Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/30/1995 02:10 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 1995
2:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 78: "An Act relating to the maximum amount of assistance
that may be granted under the adult public assistance
program and the program of aid to families with
dependent children; proposing a special demonstration
project within the program of aid to families with
dependent children and directing the Department of
Health and Social Services to seek waivers from the
federal government to implement the project."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 202: "An Act relating to the participation and accountability
of parents and guardians and the enforcement of
restitution orders entered in juvenile delinquency
proceedings; relating to claims on permanent fund
dividends for certain court-ordered treatment in
juvenile delinquency proceedings; changing Alaska
Supreme Court Delinquency Rules 3(b) and 8(b); and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 171: "An Act providing that the commissioner of education
serves at the pleasure of the Board of Education; and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
KIM DUKE, House Researcher
Representative Mark Hanley's Office
Room 507, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4939
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 78.
CURT LOMAS, Program Officer
Welfare Reform Program
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
350 Main Street, Room 317
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3347
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 78.
JIM NORDLUND, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
350 Main Street, Room 309
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3347
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 78.
SHERRIE GOLL, Lobbyist
Alaska Women's Lobby
P.O. Box 22156
Juneau, AK 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-6744
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 78.
LAURIE OTTO, Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 202.
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
Room 502, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 171.
TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant
Representative Terry Martin's Office
Alaska State Legislature
Room 502, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 171.
MARY HALLORAN, Legal Administrator
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 171.
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 171.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 78
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC ASSIST. DEMO PROJECT & DECREASE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY, Rokeberg, Porter, Bunde,
Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/15/94 (H) HES AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/06/95 41 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 41 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 41 (H) HES, FIN
01/19/95 91 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
03/09/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/09/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/15/95 (H) HES AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/22/95 869 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
03/22/95 (H) HES AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 106
03/22/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/30/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 202
SHORT TITLE: JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/27/95 492 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/95 492 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/27/95 492 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM)
02/27/95 492 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DHSS)
02/27/95 492 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, REV)
02/27/95 492 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/30/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 171
SHORT TITLE: COMMR OF EDUCATION SERVES AT BDS PLEASURE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/10/95 301 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/10/95 301 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/16/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/16/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/30/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-32, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the meeting of the House Health,
Education and Social Services standing committee to order at 2:10
p.m. Present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde,
Toohey, Rokeberg, and Davis. A quorum was present to conduct
business. Co-Chair Bunde read the calendar and announced the order
of the bills.
HB 78 - PUBLIC ASSISTANCE DEMO PROJECT AND DECREASE
Number 066
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced this bill had been previously heard, and
a work session attempted to create a composite bill that would best
serve the purposes of the state. Co-Chair Bunde asked HESS
Committee members and those in the audience to study a sheet from
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS). This sheet
presented a comparison between the welfare reform bills currently
introduced by the Senate, the House and the Governor.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that Representatives Brice and Robinson
joined the meeting at 2:11 p.m.
Number 089
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked if anyone had introduced the new
Director of the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS). He
said she is a good friend of Representative Brice, her name is
Diane Worley. She was formerly the Executive Director of the
Resource Center for Parents and Children. She was welcomed by the
HESS Committee members.
Number 129
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY moved that the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 78 be adopted as the working document.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced it was version "C," and asked for
objections. There were none, and CSHB 78(HES) was adopted.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions concerning the
comparison forms from DHSS.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the comparison form contained any
type of breakdown of all the various different waivers and programs
and how they are applied to the various cities of what sizes.
Representative Brice said something similar was included in the
comparison, but he was hoping for something more specific.
Number 239
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS suggested it would be helpful if the
sponsor of the legislation would orally go over the changes,
comparison and the rationale.
Number 274
KIM DUKE, House Researcher for Representative Mark Hanley,
summarized the changes for the CS. In Sections 2 through 3, the
assistance to minors with children provision was adopted from the
Governor's bill, HB 235. This requires that teen parents under the
age of 18 live at home or in an adult-supervised home in order to
receive benefits.
MS. DUKE said Section 4 changes the project areas for the workfare
project and the three other projects that were adopted. Ms. Duke
said she would discuss those three other projects momentarily. The
section requires that four areas be set out by the department. One
of them would have a population over 25,000, one would have a
population under 25,000, and one would have a population under
5,000. Therefore, there would be a minimum of four project areas.
The department would be required to operate at least one each of
the demonstration projects.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for clarification. Ms. Duke said one project
would be in a population area over 25,000, one would be in an area
under 25,000, and one would be in an area under 5,000. He said
that was only three projects.
MS. DUKE said the last project would be at the department's
discretion. There would be four projects, with the bill
stipulating the population of the areas for the first three.
Number 382
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON understood from the last meeting on
HB 78 that it would still be up to the department whether it would
wanted to implement the projects across the state, in all
communities.
MS. DUKE said the department would have the discretion of doing one
of the projects in more than one area.
MS. DUKE said some of the language from the community work pilot
project had been adopted into the workfare project. This basically
included some more expansive language to allow more community work
for the workfare project. It also took out the exemption in which
jobs participants were made exempt from this project. The
department requested it be able to put people in the jobs project
into the workfare project.
MS. DUKE continued that three programs had been adopted from the
Governor's bill, HB 235. These include the unemployed parent
project, which is working to employ two-parent families. This has
the family sign a three-year contract with a plan for the family to
get off welfare within three years. Also included is the self-
employment project, which allows welfare recipients to set up small
businesses. Finally, the diversion project gives cash grants to
people that hopefully will not end up on welfare. This is allowed
for three months.
Number 493
MS. DUKE said further language changes were adopted which were
basically from the Governor's bill. The definitions allow the
department immunity from liability. The last change made was the
withdrawal of the reduction of 1.7 percent on the Adult Public
Assistance (APA) program.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE summarized that the waivers will be applicable
across the state. The Workfare Program will be applicable to at
least one site. The unemployed parent project will be applicable
to at least one other site. The self-employment project will be
one more site. The diversion project will be one or more areas in
the site.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE then said however, on the last page concerning
project areas not specified by project, there are at least four
separate projects in four areas of the site. There is at least one
project in each municipality with a population above 25,000,
between 5,000 and 25,000, then below 5,000. This is why
Representative Brice wanted a graph as to where is what going to be
applied.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked where the earned income, the 100-hour
rule and the automobile allowance were going to be applied.
Number 631
MS. DUKE said those would be allowed in three of the projects.
They are not included in the diversion projects because it
basically does not apply. The bill is trying to help people not
sign up for welfare. Therefore, those provisions would not apply.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if therefore, maybe in the unemployed
parent projects, the self-employed project and the workfare project
those provisions would apply.
MS. DUKE said those provisions would apply for the people in the
project groups. The people in the control group would not have
those benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said therefore, there are four or five
different projects. In each of those projects there will be a
control group and a test group. The people in the test group will
get the waivers and the people in the control group will not. That
is what Representative Brice wanted to get clear.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if anything in the four projects, those
being the workfare, self-employed, unemployed parent and diversion
projects, that say those have to be spread out across the state.
MS. DUKE said no. There must be at least one of each of the
projects in four areas of the state. The department has the
discretion to choose those areas in the population parameters that
are set out by the bill.
Number 731
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked the DHSS to comment. Co-Chair Bunde assumed
that, allowing the department some discretion, it will take the
opportunity to make this a valid and wide study.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he has full faith the department will do
just that, however, he is concerned. He wondered if there are
going to be any restraints to make sure that programs are going to
be placed in the appropriate settings. In other words, he is
concerned that the self-employed project would not necessarily be
as helpful in Kotzebue, Nome, or Bethel than in Juneau, Anchorage
or Fairbanks.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE disagreed only in Representative Brice's choice of
examples. Perhaps Kotzebue would be O.K., but not Akiak or a
smaller rural area.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE was concerned about where the highest level of
opportunity lies. There has not been a lot of discussion as to the
barriers to getting off welfare. The bill has a lot of projects
that look pretty good. Representative Brice said he is concerned
that those projects be used in appropriate settings.
Number 837
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if a representative from the DHSS would
address the concerns of Representative Brice.
CURT LOMAS, Program Officer, Division of Public Assistance, DHSS,
said neither bill, HB 78 or HB 235, specifies exactly where the
projects will be implemented. There is simply some language that
defines the size of communities where the projects will operate.
As Mr. Lomas reads HB 78 in its current form, there is nothing that
precludes the department from taking any or all of the projects and
operating them statewide given sufficient funding to do so.
MR. LOMAS was reluctant to name specific areas because those
decisions have not been made. In the costing of both HB 78 and HB
235, some assumptions had to be made. The department certainly
sees some of the projects are much more promising in urban areas.
Others have more promise in rural areas. Specifically,
Representative Brice is speaking of the self-employment project.
MR. LOMAS explained that in the fiscal notes in the Governor's bill
(and he believed they would end up in the fiscal notes for HB 78 as
well), the intent is to make the self-employment project a
statewide project but to limit the number of individuals who could
participate at any given time. It is very experimental, and it is
not something that the department would want to open up across the
board. Therefore, the department would like to retain some
discretion to keep the numbers within a reasonable limit. The
Governor's bill calls for a maximum of 50 families at any given
time.
Number 936
CO-CHAIR BUNDE observed that there is an ongoing challenge to "walk
the tightrope," and make sure things get done but to not
micromanage. Co-Chair Bunde is going to take what Mr. Lomas said
as an assurance the department will make this project as widespread
and workable as possible within fiscal constraints.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE remembered in the discussions on this type of
bill last year that there was a lot of discussion about trying to
privatize some of these programs. There were provisions in the
original HB 78 to do that. Representative Brice did not see those
provisions in the current bill. He asked if the projects were
going to be state-run. He asked if there were projects in which it
may be more appropriate for private entities to take over.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE advised that privatization has not been placed into
CS HB 78, and he would like to keep the discussions to the current
bill.
MS. DUKE noted that such provisions are in the bill. In Section 6
under subsection (b), the state can contract out.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE just wanted to make sure that was still in the
bill.
