Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/30/1995 02:10 PM HES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
           HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES                         
                       STANDING COMMITTEE                                      
                         March 30, 1995                                        
                           2:10 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                                                      
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 Representative Al Vezey                                                       
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
   HB 78:   "An Act relating to the maximum amount of assistance               
            that may be granted under the adult public assistance              
            program and the program of aid to families with                    
            dependent children; proposing a special demonstration              
            project within the program of aid to families with                 
            dependent children and directing the Department of                 
            Health and Social Services to seek waivers from the                
            federal government to implement the project."                      
            PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                            
 * HB 202:  "An Act relating to the participation and accountability           
            of parents and guardians and the enforcement of                    
            restitution orders entered in juvenile delinquency                 
            proceedings; relating to claims on permanent fund                  
            dividends for certain court-ordered treatment in                   
            juvenile delinquency proceedings; changing Alaska                  
            Supreme Court Delinquency Rules 3(b) and 8(b); and                 
            providing for an effective date."                                  
            PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                            
  HB 171:  "An Act providing that the commissioner of education                
           serves at the pleasure of the Board of Education; and               
           providing for an effective date."                                   
           PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 KIM DUKE, House Researcher                                                    
 Representative Mark Hanley's Office                                           
 Room 507, State Capitol                                                       
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4939                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 78.                           
 CURT LOMAS, Program Officer                                                   
 Welfare Reform Program                                                        
 Division of Public Assistance                                                 
 Department of Health and Social Services                                      
 350 Main Street, Room 317                                                     
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3347                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 78.                                      
 JIM NORDLUND, Director                                                        
 Division of Public Assistance                                                 
 Department of Health and Social Services                                      
 350 Main Street, Room 309                                                     
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3347                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 78.                                      
 SHERRIE GOLL, Lobbyist                                                        
 Alaska Women's Lobby                                                          
 P.O. Box 22156                                                                
 Juneau, AK  99802                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 463-6744                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 78.                                      
 LAURIE OTTO, Deputy Attorney General                                          
 Criminal Division                                                             
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, AK  99811                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3428                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided sponsor statement for HB 202.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN                                                   
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Room 502, State Capitol                                                       
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3783                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided sponsor statement for HB 171.                   
 TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant                                           
 Representative Terry Martin's Office                                          
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Room 502, State Capitol                                                       
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3783                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 171.                          
 MARY HALLORAN, Legal Administrator                                            
 Office of the Attorney General                                                
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, AK  99811                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3600                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 171.                          
 SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to the Commissioner                        
 Department of Education                                                       
 801 West 10th Street, Suite 200                                               
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2803                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 171.                                     
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  HB 78                                                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY, Rokeberg, Porter, Bunde,                
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/15/94              (H)   HES AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 106                       
 01/06/95        41    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        41    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        41    (H)   HES, FIN                                          
 01/19/95        91    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE                               
 03/09/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 03/09/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/15/95              (H)   HES AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 106                       
 03/22/95       869    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY                              
 03/22/95              (H)   HES AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 106                       
 03/22/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/30/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 BILL:  HB 202                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                  
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/27/95       492    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/27/95       492    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                           
 02/27/95       492    (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM)                         
 02/27/95       492    (H)   3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DHSS)                        
 02/27/95       492    (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, REV)                    
 02/27/95       492    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                     
 03/30/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 BILL:  HB 171                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN                                          
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/10/95       301    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/10/95       301    (H)   HES, FINANCE                                      
 03/16/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 03/16/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/30/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 95-32, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the meeting of the House Health,                    
 Education and Social Services standing committee to order at 2:10             
 p.m.  Present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde,                
 Toohey, Rokeberg, and Davis.  A quorum was present to conduct                 
 business.  Co-Chair Bunde read the calendar and announced the order           
 of the bills.                                                                 
 Number 066                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced this bill had been previously heard, and             
 a work session attempted to create a composite bill that would best           
 serve the purposes of the state.  Co-Chair Bunde asked HESS                   
 Committee members and those in the audience to study a sheet from             
 the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS).  This sheet              
 presented a comparison between the welfare reform bills currently             
 introduced by the Senate, the House and the Governor.                         
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that Representatives Brice and Robinson              
 joined the meeting at 2:11 p.m.                                               
 Number 089                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked if anyone had introduced the new               
 Director of the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS).  He             
 said she is a good friend of Representative Brice, her name is                
 Diane Worley.  She was formerly the Executive Director of the                 
 Resource Center for Parents and Children.  She was welcomed by the            
 HESS Committee members.                                                       
 Number 129                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY moved that the proposed committee                     
 substitute (CS) for HB 78 be adopted as the working document.                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced it was version "C," and asked for                    
 objections.  There were none, and CSHB 78(HES) was adopted.                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions concerning the               
 comparison forms from DHSS.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the comparison form contained any               
 type of breakdown of all the various different waivers and programs           
 and how they are applied to the various cities of what sizes.                 
 Representative Brice said something similar was included in the               
 comparison, but he was hoping for something more specific.                    
 Number 239                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS suggested it would be helpful if the                
 sponsor of the legislation would orally go over the changes,                  
 comparison and the rationale.                                                 
 Number 274                                                                    
 KIM DUKE, House Researcher for Representative Mark Hanley,                    
 summarized the changes for the CS.  In Sections 2 through 3, the              
 assistance to minors with children provision was adopted from the             
 Governor's bill, HB 235.  This requires that teen parents under the           
 age of 18 live at home or in an adult-supervised home in order to             
 receive benefits.                                                             
 MS. DUKE said Section 4 changes the project areas for the workfare            
 project and the three other projects that were adopted.  Ms. Duke             
 said she would discuss those three other projects momentarily.  The           
 section requires that four areas be set out by the department.  One           
 of them would have a population over 25,000, one would have a                 
 population under 25,000, and one would have a population under                
 5,000.  Therefore, there would be a minimum of four project areas.            
 The department would be required to operate at least one each of              
 the demonstration projects.                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for clarification.  Ms. Duke said one project            
 would be in a population area over 25,000, one would be in an area            
 under 25,000, and one would be in an area under 5,000.  He said               
 that was only three projects.                                                 
 MS. DUKE said the last project would be at the department's                   
 discretion.  There would be four projects, with the bill                      
 stipulating the population of the areas for the first three.                  
 Number 382                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON understood from the last meeting on             
 HB 78 that it would still be up to the department whether it would            
 wanted to implement the projects across the state, in all                     
 MS. DUKE said the department would have the discretion of doing one           
 of the projects in more than one area.                                        
 MS. DUKE said some of the language from the community work pilot              
 project had been adopted into the workfare project.  This basically           
 included some more expansive language to allow more community work            
 for the workfare project.  It also took out the exemption in which            
 jobs participants were made exempt from this project.   The                   
 department requested it be able to put people in the jobs project             
 into the workfare project.                                                    
 MS. DUKE continued that three programs had been adopted from the              
 Governor's bill, HB 235.  These include the unemployed parent                 
 project, which is working to employ two-parent families.   This has           
 the family sign a three-year contract with a plan for the family to           
 get off welfare within three years.  Also included is the self-               
 employment project, which allows welfare recipients to set up small           
 businesses.  Finally, the diversion project gives cash grants to              
 people that hopefully will not end up on welfare.  This is allowed            
 for three months.                                                             
 Number 493                                                                    
 MS. DUKE said further language changes were adopted which were                
 basically from the Governor's bill.  The definitions allow the                
 department immunity from liability.  The last change made was the             
 withdrawal of the reduction of 1.7 percent on the Adult Public                
 Assistance (APA) program.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE summarized that the waivers will be applicable           
 across the state.  The Workfare Program will be applicable to at              
 least one site.  The unemployed parent project will be applicable             
 to at least one other site.  The self-employment project will be              
 one more site.  The diversion project will be one or more areas in            
 the site.                                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE then said however, on the last page concerning           
 project areas not specified by project, there are at least four               
 separate projects in four areas of the site.  There is at least one           
 project in each municipality with a population above 25,000,                  
 between 5,000 and 25,000, then below 5,000.   This is why                     
 Representative Brice wanted a graph as to where is what going to be           
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked where the earned income, the 100-hour              
 rule and the automobile allowance were going to be applied.                   
 Number 631                                                                    
 MS. DUKE said those would be allowed in three of the projects.                
 They are not included in the diversion projects because it                    
 basically does not apply.  The bill is trying to help people not              
 sign up for welfare.  Therefore, those provisions would not apply.            
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if therefore, maybe in the unemployed              
 parent projects, the self-employed project and the workfare project           
 those provisions would apply.                                                 
 MS. DUKE said those provisions would apply for the people in the              
 project groups.  The people in the control group would not have               
 those benefits.                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said therefore, there are four or five                   
 different projects.  In each of those projects there will be a                
 control group and a test group.  The people in the test group will            
 get the waivers and the people in the control group will not.  That           
 is what Representative Brice wanted to get clear.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if anything in the four projects, those            
 being the workfare, self-employed, unemployed parent and diversion            
 projects, that say those have to be spread out across the state.              
 MS. DUKE said no.  There must be at least one of each of the                  
 projects in four areas of the state.  The department has the                  
 discretion to choose those areas in the population parameters that            
 are set out by the bill.                                                      
 Number 731                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked the DHSS to comment.  Co-Chair Bunde assumed             
 that, allowing the department some discretion, it will take the               
 opportunity to make this a valid and wide study.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he has full faith the department will do            
 just that, however, he is concerned.  He wondered if there are                
 going to be any restraints to make sure that programs are going to            
 be placed in the appropriate settings.  In other words, he is                 
 concerned that the self-employed project would not necessarily be             
 as helpful in Kotzebue, Nome, or Bethel than in Juneau, Anchorage             
 or Fairbanks.                                                                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE disagreed only in Representative Brice's choice of             
 examples.  Perhaps Kotzebue would be O.K., but not Akiak or a                 
 smaller rural area.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE was concerned about where the highest level of           
 opportunity lies.  There has not been a lot of discussion as to the           
 barriers to getting off welfare.  The bill has a lot of projects              
 that look pretty good.  Representative Brice said he is concerned             
 that those projects be used in appropriate settings.                          
 Number 837                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if a representative from the DHSS would                  
 address the concerns of Representative Brice.                                 
 CURT LOMAS, Program Officer, Division of Public Assistance, DHSS,             
 said neither bill, HB 78 or HB 235, specifies exactly where the               
 projects will be implemented.   There is simply some language that            
 defines the size of communities where the projects will operate.              
 As Mr. Lomas reads HB 78 in its current form, there is nothing that           
 precludes the department from taking any or all of the projects and           
 operating them statewide given sufficient funding to do so.                   
 MR. LOMAS was reluctant to name specific areas because those                  
 decisions have not been made.  In the costing of both HB 78 and HB            
 235, some assumptions had to be made.  The department certainly               
 sees some of the projects are much more promising in urban areas.             
 Others have more promise in rural areas.  Specifically,                       
 Representative Brice is speaking of the self-employment project.              
