Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/12/1996 03:03 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 12, 1996
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to the duty-free mealtime for teachers in certain
school facilities."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 474
"An Act relating to violations of municipal ordinances and
regulations; and amending the definition of the jurisdiction of the
superior court and the Department of Health and Social Services
over delinquent minors to add a further exclusion from that
jurisdiction for a minor's violation of a municipal ordinance or
regulation that is punishable as an infraction or violation, and
making a related technical amendment to that jurisdictional
definition."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 480
"An Act relating to physician assistants, including the treatment
of their services under group health insurance policies."
- PASSED CSHB 480(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 528
"An Act relating to applications for certificates of need and
licensing of nursing homes; amending the standard of review for
certificates of need for health care facilities in the state;
establishing a moratorium with respect to new applications by
prohibiting the issuance of a certificate of need or a license for
additional nursing home capacity in the state until July 1, 1998;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 465
"An Act relating to employment of teachers and school
administrators and to public school collective bargaining."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 512
"An Act establishing English as the common language and related to
the use of English in public records and at public meetings of
state agencies."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 451
"An Act prohibiting persons from receiving or attempting to receive
duplicate assistance; directing the Department of Health and Social
Services to establish a pilot project relating to identification of
recipients of public assistance; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 93
SHORT TITLE: TEACHER DUTY-FREE MEALTIME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/18/95 69 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/18/95 69 (H) HES, FIN
02/15/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/15/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/27/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/27/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/05/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 474
SHORT TITLE: VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES & REGS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) TOOHEY,Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/07/96 2648 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/07/96 2649 (H) CRA, HES, JUDICIARY
02/28/96 2944 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY
02/29/96 (H) CRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/29/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/07/96 (H) CRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 124
03/07/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/08/96 3024 (H) CRA RPT 1DP 1DNP 4NR
03/08/96 3025 (H) DP: IVAN
03/08/96 3025 (H) DNP: ELTON
03/08/96 3025 (H) NR: MACKIE, AUSTERMAN, VEZEY, KOTT
03/08/96 3025 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, DCRA, DPS)
03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 480
SHORT TITLE: PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/09/96 2686 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/09/96 2686 (H) HEALTH,EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/05/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 528
SHORT TITLE: NURS.HOME MORATORIUM/CERTIFICATES OF NEED
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/26/96 2884 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/26/96 2884 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/07/96 (H) HES AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/07/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 93
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1510
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 93
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
NEA-Alaska, Inc.
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 93
DUANE UDLAND, Deputy Chief
Anchorage Police Department
4501 South Bragaw
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 786-8552
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 474
BOB BAILEY, Member
Board of Directors
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 91598
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
Telephone: (907) 279-3511
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 474
DIANE WORLEY, Director
Division of Family & Youth Services
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Telephone: (907) 465-3191
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 474
JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 474
MARY HUGHES, Municipal Attorney
City of Anchorage
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650
Telephone: (907) 343-4545
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 474
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 474
WILDA WHITAKER, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4797
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 480
JEANNE CLARK
479 Slater Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-4117
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 480
KIM DUKE, Researcher
Representative Mark Hanley
House Finance Committee
Capitol Building, Room 507
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-6872
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 528
CHRISTINE CULLITON
Juneau, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 463-6131
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 528
JAY LIVEY, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 528
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-24, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
was called to order by Co-Chair Bunde at 3:03 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey,
Robinson and Rokeberg. Members absent Representatives Davis and
Brice.
HB 93 - TEACHER DUTY-FREE MEALTIME
Number 120
JEANNETTE JAMES, Sponsor, said House Bill 93 eliminates the time
designated in the middle of the day as duty-free mealtime. It
allows that teachers be provided with one-half hour duty-free
mealtime, but removes the time designation "between 11:00 a.m. -
1:00 p.m." in current statute so there is more flexibility for
school districts to determine when it's possible to give the duty-
free mealtime to teachers.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions for the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVES GARY DAVIS and TOM BRICE joined the meeting at 3:05
p.m.
