Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/12/1996 03:03 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 12, 1996                                        
                           3:03 p.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair                                       
 Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair                                            
 Representative Gary Davis                                                     
 Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                
 Representative Caren Robinson                                                 
 Representative Tom Brice                                                      
 Representative Al Vezey                                                       
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 HOUSE BILL NO. 93                                                             
 "An Act relating to the duty-free mealtime for teachers in certain            
 school facilities."                                                           
      - PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                
 HOUSE BILL NO. 474                                                            
 "An Act relating to violations of municipal ordinances and                    
 regulations; and amending the definition of the jurisdiction of the           
 superior court and the Department of Health and Social Services               
 over delinquent minors to add a further exclusion from that                   
 jurisdiction for a minor's violation of a municipal ordinance or              
 regulation that is punishable as an infraction or violation, and              
 making a related technical amendment to that jurisdictional                   
      - PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                
 HOUSE BILL NO. 480                                                            
 "An Act relating to physician assistants, including the treatment             
 of their services under group health insurance policies."                     
      - PASSED CSHB 480(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                  
 HOUSE BILL NO. 528                                                            
 "An Act relating to applications for certificates of need and                 
 licensing of nursing homes; amending the standard of review for               
 certificates of need for health care facilities in the state;                 
 establishing a moratorium with respect to new applications by                 
 prohibiting the issuance of a certificate of need or a license for            
 additional nursing home capacity in the state until July 1, 1998;             
 and providing for an effective date."                                         
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
 HOUSE BILL NO. 465                                                            
 "An Act relating to employment of teachers and school                         
 administrators and to public school collective bargaining."                   
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 HOUSE BILL NO. 512                                                            
 "An Act establishing English as the common language and related to            
 the use of English in public records and at public meetings of                
 state agencies."                                                              
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 HOUSE BILL NO. 451                                                            
 "An Act prohibiting persons from receiving or attempting to receive           
 duplicate assistance; directing the Department of Health and Social           
 Services to establish a pilot project relating to identification of           
 recipients of public assistance; and providing for an effective               
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  HB  93                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: TEACHER DUTY-FREE MEALTIME                                       
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES                                           
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG              ACTION                                      
 01/18/95        69    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/18/95        69    (H)   HES, FIN                                          
 02/15/96              (H)   HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 02/15/96              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 02/27/96              (H)   HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 02/27/96              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/05/96              (H)   HES AT  2:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 03/05/96              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/12/96              (H)   HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 BILL:  HB 474                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) TOOHEY,Kelly                                    
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 02/07/96      2648    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/07/96      2649    (H)   CRA, HES, JUDICIARY                               
 02/28/96      2944    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): KELLY                               
 02/29/96              (H)   CRA AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 02/29/96              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 03/07/96              (H)   CRA AT  1:30 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/07/96              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 03/08/96      3024    (H)   CRA RPT  1DP 1DNP 4NR                             
 03/08/96      3025    (H)   DP: IVAN                                          
 03/08/96      3025    (H)   DNP: ELTON                                        
 03/08/96      3025    (H)   NR: MACKIE, AUSTERMAN, VEZEY, KOTT                
 03/08/96      3025    (H)   3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, DCRA, DPS)             
 03/12/96              (H)   HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 BILL:  HB 480                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS                                             
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT                                      
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 02/09/96      2686    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/09/96      2686    (H)   HEALTH,EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES                
 03/05/96              (H)   HES AT  2:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 03/05/96              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/12/96              (H)   HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 BILL:  HB 528                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): FINANCE                                                           
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 02/26/96      2884    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/26/96      2884    (H)   HES, FINANCE                                      
 03/07/96              (H)   HES AT  4:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 03/07/96              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/12/96              (H)   HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES                                                
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 102                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-1182                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3743                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime sponsor of HB 93                                   
 CARL ROSE, Executive Director                                                 
 Association of Alaska School Boards                                           
 316 West 11th Street                                                          
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-1510                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 586-1083                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 93                            
 VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director                                           
 NEA-Alaska, Inc.                                                              
 114 Second Street                                                             
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 586-3090                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 93                                       
 DUANE UDLAND, Deputy Chief                                                    
 Anchorage Police Department                                                   
 4501 South Bragaw                                                             
 Anchorage, Alaska  99507                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 786-8552                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 474                           
 BOB BAILEY, Member                                                            
 Board of Directors                                                            
 Anchorage Chamber of Commerce                                                 
 P.O. Box 91598                                                                
 Anchorage, Alaska  99519                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 279-3511                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 474                           
 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 in opposition to HB 474                        
 JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney                                                      
 Legislative Legal and Research Services                                       
 Legislative Affairs Agency                                                    
 130 Seward Street, Suite 409                                                  
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-2105                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2450                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 474                             
 MARY HUGHES, Municipal Attorney                                               
 City of Anchorage                                                             
 P.O. Box 196650                                                               
 Anchorage, Alaska  99519-6650                                                 
 Telephone:  (907) 343-4545                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 474                                      
 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                    
 Criminal Division                                                             
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-0300                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3428                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 474                                      
 WILDA WHITAKER, Legislative Administrative Assistant                          
   to Representative Gene Therriault                                           
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 421                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-1182                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4797                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 480                             
 JEANNE CLARK                                                                  
 479 Slater Drive                                                              
 Fairbanks, Alaska  99701                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 452-4117                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 480                             
 KIM DUKE, Researcher                                                          
   Representative Mark Hanley                                                  
   House Finance Committee                                                     
 Capitol Building, Room 507                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-1182                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-6872                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 528                             
 CHRISTINE CULLITON                                                            
 Juneau, Alaska                                                                
 Telephone:  (907) 463-6131                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 528                                      
 JAY LIVEY, Deputy Commissioner                                                
 Department of Health & Social Services                                        
 P.O. Box 110601                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-0601                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3030                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 528                                      
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 96-24, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee            
 was called to order by Co-Chair Bunde at 3:03 p.m.  Members present           
 at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey,               
 Robinson and Rokeberg.  Members absent Representatives Davis and              
 HB  93 - TEACHER DUTY-FREE MEALTIME                                         
 Number 120                                                                    
 JEANNETTE JAMES, Sponsor, said House Bill 93 eliminates the time              
 designated in the middle of the day as duty-free mealtime.  It                
 allows that teachers be provided with one-half hour duty-free                 
 mealtime, but removes the time designation "between 11:00 a.m. -              
 1:00 p.m." in current statute so there is more flexibility for                
 school districts to determine when it's possible to give the duty-            
 free mealtime to teachers.                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions for the sponsor.             