 MR. LOMAS explained that in the fiscal notes in the Governor's bill           
 (and he believed they would end up in the fiscal notes for HB 78 as           
 well), the intent is to make the self-employment project a                    
 statewide project but to limit the number of individuals who could            
 participate at any given time.  It is very experimental, and it is            
 not something that the department would want to open up across the            
 board.  Therefore, the department would like to retain some                   
 discretion to keep the numbers within a reasonable limit.  The                
 Governor's bill calls for a maximum of 50 families at any given               
 Number 936                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE observed that there is an ongoing challenge to "walk           
 the tightrope," and make sure things get done but to not                      
 micromanage.  Co-Chair Bunde is going to take what Mr. Lomas said             
 as an assurance the department will make this project as widespread           
 and workable as possible within fiscal constraints.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE remembered in the discussions on this type of            
 bill last year that there was a lot of discussion about trying to             
 privatize some of these programs.  There were provisions in the               
 original HB 78 to do that.  Representative Brice did not see those            
 provisions in the current bill.  He asked if the projects were                
 going to be state-run.  He asked if there were projects in which it           
 may be more appropriate for private entities to take over.                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE advised that privatization has not been placed into            
 CS HB 78, and he would like to keep the discussions to the current            
 MS. DUKE noted that such provisions are in the bill.  In Section 6            
 under subsection (b), the state can contract out.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE just wanted to make sure that was still in the           
 Number 1042                                                                   
 JIM NORDLUND, Director, Division of Public Assistance, DHSS, wanted           
 to re-emphasize that the whole idea of waivers under the federal              
 law is still a good idea.  All projects are experimental in nature,           
 and no one knows if they are going to work.  No one knows for sure            
 if they are going to effectively serve the people, and if they are            
 going to achieve cost savings.  That is a point that Mr. Nordlund             
 keeps trying to make to the Senate HESS Committee as they make                
 forward to their bill.  The Senate HESS Committee wants to try to             
 apply its projects more on a statewide basis.                                 
 MR. NORDLUND stressed the projects need to be looked at as                    
 experimental projects that are set up in an experimental way.                 
 There must be a control group and an experimental group to test how           
 these projects work.  If the projects are working in the early                
 stages, the department can look at expanding them to statewide                
 within the limits of the state and federal law.                               
 MR. NORDLUND noted with federal welfare reform, all the rules could           
 be thrown out.  In that case, the state still will want to move               
 forward cautiously with these new ideas toward welfare reform.  If            
 the projects work, they will be applied statewide.                            
 Number 1111                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE observed that existing federal regulations require             
 this experimental nature.  Therefore, this bill must move forward             
 based on existing law, not on conjecture over what might happen.              
 Number 1128                                                                   
 SHERRIE GOLL, Lobbyist, Alaska Women's Lobby, applauded the sponsor           
 of the bill.  This bill is the most well-thought out piece of                 
 direction regarding welfare reform that has been considered by                
 either body.  The Women's Lobby still has concerns, however, but              
 only about two sections of the bill.  Those sections pertain to the           
 rateable reductions and the teen parent project.  Ms. Goll would              
 like to speak on the rateable reductions at a later time.                     
 MS. GOLL said she has raised some issues before on the teen parent            
 project.  Although it is in the Governor's bill, and it has been in           
 each piece of legislation, it still causes concern.  She again                
 reminded HESS Committee members that those provisions concern the             
 141 pregnant teenagers on Aid to Families with Dependent Children             
 (AFDC).  There are 141 teenagers on AFDC out of all the pregnant              
 teenagers in the state.                                                       
 MS. GOLL said even with the exemptions in the bill, half of those             
 girls would most assuredly be exempted because of abusive                     
 situations or runaway situations.  Therefore, the bill speaks of a            
 pilot project that is going to affect, at most, 70 girls.  If the             
 project is in one location, not all of those 70 girls are going to            
 be in that one location.                                                      
 Number 1209                                                                   
 MS. GOLL wanted to raise another issue that she has recently                  
 learned about.  That has to do with the barriers that battered                
 women face when they attempt to become independent and self-                  
 sufficient.  This information comes from some studies she read from           
 shelters and shelter programs all around the country.  Ms. Goll was           
 quite surprised to learn that very often when women are in abusive            
 situations and they try to get out of the situation by applying               
 themselves to training programs and work experience, such as is               
 found in the bill.  Their spouses often increase the violence.                
 MS. GOLL explained women in this situation often cannot show up for           
 a test after they have been in a training program because they have           
 been beaten the night before.  Sometimes they cannot show up                  
 regularly to work because this kind of situation happens.  It is              
 not an issue that has been previously raised, because Ms. Goll just           
 recently found out about it herself.  However, that must be taken             
 into consideration as another kind of exemption or a good cause               
 MS. GOLL certainly thought women who are in violent relationships             
 need that kind of self-sufficiency help that a workfare or                    
 community work program can give them.  But some direction should be           
 given to the department, so it can make that determination in some            
 cases where the training may increase the incidence of violence.              
 Number 1311                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that he has taught women at the community                 
 college level who have been in abusive situations.  He agrees abuse           
 is about power and control.  Any job, education or skill reduces              
 the abusers control and would be resisted mightily.  In order for             
 someone to function in these programs, they probably are going to             
 have to leave the abusive situation for their own protection.                 
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said putting the exemption in the bill is saying to           
 the woman, you can stay in the situation because we will not touch            
 Number 1350                                                                   
 MS. GOLL said she was having a conversation to that effect out in             
 the hall.  This is new information to Ms. Goll.  But when she read            
 these studies, she was horrified that this is happening to women              
 and that people who are administering work programs have seen this            
 to be the case.  Ms. Goll thought that in light of Co-Chair                   
 Toohey's comment, maybe an exemption is not the right cure.                   
 However, such situations should be considered.                                
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said his personal goal is to do anything possible to           
 encourage people to leave abusive situations.                                 
 MS. GOLL knows that, when dealing with two parent families who                
 depend on AFDC, sometimes this is going to be a situation.  Ms.               
 Goll does not know if counseling or some other option would be                
 best.  She just wants HESS Committee members to keep that in mind.            
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE assured her that her concerns have been taken into             
 Number 1412                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted that quite often when women leave               
 abusive relationships and go into a shelter to re-establish their             
 own home, they must go through counseling, apply for AFDC and get             
 food stamps just to get settled into a new home before they go out            
 and start working.  Representative Robinson had drafted some                  
 language that may not eliminate the problem.  However, the language           
 would enable the department to determine if a woman's safety is               
 going to be jeopardized while she is on AFDC and food stamps and              
 perhaps act accordingly.                                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said many women who come out of shelters              
 and start a new life are not on AFDC and welfare for a long period            
 of time.  However, there may be a short period of time in which it            
 may be good to give the department an option to determine if the              
 woman is not in a safe situation to go out and get workfare and               
 other kinds of programs at that point.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON was not only speaking of battered women at            
 that point.  Quite often women have had to leave the home because             
 their children are being sexually abused by the partner                       
 (father/stepfather) in the home.                                              
 Number 1482                                                                   
 MS. GOLL added that when a person has left an abusive situation,              
 the person does not always manage to leave everything behind.  That           
 is why there are stalking laws and other laws.  When the woman has            
 left the abusive situation and gone to the shelter in order to                
 survive with her children apart from the abusive spouse, she still            
 may not be safe.                                                              
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked to start through the proposed amendments.  He            
 closed public testimony, although he asked those testifying to                
 remain present to answer questions.  Public testimony would be                
 opened again after the amendments have been either rejected or                
 adopted.  At that point the HESS Committee would be working with CS           
 HB 78 as amended.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted that amendments 8 and 9 are her                 
 amendments, but her name is not on them.                                      
 Number 1544                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 1.  There was an objection for           
 purposes of discussion.  Representative Brice said there had been             
 some discussion at the subcommittee and committee level about what            
 happens if, at some point, Congress throws out all the rules                  
 relating to welfare.   In such a case, the state would no longer              
 need to have all the studies that are being paid for through the              
 rateable reduction.  Representative Brice asked if that would allow           
 for the rateables to be reinstated at the level they were when the            
 reduction was passed.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said basically, when the waivers are                     
 implemented, the rateables are implemented.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said this topic has been discussed previously            
 with the sponsor, and the sponsor indicated a need for up-front               
 dollars.  That is why the rateable was in the bill.  Representative           
 Davis would, therefore, assume that would be the argument against             
 the amendment.                                                                
 Number 1625                                                                   
 MS. DUKE said there is a need for up front money.  The waiver                 
 process itself is a cost to the department.  Ms. Duke does not have           
 exact figures of what that would be.  Page 3, Section 4, subsection           
 (2) gives the department the ability to let legislators know if the           
 project is not going to be a fiscally responsible project in light            
 of changes in federal statutes or regulations.  Therefore, the                
 department does have the ability to inform the legislature that               
 because of federal changes, the reduction is not going to cover the           
 cost, etc.                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested that the Section (2) that is                   
 referenced is not helpful.  The DHSS can report to the legislature            
 all it wants.  Representative Brice has a stack of reports in his             
 office up to the ceiling.  That does not necessarily mean the                 
 legislature will act on reports.  If the service or program is not            
 implemented, Representative Brice did not think it was appropriate            
 to implement the rateables until the programs are established.                
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS noted that if this amendment were adopted,               
 there would be additional straight general fund dollars needed to             
 begin implementing the program.  There is definitely a basic                  
 philosophy difference about how the program should be paid for.               
 The governor's bill would be paid for different than HB 78.  It is            
 clear the programs in HB 78 will be paid for by the rateables.  He            
 said the decision is a policy call.                                           
 Number 1721                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said funds cannot be dedicated.  The rateables           
 in this bill do nothing to pay for the programs.  Those are the               
 facts as stated by the Constitution of the State of Alaska.  There            
 is not connection between the rateables and the programs in HB 78.            
 The savings from the rateables in the general fund will allow the             
 legislature to make an appropriation.  Therefore, Representative              
 Brice does not think the savings from the rateable can or should be           
 directly tied to the program.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the rateables and the programs are                  
 unrelated.  One cuts benefits, and the other is to reduce program             
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE agreed there are two issues.  If Amendment 1 was               
 adopted, additional general fund dollars would have to be requested           
 at this time when the state is making large cuts.  Therefore, Co-             
 Chair Bunde would oppose this amendment.  In addition, Co-Chair               
 Bunde feels the general public is telling the legislature there               
 should be rateable reductions even if these projects are not                  
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked to hear from the DHSS.  She                     
 understood in the meetings that the department felt this was a good           
 Number 1806                                                                   
 MR. NORDLUND said the DHSS has gone on the record as opposing the             
 rateable reduction in HB 78.  Therefore, the department would                 
 support this amendment.                                                       
 MR. NORDLUND said Representative Brice makes a very good point.               
 The state can say it pays for the programs through the reduction,             
 however, it does not work that way.  The approach of the department           
 is to pay for these projects through additional child support                 
 enforcement.  There are bills currently going through the                     
 legislative process that will bring in enough money and then some             
 to pay for these projects.                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE then followed on Representative Brice's point by               
 noting that the funds from additional child support enforcement               
 would also not be dedicated, they would also go into the general              
 MR. NORDLUND noted that both the rateable reduction and child                 
 support enforcement will be able to decrease the amount of money              
 spent in the upcoming fiscal year for assistance payments.                    
 Number 1855                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that the prime sponsor of the bill                 
 recognized in the Finance subcommittee the connection between                 
 eligibility determination and fraud detection.  There are real                
 savings associated with those types of expenditures.                          
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for the vote on the amendment.  Voting "yes"            
 on the amendment were Representative Brice and Representative                 
 Robinson.  Voting "no" were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey,                  
 Representative Davis and Representative Rokeberg.  Amendment 1                
 Number 1889                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 2.  An objection was made for            
 discussion purposes.  Representative Brice said basically, this               
 amendment creates an incentive for the department to take a more              
 active and involved role in getting paternity established.  He does           
 not think it is appropriate for someone to be set on workfare if              
 the department has not done everything it can to establish                    
 MS. DUKE said the amendment seems to allow mothers who have                   
 cooperated with the agency to be exempted from the workfare                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE added, "if the department has not been                   
 successful in establishing paternity."                                        
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if someone does not want to be put into the              
 workfare program, all they have to do it tell the department the              
 name of their child(ren)'s father.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said absolutely not.  The amendment says that            
 the parent has done everything she can to get paternity                       
 established, but the department has not yet been willing to                   
 establish paternity.                                                          
 Number 1969                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG said perhaps the amendment is in the           
 wrong spot in the bill.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said no, the amendment is under exemptions to            
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the amendment means if mothers               
 have cooperated with the department, they are exempt from workfare.           
