(HES) Out of Committee
04/16/03 (S) MINUTE(HES)
05/10/03 (S) HES RPT CS 2DP 1NR NEW TITLE
05/10/03 (S) DP: DYSON, WILKEN; NR: DAVIS
05/13/03 (H) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
05/13/03 (S) <Above Item Removed from Agenda>
05/13/03 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/08/04 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/08/04 (S) DP: GREEN, WILKEN, DYSON, BUNDE,
03/08/04 (S) STEVENS B; NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON
03/08/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/08/04 (S) Moved CSSB 179(FIN) Out of Committee
03/08/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/15/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/15/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 179(FIN)
03/16/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/16/04 (H) EDU, HES, JUD
03/23/04 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/23/04 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/23/04 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
03/24/04 (H) EDU RPT 4DP 1NR 1AM
03/24/04 (H) DP: WILSON, OGG, SEATON, GATTO;
03/24/04 (H) NR: KAPSNER; AM: WOLF
04/20/04 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 176 for Representative
Coghill, sponsor of HB 176 and answered questions from the
members.
DIANE WENDLANDT, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Statewide Section Supervisor
Civil Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 176 and answered questions
from the members.
JOHN MALLONEE, Acting Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 176 and answered questions
from the members.
ZACK WARWICK, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 179 for Senator Therriault,
sponsor of SB 179.
DAVID SCHADE, Director
Division of Statewide Services
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 179.
Kathryn Monfreda, Chief
Criminal Records
Division of Statewide Services
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 179.
CYNDY CURRAN, Teacher Education and Certification
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 179 and answered questions
from the members.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor, testified on SB 179 and
answered questions from the members.
PAULA HARRISON, Director
Human Resources Department
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 179 and answered questions
from the members.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-33, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 2:15 p.m.
Representatives Wilson, Gatto, Wolf, Coghill, and Seaton were
present at the call to order. Representative Cissna arrived as
the meeting was in progress. Representative Kapsner was
excused.
HB 543-MEDICAID AND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Number 0144
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 543, "An Act relating to medical assistance
coverage for prescription drugs; and providing for an effective
date."
CHAIR WILSON reminded the members that HB 543 has been heard
twice before; therefore there will be no public testimony today.
Number 0221
REPRESENTATIVE Coghill moved to adopt HB 543, version H, as the
working document. There being no objection, version H was
before the committee.
Number 0292
CHAIR WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 23-LS1835\H.1,
Mischel, 4/8/04] which reads as follows:
Page 3, lines 27 - 30:
Delete: "a preferred drug list adopted by the
Department of Health and Social Services before the
effective date of this Act may be implemented until
the effective date of regulations adopted under this
Act or until six months after the effective date of
this Act, whichever date occurs first"
Insert: "a preferred drug list initiated by the
Department of Health and Social Services before the
effective date of this Act must be reviewed for
consistency with regulations adopted under this Act
and may not be implemented before the effective date
of the regulations adopted under this Act, except that
a prescription drug list initiated before the
effective date of this Act may be implemented for
prescription drug coverage under the senior care
program established under ch. 3, SLA 2004, until the
effective date of regulations adopted under this Act
or until six months after the effective date of this
Act, whichever date first occurs"
CHAIR WILSON began discussion on Amendment 1 by explaining that
by deleting current language and inserting new language it would
require that the prescription drug list (PDL) be reviewed for
consistency with regulations that are adopted by the Department
of Health and Social Services. She added that the PDL for the
senior care program which was initiated prior to this
legislation is exempt. Chair Wilson reiterated that it is not
her intention to negate what has already been done, but to
ensure that the PDL still be reviewed. The review must take
place within six months or by the effective date of the
regulations, whichever date is first, she summarized.
Number 0426
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected.
CHAIR WILSON stated that she believes it is essential to have
regulations in place so that if there are changes to be made
there is a guarantee that those changes must go through the
administrative procedures process.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she is objecting because HB 543 is a
very complicated bill and she needs more time to figure out how
this amendment affects the PDL.
CHAIR WILSON told the members that Alaska is one of 33 states
that has a PDL, and is included in that list because of the
Senior Care program. All of the states who have PDLs, except
Ohio, have implemented it through regulation to ensure that
there is clarity in the parameters of the PDL.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked for the source of the list of states
with PDLs. She said she would like to know what the programs
are like because she suspects they may be very different from
each other.
CHAIR WILSON agreed that each state is different. She said she
believes this is important because it is essential that the
department follow through with a consistent regulated process.
It is the legislature's duty to ensure this is done, Chair
Wilson emphasized.
Number 0561
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA shared that last year she went to a
meeting in Chicago conducted by the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL). One of the workshops focused on PDLs and
the experiences of other states, she said. There is a huge
lobby effort from the pharmaceutical companies and doctors
because it brings down a lot of expenditures to the
pharmaceutical companies. The prices of pharmaceuticals are
going up faster than any other sector in the health care market.
Representative Cissna told the members that this is one
reasonable way to bring the costs down. She agreed with Chair
Wilson on the importance of oversight in this process. She said
her only concern is that this requirement may make it difficult
for the department get at this as soon as is needed.
Number 0683
CHAIR WILSON commented that the amendment was given to the
members at the last meeting.