 REPRESENTATIVES GARY DAVIS and TOM BRICE joined the meeting at 3:05           
 Number 170                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON thought there had been some                     
 discussion at the last meeting about leaving the designated hours             
 in the legislation and inserting language which would indicate                
 something to the effect "unless the union could work out another              
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there had been an amendment presented for           
 her perusal which would have allowed the teachers 30 minutes                  
 between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., but allowed for other                       
 arrangements to be made.  It appeared to her that if they were                
 going to be allowed to make other arrangements, there was no point            
 in having the 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. time designation.  She                 
 believed that unions have the opportunity to make that arrangement            
 with the students districts currently.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inquired why the bill was needed if they              
 can already do that.                                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded they can't do it unless the time               
 designation is removed.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON questioned if a person shouldn't be given             
 an opportunity to eat between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. in most                
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES believed that everyone should be allowed to              
 have some duty-free mealtime, but she doesn't believe it belongs in           
 statute.  If she had her way she would delete it, because she                 
 believes the unions have the opportunity to negotiate this at the             
 local level.  She would not want to deprive anyone of duty-free               
 mealtime, she just doesn't think it belongs in state statute.  She            
 is, however, willing to leave the provision in the statute, if the            
 time designation can be deleted.                                              
 Number 341                                                                    
 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,           
 testified in support of HB 93.  School districts need to be more              
 innovative due to the increased mandates and HB 93 allows                     
 flexibility at the local level.  For example, if a school is                  
 thinking about double shifting, the time lines set forth in statute           
 are a major obstacle and HB 93 would provide some latitude.                   
 Number 397                                                                    
 VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, NEA-Alaska, Inc., said NEA had           
 offered an amendment to the sponsor which provided that other times           
 could be prescribed as the bargaining unit and the school would               
 agree to.  He felt that would address some of the current issues in           
 many school districts, including the Fairbanks problem.  He                   
 understood there were teachers eating lunch after 1:00 p.m. in the            
 Fairbanks district because the teachers and the Fairbanks School              
 District agreed at the local level to deal with the issue in such             
 a way.  He said HB 93 sets aside the 30 minutes that is finite in             
 the time period, and he thought the amendment would give the school           
 districts the latitude to deal with the issue, and give employees             
 an opportunity for a lunch period within a reasonable period of               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if NEA-Alaska had drafted the                   
 amendment in the committee packets?                                           
 MR. MARSHALL replied that NEA-Alaska offered the language "between            
 such other hours as the two groups could agree to" which he felt in           
 effect memorialized in state law what many districts are currently            
 doing.  It wouldn't be a disruption or cause a lot of anxiety for             
 people who had some concern about what time they actually would               
 have lunch if the time designation was deleted.  He believed the              
 amendment addresses the issue in the spirit of involving people in            
 the decision and accommodates a scheduling problem, if one exists.            
 Number 583                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 93 out of committee             
 with accompanying zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations.           
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected for the purpose of moving the                
 amendment.  She made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.                           
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON believed the amendment would allow there to           
 be an understanding that most lunches would be 30 minutes during              
 the time period of 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. but could be allowed at            
 other times if agreed upon by the school district and the teachers.           
 She felt this was a win/win situation in that it would address the            
 situation in the Fairbanks School District and also give teachers             
 a pretty good understanding of when they would have a lunch break.            
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he was not going to support the                
 amendment because of the persuasive arguments of the sponsor.                 
 Number 693                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS said he didn't see any reason for the               
 amendment in that everyone has equal opportunity to eat when they             
 want or to negotiate, if desired, over when they want to eat.  The            
 amendment limited that to some degree.                                        
 Number 738                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked how lunch schedules were established           
 for teachers and if it was a set time so they could plan their                
 lunch time?  If so, to what degree could that time be changed by              
 the administration and how often?                                             
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE responded that his wife's lunch time was established           
 by the school.  He added that different schools have different                
 lunch times, but he assumed they were all established at the local            
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if a teacher could take a 15-minute                
 break in the morning and another 15-minute break in the afternoon             
 and call that 30 minutes of duty-free mealtime?                               
 Number 847                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY said the language in the amendment sounds             
 as if there is no confidence in local school districts.  He didn't            
 agree with that and didn't see any reason why the local school                
 districts and school boards should be handcuffed anymore than they            
 already are.                                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to Representative Brice's question              
 regarding the two 15-minute breaks, and said although the language            
 does not state a contiguous 30 minutes, it does say "a mealtime."             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that larger school districts              
 like Anchorage have various starting times for their schools                  
 because of the utilization of the buses.  He supports the bill                
 because it allows school districts the flexibility in managing                
 schools that start and end at different times during the day.                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote on the motion to adopt              
 Amendment 1.  Voting in favor of the motion were Representatives              
 Brice and Robinson.  Voting against the motion were Representatives           
 Toohey, Bunde, Vezey, Rokeberg and Davis.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 93 out of committee with             
 attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations.                         
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE objected and asked for a roll call vote.  Voting in            
 favor of the motion to pass HB 93 out of committee were                       
 Representatives Toohey, Vezey, Rokeberg and Davis.  Voting against            
 the motion were Representatives Bunde, Brice and Robinson.  Co-               
 Chair Bunde announced that HB 93 had passed out of the House HESS             
 HB 474 - VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES & REGS                          
 Number 1004                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY, Sponsor, said it is known that the juvenile                  
 justice system has had some great problems for a long time.  Too              
 often young offenders are finding there is no meaningful                      
 consequences for their delinquent behavior.  This is particularly             
 true for those who commit minor offenses since the justice system             
 is already overwhelmed with serious offenders.  Knowing this,                 
 juvenile offenders have become increasingly dangerous and blatant             
 regarding their offenses since they know the overloaded system can            
 do very little to them.  House Bill 474 would allow municipalities            
 to respond to less serious juvenile behavior by expanding its                 
 jurisdiction to include the ability to subject juvenile offenders             
 to civil infractions and/or misdemeanors.  This would allow the               
 juvenile justice system to focus on the more serious criminal                 
 activity, while assuring that juvenile offenders of less serious              
 offenses receive more immediate consequences for their action.                