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained that in this case, the department              
 for one reason or another has not been able to establish paternity.           
 What needs to be done is to make sure the department is doing                 
 everything it can to get paternity established.                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was someone from the DHSS to speak             
 to this amendment.  Co-Chair Toohey was under the impression that             
 paternity is established before AFDC is awarded.                              
 Number 2018                                                                   
 MR. NORDLUND believed that currently, the department is required to           
 establish paternity.  The applicant who does not cooperate is not             
 eligible for benefits.                                                        
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE summarized the amendment.  He said the point is that           
 the mother has cooperated, but the department has not yet                     
 established paternity.  Co-Chair Bunde wondered at what point it is           
 decided the department has done everything it can.                            
 MR. NORDLUND said the DHSS does not establish paternity.  The Child           
 Support Enforcement Division (CSED) establishes paternity.                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE again asked at what point is it decided the division           
 has done all it can.                                                          
 MR. NORDLUND said sometimes there are circumstances beyond the                
 control of the DHSS and the CSED, that do not allow paternity to be           
 Number 2000                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if currently, if paternity is not                  
 established, the person is exempt.                                            
 MR. NORDLUND answered no.  If the applicant does not cooperate in             
 the establishment of paternity under the AFDC Program, they are not           
 eligible for AFDC.                                                            
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that some women could easily get through that             
 loophole by saying perhaps they were unconscious at the time of               
 conception, and they do not know who the father of the child is.              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that there are a few things that may             
 be going on that should be kept in mind.  First, Representative               
 Robinson knows of a case in which a girl was raped by five men.               
 This girl was the foster child of Representative Robinson's sister.           
 The attack took place down in Utah, after the girl left Juneau.               
 However, in the attempt to establish paternity, each man had to be            
 tested, and this was torture for the poor girl.  Finally, by the              
 time they were testing the fourth man, she jumped off a balcony.              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON urged HESS Committee members to remember              
 there are more than just simple cases in which a woman goes to bed            
 with one man and she knows he is the father of her child.                     
 Representative Robinson does not even know how this might work for            
 a person who adopts a child and then needs to go onto AFDC.  She              
 does not know if they would be exempt.  That is a situation in                
 which the paternity of a child may not be known.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it may take sometimes up to two years            
 to establish paternity.  HESS Committee members may wish and hope             
 mothers have only slept with one person, but that may not                     
 necessarily be the case.  The woman may not know who the father is.           
 Number 2123                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said Representative Robinson was helping make his              
 point.  Simply saying, "The department has done all it can do," is            
 not good enough.  The state must have a guideline concerning how              
 much the department can and should do.  There is always something             
 else that can be done, but at what point would a reasonable person            
 say enough has been done.                                                     
 MR. NORDLUND added the Governor has introduced a bill that will               
 speed the process of establishing paternity.  Basically, all these            
 determinations are being backlogged in the court.  When the court             
 finally has time to deal with the cases, there is basically a                 
 rubber stamp of an administrative decision.  The Governor's bill              
 will take the court out of the process and allow administrative               
 paternity establishment.  This way, paternity can be established              
 MR. NORDLUND said it would also help achieve what Representative              
 Brice is after.  It would also help ease the entire process of                
 collecting AFDC payments.                                                     
 Number 2171                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he was not sure Representative Brice's                    
 amendment is the way to get to that point.  Co-Chair Bunde supports           
 increased child support enforcement.                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the question is whether or not a single             
 parent should be made to participate in workfare if the department            
 has not done what it was supposed to do as far as establishing                
 paternity.  There are those examples where that might be the case.            
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY feels the department does a better job than that.             
 The legislature tried to assist paternity establishment through               
 Representative Bettye Davis' bill last year.  That practice is                
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that if DHSS is doing a good job, it               
 would do no harm to pass his amendment.                                       
 Number 2212                                                                   
 MS. DUKE felt in a way, the amendment would almost discriminate               
 against these women.  They would not be able to benefit from the              
 earned income disregard, the auto allowance and the other                     
 provisions they would have access to under the demonstration                  
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a vote.  Voting "yes" on the amendment              
 were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson.  Voting "no"           
 were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and                
 Representative Rokeberg.  Amendment 2 failed.                                 
 Number 2244                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 3.  An objection was made, and           
 he spoke to the amendment.  He said the purpose of the amendment is           
 to exempt a person who would otherwise be ineligible for AFDC if              
 they were receiving child support.  It is very important to                   
 recognize the fact that a lot of the people on welfare would not be           
 on welfare if they were getting the money owed to them.                       
 Representative Brice asked for unanimous consent on this amendment.           
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE did not disagree with the premise of the amendment,            
 however, he was unsure if this bill was the correct vehicle to use.           
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the point is there has not been yet a               
 strong discussion about the purpose behind workfare.  Until HESS              
 Committee members get a definitive answer that workfare has a                 
 specific goal, Representative Brice is assuming workfare is a                 
 punitive measure.  Under that assumption, and until workfare is               
 clarified, it is only appropriate that a single parent who is owed            
 child support be exempt.  The state has not been aggressive and               
 successful in getting that child support paid.                                
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE continued that it is not appropriate to punish           
 a single parent.                                                              
 TAPE 95-32, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she did not consider workfare a punishment.              
 She considers the whole bill a way to help turn the tide on                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how workfare does that.  Co-Chair Toohey           
 said she would not spend the committee's time discussing workfare's           
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that earlier, Ms. Duke said women who are not            
 getting child support should not receive a "double whammy" by not             
 being able to participate in demonstration projects either.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said those women can participate in the                  
 unemployed parents project, the self-employment project and the               
 diversion project.  And they still get the waivers.  He said there            
 has been no testimony that workfare is anything but punitive.                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that is plenty enough reason to have it.                  
 Number 081                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted all the testimony she has heard says            
 that part of the concept behind workfare is punitive.  It is to try           
 to make people on AFDC work because the state wants them to have              
 better work ethics.  Representative Robinson felt Representative              
 Brice was trying to say there may be situations in which parents              
 are trying to better their lives.  If they were receiving child               
 support payments, they would not even be on AFDC.  They are only on           
 AFDC because the non-custodial parent is not paying child support.            
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON understood what Representative Brice was              
 saying.  The custodial parents still get all the other benefits               
 under the program.  But the amendment would make it so the state              
 would not penalize the custodial parent because the non-custodial             
 parent is not paying.  Representative Robinson feels workfare is              
 punitive.  The people exempt under this amendment have not done               
 anything wrong, their ex-partner is simply not supporting the                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the state cannot assume that every person on              
 AFDC is only there because they do not get child support.                     
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON agreed most people on AFDC are not in that            
 circumstance.  However, the amendment aims to exempt people under             
 the particular circumstances which Representative Brice identified.           
 Number 223                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the state was then to ask the department to           
 decide what people are worthy and which ones are not.                         
 Representative Brice seemed to indicate in his earlier amendment              
 that DHSS has not been doing their complete job.  Therefore, Co-              
 Chair Bunde did not think the state should give them more work.               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the CSED clearly has a list of parents           
 in arrears, especially the parents who are largely in debt to the             
 custodial parent.  There are cases in which women are owed up to              
 $25,000 in back child support.  Representative Robinson feels if              
 that support was paid, those women would not be on AFDC.                      
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he is not willing to accept that guarantee.  He           
 also noted that Representative Robinson's figures are too low.                
 Last year, HESS Committee members were presented with a list of 100           
 worst case scenarios, and all those on the list owed at least                 
 $100,000.  Many of those people were from rural Alaska.                       
 Number 304                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that if in fact offering work to            
 a person who needs help is punitive, welfare reform and this bill             
 are 180 degrees off.  Representative Rokeberg does not agree with             
 that, and that is not what the legislature is trying to accomplish            
 with this project.  The legislature is not trying to punish.  He              
 believes HESS Committee members are trying to provide a plan in               
 which a mother can have dignity coming home at the end of a work              
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said there is a new head of the CSED, and that                
 person is getting good results.  Co-Chair Toohey would like to give           
 that person a fair chance to show what she can do.                            
 MS. DUKE wanted to comment that the intent of the bill is not                 
 punitive.  The intent of the bill is to remove disincentives that             
 are inherently in the Welfare Program as it is currently set up.              
 HB 78 seeks to then test incentive programs to find out what will             
 be most helpful in encouraging people and allowing them more                  
 resources with which to work.  The DHSS study proved that the                 
 majority of AFDC recipients want the ability to work.                         
 Number 406                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said most of the bill contains good                   
 measures.  However, she is not happy with the reduction in benefits           
 to the recipient.  Certainly everyone can have a different                    
 philosophy on workfare.  However, workfare requires someone to go             
 out and work in a volunteer program for no money.  Instead of                 
 assisting them in getting a job that pays well so the person can              
 get off welfare, workfare is basically requiring them even to leave           
 their young children to participate in workfare.  Clearly, through            
 everything Representative Robinson has heard, workfare is a                   
 punitive measure.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON was curious about the feelings of the DHSS            
 regarding the workfare concept.                                               
 MR. NORDLUND said in order for him to comment, he must back away              
 from this bill and this particular amendment.  The Governor                   
 basically has a community work project in his approach.  He                   
 believes these kind of work projects are good.  However, what is              
 different about the Governor's approach is that workfare is looked            
 at as providing the opportunity for people to go to work.  What the           
 state needs to do is back up and make sure it is providing job                
 readiness and job training.                                                   
 MR. NORDLUND continued therefore, when the time comes and people              
 are under a time limit to get off benefits, they are prepared to              
 move into the private sector and take a job, assuming the job is              
 MR. NORDLUND said it even goes higher than that in that the                   
 Governor, himself, has taken an obligation to make sure jobs are              
 available, not only for all Alaskans but for AFDC recipients.                 
 Therefore, the DHSS wants welfare reform to be a genuine                      
 opportunity for a genuine job.  To the extent the bill provides for           
 pilot projects that help achieve that, the Division of Public                 
 Assistance in support of that.  It does not see those measures as             
 MR. NORDLUND conceded that if workfare is simply viewed as work               
 projects that do not lead to long term employment, his opinion is             
 that the project would be punitive.  Therefore, the Governor's                
 approach for workfare does work if it is looked at within context.            
 Number 576                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said many of these "back-to-work" programs he has              
 read about involve people for whom going to work is not a normal              
 course of life.  These people have to be taught to get up on time,            
 to be at work on time and dress appropriately.  Workfare teaches              
 that sort of thing.  It certainly teaches the next generation to              
 break the welfare cycle.  Functioning in this world does not                  
 involve not having schedules and responsibility.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated the fact of the matter is there is no             
 component within the Workfare Program being proposed that leads to            
 long-term employment.  It does not do much more than demean people.           
 If it created long-term employment opportunities, Representative              
 Brice would "jump up and down and say `Yee-haw'."  However, when              
 the bill tries to put people into jobs stuffing envelopes, there is           
 no training there.  There are already jobs programs in which                  
 monthly reports show these programs take people off AFDC and put              
 people to work.                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stressed that is the important thing.  HESS              
 Committee members must be certain what they are getting with                  
 workfare.  First of all, a person who signs up for eligibility must           
 start community service.  What kind of training currently takes               
 place in the non-profit agencies where people will be put to work?            