Number 170
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON thought there had been some
discussion at the last meeting about leaving the designated hours
in the legislation and inserting language which would indicate
something to the effect "unless the union could work out another
agreement."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there had been an amendment presented for
her perusal which would have allowed the teachers 30 minutes
between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., but allowed for other
arrangements to be made. It appeared to her that if they were
going to be allowed to make other arrangements, there was no point
in having the 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. time designation. She
believed that unions have the opportunity to make that arrangement
with the students districts currently.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inquired why the bill was needed if they
can already do that.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded they can't do it unless the time
designation is removed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON questioned if a person shouldn't be given
an opportunity to eat between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. in most
cases?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES believed that everyone should be allowed to
have some duty-free mealtime, but she doesn't believe it belongs in
statute. If she had her way she would delete it, because she
believes the unions have the opportunity to negotiate this at the
local level. She would not want to deprive anyone of duty-free
mealtime, she just doesn't think it belongs in state statute. She
is, however, willing to leave the provision in the statute, if the
time designation can be deleted.
Number 341
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,
testified in support of HB 93. School districts need to be more
innovative due to the increased mandates and HB 93 allows
flexibility at the local level. For example, if a school is
thinking about double shifting, the time lines set forth in statute
are a major obstacle and HB 93 would provide some latitude.
Number 397
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, NEA-Alaska, Inc., said NEA had
offered an amendment to the sponsor which provided that other times
could be prescribed as the bargaining unit and the school would
agree to. He felt that would address some of the current issues in
many school districts, including the Fairbanks problem. He
understood there were teachers eating lunch after 1:00 p.m. in the
Fairbanks district because the teachers and the Fairbanks School
District agreed at the local level to deal with the issue in such
a way. He said HB 93 sets aside the 30 minutes that is finite in
the time period, and he thought the amendment would give the school
districts the latitude to deal with the issue, and give employees
an opportunity for a lunch period within a reasonable period of
time.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if NEA-Alaska had drafted the
amendment in the committee packets?
MR. MARSHALL replied that NEA-Alaska offered the language "between
such other hours as the two groups could agree to" which he felt in
effect memorialized in state law what many districts are currently
doing. It wouldn't be a disruption or cause a lot of anxiety for
people who had some concern about what time they actually would
have lunch if the time designation was deleted. He believed the
amendment addresses the issue in the spirit of involving people in
the decision and accommodates a scheduling problem, if one exists.
Number 583
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 93 out of committee
with accompanying zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected for the purpose of moving the
amendment. She made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON believed the amendment would allow there to
be an understanding that most lunches would be 30 minutes during
the time period of 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. but could be allowed at
other times if agreed upon by the school district and the teachers.
She felt this was a win/win situation in that it would address the
situation in the Fairbanks School District and also give teachers
a pretty good understanding of when they would have a lunch break.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he was not going to support the
amendment because of the persuasive arguments of the sponsor.
Number 693
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS said he didn't see any reason for the
amendment in that everyone has equal opportunity to eat when they
want or to negotiate, if desired, over when they want to eat. The
amendment limited that to some degree.
Number 738
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked how lunch schedules were established
for teachers and if it was a set time so they could plan their
lunch time? If so, to what degree could that time be changed by
the administration and how often?
CO-CHAIR BUNDE responded that his wife's lunch time was established
by the school. He added that different schools have different
lunch times, but he assumed they were all established at the local
level.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if a teacher could take a 15-minute
break in the morning and another 15-minute break in the afternoon
and call that 30 minutes of duty-free mealtime?