Number 0695
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that he is trying to figure out what
the effect of this would be. He said he understands this
amendment would allow for the PDL to go forward under the Senior
Care program. However, it would prevent that PDL from being
applied to any other Medicaid program until regulations could be
adopted and a new drug list constructed in compliance with those
regulations. What is the fiscal impact of that change, he
asked.
CHAIR WILSON replied that the department makes and changes
regulations in other areas all the time. That cost is normally
absorbed in the department's budget. She told the members that
there is a fiscal note in this case and believes it was included
to stop the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he is not speaking about
the fiscal note with respect to creating regulations. The way
this is set out means the PDL, the savings that were anticipated
cannot go into effect until regulations, and a new PDL is in
place.
CHAIR WILSON responded that lot depends on how quickly the
department works to implement the regulations and PDL. She
added that it will not be $20 million.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there is a revised fiscal note.
CHAIR WILSON replied that there is a zero fiscal note.
Number 0850
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wolf, Seaton,
Wilson, and Gatto voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Cissna voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1
passed by a vote of 4-1.
Number 0932
CHAIR WILSON moved Amendment 2, which reads as follows:
Page 4, line 2:
Delete "January 1"
Insert "March 1"
CHAIR WILSON explained that this amendment delays the date of
implementation of a PDL on mental health drugs. She reminded
the members of discussions concerning the importance of making
sure the PDL is working and the process is in place. The
department told the members that its plan was to wait a year
before working on mental health drugs. This date would be about
a year from now, while the legislature is in session and can
observe any changes, she added.
Number 0989
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for purposes of discussion.
There is a six-month period for the department to adopt and
implement regulations. This amendment would create an
additional two-month delay, he commented. He told the members
that he does not see the point in delaying the implementation
another two months unless it is the legislature's intention to
overturn the regulations the department adopts. If that is the
case, then all the work the department had done would be
negated, and it would have to start over again and which would
mean another one-year delay would occur.
CHAIR WILSON told the members she feels strongly about this
amendment. The separation of powers for checks and balances is
essential. She stated that she wants the legislature to be in
session when these changes occur so there is an awareness of the
impact of these changes.
Number 1093
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned the purpose of singling out
psychotropic drugs for special treatment. He said he believes
that any class of drugs deserves special treatment.
Representative Gatto said he would like to hear some
justification for this.
Number 1112
CHAIR WILSON explained that there has been testimony about the
history of mental health treatment. At one time API was full to
capacity and now the new facility is much smaller. Over the
years drugs have been developed that allow individuals with
mental illness to lead productive lives. She said she believes
changing medication on these people could end up costing the
state more money because of additional hospitalization. Chair
Wilson pointed out that many of the states have chosen not to
put mental health drugs on the PDL at all. There have been
cases where individuals were taken off of drugs and suicides
occurred. She cautioned that there needs to be great care with
respect to these drugs. Chair Wilson clarified that she is not
saying don't include these drugs on the PDL, but to proceed
slowly and carefully.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how this would proceed. He asked if
it would be a case where individual patient's drug treatments
would be monitored to see how they react to treatment.
Representative Seaton reiterated that the bill sets out a
program where the department must adopt regulations, and there
is a delay to ensure implementation is working. He questioned
what the legislature would be monitoring because he does not see
it reviewing individual drugs for inclusion in the PDL.
CHAIR WILSON responded that mental health patients are far more
fragile than other patients. She said she believes it is
important to proceed in a smooth and careful way. The
department told the committee that it planned to wait one year
before reviewing psychotropic drugs. However, she said she
found out that the department was referring to the fiscal year,
not the calendar year. At the next meeting the PDL Committee is
planning on taking up these drugs with the intention of putting
the PDL in place starting July 1. That is not the impression
the committee was left with originally, she stated.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON maintained his objection.
Number 1322
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL told the members that he believes there
is already increased scrutiny on psychotropic drugs. He pointed
out that there will be a new session in January when the
legislature can review the progress. Representative Coghill
said he is concerned about the cost-containment issue related to
the delay.
Number 1434
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that she believes it is important
that the legislature already be in session when the changes take
effect.
Number 1439
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he does not think this date change
will make any difference and opposes the amendment.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Wilson voted in
favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Gatto, Wolf, Coghill,
Seaton, and Cissna voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2
failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-5.
Number 1491
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON REPRESENTATIVE moved Amendment 3, as
follows:
On Page 2
Delete: Lines [2] and 4
CHAIR WILSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that this section relates to the
regulations that will be adopted and he believes this subsection
is inappropriate because this appeal refers to "person" which
could mean a company, not just an individual. He told the
members that he has spoken with some of the industry members and
agreed that it would not be their intention to have each drug
manufacturer appeal each decision which would then slow down the
construction of the PDL. Appeals for patients are already
covered in subsection (4), he added. Representative Seaton
commented that he believes it was just a drafting error and
should be eliminated.
CHAIR WILSON withdrew her objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 1588
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed the members' attention to page 2,
line 9. He asked if the Alaska Care program only uses the terms
"medically necessary." He questioned whether the terms
"dispense as written" would add confusion. Using the terms
dispense as written does not allude to the fact that there is
any medical necessity in dispensing a particular drug, he
pointed out.
Number 1623
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved Amendment 4, as follows:
Page 2, line 9, After "prescription the phrase"
Delete "dispense as written,"
Page 2, line 10, After "medically necessary"
Delete ", or other wording with similar import"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON told the members that he believes this
change will eliminate any confusion for doctors when writing
prescriptions.