 This bill is supported by the Municipality of Anchorage and the               
 Anchorage Chamber of Commerce.  She noted there were three zero               
 fiscal notes and announced that Mary Hughes from the Municipality             
 of Anchorage was available on teleconference to address the bill,             
 Jack Chenoweth, Division of Legal Services, was available to answer           
 questions, Deputy Chief Duane Udland from the Anchorage Police                
 Department and Bob Bailey from the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce              
 were also on teleconference to testify.                                       
 Number 1114                                                                   
 DUANE UDLAND, Deputy Chief, Anchorage Police Department, testified            
 he believed HB 474 would help the Anchorage Police Department                 
 address juvenile problems early on.  It deals with minor                      
 infractions that kids commit that currently are not being handled             
 by the juvenile justice system.  The sooner kids are dealt with and           
 know there are consequences for their actions, the better off the             
 community will be.  He said he normally testifies before the                  
 legislature requesting that legislation not be passed that has an             
 impact on the community as an unfunded mandate; however, in this              
 particular case, he is testifying that the Municipality of                    
 Anchorage is willing to help relieve some of the burden on the                
 state as far as juvenile prosecution is concerned.  There have been           
 a number of concerns expressed about this bill in both the Senate             
 and House as to who should be in control of juveniles, the cities             
 or the state.  He said if the state was able to handle all these              
 cases, they wouldn't be asking for jurisdiction to prosecute these            
 minor offenses, but the fact is the state does not have the                   
 resources.  Those resources seem to be more limited as time goes              
 on, particularly as the system gets overcrowded with more serious             
 offenders.   It is their intent to set up a hearing officer concept           
 with a maximum fine of $300, with the child going before the                  
 hearing officer with the parents and the issue is dealt with at the           
 local level as opposed to being sent to juvenile intake, where                
 historically, juvenile intake has not dealt with it because of                
 their workload.  He said that concern had been expressed about the            
 record keeping and that records would get lost because cities would           
 be doing one thing and the state would be doing another.  He                  
 suggested that police departments be required to notify juvenile              
 intake of any enforcement action taken, which could be easily done            
 and something they were willing to do.                                        
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions for Deputy Chief             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked how this system would work in                   
 relation to the different types of diversion programs like youth              
 courts for example?                                                           
 DEPUTY CHIEF UDLAND said he didn't think those decisions had been             
 made yet.  They were very interested in the youth court concept, it           
 had the backing of the mayor's office and the assembly, and they              
 are looking forward to working out the details as to what offenses            
 would go before the youth court as opposed to what would go before            
 a hearing officer.  It is the intent of the Anchorage Police                  
 Department to fully support the youth court.                                  
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented that when this bill was heard in the                
 Community and Regional Affairs, it was stated that up to 50 percent           
 of the juveniles who have committed minor offenses slip through the           
 cracks because nobody wants to handle them.  They are not hard core           
 criminals; they are kids that know they can get away with it,                 
 because no one wants to bother with them.                                     
 Number 1308                                                                   
 BOB BAILEY, Member, Board of Directors, Anchorage Chamber of                  
 Commerce, testified that he is also the co-chair of the Chamber's             
 Crime Prevention Committee.  He said several months ago, the                  
 Municipality of Anchorage brought a package of legislation before             
 the Chamber's Crime Prevention Committee to address law enforcement           
 problems in their city and state.  Early on in the meeting process,           
 it quickly became apparent that juvenile crime is a serious problem           
 in Anchorage.  Due to the lack of jurisdiction however, the city              
 has been helpless to address the problem.  He said there are                  
 juveniles who actually shoplift intentionally at Dimond Center in             
 south Anchorage, so they can get a free ride downtown with the                
 police department, knowing full well that juvenile intake is too              
 busy to do anything.  He commented that HB 474 certainly doesn't              
 solve the problem of juvenile crime, but allows the local                     
 municipalities to use their resources to the first line of defense.           
 It has been shown time and time again that juveniles will commit              
 crimes because they know they won't be prosecuted.  When they get             
 away with it once, they have no hesitation to offend again.  While            
 fines certainly don't deter serious criminals, the Chamber's Crime            
 Prevention Committee and the business community in Anchorage                  
 strongly feel that a fine may stop a juvenile first time offender             
 from becoming a repeat offender if they realize there are indeed              
 consequences for their actions. Mr. Bailey stated the Anchorage               
 Chamber of Commerce board of directors passed a resolution                    
 supporting HB 474 and urged its passage out of committee.                     
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions of Mr. Bailey.               
 Hearing none, he asked Diane Worley to come forward to testify.               
 Number 1400                                                                   
 DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family & Youth Services,                  
 Department of Health & Social Services, testified the department is           
 opposed to HB 474, but agrees with the concept.  She said the                 
 department realizes that something needs to be done early on with             
 kids inasmuch as their workload prevents them from intervening with           
 early juvenile violations, but they have concerns with the process            
 and a number of related issues.  One of the department's main                 
 issues is the automatic waiver of juveniles to adult court;                   
 district court is adult court, not juvenile court.  It opens a                
 whole new area and she felt it was something that needed to be                
 looked at in a very comprehensive approach with the entire juvenile           
 justice system.  The department also has concern that when                    
 municipalities have the ability to set their own ordinance                    
 violations, depending upon what community picks which violations,             
 children and youth will receive disparate treatment.  For example,            
 in one community they could go to district court, in another                  
 community there may be nothing, yet in still another community,               
 they may go into the juvenile justice system.  She also expressed             
 concern about the parameters of a municipal ordinance.                        
 MS. WORLEY further stated the department has concern about the                
 Division of Family & Youth Services receiving notification.  For              
 example, if a child had received 10 citations and had gone to                 
 district court 10 times for those various violations, and then                
 committed a more serious crime and came into the DFYS system, it              
 would be considered a first time offense, not the 11th offense.               
 She felt there needed to be a process whereby the whole scope of              
 the youth's activity is looked at.                                            
 Number 1540                                                                   
 MS. WORLEY stated another concern is if a child in the DFYS                   
 probation system goes to district court for a violation, the                  
 division won't hear about it.  In a sense, the juvenile has broken            
 their probation, but the division wouldn't receive notification of            
 it because the child would have gone through a different system.              
 She concluded that a number of the department's concerns are system           
 type problems they would like to have considered.  She reiterated             
 the department supports the concept and would like to have more               
 immediate consequences for juveniles' activities, but it is the               
 department's belief these issues can be addressed through the                 
 juvenile process if they really work at them.  She added the                  
 department would like to see many of these issues wait for the                
 recommendations of the Governor's Conference on Youth & Justice so            
 a comprehensive approach can be put together.                                 
 Number 1600                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented the bill drafter, Mr. Chenoweth was                  
 available for questions.                                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inquired which of the communities with                
 ordinances, would actually be able to utilize this legislation.               
 She thought that Kodiak had done away with their city ordinances so           
 everything could be charged at the state level.                               