 More importantly, what kind of training is going to be provided for           
 the workfare participant?  Those factors are not addressed here,              
 and Representative Brice is concerned.                                        
 Number 730                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the only thing his amendment does is make           
 sure the child support payments are being pushed to the point they            
 should be.  It comes down to a policy question.  What the amendment           
 attempts to do is make people responsible for their children.                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE completely agreed with Representative Brice's last             
 comment.  A roll call vote was taken.  Voting "yes" on the                    
 amendment were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson.              
 Voting "no" were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative              
 Davis and Representative Rokeberg.  Amendment 3 failed.                       
 Number 784                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 4.  An objection was made for            
 purposes of discussion, and Representative Brice spoke to the                 
 amendment.  He said a lot of the discussion that should be taking             
 place around this legislation is how to break down the barriers to            
 employment.  The two biggest barriers to employment are longer-term           
 day care and longer-term medical assistance.  That is all Amendment           
 4 does.  It extends those types of transitional benefits from 12              
 months to 24 months.                                                          
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that as this would double the expense, he                
 facetiously assumed Representative Brice would support doubling the           
 rateable reduction.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE countered he would consider that if this                 
 amendment passes.                                                             
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote.  Voting "yes" on the              
 amendment were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson.              
 Voting "no" were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative              
 Davis and Representative Rokeberg.  Amendment 4 failed.                       
 Number 930                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 5.  An objection was made for            
 purposes of discussion.  Representative Brice said concern has been           
 expressed by HESS Committee members.  The key question is how to              
 get people off welfare and into the job market.  He believes one of           
 the biggest deficiencies in workfare is there is no establishment             
 that will work to get people off welfare.  It provides that it is             
 OK for the state to pay for long-term volunteers in the community.            
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt that was a bad message to be sending.               
 HESS Committee members need to make sure the DHSS establishes long-           
 term self-sufficiency case management for welfare recipients to get           
 them working and off assistance.  Since the representatives have              
 been very concerned about making sure people are put into good                
 paying jobs, Representative Brice would appreciate HESS Committee             
 members' support for this amendment.                                          
 Number 946                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that would cost quite a bit.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE disagreed.  He asked if the department                   
 representatives would comment.                                                
 MR. NORDLUND expressed full support for the amendment.  It is the             
 intent of the department to make sure these workfare projects                 
 actually do give people the skills to get long-term jobs.                     
 Considering that the bill contains pilot projects, he feels this              
 amendment is a good idea.                                                     
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said studies have shown that any type of employment           
 is beneficial to getting people into long-term employment.  Even              
 McDonald's provides a good start.  The pay there might not be very            
 good, but the whole atmosphere of working in a clean place, dealing           
 with the public is good training.  Anytime there is a person in a             
 work program, whether it is to the person's liking for a long-range           
 career does not matter.  It is a start.  This type of amendment               
 will eliminate that start.                                                    
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY read under the subsection of the amendment:  "Only            
 if the activity will help the person achieve a long-term self-                
 sufficiency."  Co-Chair Toohey interprets that to mean this job               
 will be something the person wants forever.                                   
 Number 1025                                                                   
 MR. NORDLUND said the amendment seems to be attempting to recognize           
 that any long-term employment is a series of steps.  First you may            
 be doing volunteer activities, which are intended by the Governor's           
 approach and the workfare approach.  As long as that volunteer job            
 has a relationship to an eventual "real job" a person could get, it           
 is all a part of a plan.  It is a step on the way.  The amendment             
 seeks to help the individual chart that course.  It holds the                 
 department to task to make sure the activities the person does will           
 eventually lead them to that job.  It is actually a good plan.                
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked what happens if there is no job at McDonald's           
 and the person has to sweep the streets?                                      
 MR. NORDLUND said perhaps street sweeping would eventually get the            
 person a decent maintenance job working for the municipality of               
 Anchorage.  It must be looked at on a case-by-case basis.  These              
 self-sufficiency plans should be tailored for the individual                  
 Number 1085                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said perhaps a person wants to, for                   
 example, work in a shelter as a counselor or social worker.  A good           
 placement for them would be as a volunteer somewhere that would               
 give them the training and education so they become a better                  
 citizen.  It is important to not just throw people out to do any              
 kind of work just because the state wants them to be volunteering             
 21 hours a week.  If these people have four or five children, this            
 is not moving them forward.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON continued that however, if job placement is           
 investigated that will benefit the person in the long-term,                   
 volunteer job placement could be found to promote that.  If the               
 person wants to be a nurse, they could first be placed as a candy-            
 striper, helping other nurses.                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it is important to not simply find any           
 kind of volunteer job for a person just so they are doing 21 hours            
 a week of work to punish them.  The state should assist them in a             
 volunteer job placement that is going to further their education              
 and move them off the welfare lines down the road.                            
 Number 1155                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS felt the amendment spelled out intent.  The              
 federal government must approve the demonstration project.  It says           
 in Section 4 of the bill, page 3, "To the extent that the federal             
 government approves the necessary waivers the department shall                
 implement the project.  The purposes of the projects are to promote           
 personal responsibility and self-sufficiency."                                
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS concluded the federal government must approve            
 the project as far as specifying that the department may assign a             
 person, there must be some statistics being kept to show the                  
 benefits of these projects.  Those will also be required by the               
 federal government before they approve the project.  Therefore, the           
 provisions of the amendment are already inherent in the                       
 legislation.  The amendment is simply specifying some details.                
 Certainly the aim of the bill is for "long-term self-sufficiency."            
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said hopefully, someone will be doing such a             
 good job volunteering that, for example, if someone quits, the                
 position will be offered to the volunteer.  They will then be off             
 welfare and on payroll.  That is the ideal situation in this                  
 demonstration project.  The provisions of the amendment are already           
 in the bill.  Representative Davis asked to hear from the                     
 department.  It seems to him that this is already the way the bill            
 is planned to be run.  This is how success will be checked.                   
 Number 1241                                                                   
 MR. NORDLUND said the department plans to perform that action                 
 whether the language is in the bill or not.  However, it does not             
 hurt to have the language in.                                                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said putting the language in there would increase              
 the fiscal note and the bureaucracy.  Long-term self-sufficiency is           
 not achieved by having a personal keeper telling the person on                
 welfare where to work.                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if the bill's sponsor had seen the                 
 MS. DUKE said there was nothing in the bill that would prohibit the           
 department from doing that.  It is certainly the intent of the                
 project.  However, she did not know if the department wanted to               
 evaluate every single situation from the very beginning to                    
 determine if it would end up in long-term self-sufficiency.                   
 Number 1302                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY was concerned about wording in the amendment. The             
 plan had to be developed in consultation with the person in the               
 program.  What if a person did not want to work anywhere available.           
 If that was the case, under the amendment the person would be out             
 of the program.  According to the amendment, the potential worker             
 must concur with the employment plan.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that is a very important point.  The fact           
 of the matter is workfare is not taking into account the most                 
 important element.  The people are the most important element.                
 Representative Brice thinks it is very important that the people be           
 consulted so there is some level of self-determination.  That is              
 what the amendment is about.                                                  
 MR. NORDLUND stated that the fiscal note already anticipates this             
 type of case management.  The DHSS sees this as very critical to              
 making workfare function effectively.                                         
 Number 1353                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if she could therefore assume if someone said           
 they did not want to perform a particular job, they would not have            
 MR. NORDLUND said assuming they do not participate in workfare,               
 sanctions will be imposed.  A person cannot simply decline.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS commended the amendment for using the word               
 "may."  That permissive language is good.  But is also says,                  
 "activity under this subsection only if the activity will help the            
 person...."  That is narrowing some of the intent.  In addition,              
 the definition of long-term self-sufficiency also reads of "only."            
 That is nebulous.  Representative Davis noted Mr. Nordlund                    
 mentioned that is the intent of the department but it would always            
 be helpful to have that language in the bill.  However,                       
 Representative Davis thinks perhaps it would hurt the bill to have            
 it in.                                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said therefore, perhaps some of the wording in           
 the amendment could be changed.                                               
 Number 1420                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt that when discussing the amendment, HESS            
 Committee members should keep in mind that long-term self-                    
 sufficiency is a series of steps to employment.  A person usually             
 does not go straight from AFDC to being an advertising executive.             
 That is the naivete of the workfare program as it is currently                
 written.  It is very important to recognize that small steps must             
 first be taken.  As Co-Chair Bunde noted, people quite often do               
 need employment skills such as being on time and working on a                 
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE continued that those people must then                    
 understand that employment is good.  Any type of employment is                
 good, even working at a convenience store.  At that point, the                
 person can continue to develop and work.  Representative Brice is             
 concerned that if the bill does not speak of long-term self-                  
 sufficiency, there is nothing that is going to state that these               
 programs will continue after the person is employed at the                    
 convenience store.  The state must continue to get people into                
 better jobs.  This is not just a case of reducing benefits as                 
 income increases.  The person must be completely removed from                 
 benefits.  That is the very important aspect.                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wants to insure that those people are not back           
 on assistance after two years after going through workfare.                   
 Number 1513                                                                   
 MS. DUKE noted that workfare is a five-year project.  She does not            
 know if Representative Brice's goals are feasible in that amount of           
 time.  She does not know if it can be assured that everything they            
 are going to be doing is going to result in long-term self-                   
 sufficiency in a five-year demonstration project.  In addition,               
 there are a number of activities that are allowed under this                  
 section that are not work.  They are culturally relevant                      
 subsistence activities such as high school completion and community           
 MS. DUKE was not sure those activities, which were included from              
 the Governor's bill, would fit under the amendment.  She thinks the           
 amendment could be very limiting.                                             
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this amendment would perhaps be mandating a               
 large increase in caseworkers.                                                
 Number 1562                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wrapped up the discussion.  He does not think            
 the amendment mandates an increase in caseworkers at all.  It will,           
 however, insure that if someone is going to participate in some of            
 these other related activities, the client will be included to some           
 extent in what those activities will be.  This is in contrast to              
 the state "telling" the person what they will do if they want their           
 next benefit check.                                                           
 MS. DUKE reminded HESS Committee members that the department is               
 already intending to do just that.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated legislators are always complaining that           
 statutes are not tight enough.  This amendment is trying to tighten           
 up the language.                                                              
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a vote.  Voting "yes" on the amendment              
 were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson.  Voting "no"           
 were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and                
 Representative Rokeberg.  Amendment 5 failed.                                 
 Number 1618                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 6.  An objection was made for            
 purposes of discussion.  Representative Brice said this amendment             
 insures there is some focus for workfare.  He wanted to make sure             
 the state was not simply telling people when to show up where for             
 how long.  He wanted the department to acknowledge that long-term             
 employability is important in addressing the AFDC and welfare                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt that discussion on a similar topic had just               
 occurred.  He called for the vote.  Voting "yes" on the amendment             
 were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson.  Voting "no"           
 were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and                
 Representative Rokeberg.  Amendment 6 failed.                                 