There being no objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 1696
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 543, as amended, 23-
LS1835\H, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
543(HES) was reported out of the House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee.
HB 176-NONCASH CHILD SUPPORT
Number 1733
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 176, "An Act providing that certain obligors can
receive credit against their child support obligation for
certain types of noncash child support; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 1757
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 176 for Representative Coghill,
sponsor of HB 176, and answered questions from the members. She
explained that this bill has come a long way. In October of
2001 while attending a child in need of aid (CINA) workshop she
met an incredible woman by the name of Faith Peters from Tanana.
During that meeting Faith told her of the problems associated
with CINA, and problems associated with villages and alcoholism.
Faith told her of fathers in the villages that would cut an
entire winter's worth of firewood, and fill the freezer with
moose meat, but would not get any credit for contributing to the
support of their children. Ms. Moss shared that Faith believes
there is a self-esteem problem that could be addressed if the
legislature were to change the law to enable noncash
contributions to be used with respect to child support
obligations. Representative Coghill, the Department of Revenue,
and the Attorney General's Office have worked collectively to
provide language which would allow the noncash contributions to
be considered, she said.
MS. MOSS told the members she has a committee substitute that
she would like to present which is version H. This morning the
Attorney General's Office agreed to two amendments which she
will also present for the committee's consideration, she added.
Ms. Moss said she believes if a father or mother has a noncash
way of contributing to his/her children's support then credit
should be accepted for it.
Number 1821
MS. MOSS read the sectional analysis into the record as follows:
Section 1. This section amends AS 25.27.020(b),
"Duties and responsibilities of the agency", to allow
the Child Support Division to apply noncash
contributions of the noncustodial parent to his or her
child support obligation if the following conditions
exist:
1. the custodial parent has agreed to the arrangement
2. the noncash contributions can be for basic food,
housing, and heat.
3. the agency may by regulation give credit for other
types of noncash contributions because something may
come up that has not been thought of.
4. with the adoption of the amendment the obligor
would be required to show clear convincing evidence of
the noncash contribution.
5. the custodial parent or guardian cannot be
receiving assistance under the Alaska Temporary
Assistance Program (ATAP) or the American Indian
Welfare Reform Act.
Number 1886
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Moss to elaborate the rationale
on the final condition.
MS. MOSS explained that if a recipient of these programs were to
receive cash, that amount would be applied to the individual's
income; however, it is impossible to put a value on noncash
contributions related to income in determining qualifications
for ATAP. She added that it would add quite a fiscal note.
Number 1916
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that there would be a problem
placing a value on particular items. For instance, a fish would
be worth a different amount depending on the time of year, the
part of the state, or the market systems. She suggested that
the parents agree on the value of the items, rather than the
division doing so.
MS. MOSS said that the department wants the parents to agree on
the value of the item.
Number 1961
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for Ms. Moss to clarify that these
items would be credited for child support enforcement purposes,
but not for income qualification for welfare purposes.
MS. MOSS replied that is correct.
Number 1981
DIANE WENDLANDT, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Statewide
Section Supervisor, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified
on HB 176 and answered questions from the members. She told the
members there was concern about having state agencies setting
value on noncash contributions.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to page 2, lines 14
and 15, and asked Ms. Wendlandt to speak to the reason this bill
would not apply to those receiving public assistance or welfare.
MS.WENDLANDT responded that there are two problems. First, in
order to qualify for public assistance an individual must
identify all sources of income. A noncash contribution must be
included as income, she emphasized. The second problem is that
when a parent applies for public assistance he/she assigns
his/her right to child support to the state. This is done so
that the state can recover money it pays to support the
children. This system would not work under these assistance
programs, she pointed out.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 1, lines 12 and 13, which
reads as follows:
Notwithstanding the definition of "support order" in
AS 25.27.900, the agency shall reduce the amount of
money an obligor must pay ...
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON posed a hypothetical question of a father
who was making [child support] payments, while [the mother and
children] are on public assistance. He said he surmises that
the father's contributions would not count as a noncash payment.
He asked for clarification in this case.
MS. WENDLANDT replied that he is correct. The noncash
contributions are treated the same as a direct payment. In the
hypothetical example Representative Seaton posed, once the
mother and children go on public assistance, the mother has
assigned her right to support to the state. She does not have
the right to agree to an alternative payment or accept child
support since that now belongs to the state, Ms. Wendlandt
explained. In Representative Seaton's scenario if the father
brought moose meat to the mother at a time when she is on public
assistance, there would be no credit given by Child Support
Enforcement Division (CSED) against the obligor child support.
Number 2144
CHAIR WILSON clarified that even if a father goes to the trouble
of getting a moose, cutting it up, packaging it, and then brings
it to the home, he will still not get any credit toward his CSED
obligation.
MS. WENDLANDT agreed that is correct. She pointed out that once
a family goes on public assistance a warning letter is sent to
the obligor that all child support payments must be made through
CSED. She emphasized that this should not come as a surprise.
CHAIR WILSON commented that she does not see the value in the
bill.
MS. MOSS clarified that this bill applies to individuals who are
not on public assistance. Once an individual goes on public
assistance the individual gives up his/her right to negotiate
because the state is supporting the family, she explained. In
most of these cases it is a minimum support order of $50 per
month, she added.
CHAIR WILSON said in other words, this bill is for the woman not
on welfare who is receiving payments directly from the father.