Number 847
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY said the language in the amendment sounds
as if there is no confidence in local school districts. He didn't
agree with that and didn't see any reason why the local school
districts and school boards should be handcuffed anymore than they
already are.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to Representative Brice's question
regarding the two 15-minute breaks, and said although the language
does not state a contiguous 30 minutes, it does say "a mealtime."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that larger school districts
like Anchorage have various starting times for their schools
because of the utilization of the buses. He supports the bill
because it allows school districts the flexibility in managing
schools that start and end at different times during the day.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote on the motion to adopt
Amendment 1. Voting in favor of the motion were Representatives
Brice and Robinson. Voting against the motion were Representatives
Toohey, Bunde, Vezey, Rokeberg and Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 93 out of committee with
attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE objected and asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the motion to pass HB 93 out of committee were
Representatives Toohey, Vezey, Rokeberg and Davis. Voting against
the motion were Representatives Bunde, Brice and Robinson. Co-
Chair Bunde announced that HB 93 had passed out of the House HESS
Committee.
HB 474 - VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES & REGS
Number 1004
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY, Sponsor, said it is known that the juvenile
justice system has had some great problems for a long time. Too
often young offenders are finding there is no meaningful
consequences for their delinquent behavior. This is particularly
true for those who commit minor offenses since the justice system
is already overwhelmed with serious offenders. Knowing this,
juvenile offenders have become increasingly dangerous and blatant
regarding their offenses since they know the overloaded system can
do very little to them. House Bill 474 would allow municipalities
to respond to less serious juvenile behavior by expanding its
jurisdiction to include the ability to subject juvenile offenders
to civil infractions and/or misdemeanors. This would allow the
juvenile justice system to focus on the more serious criminal
activity, while assuring that juvenile offenders of less serious
offenses receive more immediate consequences for their action.
This bill is supported by the Municipality of Anchorage and the
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce. She noted there were three zero
fiscal notes and announced that Mary Hughes from the Municipality
of Anchorage was available on teleconference to address the bill,
Jack Chenoweth, Division of Legal Services, was available to answer
questions, Deputy Chief Duane Udland from the Anchorage Police
Department and Bob Bailey from the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce
were also on teleconference to testify.
Number 1114
DUANE UDLAND, Deputy Chief, Anchorage Police Department, testified
he believed HB 474 would help the Anchorage Police Department
address juvenile problems early on. It deals with minor
infractions that kids commit that currently are not being handled
by the juvenile justice system. The sooner kids are dealt with and
know there are consequences for their actions, the better off the
community will be. He said he normally testifies before the
legislature requesting that legislation not be passed that has an
impact on the community as an unfunded mandate; however, in this
particular case, he is testifying that the Municipality of
Anchorage is willing to help relieve some of the burden on the
state as far as juvenile prosecution is concerned. There have been
a number of concerns expressed about this bill in both the Senate
and House as to who should be in control of juveniles, the cities
or the state. He said if the state was able to handle all these
cases, they wouldn't be asking for jurisdiction to prosecute these
minor offenses, but the fact is the state does not have the
resources. Those resources seem to be more limited as time goes
on, particularly as the system gets overcrowded with more serious
offenders. It is their intent to set up a hearing officer concept
with a maximum fine of $300, with the child going before the
hearing officer with the parents and the issue is dealt with at the
local level as opposed to being sent to juvenile intake, where
historically, juvenile intake has not dealt with it because of
their workload. He said that concern had been expressed about the
record keeping and that records would get lost because cities would
be doing one thing and the state would be doing another. He
suggested that police departments be required to notify juvenile
intake of any enforcement action taken, which could be easily done
and something they were willing to do.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions for Deputy Chief
Udland.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked how this system would work in
relation to the different types of diversion programs like youth
courts for example?
DEPUTY CHIEF UDLAND said he didn't think those decisions had been
made yet. They were very interested in the youth court concept, it
had the backing of the mayor's office and the assembly, and they
are looking forward to working out the details as to what offenses
would go before the youth court as opposed to what would go before
a hearing officer. It is the intent of the Anchorage Police
Department to fully support the youth court.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented that when this bill was heard in the
Community and Regional Affairs, it was stated that up to 50 percent
of the juveniles who have committed minor offenses slip through the
cracks because nobody wants to handle them. They are not hard core
criminals; they are kids that know they can get away with it,
because no one wants to bother with them.