 Number 1683                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 7.  An objection was made and            
 he spoke to the amendment.  He had started off his amendments by              
 saying the rateables should not be introduced until the programs              
 were set up.  He feels that was a mistake, because the consensus is           
 that would cause an increase in funding.   His concern, however, is           
 that the rateables will be reinstated if, at some point in time in            
 the near future, the federal government lifts all restrictions.               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested that if the bill and the rateables             
 go through and are implemented, the waivers are acquired and all              
 projects are put into place, everything would be made meaningless             
 by a change in the federal law.  Everybody in the state would then            
 be able to participate in those types of programs.  Representative            
 Brice feels it would be appropriate at that point in time, when               
 there is no longer expense associated with programs, for those                
 rateables to be reinstated.                                                   
 Number 1746                                                                   
 MS. DUKE did not feel this amendment was necessary.  Section 4 says           
 the department's ability to implement the projects is dependent on            
 changes in the federal government.  Again, in subsection (1) of               
 section C, the department has the ability to discontinue the                  
 project under the waivers that were implemented before the federal            
 change occurred.  The department can discontinue the projects if              
 it is not going to be fiscally responsible in light of the federal            
 changes in statutes and regulations.                                          
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said in any case, the workfare is a five-year                  
 project, and it would go away in five years.  This includes the               
 rateable reductions.                                                          
 MS. DUKE concurred that the date of repeal is for the entire bill,            
 rateable included.                                                            
 Number 1796                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he appreciated Ms. Duke's comments, but             
 they were not applicable because the projects, not the rateables              
 will be repealed.  If HESS Committee members are so bent on                   
 associating the rateables with the projects, it would be                      
 appropriate that when there are no more expenses associated with              
 those projects, the rateables be reinstated at that time.  That is            
 what the amendment does.  It makes sure that once the projects are            
 repealed, the rateables automatically go back to where they were.             
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a vote.  Voting "yes" on the amendment              
 were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson.  Voting "no"           
 were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and                
 Representative Rokeberg.  Amendment 7 failed.                                 
 Number 1832                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved Amendment 8.  An objection was made             
 for discussion purposes.  Representative Robinson said under the              
 current regulation, a minor who is a parent and who lives with her            
 parents would be ineligible for AFDC.  Under this bill, unless the            
 minor's parents were eligible for AFDC, and since the minor                   
 parent's income is counted as income for the purpose of determining           
 this eligibility, most of them would not be able to receive AFDC.             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her amendment allows children to stay            
 in the homes with their parents and still be able to receive AFDC             
 dollars for assistance.  This is especially applicable for those              
 families in which the parental income is right on the edge of the             
 assistance level.  Representative Robinson knows of situations in             
 which single mothers have three children and then one of their                
 daughters gets pregnant.  It is clearly in the best interest of the           
 minor to stay at home.  The mother can support and help the                   
 daughter and the baby.                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the mother is not on AFDC, and she is            
 barely making it.  The baby could add too much of a financial                 
 strain on the mother to the point where it is better to have the              
 daughter live on her own.  This, then, allows for the income of               
 parents to be taken out of the determination for AFDC.  Only the              
 income of the teenager is counted.  Therefore, the teen qualifies             
 for AFDC.  It helps her become self-sufficient and she is not going           
 to be kicked out of the house for financial reasons.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON believes this is in the best interest of              
 all involved.  She had thought the sponsor of the bill was strongly           
 considering taking the teen parent provisions out of the bill                 
 altogether because there are many reasons why a child cannot move             
 out.  As Representative Robinson understood her conversations with            
 Representative Hanley, the intent of his bill is to do whatever is            
 possible to assist young single mothers in staying in a supportive            
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON felt her amendment will assist them even              
 further.  She does not think it will cost more money, because if              
 parents have money, they will not make their child apply for AFDC.            
 This will only affect those parents in which the situation is right           
 at the edge.  This will prevent young mothers from leaving home in            
 order to get help.  The job of HESS Committee members is to make              
 sure these children are supported.                                            
 Number 1976                                                                   
 MS. DUKE felt there was a possibility this amendment could increase           
 the fiscal note.  There is no way of knowing how many teens living            
 at home now would become eligible for AFDC once this bill passed              
 with this amendment.  Ms. Duke did not think the department could             
 estimate that number.                                                         
 MR. NORDLUND said currently, the issue the amendment addresses is             
 in state law.  It does not require a waiver.  Changing eligibility            
 requirements would require a waiver from the federal government.              
 There would be some fiscal impact for that.  He certainly                     
 appreciates the intent of Representative Robinson's amendment.                
 However, this amendment could not be implemented without applying             
 for a waiver.                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if it could not be wrapped up with              
 all the waivers that are going to be submitted.                               
 MR. NORDLUND said it certainly could be placed with the other                 
 waivers.  However, it would still be an additional aspect.                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Nordlund to speak to the                    
 philosophy behind the amendment.                                              
 MR. NORDLUND agreed with the philosophy behind the amendment.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if he felt it would be in the best              
 interest of teen mothers to stay home, and that by staying home               
 teen mothers could cause their families to end up in the welfare              
 MR. NORDLUND agreed.                                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON concluded that either way, there could be             
 cost somewhere down the road.                                                 
 Number 2068                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was not sure he understood the total                  
 ramifications of the amendment.  He feels Representative Robinson             
 has solid ground on which to bring the amendment forward.  However,           
 he is uncertain whether the HESS Committee members can consider the           
 entire ramifications of this today.  He commented that he would buy           
 into the amendment but he would like some tighter language.  He               
 asked for the clear intent of the amendment, and the term "or                 
 living arrangements."                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said in other words, the teen may be living           
 with an aunt, grandparent, or other relative or guardian.  As she             
 understands it, this would apply to the living arrangement the teen           
 was currently in.  That may not necessarily be with mother and                
 father.  Again, that is another situation that is not unusual.                
 When Representative Robinson was growing up, it was not uncommon              
 for parents to send their young, unwed, pregnant daughters off to             
 another town.  If the grandparents took in the girl, they may be on           
 a fixed income.  If the teen could get some assistance, that would            
 be a benefit.                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained the teen would benefit because              
 she will be able to remain in a supportive, safe environment.  She            
 will not have to find her way on her own because that is the only             
 way she can receive assistance.                                               
 Number 2140                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said if, in fact, "or other living                    
 arrangements" is a term of art in the sector of public assistance,            
 and this term is drafting nomenclature, it would be appropriate.              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her staff just told her it is clearly            
 in the bill already, and that is the language that is being used.             
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE considered what the department just stated,              
 and offered a friendly amendment to Amendment 8.  He asked to                 
 strike page 2, line 30 and insert page 4, line 20, and insert a new           
 subsection to read, (4):  When determining for and the amount of              
 assistance in the case of a minor, a parent who is required to live           
 in a household or living arrangement under Section 2 of this bill,            
 the department shall disregard the income and resources of the                
 adults in the household or living arrangement.                                
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said in other words, he seeks to make the                
 amendment not part of the teen parents section of the bill, but to            
 make it part of the waiver process for the department.  He felt               
 that was the appropriate place for the amendment.                             
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked him to please draft another amendment rather             
 than rewrite Representative Robinson's.                                       
 Number 2211                                                                   
 MR. LOMAS interjected that in fact, the law only holds a parent               
 responsible for a child.  Therefore, the department never imputes             
 the availability of income from the other adult with whom the child           
 is living unless that adult also applies for AFDC on their own                
 behalf.  The amendment language could be greatly simplified to                
 include a situation in which the minor parent is required to live             
 with his/her own parent.  The language may say, "The department               
 shall disregard the income and resources of the parent."  That is             
 really the only situation where this amendment would come into                
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Representative Robinson would like to                 
 withdraw her amendment and have it rewritten with the aid of Mr.              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if he could quickly draft such                  
 language with her staff, and he agreed.  She withdrew her                     
 Number 2272                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved Amendment 9.  An objection was made             
 for discussion purposes.  Representative Robinson said this                   
 amendment should clearly make and save money down the road.                   
 Currently, when a teen mother who applies for AFDC, she must give             
 the name of the child's father to CSED, so the father can offset              
 the cost of child support.  The father cannot usually pay much...             
 TAPE 95-33, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON continued...because he may not be working.            
 If he is working, he is not making much money.  Normally, the                 
 minimal amount of child support would be $50.                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated therefore, since this bill calls for           
 the parent of the teen mother to assume responsibility for their              
 daughter, it is only fair the parents of the teenage father be                
 required to also assume responsibility.  This amendment changes               
 court rule 90.03 so the income of the teenage father's parents can            
 be counted in determining the amount of child support to be awarded           
 and make the teen father's parents responsible for payment of child           
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted this responsibility would only take             
 place until the teen father was 18 years old, married or                      
 emancipated.  Representative Robinson said she does not have any              
 daughters.  She has a son.  Therefore, she is not trying to go                
 after parents.  However, she believes that if the legislature is              
 trying to make everyone responsible, fathers should be included.              
 Right now, the responsibility is placed completely with the young             
 woman and her parents.                                                        
 Number 106                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said therefore, this amendment stipulates             
 that if a "Bob", who is in high school and only makes $50 a week,             
 gets "Mary Lou" pregnant and they do not get married, it makes                
 sense that Bob's parents, who make $100,000 a year, can help pick             
 up the support of this child.  A little bit of the burden is being            
 shifted here to the parents of the boys.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON really believes that if the teen mother's             
 parents have money, it is also their responsibility to help take              
 care of the child.  This amendment makes everyone responsible.                
 MR. NORDLUND said this is an amendment that affects child support.            
 He declined, therefore, to speak for the Administration.  However,            
 he personally supported the amendment.  It meets with the intent of           
 the Governor's approach to make teen pregnancy the responsibility             
 of more than just the pregnant teen.  If the state is going to make           
 teen mothers live at home, there will also be an obligation placed            
 on the teen mothers' parents.  Therefore, there should also be an             
 equal amount of responsibility placed on the teen father's parents.           
 MS. DUKE said she does not have a problem with the amendment and              
 the idea behind it.  However, she did think this was something that           
 belongs in child support legislation, and not in a welfare reform             
 bill.  The amendment does not address situations in which the teen            
 father's parents are receiving AFDC.  This is really the only way             
 the state could try to get support from a father in welfare reform            
 legislation.  This is something that would require a different type           
 of bill.                                                                      
 Number 307                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY agreed with Ms. Duke.  She felt HB 78 was an                  
 inappropriate vehicle for this topic.  Co-Chair Toohey felt this              
 topic is so very important it actually needs a vehicle of its own.            
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE volunteered to co-sponsor any legislation                      
 Representative Robinson would make regarding this issue.  However,            
 he also expressed concern about the fit of the amendment with the             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was told by the drafter of the               
 amendment that the amendment would fit and there would be no                  
 problem.  The Department of Law told Representative Robinson this             
 amendment would fit with this bill.  She said this is the vehicle             
 that is moving, however, she would like to get the provision into             
 the bill before the committee.  This is clearly a cost savings.               
 This provision would allow for the further collection of child                
 support from teen father's parents.  That is the direction this               
 legislature should be going.                                                  
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE was in complete agreement with the goal                        
 Representative Robinson was trying to achieve.  He only has a                 
 question with a vehicle.  He asked her not to take his disagreement           
 with the vehicle as disagreement with the goal.                               
 Number 411                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wanted to make it clear the drafters of the           
 amendment said it would fit into this bill.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said if each and every section of HB 78 could            
 be broken out and ran as a separate piece of legislation, it is the           
 prerogative and duty of this committee to address the amendments to           
 this bill.  Amendment 9 does the appropriate, necessary, legal                
 actions of changing the title, which is completely within the                 
 purview of the committee, and implementing the necessary sections.            
 There is not a single subject problem according to legal advice               
 from the Department of Law.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said there is no prohibition against this                
 committee expanding the title considering it is the House's piece             
 of legislation.  The only purpose of not supporting this amendment            
 is saying HESS Committee members do not support appropriate                   
 responsibility on the part of the teen father and his parents.                