 Number 1642                                                                   
 JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,            
 Legislative Affairs Agency, said that any municipality has the                
 authority to draw ordinances and enforce them.  There is a general            
 provision in the law that allows them to penalize up to $1,000 and            
 90 days jail time, which is stated on page 2, lines 2-3.  This                
 legislation tries to get at conduct that a municipality chooses to            
 punish only by imposition of a fine with no jail time or no other             
 stigma or punitive element attached.  It was done that way so it              
 would be defined as a minor offense, as that term is understood in            
 the district court rules and should prevent the court system from             
 having to give the defendant a trial by jury or to supply the                 
 defendant with court-appointed counsel or counsel at public                   
 expense.  Neither of those requirements attaches to a minor                   
 offense.  He said the Municipality of Anchorage had asked for a               
 bill that would allow them to charge more conduct criminally so               
 they could take over the disposition, and that did not require the            
 municipality to provide a trial by jury or court-appointed counsel.           
 Mr. Chenoweth believed that had been accomplished.                            
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if municipalities would only charge for                  
 misdemeanors and would not be able to charge for felony offenses.             
 MR. CHENOWETH said the penalty referred to in the legislation, the            
 $1,000 and 90-day imprisonment which is the maximum for                       
 municipalities, is the equivalent of a class B misdemeanor.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked about the disparity issue in terms of           
 constitutionally.  For example, one community could charge a                  
 juvenile through the adult system, while another community could              
 charge a juvenile through the juvenile system.                                
 MR. CHENOWETH did not believe there was any protection argument               
 that necessarily attaches.  He used the example of littering where            
 it is so bad in one municipality they may decide to address it in             
 a municipal ordinance and impose a fine of not to exceed $300.                
 Another community may decide it is not a problem and not have any             
 ordinance for littering whatsoever.  If a juvenile is engaged in              
 littering and charged, he/she would be charged under the state                
 statute, if there is one and prosecuted, or if appropriate, handled           
 through the adjustment and disposition process of the DFYS.  The              
 fact that some municipalities have in some cases stepped in and               
 taken responsibility for prosecution but other municipalities                 
 haven't, doesn't particularly raise an equal protection issue.                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if it would be the responsibility of            
 the municipalities to bear the associated costs.                              
 MR. CHENOWETH responded in the normal scheme, municipalities would            
 have to pick up the cost of enforcing their own ordinances.  For              
 about the last two years, Anchorage has used its authority as a               
 home rule municipality, and instead of criminalizing a lot of the             
 conduct that many people regard as appropriate for enforcing                  
 through a criminal ordinance, they made the violation of those                
 activities a civil matter and prosecuted before their own hearing             
 officers.  In other words, they have internalized it, kept it out             
 of the court system and put the representation of the civil action            
 before their own hearing officers.  Also, the enforcement of a                
 judgment given by the hearing officers is handled by their own                
 hearing officers.  He commented that he had no idea if it had been            
 successful or not, but in the early discussions of HB 474 and how             
 it would be used in Anchorage, there was some indication the                  
 municipality would expand upon the civil enforcement model they               
 have and perhaps make use of that.  If they do, there would                   
 probably be less demand on the DFYS system because there would be             
 fewer referrals of minors and probably little or no demand on the             
 court system because it would all be internalized within the                  
 Anchorage court hearing system.                                               
 Number 1890                                                                   
 MARY HUGHES, Municipal Attorney, City of Anchorage, stated that Mr.           
 Chenoweth's comments were correct.  She added that Deputy Chief               
 Udland had alluded to the fact that if this bill passes, it was the           
 intent of the Municipality of Anchorage to make these civil                   
 infractions and the entire process would be handled in-house.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the disparity issue and asked             
 Mr. Chenoweth if different community standards were recognized by             
 the courts.                                                                   
 MR. CHENOWETH responded the courts will enforce the ordinance as it           
 comes to them.  He explained that Anchorage is a unified                      
 municipality, but in the Fairbanks area there are at least three              
 jurisdictions, the borough, the city of Fairbanks and the city of             
 North Pole, and all three may decide to address the same issue.               
 There may be three separate defendants, one prosecuted by the                 
 borough, one by the city of Fairbanks and one by the city of North            
 Pole.  The judge will take each ordinance as it is written and will           
 look at the circumstances under which the person is being                     
 prosecuted.  It doesn't necessarily have to be uniform either in              
 the definition of the offense or in the penalty attached, if the              
 court finds the individual guilty.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there is nothing that speaks to public           
 disclosure of juveniles in the legislation.  He asked if there were           
 any conflicting statutes?                                                     
 MR. CHENOWETH said the theory of the legislation is that if a minor           
 commits a minor offense in a municipality that has chosen to                  
 establish an ordinance and prosecute under the ordinance, the                 
 municipality would present the matter before the district court               
 instead of having an automatic referral of the matter through the             
 DFYS system.  The fact that the minor appears before the district             
 court means the minor is in open court and those records are public           
 records.  The legislation is drafted in such a way that the minor             
 would be prosecuted as an adult.  Through a prosecution in the                
 district court of an ordinance of this kind, that information could           
 become public.  The record itself would be treated as the court               
 records are, but the fact that the minor was in front of a judge or           
 a jury is something that might appear in the newspaper the next               
 Number 2026                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that attempts have been made in the past             
 to address the juvenile disclosure issue but as soon as the child             
 becomes a child in need of aid under the DFYS system, the federal             
 government does not allow the records to be disclosed.  In effect,            
 if the prosecution of these juveniles is kept out of the DFYS                 
 system, the access to records is allowed.                                     
 MR. CHENOWETH said in the last two hearings on the bill, he had not           
 heard any objection from the DFYS to the release of the                       
 information.  While he personally has not gone back to fit this               
 legislation into the federal act referred to by Co-Chair Bunde, he            
 felt the DFYS would have cited that as one of the objections to               
 this approach.  He commented this takes the theory of traffic                 
 offenses, which municipalities may now bring before the district              
 court, and expanding it to other things that municipalities may               
 decide they want to enforce as criminal actions.                              
 Number 2087                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to the concern expressed by the              
 DFYS regarding the lack of notification of repeat offenders who               
 have been before the court a number of times and asked Mr.                    
 Chenoweth if this legislation could be amended to require                     
 municipalities to notify the DFYS.                                            
 MR. CHENOWETH responded yes, he thought it would be a good idea.              
 If it is critical for DFYS or any other state agency to have this             
 kind of information, then there should be a requirement that a                
 report or the outcome of the offense be submitted to DFYS, released           
 to DFYS upon request, or whatever is felt would not be so onerous             
 as to discourage the municipalities from taking advantage of this             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she wanted to ensure that if there is            
 a need for intervention, the division has some level of power to              
 intervene for such things as treatment, counseling, etc.                      