Number 1308
BOB BAILEY, Member, Board of Directors, Anchorage Chamber of
Commerce, testified that he is also the co-chair of the Chamber's
Crime Prevention Committee. He said several months ago, the
Municipality of Anchorage brought a package of legislation before
the Chamber's Crime Prevention Committee to address law enforcement
problems in their city and state. Early on in the meeting process,
it quickly became apparent that juvenile crime is a serious problem
in Anchorage. Due to the lack of jurisdiction however, the city
has been helpless to address the problem. He said there are
juveniles who actually shoplift intentionally at Dimond Center in
south Anchorage, so they can get a free ride downtown with the
police department, knowing full well that juvenile intake is too
busy to do anything. He commented that HB 474 certainly doesn't
solve the problem of juvenile crime, but allows the local
municipalities to use their resources to the first line of defense.
It has been shown time and time again that juveniles will commit
crimes because they know they won't be prosecuted. When they get
away with it once, they have no hesitation to offend again. While
fines certainly don't deter serious criminals, the Chamber's Crime
Prevention Committee and the business community in Anchorage
strongly feel that a fine may stop a juvenile first time offender
from becoming a repeat offender if they realize there are indeed
consequences for their actions. Mr. Bailey stated the Anchorage
Chamber of Commerce board of directors passed a resolution
supporting HB 474 and urged its passage out of committee.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions of Mr. Bailey.
Hearing none, he asked Diane Worley to come forward to testify.
Number 1400
DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family & Youth Services,
Department of Health & Social Services, testified the department is
opposed to HB 474, but agrees with the concept. She said the
department realizes that something needs to be done early on with
kids inasmuch as their workload prevents them from intervening with
early juvenile violations, but they have concerns with the process
and a number of related issues. One of the department's main
issues is the automatic waiver of juveniles to adult court;
district court is adult court, not juvenile court. It opens a
whole new area and she felt it was something that needed to be
looked at in a very comprehensive approach with the entire juvenile
justice system. The department also has concern that when
municipalities have the ability to set their own ordinance
violations, depending upon what community picks which violations,
children and youth will receive disparate treatment. For example,
in one community they could go to district court, in another
community there may be nothing, yet in still another community,
they may go into the juvenile justice system. She also expressed
concern about the parameters of a municipal ordinance.
MS. WORLEY further stated the department has concern about the
Division of Family & Youth Services receiving notification. For
example, if a child had received 10 citations and had gone to
district court 10 times for those various violations, and then
committed a more serious crime and came into the DFYS system, it
would be considered a first time offense, not the 11th offense.
She felt there needed to be a process whereby the whole scope of
the youth's activity is looked at.
Number 1540
MS. WORLEY stated another concern is if a child in the DFYS
probation system goes to district court for a violation, the
division won't hear about it. In a sense, the juvenile has broken
their probation, but the division wouldn't receive notification of
it because the child would have gone through a different system.
She concluded that a number of the department's concerns are system
type problems they would like to have considered. She reiterated
the department supports the concept and would like to have more
immediate consequences for juveniles' activities, but it is the
department's belief these issues can be addressed through the
juvenile process if they really work at them. She added the
department would like to see many of these issues wait for the
recommendations of the Governor's Conference on Youth & Justice so
a comprehensive approach can be put together.
Number 1600
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented the bill drafter, Mr. Chenoweth was
available for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inquired which of the communities with
ordinances, would actually be able to utilize this legislation.
She thought that Kodiak had done away with their city ordinances so
everything could be charged at the state level.
Number 1642
JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, said that any municipality has the
authority to draw ordinances and enforce them. There is a general
provision in the law that allows them to penalize up to $1,000 and
90 days jail time, which is stated on page 2, lines 2-3. This
legislation tries to get at conduct that a municipality chooses to
punish only by imposition of a fine with no jail time or no other
stigma or punitive element attached. It was done that way so it
would be defined as a minor offense, as that term is understood in
the district court rules and should prevent the court system from
having to give the defendant a trial by jury or to supply the
defendant with court-appointed counsel or counsel at public
expense. Neither of those requirements attaches to a minor
offense. He said the Municipality of Anchorage had asked for a
bill that would allow them to charge more conduct criminally so
they could take over the disposition, and that did not require the
municipality to provide a trial by jury or court-appointed counsel.