 Number 516                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE disagreed with what he felt was a stretch of the               
 HESS Committee's purview.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was concerned about the scope of the                  
 amendment as a grandparent.  However, the draftsmanship seems in              
 order at first glance.  He is concerned about the rights and                  
 obligations of grandparents and how they fit into the scheme of               
 things.  Conceptually he supports this idea.  However, there would            
 be a large scope to this provision.                                           
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced a five minute at ease at 4:52 p.m.  He               
 called the meeting back to order at 4:01 p.m.  A roll call vote was           
 taken on Amendment 9.  Voting "yes" on the amendment were                     
 Representative Brice and Representative Robinson.  Voting "no" were           
 Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and                     
 Representative Rokeberg.  Amendment 9 failed.                                 
 Number 633                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved Amendment 10.  There was an objection           
 and he spoke to his amendment.  He said this suggested change would           
 mandate that any recipient approved for assistance under Section 2            
 would be required to go to school.  He hoped this would not be a              
 waiver situation.  He has had a number of conversations with Major            
 Bob Anderson of the Booth Memorial Home for pregnant teenagers and            
 he is a strong advocate of this situation.  He provides maybe one             
 of the only, if not the largest assistive living situations for               
 pregnant teens in the state with educational opportunities in his             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for approval if the sponsor would               
 accept this amendment.                                                        
 MR. NORDLUND said this would require a waiver.  This is a unique              
 situation in that the AFDC federal law allows the state to require            
 children to be at home to receive assistance.  There is a window.             
 That is why this section of the bill does not require a waiver in             
 the first place.  When additional requirements are added, most                
 likely a waiver will be needed.  Existing federal AFDC rules are              
 being changed.  Representative Rokeberg is suggesting basically a             
 "learnfare" type of program.                                                  
 MR. NORDLUND said there is a section like this in Senator Green's             
 bill, and a fiscal note is being worked up on that currently.  This           
 amendment would definitely require a waiver, however.                         
 Number 786                                                                    
 MR. NORDLUND also felt if Representative Rokeberg wanted to pursue            
 this amendment he would need to clarify some things.  Mr. Nordlund            
 would assume there are minors who are already high school                     
 graduates.  That is conceivable.  Representative Rokeberg would               
 probably also want to allow for someone who is pursuing a Graduate            
 Equivalency Degree (GED) to be included in the provision.  In other           
 words, the person does not have to be in school to be covered.                
 MS. DUKE did not think Representative Hanley would have a problem             
 with the idea of the amendment.  However, he would probably want to           
 address whether to put another waiver project in the bill in the              
 next committee.  Ms. Duke had not realized this amendment would               
 require a waiver.                                                             
 Number 827                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON had two suggestions.  The first was to add            
 "certified education program," so if the person is in some kind of            
 training, they will not be considered "not in school."  Second,               
 this is the type of provision that should affect teenage fathers              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG decided to withdraw his amendment with the            
 hope it would be reinserted with the proper ornamentation drafted             
 around it to be workable.  He asked that the bill's sponsor                   
 consider notwithstanding the fact the amendment may require a                 
 waiver in either accepting or rejecting the amendment to the bill             
 at the next stage of the committee process.  There were no                    
 objections, and Amendment 10 was withdrawn.                                   
 Number 920                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would see that Representative Rokeberg's               
 message goes to the bill's sponsor and the next committee of                  
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved Amendment 11.  There was an                     
 objection.  Representative Robinson said this regards victims of              
 domestic violence and/or women who have had to leave their homes              
 because of sexual abuse on them or their children from a                      
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said all this amendment does is add another           
 level in which the department can determine a person's physical and           
 emotional health and safety would be jeopardized by participating             
 in a project.  For example, a woman may already be receiving AFDC.            
 The District Attorney's Office may have these women staying at a              
 shelter until trial, especially if it is a child sexual assault               
 case.  This gives the department the option to not require the                
 women to participate.                                                         
 Number 990                                                                    
 MR. NORDLUND said by all means this would be done as a matter of              
 MR. LOMAS said this provision is essentially covered in the last              
 two lines on page 5.  There is an exemption for participation in              
 workfare for people who are in the jobs program. This is one of the           
 number of exemptions that apply already.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON hoped the department was sure her amendment           
 was already covered.  Since they gave her an assurance, she                   
 withdrew Amendment 11.  There were no objections.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved Amendment 12, which is the new                  
 Amendment 8 which she previously withdrew.  There was an objection            
 for discussion purposes.                                                      
 MR. LOMAS said the intention of the original version of this                  
 amendment was to not create a situation in which minor parents who            
 are required to live at home lose eligibility for AFDC because they           
 are living at home and an adult's income and assets affect their              
 eligibility.  In fact, under the law only a parent is held                    
 responsible for a child.  Therefore, the language has just been               
 redrafted to eliminate that particular problem.  Additional                   
 language is also thrown in.                                                   
 MR. LOMAS explained that in essence, the amendment now requires the           
 child to live at home but he/she is still eligible for AFDC.                  
 Number 1145                                                                   
 MS. DUKE again voiced concern about the potential unknown cost of             
 this amendment which prevents her from accepting the amendment.  It           
 is not known how many teen parents living at home currently with              
 parents supporting them would become eligible for AFDC if this bill           
 passes.  She is concerned about the fiscal impact.                            
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said Ms. Duke is well-qualified.  If other members            
 of the committee are concerned, she would like to revisit this                
 amendment in the next committee of referral, the Judiciary                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt it was a real concern because the socio-            
 economic background of these folks is usually of the lower classes.           
 Therefore, this could place a real burden on the family and                   
 possibly make the family less viable.  Representative Brice felt              
 it was terribly important that this amendment be considered.                  
 Number 1229                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the facts are she does not have a                
 problem with teen mothers who stay home with their parents.  It is            
 a good thing to have the support of their parents.  There are also            
 plenty of provisions in the bill which account for cases of abuse             
 and other reasons why a child cannot and does not have to stay at             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON also knows of circumstances where a                   
 pregnant daughter would be a large hardship on the family.  If most           
 parents do not have to have their child sign up for AFDC they are             
 not going to do it.  Co-Chair Toohey has a bill, and if it passes             
 more responsibility will be taken by teen fathers.  However, this             
 amendment really helps teen parents and their families.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stressed that in many of these situations,            
 the daughters of single mothers are having babies.  This is a                 
 provision that will help every body out.                                      
 Number 1287                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a vote.  Voting "yes" on the amendment              
 were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson.  Voting "no"           
 were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and                
 Representative Rokeberg.  Amendment 12 failed.                                
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that CSHB 78(HES) was now before the                 
 committee.  He called for public comment.                                     
 Number 1350                                                                   
 MS. GOLL reminded HESS Committee members that there are many                  
 sections of HB 78 which her organization supports.  She agrees with           
 efforts to reform the system.  Apparently, that is the way the                
 nation is feeling about welfare.  Some changes need to be made in             
 the way the system is run.  However, she urged HESS Committee                 
 members to consider the general idea of holding back on the passage           
 of legislation this year, so the state can see what kind of changes           
 are going to be made by the federal government.                               
 MS. GOLL said the federal government is apparently gearing up to              
 make some changes.  The state does not know whether those changes             
 are going to look like HB 78, or the Senate welfare reform bill, or           
 if it will take away the entitlement status of AFDC altogether.  If           
 that happens, and the entitlement status of AFDC takes place on the           
 federal level and block grants are given to the state, the state is           
 going to have to start at ground zero and rework the current                  
 MS. GOLL said this is because the state will not be operating under           
 the rules the federal government has laid out.  Ms. Goll believes             
 most of the parts of this bill besides the teen parent project and            
 the rateable reductions are things that perhaps everyone can agree            
 should be included in the new welfare system.                                 
 MS. GOLL continued that the budget the House is about to prepare              
 for the floor includes funding for a welfare reform task force.               
 Ms. Goll believes the public needs to be involved in the redesign             
 of the system.  She knows, of course, that the legislature is going           
 to want to be very involved in setting that policy in statute.  She           
 hopes that, as legislators, each HESS Committee member will                   
 consider the idea of not acting on welfare reform this year but               
 waiting to see what kind of changes are going to happen.                      
 MS. GOLL said the welfare reform task force can have legislators              
 and members of the public on it.  The system can then be debated.             
 This may require changing the system to include time limits for               
 temporary assistance for those who should not make a lifestyle of             
 welfare, and protect those who are going to continue to need                  
 welfare.  She urged HESS Committee members to keep that in mind as            
 the bill moves forward.                                                       
 Number 1487                                                                   
 MS. GOLL said the Women's Lobby is opposed to reducing welfare                
 payments any more than they have already been reduced.  She has               
 often heard these rateables referred to as the little rateables               
 because they are so much smaller than the federal floor and the               
 cuts that were proposed in other legislation.  She asked HESS                 
 Committee members to keep in mind the fact sheet they were given at           
 a previous meeting.  That fact sheet shows how a family on AFDC who           
 does not have subsidized housing is already "in the hole."                    
 MS. GOLL said this bill will make that family be $15 dollars more             
 in the hole.  That morning, Ms. Goll listened to a debate on a                
 completely different bill that had to do with the registration of             
 cars.  Legislators were saying that if a sticker is not placed on             
 a car and the car is stopped by police, an extra $75 is fined.  The           
 legislators noted that was a lot of money.                                    
 MS. GOLL agreed that is a lot of money, especially to people who              
 are already living below the poverty level.  That is the reason the           
 Women's Lobby is opposed to the rateable reductions in the bill.              
 Number 1552                                                                   
 MS. GOLL said she has already described to HESS Committee members             
 the number of people who could be affected by the teen parents                
 project.  There has been plenty of discussion today about                     
 amendments that need to be attached to this bill because the bill             
 requires teen parents to live at home.  There would be no need for            
 some of those amendments if that section of the bill were                     
 eliminated.  In Ms. Goll's discussions with the sponsor of the bill           
 concerning amendments on the income of the teen parent's family, he           
 did suggest to Ms. Goll that maybe it would be better to delete               
 that section of the bill.                                                     
 MS. GOLL understands that the sponsor has been busy with very                 
 important things this week, and she hopes he will take another look           
 at the suggestion he made when the bill is in the Finance                     
 Number 1593                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said since Representative Hanley is Co-Chair of the            
 Finance Committee, there is a good chance the bill will be changed            
 there.  Co-Chair Bunde conceded that not knowing what may or may              
 not happen at the federal level is problematic.  HESS Committee               
 members are aiming at a type of moving target.  However, knowing              
 the gestation period involved in legislation, the HESS Committee              
 members will move forward.  Co-Chair Bunde understood her concern,            
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for the pleasure of the committee.  Co-Chair             
 Toohey moved that CSHB 78(HES) be moved from committee with                   
 individual recommendations.  Representative Brice objected and a              
 roll call vote was taken.  Voting "no" were Representative Brice              
 and Representative Robinson.  Voting "yes" were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-           
 Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and Representative Rokeberg.               
 The bill passed to the next committee of referral.                            
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON expressed a hope now that HB 78 has been              
 heard, the HESS Committee will calendar the Governor's bills (HB              
 242 and HB 244).  They clearly talk about paternity establishment             
 and interstate collections.  HB 62 concerns the licensing ban of              
 child support arrearages.  All three bills are in the HESS                    
 Committee.  Representative Robinson believes this bill is not going           
 to be as effective without the other bills.  At this late date, it            
 is more important than ever to hear and move those bills.                     
 HB 202 - JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS                                   
 Number 1690                                                                   
 LAURIE OTTO, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department           
 of Law, said the Governor is very thankful to the HESS Committee              
 for hearing this bill.  She said HB 202 was introduced by the                 
 Governor as a way of getting parents more involved in cases where             
 their children have been charged with acts of delinquency.  After             
 having been a prosecutor for several years, the first time Ms. Otto           
 appeared in a juvenile delinquency case was in 1982.  She was                 
 shocked that the parents of the child were not there, and indeed              
 they were not required to be there.  The case involved a 13-year-             
 old child.                                                                    
 MS. OTTO said this has been a problem in statutes for some time.              