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS thought that if a youth was being tried in               
 adult court by a municipality, the information would be public and            
 available to the DFYS.                                                        
 Number 2209                                                                   
 DEPUTY CHIEF UDLAND thought it would be easy enough to do inasmuch            
 as the police department has an excellent relationship with the               
 division and youth intake.  Even if it is not inserted in statute,            
 he thought it could be worked out with juvenile intake to ensure              
 that information is exchanged.                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON expressed her desire that it be in statute.           
 Number  2260                                                                  
 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,                
 Department of Law, said it was difficult to take a position of                
 opposition to the bill because the goal to have swift consequences            
 and early intervention for children who disobey the law is a good             
 one.  However, the department does oppose it.  There is no                    
 oversight in the bill as to what ordinances a municipality could              
 adopt.  While shoplifting may be an area of concern to Anchorage,             
 if a person is tried in adult court for shoplifting, that person              
 would receive an adult record.  That would be an unequal situation            
 compared to a person outside the municipality of Anchorage who                
 would be tried as a juvenile and not receive an adult record.                 
 Although page 2, lines 14-16, state there should be no consequences           
 beyond that of a fine, a child would end up with an adult record              
 and if it's for a violation such as shoplifting, the conviction               
 would be for an offense involving dishonesty and would make it more           
 difficult to get a job, into the military, etc.  As a matter of               
 fact, there would be consequences to receiving an adult record.               
 MS. CARPENETI said generally the department opposes automatic                 
 waiver of juveniles to adult court, except for the most serious               
 offenses, because the mission of juvenile justice is early                    
 intervention for children to guide them away from committing more             
 crimes.  The argument presented by Ms. Hughes that the waiver would           
 be to a civil process is not specified in the bill.  If a child is            
 waived to district court for a minor offense, the child will                  
 receive a fine, but there would be no supervision of the child                
 because there is no probation supervision in district court in our            
 state.  There would be no probation officer to try to help the                
 TAPE 96-24, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 MS. CARPENETI continued to explain there is no restitution provided           
 for victims, which means the court would not have the power to                
 order restitution for a conviction for shoplifting.  In conclusion            
 she said the Governor's Commission on Youth and Justice was                   
 established to address difficult issues such as this.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE questioned which ordinance would supersede               
 which in a situation where there was a borough and a city                     
 MS. CARPENETI wasn't certain, but she assumed the child would be              
 charged under the law of the authority that arrested or stopped the           
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Carpeneti if she thought the bill           
 could be amended to allow for restitution.                                    
 MS. CARPENETI said that was an interesting question.  The                     
 legislation was trying to cover offenses that don't give rise to              
 the right of court-appointed counsel and a jury trial.  There was             
 a possibility of authorizing the court to order restitution,                  
 depending on the amount.                                                      
 Number 123                                                                    
 MS. HUGHES said it would be the preference of the municipality of             
 Anchorage not to include any type of restitution in the bill.  The            
 reason for the current language was to avoid any of the criminal              
 prosecutorial concerns for the defendant in a criminal process.               
 She said with regard to the issue of shoplifting, nothing would               
 change inasmuch as there is no restitution now.                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was further testimony on HB 474.                
 MS. HUGHES stated she would like to testify at this time.  She said           
 HB 474 is fundamental as far as she is concerned, particularly with           
 respect to the juvenile crime issue.  As is evidenced from the                
 Public Safety Partnership Program packet furnished to committee               
 members, the municipality of Anchorage believes the long term                 
 approach to the juvenile issues Anchorage is currently facing is to           
 put together a task force, as the Governor has done, and look at              
 every aspect of how juvenile crime is handled, including the                  
 authority of the DFYS to handle a particular juvenile crime.  The             
 municipality applauds the Governor's efforts in that respect;                 
 however, situations still have to be handled in the interim.  Even            
 though the task force has set their goal as September to come out             
 with some type of overhaul of the juvenile code, she is expecting             
 this process to extend far beyond September.  She said one of the             
 things this particular provision does is allows the city to handle            
 certain criminal conduct under the same code as the city's own                
 littering and loitering type conduct.  In essence, these juveniles,           
 many of whom never even get into the system now, can at least be              
 fined on site for their crime.  As Deputy Chief Udland indicated,             
 the municipality is willing to take on some responsibility and see            
 if it will help get a handle on the situation.                                
 MS. HUGHES further stated she did not believe there was any problem           
 with the equal protection, primarily because many local governments           
 within the state handle varied matters differently and as long as             
 it doesn't rise to the standpoint of an equal protection argument.            
 She also believes that depending on how it is decided to handle               
 certain offenses, it is possible the Anchorage Police Department              
 can report to the DFYS, if deemed necessary, or the hearing officer           
 could provide information with respect to civil fines for various             
 conduct.  With respect to the repeat offender concept, Ms. Hughes             
 said that no one knows who the repeat offenders are now, because              
 they don't even get into the DFYS system.                                     
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Hughes if going to court and being treated           
 as if the crime was very serious would be considered as                       
 MS. HUGHES said it has been the city's experience that it is a form           
 of intervention.  They also have used juvenile's mediation with the           
 victim, which has been very successful.  She believed that                    
 attention being paid to the act was very important because the                
 juveniles feel they can get away with their activities with no                
 Number 467                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what happens if a child doesn't pay the            
 fine?  Would they be sent to adult court, sent to prison or given             
 another ticket?                                                               
 MS. HUGHES said she thought it would be handled on the civil side,            
 as it is currently.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she understood there could be                    
 imprisonment up to 90 days based on the language on page 2, lines             
 MS. HUGHES said the municipality may by ordinance prescribe a                 
 penalty not to exceed $1,000 or 90 days imprisonment, but the                 
 municipality doesn't do that.   They would provide a penalty of               
 $300 as is currently done and no imprisonment.                                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her concern was that if a decision was           
 made to imprison the child, where would they go and who would pay             
 for it.  While page 2, line 12, says that a person charged with a             
 violation is not entitled to appointment of a public defender or              
 other counsel appointed at public expense, what about the person              
 who has money available for counsel?                                          
 MS. HUGHES said a person could be represented by counsel in front             
 of a hearing officer.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if her interpretation was correct               
 that a person who doesn't have money wouldn't be able to use a                
 public defender or other counsel.                                             
 MS. HUGHES said the stature of this particular infraction is such             
 that it doesn't call into question the use of a public defender.              