Mr. Chenoweth believed that had been accomplished.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if municipalities would only charge for
misdemeanors and would not be able to charge for felony offenses.
MR. CHENOWETH said the penalty referred to in the legislation, the
$1,000 and 90-day imprisonment which is the maximum for
municipalities, is the equivalent of a class B misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked about the disparity issue in terms of
constitutionally. For example, one community could charge a
juvenile through the adult system, while another community could
charge a juvenile through the juvenile system.
MR. CHENOWETH did not believe there was any protection argument
that necessarily attaches. He used the example of littering where
it is so bad in one municipality they may decide to address it in
a municipal ordinance and impose a fine of not to exceed $300.
Another community may decide it is not a problem and not have any
ordinance for littering whatsoever. If a juvenile is engaged in
littering and charged, he/she would be charged under the state
statute, if there is one and prosecuted, or if appropriate, handled
through the adjustment and disposition process of the DFYS. The
fact that some municipalities have in some cases stepped in and
taken responsibility for prosecution but other municipalities
haven't, doesn't particularly raise an equal protection issue.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if it would be the responsibility of
the municipalities to bear the associated costs.
MR. CHENOWETH responded in the normal scheme, municipalities would
have to pick up the cost of enforcing their own ordinances. For
about the last two years, Anchorage has used its authority as a
home rule municipality, and instead of criminalizing a lot of the
conduct that many people regard as appropriate for enforcing
through a criminal ordinance, they made the violation of those
activities a civil matter and prosecuted before their own hearing
officers. In other words, they have internalized it, kept it out
of the court system and put the representation of the civil action
before their own hearing officers. Also, the enforcement of a
judgment given by the hearing officers is handled by their own
hearing officers. He commented that he had no idea if it had been
successful or not, but in the early discussions of HB 474 and how
it would be used in Anchorage, there was some indication the
municipality would expand upon the civil enforcement model they
have and perhaps make use of that. If they do, there would
probably be less demand on the DFYS system because there would be
fewer referrals of minors and probably little or no demand on the
court system because it would all be internalized within the
Anchorage court hearing system.
Number 1890
MARY HUGHES, Municipal Attorney, City of Anchorage, stated that Mr.
Chenoweth's comments were correct. She added that Deputy Chief
Udland had alluded to the fact that if this bill passes, it was the
intent of the Municipality of Anchorage to make these civil
infractions and the entire process would be handled in-house.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the disparity issue and asked
Mr. Chenoweth if different community standards were recognized by
the courts.
MR. CHENOWETH responded the courts will enforce the ordinance as it
comes to them. He explained that Anchorage is a unified
municipality, but in the Fairbanks area there are at least three
jurisdictions, the borough, the city of Fairbanks and the city of
North Pole, and all three may decide to address the same issue.
There may be three separate defendants, one prosecuted by the
borough, one by the city of Fairbanks and one by the city of North
Pole. The judge will take each ordinance as it is written and will
look at the circumstances under which the person is being
prosecuted. It doesn't necessarily have to be uniform either in
the definition of the offense or in the penalty attached, if the
court finds the individual guilty.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there is nothing that speaks to public
disclosure of juveniles in the legislation. He asked if there were
any conflicting statutes?
MR. CHENOWETH said the theory of the legislation is that if a minor
commits a minor offense in a municipality that has chosen to
establish an ordinance and prosecute under the ordinance, the
municipality would present the matter before the district court
instead of having an automatic referral of the matter through the
DFYS system. The fact that the minor appears before the district
court means the minor is in open court and those records are public
records. The legislation is drafted in such a way that the minor
would be prosecuted as an adult. Through a prosecution in the
district court of an ordinance of this kind, that information could
become public. The record itself would be treated as the court
records are, but the fact that the minor was in front of a judge or
a jury is something that might appear in the newspaper the next
day.