Number 1042
JIM NORDLUND, Director, Division of Public Assistance, DHSS, wanted
to re-emphasize that the whole idea of waivers under the federal
law is still a good idea. All projects are experimental in nature,
and no one knows if they are going to work. No one knows for sure
if they are going to effectively serve the people, and if they are
going to achieve cost savings. That is a point that Mr. Nordlund
keeps trying to make to the Senate HESS Committee as they make
forward to their bill. The Senate HESS Committee wants to try to
apply its projects more on a statewide basis.
MR. NORDLUND stressed the projects need to be looked at as
experimental projects that are set up in an experimental way.
There must be a control group and an experimental group to test how
these projects work. If the projects are working in the early
stages, the department can look at expanding them to statewide
within the limits of the state and federal law.
MR. NORDLUND noted with federal welfare reform, all the rules could
be thrown out. In that case, the state still will want to move
forward cautiously with these new ideas toward welfare reform. If
the projects work, they will be applied statewide.
Number 1111
CO-CHAIR BUNDE observed that existing federal regulations require
this experimental nature. Therefore, this bill must move forward
based on existing law, not on conjecture over what might happen.
Number 1128
SHERRIE GOLL, Lobbyist, Alaska Women's Lobby, applauded the sponsor
of the bill. This bill is the most well-thought out piece of
direction regarding welfare reform that has been considered by
either body. The Women's Lobby still has concerns, however, but
only about two sections of the bill. Those sections pertain to the
rateable reductions and the teen parent project. Ms. Goll would
like to speak on the rateable reductions at a later time.
MS. GOLL said she has raised some issues before on the teen parent
project. Although it is in the Governor's bill, and it has been in
each piece of legislation, it still causes concern. She again
reminded HESS Committee members that those provisions concern the
141 pregnant teenagers on Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC). There are 141 teenagers on AFDC out of all the pregnant
teenagers in the state.
MS. GOLL said even with the exemptions in the bill, half of those
girls would most assuredly be exempted because of abusive
situations or runaway situations. Therefore, the bill speaks of a
pilot project that is going to affect, at most, 70 girls. If the
project is in one location, not all of those 70 girls are going to
be in that one location.
Number 1209
MS. GOLL wanted to raise another issue that she has recently
learned about. That has to do with the barriers that battered
women face when they attempt to become independent and self-
sufficient. This information comes from some studies she read from
shelters and shelter programs all around the country. Ms. Goll was
quite surprised to learn that very often when women are in abusive
situations and they try to get out of the situation by applying
themselves to training programs and work experience, such as is
found in the bill. Their spouses often increase the violence.
MS. GOLL explained women in this situation often cannot show up for
a test after they have been in a training program because they have
been beaten the night before. Sometimes they cannot show up
regularly to work because this kind of situation happens. It is
not an issue that has been previously raised, because Ms. Goll just
recently found out about it herself. However, that must be taken
into consideration as another kind of exemption or a good cause
excuse.
MS. GOLL certainly thought women who are in violent relationships
need that kind of self-sufficiency help that a workfare or
community work program can give them. But some direction should be
given to the department, so it can make that determination in some
cases where the training may increase the incidence of violence.
Number 1311
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that he has taught women at the community
college level who have been in abusive situations. He agrees abuse
is about power and control. Any job, education or skill reduces
the abusers control and would be resisted mightily. In order for
someone to function in these programs, they probably are going to
have to leave the abusive situation for their own protection.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said putting the exemption in the bill is saying to
the woman, you can stay in the situation because we will not touch
you.
Number 1350
MS. GOLL said she was having a conversation to that effect out in
the hall. This is new information to Ms. Goll. But when she read
these studies, she was horrified that this is happening to women
and that people who are administering work programs have seen this
to be the case. Ms. Goll thought that in light of Co-Chair
Toohey's comment, maybe an exemption is not the right cure.
However, such situations should be considered.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said his personal goal is to do anything possible to
encourage people to leave abusive situations.
MS. GOLL knows that, when dealing with two parent families who
depend on AFDC, sometimes this is going to be a situation. Ms.
Goll does not know if counseling or some other option would be
best. She just wants HESS Committee members to keep that in mind.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE assured her that her concerns have been taken into
account.
Number 1412
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted that quite often when women leave
abusive relationships and go into a shelter to re-establish their
own home, they must go through counseling, apply for AFDC and get
food stamps just to get settled into a new home before they go out
and start working. Representative Robinson had drafted some
language that may not eliminate the problem. However, the language
would enable the department to determine if a woman's safety is
going to be jeopardized while she is on AFDC and food stamps and
perhaps act accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said many women who come out of shelters
and start a new life are not on AFDC and welfare for a long period
of time. However, there may be a short period of time in which it
may be good to give the department an option to determine if the
woman is not in a safe situation to go out and get workfare and
other kinds of programs at that point.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON was not only speaking of battered women at
that point. Quite often women have had to leave the home because
their children are being sexually abused by the partner
(father/stepfather) in the home.
Number 1482
MS. GOLL added that when a person has left an abusive situation,
the person does not always manage to leave everything behind. That
is why there are stalking laws and other laws. When the woman has
left the abusive situation and gone to the shelter in order to
survive with her children apart from the abusive spouse, she still
may not be safe.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked to start through the proposed amendments. He
closed public testimony, although he asked those testifying to
remain present to answer questions. Public testimony would be
opened again after the amendments have been either rejected or
adopted. At that point the HESS Committee would be working with CS
HB 78 as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted that amendments 8 and 9 are her
amendments, but her name is not on them.
Number 1544
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 1. There was an objection for
purposes of discussion. Representative Brice said there had been
some discussion at the subcommittee and committee level about what
happens if, at some point, Congress throws out all the rules
relating to welfare. In such a case, the state would no longer
need to have all the studies that are being paid for through the
rateable reduction. Representative Brice asked if that would allow
for the rateables to be reinstated at the level they were when the
reduction was passed.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said basically, when the waivers are
implemented, the rateables are implemented.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said this topic has been discussed previously
with the sponsor, and the sponsor indicated a need for up-front
dollars. That is why the rateable was in the bill. Representative
Davis would, therefore, assume that would be the argument against
the amendment.
Number 1625
MS. DUKE said there is a need for up front money. The waiver
process itself is a cost to the department. Ms. Duke does not have
exact figures of what that would be. Page 3, Section 4, subsection
(2) gives the department the ability to let legislators know if the
project is not going to be a fiscally responsible project in light
of changes in federal statutes or regulations. Therefore, the
department does have the ability to inform the legislature that
because of federal changes, the reduction is not going to cover the
cost, etc.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested that the Section (2) that is
referenced is not helpful. The DHSS can report to the legislature
all it wants. Representative Brice has a stack of reports in his
office up to the ceiling. That does not necessarily mean the
legislature will act on reports. If the service or program is not
implemented, Representative Brice did not think it was appropriate
to implement the rateables until the programs are established.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS noted that if this amendment were adopted,
there would be additional straight general fund dollars needed to
begin implementing the program. There is definitely a basic
philosophy difference about how the program should be paid for.
The governor's bill would be paid for different than HB 78. It is
clear the programs in HB 78 will be paid for by the rateables. He
said the decision is a policy call.
Number 1721
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said funds cannot be dedicated. The rateables
in this bill do nothing to pay for the programs. Those are the
facts as stated by the Constitution of the State of Alaska. There
is not connection between the rateables and the programs in HB 78.
The savings from the rateables in the general fund will allow the
legislature to make an appropriation. Therefore, Representative
Brice does not think the savings from the rateable can or should be
directly tied to the program.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the rateables and the programs are
unrelated. One cuts benefits, and the other is to reduce program
load.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE agreed there are two issues. If Amendment 1 was
adopted, additional general fund dollars would have to be requested
at this time when the state is making large cuts. Therefore, Co-
Chair Bunde would oppose this amendment. In addition, Co-Chair
Bunde feels the general public is telling the legislature there
should be rateable reductions even if these projects are not
implemented.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked to hear from the DHSS. She
understood in the meetings that the department felt this was a good
amendment.
Number 1806
MR. NORDLUND said the DHSS has gone on the record as opposing the
rateable reduction in HB 78. Therefore, the department would
support this amendment.
MR. NORDLUND said Representative Brice makes a very good point.
The state can say it pays for the programs through the reduction,
however, it does not work that way. The approach of the department
is to pay for these projects through additional child support
enforcement. There are bills currently going through the
legislative process that will bring in enough money and then some
to pay for these projects.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE then followed on Representative Brice's point by
noting that the funds from additional child support enforcement
would also not be dedicated, they would also go into the general
fund.
MR. NORDLUND noted that both the rateable reduction and child
support enforcement will be able to decrease the amount of money
spent in the upcoming fiscal year for assistance payments.
Number 1855
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that the prime sponsor of the bill
recognized in the Finance subcommittee the connection between
eligibility determination and fraud detection. There are real
savings associated with those types of expenditures.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for the vote on the amendment. Voting "yes"
on the amendment were Representative Brice and Representative
Robinson. Voting "no" were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey,
Representative Davis and Representative Rokeberg. Amendment 1
failed.
Number 1889
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 2. An objection was made for
discussion purposes. Representative Brice said basically, this
amendment creates an incentive for the department to take a more
active and involved role in getting paternity established. He does
not think it is appropriate for someone to be set on workfare if
the department has not done everything it can to establish
paternity.
MS. DUKE said the amendment seems to allow mothers who have
cooperated with the agency to be exempted from the workfare
provision.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE added, "if the department has not been
successful in establishing paternity."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if someone does not want to be put into the
workfare program, all they have to do it tell the department the
name of their child(ren)'s father.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said absolutely not. The amendment says that
the parent has done everything she can to get paternity
established, but the department has not yet been willing to
establish paternity.
Number 1969
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG said perhaps the amendment is in the
wrong spot in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said no, the amendment is under exemptions to
workfare.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the amendment means if mothers
have cooperated with the department, they are exempt from workfare.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained that in this case, the department
for one reason or another has not been able to establish paternity.
What needs to be done is to make sure the department is doing
everything it can to get paternity established.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was someone from the DHSS to speak
to this amendment. Co-Chair Toohey was under the impression that
paternity is established before AFDC is awarded.