 If the state cannot even get the parents to a court hearing, the              
 ability to affect the child's behavior goes down dramatically.                
 Number 1739                                                                   
 MS. OTTO explained the main part of the bill is in Section 2.                 
 Section 1 is a technical provision to which she will later refer.             
 Section 2 of the bill begins on page 3, line 3.  The first thing              
 the bill does is require parents to be present at all juvenile                
 delinquency hearings unless there is a good cause they can show to            
 the court why they cannot be there.  During the planning of this              
 bill, the Governor had asked the Department of Law (DOL) to speak             
 to police, educators and people who work with delinquent children             
 to see where they felt the biggest gaps in the system were.                   
 MS. OTTO said this area, without exception, was one of the biggest            
 holes identified.  Those groups felt there was a need to require              
 parents to participate in the process.  The second item identified            
 is what is contained in Section (B)(1).  This addresses children              
 who become delinquent because their parents do not have good                  
 parenting skills.  They do not pay attention to what their kids are           
 doing, and they do not supervise them.                                        
 MS. OTTO continued that the courts have become very frustrated over           
 the years because they cannot require, under the current laws,                
 parents to participate in treatment along with children.                      
 Therefore, that is the second point the bill covers.  Likewise, it            
 would allow the court to order parents to monitor their children's            
 behavior and to assist the court in getting the children to comply            
 with the conditions of probation set by the court.                            
 Number 1808                                                                   
 MS. OTTO noted if the parents are required to participate by the              
 court, the bill says the parents must first use their own insurance           
 and/or resources if they can afford to pay.  If they cannot afford            
 to pay, their permanent fund dividends (PFDs) can be used to pay              
 for the cost of treatment.                                                    
 MS. OTTO said Section 1 of the bill provides a streamlined                    
 mechanism for the department to be able to go in and get the PFDs             
 to pay for the cost of treatment for the children and their                   
 Number 1832                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if this would presuppose or require the parent           
 apply for their PFD, and he suggested the bill does not allow for             
 that money to simply be transferred from the earnings reserve.                
 MS. OTTO said that is her understanding.                                      
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY counted seven fiscal notes, all equalling zero.               
 She asked if there would be no cost to this bill.  The state is               
 assuming most of these parents have the finances to go to                     
 treatment.  That treatment is very expensive.  Treatment can                  
 include psychology and psychiatry.  Co-Chair Toohey cannot imagine            
 there are seven fiscal notes included with the bill and no cost.              
 Number 1880                                                                   
 MS. OTTO understands that, for the most part, either the parents              
 can pay or they have insurance to cover the cost.  Right now the              
 treatment of children is paid for by the department.  These are               
 children who are convicted or adjudicated delinquent for crimes.              
 That is already something the state is currently paying for.  Many            
 parents have insurance or resources.  Of the parents that do not,             
 those parents are MedicAid eligible and MedicAid would pay for that           
 MS. OTTO said there is a very small percentage of people that do              
 not have the resources and do not have MedicAid.  The state is                
 going after the PFDs of that small group of people.  In addition,             
 the bill does not limit PFD confiscation to a single year.  The               
 state can continue to retrieve the parent's PFDs.  When the                   
 department looked at the number of children and parents who would             
 fall into this category, it was found to be a very small number --            
 less than 50.                                                                 
 Number 1935                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what kind of protection is offered to              
 the parent of a hard-core juvenile delinquent with severe emotional           
 problems.  Representative Brice was speaking of a child who                   
 currently is not in a youth facility, yet there is not much a                 
 parent can do to stop that child from wreaking havoc on the                   
 MS. OTTO said that provision is the next part of the bill,                    
 concerning restitution.  She has an amendment to offer which                  
 addresses that issue.  This committee previously worked out such an           
 amendment to a bill that Co-Chair Bunde had introduced.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS responded to Co-Chair Toohey's question about            
 the fiscal note.  He said the bill should probably have a negative            
 fiscal note because all the provisions of the bill have already               
 taken place without any compensation to the state.                            
 Number 1993                                                                   
 MS. OTTO spoke on the next section of the bill, which begins on               
 page 5, line 8.  This requires the minor's parent, as well as the             
 minor to be responsible for restitution.  The DOL views this as an            
 extension of a bill which has already passed the House.  That bill            
 would allow parents to be assessed fines in civil cases.  However,            
 it was the feeling of the DOL that an adjudication is more                    
 appropriately addressed in the context of a criminal case,                    
 particularly if the state is then requiring the parents to                    
 participate in the hearing rather than requiring the victim to get            
 a lawyer and file a separate civil action.  That is very costly to            
 the victim and is somewhat adding insult to injury.                           
 MS. OTTO said this does raise the issue that Representative Brice             
 just brought up.  In addition, she knew the HESS Committee has                
 spent much time, both this year and in previous years, debating               
 where to draw the lines between out of control kids and parents who           
 were not trying.                                                              
 MS. OTTO therefore, presented an amendment that exactly tracks the            
 language of Co-Chair Bunde's bill on a similar subject.  The DOL              
 agrees that if a child has run away and the parent has reported the           
 child as a runaway, it is appropriate the parent should not be held           
 responsible for paying restitution for the acts of their child for            
 that period of time.                                                          
 Number 2067                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE made a correction.  The bill to which Ms. Otto keeps           
 referring was given to another legislator and has now passed the              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved Amendment 1.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the amendment only deals with runaways.             
 He asked about children who have not run away, but they are out of            
 control.  A parent may come home at 5:00 p.m., and his/her child is           
 gone from 5:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.  During that time, the child has            
 created havoc.                                                                
 MS. OTTO said that is a line that must be drawn.  It is the                   
 Governor's and the DOL's feeling that parents need to be                      
 responsible for the acts of their children.  The state cannot solve           
 everyone's problem and be responsible for everybody.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed.  However, he said he had just met with           
 people up in Fairbanks with children who have severe emotional                
 problems such as pyromania and severe sexual disturbances.  The               
 parents feel there is nothing the law has to offer.  The parents              
 feel they can do nothing to keep their children from going out and            
 raising havoc.                                                                
 Number 2163                                                                   
 MS. OTTO answered by presenting an example of a child out of                  
 control.  That child damages the property of a next door neighbor.            
 She asked, who should bear the loss, the parent or the neighbor?              
 HB 202 says the parent should bear the loss, not the neighbor.                
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that is not the argument he is                      
 presenting.  He asked what is going to be done to help the child,             
 and keep the child from creating the loss.  He then removed his               
 objection, and the Amendment 1 passed.                                        
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced now before the HESS Committee was CS HB              
 202, or HB 202 as amended.                                                    
 Number 2200                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted that Alaska requires parents to go to           
 court with their children if their child has committed a traffic              
 violation.  She has no problem with the intent of this bill.  She             
 thinks quite often parents are frustrated.  If the child and the              
 parent can be in the same room together, it gives the state a                 
 better idea of how to assist that family.  Representative Robinson            
 is a firm believer that a child cannot be helped without the                  
 parent's recognition that they all must work on the problem                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON was amazed that parents must be with their            
 children for traffic tickets, yet in this type of situation                   
 parental attendance is not required.  This is obviously a lot more            
 important than a speeding ticket.                                             
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that parental attendance may remind them of              
 Number 2248                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said Representative Brice's concern is a                 
 typical issue seen in most legislation. Many amendments on the last           
 bill were similar.  They dealt with somebody who is going to get              
 caught somewhere.  If there is a psychotic child and the parents              
 have no means or capacity to get that child into an institution,              
 which is probably where they should be, these children can cause a            
 lot of problems.  They can easily cause $100,000 worth of damage.             
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS agrees with Ms. Otto's opinion on who should             
 pay for damages.  If responsibility must be borne, it should be               
 borne by the parents.  At times, however, that cannot be addressed            
 because there are 200 to 300 other instances that need special                
 considerations.  However, Representative Davis can easily see where           
 this can really be a problem.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said what is going to happen is that with HB             
 202, maybe some parents will be more willing to institutionalize              
 some of those children.  This will cost a lot of money.  If the               
 cost cannot be afforded, he feared parents might try more drastic             
 measures, such as home imprisonment.                                          
 TAPE 95-33, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS felt this bill was the right thing to do, but            
 he recognized it is difficult to cover all situations.                        
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE stipulated that the state must be supportive of the            
 greatest number of people possible, and the process is not perfect.           
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY believed that somewhere in the law books are                  
 provisions for parents who cannot control their children.  She is             
 not sure whether that includes out of control children.  She feels            
 there is something that can be done, including turning them over to           
 a juvenile detention center.                                                  
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said while working on the bill he gave away, he                
 discovered there is a mechanism for people to emancipate themselves           
 from their child.  If the child is out of control, the parents can            
 essentially divorce their child in order to simplify the process.             
 Some parents need protection from malicious children.  That happens           
 rarely, but it does happen.                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on the bill and asked for              
 the wish of the committee.                                                    
 Number 116                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved HB 202 as amended with individual               
 recommendations and with accompanying fiscal notes.  There were no            
 objections and the bill passed.                                               
 Number 245                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the HESS Committee has previously heard this              
 bill.  An amendment was brought forward, and those concerns were              
 taken back to the bill's sponsor.  Co-Chair Bunde asked that the              
 bill and the amendment be addressed again.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, sponsor of HB 171, said the major                
 concern addressed in the bill was to somehow get control of the               
 system of appointment by governors.  Governor Cooper did it, so did           
 Hickel and Governor Knowles.  The whole system of appointment is              
 being disregarded in the sense of continuity for officers.  In some           
 areas, this continuity is needed.  Some commissions need people               
 with one, two or five years experience.                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said those commissioners are paid well, and             
 they should be paid well for their expertise.  Representative                 
 Martin has become very concerned.  In the most recent case, the               
 Commissioner of Education was paid very well in his contract, and             
 he was paid very well to resign.  This is a misuse of the system              
 and a misuse of public money.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said if the person appointed was well                   
 qualified and worthy of special compensation, they should be                  
 allowed to serve the full four or five years of their appointment.            
 It is not right for a new Governor to be elected and call for all             
 resignations, and then pay the people to resign.  Usually, these              
 people receive a "$75,000 handshake" to leave the contract.  That             
 is a complete misuse of the system.                                           
 Number 360                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said the amendment seeks to defer the                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked a question about the bill.  He said it                   
 currently reads, "The commissioner serves at the pleasure of the              
 board and may not be appointed by the board for a term of office."            
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN realized that did not sound right.  He said             
 he has been reviewing that statement.  A term of office is a term             
 of office.  Representative Martin meant for it to mean that the               
 commissioner of education would complete his or her term.  The term           
 could not be cut off by a new governor.  Only the board, in this              
 particular case, should decide who is the executive director.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said he then found out that did not solve the           
 problem.  He then inquired how many people in the past have been              
 paid off to resign early.  He asked if people felt multi-year terms           
 were a good idea in order to continue consistency throughout the              
 terms of gubernatorial administrations.  The Alaska Housing and               
 Finance Corporation (AHFC) is currently in a large mess.  In three            
 governors, the AHFC has seen three boards.  There has also been               
 four commissioners in the last two years.  This is ridiculous.                