Number 2026
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that attempts have been made in the past
to address the juvenile disclosure issue but as soon as the child
becomes a child in need of aid under the DFYS system, the federal
government does not allow the records to be disclosed. In effect,
if the prosecution of these juveniles is kept out of the DFYS
system, the access to records is allowed.
MR. CHENOWETH said in the last two hearings on the bill, he had not
heard any objection from the DFYS to the release of the
information. While he personally has not gone back to fit this
legislation into the federal act referred to by Co-Chair Bunde, he
felt the DFYS would have cited that as one of the objections to
this approach. He commented this takes the theory of traffic
offenses, which municipalities may now bring before the district
court, and expanding it to other things that municipalities may
decide they want to enforce as criminal actions.
Number 2087
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to the concern expressed by the
DFYS regarding the lack of notification of repeat offenders who
have been before the court a number of times and asked Mr.
Chenoweth if this legislation could be amended to require
municipalities to notify the DFYS.
MR. CHENOWETH responded yes, he thought it would be a good idea.
If it is critical for DFYS or any other state agency to have this
kind of information, then there should be a requirement that a
report or the outcome of the offense be submitted to DFYS, released
to DFYS upon request, or whatever is felt would not be so onerous
as to discourage the municipalities from taking advantage of this
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she wanted to ensure that if there is
a need for intervention, the division has some level of power to
intervene for such things as treatment, counseling, etc.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS thought that if a youth was being tried in
adult court by a municipality, the information would be public and
available to the DFYS.
Number 2209
DEPUTY CHIEF UDLAND thought it would be easy enough to do inasmuch
as the police department has an excellent relationship with the
division and youth intake. Even if it is not inserted in statute,
he thought it could be worked out with juvenile intake to ensure
that information is exchanged.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON expressed her desire that it be in statute.
Number 2260
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, said it was difficult to take a position of
opposition to the bill because the goal to have swift consequences
and early intervention for children who disobey the law is a good
one. However, the department does oppose it. There is no
oversight in the bill as to what ordinances a municipality could
adopt. While shoplifting may be an area of concern to Anchorage,
if a person is tried in adult court for shoplifting, that person
would receive an adult record. That would be an unequal situation
compared to a person outside the municipality of Anchorage who
would be tried as a juvenile and not receive an adult record.
Although page 2, lines 14-16, state there should be no consequences
beyond that of a fine, a child would end up with an adult record
and if it's for a violation such as shoplifting, the conviction
would be for an offense involving dishonesty and would make it more
difficult to get a job, into the military, etc. As a matter of
fact, there would be consequences to receiving an adult record.
MS. CARPENETI said generally the department opposes automatic
waiver of juveniles to adult court, except for the most serious
offenses, because the mission of juvenile justice is early
intervention for children to guide them away from committing more
crimes. The argument presented by Ms. Hughes that the waiver would
be to a civil process is not specified in the bill. If a child is
waived to district court for a minor offense, the child will
receive a fine, but there would be no supervision of the child
because there is no probation supervision in district court in our
state. There would be no probation officer to try to help the
kids.
TAPE 96-24, SIDE B
Number 001
MS. CARPENETI continued to explain there is no restitution provided
for victims, which means the court would not have the power to
order restitution for a conviction for shoplifting. In conclusion
she said the Governor's Commission on Youth and Justice was
established to address difficult issues such as this.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE questioned which ordinance would supersede
which in a situation where there was a borough and a city
government.
MS. CARPENETI wasn't certain, but she assumed the child would be
charged under the law of the authority that arrested or stopped the
child.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Carpeneti if she thought the bill
could be amended to allow for restitution.
MS. CARPENETI said that was an interesting question. The
legislation was trying to cover offenses that don't give rise to
the right of court-appointed counsel and a jury trial. There was
a possibility of authorizing the court to order restitution,
depending on the amount.