If they agree that a cord of wood is worth $50, then he could
pay her $50 less for child support.
MS. MOSS replied that is correct. She continued to read from
the sectional analysis as follows:
Section 2 amends AS 25.27.060, "Order of support", to
add a provision defining support order and to allow
the agency or the court to reduce the cash payment of
court or administrative support to reflect the payment
of a noncash contribution.
Section 3 adjusts the uncodified law language that
only noncash contributions made on or after the
effective date of HB 176 being adopted.
MS. MOSS told the members that Section 3 is being added to
ensure that parents do not come to CSED and say "last week he
gave me a cord of wood." Noncash contributions would not apply
until the effective date of the bill. She explained that an
uncodified law is used for legislative intent, and also for a
transitional provision for legislation with a short existence.
Most legislation that is for five years or less is usually put
in uncodified law, she added.
Number 2287
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if interest is accruing on child
support payments that are not paid.
MS. MOSS replied that is correct. She directed any further
questions to John Mallonee, Acting Director of the Child Support
Enforcement Division, Department of Revenue.
TAPE 04-B, SIDE *33
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if there is an incentive to
noncustodial parents to continue being part of the family and
encourage contributions to its support. She said there should
be some accommodation for noncash payments.
MS. MOSS said that she and Representative Coghill agree with
Representative Cissna, but have not been able to work out a way
to accomplish it yet.
Number 2273
JOHN MALLONEE, Acting Director, Child Support Enforcement
Division, Department of Revenue, testified on HB 176 and
answered questions from the members. He responded that he
understands what is being said, but unfortunately when dealing
with any type of assistance; the state has already paid out a
given amount of money for those children for that month. He
pointed out that whatever funds are paid back to the state goes
into the general fund.
Number 2252
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL shared that many years ago when his
father was in business with the Union Oil Company his dad
received payments in furs from the village people. One time the
company was very insistent [about payment] so his dad sent the
company a mounted lynx. The company did not know what to do
with it, he said, and he's pretty sure CSED would not know what
to do with a hindquarter of a moose.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that what is really being discussed
is the valuation of items such as firewood. He suggested that
perhaps the state could reduce support for the following month
in lieu of noncash payments.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified that what Mr. Mallonee is
saying is that the state is already paying for the support of
the children. To try to credit anything for child support would
mean it would have to go back to the state to reduce what has
already been spent for welfare. He questioned whether it is
wise to enter into that kind of accounting policy.
Representative Coghill commented that if a man or woman does
something to benefit his/her children whether the person gets
credit or not will likely not stop him/her from doing it. He
said there are times when receiving that credit is appropriate
and he is looking for the best way to do that.
Number 2186
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she believes incentives matter on
economic and public policy. She asked how much impact there
would be on the fiscal note if the noncash payment slowed down
or stopped the interest. Representative Cissna told the members
that even families that are split apart need strengthening.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he sees a couple of problems with
respect to this. One is that there are arrearages that have
accumulated over time. The other problem is that the department
would be in the position of determining the value of the noncash
contribution instead of the obligee and obligor. He said he is
trying to keep the state out of the valuation process because it
will likely be valued for less. There are people outside the
welfare system who have been able to significantly add to the
benefit of their children. Representative Coghill suggested
that the committee continue to work on this point and find a
better mechanism to improve the system.
Number 2125
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt CSHB 176, 23-LS0704\H,
Mischel, 4/13/04, as the working document. There being no
objection, version H was before the House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved Amendment 1 as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 1:
Delete: "the agency and"
Page 2, line 3-4:
Delete: "from information developed by other state
agencies and by an agreement with"
Page 2, line 3, before "the obligor"
Insert and
Page 2, line 13:
Delete "and its use by the obligee or the obligee
custodian"
MS. MOSS explained that Amendment 1 removes language that would
require the state's involvement in the agreement and leaves the
decision between the two parents.
Number 2054
MS. WENDLANDT told the members that CSED does not want to be in
the business of valuing [noncash payments]. The simplest way to
accomplish that is to leave it between the parents to agree.
This amendment would do that.
Number 2049
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for purposes of discussion. He
said he believes the second portion of the amendment that refers
to page 2, lines 3 and 4, should read page 2, lines 2 and 3.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed.
MS. MOSS referred to the fourth portion of the amendment, on
page 2, line 13, and told the members that this language was
removed because the Department of Law pointed out that it is a
little hard to prove that someone ate the moose after its been
eaten.
CHAIR WILSON asked what would happen if the wife takes the meat
and then later denies that she received it.
MS. MOSS replied that a written agreement would have to be in
place prior to the meat being in her possession.
Number 1984
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted by the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
Number 1947
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the agreement between the parents
protect them if things turn badly.
MS. MOSS responded that she does not see any protection, but
suggested Ms. Wendlandt might have something to add.
MS. WENDLANDT told the members that as a general rule under
Alaska law agreements with respect to child support can be
terminated by either parent unilaterally. If things go bad and
one parent no longer wants to receive noncash contributions then
CSED would honor that request and terminate the agreement.
Number 1870
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved Amendment 2, which reads as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 21:
Delete "agency and in"
Replace: "by"
Page 2, line 22, after the word "agreement":
Delete: "with"
Replace "between"
Page 2, lines 22-23
Delete: "from the information developed by other state
agencies,"
Replace: and the obligor
MS. MOSS told the members that this amendment removes the state
from the agreement and leaves it between the two parents.