 Currently, the (indisc.) the misdemeanor in the municipality of               
 Anchorage, and prosecute them all.  The municipality pays for their           
 own public defender and is considered within their current system.            
 If an infraction rises to the point that a public defender is                 
 required under the law, then one would be appointed and the                   
 municipality of Anchorage would pay for it.                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that page 2, line 4, clearly states that a               
 violation cannot result in incarceration.                                     
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented this does not deal with serious                     
 criminals; it's the spray paint kids and the infractions so minor             
 that no one wants to deal with them, including the DFYS.  She                 
 suggested the municipality of Anchorage work with the Division of             
 Family & Youth Services and the Division of Legal Services in                 
 resolving these issues.                                                       
 Number 725                                                                    
 MS. WORLEY asked to clarify the issue of imprisonment raised by               
 Representative Robinson.  A concern she forgot to address in her              
 testimony was if a child does not pay the fine, the judge can file            
 a contempt of court, and the child could be sent to the local youth           
 facility for a certain number of days.  This could impact the                 
 overcrowding situation, particularly in Anchorage at the McLaughlin           
 Youth Facility.                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if there was a mandatory jail time for             
 contempt of court fines?                                                      
 MS. WORLEY said she didn't know if it was mandatory.                          
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was any other public testimony.                 
 Hearing none, he closed public testimony.                                     
 Number 781                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 474 out of committee with            
 zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS objected.  Based on the discussion he believed           
 there had been a consensus that an amendment should be considered             
 to include a requirement that notice be passed on to the DFYS.                
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE believed testimony had indicated that notice would             
 be given to the division.  He asked the sponsor, Co-Chair Toohey to           
 address that issue.                                                           
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she would like for the Division of Family &              
 Youth Services, Ms. Carpeneti, Mary Hughes and Deputy Chief Udland            
 to come up with an amendment that could be introduced in the                  
 Judiciary Committee, which is the next committee of referral.                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any objections to moving HB 474            
 from committee.  Hearing none, it was so ordered.                             
 HB 480 - PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS                                                
 Number 855                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced the next bill to come before the committee           
 was HB 480.  He asked Representative Therriault's Legislative                 
 Assistant to come forward to address the bill.                                
 WILDA WHITAKER, Legislative Administrative Assistant, said                    
 Representative Therriault's top priority was Sections 1, 2 and 3 of           
 HB 480.                                                                       
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to adopt Amendment 1.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected.                                             
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Co-Chair Toohey to speak to her amendment.               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she totally supported the basis for the bill,            
 which allows a physician assistant (PA) to have their nomenclature            
 made simple.  Apparently there are some insurance companies that              
 will not pay physician assistant fees because the statute indicates           
 that physician assistants are registered rather than licensed.  Her           
 concern is with Section 4, which allows a physician assistant to              
 receive physician fees. It as her belief that it would be                     
 irresponsible for the legislature to pass a bill allowing a                   
 physician assistant to collect and bill at the same rate as a                 
 physician.  She acknowledged that physician assistants are needed,            
 but they should not be allowed to charge the same rate as a                   
 physician.  It is her belief that Section 4 should be totally                 
 deleted from the bill.                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned the information in the bill                
 packet regarding the Blue Cross federal insurance issue.                      
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY explained that in some cases Blue Cross federal               
 insurance would not reimbursement for physician assistants, but the           
 nomenclature change in Sections 1, 2 and 3 would address that                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote.  Voting in favor of the            
 amendment were Representatives Davis, Rokeberg, Vezey, Toohey and             
 Bunde.  Voting against the amendment were Representatives Robinson            
 and Brice.                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it had been brought to his attention             
 by a constituent that phlebotomist should be added to the list of             
 people authorized under Section 3, lines 17-18, to draw blood.  He            
 wondered if phlebotomists were certified differently than the other           
 categories listed, or if there was some reluctance to include                 
 MS. WHITAKER responded it was her understanding this referred to              
 withdrawing of blood for a test under AS 18.15.300 - 18.15.320                
 which dealt with blood tests for persons charged with sex offenses.           
 She understood that a phlebotomist draws blood as a therapeutic               
 measure, so for the purpose of AS 18.15.300 - 18.15.320, a                    
 phlebotomist did not fit into that category.                                  
 Number 1171                                                                   
 JEANNE CLARK testified via teleconference that Ms. Whitaker was               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the committee had before them House Bill 480,             
 as amended.  He asked for the wishes of the committee.                        
 Number 1198                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to pass HB 480, as amended with zero fiscal             
 notes and individual recommendations.  Hearing no objection, it was           
 so ordered.                                                                   
 HB 528 - NURS.HOME MORATORIUM/CERTIFICATES OF NEED                          
 Number 1251                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said this bill had been heard in committee                    
 previously and she had two amendments to distribute to committee              
 members.  Co-Chair Toohey moved to adopt Amendment 1.  Hearing no             
 objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                           
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Co-Chair Toohey to explain Amendment 1.                  
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she is requesting the language in Section 2,             
 page 2, line 19 be changed from "may" of the original language to             
 "shall" with a specific moratorium so a specific plan can be                  
 established at the end of two years to address the existing                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the amendment returned the language to the                
 original language.                                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY raised an objection.  He didn't understand why           
 the committee wanted to make it mandatory that the Administration             
 approve every request for a new facility.                                     
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Kim Duke to respond to Representative Vezey's           
 Number 1442                                                                   
 KIM DUKE, Researcher to Representative Mark Hanley, House Finance             
 Committee, explained there were different items the Department of             
 Health & Social Services had to take into consideration before a              
 recommendation was approved and Section 2 expands that so the                 
 statewide financial need for additional beds would also be                    
 considered.  She added that Representative Hanley is not opposed to           
 the amendment, as written.                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE explained the amendment would reflect existing                 
 statute and it had been determined that hospitals or nursing homes            
 can't be built without a certificate of need.                                 
 MS. DUKE said, "Right.  They have expanded language in this area to           
 take other -- language is expanded to allow the department, if they           
 find a lack of available health care resources in this state, and             
 also take into consideration services that are more cost effective,           
 which is the point of this whole bill, is to allow the department             
 time to explore more community based services and this will be one            
 of the considerations they have to take into -- before they approve           
 a CON (Certificate of Need).  It expands that."                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented that several years ago Project Choice               
 came to Alaska, which allowed senior citizens to go into community            
 nursing assisted living care in lieu of a nursing home.  The cost             
 of assisted living care is $13,000 per year, whereas a bed in a               
 nursing home is $80,000 per year.  This legislation expands the               
 assisting living services in the communities.                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he still didn't understand why the use of           
 "shall" was better than "may."                                                
 MS. DUKE said she believed the nursing association was concerned              
 that once all the requirements were met, the department still had             
 leeway to not approve their certificate of need.  She believed with           
 the expansion of the criteria, there would be enough restrictions             
 before they are required to approve a CON (certificate of need).              