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN asked if the HESS Committee could devise a              
 permanent plan.  One of the incentives in getting a commissioner to           
 leave is to pay them $160,000 or some other amount to bow out of              
 their contract.  That completely destroys the legislators' efforts            
 and, in most cases, the intent of statutes which offset years of              
 Number 497                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said the bill strictly deals with the                   
 Department of Education.  He felt, however, that all the                      
 commissioners should be protected.  Governor Knowles will get his             
 chance in the last two or three years.  However, some of the people           
 appointed recently who are just getting the hang of their job are             
 wiped out.  A new person is then appointed.                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE again read, "The commissioner of serves at the                 
 pleasure of the board and may not be appointed by the board for a             
 term of office."  He asked if that meant if the board wanted a                
 commissioner to serve from one governor's administration to                   
 another, the board could do that.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said he would like, in this particular case,            
 to have the law follow as much as possible for the appointment to             
 be by the board.  The constitutional convention made it very clear            
 it wanted the board and the executive director to not be political            
 Number 580                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if therefore, the sentence in question should           
 be changed to "The commissioner serves at the pleasure of the board           
 and may not be removed by the board until his term is completed."             
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said he was after something like that.                  
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked what was a term.  He suggested the sentence be           
 shortened to "serves at the pleasure of the board."  That way, the            
 board could have the commissioner work for a week or for ten years.           
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN asked if the new board should be able to get            
 rid of the old appointee who just got appointed with a new                    
 contract.  He asked if the state wants the Board of Education to be           
 independent of the governor.  There is a normal changeover of those           
 directors every three, four or five years so there is continuity.             
 It that is true, the board will then elect their own executive                
 director.  A new governor coming in cannot get rid of them.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said again, to pay someone to resign is a               
 misuse of government money.                                                   
 Number 670                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if a commissioner is appointed by the current           
 governor, does the governor also appoint the board.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said there are only two cases where                     
 constitutionally the commissioner or the director is appointed by             
 the board.  Those two cases are the Department of Education and the           
 Department of Fish and Game.  Therefore, the Governor, indirectly             
 (through his new board), can appoint someone.                                 
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the Governor appoints a whole new board              
 when the commissioner comes on.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said that is part of the trouble now.  As               
 with other agencies, it completely destroys the continuity of                 
 offices.  It would be better to rotate the board, perhaps by                  
 appointing two new members every year.  If a new governor erases              
 the board, it may be that some members of the board have only                 
 completed five or six months in their position.                               
 Number 739                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that what happened this year is the                
 commissioner refused to leave.  The Governor appointed a new board.           
 The commissioner serves at the pleasure of the board, and he was              
 paid to leave.                                                                
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that was her point.  If Representative Martin            
 does not want to make political appointments, that is fine as long            
 as the board is not politically appointed also.  If the board is              
 rotated through different appointments and different governors,               
 that is fine.                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said one way to stop it is that people will             
 not voluntarily resign until they are given a large amount of money           
 and a sweet job.                                                              
 Number 756                                                                    
 TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant, Representative Terry Martin's            
 Office, said the idea is that the state has a governor turnover               
 every four years.  There is also a turnover of the board.  But                
 currently, the law (which is being deleted in this bill) stipulates           
 the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Education               
 appointments are not to exceed five years.  Therefore, the                    
 appointment "runs over" into another governor's term.                         
 MR. ANDERSON said HB 171 stipulates that as the state gets a new              
 governor, it gets a new Board of Education which has the right to             
 dismiss the commissioner without a contract.  Therefore, the                  
 commissioner serves at the pleasure of the board.  The board would            
 then pick the commissioner and may not be appointed by the board              
 for a term of office.  Therefore, the commissioner would not be               
 bound by this potential to have up to a five year service.                    
 MR. ANDERSON said it is confusing, but it does work.  Legal                   
 Services believes it works.  That would prevent the "$75,000                  
 handshake" from ever occurring again.                                         
 Number 857                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked to discuss the main bill before the amendment            
 was addressed.                                                                
 Number 872                                                                    
 MARY HALLORAN, Legal Administrator, Office of the Attorney General,           
 Department of Law, said basically the Governor has offered similar            
 legislation in HB 174, also in the HESS Committee.  Everybody is              
 concerned that the Commissioner of Education, under current                   
 statute, is a contractual employee as opposed to being someone who            
 serves at the pleasure of either the board or the Governor.                   
 MS. HALLORAN said HB 171 clearly changes that status to make the              
 Commissioner of Education like other commissioners who serve at the           
 pleasure of someone.  In this case, the state does not end up in a            
 situation where the commissioner does not meet the requirements of            
 the Governor or the board and cannot be dismissed.  The current               
 statute requires the commissioner can only be dismissed for causes            
 very difficult to prove.                                                      
 MS. HALLORAN said where there is a case where removal is necessary            
 for whatever reason, it almost always will cost the state more in             
 litigation than to just simply buy out the contract.  HB 171 also             
 repeals the requirement that the commissioner can only be removed             
 for cause.  That makes the removal possible for pleasure.  The DOL            
 supports this.  It increases the accountability of that public                
 Number 955                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked about his possible change, which would make              
 the bill read, "The commissioner of education serves at the                   
 pleasure of the board."                                                       
 MS. HALLORAN agreed that the words "...and may not be appointed by            
 the board for a term of office" is additional language that is not            
 needed.  People who serve at the pleasure of the board are not                
 allowed to have contracts.  Therefore, that language takes the bill           
 where the sponsor wants it to be.                                             
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY understood that the Governor's bill is exactly the            
 opposite.  His says the commissioner may serve at the pleasure of             
 the Governor.                                                                 
 MS. HALLORAN said of course it does, but the DOL is also happy with           
 that approach.  The DOL would like to get the fundamental problem             
 Number 1007                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked because the Governor appoints the Board of               
 Education, it might delay the change but it will not prevent the              
 MS. HALLORAN said he was right.  She then asked to respond to Co-             
 Chair Toohey's question.  The board is composed of seven voting               
 members.  Only four of them can be of the same political party as             
 the Governor.  That is meant to keep the board as a-political as              
 possible in a very political world.                                           
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the board resigns upon the inauguration of           
 a new governor.                                                               
 MS. HALLORAN said the Governor may request their resignations if he           
 decides to do so.                                                             
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said in the most current case, one person was held             
 over, and six new people were appointed.                                      
 Number 1070                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON felt this was kind of a "toss up."  The               
 board is going to be appointed by the Governor.  She therefore                
 didn't care which direction the bill went, but she somewhat felt it           
 makes it cleaner by having the commissioner serve at the pleasure             
 of the governor.  She was curious why Representative Martin felt it           
 would be better if the commissioner served at the pleasure of the             
 board.  The Governor is clearly going to ask the old board to leave           
 and appoint new board members.                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON realized the board was responsible for                
 taking the recommendation to the Governor.  She felt perhaps that             
 was the reason behind Representative Martin's choice.  She felt,              
 however, that the commissioner could easily serve at the pleasure             
 of either the Governor or the board.                                          
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt Representative Martin's choice makes the                  
 appointment a little less political.  In addition, the board feels            
 a little bit more involved in the process by doing the appointing.            
 They are doing the recommendations, and Co-Chair Bunde would                  
 suspect the Governor would be inclined to accept their                        
 Number 1160                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY did not think anyone would have a problem with                
 either this bill or the Governor's.  However, the reference to                
 severance pay and the high cost of getting rid of unwanted                    
 commissioners must be addressed.  She feels this bill addresses               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said if the commissioner serves at the pleasure of             
 someone, that will get rid of severance pay regarding the                     
 Commissioner of Education.                                                    
 Number 1197                                                                   
 SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of                     
 Education, said the State Board is very concerned about this issue            
 also.  Their primary concern is getting rid of the "cause" phrase,            
 and getting rid of the term of office.  The Department of Education           
 would like to see the legislature address this issue to allow some            
 flexibility as to who the commissioner is.                                    
 MS. PETERSON said the State Board of Education represents the whole           
 state.  The members need to be from different judicial districts,             
 and they must be from different political parties.  Therefore,                
 currently the statute is written to provide a cross-section of                
 people on the board to represent the general public.  The board               
 strongly urges the legislature to act on this legislation.                    
 Number 1236                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if there has been a lot of discussion           
 on this.  One of the main reasons the original law was set up and             
 passed was to try to take the appointment out of the political                
 process.  The whole concept was there would be a commissioner who             
 would continue to serve and a board that would continue to serve.             
 The education was supposed to be separate.  Representative Robinson           
 felt the bottom line is that the appointment is political and all             
 the state is doing is causing more problems.                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if the board talked about the                
 philosophy of the bill and what this change truly means.  It means            
 this bill clearly changes the philosophy of how the state hoped               
 education was going to be managed in this state.                              
 Number 1273                                                                   
 MS. PETERSON did not think the current board feels they are a                 
 "parrot" for the Governor.  They feel they are very independent               
 individuals.  They present and work through problems as                       
 individuals.  The recent appointment of the commissioner was                  
 completely at the direction of the board.  The board made the                 
 selection independent of any advice from the Governor.                        
 MS. PETERSON believes this is how they will respond to their                  
 commissioner.  Governor Knowles is not getting involved, and Ms.              
 Peterson does not believe he will get involved.  People who are on            
 the State Board of Education take that as a serious opportunity to            
 represent the public.  They are very interested in education.  They           
 will look at the commissioner in that light to make decisions                 
 concerning the commissioner.                                                  
 Number 1321                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the commissioner signs a contract.                   
 MS. HALLORAN answered that under HB 171, the commissioner would not           
 sign a contract.                                                              
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY thought the whole purpose of this legislation is to           
 have the commissioner agree that his/her term is limited, and                 
 he/she can be removed at the will of the board at any time and                
 without severance pay.  She asked if the commissioner was therefore           
 paid by the month.                                                            
 MS. HALLORAN said Co-Chair Toohey was correct on all points.                  
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY then asked if she was correct that the commissioner           
 is under no obligation to stay longer than the board.                         
 MS. HALLORAN again said Co-Chair Toohey was correct.                          
 Number 1359                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if there had to be a cause for the                 
 commissioner to be terminated by the board.                                   
 MS. HALLORAN said under current statute, he/she can only be removed           
 for cause.  HB 171 deletes that provision.                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for discussion on Amendment 1.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said the whole idea is that other problems              
 arose with the introduction of HB 171.  People asked him about                
 departments other than Education, departments not addressed in HB             
 171 as it now reads.   Representative Martin asked people if other            
 problems with payoff occurred in state agencies other than the                
 Department of Education.  He found there were payoffs to make                 
 people resign, and that is a misuse of government money.                      
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked HESS Committee members to notice the amendment           
 changes the title and broadens the scope of this bill                         
 significantly.  Co-Chair Bunde asked that Representative Martin               
 speak again to the amendment, and then public testimony would be              
 Number 1432                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said if it would simplify what Ms. Halloran             
 said about the Board of Education, the amendment could be made into           
 a separate bill.                                                              
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it would be the preference of the chair to make           
 the amendment a separate bill.  He proposed HB 171, line 5 to read,           
 "The commissioner serves at the pleasure of the board."                       
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if the bill was going to address who               
 appoints the commissioner, or is that going to be assumed.                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE concurred if the bill says he/she serves at              
 the pleasure of the board, that does not say he/she is appointed by           
 the board.                                                                    
 MS. HALLORAN said in other sections of AS 14.07.145 it provides for           
 the appointment of the commissioner of Education by the Board of              
 Education subject to the approval of the Governor.                            
 Number 1499                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on HB 171 and asked for the            
 pleasure of the committee.  Representative Davis moved HB 171 as              
 amended with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations.            
 There were no objections, and the bill passed.                                
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN asked the committee to entertain a committee            
 bill consisting of Representative Martin's original amendment to HB           
 171.  Co-Chair Bunde said such a bill would be considered.                    
 Number 1549                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 5:08 p.m.                             

Document Name Date/Time Subjects