Number 1839
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected. He commented that he needs
additional time to review the changes.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted by the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
Number 1801
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSHB 176, version H, as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
176(HES) was reported out of the House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
TAPE 04-34, SIDE A
SB 373-PHYSICIAN INTERNS AND RESIDENTS
Number 0050
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 373, "An Act relating to residency and
internship permits issued by the State Medical Board; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0060
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report SB 373, version D, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SB 373 was reported out of the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
SB 179-CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS/TEACHERS
Number 0098
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would
beCS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 179(FIN), "An Act relating to criminal
history records and background checks; allowing persons to teach
in the public schools for up to five months without a teaching
certificate if the person has applied for a certificate and the
application has not been acted upon by the Department of
Education and Early Development due to a delay in receiving
criminal history records; allowing teacher certification for
certain persons based on a criminal history background check
without fingerprints; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0139
ZACK WARWICK, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 179 for Senator Therriault, sponsor of
SB 179.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked what version is before the committee.
MR. WARWICK said that the version before the committee is
version V; however, he understands that the committee also wants
to consider a blank CS, version W, which is also before the
members. He pointed out that version V is the CS which passed
out of the House Special Committee on Education.
CHAIR WILSON asked for Mr. Warwick to review the differences
between the two versions.
Number 0246
MR. WARWICK explained that the bill was introduced to provide
teachers who do not have fingerprints an avenue to get
background checks so that they could continue to teach without
having to go through the fingerprinting process every three
months. He told the members that a lot teachers have worn out
their fingerprints over time and do not have the ability to give
adequate fingerprints. There are currently 42 people in Alaska
that consistently experience this problem. Mr. Warwick added
that last year the Department of Law and the Department of
Public Safety pointed out that Alaska's statutes were not in
compliance with federal law regarding criminal background checks
in all professions including the Alaska Bar Association, liquor
licenses, or teachers. That conforming language is the majority
of the bill that is before the committee, he stated.
MR. WARWICK said that in addition to the federal noncompliance
issue, Representative Gatto brought a situation to Senator
Therriault's attention that exists in the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough School District with respect to teachers who were not
getting their criminal background checks returned in a timely
manner. He explained that teachers have submitted their
fingerprints and have not received the background check back
within the three-month period required, so they were required to
resubmit their fingerprints. In some cases these teachers were
laid off, rehired as substitute teachers, and lost their
benefits and pay, he added. There was the hope that the
timeframe could be changed from three to five months. There was
opposition to that change from legislators and some staff at the
Department of Education and Early Development so it was decided
to leave the three month timeframe, but allow the department the
authorization to grant another 60-day extension if the delay in
returning the fingerprint was due to a backlog at the U.S.
Department of Justice.
Number 0361
MR. WARWICK explained that the difference between version W and
version U is that version U has a 60-day extension provision in
Section 8. He said he understands that there is some opposition
to this provision because some people believe teachers should
not be in the classroom without a fingerprint background check.
He told the members that he has letters of support for the 60-
day extension from the Fairbanks North Star Borough School
District and the Anchorage School District.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked how many teachers have not been able
to receive their fingerprint background checks [in a timely
manner].
MR. WARWICK replied the Department of Education and Early
Development reports that during a nine month time period there
were 42 teachers who had to resubmit three sets of prints. This
bill would allow a name-based or social security number
background check to done on them to ensure that there is no
criminal history.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked for clarification that version U was
approved by the House Special Committee on Education which
allows the 60-day extension.
MR. WARWICK replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF replied that he is one of the members in the
House Special Committee on Education who had concerns about this
provision. He commented that even through the number is low,
only 42 persons in the entire education field, all it takes is
one predator.
Number 0555
MR. WARWICK pointed out that this bill does provide for a name
based [or social security number] background check. Currently,
these teachers are in the school with no background check
because it is possible for them to resubmit their prints every
three months. He suggested that review of a person's work
history is a good way to verify that a person is suitable to
work around children.
CHAIR WILSON asked for Mr. Warwick to explain if this bill would
prohibit a teacher from being in the school until some kind of
background check is completed.
MR. WARWICK responded that he is not completely sure of her
question. Version V has the federal conforming language, the
60-day extension, and the section that allows individuals who
roll three sets of prints to get a background check based upon
their name. The Department of Public Safety has the technical
ability to deem whether the fingerprints are just poor quality,
smudged, or no ridges for fingerprints. Mr. Warwick added that
staff from the Department of Public Safety is on-line to testify
to this fact.
MR. WARWICK explained that version W removes the 60-day
extension if the U.S. Department of Justice has a backlog and
cannot get the background checks back within that three-month
period.
CHAIR WILSON asked if teachers are required to have a background
check before working in the classroom.
MR. WARWICK replied that is better answered by the Department of
Education and Early Development.
Number 0692
CHAIR WILSON commented that she has serious concerns that
individuals could be in schools before it is ascertained that
he/she is safe to be around children.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Warwick to clarify that this
background check which is being referred to is the one required
by the Department of Education and Early Development before
issuing a teaching certificate.
MR. WARWICK agreed that is correct.
Number 0724
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that he does not have a version
U in his packet.
MR. WARWICK corrected his earlier statement by saying that it
was version V that passed out of the House Special Committee on
Education, not version U.