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY disagreed.  He explained the use of "shall"              
 would give people a position to sue the state for not funding a               
 program.  There are all kinds of need, but there's the question of            
 a lack of money to fund all of the needs.                                     
 MS. DUKE say there is a requirement to take into consideration the            
 state and federal financing available for these services before               
 determining that a certificate be granted.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY didn't see where a lack of funds is grounds              
 for saying the need doesn't exist.                                            
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote.  Voting in favor to                
 adopt Amendment 1 were Representatives Robinson, Davis, Rokeberg,             
 Toohey and Bunde.  Voting against the adoption of Amendment 1 were            
 Representatives Brice and Vezey.                                              
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that Amendment 1 had been adopted.  He               
 asked Co-Chair Toohey to explain Amendment 2.                                 
 Number 1745                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY stated that Amendment 2 establishes a working group           
 to study the issues and report on long-term care.  The Alaska State           
 Hospital & Nursing Home Association and the Department of Health &            
 Social Services felt there were some major concerns that needed to            
 be addressed as this is a large growing segment of our population.            
 The department has assured there would be no cost for the working             
 group.  The report would be worked on during the interim and                  
 delivered to the legislature by the first day of the Twentieth                
 Alaska State Legislature.  At the end of two years when Sections 1            
 and 3 sunset, it is hoped that some of the questions and concerns             
 can be answered.                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was a reason why no one from           
 the legislature was involved in the working group.                            
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY responded there was no particular reason.                     
 Number 1851                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he would like to consider an amendment to           
 the amendment by changing "1998" to "1997".  He commented that last           
 year there was a long range fiscal planning group that accomplished           
 a lot of work in one year.  He assumed there were statistics and              
 data already available, so he felt the group could have their work            
 completed in a year.  Representative Davis made a motion to amend             
 the amendment by changing the date in the title from July 1, 1998             
 to July 1, 1997.                                                              
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented she had no objection to the amendment to            
 the amendment.                                                                
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE inquired if there was any objection to Amendment 2.            
 Hearing none, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                        
 Number 1985                                                                   
 CHRISTINE CULLITON testified her daughter, Courtney, was born in              
 Alaska 11 years ago, before home and community based services were            
 available.  What was available to her family was to divorce,                  
 (indisc.) institutionalize or give their daughter up to foster in             
 order to get Medicaid benefits to keep her with them.  The family             
 ultimately ended up in bankruptcy trying to keep Courtney in their            
 home, but she ended up in an institutional setting.  As a result of           
 OBRA 87, her daughter was able to come back to the state of Alaska,           
 but not to their home.  Courtney was what Ms. Culliton considers to           
 be one of the victims of a hospital association bed.  The money was           
 tied up in that bed and her cost in the institution was $178,000              
 for one year of care.  Because there were no home and community               
 based services available, Courtney went into foster care in Alaska,           
 which cost the state $57,000 per year, and kept her out of her home           
 and away from the family that loved her.  After three years of                
 being in foster care, the family found out that Courtney is                   
 terminally ill.  Courtney and her family lost the opportunity to be           
 together as a family during the four years she spent in a hospital            
 bed and state money went to hospital bed services.  Ms. Culliton              
 remarked that she sat on Project Choice from the conception of the            
 project and helped with the TEFRA Option.  When she hears and sees            
 what community based services are currently doing in the state, she           
 brims with pride.  She encouraged the committee to support this               
 bill for a two-year moratorium.  She commented the state of Alaska            
 has only had the opportunity for home and community based services            
 for two years, the first of which was a rough year because it was             
 a new philosophy for the state.  She agreed with Mr. Knudson's                
 comment made a few days previous that this issue has made friends             
 from opposite sides of the fence.  She said it's unfortunate                  
 because ultimately the goal for everyone is to look out for the               
 best interest of individuals in the state and how best to meet                
 those needs.  She asked committee members to walk the two blocks up           
 and two blocks over to St. Ann's Nursing Home and ask anyone of the           
 individuals in the beds if that was their choice.  If they had been           
 given the opportunity to stay in their home with their loved ones             
 and receive community based services, would they have chosen that             
 bed?  Of course the answer would be no.  Ms. Culliton said not one            
 of us is more than a walk across the street away from needing home            
 and community based services or an institutional bed, if that's all           
 that is available.  Given the reductions proposed by the House to             
 home and community based services and the administrative costs that           
 have been proposed, in addition to looking at this certificate of             
 need bill, people like her daughter will be forced back into                  
 institutional care, and the cost will not just be monetary.  She              
 encouraged the committee to allow the state to continue with the              
 success currently  experienced with home and community based                  
 services.  Courtney has been living at home for two years and is              
 receiving the services she needs at a cost to the state of less               
 than $30,000 per year.                                                        
 TAPE 96-25, TAPE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 MS. CULLITON continued to not allow that moratorium, to have the              
 certificate of need continue, to have those beds be built, will               
 reduce adult funding for services under Medicaid.  She commented              
 that adults in the state have already taken a severe reduction in             
 dental, vision, physical therapy and other services from the                  
 optional listing in the face of budget reductions.  It's                      
 disheartening to see those services removed and to think of                   
 spending money for a facility that will not support the people in             
 their homes and communities.  She thanked the committee for the               
 opportunity to testify and again urged the committee to pass the              
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Jay Livey to come forward to testify.                    
 Number 152                                                                    
 JAY LIVEY, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health & Social                 
 Services, said he understood the effect of Representative Davis'              
 amendment to Amendment 2 was to change "1998" to "1997" on line 1             
 of the amendment, which changes the date in the title of the bill.            
 He said Section 5 of Amendment 2 sets the time of the                         
 subcommittee's report back to the legislature as the first day of             
 the Twentieth legislature, which is next January.  He believed that           
 what Representative Davis wanted to accomplish with his amendment             
 to the amendment, was already done in Amendment 2.                            
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said with the committee's permission, the amendment            
 to the amendment would be withdrawn, and the committee would have             
 then adopted Amendment 2 unamended.  According to Deputy                      
 Commissioner Livey's testimony, the amendment moves the report up             
 to the Twentieth Legislature, which is next January.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG thought the amendment was to move the                 
 period of moratorium from two years to one year.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that was his intent.                                