Number 2018
MR. NORDLUND believed that currently, the department is required to
establish paternity. The applicant who does not cooperate is not
eligible for benefits.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE summarized the amendment. He said the point is that
the mother has cooperated, but the department has not yet
established paternity. Co-Chair Bunde wondered at what point it is
decided the department has done everything it can.
MR. NORDLUND said the DHSS does not establish paternity. The Child
Support Enforcement Division (CSED) establishes paternity.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE again asked at what point is it decided the division
has done all it can.
MR. NORDLUND said sometimes there are circumstances beyond the
control of the DHSS and the CSED, that do not allow paternity to be
established.
Number 2000
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if currently, if paternity is not
established, the person is exempt.
MR. NORDLUND answered no. If the applicant does not cooperate in
the establishment of paternity under the AFDC Program, they are not
eligible for AFDC.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that some women could easily get through that
loophole by saying perhaps they were unconscious at the time of
conception, and they do not know who the father of the child is.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that there are a few things that may
be going on that should be kept in mind. First, Representative
Robinson knows of a case in which a girl was raped by five men.
This girl was the foster child of Representative Robinson's sister.
The attack took place down in Utah, after the girl left Juneau.
However, in the attempt to establish paternity, each man had to be
tested, and this was torture for the poor girl. Finally, by the
time they were testing the fourth man, she jumped off a balcony.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON urged HESS Committee members to remember
there are more than just simple cases in which a woman goes to bed
with one man and she knows he is the father of her child.
Representative Robinson does not even know how this might work for
a person who adopts a child and then needs to go onto AFDC. She
does not know if they would be exempt. That is a situation in
which the paternity of a child may not be known.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it may take sometimes up to two years
to establish paternity. HESS Committee members may wish and hope
mothers have only slept with one person, but that may not
necessarily be the case. The woman may not know who the father is.
Number 2123
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said Representative Robinson was helping make his
point. Simply saying, "The department has done all it can do," is
not good enough. The state must have a guideline concerning how
much the department can and should do. There is always something
else that can be done, but at what point would a reasonable person
say enough has been done.
MR. NORDLUND added the Governor has introduced a bill that will
speed the process of establishing paternity. Basically, all these
determinations are being backlogged in the court. When the court
finally has time to deal with the cases, there is basically a
rubber stamp of an administrative decision. The Governor's bill
will take the court out of the process and allow administrative
paternity establishment. This way, paternity can be established
sooner.
MR. NORDLUND said it would also help achieve what Representative
Brice is after. It would also help ease the entire process of
collecting AFDC payments.
Number 2171
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he was not sure Representative Brice's
amendment is the way to get to that point. Co-Chair Bunde supports
increased child support enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the question is whether or not a single
parent should be made to participate in workfare if the department
has not done what it was supposed to do as far as establishing
paternity. There are those examples where that might be the case.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY feels the department does a better job than that.
The legislature tried to assist paternity establishment through
Representative Bettye Davis' bill last year. That practice is
working.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that if DHSS is doing a good job, it
would do no harm to pass his amendment.
Number 2212
MS. DUKE felt in a way, the amendment would almost discriminate
against these women. They would not be able to benefit from the
earned income disregard, the auto allowance and the other
provisions they would have access to under the demonstration
project.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a vote. Voting "yes" on the amendment
were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson. Voting "no"
were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and
Representative Rokeberg. Amendment 2 failed.
Number 2244
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 3. An objection was made, and
he spoke to the amendment. He said the purpose of the amendment is
to exempt a person who would otherwise be ineligible for AFDC if
they were receiving child support. It is very important to
recognize the fact that a lot of the people on welfare would not be
on welfare if they were getting the money owed to them.
Representative Brice asked for unanimous consent on this amendment.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE did not disagree with the premise of the amendment,
however, he was unsure if this bill was the correct vehicle to use.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the point is there has not been yet a
strong discussion about the purpose behind workfare. Until HESS
Committee members get a definitive answer that workfare has a
specific goal, Representative Brice is assuming workfare is a
punitive measure. Under that assumption, and until workfare is
clarified, it is only appropriate that a single parent who is owed
child support be exempt. The state has not been aggressive and
successful in getting that child support paid.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE continued that it is not appropriate to punish
a single parent.
TAPE 95-32, SIDE B
Number 000
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she did not consider workfare a punishment.
She considers the whole bill a way to help turn the tide on
welfare.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how workfare does that. Co-Chair Toohey
said she would not spend the committee's time discussing workfare's
benefits.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that earlier, Ms. Duke said women who are not
getting child support should not receive a "double whammy" by not
being able to participate in demonstration projects either.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said those women can participate in the
unemployed parents project, the self-employment project and the
diversion project. And they still get the waivers. He said there
has been no testimony that workfare is anything but punitive.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that is plenty enough reason to have it.
Number 081
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted all the testimony she has heard says
that part of the concept behind workfare is punitive. It is to try
to make people on AFDC work because the state wants them to have
better work ethics. Representative Robinson felt Representative
Brice was trying to say there may be situations in which parents
are trying to better their lives. If they were receiving child
support payments, they would not even be on AFDC. They are only on
AFDC because the non-custodial parent is not paying child support.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON understood what Representative Brice was
saying. The custodial parents still get all the other benefits
under the program. But the amendment would make it so the state
would not penalize the custodial parent because the non-custodial
parent is not paying. Representative Robinson feels workfare is
punitive. The people exempt under this amendment have not done
anything wrong, their ex-partner is simply not supporting the
child(ren).
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the state cannot assume that every person on
AFDC is only there because they do not get child support.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON agreed most people on AFDC are not in that
circumstance. However, the amendment aims to exempt people under
the particular circumstances which Representative Brice identified.
Number 223
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the state was then to ask the department to
decide what people are worthy and which ones are not.
Representative Brice seemed to indicate in his earlier amendment
that DHSS has not been doing their complete job. Therefore, Co-
Chair Bunde did not think the state should give them more work.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the CSED clearly has a list of parents
in arrears, especially the parents who are largely in debt to the
custodial parent. There are cases in which women are owed up to
$25,000 in back child support. Representative Robinson feels if
that support was paid, those women would not be on AFDC.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he is not willing to accept that guarantee. He
also noted that Representative Robinson's figures are too low.
Last year, HESS Committee members were presented with a list of 100
worst case scenarios, and all those on the list owed at least
$100,000. Many of those people were from rural Alaska.
Number 304
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that if in fact offering work to
a person who needs help is punitive, welfare reform and this bill
are 180 degrees off. Representative Rokeberg does not agree with
that, and that is not what the legislature is trying to accomplish
with this project. The legislature is not trying to punish. He
believes HESS Committee members are trying to provide a plan in
which a mother can have dignity coming home at the end of a work
day.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said there is a new head of the CSED, and that
person is getting good results. Co-Chair Toohey would like to give
that person a fair chance to show what she can do.
MS. DUKE wanted to comment that the intent of the bill is not
punitive. The intent of the bill is to remove disincentives that
are inherently in the Welfare Program as it is currently set up.
HB 78 seeks to then test incentive programs to find out what will
be most helpful in encouraging people and allowing them more
resources with which to work. The DHSS study proved that the
majority of AFDC recipients want the ability to work.
Number 406
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said most of the bill contains good
measures. However, she is not happy with the reduction in benefits
to the recipient. Certainly everyone can have a different
philosophy on workfare. However, workfare requires someone to go
out and work in a volunteer program for no money. Instead of
assisting them in getting a job that pays well so the person can
get off welfare, workfare is basically requiring them even to leave
their young children to participate in workfare. Clearly, through
everything Representative Robinson has heard, workfare is a
punitive measure.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON was curious about the feelings of the DHSS
regarding the workfare concept.
MR. NORDLUND said in order for him to comment, he must back away
from this bill and this particular amendment. The Governor
basically has a community work project in his approach. He
believes these kind of work projects are good. However, what is
different about the Governor's approach is that workfare is looked
at as providing the opportunity for people to go to work. What the
state needs to do is back up and make sure it is providing job
readiness and job training.
MR. NORDLUND continued therefore, when the time comes and people
are under a time limit to get off benefits, they are prepared to
move into the private sector and take a job, assuming the job is
there.
MR. NORDLUND said it even goes higher than that in that the
Governor, himself, has taken an obligation to make sure jobs are
available, not only for all Alaskans but for AFDC recipients.
Therefore, the DHSS wants welfare reform to be a genuine
opportunity for a genuine job. To the extent the bill provides for
pilot projects that help achieve that, the Division of Public
Assistance in support of that. It does not see those measures as
punitive.
MR. NORDLUND conceded that if workfare is simply viewed as work
projects that do not lead to long term employment, his opinion is
that the project would be punitive. Therefore, the Governor's
approach for workfare does work if it is looked at within context.
Number 576
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said many of these "back-to-work" programs he has
read about involve people for whom going to work is not a normal
course of life. These people have to be taught to get up on time,
to be at work on time and dress appropriately. Workfare teaches
that sort of thing. It certainly teaches the next generation to
break the welfare cycle. Functioning in this world does not
involve not having schedules and responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated the fact of the matter is there is no
component within the Workfare Program being proposed that leads to
long-term employment. It does not do much more than demean people.
If it created long-term employment opportunities, Representative
Brice would "jump up and down and say `Yee-haw'." However, when
the bill tries to put people into jobs stuffing envelopes, there is
no training there. There are already jobs programs in which
monthly reports show these programs take people off AFDC and put
people to work.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stressed that is the important thing. HESS
Committee members must be certain what they are getting with
workfare. First of all, a person who signs up for eligibility must
start community service. What kind of training currently takes
place in the non-profit agencies where people will be put to work?
More importantly, what kind of training is going to be provided for
the workfare participant? Those factors are not addressed here,
and Representative Brice is concerned.
Number 730
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the only thing his amendment does is make
sure the child support payments are being pushed to the point they
should be. It comes down to a policy question. What the amendment
attempts to do is make people responsible for their children.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE completely agreed with Representative Brice's last
comment. A roll call vote was taken. Voting "yes" on the
amendment were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson.
Voting "no" were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative
Davis and Representative Rokeberg. Amendment 3 failed.
Number 784
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 4. An objection was made for
purposes of discussion, and Representative Brice spoke to the
amendment. He said a lot of the discussion that should be taking
place around this legislation is how to break down the barriers to
employment. The two biggest barriers to employment are longer-term
day care and longer-term medical assistance. That is all Amendment
4 does. It extends those types of transitional benefits from 12
months to 24 months.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that as this would double the expense, he
facetiously assumed Representative Brice would support doubling the
rateable reduction.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE countered he would consider that if this
amendment passes.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote. Voting "yes" on the
amendment were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson.
Voting "no" were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative
Davis and Representative Rokeberg. Amendment 4 failed.
Number 930
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 5. An objection was made for
purposes of discussion. Representative Brice said concern has been
expressed by HESS Committee members. The key question is how to
get people off welfare and into the job market. He believes one of
the biggest deficiencies in workfare is there is no establishment
that will work to get people off welfare. It provides that it is
OK for the state to pay for long-term volunteers in the community.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt that was a bad message to be sending.
HESS Committee members need to make sure the DHSS establishes long-
term self-sufficiency case management for welfare recipients to get
them working and off assistance. Since the representatives have
been very concerned about making sure people are put into good
paying jobs, Representative Brice would appreciate HESS Committee
members' support for this amendment.
Number 946
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that would cost quite a bit.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE disagreed. He asked if the department
representatives would comment.
MR. NORDLUND expressed full support for the amendment. It is the
intent of the department to make sure these workfare projects
actually do give people the skills to get long-term jobs.
Considering that the bill contains pilot projects, he feels this
amendment is a good idea.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said studies have shown that any type of employment
is beneficial to getting people into long-term employment. Even
McDonald's provides a good start. The pay there might not be very
good, but the whole atmosphere of working in a clean place, dealing
with the public is good training. Anytime there is a person in a
work program, whether it is to the person's liking for a long-range
career does not matter. It is a start. This type of amendment
will eliminate that start.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY read under the subsection of the amendment: "Only
if the activity will help the person achieve a long-term self-
sufficiency." Co-Chair Toohey interprets that to mean this job
will be something the person wants forever.
Number 1025
MR. NORDLUND said the amendment seems to be attempting to recognize
that any long-term employment is a series of steps. First you may
be doing volunteer activities, which are intended by the Governor's
approach and the workfare approach. As long as that volunteer job
has a relationship to an eventual "real job" a person could get, it
is all a part of a plan. It is a step on the way. The amendment
seeks to help the individual chart that course. It holds the
department to task to make sure the activities the person does will
eventually lead them to that job. It is actually a good plan.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked what happens if there is no job at McDonald's
and the person has to sweep the streets?
MR. NORDLUND said perhaps street sweeping would eventually get the
person a decent maintenance job working for the municipality of
Anchorage. It must be looked at on a case-by-case basis. These
self-sufficiency plans should be tailored for the individual
client.
Number 1085
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said perhaps a person wants to, for
example, work in a shelter as a counselor or social worker. A good
placement for them would be as a volunteer somewhere that would
give them the training and education so they become a better
citizen. It is important to not just throw people out to do any
kind of work just because the state wants them to be volunteering
21 hours a week. If these people have four or five children, this
is not moving them forward.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON continued that however, if job placement is
investigated that will benefit the person in the long-term,
volunteer job placement could be found to promote that. If the
person wants to be a nurse, they could first be placed as a candy-
striper, helping other nurses.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it is important to not simply find any
kind of volunteer job for a person just so they are doing 21 hours
a week of work to punish them. The state should assist them in a
volunteer job placement that is going to further their education
and move them off the welfare lines down the road.
Number 1155
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS felt the amendment spelled out intent. The
federal government must approve the demonstration project. It says
in Section 4 of the bill, page 3, "To the extent that the federal
government approves the necessary waivers the department shall
implement the project. The purposes of the projects are to promote
personal responsibility and self-sufficiency."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS concluded the federal government must approve
the project as far as specifying that the department may assign a
person, there must be some statistics being kept to show the
benefits of these projects. Those will also be required by the
federal government before they approve the project. Therefore, the
provisions of the amendment are already inherent in the
legislation. The amendment is simply specifying some details.
Certainly the aim of the bill is for "long-term self-sufficiency."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said hopefully, someone will be doing such a
good job volunteering that, for example, if someone quits, the
position will be offered to the volunteer. They will then be off
welfare and on payroll. That is the ideal situation in this
demonstration project. The provisions of the amendment are already
in the bill. Representative Davis asked to hear from the
department. It seems to him that this is already the way the bill
is planned to be run. This is how success will be checked.
Number 1241
MR. NORDLUND said the department plans to perform that action
whether the language is in the bill or not. However, it does not
hurt to have the language in.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said putting the language in there would increase
the fiscal note and the bureaucracy. Long-term self-sufficiency is
not achieved by having a personal keeper telling the person on
welfare where to work.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if the bill's sponsor had seen the
amendment.
MS. DUKE said there was nothing in the bill that would prohibit the
department from doing that. It is certainly the intent of the
project. However, she did not know if the department wanted to
evaluate every single situation from the very beginning to
determine if it would end up in long-term self-sufficiency.
Number 1302
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY was concerned about wording in the amendment. The
plan had to be developed in consultation with the person in the
program. What if a person did not want to work anywhere available.
If that was the case, under the amendment the person would be out
of the program. According to the amendment, the potential worker
must concur with the employment plan.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that is a very important point. The fact
of the matter is workfare is not taking into account the most
important element. The people are the most important element.
Representative Brice thinks it is very important that the people be
consulted so there is some level of self-determination. That is
what the amendment is about.
MR. NORDLUND stated that the fiscal note already anticipates this
type of case management. The DHSS sees this as very critical to
making workfare function effectively.
Number 1353
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if she could therefore assume if someone said
they did not want to perform a particular job, they would not have
to.
MR. NORDLUND said assuming they do not participate in workfare,
sanctions will be imposed. A person cannot simply decline.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS commended the amendment for using the word
"may." That permissive language is good. But is also says,
"activity under this subsection only if the activity will help the
person...." That is narrowing some of the intent. In addition,
the definition of long-term self-sufficiency also reads of "only."
That is nebulous. Representative Davis noted Mr. Nordlund
mentioned that is the intent of the department but it would always
be helpful to have that language in the bill. However,
Representative Davis thinks perhaps it would hurt the bill to have
it in.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said therefore, perhaps some of the wording in
the amendment could be changed.
Number 1420
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt that when discussing the amendment, HESS
Committee members should keep in mind that long-term self-
sufficiency is a series of steps to employment. A person usually
does not go straight from AFDC to being an advertising executive.
That is the naivete of the workfare program as it is currently
written. It is very important to recognize that small steps must
first be taken. As Co-Chair Bunde noted, people quite often do
need employment skills such as being on time and working on a
schedule.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE continued that those people must then
understand that employment is good. Any type of employment is
good, even working at a convenience store. At that point, the
person can continue to develop and work. Representative Brice is
concerned that if the bill does not speak of long-term self-
sufficiency, there is nothing that is going to state that these
programs will continue after the person is employed at the
convenience store. The state must continue to get people into
better jobs. This is not just a case of reducing benefits as
income increases. The person must be completely removed from
benefits. That is the very important aspect.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wants to insure that those people are not back
on assistance after two years after going through workfare.
Number 1513
MS. DUKE noted that workfare is a five-year project. She does not
know if Representative Brice's goals are feasible in that amount of
time. She does not know if it can be assured that everything they
are going to be doing is going to result in long-term self-
sufficiency in a five-year demonstration project. In addition,
there are a number of activities that are allowed under this
section that are not work. They are culturally relevant
subsistence activities such as high school completion and community
work.
MS. DUKE was not sure those activities, which were included from
the Governor's bill, would fit under the amendment. She thinks the
amendment could be very limiting.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this amendment would perhaps be mandating a
large increase in caseworkers.
Number 1562
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wrapped up the discussion. He does not think
the amendment mandates an increase in caseworkers at all. It will,
however, insure that if someone is going to participate in some of
these other related activities, the client will be included to some
extent in what those activities will be. This is in contrast to
the state "telling" the person what they will do if they want their
next benefit check.
MS. DUKE reminded HESS Committee members that the department is
already intending to do just that.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated legislators are always complaining that
statutes are not tight enough. This amendment is trying to tighten
up the language.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a vote. Voting "yes" on the amendment
were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson. Voting "no"
were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and
Representative Rokeberg. Amendment 5 failed.
Number 1618
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 6. An objection was made for
purposes of discussion. Representative Brice said this amendment
insures there is some focus for workfare. He wanted to make sure
the state was not simply telling people when to show up where for
how long. He wanted the department to acknowledge that long-term
employability is important in addressing the AFDC and welfare
problems.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt that discussion on a similar topic had just
occurred. He called for the vote. Voting "yes" on the amendment
were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson. Voting "no"
were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and
Representative Rokeberg. Amendment 6 failed.
Number 1683
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Amendment 7. An objection was made and
he spoke to the amendment. He had started off his amendments by
saying the rateables should not be introduced until the programs
were set up. He feels that was a mistake, because the consensus is
that would cause an increase in funding. His concern, however, is
that the rateables will be reinstated if, at some point in time in
the near future, the federal government lifts all restrictions.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested that if the bill and the rateables
go through and are implemented, the waivers are acquired and all
projects are put into place, everything would be made meaningless
by a change in the federal law. Everybody in the state would then
be able to participate in those types of programs. Representative
Brice feels it would be appropriate at that point in time, when
there is no longer expense associated with programs, for those
rateables to be reinstated.
Number 1746
MS. DUKE did not feel this amendment was necessary. Section 4 says
the department's ability to implement the projects is dependent on
changes in the federal government. Again, in subsection (1) of
section C, the department has the ability to discontinue the
project under the waivers that were implemented before the federal
change occurred. The department can discontinue the projects if
it is not going to be fiscally responsible in light of the federal
changes in statutes and regulations.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said in any case, the workfare is a five-year
project, and it would go away in five years. This includes the
rateable reductions.
MS. DUKE concurred that the date of repeal is for the entire bill,
rateable included.
Number 1796
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he appreciated Ms. Duke's comments, but
they were not applicable because the projects, not the rateables
will be repealed. If HESS Committee members are so bent on
associating the rateables with the projects, it would be
appropriate that when there are no more expenses associated with
those projects, the rateables be reinstated at that time. That is
what the amendment does. It makes sure that once the projects are
repealed, the rateables automatically go back to where they were.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a vote. Voting "yes" on the amendment
were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson. Voting "no"
were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and
Representative Rokeberg. Amendment 7 failed.
Number 1832
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved Amendment 8. An objection was made
for discussion purposes. Representative Robinson said under the
current regulation, a minor who is a parent and who lives with her
parents would be ineligible for AFDC. Under this bill, unless the
minor's parents were eligible for AFDC, and since the minor
parent's income is counted as income for the purpose of determining
this eligibility, most of them would not be able to receive AFDC.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her amendment allows children to stay
in the homes with their parents and still be able to receive AFDC
dollars for assistance. This is especially applicable for those
families in which the parental income is right on the edge of the
assistance level. Representative Robinson knows of situations in
which single mothers have three children and then one of their
daughters gets pregnant. It is clearly in the best interest of the
minor to stay at home. The mother can support and help the
daughter and the baby.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the mother is not on AFDC, and she is
barely making it. The baby could add too much of a financial
strain on the mother to the point where it is better to have the
daughter live on her own. This, then, allows for the income of
parents to be taken out of the determination for AFDC. Only the
income of the teenager is counted. Therefore, the teen qualifies
for AFDC. It helps her become self-sufficient and she is not going
to be kicked out of the house for financial reasons.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON believes this is in the best interest of
all involved. She had thought the sponsor of the bill was strongly
considering taking the teen parent provisions out of the bill
altogether because there are many reasons why a child cannot move
out. As Representative Robinson understood her conversations with
Representative Hanley, the intent of his bill is to do whatever is
possible to assist young single mothers in staying in a supportive
environment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON felt her amendment will assist them even
further. She does not think it will cost more money, because if
parents have money, they will not make their child apply for AFDC.
This will only affect those parents in which the situation is right
at the edge. This will prevent young mothers from leaving home in
order to get help. The job of HESS Committee members is to make
sure these children are supported.
Number 1976
MS. DUKE felt there was a possibility this amendment could increase
the fiscal note. There is no way of knowing how many teens living
at home now would become eligible for AFDC once this bill passed
with this amendment. Ms. Duke did not think the department could
estimate that number.
MR. NORDLUND said currently, the issue the amendment addresses is
in state law. It does not require a waiver. Changing eligibility
requirements would require a waiver from the federal government.
There would be some fiscal impact for that. He certainly
appreciates the intent of Representative Robinson's amendment.
However, this amendment could not be implemented without applying
for a waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if it could not be wrapped up with
all the waivers that are going to be submitted.
MR. NORDLUND said it certainly could be placed with the other
waivers. However, it would still be an additional aspect.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Nordlund to speak to the
philosophy behind the amendment.
MR. NORDLUND agreed with the philosophy behind the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if he felt it would be in the best
interest of teen mothers to stay home, and that by staying home
teen mothers could cause their families to end up in the welfare
lines.
MR. NORDLUND agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON concluded that either way, there could be
cost somewhere down the road.
Number 2068
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was not sure he understood the total
ramifications of the amendment. He feels Representative Robinson
has solid ground on which to bring the amendment forward. However,
he is uncertain whether the HESS Committee members can consider the
entire ramifications of this today. He commented that he would buy
into the amendment but he would like some tighter language. He
asked for the clear intent of the amendment, and the term "or
living arrangements."
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said in other words, the teen may be living
with an aunt, grandparent, or other relative or guardian. As she
understands it, this would apply to the living arrangement the teen
was currently in. That may not necessarily be with mother and
father. Again, that is another situation that is not unusual.
When Representative Robinson was growing up, it was not uncommon
for parents to send their young, unwed, pregnant daughters off to
another town. If the grandparents took in the girl, they may be on
a fixed income. If the teen could get some assistance, that would
be a benefit.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained the teen would benefit because
she will be able to remain in a supportive, safe environment. She
will not have to find her way on her own because that is the only
way she can receive assistance.
Number 2140
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said if, in fact, "or other living
arrangements" is a term of art in the sector of public assistance,
and this term is drafting nomenclature, it would be appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her staff just told her it is clearly
in the bill already, and that is the language that is being used.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE considered what the department just stated,
and offered a friendly amendment to Amendment 8. He asked to
strike page 2, line 30 and insert page 4, line 20, and insert a new
subsection to read, (4): When determining for and the amount of
assistance in the case of a minor, a parent who is required to live
in a household or living arrangement under Section 2 of this bill,
the department shall disregard the income and resources of the
adults in the household or living arrangement.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said in other words, he seeks to make the
amendment not part of the teen parents section of the bill, but to
make it part of the waiver process for the department. He felt
that was the appropriate place for the amendment.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked him to please draft another amendment rather
than rewrite Representative Robinson's.
Number 2211
MR. LOMAS interjected that in fact, the law only holds a parent
responsible for a child. Therefore, the department never imputes
the availability of income from the other adult with whom the child
is living unless that adult also applies for AFDC on their own
behalf. The amendment language could be greatly simplified to
include a situation in which the minor parent is required to live
with his/her own parent. The language may say, "The department
shall disregard the income and resources of the parent." That is
really the only situation where this amendment would come into
account.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Representative Robinson would like to
withdraw her amendment and have it rewritten with the aid of Mr.
Lomas.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if he could quickly draft such
language with her staff, and he agreed. She withdrew her
amendment.
Number 2272
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved Amendment 9. An objection was made
for discussion purposes. Representative Robinson said this
amendment should clearly make and save money down the road.
Currently, when a teen mother who applies for AFDC, she must give
the name of the child's father to CSED, so the father can offset
the cost of child support. The father cannot usually pay much...
TAPE 95-33, SIDE A
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON continued...because he may not be working.
If he is working, he is not making much money. Normally, the
minimal amount of child support would be $50.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated therefore, since this bill calls for
the parent of the teen mother to assume responsibility for their
daughter, it is only fair the parents of the teenage father be
required to also assume responsibility. This amendment changes
court rule 90.03 so the income of the teenage father's parents can
be counted in determining the amount of child support to be awarded
and make the teen father's parents responsible for payment of child
support.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted this responsibility would only take
place until the teen father was 18 years old, married or
emancipated. Representative Robinson said she does not have any
daughters. She has a son. Therefore, she is not trying to go
after parents. However, she believes that if the legislature is
trying to make everyone responsible, fathers should be included.
Right now, the responsibility is placed completely with the young
woman and her parents.
Number 106
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said therefore, this amendment stipulates
that if a "Bob", who is in high school and only makes $50 a week,
gets "Mary Lou" pregnant and they do not get married, it makes
sense that Bob's parents, who make $100,000 a year, can help pick
up the support of this child. A little bit of the burden is being
shifted here to the parents of the boys.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON really believes that if the teen mother's
parents have money, it is also their responsibility to help take
care of the child. This amendment makes everyone responsible.
MR. NORDLUND said this is an amendment that affects child support.
He declined, therefore, to speak for the Administration. However,
he personally supported the amendment. It meets with the intent of
the Governor's approach to make teen pregnancy the responsibility
of more than just the pregnant teen. If the state is going to make
teen mothers live at home, there will also be an obligation placed
on the teen mothers' parents. Therefore, there should also be an
equal amount of responsibility placed on the teen father's parents.
MS. DUKE said she does not have a problem with the amendment and
the idea behind it. However, she did think this was something that
belongs in child support legislation, and not in a welfare reform
bill. The amendment does not address situations in which the teen
father's parents are receiving AFDC. This is really the only way
the state could try to get support from a father in welfare reform
legislation. This is something that would require a different type
of bill.
Number 307
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY agreed with Ms. Duke. She felt HB 78 was an
inappropriate vehicle for this topic. Co-Chair Toohey felt this
topic is so very important it actually needs a vehicle of its own.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE volunteered to co-sponsor any legislation
Representative Robinson would make regarding this issue. However,
he also expressed concern about the fit of the amendment with the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was told by the drafter of the
amendment that the amendment would fit and there would be no
problem. The Department of Law told Representative Robinson this
amendment would fit with this bill. She said this is the vehicle
that is moving, however, she would like to get the provision into
the bill before the committee. This is clearly a cost savings.
This provision would allow for the further collection of child
support from teen father's parents. That is the direction this
legislature should be going.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE was in complete agreement with the goal
Representative Robinson was trying to achieve. He only has a
question with a vehicle. He asked her not to take his disagreement
with the vehicle as disagreement with the goal.
Number 411
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wanted to make it clear the drafters of the
amendment said it would fit into this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said if each and every section of HB 78 could
be broken out and ran as a separate piece of legislation, it is the
prerogative and duty of this committee to address the amendments to
this bill. Amendment 9 does the appropriate, necessary, legal
actions of changing the title, which is completely within the
purview of the committee, and implementing the necessary sections.
There is not a single subject problem according to legal advice
from the Department of Law.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said there is no prohibition against this
committee expanding the title considering it is the House's piece
of legislation. The only purpose of not supporting this amendment
is saying HESS Committee members do not support appropriate
responsibility on the part of the teen father and his parents.
Number 516
CO-CHAIR BUNDE disagreed with what he felt was a stretch of the
HESS Committee's purview.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was concerned about the scope of the
amendment as a grandparent. However, the draftsmanship seems in
order at first glance. He is concerned about the rights and
obligations of grandparents and how they fit into the scheme of
things. Conceptually he supports this idea. However, there would
be a large scope to this provision.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced a five minute at ease at 4:52 p.m. He
called the meeting back to order at 4:01 p.m. A roll call vote was
taken on Amendment 9. Voting "yes" on the amendment were
Representative Brice and Representative Robinson. Voting "no" were
Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and
Representative Rokeberg. Amendment 9 failed.
Number 633
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved Amendment 10. There was an objection
and he spoke to his amendment. He said this suggested change would
mandate that any recipient approved for assistance under Section 2
would be required to go to school. He hoped this would not be a
waiver situation. He has had a number of conversations with Major
Bob Anderson of the Booth Memorial Home for pregnant teenagers and
he is a strong advocate of this situation. He provides maybe one
of the only, if not the largest assistive living situations for
pregnant teens in the state with educational opportunities in his
program.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for approval if the sponsor would
accept this amendment.
MR. NORDLUND said this would require a waiver. This is a unique
situation in that the AFDC federal law allows the state to require
children to be at home to receive assistance. There is a window.
That is why this section of the bill does not require a waiver in
the first place. When additional requirements are added, most
likely a waiver will be needed. Existing federal AFDC rules are
being changed. Representative Rokeberg is suggesting basically a
"learnfare" type of program.
MR. NORDLUND said there is a section like this in Senator Green's
bill, and a fiscal note is being worked up on that currently. This
amendment would definitely require a waiver, however.
Number 786
MR. NORDLUND also felt if Representative Rokeberg wanted to pursue
this amendment he would need to clarify some things. Mr. Nordlund
would assume there are minors who are already high school
graduates. That is conceivable. Representative Rokeberg would
probably also want to allow for someone who is pursuing a Graduate
Equivalency Degree (GED) to be included in the provision. In other
words, the person does not have to be in school to be covered.
MS. DUKE did not think Representative Hanley would have a problem
with the idea of the amendment. However, he would probably want to
address whether to put another waiver project in the bill in the
next committee. Ms. Duke had not realized this amendment would
require a waiver.
Number 827
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON had two suggestions. The first was to add
"certified education program," so if the person is in some kind of
training, they will not be considered "not in school." Second,
this is the type of provision that should affect teenage fathers
also.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG decided to withdraw his amendment with the
hope it would be reinserted with the proper ornamentation drafted
around it to be workable. He asked that the bill's sponsor
consider notwithstanding the fact the amendment may require a
waiver in either accepting or rejecting the amendment to the bill
at the next stage of the committee process. There were no
objections, and Amendment 10 was withdrawn.
Number 920
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would see that Representative Rokeberg's
message goes to the bill's sponsor and the next committee of
referral.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved Amendment 11. There was an
objection. Representative Robinson said this regards victims of
domestic violence and/or women who have had to leave their homes
because of sexual abuse on them or their children from a
father/stepfather.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said all this amendment does is add another
level in which the department can determine a person's physical and
emotional health and safety would be jeopardized by participating
in a project. For example, a woman may already be receiving AFDC.
The District Attorney's Office may have these women staying at a
shelter until trial, especially if it is a child sexual assault
case. This gives the department the option to not require the
women to participate.
Number 990
MR. NORDLUND said by all means this would be done as a matter of
course.
MR. LOMAS said this provision is essentially covered in the last
two lines on page 5. There is an exemption for participation in
workfare for people who are in the jobs program. This is one of the
number of exemptions that apply already.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON hoped the department was sure her amendment
was already covered. Since they gave her an assurance, she
withdrew Amendment 11. There were no objections.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved Amendment 12, which is the new
Amendment 8 which she previously withdrew. There was an objection
for discussion purposes.
MR. LOMAS said the intention of the original version of this
amendment was to not create a situation in which minor parents who
are required to live at home lose eligibility for AFDC because they
are living at home and an adult's income and assets affect their
eligibility. In fact, under the law only a parent is held
responsible for a child. Therefore, the language has just been
redrafted to eliminate that particular problem. Additional
language is also thrown in.
MR. LOMAS explained that in essence, the amendment now requires the
child to live at home but he/she is still eligible for AFDC.
Number 1145
MS. DUKE again voiced concern about the potential unknown cost of
this amendment which prevents her from accepting the amendment. It
is not known how many teen parents living at home currently with
parents supporting them would become eligible for AFDC if this bill
passes. She is concerned about the fiscal impact.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said Ms. Duke is well-qualified. If other members
of the committee are concerned, she would like to revisit this
amendment in the next committee of referral, the Judiciary
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt it was a real concern because the socio-
economic background of these folks is usually of the lower classes.
Therefore, this could place a real burden on the family and
possibly make the family less viable. Representative Brice felt
it was terribly important that this amendment be considered.
Number 1229
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the facts are she does not have a
problem with teen mothers who stay home with their parents. It is
a good thing to have the support of their parents. There are also
plenty of provisions in the bill which account for cases of abuse
and other reasons why a child cannot and does not have to stay at
home.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON also knows of circumstances where a
pregnant daughter would be a large hardship on the family. If most
parents do not have to have their child sign up for AFDC they are
not going to do it. Co-Chair Toohey has a bill, and if it passes
more responsibility will be taken by teen fathers. However, this
amendment really helps teen parents and their families.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stressed that in many of these situations,
the daughters of single mothers are having babies. This is a
provision that will help every body out.
Number 1287
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for a vote. Voting "yes" on the amendment
were Representative Brice and Representative Robinson. Voting "no"
were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and
Representative Rokeberg. Amendment 12 failed.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that CSHB 78(HES) was now before the
committee. He called for public comment.
Number 1350
MS. GOLL reminded HESS Committee members that there are many
sections of HB 78 which her organization supports. She agrees with
efforts to reform the system. Apparently, that is the way the
nation is feeling about welfare. Some changes need to be made in
the way the system is run. However, she urged HESS Committee
members to consider the general idea of holding back on the passage
of legislation this year, so the state can see what kind of changes
are going to be made by the federal government.
MS. GOLL said the federal government is apparently gearing up to
make some changes. The state does not know whether those changes
are going to look like HB 78, or the Senate welfare reform bill, or
if it will take away the entitlement status of AFDC altogether. If
that happens, and the entitlement status of AFDC takes place on the
federal level and block grants are given to the state, the state is
going to have to start at ground zero and rework the current
system.
MS. GOLL said this is because the state will not be operating under
the rules the federal government has laid out. Ms. Goll believes
most of the parts of this bill besides the teen parent project and
the rateable reductions are things that perhaps everyone can agree
should be included in the new welfare system.
MS. GOLL continued that the budget the House is about to prepare
for the floor includes funding for a welfare reform task force.
Ms. Goll believes the public needs to be involved in the redesign
of the system. She knows, of course, that the legislature is going
to want to be very involved in setting that policy in statute. She
hopes that, as legislators, each HESS Committee member will
consider the idea of not acting on welfare reform this year but
waiting to see what kind of changes are going to happen.
MS. GOLL said the welfare reform task force can have legislators
and members of the public on it. The system can then be debated.
This may require changing the system to include time limits for
temporary assistance for those who should not make a lifestyle of
welfare, and protect those who are going to continue to need
welfare. She urged HESS Committee members to keep that in mind as
the bill moves forward.
Number 1487
MS. GOLL said the Women's Lobby is opposed to reducing welfare
payments any more than they have already been reduced. She has
often heard these rateables referred to as the little rateables
because they are so much smaller than the federal floor and the
cuts that were proposed in other legislation. She asked HESS
Committee members to keep in mind the fact sheet they were given at
a previous meeting. That fact sheet shows how a family on AFDC who
does not have subsidized housing is already "in the hole."
MS. GOLL said this bill will make that family be $15 dollars more
in the hole. That morning, Ms. Goll listened to a debate on a
completely different bill that had to do with the registration of
cars. Legislators were saying that if a sticker is not placed on
a car and the car is stopped by police, an extra $75 is fined. The
legislators noted that was a lot of money.
MS. GOLL agreed that is a lot of money, especially to people who
are already living below the poverty level. That is the reason the
Women's Lobby is opposed to the rateable reductions in the bill.
Number 1552
MS. GOLL said she has already described to HESS Committee members
the number of people who could be affected by the teen parents
project. There has been plenty of discussion today about
amendments that need to be attached to this bill because the bill
requires teen parents to live at home. There would be no need for
some of those amendments if that section of the bill were
eliminated. In Ms. Goll's discussions with the sponsor of the bill
concerning amendments on the income of the teen parent's family, he
did suggest to Ms. Goll that maybe it would be better to delete
that section of the bill.
MS. GOLL understands that the sponsor has been busy with very
important things this week, and she hopes he will take another look
at the suggestion he made when the bill is in the Finance
Committee.
Number 1593
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said since Representative Hanley is Co-Chair of the
Finance Committee, there is a good chance the bill will be changed
there. Co-Chair Bunde conceded that not knowing what may or may
not happen at the federal level is problematic. HESS Committee
members are aiming at a type of moving target. However, knowing
the gestation period involved in legislation, the HESS Committee
members will move forward. Co-Chair Bunde understood her concern,
however.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for the pleasure of the committee. Co-Chair
Toohey moved that CSHB 78(HES) be moved from committee with
individual recommendations. Representative Brice objected and a
roll call vote was taken. Voting "no" were Representative Brice
and Representative Robinson. Voting "yes" were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-
Chair Toohey, Representative Davis and Representative Rokeberg.
The bill passed to the next committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON expressed a hope now that HB 78 has been
heard, the HESS Committee will calendar the Governor's bills (HB
242 and HB 244). They clearly talk about paternity establishment
and interstate collections. HB 62 concerns the licensing ban of
child support arrearages. All three bills are in the HESS
Committee. Representative Robinson believes this bill is not going
to be as effective without the other bills. At this late date, it
is more important than ever to hear and move those bills.
HB 202 - JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS
Number 1690
LAURIE OTTO, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department
of Law, said the Governor is very thankful to the HESS Committee
for hearing this bill. She said HB 202 was introduced by the
Governor as a way of getting parents more involved in cases where
their children have been charged with acts of delinquency. After
having been a prosecutor for several years, the first time Ms. Otto
appeared in a juvenile delinquency case was in 1982. She was
shocked that the parents of the child were not there, and indeed
they were not required to be there. The case involved a 13-year-
old child.
MS. OTTO said this has been a problem in statutes for some time.
If the state cannot even get the parents to a court hearing, the
ability to affect the child's behavior goes down dramatically.
Number 1739
MS. OTTO explained the main part of the bill is in Section 2.
Section 1 is a technical provision to which she will later refer.
Section 2 of the bill begins on page 3, line 3. The first thing
the bill does is require parents to be present at all juvenile
delinquency hearings unless there is a good cause they can show to
the court why they cannot be there. During the planning of this
bill, the Governor had asked the Department of Law (DOL) to speak
to police, educators and people who work with delinquent children
to see where they felt the biggest gaps in the system were.
MS. OTTO said this area, without exception, was one of the biggest
holes identified. Those groups felt there was a need to require
parents to participate in the process. The second item identified
is what is contained in Section (B)(1). This addresses children
who become delinquent because their parents do not have good
parenting skills. They do not pay attention to what their kids are
doing, and they do not supervise them.
MS. OTTO continued that the courts have become very frustrated over
the years because they cannot require, under the current laws,
parents to participate in treatment along with children.
Therefore, that is the second point the bill covers. Likewise, it
would allow the court to order parents to monitor their children's
behavior and to assist the court in getting the children to comply
with the conditions of probation set by the court.
Number 1808
MS. OTTO noted if the parents are required to participate by the
court, the bill says the parents must first use their own insurance
and/or resources if they can afford to pay. If they cannot afford
to pay, their permanent fund dividends (PFDs) can be used to pay
for the cost of treatment.
MS. OTTO said Section 1 of the bill provides a streamlined
mechanism for the department to be able to go in and get the PFDs
to pay for the cost of treatment for the children and their
parents.
Number 1832
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if this would presuppose or require the parent
apply for their PFD, and he suggested the bill does not allow for
that money to simply be transferred from the earnings reserve.
MS. OTTO said that is her understanding.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY counted seven fiscal notes, all equalling zero.
She asked if there would be no cost to this bill. The state is
assuming most of these parents have the finances to go to
treatment. That treatment is very expensive. Treatment can
include psychology and psychiatry. Co-Chair Toohey cannot imagine
there are seven fiscal notes included with the bill and no cost.
Number 1880
MS. OTTO understands that, for the most part, either the parents
can pay or they have insurance to cover the cost. Right now the
treatment of children is paid for by the department. These are
children who are convicted or adjudicated delinquent for crimes.
That is already something the state is currently paying for. Many
parents have insurance or resources. Of the parents that do not,
those parents are MedicAid eligible and MedicAid would pay for that
treatment.
MS. OTTO said there is a very small percentage of people that do
not have the resources and do not have MedicAid. The state is
going after the PFDs of that small group of people. In addition,
the bill does not limit PFD confiscation to a single year. The
state can continue to retrieve the parent's PFDs. When the
department looked at the number of children and parents who would
fall into this category, it was found to be a very small number --
less than 50.
Number 1935
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what kind of protection is offered to
the parent of a hard-core juvenile delinquent with severe emotional
problems. Representative Brice was speaking of a child who
currently is not in a youth facility, yet there is not much a
parent can do to stop that child from wreaking havoc on the
community.
MS. OTTO said that provision is the next part of the bill,
concerning restitution. She has an amendment to offer which
addresses that issue. This committee previously worked out such an
amendment to a bill that Co-Chair Bunde had introduced.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS responded to Co-Chair Toohey's question about
the fiscal note. He said the bill should probably have a negative
fiscal note because all the provisions of the bill have already
taken place without any compensation to the state.
Number 1993
MS. OTTO spoke on the next section of the bill, which begins on
page 5, line 8. This requires the minor's parent, as well as the
minor to be responsible for restitution. The DOL views this as an
extension of a bill which has already passed the House. That bill
would allow parents to be assessed fines in civil cases. However,
it was the feeling of the DOL that an adjudication is more
appropriately addressed in the context of a criminal case,
particularly if the state is then requiring the parents to
participate in the hearing rather than requiring the victim to get
a lawyer and file a separate civil action. That is very costly to
the victim and is somewhat adding insult to injury.
MS. OTTO said this does raise the issue that Representative Brice
just brought up. In addition, she knew the HESS Committee has
spent much time, both this year and in previous years, debating
where to draw the lines between out of control kids and parents who
were not trying.
MS. OTTO therefore, presented an amendment that exactly tracks the
language of Co-Chair Bunde's bill on a similar subject. The DOL
agrees that if a child has run away and the parent has reported the
child as a runaway, it is appropriate the parent should not be held
responsible for paying restitution for the acts of their child for
that period of time.
Number 2067
CO-CHAIR BUNDE made a correction. The bill to which Ms. Otto keeps
referring was given to another legislator and has now passed the
House.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the amendment only deals with runaways.
He asked about children who have not run away, but they are out of
control. A parent may come home at 5:00 p.m., and his/her child is
gone from 5:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. During that time, the child has
created havoc.
MS. OTTO said that is a line that must be drawn. It is the
Governor's and the DOL's feeling that parents need to be
responsible for the acts of their children. The state cannot solve
everyone's problem and be responsible for everybody.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed. However, he said he had just met with
people up in Fairbanks with children who have severe emotional
problems such as pyromania and severe sexual disturbances. The
parents feel there is nothing the law has to offer. The parents
feel they can do nothing to keep their children from going out and
raising havoc.
Number 2163
MS. OTTO answered by presenting an example of a child out of
control. That child damages the property of a next door neighbor.
She asked, who should bear the loss, the parent or the neighbor?
HB 202 says the parent should bear the loss, not the neighbor.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that is not the argument he is
presenting. He asked what is going to be done to help the child,
and keep the child from creating the loss. He then removed his
objection, and the Amendment 1 passed.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced now before the HESS Committee was CS HB
202, or HB 202 as amended.
Number 2200
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted that Alaska requires parents to go to
court with their children if their child has committed a traffic
violation. She has no problem with the intent of this bill. She
thinks quite often parents are frustrated. If the child and the
parent can be in the same room together, it gives the state a
better idea of how to assist that family. Representative Robinson
is a firm believer that a child cannot be helped without the
parent's recognition that they all must work on the problem
together.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON was amazed that parents must be with their
children for traffic tickets, yet in this type of situation
parental attendance is not required. This is obviously a lot more
important than a speeding ticket.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that parental attendance may remind them of
responsibilities.
Number 2248
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said Representative Brice's concern is a
typical issue seen in most legislation. Many amendments on the last
bill were similar. They dealt with somebody who is going to get
caught somewhere. If there is a psychotic child and the parents
have no means or capacity to get that child into an institution,
which is probably where they should be, these children can cause a
lot of problems. They can easily cause $100,000 worth of damage.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS agrees with Ms. Otto's opinion on who should
pay for damages. If responsibility must be borne, it should be
borne by the parents. At times, however, that cannot be addressed
because there are 200 to 300 other instances that need special
considerations. However, Representative Davis can easily see where
this can really be a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said what is going to happen is that with HB
202, maybe some parents will be more willing to institutionalize
some of those children. This will cost a lot of money. If the
cost cannot be afforded, he feared parents might try more drastic
measures, such as home imprisonment.
TAPE 95-33, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS felt this bill was the right thing to do, but
he recognized it is difficult to cover all situations.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stipulated that the state must be supportive of the
greatest number of people possible, and the process is not perfect.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY believed that somewhere in the law books are
provisions for parents who cannot control their children. She is
not sure whether that includes out of control children. She feels
there is something that can be done, including turning them over to
a juvenile detention center.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said while working on the bill he gave away, he
discovered there is a mechanism for people to emancipate themselves
from their child. If the child is out of control, the parents can
essentially divorce their child in order to simplify the process.
Some parents need protection from malicious children. That happens
rarely, but it does happen.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on the bill and asked for
the wish of the committee.
Number 116
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved HB 202 as amended with individual
recommendations and with accompanying fiscal notes. There were no
objections and the bill passed.
HB 171 - COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION SERVES AT BOARD'S PLEASURE
Number 245
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the HESS Committee has previously heard this
bill. An amendment was brought forward, and those concerns were
taken back to the bill's sponsor. Co-Chair Bunde asked that the
bill and the amendment be addressed again.
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, sponsor of HB 171, said the major
concern addressed in the bill was to somehow get control of the
system of appointment by governors. Governor Cooper did it, so did
Hickel and Governor Knowles. The whole system of appointment is
being disregarded in the sense of continuity for officers. In some
areas, this continuity is needed. Some commissions need people
with one, two or five years experience.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said those commissioners are paid well, and
they should be paid well for their expertise. Representative
Martin has become very concerned. In the most recent case, the
Commissioner of Education was paid very well in his contract, and
he was paid very well to resign. This is a misuse of the system
and a misuse of public money.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said if the person appointed was well
qualified and worthy of special compensation, they should be
allowed to serve the full four or five years of their appointment.
It is not right for a new Governor to be elected and call for all
resignations, and then pay the people to resign. Usually, these
people receive a "$75,000 handshake" to leave the contract. That
is a complete misuse of the system.
Number 360
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said the amendment seeks to defer the
problem.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked a question about the bill. He said it
currently reads, "The commissioner serves at the pleasure of the
board and may not be appointed by the board for a term of office."
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN realized that did not sound right. He said
he has been reviewing that statement. A term of office is a term
of office. Representative Martin meant for it to mean that the
commissioner of education would complete his or her term. The term
could not be cut off by a new governor. Only the board, in this
particular case, should decide who is the executive director.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said he then found out that did not solve the
problem. He then inquired how many people in the past have been
paid off to resign early. He asked if people felt multi-year terms
were a good idea in order to continue consistency throughout the
terms of gubernatorial administrations. The Alaska Housing and
Finance Corporation (AHFC) is currently in a large mess. In three
governors, the AHFC has seen three boards. There has also been
four commissioners in the last two years. This is ridiculous.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN asked if the HESS Committee could devise a
permanent plan. One of the incentives in getting a commissioner to
leave is to pay them $160,000 or some other amount to bow out of
their contract. That completely destroys the legislators' efforts
and, in most cases, the intent of statutes which offset years of
service.
Number 497
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said the bill strictly deals with the
Department of Education. He felt, however, that all the
commissioners should be protected. Governor Knowles will get his
chance in the last two or three years. However, some of the people
appointed recently who are just getting the hang of their job are
wiped out. A new person is then appointed.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE again read, "The commissioner of serves at the
pleasure of the board and may not be appointed by the board for a
term of office." He asked if that meant if the board wanted a
commissioner to serve from one governor's administration to
another, the board could do that.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said he would like, in this particular case,
to have the law follow as much as possible for the appointment to
be by the board. The constitutional convention made it very clear
it wanted the board and the executive director to not be political
pawns.
Number 580
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if therefore, the sentence in question should
be changed to "The commissioner serves at the pleasure of the board
and may not be removed by the board until his term is completed."
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said he was after something like that.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked what was a term. He suggested the sentence be
shortened to "serves at the pleasure of the board." That way, the
board could have the commissioner work for a week or for ten years.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN asked if the new board should be able to get
rid of the old appointee who just got appointed with a new
contract. He asked if the state wants the Board of Education to be
independent of the governor. There is a normal changeover of those
directors every three, four or five years so there is continuity.
It that is true, the board will then elect their own executive
director. A new governor coming in cannot get rid of them.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said again, to pay someone to resign is a
misuse of government money.
Number 670
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if a commissioner is appointed by the current
governor, does the governor also appoint the board.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said there are only two cases where
constitutionally the commissioner or the director is appointed by
the board. Those two cases are the Department of Education and the
Department of Fish and Game. Therefore, the Governor, indirectly
(through his new board), can appoint someone.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the Governor appoints a whole new board
when the commissioner comes on.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said that is part of the trouble now. As
with other agencies, it completely destroys the continuity of
offices. It would be better to rotate the board, perhaps by
appointing two new members every year. If a new governor erases
the board, it may be that some members of the board have only
completed five or six months in their position.
Number 739
CO-CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that what happened this year is the
commissioner refused to leave. The Governor appointed a new board.
The commissioner serves at the pleasure of the board, and he was
paid to leave.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that was her point. If Representative Martin
does not want to make political appointments, that is fine as long
as the board is not politically appointed also. If the board is
rotated through different appointments and different governors,
that is fine.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said one way to stop it is that people will
not voluntarily resign until they are given a large amount of money
and a sweet job.
Number 756
TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant, Representative Terry Martin's
Office, said the idea is that the state has a governor turnover
every four years. There is also a turnover of the board. But
currently, the law (which is being deleted in this bill) stipulates
the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Education
appointments are not to exceed five years. Therefore, the
appointment "runs over" into another governor's term.
MR. ANDERSON said HB 171 stipulates that as the state gets a new
governor, it gets a new Board of Education which has the right to
dismiss the commissioner without a contract. Therefore, the
commissioner serves at the pleasure of the board. The board would
then pick the commissioner and may not be appointed by the board
for a term of office. Therefore, the commissioner would not be
bound by this potential to have up to a five year service.
MR. ANDERSON said it is confusing, but it does work. Legal
Services believes it works. That would prevent the "$75,000
handshake" from ever occurring again.
Number 857
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked to discuss the main bill before the amendment
was addressed.
Number 872
MARY HALLORAN, Legal Administrator, Office of the Attorney General,
Department of Law, said basically the Governor has offered similar
legislation in HB 174, also in the HESS Committee. Everybody is
concerned that the Commissioner of Education, under current
statute, is a contractual employee as opposed to being someone who
serves at the pleasure of either the board or the Governor.
MS. HALLORAN said HB 171 clearly changes that status to make the
Commissioner of Education like other commissioners who serve at the
pleasure of someone. In this case, the state does not end up in a
situation where the commissioner does not meet the requirements of
the Governor or the board and cannot be dismissed. The current
statute requires the commissioner can only be dismissed for causes
very difficult to prove.
MS. HALLORAN said where there is a case where removal is necessary
for whatever reason, it almost always will cost the state more in
litigation than to just simply buy out the contract. HB 171 also
repeals the requirement that the commissioner can only be removed
for cause. That makes the removal possible for pleasure. The DOL
supports this. It increases the accountability of that public
official.
Number 955
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked about his possible change, which would make
the bill read, "The commissioner of education serves at the
pleasure of the board."
MS. HALLORAN agreed that the words "...and may not be appointed by
the board for a term of office" is additional language that is not
needed. People who serve at the pleasure of the board are not
allowed to have contracts. Therefore, that language takes the bill
where the sponsor wants it to be.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY understood that the Governor's bill is exactly the
opposite. His says the commissioner may serve at the pleasure of
the Governor.
MS. HALLORAN said of course it does, but the DOL is also happy with
that approach. The DOL would like to get the fundamental problem
resolved.
Number 1007
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked because the Governor appoints the Board of
Education, it might delay the change but it will not prevent the
change.
MS. HALLORAN said he was right. She then asked to respond to Co-
Chair Toohey's question. The board is composed of seven voting
members. Only four of them can be of the same political party as
the Governor. That is meant to keep the board as a-political as
possible in a very political world.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the board resigns upon the inauguration of
a new governor.
MS. HALLORAN said the Governor may request their resignations if he
decides to do so.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said in the most current case, one person was held
over, and six new people were appointed.
Number 1070
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON felt this was kind of a "toss up." The
board is going to be appointed by the Governor. She therefore
didn't care which direction the bill went, but she somewhat felt it
makes it cleaner by having the commissioner serve at the pleasure
of the governor. She was curious why Representative Martin felt it
would be better if the commissioner served at the pleasure of the
board. The Governor is clearly going to ask the old board to leave
and appoint new board members.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON realized the board was responsible for
taking the recommendation to the Governor. She felt perhaps that
was the reason behind Representative Martin's choice. She felt,
however, that the commissioner could easily serve at the pleasure
of either the Governor or the board.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt Representative Martin's choice makes the
appointment a little less political. In addition, the board feels
a little bit more involved in the process by doing the appointing.
They are doing the recommendations, and Co-Chair Bunde would
suspect the Governor would be inclined to accept their
recommendation.
Number 1160
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY did not think anyone would have a problem with
either this bill or the Governor's. However, the reference to
severance pay and the high cost of getting rid of unwanted
commissioners must be addressed. She feels this bill addresses
that.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said if the commissioner serves at the pleasure of
someone, that will get rid of severance pay regarding the
Commissioner of Education.
Number 1197
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of
Education, said the State Board is very concerned about this issue
also. Their primary concern is getting rid of the "cause" phrase,
and getting rid of the term of office. The Department of Education
would like to see the legislature address this issue to allow some
flexibility as to who the commissioner is.
MS. PETERSON said the State Board of Education represents the whole
state. The members need to be from different judicial districts,
and they must be from different political parties. Therefore,
currently the statute is written to provide a cross-section of
people on the board to represent the general public. The board
strongly urges the legislature to act on this legislation.
Number 1236
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if there has been a lot of discussion
on this. One of the main reasons the original law was set up and
passed was to try to take the appointment out of the political
process. The whole concept was there would be a commissioner who
would continue to serve and a board that would continue to serve.
The education was supposed to be separate. Representative Robinson
felt the bottom line is that the appointment is political and all
the state is doing is causing more problems.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if the board talked about the
philosophy of the bill and what this change truly means. It means
this bill clearly changes the philosophy of how the state hoped
education was going to be managed in this state.
Number 1273
MS. PETERSON did not think the current board feels they are a
"parrot" for the Governor. They feel they are very independent
individuals. They present and work through problems as
individuals. The recent appointment of the commissioner was
completely at the direction of the board. The board made the
selection independent of any advice from the Governor.
MS. PETERSON believes this is how they will respond to their
commissioner. Governor Knowles is not getting involved, and Ms.
Peterson does not believe he will get involved. People who are on
the State Board of Education take that as a serious opportunity to
represent the public. They are very interested in education. They
will look at the commissioner in that light to make decisions
concerning the commissioner.
Number 1321
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the commissioner signs a contract.
MS. HALLORAN answered that under HB 171, the commissioner would not
sign a contract.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY thought the whole purpose of this legislation is to
have the commissioner agree that his/her term is limited, and
he/she can be removed at the will of the board at any time and
without severance pay. She asked if the commissioner was therefore
paid by the month.
MS. HALLORAN said Co-Chair Toohey was correct on all points.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY then asked if she was correct that the commissioner
is under no obligation to stay longer than the board.
MS. HALLORAN again said Co-Chair Toohey was correct.
Number 1359
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if there had to be a cause for the
commissioner to be terminated by the board.
MS. HALLORAN said under current statute, he/she can only be removed
for cause. HB 171 deletes that provision.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for discussion on Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said the whole idea is that other problems
arose with the introduction of HB 171. People asked him about
departments other than Education, departments not addressed in HB
171 as it now reads. Representative Martin asked people if other
problems with payoff occurred in state agencies other than the
Department of Education. He found there were payoffs to make
people resign, and that is a misuse of government money.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked HESS Committee members to notice the amendment
changes the title and broadens the scope of this bill
significantly. Co-Chair Bunde asked that Representative Martin
speak again to the amendment, and then public testimony would be
taken.
Number 1432
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said if it would simplify what Ms. Halloran
said about the Board of Education, the amendment could be made into
a separate bill.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it would be the preference of the chair to make
the amendment a separate bill. He proposed HB 171, line 5 to read,
"The commissioner serves at the pleasure of the board."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if the bill was going to address who
appoints the commissioner, or is that going to be assumed.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE concurred if the bill says he/she serves at
the pleasure of the board, that does not say he/she is appointed by
the board.
MS. HALLORAN said in other sections of AS 14.07.145 it provides for
the appointment of the commissioner of Education by the Board of
Education subject to the approval of the Governor.
Number 1499
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on HB 171 and asked for the
pleasure of the committee. Representative Davis moved HB 171 as
amended with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations.
There were no objections, and the bill passed.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN asked the committee to entertain a committee
bill consisting of Representative Martin's original amendment to HB
171. Co-Chair Bunde said such a bill would be considered.
Number 1549
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 5:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|