Number 0771
DAVID SCHADE, Director, Division of Statewide Services,
Department of Public Safety, testified on SB 179. He introduced
Kathryn Monfreda, Chief, Criminal Records, and suggested she
provide the committee with some background information. Mr.
Schade told the members that he would be available to answer
questions.
Kathryn Monfreda, Chief, Criminal Records, Division of Statewide
Services, Department of Public Safety, testified on SB 179. She
asked for clarification on Chair Wilson's question about the
process.
CHAIR WILSON asked for clarification as to when the background
check occurs. She questioned whether the background check would
occur after a school district hires a teacher or when he/she
applies for a teaching certificate.
Number 0847
CYNDY CURRAN, Teacher Education and Certification, Teaching and
Learning Support, Department of Education and Early Development,
testified on SB 179 and answered questions from the members.
She explained that when a teacher comes to the state of Alaska
he/she submits an application for certification. As part of
that application two sets of fingerprint cards are required
which are sent to the Department of Public Safety for a
background check. The Department of Education and Early
Development waits for that background check to come back. If
the background check comes back clear, then the department
issues a teaching certificate. In the past it has taken up to
four months, the process has now been streamlined, so it no
longer takes that long, she added.
MS. CURRAN explained that when a teacher goes to an individual
school district and is hired that district, in many cases, will
also do a background check. Ms. Curran emphasized that she
cannot speak for every district because she is not sure every
district does a background check. She explained that if
fingerprints are returned [because it is unreadable] then the
department sends the applicant another set of fingerprint cards
to be redone.
CHAIR WILSON asked if background checks are returned separately
from fingerprint results or are the two returned together.
MS. CURRAN replied that if nothing was found in the background
check the department receives a notice which says no record was
found for the individual. She explained that the FBI will
occasionally return fingerprint cards which will be accompanied
by a letter detailing the problem and requesting a second
fingerprint card.
CHAIR WILSON asked if the fingerprint check and background check
are two different things.
MS. CURRAN responded that the fingerprints are used for the
background check. When the department receives clearance for an
individual it is based on the fingerprint check.
Number 1048
CHAIR WILSON clarified that a teacher applicant's background
check cannot proceed without a readable fingerprint card. This
bill would provide that if a background check is not completed
in a timely way, then the department could give a teacher
applicant an additional 60 days.
MS. CURRAN responded that she is looking at version H and is
aware of the fact that the committee is considering a different
version. The version she is looking at provides that the
department may issue a 60-day extension which would allow the
applicant to teach another 60 days. The department has been
issuing a conditional certificate to allow teachers to remain in
the classroom, but only when the fingerprint cards have been
resubmitted.
CHAIR WILSON commented that if a teacher applicant does not have
readable fingerprints and only a name based background check is
done, if the person is not who he/she says he/she is there could
be a problem.
MS. CURRAN responded that Kathryn Monfreda would be better
qualified to answer that question.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification that what is being
discussed is not employment background checks.
MS. CURRAN replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that the background checks that
school districts do when hiring teachers is totally independent
of this background check. He emphasized that these fingerprint
background checks are done by the department as it relates to
the issuance of a permanent teaching certificate for the state
of Alaska. It certifies that the person has the appropriate
educational background, and et cetera for teaching in Alaska.
MS. CURRAN agreed with Representative Seaton statement.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the school districts are notified
that the temporary teaching certificate does not include a
completed background check.
MS. CURRAN said that is correct. The temporary teaching
certificate is a different color than the permanent certificate,
and it lists the conditions of the certificate on it.
Number 1199
CHAIR WILSON pointed out that not all school districts do a
background check before hiring teachers.
MS. CURRAN responded that she could not speak for the districts
since each one has its own hiring policy; however, she said she
has seen teachers hired without background checks.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted that this bill only applies to
teachers. Version W appears to apply to more than teachers.
She asked if teaching positions are the only ones in school
districts where this kind of emergency provision applies.
MR. WARWICK replied that the language Representative Cissna is
referring to is language inserted in the bill to bring the state
into compliance with federal law. He referred to a letter
[dated April 11, 2003] in the members' packet from the U.S.
Department of Justice which says that the state will lose its
authorization to receive federal background checks on any
occupation in the state unless the state comes into compliance
with federal law.
MR. WARWICK told the members that no one in other occupations
has come to Senator Therriault about a problem with unreadable
prints. He said that the Department of Public Safety told him
that teachers and nurses have the two highest occupations for
wearing out fingerprints. One comment that was made is that
women have softer fingers so the ridges on the fingers wear out
easier, he added. He suggested that the people at the
Department of Public Safety may be able to offer more on that
point.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA surmised that other occupations in the
school system would not warrant this kind of allowance.
MR. WARWICK responded that not all school districts allow for
every employee to get a background check. Teachers are required
at the state level. Some schools such as Valdez requires
janitors to get a background check, he added. Some of the
village schools do not require anything.
Number 1406
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that the members focus on the
fact that obtaining a teacher certificate is not a hiring
policy. He commented that it might be a good idea to put a bill
in requiring every school districts to go through certain hiring
procedures before putting employees around children. He told
the members he believes that it would be a mistake to substitute
obtaining a teaching certificate for a hiring mechanism.
Representative Seaton said that he believes this bill makes
sense by allowing the background check on the applicant's name
when the fingerprints are not readable. He emphasized that this
bill would not remove the school districts responsibility to do
background checks. All it does is allow for a background check
for a teacher applicant to get a permanent certificate [with a
name-based background check when fingerprints are unreadable].
