Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/15/1996 03:05 PM HES
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE February 15, 1996 3:05 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 * HOUSE BILL NO. 373 "An Act relating to educational benefits for family members of deceased members of the armed services." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 339 "An Act relating to the termination of parental rights of incarcerated parents." - PASSED CSHB 339(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 60 "An Act relating to impairment rating guides used in evaluation of certain workers' compensation claims." - PASSED CSHB 60(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 30 "An Act relating to a dress code for public schools." - PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 73 "An Act relating to licensure of manicurists." - PASSED CSHB 73(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 354 "An Act relating to a retirement incentive program for certain employees of school districts under the teachers' retirement system and the public employees' retirement system; and providing for an effective date." - PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 93 "An Act relating to the duty-free mealtime for teachers in certain school facilities." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 373 SHORT TITLE: EDUC FOR FAMILY OF DECEASED MILITARY SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,BARNES,Mulder,Foster,Kott,Ivan JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 12/29/95 2364 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/08/96 2364 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/08/96 2364 (H) HES, FINANCE 01/26/96 2548 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER 01/31/96 2586 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT, IVAN 02/13/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 02/13/96 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/15/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 339 SHORT TITLE: PRISON & TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG,Mulder,Robinson JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 05/08/95 1976 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 05/08/95 1976 (H) HES, STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY 01/23/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 01/23/96 (H) MINUTE(HES) 01/24/96 2528 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MULDER 01/30/96 2573 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROBINSON 02/15/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 60 SHORT TITLE: IMPAIRMENT RATING GUIDES FOR WORKERS COMP SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS,Rokeberg JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/06/95 36 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/16/95 36 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/16/95 36 (H) L&C, HES, FIN 03/22/95 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17 03/22/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 03/24/95 888 (H) L&C RPT 4DP 3NR 03/24/95 888 (H) DP: ROKEBERG,ELTON,KUBINA,PORTER 03/24/95 889 (H) NR: KOTT, MASEK, SANDERS 03/24/95 889 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LABOR, ADM) 01/23/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 01/23/96 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/02/96 2615 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG 02/15/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 30 SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL DRESS CODES SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS,Rokeberg,Austerman JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/06/95 28 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/16/95 28 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/16/95 28 (H) STA, HES 02/09/95 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/09/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/14/95 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 519 02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/21/95 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/23/95 463 (H) STA RPT 1DP 1DNP 3NR 02/23/95 463 (H) DP: ROBINSON 02/23/95 463 (H) DNP: OGAN 02/23/95 463 (H) NR: JAMES, PORTER, WILLIS 02/23/95 463 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 02/23/95 463 (H) REFERRED TO HES 02/23/95 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/01/95 550 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG 01/23/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 01/23/96 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/12/96 2739 (H) COSPONSOR(S): AUSTERMAN 02/15/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 73 SHORT TITLE: LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BRICE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/06/95 39 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/16/95 39 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/16/95 39 (H) HES, L&C, FIN 01/16/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 01/16/96 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/15/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 354 SHORT TITLE: RIP FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACKIE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 12/29/95 2359 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/08/96 2359 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/08/96 2359 (H) HES, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 01/16/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 01/16/96 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/15/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 WITNESS REGISTER TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Aide Representative Terry Martin Capitol Building, Room 502 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-3783 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 373 JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Telephone: (907) 465-3600 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 339 DIANE WORLEY, Director Division of Family & Youth Services Department of Health & Social Services P.O. Box 110630 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630 Telephone: (907) 465-3191 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 339 LYNN STIMLER American Civil Liberties Union P.O. Box 