Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/18/1995 10:10 AM 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
April 18, 1995
10:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 226: "An Act permitting the provision of different retirement
and health benefits to employees based on marital
status."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 246: "An Act directing the commissioner of administration to
seek a buyer for the Alaska Pioneers' Home and
eliminating the Alaska Pioneers' Home program if the
Alaska Pioneers' Home is sold; directing the
commissioner of administration to contract all or part
of the operation of the Alaska Pioneers' Home if a
suitable buyer is not found; relating to the closure of
the Alaska Pioneers' Home; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 513
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 226.
THOMAS OWENS, JR., Attorney
1500 West 33rd Street, No. 200
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 276-3963
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 226.
AMY YOUNG, Co-Chair
Equality Under Alaskan Law
218 East 10th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 258-9925
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 226.
TYSON NEVIL
P.O. Box 82176
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Telephone: (907) 474-4655
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 226.
LAURA BURLESON
4758 Glasgow, No. 3
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-7348
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 226.
MARK TUMEO, Professor
University of Alaska Fairbanks
1324 Summit Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99712
Telephone: (907) 474-6090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 226.
TRAVIS BRAZILLE
P.O. Box 750538
Fairbanks, AK 99775
Telephone: (907) 474-6666
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 226.
KATE WATTUM, Professor
University of Alaska Fairbanks
P.O. Box 84397
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Telephone: (907) 455-6639
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 226.
ROBERT MILLER
857 Mattie Street
North Pole, AK 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-0429
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 226.
BEVERLY McCLENDON
P.O. Box 84397
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Telephone: (907) 455-6639
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 226.
MICHAEL SCHMAHL
4758 Glasgow, No. 3
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-7348
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 226.
STEVEN JACQUIER
P.O. Box 750331
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Telephone: (907) 479-6536
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 226.
DANIEL COLLISON, Vice President
Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Association
P.O. Box 21466
Juneau, AK 99802
Telephone: (907) 789-5001
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the Robinson amendment.
MARGARET W. BERCK, Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union
227 7th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3309
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the Robinson amendment.
SUSAN HARGIS, Representative
Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance
P.O. Box 22493
Juneau, AK 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-2196
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the Robinson amendment.
MARSHA BUCK, Representative
Parents, Friends and Families of Lesbians and Gays
P.O. Box 32245
Juneau, AK 99083
Telephone: (907) 789-6167
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the Robinson amendment.
SARAH BOESSER, Representative
Committee for Equality
P.O. Box 34202
Juneau, AK 99803
Telephone: (907) 789-9604
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the Robinson amendment.
MARY GRAHAM
235 5th Street, No. 2
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-4938
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the Robinson amendment.
TALMADGE W. BAILEY
P.O. Box 34542
Juneau, AK 99803
Telephone: (907) 790-2519
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the Robinson amendment.
PATRICK KALEN, Representative
Pioneers of Alaska
1041 Chena Ridge Road
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-2628
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 246.
BEAVER BENTLEY
41955 Spencer Drive
Homer, AK 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7389
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 246.
DOROTHY WESTPHAL
P.O. Box 288
Sterling, AK 99672
Telephone: (907) 262-6061
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 246.
R.N. DeARMOND, Resident
Sitka Pioneers' Home
120 Katlian Street
Sitka, AK 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-6153
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 246.
ANNABEL APPLING, Resident
Sitka Pioneers' Home
120 Katlian Street
Sitka, AK 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-3213
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 246.
ART NIELSEN, Resident
Sitka Pioneers' Home
120 Katlian Street
Sitka, AK 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-3213
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 246.
ANNE JANZEN, Resident
Sitka Pioneers' Home
120 Katlian Street
Sitka, AK 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-3213
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 246.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 226
SHORT TITLE: MARITAL STATUS AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY,Rokeberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/03/95 565 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/03/95 565 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, JUDICIARY
03/18/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/18/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/20/95 808 (H) STA RPT 4DP 1AM
03/20/95 808 (H) DP: JAMES, PORTER, GREEN, IVAN
03/20/95 808 (H) AM: ROBINSON
03/20/95 808 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADMIN/ALL DEPTS)
03/28/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/28/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/06/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/11/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/18/95 (H) HES AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 246
SHORT TITLE: OPERATION OF PIONEERS' HOME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) G.DAVIS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/09/95 677 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/09/95 677 (H) HES, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
04/11/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/18/95 (H) HES AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-37, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the meeting of the House Health,
Education and Social Services standing committee to order at 10:10
a.m. Present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde,
Toohey, Robinson, Vezey, and Davis. A quorum was present to
conduct business. Co-Chair Bunde read the calendar and announced
the order of the bills.
HB 226 - MARITAL STATUS AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Number 071
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, sponsor of HB 226, noted that since he
had testified on this bill in the HESS Committee when it was first
heard, and since many people wanted to testify, he would refrain
from speaking again.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE appreciated Representative Kelly's consideration,
and asked him to be available for questions. Co-Chair Bunde also
requested all testimony be limited to two minutes.
Number 155
THOMAS OWENS, JR. testified via teleconference from Anchorage that
he was speaking at the request of Representative Kelly to provide
HESS Committee members with information about the litigation from
which the bill arose. Mr. Owens said he was not testifying on the
behalf of the University of Alaska, although he was a member of the
counsel for the university in the Tumeo-Wattum case. That case is
currently on appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court.
MR. OWENS noted that the case involved an application by Tumeo and
Wattum for health care coverage for their domestic partners under
the university health care program. That coverage was denied
because the domestic partners are not spouses. The definition of
dependents under the health care plan is limited to spouses and
dependents. Tumeo and Wattum appealed to the Superior Court.
MR. OWENS recalled that the Superior Court made a very
straightforward analysis, holding that Alaska Statute 18.80.200
prohibits discrimination in a term or condition of employment based
on marital status. The court held that denying health care
coverage to the domestic partners of Tumeo and Wattum on the basis
that they were not married constituted discrimination based on
marital status.
Number 269
MR. OWENS said that was the essence of the court's analysis.
Clearly, the analysis of the court stands on the proposition that
the statutory prohibition against discrimination based on marital
status is absolute. There can be no discrimination based on
marital status.
MR. OWENS said this is not a matter of sex. It is a matter of
marriage only in that being single or being married forms a basis
for either granting or denying health care coverage to dependents
of employees. Mr. Owens noted that the discrimination statute
applies to all employers, not just public employers. Therefore,
every employer in the state of Alaska providing health care
coverage to spouses of employees will have to determine whether it
can continue to provide health care coverage to spouses and
domestic partners if the situation stands the way it is now under
Judge Greene's (the judge in Tumeo and Wattum v. the State of
Alaska) decision.
MR. OWENS said he has done some computer research and has found 146
different provisions in the Alaska Statutes in which the
legislature has required employers or the state to discriminate
either for or against a particular individual based on whether or
not he/she was married. Therefore, although AS 19.80 provides that
no employer can discriminate on the basis of marital status, there
are many other statutory provisions that require discrimination
based on marital status.
MR. OWENS noted that HB 226 simply addresses the issue of what kind
of requirement this legislature is going to put on every employer
in the state of Alaska as far as extending health care benefits and
pension benefits. There are many statutory benefits on marital
status as far as being eligible for pension benefits. Mr. Owens
asked what kinds of requirements the law was going to put on every
employer in the state of Alaska concerning extending these benefits
to beyond dependents and spouses of employees.
Number 511
MR. OWENS said if the situation stays the way it is now (without
passage of HB 226), the possibility is raised that employers
throughout the state will decide that because there is no limit on
what kind of coverage they have to extend, they are not going to
extend coverage at all. The employers may choose to just cover
their employees. They may not cover spouses because if spouses are
covered employers may have to cover nonspousal domestic partners,
for example.
MR. OWENS said there are many adverse consequences that could
result from leaving the situation as it presently stands. Mr.
Owens understood HESS Committee members had received information to
the effect that this situation was simply an administrative matter
that involves public employers. That is not the case at all. The
prohibition against discrimination based on marital status and the
other statutory provisions which call for discrimination based on
marital status apply throughout the state.
Number 589
MR. OWENS concluded that it is really a question of what kind of
impositions the legislature wants to put on employers, large and
small, public and private, throughout the state of Alaska as far as
extending benefits like health care coverage and pension benefits
to persons other than their direct employees.
Number 624
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY said no matter what is done in the state,
a small business would not be precluded from offering benefits to
a couple that do not choose to be married but are legally and
economically tied to each other. She asked Mr. Owens if that
statement was correct.
MR. OWENS said she was correct. The employer gets to define the
extent of the coverage it will extend to its employees. It is up
to the employer to decide if it will voluntarily extend that
coverage to unmarried, economically dependent partners if it so
desired.
Number 674
AMY YOUNG, Co-Chair, Equality under Alaskan Law (EQUAL), testified
via teleconference from Anchorage that lately any time she opens
the newspaper she sees that more budget cuts are being made by the
legislature. Cuts are being made in valuable programs such as
public broadcasting to rural communities. Ms. Young has lived in
rural Alaska, and she knows what a lifeline public television can
be. Yet, the HESS Committee members were currently spending
valuable resources on a bill that is unnecessary.
MS. YOUNG said the courts have already decided what is fair.
Discrimination based on marital status is wrong. Ms. Young said
the Alaska Human Rights Act was established to protect Alaskan
citizens from discrimination. Legislation should not be started
only to make exceptions.
MS. YOUNG asked to make a point about Mr. Owens' statement about
employees. Ms. Young does not think it is fair to pay married
people more than single people. She thinks there will be some
dramatic changes in employment law in the coming years on that
point. Ms. Young urged HESS Committee members to oppose HB 226
unless Representative Robinson's amendment (the Robinson amendment)
is included.
Number 754
TYSON NEVIL testified via teleconference from Fairbanks that he was
definitely opposed to HB 226 unless it was passed with the Robinson
amendment. He felt this bill should be opposed because it
basically is an issue of legislating morality under the guise of
supposedly protecting private industry from assuming the rare
burden of benefits for employees' domestic partners. It is
discrimination on the basis of marital status as far as pay goes.
Benefits are a part of compensation for work done in a particular
work situation.
MR. NEVIL said HB 226 will institute a formal position that it is
okay to discriminate because one person chooses to be married in a
traditional format, while another chooses to be make a
nontraditional commitment. This bill is an effort to economically
coerce people into traditional bonds of marriage. That is wrong.
MR. NEVIL spoke to Mr. Owens' comments. Mr. Nevil said just
because precedents in the past have established that it is okay to
discriminate on the basis of marital status does not mean that it
is right to do so. Many things in the past have been overturned
because society has reached the point where it has discovered that
what has occurred in the past is wrong. Such precedents, while
they may exist, do not provide a basis for saying it is okay to
discriminate.
Number 864
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON noted that people have been referring
to the amendment she brought forward in the State Affairs Committee
meeting on this bill. She felt it may be helpful to at least hand
out the amendment to other HESS Committee members so the amendment
can be in their packets.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE agreed the amendment should be handed out.
Number 900
LAURA BURLESON testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She
urged HESS Committee members to vote against HB 226 as it currently
stands. As this bill stands, it provides for special compensation
for married people at the expense of people who are not married in
the traditional sense. This is unfair to the citizens of Alaska,
and it is unfair especially in light of the Tumeo-Wattum case.
MS. BURLESON said unless HB 226 includes the Robinson amendment
providing for domestic partnership, HB 226 provides special rights
for one group at the expense of another. This conflicts directly
with the human rights laws of the state of Alaska.
Number 950
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Owens a question. She said her sister
and her life-mate have never married, and they both have been
previously divorced and have children. They have lived together
for 36 years. Their last will and testament is to leave all
worldly possessions to the living partner. Co-Chair Toohey asked
if this was legal considering they were not married.
MR. OWENS said yes. If a will is drafted, one can leave his/her
worldly possessions to whomever he/she wants.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the beneficiary can be under any guise,
such as spouse, life-mate, etc.
MR. OWENS said yes. A will must be drafted, leaving worldly
possessions to whomever the deceased wishes. However, a problem
arises if there is no will. This is a good example of statutory
provisions adopted by the legislature that cover other situations
where there is discrimination based on marital status. For
example, under the laws concerning what happens when one dies
without a will, the property passes to the spouse. A marital
relationship is required. Property does not pass to the unmarried
domestic partner of the person who has died. That is an example of
a statutory provision in Alaska State laws that exist currently
that discriminate based on marital status. There are many, many
more of these laws.
Number 1055
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY noted that there is a certain amount of
property that stays with the spouse in the event there is no will.
He asked if that was true. He understood that one cannot take all
assets out of the marital estate, that one cannot disinherit one's
spouse. He understood that state law requires at least one-third
of the estate goes to the spouse.
MR. OWENS said Representative Vezey was speaking about the instance
in which there is no will. Mr. Owens said under the laws of
succession in such a case, the spouse automatically gets a portion
of the estate.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said it was his understanding that a person
must, under state law, leave at least one-third of an estate to a
spouse, unless the spouse agrees to the contrary.
MR. OWENS did not know the answer to that question.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE was aware of state retirement programs, in which one
is not allowed to disinherit one's spouse. The retirement program
cannot be changed to exclude the spouse without the spouse's
permission.
Number 1143
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked Mr. Owens if he was familiar with the
Robinson amendment. Mr. Owens said he was. Representative Kelly
began to speak to his concerns on the amendment.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY interrupted and noted that the amendment has not
been yet brought before the committee.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE agreed, and asked Mr. Owens if he was going to be
available for awhile to answer questions. Mr. Owens said yes. Co-
Chair Bunde said after testimony was finished, the amendment would
be addressed. At that time, there may be questions for Mr. Owens.
Number 1186
MARK TUMEO, Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, and
plaintiff in Tumeo and Wattum v. the University of Alaska,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He thanked HESS
Committee members for the time and consideration they have shown
him and this bill.
MR. TUMEO had prepared two fact sheets which were included in the
bill packets. The fact sheets disprove some of the economical and
legal arguments which have been put forward by the sponsor of the
bill as the underpinning for this piece of legislation. Mr. Tumeo
found the claim that private companies will be affected by the
judge's decision very disturbing, and he also was displeased with
the claim that there will be an onslaught of lawsuits.
MR. TUMEO noted with all due respect to Mr. Owens that Mr. Owens
does have a vested interest in portraying the case a certain way.
Contrary to the sponsor's and Mr. Owens' supporting statements,
private companies will not be affected from this lawsuit. In 1974,
the U.S. Congress passed an Employee security act. This Act had an
exemption clause that was extremely broad as far as any state
regulation of employee benefits, even in the areas where the Act
itself made regulation.
Number 1255
MR. TUMEO gave an example based on legal analysis. A state could
pass a law that medical insurance benefits might be extended to
domestic partners of full-time workers. The federal act would pre-
empt that law. Any state law that even relates to an employee
benefit program, no matter how tenuous that relationship might be,
is presumptively prevented by the federal act. There are a few
exceptions. A state can garnish pension to pay back child support
or alimony orders, for example.
MR. TUMEO said the judge's decision in Tumeo-Wattum v. the State of
Alaska can only apply to university employees. Furthermore,
domestic partnerships are not a substitute for marriage, and can no
way demean or lessen the sanctity of marriage. There are numerous
privileges and benefits that a marriage license provides that
cannot be gained through other contractual relationships such as
domestic partnerships.
Number 1300
MR. TUMEO would like to believe that Representative Kelly's bill
arose from economic and legal concerns, as Representative Kelly
claims. If that were the case, the facts would make it abundantly
clear that HB 226 is unnecessary, and the sponsor would withdraw
it. At the very least, Representative Kelly would accept the
proposed Robinson amendment, because it eliminates any kind of
financial concerns. Domestic partnerships will be established as
eligible for benefits. The amendment would also assure that the
human rights act of the state is not gutted.
MR. TUMEO felt the Robinson amendment was one of those rare
instances in which the legislature will find itself in a win-win
situation.
Number 1336
MR. TUMEO said HB 226 is the antithesis of a conservative American
value, upon which conservatives hold high an individual's
willingness to commit to lifelong relationships and take care of
their loved ones. The bill has elicited strong debate and
emotions. It has taken up hours of time. Mr. Tumeo has personally
received harassing phone calls because he has dared stand up in
opposition to this bill. Mr. Tumeo asked HESS Committee members to
kill this bill, and recognize that one representative's religious
views are not a reason to discriminate against people who are in
strong family units contributing to society.
Number 1370
TRAVIS BRAZILLE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks that he
would like HESS Committee members to kill HB 226 unless the
Robinson amendment is adopted.
Number 1392
KATE WATTUM, Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, and
plaintiff in Tumeo-Wattum v. the University of Alaska, testified
via teleconference from Fairbanks that she has heard much testimony
in favor of Mr. Tumeo and herself. She is a little disappointed to
hear Mr. Owens say he is not representing the university when in
fact, he is.
MS. WATTUM's biggest concern is a personal issue. No one has
investigated the validity of her or Mr. Tumeo's claim that the
people in question are, in fact, their domestic partners. No one
has asked Ms. Wattum what her life is like, and what she does day
to day. No one has questioned whether Beverly McClendon is, in
fact, legally obligated to Ms. Wattum, and Ms. Wattum to Beverly.
That is frustrating. No one wants to ask if Ms. Wattum and her
partner are going to be in each other's lives until death. Ms.