He asked if version W and version V could be reviewed one more
time.
Number 1481
CHAIR WILSON said as she understands it, version V has Section 8
in it, version W does not.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned if that is the only difference
between the two versions.
MR. WARWICK said yes.
CHAIR WILSON restated that in version V, Section 8 allows the
department to give a 60-day [extension on a temporary teaching
certificate], and version W does not. She told the members that
she would prefer that no teacher would ever go back to the
school system without a complete background check. Version W is
a compromise, she said.
Number 1540
MR. WARWICK told the members that the sponsor of the bill is in
favor of version V, but does not know how strongly he opposes
version W. He explained that Senator Therriault's constituent
came to him with the problem of having no fingerprints and asked
for an alternative route in obtaining the necessary background
check. Senator Therriault is also very concerned that the U.S.
Department of Justice continues to allow Alaska to get federal
background checks. He supports Representative Gatto's amendment
to the bill and believes it has merit.
CHAIR WILSON commented that the original bill did not include
[the 60-day extension].
MR. WARWICK replied that was not discussed.
CHAIR WILSON restated the differences between the two versions
of SB 179. She explained that the only difference between
version V and version W is that version V offers the department
the extra 60 days on top of the three months that a teacher can
be in the classroom without receiving a background check.
Number 1620
MR. WARWICK clarified Chair Wilson's statement that version V
does not give teachers an extra 60 days [to be in the classroom
without a background check], it allows the Department of
Education and Early Development the discretion to extend the
temporary teaching certificate an extra 60 days if there is a
backlog at the U.S. Department of Justice.
CHAIR WILSON asked Senator Therriault if he would have a problem
if the committee adopted version [W} without the 60-day
extension.
Number 1641
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor,
testified on SB 179 and answered questions from the members. He
responded that the bill is intended to make this a workable
system. If the U.S. Department of Justice gets a backlog will
the state have the same problem because there is no ability for
the department to extend temporary certificates, he questioned.
Senator Therriault told the members that it was his thought that
if the commissioner of the Department of Education and Early
Development controlled this extension then that would be
adequate oversight. This is a fail-safe for things that are out
of our control, he commented.
Number 1672
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the members of communications
from the Anchorage School District and the North Star Borough
School District which said it could take between 110 days and
120 days [to receive background checks]. Given that length of
time, it would appear that giving the department the ability to
extend to the average time it is taking the school district to
receive these background checks makes sense. Pulling teachers
from the classroom because the Federal Bureau of Investigations
(FBI) is backlogged seems disruptive, he commented.
Representative Seaton said he assumes the department will use
the extension judiciously and only in circumstances where it
could not get the background checks back. Representative Seaton
said he believes it would be better to have version V go
forward.
Number 1751
CHAIR WILSON asked if it accurate to say that there are 42
people in the state that have not been able to get fingerprints.
MS. CURRAN replied that is approximately correct.
CHAIR WILSON asked how many of those 42 people have repeatedly
submitted fingerprints, but are unable to obtain background
checks because the prints are unreadable.
MS. CURRAN responded that there are probably at least a dozen
who are on their fifth submission of fingerprints.
CHAIR WILSON asked what will happen to those 12 people.
MS. CURRAN explained that the Department of Education and Early
Development currently has a regulation in place that allows for
a name-based criminal history background check if a statement is
received from a physician saying that the person has a physical
disability or a permanent skin condition that makes their prints
unreadable. She told the members that those 12 people are now
in the process of following through with that provision. The
provision just went into effect on [April] 16th.
CHAIR WILSON inquired about the status of the other 30 people.
MS. CURRAN replied that she is not sure. There are varying
degrees of fingerprint resubmissions. The FBI has stringent
rules on what is necessary for resubmissions. She explained
that the department is not privy to know if the U.S. Department
of Justice is backlogged.
CHAIR WILSON asked for clarification that Ms. Curran doesn't
know if the FBI is backlogged or if some of these people just
signed up last week and the results have not been returned yet.
Number 1872
MS. CURRAN replied that the group of people she is talking about
are those who are between having to be reprinted between three
to six or seven times for whatever reason. There are a variety
of reasons why fingerprints background checks are not coming
back. For some of these people it is because it is impossible
to get fingerprints, some because whoever is doing their prints
is not doing a good job.
Number 1901
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO told the members that he believes this bill
is indirectly about children. When elementary kids have had a
teacher in the classroom for several months and that teacher is
pulled for any reason that affects the quality of education for
those children. He said if a thorough background check has been
done on a teacher and the only thing that is not complete is the
fingerprint back ground check, isn't that sufficient reason to
say there should be a 60-day extension. Representative Gatto
said he believes the answer is yes. He bases that answer on the
evidence presented by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District which shows that in the course of eight years all of
the background checks done have been entirely satisfactory, not
once in eight years has the fingerprint background check shown
to them anything other than its original decision that this
teacher was okay to employ. Representative Gatto said he does
not like to think of the number of teachers that might have been
pulled from a classroom for lack of a fingerprint. These kids
in first and second grade grow to love their teachers so
anything that interferes with that relationship better have a
solid basis. He said he does not see the solid basis and
suggested that it is a good idea to extend the rule because the
human resource directors are doing a good job.
Number 1985
CHAIR WILSON explained that the reason she feels strongly that
fingerprint background checks are so important is that in the
Wrangell School District someone who should not have been there
was found. She commented that she has only lived in Wrangell
six years. When the person was completing his/her application
the person said that he/she had not committed any felonies, but
it was a lie. This person had been convicted of harming a
child, she said. It probably does not happen very often, but if
it happens one time that is too much, Chair Wilson stated.
Number 2031
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented the Representative Gatto may
have missed earlier testimony. He reiterated that this bill has
nothing to do with hiring practices. It is strictly about the
background checks associated with teaching certificates. The
hiring practices of districts are their responsibility, he
emphasized. Janitors and administrators are not covered under
this bill. If some districts do not have the staff or are not
capable of handling the background checks then perhaps it would
be appropriate to consolidate some districts to ensure these
hiring practices are addressed. Representative Seaton
summarized that this bill, which deals with teaching
certificates, does not address the hiring practices of districts
related to all the employees in the schools. He said he
maintains that he believes the 60-day extension is warranted.
MS. CURRAN clarified that administrators and special service
providers are also required to have certificates and background
checks.
Number 2120
PAULA HARRISON, Director, Human Resources Department, Matanuska-
Susitna Borough School District, testified on SB 179 and
answered questions from the members. She told the members that
she is the person who contacted Representative Gatto about the
problem Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District was
experiencing.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if she would comment on hiring
practices, certifications, and other issues that a fairly large
district must face. He further asked her to comment on the
value of this extension.
Number 2151
MS. HARRISON commented that the extension would be of tremendous
value. She explained that when hiring a teacher it is not just
a matter of doing fingerprints and providing information to the
department for teachers to get their certificates. Before any
teacher is hired a very thorough background check is done on the
applicant. She told the members that the district has done
terminations prior to the fingerprint background checks coming
back based on the information obtain in the district's
background check.
Number 2193
MS. HARRISON told the members that the big issue is that the
fingerprint and background checks are just not coming back in a
timely manner. That really creates an issue for districts in
placing teachers in classrooms. Ms. Harrison shared that the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District requires a fingerprint
background check of every single employee in the district. The
fingerprint cards are sent out daily from the district, however,
she knows that elsewhere when there is a shortage of staff some
of the fingerprint cards may be batched and sent to the FBI.
That may be the cause of some of the backlog, she added.
CHAIR WILSON agreed that Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District does an excellent job of screening; unfortunately, not
all school districts do.
CHAIR WILSON announced that she will be holding the bill in
committee.
MR. WARWICK reminded the members that if this bill does not pass
the legislature this year [because of the lack of federal
compliance], there is a possibility that Alaska will no longer
receive criminal background checks on anyone. He commented that
there is one more committee of referral.
CHAIR WILSON said she would agree with passing version W from
committee, but it does not appear to have support.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he believes it makes sense to give
the Department of Education and Early Development the
flexibility to do the 60-day extension [as in version V];
however, if it is a question of not having any FBI criminal
background checks for Alaska, then he said he would support
version W.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that something is better than
nothing in this case.
CHAIR WILSON reiterated that version V has a 60-day extension
and version W does not.
Number 2351
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if version W provides for the
fingerprints to be submitted, then resubmit them in another 90
days.
MS. HARRISON replied that after the first 90 days, the districts
can no longer keep teachers in the classroom.
TAPE 04-34, SIDE B
Number 2358
MS. HARRISON pointed out that after 90 days the temporary
teaching certificate is no longer in effect. Many times it is
the case that the fingerprint background check has not come
back. There have been several times when the Department of
Education and Early Development had not received the fingerprint
background check back, but Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District had already gotten it back. She said she would
appreciate the department having the flexibility.
CHAIR WILSON asked Ms. Curran to comment on the department's
regulation related to those individuals who could not get
fingerprints.
MS. CURRAN replied that the department is working on regulations
that would provide a name-based background check.
MS. HARRISON told the committee of one employee that worked for
the district for three years without certification because she
could not provide fingerprints. She said she had to rewrite the
job description so that it did not require certification to hire
this individual. She said she hopes that the department could
be afforded that flexibility.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF commented that without a background check it
is not known what an individual has done. The Department of
Education and Early Development has testified that if there is a
medical reason for inability to provide fingerprints the state
will waive that requirement and do a name-based background
check.
MS. HARRISON pointed out that has not happened and the person is
still in a PERS position three years later.
Number 2247
MS. CURRAN commented that this regulation went into effect on
April 16, 2004, and individuals who are having trouble with
their fingerprints have been notified.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the bill is passed will it
supercede the new regulation.
MS. CURRAN commented that the department is currently working
under that regulation, but believes the statute will supercede
the department's regulation. The bill does provide for a name-
based background check, she added.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that would occur only after two
failures of fingerprint submissions.
MS. CURRAN said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that if the fingerprints did not
come back within the 90 days, the department does not have any
flexibility other than to remove the teacher from the classroom.
MS. CURRAN replied that the district would remove the teacher
from the classroom.
Number 2165
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt HCS CSSB 179, 23-LS0938\W,
Luckhaupt, 4/16/04, as the working document. There being no
objection, HCS CSSB 179, version W is before the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee as the working
document.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HCS CSSB 179, 23-LS0938\W,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB
179 was reported out of the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON made a motion to move a conceptual
resolution to change the title of HCS CSSB179, version W. There
being no objection, the conceptual resolution was passed by the
House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|