102844 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Telephone: (907) 258-0044 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 339 STEVE CONN Alaska Public Interest Research Group P.O. Box 101093 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Telephone: (907) 278-3661 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 339 and HB 60 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 430 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-3875 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 60 and HB 30 SCOTT MCENTIRE 6530 E. 16th Street Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Telephone: (907) 337-8614 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 60 PAUL GROSSI, Director Division of Workers' Compensation Department of Labor P.O. Box 25512 Juneau, Alaska 99801-5512 Telephone: (907) 465-2790 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 60 JIM SIMEROTH Kenai Peninsula Education Association 811 Auk Street, No. 5 Kenai, Alaska 99611 Telephone: (907) 283-5177 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 30 ALICE MASSIE P.O. Box 870212 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 Telephone: (907) 376-5874 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 73 STORMY JOSTEN 4900 Palmer/Wasilla Highway Wasilla, Alaska 99654 Telephone: (907) 373-8477 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 73 DAGMAR STRANAK 4900 Palmer/Wasilla Highway Wasilla, Alaska 99654 Telephone: (907) 373-8477 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 73 RAY GOAD, Legislative Assistant to Representative Tom Brice Capitol Building, Room 426 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-3466 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 73 REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 404 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4925 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 354 DEBRA GERRISH 9202 Emily Way Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-3236 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 354 SALLY RUE, Vice President Juneau Board of Education 7083 Hendrickson Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-5516 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 354 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-12, SIDE A Number 001 The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee was called to order by Co-Chair Bunde at 3:05 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Rokeberg and Brice. A quorum was present to conduct business. HB 373 - EDUC FOR FAMILY OF DECEASED MILITARY Number 025 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced the first order of business was HB 373, Education for Families of Deceased Military. He asked Tom Anderson, Legislative Aide to Representative Martin, to present the bill. Number 055 TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Aide to Representative Terry Martin, said HB 373 is in response to the Yukla 27 airplane crash in which 24 service men lost their lives on September 22, 1995. A review of the statutes by Mr. Anderson revealed that currently members, spouses and dependents of service men only receive a free tuition waiver from the university system in the event of a death in the line of duty. Representative Martin felt it would be appropriate to expand that to include a stipend to pay for fees and expenses, as well as free room. Mr. Anderson said the fiscal note was based on the assumption that two students per year would request these benefits. In the last six years, the tuition waiver has been requested by only four people, so there is no significant fiscal impact anticipated. REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS arrived at 3:07 p.m. Number 216 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Anderson what the educational support is under current law. MR. ANDERSON referred to Section 1, AS 14.43.085 which states in part, "...member of the armed services and who died in the line of duty or who died as a result of injuries sustained while in the line of duty for the state or federal government or was listed by the United States Department of Defense as a prisoner of war or as missing in action." REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON arrived at 3:08 p.m. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if someone serving in Bosnia qualified, why didn't the service men in the airplane crash qualify. MR. ANDERSON responded they do qualify; HB 373 just expands the current law to include room, board and fees. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the four individuals who used this in the past had just received tuition waivers. MR. ANDERSON responded that was correct. Of the 24 service men that died, very few of them had children or spouses in the university system, but there's a few that would take part in this program. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the cost of the room, board and books was calculated with the advice of the university. MR. ANDERSON replied that it calculates out to $6,800. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if those costs were based on attending school at a particular location. MR. ANDERSON thought it was an average cost for the University of Alaska. Number 381 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked Mr. Anderson if he had an idea of how many people were participating in just the tuition program. MR. ANDERSON said based on information received from the university, four students have requested the tuition waiver in the last six years. He added that Representative Martin wanted to further extend assistance to this group of individuals. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if this applied only to the University of Alaska system. MR. ANDERSON responded any state school. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY clarified this would not apply to an individual who wanted to get their degree at a school out of the state. MR. ANDERSON said the individual would have to stay in the state of Alaska. CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified it would have to be a state school; for example, this would not extend to a tuition waiver from APU, which is a private school. Number 478 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Anderson if he knew what a Division 1 athletic scholarship at the University of Alaska Fairbanks would be worth. MR. ANDERSON replied no. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Anderson to explain the Alaska Naval Militia. MR. ANDERSON said he had never heard of it until he read this bill. He thought it was probably a subsidiary branch of the Armed Forces. REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS noted the fiscal note is not written in the normal manner and actually reflects $13,600 not $13 million. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said while this is a relatively simply bill, it is the policy of the House HESS Committee not to pass a bill out of committee the first time it's heard. He asked Mr. Anderson if he would research the question regarding the Alaska Naval Militia as well as the cost of a Division 1 athletic scholarship. He added he supports the intent of the bill, but would like to have those questions answered. HB 339 - TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF PRISONERS Number 589 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced asked Representative Rokeberg to give his opening statements regarding HB 339. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out the committee substitute, sectional analysis and a copy of a court case which were added to the original bill packet. Number 663 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt committee substitute 9-LS1124\F dated 2/13/96, as the working document. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, committee substitute 9-LS1124\F was adopted for discussion purposes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the committee substitute addresses the concerns that were raised at the last hearing and since then the Department of Health & Social Services has brought to his attention a new case that was adjudicated by the Alaska Supreme Court on January 26, 1996, which has made a definite impact on their operations. He felt it was appropriate to address the concerns that were brought up in that case and as a result, Section 2 of the committee substitute was added. A purpose section was added to the bill which specifically brings to the attention of not only the legislature but the court system as well, the intent of this legislation to meet the requests of the Supreme Court in the both cases; that is in Section 1(a) the S.A. and D.A. case and in Section 1(b) the A.M. case and Nada A. case. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 4, line 1 of the committee substitute, and said the word "incarceration" was added to address the concerns brought up at the last meeting about incarceration as a result of a voluntary act committed by a parent. On page 4 of the committee substitute, language was added to overcome some of the concerns expressed regarding the period of incarceration and its sufficient length. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 2, Section 2, line 10 of the committee substitute and said "caring or" has been deleted and the words "and able" have been added. He pointed out for the record that the draftsmanship does not remove the caring standard from interpretation in this section, but it also meets the court's concerns as expressed in the S.A. and D.A. case. He directed committee members' attention to page 23 of the Supreme Court Case which states "Mere `willingness' is not an acceptable alternative to `caring,' and the legislature did not intend it to be." It continues that "willingness" which the statute demands must be accompanied with the ability to provide care successfully. Those key elements are the reason why "caring" was deleted and "able" was inserted in order to provide a higher standard of willing and able in order to allow the court to find a child in need of aid. Number 939 JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, pointed out that Section 2, which was added, is really quite simple and basically reflects where the department has been going up until three weeks ago when the Supreme Court reversed course. She said it's not making something new, but it is fixing the law so the department can go back to where they were up until three weeks ago. It fixes it in two areas: First, not only does a parent have to be willing, ability has to be read into it and adding the word "able" makes it clear that the parent has to be not only willing to care and be providing care, but actually able to provide the care. Number 1057 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the Department of Law supports the bill. MS. RUTHERDALE replied yes. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said when he hears the word able, it raises questions in his mind about the mentally handicapped who may be willing but not able to care for their children. He asked Ms. Rutherdale if this was getting into a grey area. MS. RUTHERDALE responded she didn't believe so, because that issue has been litigated. There is case law which basically says you can't just terminate parental rights for example if a parent is not able to care for a child just because they are mentally handicapped. The court has said a condition is not conduct; parental conduct has to be looked at. That doesn't mean a person is protected from the state ever assuming custody just because they are handicapped; they still look at if the parent can provide care. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the use of the word "able" connotates conduct, not condition. MS. RUTHERDALE said that was right. With respect to the changes made regarding the termination, she thinks these changes do address the concerns that were raised by the committee at the last hearing. She had a personal concern with the way the bill was previously drafted in that the court would say you can't get around the fact that incarceration is not conduct, and she feels that issue has been met straight on now by saying that it doesn't matter if incarceration is not conduct, the definition is being expanded to include parental conduct and incarceration. She believes the insertion of the language "sufficiently long to seriously damage the parent and child relationship or to cause serious emotional or physical harm to the child" in Section 3 will help all cases. What is really being looked at is how does this affect the child, and she feels this is a much cleaner definition. It focuses on the child and what termination of parental rights can do for the child. Obviously, if the parental condition or incarceration is not going to continue to the point where it's going to be either damaging to the parent/child relationship or causing serious emotional, physical harm, then the parental rights shouldn't be terminated. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he assumed it was written that way to allow for judgment in specific cases. MS. RUTHERDALE said that's right, it really is a case-by-case basis, but she feels it gives the judges a real clear standard to judge the "likelihood to continue" issue. Number 1243 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to the wording "likely to continue to exist sufficiently long to seriously damage the parent and child relationship or to cause serious emotional or physical harm to the child" and asked if cigarette smoke, which over a long period of time has been shown to cause serious physical harm, is a concern. MS. RUTHERDALE said first you have to show that the child is a child in need of aid. It's a two part test. She thinks Representative Brice's concern has been addressed because the child would never become a child in need of aid. Assuming the child is in a safe foster care, it's rare where parental rights need to be terminated to prevent physical harm unless, of course, the child is suicidal. Number 1322 DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family & Youth Services, Department of Health & Social Services, testified in support of HB 339. The division feels the addition of Section 2 as well as the changes made in Section 3 are positive changes for the best interest of the child. Number 1356 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said in the past there have been some feelings regarding foster parents getting involved and actually adopting the children. She believes it should be given some thought because she personally feels the foster parent should have some rights to adopt the children if they've been caring for the children and have shown to be good parents. MS. WORLEY said Representative Robinson was absolutely right and one of the goals of the Division of Family & Youth Services is permanency planning for all children, whether that be continuing in their natural family, returning to their natural family as quickly as possible, or when that is not possible, to find a permanent situation whether it be a guardianship, adoption, relative placement or whatever that will ensure the child a permanent place and a permanent home with loving, caring and able parents. Number 1442 LYNN STIMLER, American Civil Liberties Union, said she had been requesting the latest work draft of HB 339 from the Legislative Information Office. However, the LIO didn't receive it until about 3 minutes before the hearing started. She received work draft C at about 1:30 p.m., and it's very different from the version before the committee. She was fairly troubled because at least up until work draft C, she had some serious constitutional issues to raise. She said it was very difficult for her to give the committee (indisc.) testimony, but she would express her concerns, some of which might not apply to this draft. MS. STIMLER said up to draft C, the ACLU was concerned about perhaps unconstitutionally vague language regarding parents failing to make adequate provisions. Their concern was whether this was open to a constitutional challenge under double jeopardy. She added new cases are moving through the federal courts where the courts are holding that additional sanctions to prisoners amount to double jeopardy. The ACLU is also concerned about due process from a prisoner perspective. She thought there is an issue about whether incarcerated parents fit cleanly into this statutory scheme and whether the incarcerated prisoner who is a single parent with no family but does have a reasonable relationship with the child, is going to have the ability to contest the termination proceedings in a way that is in the best interest of the family. She was also somewhat concerned about how the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) fits into this and whether that had been considered by the legislature. She commented that a high percentage of the prisoners are Native American. MS. STIMLER concluded that her overall concerns are not of the caliber they would have been if the ACLU had been given a chance to work with other organizations and formulate their testimony. CO-CHAIR BUNDE remarked the information had been sent out as quickly as the committee got it. To ally some of Ms. Stimler's concerns, he said HB 339 has a State Affairs Committee referral after the HESS Committee, with a further referral to the House Judiciary Committee. He felt this would allow ample opportunity for Ms. Stimler to testify on the various versions as it goes along. MS. STIMLER commented her goal was to ensure the legislature received quality testimony from the ACLU that can be relied on. Number 1622 STEVE CONN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest Research Group, said he was certain the Department of Law was not factoring in the Indian Child Welfare Act and the related case law in its entirety. The impact of this on Alaska Natives and Alaska Native families, in a legal sense, is going to be truly profound. In fact, it was Alaska and the termination of parental rights back in the 70s, that led to the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act. He thought there may be problems with cruel and unusual punishment or double jeopardy. Also, it may be perceived as a bill of attainder and certainly deserved a fiscal note because it is going to create havoc. When all the shouting is done, he'd like some of the sponsors of this legislation to go to the Palmer Correctional Facility on visitors day, watch inmates greet their children and their loved ones and then ask yourself if it's not better for child and parent alike that these relationships be sustained and maintained rather than rendered asunder by legislation such as this. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would appreciate Ms. Stimler contacting his office after her review of the draft committee substitute. He reiterated the cases that generated this legislation are cited in the Purpose Section for case citations. MS. STIMLER replied the ACLU would be contacting his office. CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony and asked what the wishes were of the committee. Number 1717 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY made a motion to pass CSHB 339(HES) out of the House HESS Committee with a zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. HB 60 - IMPAIRMENT RATING GUIDES FOR WORKERS COMP Number 1750 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Bettye Davis, sponsor of HB 60 if she had an opening statement. REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS, Sponsor of HB 60, said since the last hearing on this bill she has run into a few situations and was happy the HESS Committee was hearing the bill again. She asked Jonathan Sperber, Legislative Administrative Assistant, to join her at the witness table. Number 1819 STEVE CONN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest Research Group, said he was providing the committee with the amicus brief that was filed in the Garcia case by the American Medical Association which addresses the AMA guides and their appropriate use. He encouraged committee members to take a good look at the brief prior to voting on this bill. The AMA makes it clear that in Texas and he suspects in Alaska as well, the AMA guides, though worthy in a certain scientific and academic sense, are being used and abused because it was contemplated they would be combined with other factors to determine the extent to which industrial use of the worker's body would (indisc.). Also, the AMA expressly advised that one-to-one translation of impairment in disability is a use not intended and totally discouraged. Finally, no direct relationship or correlation between physical impairment which the guides were designed to measure, had (indisc.) disability economic loss or economic impairment was contemplated by the authors of the guides. He would rather the AMA do the talking for the AMA guides, so as mentioned previously he would forward a copy of the AMA's brief. With regards to the futuristic focus on the drafting language and the adoption of as yet unwritten collateral material, he deferred to Scott McEntire. Number 1900 SCOTT McENTIRE testified from Anchorage that he is an injured worker who has been in the Workers' Compensation system four years now and has had four evaluations performed under these guides with four different results. He said the guides are terribly inconsistent in their application. He believes this particular bill (indisc.) future editions of the guide that aren't even published yet is a violation of Article I, Section II, of the state Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that an agency cannot adopt future amendments by reference and their reason stated was "One reason for the prohibition against delegations of the future of law making power of the state to private groups is that when amendments are adopted by these groups, the public does not necessarily receive notice of or have an opportunity to comment on or criticize the amendments as it does when they are adopted by the legislature or promulgated under the Alaska Administrative Procedures Act." Number 1989 MR. McENTIRE said referred to "including supplementary materials" and wanted to know what those materials were. He knows the American Medical Association has published supplements to the 4th edition of the guide, which is over 200 pages long and they also have a videotape series of the proper use of the guides. He asked if those were included. He pointed out HB 60 states the board shall adopt a supplementary recognized schedule that can't be used by the guides and he believes, by nature, any list is incomplete, the guides themselves are a list and they're incomplete, adopting another list will also be incomplete which is delineated in the Gilmore decision. Mr. McEntire asked the committee to consider Justice Compton's dissenting opinion in the Rydwell v. Anchorage School District decision before passing this legislation. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained that current language indicates any AMA guides can be used. The proposed legislation would specify the most recent guides were to be used and instead of having to go through the Administrative Procedures Act to establish the newest set of guides, the Department of Labor would be able to accomplish that in a much more efficient, inexpensive way. MR. McENTIRE suggested reading (indisc.) Statutory Construction, Chapter 4, particularly Section 4.05 and 4.11. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS referenced Mr. McEntire's problem of having been evaluated four times with different documents, and said under this legislation, the most current guide would be used each time which should alleviate that problem. It was her understanding the AMA supported HB 60. One of the problems that was identified in the hearing before the Labor & Commerce Committee was that it takes too long for the regulations to be promulgated. She pointed out the Department of Labor was asked to start the regulation process last April and it still isn't completed. She does not want to introduce a piece of legislation just for the sake of introducing it, but she understood that it was needed. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY expressed concern with the provision that requires the board to begin using the new edition not later than 60 days. She asked if there was a possibility it wouldn't be received within 60 days. If so, wouldn't it be better to change it to 90 days. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said she would not have a problem with it being changed to 90 days. Number 2170 PAUL GROSSI, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation, Department of Labor, said it could probably be done within 60 days, but 90 days would make it easier and less pressure for the department. He pointed out if the committee doesn't pass this legislation, current law will stand and permanent partial impairments would be rated according to whatever guide is in effect by regulation. The problem is the length of time involved in getting regulations promulgated and that problem will exist every time the AMA guide changes and new regulations have to be passed. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he thought a question had been raised as to whether the AMA guide was the appropriate tool, which is not addressed in this legislation. The AMA guide will remain the tool that is used. If there are concerns about having a different tool or multiple tools available, that would require separate legislation. This legislation makes the use of the current tool more efficient. MR. GROSSI said he believed the case in Texas mentioned earlier was on the constitutionality of using the AMA guide. It was found constitutional. However, there were a number of questions raised about whether this really talks about disability, and it is strictly permanent partial impairment which does not address disability. Nothing in this legislation would change that, it would just go back to a less efficient way. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if 60 days would raise a problem for the Department of Labor and if 90 days would make it easier. MR. GROSSI said 90 days would make it easier. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS reiterated that she had no problem changing it to 90 days. MR. GROSSI said with 90 days none of the doctors, insurance companies or employers would get caught using the wrong impairment guide. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY closed public testimony. Number 2317 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt CS version 9- LS0293\C, dated 1/25/96, as the working document. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. Number 2329 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY offered a friendly amendment to change 60 days to 90 days. Hearing no objection, the amendment was adopted. Number 2343 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move CSHB 60(HES) out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. TAPE 96-12, SIDE B Number 010 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that due to time constraints, there was a possibility HB 354 and HB 93 would not be heard. HB 30 - SCHOOL DRESS CODES Number 047 JIM SIMEROTH, Kenai Peninsula Education Association, testified from Kenai that he had no problem with this bill requiring students to wear a uniform and certainly no problem with prohibiting students from wearing the specified clothing. He questioned the exclusion in Section 1, (b)(3) and said if we have uniforms in the school, then let's have all the students wear uniforms. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said she believes the parent has a right to decide whether they want their child to wear a uniform or not. Since this is a permissive bill, it should be permissive to the point of allowing a parent to opt out of the program. Number 115 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said along those same lines, he thought there were certain types of constitutional questions when it gets into religious practices, etc. The exclusion in (b)(3) allows the necessary flexibility for parents to decide. CO-CHAIR BUNDE pointed out the religious concerns were addressed in the bill and that school districts currently have the ability to do this. He asked if there was further testimony on HB 30. Hearing none, he closed the meeting to public testimony. Number 152 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 30 out of committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. Hearing no objection, HB 30 moved from the House HESS Committee. HB 73 - LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS Number 171 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said at the last meeting the committee raised a concern relating to the issue of artificial nails and the application of those nails. He said the definition of "manicuring" in Section 19 of the committee substitute has been expanded to include artificial nails. Additionally, there had been some concern raised by the Division of Occupational Licensing regarding the length of time in transitioning. It was his understanding that 180 days would give the division plenty of time to get the individuals who are grandfathered under this bill to apply and become licensed. He noted those two issues had been addressed in Sections 19 and 20 of the committee substitute. Number 225 ALICE MASSIE testified via teleconference that as a long time stylist, instructor and salon owner in Alaska. She said manicurists were licensed in the past and she thought it was a great injustice that the licensure had been done away with. There are several health factors related to the industry. The filing, tools used, and the possibility of fungus are all factors and she feels it is important to have licensure. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Ms. Massie had any idea why the licensure was taken away. MS. MASSIE said she didn't know exactly, but added that other states, for example Washington and California, that did away with the licensure requirement, but now have re-licensure because of the danger factor and misuse of products. Number 321 STORMY JOSTEN testified via teleconference and echoed the comments made by the previous testifier. She has had individuals come into the shop who have file burns and mold. She commented because there is a chance of blood contact, good sterilization techniques need to be in place and the chemicals if used improperly, can cause some serious health problems. Given the risk of AIDS or hepatitis, some of the things she has seen and experiences she has heard about is really quite frightening. Number 392 DAGMAR STRANAK testified that she is a shop owner and had worked on legislation three or four years ago which made it to the floor, but was dropped because it was attached to another bill. She, too, has run into problems with improper application, cross contamination because of product from two different lines being applied that causes an adverse allergic reaction and fungus. She feels that regulations are needed, particularly in the area of the amount of time an individual should spend learning the trade. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was any further public testimony on HB 73. Hearing none, he closed public testimony. Number 538 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to adopt committee substitute for HB 73, version 9-LS0358\F, dated 1/24/96. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. Number 554 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to pass CSHB 73(HES) out of committee with individual recommendation and attached fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the fiscal note and asked if this would actually generate revenue or end up being revenue neutral. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded it would generate revenue through program receipts every two years. After further discussion, he suggested that Representative Rokeberg may want to direct his questions regarding the fiscal note to the Division of Occupational Licensing. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Representative Brice could confirm that it would have a positive rather than a negative fiscal impact. RAY GOAD, Legislative Assistant to Representative Tom Brice, said the Division of Occupational Licensing is 100 percent funded through program receipts; that is people applying for licenses pay for the license and the cost of the examination. The administrative costs are then borne by the amount of money the division would charge for that license. He believed the fiscal note prepared by the Division of Occupational Licensing was revenue neutral and reflected revenues collected in license fees, and then go to the administration of examinations. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any objections to the motion to move CSHB 73(HES) with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Hearing none, it was so ordered. HB 354 - RIP FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES Number 740 REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE, Sponsor, said he didn't have much to add to his previous testimony in the last hearing, but in response to the committee's request regarding what kind of savings would be involved with the school districts, Representative Mackie provided committee members with a copy of the estimated cost or savings audit that was done by the Division of Legislative Audit in late 1991 and released in early 1992 which was the last time there was a Retirement Incentive Plan (RIP). The audit indicates the number of school districts, the number of retirees they expected would take advantage of it, and the estimated savings. Representative Mackie noted this is 1992 information and things are different now, but he believes this gives a ballpark idea of the savings that could be generated through a RIP of this nature. He said collectively, with all the school districts listed in the report, this generated nearly $23 million in savings to school districts around the state. He recognized that probably not all the districts listed would take advantage of a RIP, but he knew there where some districts not listed that would take advantage of it. He stated at that time, Anchorage suggested they could possibly save $2.6 million, and he understood it would still be in that ballpark. The Kenai Peninsula School District testified in the last hearing they could possibly realize somewhere in the neighborhood of a $2 million savings. A letter dated January 22, 1996, from the Juneau School District indicates a savings of as much as $3 million through a RIP program. The Hoonah School District, which is a small district, estimated they could probably save somewhere around $340,000 in the first three years. That is a huge savings for a district that size. He cautioned these were estimated savings and added this is clearly an optional program that each school district would need to look at and decide if they wanted to do it. He advised that school districts are currently working on getting accurate projections for this year. Number 890 DEBRA GERRISH testified as a parent who has been sitting through the budget crisis for the last two years and looking at different approaches to filling in the gaps in support of HB 354. She expressed concern over the increase in pupil/teacher ratio; it's about 30 in the elementary schools. She said passage of this legislation would allow more teachers to be hired. The advantage of this bill, as opposed to a local RIP, is that it allows the school district several years to pay that retirement; whereas, with a local RIP, the district has to come up with the money at the very beginning. Most of the districts don't have that money up front. She urged committee members to pass HB 354 and to give the districts a tool that can be used to lower the classroom sizes. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was any guarantee that the cost of the teacher coming in would be quite a bit lower. REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said he didn't know how a guarantee could actually be written in to the bill, but noted the districts are going to have to certify that a cost savings will be realized. He commented that most of the higher end teachers are in the $57,000 to $58,000 a year range, and most school districts' starting range for a teacher is in the $30,000 to $32,000 a year range. That figures to be a $20,000 to $25,000 savings if a high end teacher is retired and a new teacher is hired; that's where the savings would be achieved. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that Co-Chair Toohey's question was addressed on page 2, line 4 which states, "(b) The organizational units of a plan must be selected so that implementation of the plan results in maximum savings to the school district..." SALLY RUE, Vice President, Juneau Board of Education, testified the Juneau School District is probably different from some districts, but not terribly unique in that many of the teachers are at the high end of the salary schedule. More than half of the teachers are at the top. She said the Juneau School District is under tremendous pressure with the operating budget. The budget currently being worked on for next year indicates a $675,000 budget gap; the following year is projected to be over $1 million. She remarked that a couple of years ago, all the nontenured teachers were laid off because it was the only way the district could afford to keep the schools going. As Ms. Gerrish mentioned, that did increase the pupil/teacher ratio. MS. RUE concluded there are over 60 teachers that could take advantage of this RIP and that does not include the three years extra. They have calculated it would save the district $100,000 per teacher over five years. That would mean a huge difference for the Juneau School District in being able to run the programs. Instead of increasing the class size each year, that money could be used for more teachers so they can continue operating the programs. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was further public testimony on HB 354. Hearing none, he closed public testimony. Number 1135 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved to pass HB 354 out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. ADJOURNMENT CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting of the House HESS Committee at 4:20 p.m.