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the committee had already adopted Amendment 2,            
 as amended and he assumed Representative Davis would object to                
 removing his amendment to the amendment.                                      
 Number 307                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "My desire was to have -- I think the              
 study group when it comes back with its report, would have any                
 basis for establishing this statute - this bill.  If the bill is              
 valid and there is a concern and the study recommends an extension            
 to another year as initially indicated in the bill - they wanted a            
 two-year moratorium - I want a one-year moratorium with the                   
 understanding that the working group is going to go out and analyze           
 the situation as it stands now which will then verify the need for            
 this legislation.  If it says yes, we need this protection from               
 additional expenses, then we would come back and extend the                   
 moratorium at that time.  That was my intent.  That's what I see              
 the task of the working group is to determine whether there is a              
 need for this legislation for two years."                                     
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Livey to comment.                                   
 Number 415                                                                    
 MR. LIVEY said the department believes a two-year moratorium was              
 more reasonable for what was trying to be accomplished, which is to           
 create an atmosphere where more home and community based services             
 can develop.  That will more likely occur if individuals know that            
 for two years there is a moratorium and during those two years work           
 will be done on developing a home and community based system,                 
 instead of a one-year moratorium with maybe a second year.  It was            
 the department's desire that the two-year moratorium be retained.             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented it was her understanding the goal           
 was to look at the big picture regarding long term care.  She asked           
 if Mr. Livey perceived that the working group would determine if              
 there was a need for a two-year moratorium?                                   
 MR. LIVEY responded the purpose of the working group was to                   
 determine the number of individuals who could be served in the                
 community or in a nursing home, what the relative costs were                  
 between the home and community based services and the nursing home            
 and to do some long term planning that would predict where                    
 individuals would have to go in the system as they get older.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the department would need to come            
 back before the legislature in order to go to a one-year moratorium           
 if the working group decided the need for a two-year moratorium did           
 not exist.                                                                    
 MR. LIVEY thought it would depend on how Section 4 of the current             
 bill was rewritten, because Section 4 contains the moratorium                 
 language and states that the moratorium will survive until July 1,            
 Number 618                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that for the information of the committee,           
 some committee members thought the amendment changed one date, but            
 a more significant part of Amendment 2 had been changed.                      
 Therefore, the committee needed to move to rescind Amendment 2,               
 then rescind amending Amendment 2, if desired.                                
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that he agreed with Representative             
 Davis on going back to July 1, 1997, because it would require the             
 next legislature to address the issue.  He believed it would                  
 benefit the long care system if discussions continued and that                
 plans to move ahead in this area should be based on need and cost,            
 as well.  He thought a one-year moratorium was the appropriate way            
 to go.                                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS agreed with Mr. Livey's argument for wanting             
 two years to pursue long term care and assisted living                        
 alternatives, but Representative Davis thought it could be done in            
 one year.  He pointed out that with Amendment 2 in place, the date            
 in Section 4 would need to be changed to July 1, 1997.                        
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS made a motion to adopt Amendment 3 to change             
 the date in Section 4 to July 1, 1997.                                        
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted it was a clarifying amendment.  An objection             
 was raised.                                                                   
 Number 810                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she understood Section 4 was the two-            
 year moratorium section, so Amendment 3 would change it to a one-             
 year moratorium.                                                              
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified the amendments.  The date of the report              
 back to the legislature was amended in the amended Amendment 2.               
 Amendment 3 reduces the moratorium from two years to one year.  A             
 vote against Amendment 3 is a two-year moratorium with an interim             
 report to the legislature.  A vote for Amendment 3 is a one-year              
 moratorium with a one year report to the legislature.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked when the report would be coming to the             
 legislature?  It was his understanding that it changed back to the            
 original language of the first day of the First Regular Session of            
 the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature, so there would be 120 days            
 in which to act to extend the moratorium.                                     
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said as the bill exists currently, the report will             
 be provided on the first day of the Twentieth Legislature, but the            
 moratorium will still exist for two years.  If Representative                 
 Davis' amendment is adopted, the report would be due to the                   
 legislature on the first day and the moratorium would cease on the            
 first day.                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE interjected on July 1.                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated that was correct; it would be July 1, 1997.             
 Number 913                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said to further complicate matters, if the            
 amendment is voted down, they would need to go back and fix the               
 title, because they had amended it in Amendment 2.                            
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON repeated her earlier question of whether              
 or not the department could lift the moratorium without legislative           
 Number 974                                                                    
 MR. LIVEY asked Representative Robinson to clarify her question.              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the bill is left as it currently             
 exists with the report coming back in one year and working group              
 decides a two-year moratorium is not what should be done, can the             
 department lift the moratorium on their own at that point?                    
 MR. LIVEY said it was understanding, based on committee action                
 taken, the department could not grant a moratorium or license a               
 long-term care bed until July 1, 1997.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON interjected her question was based on the             
 bill as it currently exists, and based on his response she assumed            
 it would be July 1, 1998, instead of July 1, 1997.                            
 MR. LIVEY responded that was correct.                                         
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the moratorium is in effect until 1998 as the             
 bill exists right now, with the second amendment.  The effect of              
 Amendment 3 would be a report in one year and the moratorium would            
 last for one year.                                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked where does it state that the moratorium            
 would sunset in July 1, 1997.                                                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE replied in Section 4.  He asked if committee members           
 were clear on Amendment 3.                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied no.  Amendment 2 was adopted by the              
 committee so Section 4 is now Section 6 in the original bill.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "So now we revert back to Amendment 2              
 which says in Section 5, `Section 4 of this Act is repealed on the            
 first day of the First Regular Session of the Twentieth Alaska                
 State Legislature.'  So what calendar date would that be?"                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he did not like that.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "Mr. Chairman, we need to relate the               
 actual date of the First Regular Session of the Twentieth Alaska              
 State Legislature with July 1, 1997."                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it should be July 1, 1997?                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded affirmatively.                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS withdrew Amendment 3.                                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted without objection, it was so ordered.                    
 Number 1140                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE pointed out the new Section 6 needed to read             
 July 1, 1997.                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to page 2 of Amendment 2, and said              
 Section 5 of the Amendment should be amended to read, "Section 4 of           
 this Act is repealed on July 1, 1997."                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented the new Section 4 is the study                 
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS suggested the committee review the legislation           
 before any further action is taken.                                           
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public discussion and announced he was                  
 placing HB 528 in a study group headed by Co-Chair Toohey.                    
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the House Health, Education & Social                 
 Services Committee at 5:00 p.m.                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects