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