Wattum said she and Beverly are committed to that degree.
Number 1435
MS. WATTUM said the amendment to the bill will allow her and others
like her to have an avenue for continued support. She does not
feel it will be recognized by anyone in the near future, but it
will help her make wise career decisions, not having to worry about
being covered by employee benefits.
MS. WATTUM said this issue is very personal to her. She said
people are continually telling her not to take this bill
personally, that this bill is not about her. She told the HESS
Committee members this bill was about her. It was about her life.
Number 1474
ROBERT MILLER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks that HB
226 is a complete slap in the face to a large number of people in
the Alaskan communities. There are a large number of people in
domestic partnerships who could really use the equality. People
like Tumeo and Wattum are not asking for special treatment. They
are simply asking to be treated like everyone else. Mr. Miller did
not understand why it is okay for a male-female couple to get
married in a very short time and automatically receive many
benefits.
MR. MILLER noted that yet, a couple like Ms. Wattum and Beverly
McClendon, who have been together for many years, who share much
and have promised to spend the rest of their lives together, cannot
have those benefits.
MR. MILLER asked HESS Committee members to put in the Robinson
amendment if they do pass HB 226. He asked HESS Committee members
to allow for equality.
Number 1533
BEVERLY McCLENDON requested via teleconference from Fairbanks that
HB 226 not be passed unless the Robinson amendment is included.
She is truly concerned about the precedents that may be set when
the legislature begins writing exceptions into the state's human
rights act.
MS. McCLENDON said memories of Nazi Germany haunt her when she
realizes how slowly people's rights can be eroded until a monster
is created. Ms. McClendon asked why benefits and this bill have
been crafted to benefit only spouses and dependents in the first
place. She thinks one of the reasons benefits were originally
extended was to assure the financial security of the family unit,
thus allowing an employee to remain a productive member of the
workforce.
MS. McCLENDON said security is important, no matter how one defines
a family. A concern of proponents of this bill is that anyone can
come forward and claim to be a domestic partner. Therefore,
employers will be forced to pay benefits to many people. Ms.
McClendon does not feel that is true. The Robinson amendment
specifically defines domestic partnerships as long-term, committed,
financially interdependent relationships. That is what the
amendment is trying to protect.
MS. McCLENDON asked to respond to Co-Chair Toohey's concerns about
wills and the death of a partner versus that of a spouse. She said
that concerns relationships after death, and she is hoping to
protect people while they are still alive.
MS. McCLENDON also wanted to address concerns that there will be
many people rushing to sign up for benefits if this bill is not
passed. The reality is, if one is not in a traditional marriage,
there is still an incredible amount of stigma in our society. Many
people will not come forward and publicly identify their partners
because of that stigma. The ones that do come forward are those
whose financial concerns have forced them into it. They are thus
willing to take the risk.
Number 1631
MS. McCLENDON concluded by saying it was of utmost importance to
leave the human rights statutes intact. She asked HESS Committee
members to let the bill die a quiet death, or to at least add the
Robinson amendment. This amendment specifically defines what
domestic partnerships are, and includes domestic partners in the
benefits. In that way, security can be provided for all employees
who are in committed, long-term, financially interdependent
relationships.
Number 1666
MICHAEL SCHMAHL testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 226. HB 226 is an obvious attack on the human
rights act. If passed, it would codify discrimination against
unmarried couples even if they are financially, emotionally and
otherwise interdependent. Any bill that begins by amending and
restricting the human rights act is immediately suspect.
MR. SCHMAHL said the bill provides for exceptions to the human
rights act. Once the legislature starts making exceptions, the
door is open to make any number of exceptions to the human rights
code. The author of this bill claims it protects against any
number of people who would claim to be domestic partners. That is
simply not true. Organizations that do provide benefits to
domestic partners have not seen a dramatic rise in the number of
people applying for benefits.
MR. SCHMAHL urged HESS Committee members to kill HB 226. If it
must be moved, he asked that the Robinson amendment be passed.
Number 1749
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY took a moment to read some statistics she requested
from Reed Stoops, who is the lobbyist for AETNA Insurance. "If
domestic partners are insured, AETNA's nationwide estimate is that
it would add 340 new members per 100,000 presently covered. The
additional cost conservatively would be 2 percent for the first
year without experience. After that, the additional cost would be
an additional 1 percent or less. AETNA offers a domestic partner
policy to 26 of its customers throughout the rest of the country."
Number 1780
STEVEN JACQUIER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks against
HB 226 as it stands. If passed without the Robinson amendment, the
bill would have a negative impact on Alaska's economic well-being.
It will have a negative impact on Alaska's image to the rest of the
world, and it will negatively impact the quality of life all
Alaskans enjoy.
MR. JACQUIER said the economic reasoning being given in
justification for this legislation is erroneous, as demonstrated by
the actual concrete experience of states such as Vermont, New York
and Massachusetts. Not only is the justification false, but if HB
226 is passed it will end up costing Alaska's economy a lot of
money. Within the last couple of months, several other states have
considered passing prejudicial legislation. The legislation has
aimed to create special protections for some groups, while
stigmatizing others.
MR. JACQUIER said both South Dakota and Montana decided not to
invite boycotts and subsequent losses of millions of dollars from
the tourist industry for the sake of allowing a few legislators to
curry favor and court votes among the right wing. Utah has made a
different decision, and, just for starters, that decision will most
likely cost the state of Utah the Olympics. Widespread boycotts of
tourism, companies based in Utah and products manufactured in Utah
are beginning in communities across the United States.
Number 1825
MR. JACQUIER stressed this legislation is economically unsound. At
the root, it is quite simply and quite transparently to penalize
Alaskans who do not share the sponsor's personal religious
convictions. As such, this legislation is mean-spirited, small-
minded, and shortsighted. This pending legislation has been widely
discussed on the Internet computer news groups. That is just one
of the many news groups which has been discussing HB 226, and has
a daily readership of over 45,000 people nationwide.
MR. JACQUIER said across the United States, people are definitely
watching to see whether the Alaska State legislature will endorse
a measure that creates special privilege. The late George Orwell,
if faced with HB 226, might have said, "All Alaskans are equal, but
some are more equal than others."
MR. JACQUIER stated that the actions of HESS Committee members on
this bill will have direct consequences on the degree to which it
can be truthfully said that all men and women are equal in Alaska,
not only in the sight of God, but under the law of the land. HESS
Committee members' actions on this bill will also impact the
perceptions of Alaska in the Lower 48, for good or ill. The state
can realistically expect that perception to be reflected in the
dollars that flow toward or away from Alaska.
MR. JACQUIER urged HESS Committee members to vote no on this
horrible piece of legislation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed teleconference testimony, making it listen-
only. He also acknowledged the presence of Representative Brice,
who arrived at the meeting at 10:15 a.m.
Number 1888
PAM NEAL, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (SCC), said
she could not tell HESS Committee members how much she did not want
to be before them. She did not want to sound mean-spirited or
prejudiced. The position of the SCC is purely economic. She
cannot stress that strongly enough. The SCC feels the state may
suffer some economic impact from the position it is taking.
However, the fact is that the number one priority of the SCC for
this legislative session and for many past legislative sessions has
been a reduction in state spending. The budget issue is very, very
critical to the SCC. It is business that pays the taxes that keep
the state afloat.
MS. NEAL said it is business that sees the costs of state spending
outstripping the revenues. Something has got to give. Therefore,
the number one priority of the SCC is to reduce state spending by
5 percent each year until a sustainable level is reached, and the
revenue is balanced.
MS. NEAL said because of that, the SCC has a fear that should the
state be extending benefits to unmarried partners, there will be a
significant added cost to state employment.
Number 2026
MS. NEAL said the other problem the SCC has is if the court has
determined that it is unlawful to deny benefits based on marital
status at the state level, how long will it be before there is a
suit brought against a private employer within the state of Alaska
because benefits were denied? If it is unconstitutional, it is
unconstitutional. If it is illegal, it is illegal. The SCC knows,
regardless of what the attorneys say now about who falls under the
court decision and who does not, it is only a matter of time.
MS. NEAL said the SCC has a concern that private employers will
fall under this. The result will be that benefits will be denied
to anyone but the employee. Those employers who are presently
providing benefits for spouses or dependents will have to cease to
do so. That is a real concern for the SCC. It will widen the gap
between the opportunity for private employers to access the
employment pool.
MS. NEAL shared that yesterday her wonderful secretary gave Ms.
Neal notice because she had procured a state job. Ms. Neal cannot
compete with the benefits the state provides. The extension of
benefits may only serve to widen that gap.
MS. NEAL could not stress strongly enough that the SCC is
completely neutral on the moral issue that is clouding HB 226. The
concern of the SCC is purely economic. It is in fear of what the
extension of benefits is going to do to the employment pool for
private employers, and it fears what that will do to the increasing
costs for the state budget.
Number 2105
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Neal if she has any statistics on
how many private businesses that are part of the chamber provide
health benefits.
MS. NEAL said that was a vast majority.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked how many of those then also provide
health benefits to family members.
MS. NEAL answered that was also a very strong majority.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if those numbers were documented, and
if HESS Committee members could get copies of those numbers.
MS. NEAL said that information was not documented, but she knew
what companies belong to the chamber. The SCC represents probably
all of the major employers in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if Ms. Neal knew if any of those
companies provided any sort of domestic partnership benefits.
MS. NEAL did not have any information on that. It has always been
up to the employer as to whom it provided benefits. If the
repercussions of this legal decision falls on private employers,
many of them will simply quit providing benefits to those other
than the employee.
Number 2155
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the SCC understands that the court
case decision does not affect private employers at all. Right now,
the decision clearly only affects the university.
MS. NEAL said she had heard testimony during the hearing on both
sides, that the decision both impacts and does not impact private
employers. Ms. Neal asked who to believe. However, the position
of the SCC is that if the court has determined through case law
that it is discrimination, then it will only be a matter of time
before someone sues a private employer for discrimination. It has
already been determined that the practice is discriminatory.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted that the courts have come up with two
very easy remedies to that problem. Ms. Neal was not aware of
those remedies. Representative Robinson said the court decision
has clearly outlined two possible remedies. If there was to be a
lawsuit against a private company, which has not happened at the
moment, there are two very clear options presented. The first is
that the private industry could offer benefits only to the
employee. If it is desired that others are to be covered, the
employee would have to pay for this.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the other option is the inclusion of
a domestic partnership agreement within the agency.
Number 2220
MS. NEAL said once again, the concern of the SCC is that it does
recognize that private employers can only provide benefits to
employees and no one else. The problem with that, as Ms. Neal
expressed, is that there is already a gap between the salaries and
benefits of the state versus those of the private industry.
Government has gone into competition with private business by
paying benefits that private industry cannot match.
MS. NEAL said if domestic partnership agreements are added, the gap
is being widened. The pool that private sector employers can draw
from is what is left after the state has taken who they want.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the SCC would feel differently if
it saw studies that clearly showed minimal impact. There are
studies to this effect. There is a study out of Seattle which
indicates that out of 10,000 employees, there was only a very small
increase in enrollment and absolutely no increase in premium rates
for insurance when domestic partners were included in the benefits
package.
MS. NEAL said in that area and in that arena, that minimal impact
may be the case. However, there is no data which shows what is
going to happen in the future. The bottom line is, the SCC does
not want its businesses to be made any more noncompetitive than
they already are.
Number 2295
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted the information from AETNA indicates rates
would go up 2 percent, conservatively speaking. Perhaps it would
go up an additional 1 percent each year. Those are certainly small
numbers. Co-Chair Bunde does not have much experience in private
industry. However, 2 percent of a large amount can be a large
amount. He asked what kind of impact that would have on a
company's bottom line.
MS. NEAL said if those figures are spread across the board,
industrywide, there are some companies who would not fall into that
percentage at all. Perhaps the company does not employ someone who
would apply for domestic partner benefits. The companies who do
have many people applying for those benefits are going to have a
higher percentage. The AETNA statistics show an average, across
the board percentage. Some employers are going to be significantly
impacted, and the SCC does not know from those figures how their
companies are going to be impacted overall.
TAPE 95-37, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said most employers are not eligible for a
group insurance policy. There are programs of insurance policies
that are available to them. The individual coverages required are
simply commercially evaluated and charged accordingly. Small
businesses can join larger associations and participate in group
insurance policies. Usually the rule there is that the individual
risk of each applicant, not each employer, but each employee, is
evaluated, and the employer is billed for that coverage.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said from the private sector side, he is not
aware of any "pool" a person can jump into to spread the risk.
Every employer would bear the individual exposure.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said his office has been in contact with
AETNA, and he wanted to note that the figures read by Co-Chair
Toohey from AETNA were estimates. That was the one clear thing
Representative Kelly got out of AETNA, that those figures are rough
estimates. This area is so new, the insurance company just does
not know what the impact is going to be.
Number 098
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY added for the record that Representative
Robinson was referring to a study. The AETNA figures are an
estimate, not a study. He does not know that he has studies on
figures, but there are estimates. The word is that the estimates
are extremely rough.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on the bill as it stands.
He asked Representative Robinson to introduce her amendment.
Number 149
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved amendment number one, and there was
an objection for the purposes of discussion. Representative
Robinson said she feels very strongly regarding the fact that the
legislature should not be doing anything to erode the human rights
laws at this point. She would prefer it if the committee would
simply vote the bill down. However, if the bill is going to be
moved, she would like the HESS Committee members to pass her
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stressed that she did not "dream up" this
amendment. She tried to see what the judge's opinion was in the
case of Tumeo-Wattum v. the University of Alaska. The judge
clearly presents two options. One of those options is to eliminate
spouses from the definition of dependents. That would require
only the employee gets any benefits. That would be a major cost
savings to the state, if the state is really concerned about money.
However, that is not an option Representative Robinson would
prefer.
Number 253
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the second option presented by the
judge was to rewrite the plan to state that dependents to whom the
employee provides the majority of financial support include
"spousal equivalents." Again, this is not something Representative
Robinson came up with. The legislature recognizes spousal
equivalents as people who have shared financial obligations and
responsibilities by requiring them to submit ethics disclosure
reports. This is already in the state laws.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON also looked into issues regarding common-
law marriage. Representative Vezey in the past has inquired about
whether Alaska had a provision recognizing common-law marriages in
this state. Representative Robinson found out Alaska definitely
does not recognize common-law marriages. She also found out that
14 other states and the District of Columbia have recognized
common-law marriages. Common-law marriage is defined as people who
represent themselves as married.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the common-law marriage laws have been
around since the 1900s. Even Alaska looked at these laws in 1961
and 1962. However, the state determined not to move forward at
that time.
Number 356
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON continued that "domestic partners" have
been around for a long time. Palimonies and related issues have
been brought up in lawsuits for many years. In addition, many
people have been presented with the kinds of studies that have
taken place. The University of Iowa and the city of Seattle, the
states of Massachusetts, Vermont and New York, 50 other cities and
60 other universities offer benefits to domestic partners.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said therefore, this is not something that
she is bringing forward that is unusual and new. This is simply
recognizing that things change. There was a time when the state
paid female teachers less than it paid male teachers. This was
because it was felt that women were not the main providers for
their families. It took laws and lawsuits to basically change
that. It would have cost the state more money if the state was
currently facing those issues.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON contended that her amendment just brings
more people under the health insurance plans. Most people would
agree this is important to do. Those added constitute a very small
percentage, about 2 to 3 percent of people would qualify. All the
studies Representative Robinson has seen show that including
domestic partners does not increase the insurance rate. As far as
she is concerned, including domestic partners solves the problem
that the courts brought forward.
Number 479
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the amendment primarily states that
two people can set up as domestic partners. Two people are willing
to sign a contract that says they are in a life-long relationship
with a person. Within the amendment, there is also a series of
criteria that must be met to show those people are planning on
staying in an indefinite relationship with one person.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON conceded that the definition of
"indefinite" is broad. However, she pointed out that the divorce
rate in the United States is incredibly high. Unfortunately, any
relationship is not always permanent. She feels, however, that the
domestic partnership contract set about in the amendment will be
just as solid an agreement. It is a way to be able to deal with
the lawsuit that is before the state. It is also a way to stop
lawsuits because the human rights act is not going to be eroded.
Number 549
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON knows that Representative Kelly has
contended that her amendment discriminates against people who have
no money. Representative Robinson disagrees with that. Anybody
can have and enter into a legally binding domestic partnership
agreement. Representative Robinson went through the criteria posed
in her amendment. She said anyone can jointly own a motor vehicle.
The amendment does not say that the motor vehicle has to be a
$30,000 car. It only has to be a car. Many people have cars. It
is important to remember that everyone involved by the bill has to
be employed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON again stressed that only employed people
are affected by this bill. The bill does not affect unemployed
people. Representative Robinson offered to take HESS Committee
members through all the provisions of the amendment, however, she
thought they may want to read for themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the amendment contains ten criteria,
of which five must be met to establish domestic partnership. She
feels adopting the amendment would be the better route to go if HB
226 is to be passed out of committee. Representative Robinson felt
it was also important to note that the Alaska Supreme Court has
already decided two cases involving discrimination based on marital
status. The first issue involved landlords who were unwilling to
rent to unmarried couples.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON had some very real fears that HB 226 was
looking to eroding the human rights act supported in those cases.
Number 647
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON had other concerns, and those concerns
matched those of the Human Rights Commission (HRC) in that the HRC
would only support HB 226 if it was clearly defined as pertaining
to health insurance benefits only. As the bill is currently
written, Representative Robinson does not think the bill has yet
been narrowed. Right now, it affects all benefits. Even the HRC
felt the bill needed to affect health insurance benefits only.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON held up a large, perhaps four-inch stack of
Personal Opinion Messages and letters from people requesting that
her amendment be brought forward. She said these requests and
statements against HB 226 as it now stands is her reason for
introducing the amendment.
Number 721
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he felt the amendment was terrible. He
said to adopt the amendment and eventually put it into law would be
essentially codifying common-law marriages in Alaska.
Number 742
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY commented that he has some concerns about the
amendment above and beyond the discrimination issues. The
amendment does discriminate against people based on economic
status. In addition, in Representative Robinson's own words,
anyone can sign a domestic partnership agreement. Anyone can buy
an old junk car. That is the problem. Representative Kelly did
not want just anyone latching onto the employment benefits of the
state or private industry.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said that is why the amendment is a bad
amendment, and the law passed down from the Superior Court was a
bad law.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for public testimony on the amendment.
Number 798
DANIEL COLLISON, Vice President, Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian
Alliance (SEAGLA), said as HB 226 has made its way through House
committees, and its proponents have held that passage of the bill
will avert ruinous financial burden to the University of Alaska
Health Care plan. At this committee's last hearing, Mr. Collison
presented testimony which showed those economic concerns were
groundless.
MR. COLLISON summarized that previous testimony. He said nearly
200 businesses, universities and public agencies now extend
domestic partner benefits to their employees. There is no instance
of domestic partner benefits ever proving to be an onerous burden
to a health care plan. Overwhelmingly, the evidence suggests the
opposite. When domestic partners are added to these plans,
enrollment edges up by only 2 to 5 percent. Health care plans
typically see trifling cost increases of between 1 and 3 percent.
Number 864
MR. COLLISON continued that in most cases, health insurance
premiums remain the same. At present, the debate has focused on
the economic impact of domestic partner benefits on health care
plans. Committee members would be wiser to explore the economic
impact on the state of Alaska in the form of Medicaid costs of
indigent citizens if the Robinson amendment does not pass.
MR. COLLISON asked HESS Committee members to imagine for a moment
the following scenario involving an unmarried couple with no
legally recognized domestic partner status. One partner, Tom,
receives health benefits through the University of Alaska (his
employer). The second partner, Mary, is self-employed and carries
no medical insurance. Imagine that Mary incurs a catastrophic
medical bill. The hospital where Mary lies recuperating and the
physicians who treated Mary expect payment even if Mary has no
assets to cover the bills.
MR. COLLISON said in the end, the state of Alaska will cover Mary's
bills in the form of Medicaid reimbursements.
Number 929
MR. COLLISON now asked HESS Committee members to imagine instead
that Mary was insured with domestic partner benefits through Tom's
employer, the University of Alaska. Mary's monthly premiums might
perhaps cost several hundred dollars. The state of Alaska would be
the unacknowledged beneficiary of Mary's domestic partner coverage.
Mary's domestic partner benefits protect the state of Alaska from
shouldering yet another Medicaid claim figuring into the tens of
thousands of dollars.
MR. COLLISON said a vote for the Robinson amendment is a vote for
fiscal responsibility. Support for the amendment affirms the
principle that sound health care plans depend on many individuals
sharing the risks of health care costs. The amendment allows more
Alaskans to contribute to the cost of the university health care
plan.
MR. COLLISON concluded by saying a vote against the amendment is a
vote for higher Medicaid costs. In effect, the HESS Committee
members would be accepting liability for the medical costs of
indigent domestic partners. Mr. Collison urged the adoption of the
Robinson amendment.
Number 996
MARGARET BERCK, Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
Alaska Chapter, said she has practiced law in Juneau since 1976.
The ACLU is in support of the Robinson amendment if the committee
is interested in passing HB 226. Ms. Berck asked to respond to
Representative Vezey's assertions that the Robinson amendment would
establish common-law marriage in Alaska.
MS. BERCK prefaced her remarks by informing HESS Committee members
that she has practiced a considerable amount of domestic and family
relations law in Juneau since 1976. Representative Vezey is
correct that spouses are entitled to one-third of their mate's
estate under what was referred to "in the old days" as "the Widow's
share" or the "elected share." In other words, if Ms. Berck had a
will that left all her property to Representative Vezey, Ms.
Berck's husband would be able to claim one-third of that estate.
MS. BERCK said the heirship was forced. One cannot divulge him or
herself of his/her entire estate without the spouse being left a
percentage of that estate. The living spouse can waive their
elective share. Those kinds of benefits that have been part of the
English common law for centuries would not be affected by this
bill.
Number 1125
MS. BERCK said if she and her husband write wills and then have a
child, that afterborn child, in some states, is entitled to take a
percentage of the estate because the policy makers of the state
have assumed the parents would have wanted to leave that child
something.
Number 1153
MS. BERCK said spouses like herself would continue to have a
tremendous advantage both in the economic partnership and in other
aspects. For example, the forced heirship, the widow's share
(a.k.a. the spouse's elected share), etc., have been recognized by
the court system in Juneau as little as five years ago. It may
sound like an archaic law, but it is in effect today. Ms. Berck
was involved in a case in which the husband sexually abused his
child, and the mother/wife reported the abuse. The husband made
out a new will, leaving all his property to his father and then
committed suicide.
MS. BERCK represented the wife in that case. She obtained her one-
third share of that estate. If that woman had been involved in a
domestic partnership or a common-law marriage, she would have been
entitled to nothing. Ms. Berck has also represented domestic
partners in what Representative Robinson referred to as "palimony
suits." It is correct that Alaska does not recognize common-law
marriages. However, if there are financial relationships, the best
those people can get out is the cash they put in.
MS. BERCK recounted some cases in the Alaska Supreme Court in which
a person involved in a domestic partnership put up $10,000 to buy
a condo in Hawaii. Five years later, the condo was worth five
times the amount paid for it originally. A spouse would get a much
nicer share of that. The domestic partner got back only her
$10,000.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that would depend on who the domestic
partner's attorney was.
MS. BERCK countered that there is an Alaska Supreme Court decision
that stipulates when domestic partnerships are untangled, the only
amount of money one can take out is the cash that was put in. If
the two people are married, and the wife stays at home while the
husband works and has a successful business, the wife has equitable
interest in that money. Domestic partners enjoy no such equity
that is recognized by the courts. That is an Alaska Supreme Court
decision. Whether your attorney finds that decision or not is a
point to take into consideration. However, that is the law of the
state of Alaska as it exists right now. That law cannot be
bypassed, as long as the courts are aware of the Alaska Supreme
Court decision.
Number 1302
MS. BERCK said she believes it is legally incorrect to conclude
that the domestic partnership definition and standards to be
applied by employers in allotting benefits to employees would go so
far as to create common-law marriages. There would still be 146
statutes to which Mr. Owens referred that set up people who are
involved in marital relationships on a completely different level,
with completely different rights, and often with much greater
rights.
MS. BERCK concluded that she felt the criteria and standards set up
in the amendment seem to be drawn from real life experiences. When
people are involved in an economic and loving relationship, these
criteria are feasible. Ms. Berck spoke of a case in which a couple
had lived together for many years, and that couple met all the
criteria. The criteria, therefore, is compatible with what happens
in real life. In addition, the criteria would reasonably and
fairly cull out those frivolous relationships which the state would
not want employers to be responsible for.
Number 1398
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE wondered if there was any testimony up in
Fairbanks on the amendment. Co-Chair Bunde decided that since
those people already testified, he was going to take testimony from
Juneau first.
Number 1415
SUSAN HARGIS, Representative, SEAGLA, said SEAGLA opposes HB 226
unless the Robinson amendment is attached. This bill was presented
as an issue of cost to the state. Extensive materials supplied to
HESS Committee members have shown that these fears are unfounded.
Employers both larger and smaller than the state of Alaska have
provided benefits to domestic partners without adverse cost impact.
MS. HARGIS noted since the issue of cost has been thoroughly
addressed and dispelled, SEAGLA urges HESS Committee members to
either drop the bill or amend it to include the Robinson amendment.
This amendment sets forth strict guidelines which will clearly
separate true domestic partnerships from frivolous claims. It has
worked in other areas without a "rush" of people signing up for
benefits.
MS. HARGIS was puzzled as to why there is a perception that in
Alaska, people will rush to jump on the public dole. Ms. Hargis
did not feel that would happen. Ms. Hargis said that the exclusion
of amendment one would result in fewer children and families
covered by health care, and they will be more likely to end up on
state support if they have no other health care options.
MS. HARGIS said SEAGLA further believes that passage of HB 226
without the Robinson amendment clearly sets up discrimination on
the basis of marital status. That will continue to be contested in
court. SEAGLA urged HESS Committee members to stop this bill and
focus on matters of greater importance to Alaskans.
Number 1486
MARSHA BUCK, Chairman, Parents, Friends and Families of Lesbians
and Gays (PFLAG) of Juneau, has submitted a position paper in
opposition to the bill. Ms. Buck said PFLAG would like to go on
record as supporting the Robinson amendment. The amendment removes
the discrimination that would prohibit the sons and daughters of
PFLAG members to be in long-term, committed partnerships and
receive benefits.
MS. BUCK said her daughter and the daughter's partner live in
Oregon, where her daughter's partner works as a teaching assistant
while working on her master's at Oregon State University. Ms.
Buck's daughter is covered under her partner's health insurance.
That has been extremely helpful, particularly at a time when her
daughter was looking for employment when the couple first moved to
the university. At that time, the daughter had difficulty with
allergies and needed medical care. The care was crucial at that
time.
MS. BUCK said at Oregon State, her daughter's coverage depends on
two pieces of documentation out of a possible five. The Robinson
amendment calls for five pieces of documentation out of a possible
ten. At Oregon State, the five pieces of documentation include a
joint checking account, a lease or rental agreement in both names,
health care power of attorney, and beneficiary designation on a
life insurance policy or a will. Those are the five criteria, and
her daughter and her partner had to show two of those five.
MS. BUCK added that at Oregon State, her daughter had to show
financial dependency over six continuous months. If such a time
provision were added to the Robinson amendment, perhaps that would
address the concerns of Representative Kelly about possible
frivolity in establishing partnerships.
Number 1560
MS. BUCK noted the Robinson amendment is more restrictive than the
provisions in Oregon, and the system has been found to be workable
in Oregon, a state which is experiencing more financial difficulty
than Alaska. The Oregon provisions have not caused undue financial
stress on the state of Oregon.
Number 1591
SARAH BOESSER, Representative, Committee for Equality, supports the
Robinson Amendment with the clarification that HB 226 should only
address health benefits in accordance with the Human Rights
Commission's wishes.
MS. BOESSER asked to correct a misconstruction of the amendment
that Representative Kelly has made in the past. Representative
Kelly has wrongly implied that the amendment would discriminate
against possible domestic partners on the basis of their economic
status. He could not be more wrong. Far from discriminating on a
financial basis, a domestic partnership can be formalized at no
cost, while a marriage license actually costs $25.
Number 1620
MS. BOESSER said the Robinson amendment, also known as amendment
one, lists ten potential criteria. To be qualified, a person must
meet at least five of those criteria. Six of the criteria are
completely free. Ms. Boesser spoke to each criteria. Entering
into a legally binding domestic partnership agreement is free.
Being designated as a primary beneficiary of life insurance is
free. Being designated as a primary beneficiary of retirement
benefits is free. Being designated as the beneficiary of a will is
free.
MS. BOESSER continued that being named under a durable health care
or property power of attorney is free; having a co-parenting
agreement is free. Six criteria, all at no cost. Therefore,
protests that this amendment might economically discriminate
against anyone should be firmly disregarded.
MS. BOESSER said the remaining four criteria have little cost.
Opening a joint checking account can be done for as little as five
dollars. Adding a partner's name to a lease or deed can be free.
Ownership of cars can incur with just a little paperwork, if one
partner has a car. And, for people with credit, adding another
person to an account or a liability is not an expense. Any
employee could meet at least five with little or no money.
MS. BOESSER noted that however, that doesn't necessarily lead to
Representative Kelly's statement that just anyone can enter into a
domestic partnership agreement. When one looks at the studies that
have been done and notes the 1 to 3 percent increase in policy
enrollment, one can deduce that even though it is free to enter
into a domestic partnership, it takes people willing to commit to
each other to pick up the tab and to support each other
financially. This is not something people take lightly.
MS. BOESSER concluded that when two people are committed to one
another, one partner would like to be able to provide the other
with benefits. The amendment is good, and it should be welcomed by
HESS Committee members because it will guarantee that more people
will be paying for health care and fewer people will be on
Medicaid. This amendment does not challenge the institution of
marriage because all it grants is health benefits. In addition,
extensive research shows there is no economic impact in other
states.
MS. BOESSER said most importantly, by passing this amendment the
human rights act is not being "gutted." She asked HESS Committee
members to please pass amendment one. Without the amendment, HB
226 should die.
Number 1734
MARY GRAHAM said she has agreed with previous testimony. She is on
record as completely opposing HB 226 if the Robinson amendment is
not included. She urged support for the amendment. Ms. Graham is
especially concerned about the human rights act. Any law that
begins with an exception to the human rights act opens the door for
more exceptions.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked to comment on Ms. Boesser's testimony.
Mr. Tumeo, who crafted the Robinson amendment, wrote to
Representative Kelly that the whole idea of the amendment was to
keep domestic partnerships from being frivolous. Representative
Kelly's problem with the amendment is not that it is strictly
economic. However, in the places where the amendment is not
economic, it is frivolous. Where it is not frivolous, it is
economic.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said those ten criteria include economic
criteria. But the other criteria included do not prevent the
claims from being frivolous. Ms. Boesser said that signing a
domestic partnership agreement has no cost, and designating someone
as a beneficiary has no cost. That is true, those things do not
have any cost. But because they are so easy to do, and anyone can
do them, they do not prevent having people attach themselves to
state employees to get the medical benefits. Therefore, the costs
will increase.
Number 1827
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said right now, people who get state
benefits do not have to sign anything that says they are married.
HESS Committee members may be surprised if they do not think people
who are not legally married are not taking advantage of the state's
benefit system. An employee does not have to sign at the dotted
line that they are married. Representative Robinson knows of
couples who have chosen not to get married and who have had
children together. Those partners are covered under the state
benefits system.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said no where in the current state laws is
a mandate that makes a person state they are married. Therefore,
the amendment would allow those people to come into compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON also noted that the law says very clearly
that the domestic partners plan to live together indefinitely.
This is not saying frivolously that these two people plan on living
together temporarily. The two people plan to stay in a long-term
partnership.
Number 1870
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked about a couple living together that has a
child. If one partner is employed and is collecting benefits, she
asked if there was any problem with that child being covered under
benefits.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE assured Co-Chair Toohey that dependents are covered.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if a dependent has a legal status as a
dependent.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said a dependent is a dependent whether marriage has
taken place or not. Fathers and mothers are responsible for their
children.
Number 1916
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY conceded that Representative Robinson was
probably right, there probably are people throughout the state who
are not married and who are collecting benefits. But there are
also people who continue to run stop signs. It is not the state's
duty to now make running a stop sign legal because there are people
doing it. Representative Kelly therefore does not think that is a
good reason to change the laws, just because people are not obeying
them.
Number 1949
TALMADGE W. BAILEY testified that HB 226 is a bad bill. HB 226
seeks to bring the weight and authority of the state in alignment
with the prejudices of a special interest group. The amendment
proposed by Representative Robinson makes HB 226 a better bill.
With the amendment, HB 226 would provide equal protection for all.
HB 226 is a bad bill. As written, HB 226 would expose the state to
divisive and extraordinarily expensive litigation as gays,
lesbians, or religious minorities defended themselves from this
attack on their personal liberties.
MR. BAILEY continued that Representative Robinson's amendment would
eliminate exposure to such litigation and therefore protect the
state treasury as well as the personal resources of persons such as
Mr. Bailey.
Number 1992
MR. BAILEY said HB 226 is a hypocritical bill. It seeks to make a
highly artificial distinction between very similar interpersonal
relationships. In this day and age, many couples, married or
otherwise, choose not to bring children into this overcrowded
world. At the same time, it is common for dual-income households
to choose the insurance plan from the employer that offers the best
plan.
MR. BAILEY questioned if the state will not then withhold benefits
from a childless employee seeking to enroll her husband in a state-
sponsored health plan, why should the state then seek to withhold
those same benefits from employees seeking a health care plan for
her life-time soulmate, who is helping raise her child.
Representative Robinson's amendment makes HB 226 a better bill by
exercising this hypocracy from the bill.
MR. BAILEY said HB 226 is a discriminatory bill. It discriminates
against two women because one is not a man, and it discriminates
against two men because one is not a woman. It discriminates
against the woman who has learned that marriage sometimes means
abuse, oppression or neglect. Representative Robinson's amendment
makes HB 226 a better bill by strengthening anti-discrimination
statutes instead of gutting them.
MR. BAILEY said anti-discrimination statutes are not the place to
hide pro-discrimination rules.
Number 2049
MR. BAILEY reminded everyone present that those companies,
governments and educational institutions that have adopted domestic
partnership rules have not seen the dramatic cost increases that
the sponsor of HB 226 is using as a scare tactic. In fact, if one
looks at companies such as Apple and Microsoft, one should assume
those companies are getting significant returns on the money.
Microsoft and Apple, after all, did not get where they are today by
squandering their cash. Those companies are in business to make
money.
MR. BAILEY asked what those businesses are buying with the money
they spend on domestic partnerships. Perhaps they are only buying
freedom from costly and divisive lawsuits. Perhaps they are buying
public relations "brownie points." Mr. Talmadge likes to think
they are buying the precious commodities of employee loyalty,
teamwork, and productivity. Perhaps they may even feel obliged to
take responsibility for their employee's partners rather than
allowing cost shifting to the public sector.
MR. BAILEY said whatever those companies are doing, in reality
those companies are buying a combination of "all of the above."
Therefore, the question is whether the legislature wants to
squander money and time on divisive debate and litigation, or does
it want to make a small investment in the same things that large,
successful corporations are buying for themselves.
Number 2131
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked people on teleconference to simply provide a
brief, clear indication of how they stand on the amendment. He
called for their stance on the amendment.
MR. TUMEO said a scholar once said that legislation passed on
exception always results in bad public policy. Representative
Kelly has said to Mr. Tumeo that he is protecting a 5,000 year old
tradition, the tradition of marriage. Mr. Tumeo added facetiously
that of course, everyone knows that no one has ever entered into a
marriage frivolously or just for benefit.
MR. TUMEO urged Representative Kelly not to wrap himself so quickly
in rhetoric. Traditions also include slavery, prohibition of
inter-faith and inter-racial marriages, and the tradition that
women are property. Today's society has evolved and changed. Many
families are vastly different than those that Representative Kelly
wants to honor. Representative Robinson's amendment promotes
equality and fairness. Mr. Tumeo urged HESS Committee members to
adopt amendment one.
Number 2177
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called for the positions of Ms. Burleson, Mr.
Travis, Ms. Wattum, and Ms. McClendon. They all supported the
amendment.
MR. MILLER said the proposed amendment does not cut out all
discrimination. It just makes the bill less discriminatory. It is
easier to get married, to pay $25 for a license, than to spend
three days gathering documentation to establish a domestic
partnership. However, the amendment makes the bill better.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that all others on teleconference had departed
the meetings. He asked for the opinion of Mr. Owens, who said he
only was asked to stand by to answer questions. Co-Chair Bunde
closed public discussion on the amendment.
Number 2223
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY pointed out that while looking through
amendment one, to which he again stated he is opposed, he noted
that he has numerous business relationships with a number of
different people. Some of those relationships meet five of the
criteria listed in the amendment. He still characterizes the
amendment as codifying, to a limited extent, common-law marriages
in Alaska.
Number 2246
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Representative Vezey if he plans on
living with those business associates indefinitely in a domestic
partner relationship.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that was not a mandatory provision.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that it certainly was a mandatory
provision, under Section 8 of the amendment. Representative Vezey
apologized for his mistake.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted that the amendment calls for the
fulfillment of five criteria, plus the assurance of an indefinite
partnership with the partner.
Number 2269
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that the first three requirements in
amendment one are mandatory. Then, five of the ten criteria under
(4) must be met on top of meeting the first three requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked Mr. Owens if a contract is binding if
the contract refers to how people intend to act. He asked if a
contract stipulating intentions is meaningless.
TAPE 95-38, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. OWENS said the amendment calls for a contractual relationship.
Under the law, people form or agree to be bound to a contract and
can always amend that contract to agree to be unbound. It takes
the same level of activity to break the contract as it does to make
a contract.
MR. OWENS said if two people agree to buy and sell a car, those two
people can, five minutes later, agree to not buy and sell the car.
The contract is broken in the same way it was made.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked if there was anything different about
the requirements of a marriage contract that make it more difficult
to break, as opposed to the domestic partner relationship
agreement.
MR. OWENS answered that under Alaskan law, marriage is a legally
protected relationship that involves more than contracts.
Number 109
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked Mr. Owens to speculate, and asked if he
would be justified in thinking that if there was more of a
requirement for marriage contract between two people, and less of
a requirement for a domestic partnership contract, would it be to
a person's advantage to always choose a domestic partnership
agreement, because it would always be an advantage to enter into a
contract that is less binding.
MR. OWENS said that would indeed require speculation on his part.
His presence was requested to provide accurate, factual
information. He declined to answer Representative Kelly's
question.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said one of his fears with some of the
requirements in the domestic partnership agreement as it pertains
to bank accounts, ownership of motor vehicles, etc., is that given
the current attitude of the court, the state could find itself in
situations involving racial discrimination lawsuits. This would be
due to the fact that classes of people are set up in domestic
partnerships.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked if the state could find itself in a
racial quandary if the courts chose to read the amendment as
creating a racial boundary between a section of the population
which is traditionally not as economically well-off as another
portion of the population.
MR. OWENS did not know. The judicial activity in the intersection
between economics and race or class has really involved lending
institutions, financial institutions, their lending practices, and
what allegedly has been their systematic exclusion of certain
racial groups from credit availability and other economic
advantages that are extended to other groups.
MR. OWENS said whether or not such issues could "leak" over into
this particular area, Mr. Owens did not know.
Number 321
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY was trying to follow Representative Kelly's line of
reasoning. She thought the bill and the amendment pertain to
people who are employed, not to unemployed people. The amendment
speaks of a partnership in which an employed partner shares
benefits with someone else. Therefore, the amendment speaks to
people who, it is assumed, will have bank accounts, own a car, have
credit, etc. Co-Chair Toohey did not think one could say these
people are being classified as indigent, poor, or anything else.
The amendment only addresses people who are employed.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY understood, but he did not know how many
assumptions should be made when making law. In addition, the state
does not know how employee/employer relationships are going to be
changing over the years. There may be situations in the future in
which employees are paid very little. They may buy in because
health insurance benefits go with the job, although their salary is
poor.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said those people may not necessarily be
wealthy to afford those kinds of benefits. Representative Kelly
also questioned whether once this criteria has been set up, can the
state now discriminate based on the fact that this domestic
partnership agreement (Partnership A) has a child, and Partnership
B does not have a child? Is partnership B going to sue the state,
or whoever, because the partnership with a child is getting more
benefits than the childless partnership?
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked if a person who has five children could
sue because he/she is getting less benefits than the person who has
six children. Does the person who is well now sue because he/she
is not getting the amount of benefits as a person who is sick?
Representative Kelly felt all those scenarios were possible under
the amendment.
Number 457
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON summarized that she would prefer that HB
226 be voted down because it clearly guts the state human rights
law. By adding in the domestic partner section the law becomes
more fair. This is not a substitution for marriage. It does not
provide the same rights and privileges bestowed on married people.
The amendment provides a remedy brought forward by the judge. The
judge said the way the University of Alaska can solve their
problems is by adding a domestic partnership act, and/or making a
determination that absolutely no one but the employee gets the
benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON would personally rather allow people who
are employed to continue to provide family members with benefits.
She would like to correct problems by providing a domestic
partnership act that clearly and specifically defines what has to
be done. In addition, the amendment most importantly defines that
the couple continues to plan on being in a life-long, indefinite
relationship.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON hoped, if the bill had to move forward,
that the amendment would be added. At another time Representative
Robinson would like to discuss with the sponsor whether or not he
clearly wants the bill to pertain to health insurance benefits.
Right now, the bill wraps up every benefit that state employee's
get. She does not think that is what the HESS Committee wants to
do either. However, clearly the Human Rights Commission does not
support this.
Number 590
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY read a position paper from the Department of
Administration into the record:
"HB 226 amends Alaska's discrimination law by clarifying that
different retirement and health benefits may be provided to
employees based on marital status. The provision of this bill
reaffirms current state practices in extending health insurance
coverages only to employees, their spouses, and dependent children
as provided in AS 39.30.090(a)(2).
"The department supports the alignment of this statute with other
existing laws and current state practices."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE reiterated that statistics have been provided which
speak of only 1 or 2 percent. However, at a time when the
legislature has asked the university to take a $4 million cut, 1
and 2 percent is a lot of money. At the risk of echoing the
position of the SCC, Co-Chair Bunde stated that his position is
based more on economics than lifestyles.
Number 680
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that the legislators can give themselves
a 50 percent increase in per diem and keep a $9 million rollover
account "slush fund" in the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked HESS Committee members to remember
that under the university system, the employee who has other people
on their benefits program purchases and pays for those benefits.
If one was to look at how much money has been spent already on this
lawsuit, and how much more money is going to be spent to continue
the lawsuit, that amount far outweighs what it may cost the state
to allow for domestic partnerships, to settle the case, and do what
the judge suggested.
Number 747
CO-CHAIR BUNDE did not like to think that the judge runs the
legislature. He called for a vote on the amendment. Voting "no"
on the passage of the amendment were Representatives Davis and
Vezey; voting "yes" were Co-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Toohey,
Representative Robinson and Representative Brice. The amendment
passed. Before the committee was HB 226 as amended. Co-Chair
Bunde asked for the pleasure of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved CSHB 226(HES) be passed out of committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There were no objections, and the bill passed.
HB 246 - ELIMINATING PIONEERS' HOME PROGRAM
CO-CHAIR BUNDE apologized that not everyone wishing to testify in
Juneau and on teleconference would be able to do so, due to the
time demands of HB 226. The bill would be rescheduled for a later
date, when further testimony will be taken.
Number 877
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, sponsor of the bill, began by noting
that the short title of the bill is "Eliminating Pioneers' Home
Program." That is not what the bill does at all. The bill offers
an opportunity to transfer the operation of pioneers' homes to
private institutions, as opposed to keeping them state-operated
institutions.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS also indicated that it is his intention to
have HESS Committee members take no action on this bill
immediately. He would like to form a subcommittee and have the
subcommittee members discuss and review the intent of this
legislation over the interim. If there is an opportunity for the
privatization of the pioneers' homes, he requested that the bill
come back to the legislature next session.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS hoped those comments would alleviate a lot of
concerns. Many people fear some action may be taken on this bill
and there will be interference with their present conditions. The
intent of the bill is not to cause any upheaval or disturb the
current situation. As written, it is currently an impossibility to
pursue this legislation. Repercussions to current residents (which
is not what Representative Davis intends) would occur.
Number 1000
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would take the advice of Representative
Davis to work on this bill in the interim in a subcommittee. Co-
Chair Bunde repeated that he still would like to bring the bill up
at a future date so the people who would like to testify will have
an opportunity to do so. Co-Chair Bunde encouraged Representative
Davis to seek a title amendment, as the current title is pretty
strong.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked those testifying on teleconference to limit
their testimony to two minutes. He said he would try to hear
testimony from as many people as possible. Of course, written
testimony was always welcome.
Number 1061
PATRICK KALEN, Representing the Pioneers of Alaska, said the
concerns of his peers were pretty much unanimous. The bill was
discussed at length at a meeting held the previous night. The
morning paper seemed to put Representative Davis in the "hot seat,"
because as it was worded, it appeared Representative Davis wants to
eliminate the Pioneers' Home Program.
MR. KALEN now understands that is not what Representative Davis
wants to do. However, the very idea of making changes in the
operation of the pioneers' home was very disturbing to the
pioneers.
MR. KALEN said the pioneers are looking for some evidence that
privatizing would solve some problems in the operation of the
pioneers' home. Mr. Kalen's biggest concern regards the residency
requirements. Mr. Kalen said his organization understands that
everything is going to take a hit in the future. He hopes the
pioneers' homes survive.
MR. KALEN understands that many people feel the private operation
of pioneers' homes is the best solution. Mr. Kalen did not feel
there was a problem with the operation of the homes, and said, "If
it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Number 1162
MR. KALEN encouraged Representative Davis to call him so they can
discuss ideas. He also encouraged the HESS Committee to hold the
bill so pioneers can get a better understanding of the aims of the
bill.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that there are judges who are making changes
that perhaps many people are not happy with. However, those
decisions are a fact of life. HESS Committee members as well as
the residents of pioneers' homes have to deal with those decisions.
Co-Chair Bunde also encouraged Representative Davis to do more when
changing the title of the bill. He suggested the words "eliminate"
and "Pioneer" be changed. There are no longer pioneers' homes.
They are old folks homes. The state pays a $50,000-plus subsidy
for those that are on the inside as opposed to those who are on the
outside.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the state is going to have to deal with this
problem, and HESS Committee members will appreciate the guidance
and direction of Mr. Kalen.
Number 1238
BEAVER BENTLEY testified via teleconference that he too is a little
wary of the bill's current wording, which reads eliminating the
pioneers' home. He said that benefits are being cut at the federal
and state levels to the point at which programs and people are
beginning to suffer. If his health conditions worsen, he may have
to reside at an assisted care facility. He does not like the idea
of private care.
Number 1305
DOROTHY WESTPHAL testified via teleconference that she is a 33-year
resident of Alaska. She is very proud that she finally reached the
age at which she could join a pioneer group. She said she can see
many flaws in HB 246. Basically, the plan is supposed to save
money. However, in order to get those homes into saleable
condition, much money would be spent to replace equipment and keep
up the homes. The mechanics of handling the sales and clearing the
titles would be very costly. Ms. Westphal can see many obstacles.
MS. WESTPHAL said there would also be a large cost to the morale of
the residents of Alaska who wish to reside in those homes. She is
really against HB 246. She does not think this bill will work.
Her main concern is for those who presently have Alzheimer's or who
are going to need care. The pioneers' homes have wonderful
Alzheimer's units. She does not think this bill will make people's
lives better.
MS. WESTPHAL repeated that it will cost a lot money to even sell
the homes. There would also be a large cost on the residents.
Those residents have to find somewhere else to live. She asked
where those residents are going to go.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE assured Ms. Westphal that notes were being taken of
her concerns. The goal of the HESS Committee is to help the state
in financial issues. The HESS Committee does not wish to beat up
on people for the sake of saving money.
Number 1465
R.N. DeARMOND testified via teleconference from the Sitka Pioneers'
Home that that building was established in 1913. Over the years,
it has cared for approximately 3,000 residents of the territory and
state of Alaska. About a dozen of those residents were former
members of the Alaska Legislature.
MR. DeARMOND asked that a large effort be made to save the Alaska
Pioneers' Home system. Perhaps some modifications should be made.
To that end, Mr. DeArmond suggested the creation of a special
interim joint committee of the House and Senate, with the
membership from the Pioneers of Alaska, to look into ways in which
the revenues of the system might be increased and the cost of
operation might be reduced.
MR. DeARMOND said he would be faxing HESS Committee members some
specific suggestions about enhancement.
Number 1552
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Mr. DeArmond had listened to testimony
which took place in April 1994, when Co-Chair Toohey was helping a
committee do exactly what he had just recommended. The final draft
was something that apparently was not acceptable by just about
everyone. Therefore, she does not know whether the state is going
to have to wait until the situation is so desperate the doors will
have to be shut until a solution is found. However, major changes
are necessary.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said changes must be made that involve the infusion
of new monies (i.e., Medicaid and Medicare). The state must find
some more ways to bring money in. There must be some criteria on
what allows one to be a member of the pioneers' homes. As Mr.
DeArmond knows, many years ago, the homes were created for indigent
miners who did not have the ability to get benefits for themselves
saved over the years.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that changed in the 1960s and 1970s, and the
system allowed anyone to join into the system. There are people
that have homes who are spending the weekends at their homes and
the weeks at the pioneer home. That used to be fine, but the state
can no longer afford that. Decisions must be made. These are very
hard decisions to make, but solutions must be reached.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY encouraged everyone to get involved, and assured
the residents of pioneers' homes that she would never allow a
resident to be put out on the street. That will never be allowed.
However, ideas are needed about the future of the pioneers' homes,
or there will be no future for those homes.
Number 1644
ANNABEL APPLING, Resident, Sitka Pioneers' Home, testified via
teleconference that she has lived in Sitka for 79 years. She knows
what the pioneers' home means. It is a great place for senior
citizens. However, it sounds like the sponsor of the bill wants to
make street people out of them. Ms. Appling thought the homes
should be saved for the seniors. They have worked hard. The Sitka
home is the most beautiful in Alaska, and it should be kept that
way.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE informed others wishing to testify that after
testimony is taken in Sitka, public testimony will be closed on HB
246 for the day. Interested parties will be notified about the
bill's next hearing.
Number 1673
ART NIELSEN, Resident, Sitka Pioneers' Home, testified that he has
resided at the pioneers' home for the last year and a half. He
asked HESS Committee members to not pass the bill.
Number 1706
ANN JENSEN, Resident, Sitka Pioneers' Home, said that one of the
residents spent two hours at the legislative information office
last week, and waited for an hour and a half to testify at the
current hearing. She is in a wheelchair. She asked Ms. Jensen to
tell HESS Committee members that she is very anxious about the
bill. She has no place to go. She cannot afford to pay any more
money.
MS. JENSEN noted that in the 1960s, the state expanded the
pioneers' home system, adding new units between 1972 and 1988.
Other homes were expanded. That was marvelous for those residing
in the homes. But it also means that no private organization was
able to compete with those homes. The residents now have no place
to go.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE apologized for the long discussion on HB 226. He
thanked all those testifying.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1784
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|