Number 123
MS. HUGHES said it would be the preference of the municipality of
Anchorage not to include any type of restitution in the bill. The
reason for the current language was to avoid any of the criminal
prosecutorial concerns for the defendant in a criminal process.
She said with regard to the issue of shoplifting, nothing would
change inasmuch as there is no restitution now.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was further testimony on HB 474.
MS. HUGHES stated she would like to testify at this time. She said
HB 474 is fundamental as far as she is concerned, particularly with
respect to the juvenile crime issue. As is evidenced from the
Public Safety Partnership Program packet furnished to committee
members, the municipality of Anchorage believes the long term
approach to the juvenile issues Anchorage is currently facing is to
put together a task force, as the Governor has done, and look at
every aspect of how juvenile crime is handled, including the
authority of the DFYS to handle a particular juvenile crime. The
municipality applauds the Governor's efforts in that respect;
however, situations still have to be handled in the interim. Even
though the task force has set their goal as September to come out
with some type of overhaul of the juvenile code, she is expecting
this process to extend far beyond September. She said one of the
things this particular provision does is allows the city to handle
certain criminal conduct under the same code as the city's own
littering and loitering type conduct. In essence, these juveniles,
many of whom never even get into the system now, can at least be
fined on site for their crime. As Deputy Chief Udland indicated,
the municipality is willing to take on some responsibility and see
if it will help get a handle on the situation.
MS. HUGHES further stated she did not believe there was any problem
with the equal protection, primarily because many local governments
within the state handle varied matters differently and as long as
it doesn't rise to the standpoint of an equal protection argument.
She also believes that depending on how it is decided to handle
certain offenses, it is possible the Anchorage Police Department
can report to the DFYS, if deemed necessary, or the hearing officer
could provide information with respect to civil fines for various
conduct. With respect to the repeat offender concept, Ms. Hughes
said that no one knows who the repeat offenders are now, because
they don't even get into the DFYS system.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Hughes if going to court and being treated
as if the crime was very serious would be considered as
intervention.
MS. HUGHES said it has been the city's experience that it is a form
of intervention. They also have used juvenile's mediation with the
victim, which has been very successful. She believed that
attention being paid to the act was very important because the
juveniles feel they can get away with their activities with no
consequences.
Number 467
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what happens if a child doesn't pay the
fine? Would they be sent to adult court, sent to prison or given
another ticket?
MS. HUGHES said she thought it would be handled on the civil side,
as it is currently.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she understood there could be
imprisonment up to 90 days based on the language on page 2, lines
2-3.
MS. HUGHES said the municipality may by ordinance prescribe a
penalty not to exceed $1,000 or 90 days imprisonment, but the
municipality doesn't do that. They would provide a penalty of
$300 as is currently done and no imprisonment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her concern was that if a decision was
made to imprison the child, where would they go and who would pay
for it. While page 2, line 12, says that a person charged with a
violation is not entitled to appointment of a public defender or
other counsel appointed at public expense, what about the person
who has money available for counsel?
MS. HUGHES said a person could be represented by counsel in front
of a hearing officer.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if her interpretation was correct
that a person who doesn't have money wouldn't be able to use a
public defender or other counsel.
MS. HUGHES said the stature of this particular infraction is such
that it doesn't call into question the use of a public defender.
Currently, the (indisc.) the misdemeanor in the municipality of
Anchorage, and prosecute them all. The municipality pays for their
own public defender and is considered within their current system.
If an infraction rises to the point that a public defender is
required under the law, then one would be appointed and the
municipality of Anchorage would pay for it.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that page 2, line 4, clearly states that a
violation cannot result in incarceration.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented this does not deal with serious
criminals; it's the spray paint kids and the infractions so minor
that no one wants to deal with them, including the DFYS. She
suggested the municipality of Anchorage work with the Division of
Family & Youth Services and the Division of Legal Services in
resolving these issues.
Number 725
MS. WORLEY asked to clarify the issue of imprisonment raised by
Representative Robinson. A concern she forgot to address in her
testimony was if a child does not pay the fine, the judge can file
a contempt of court, and the child could be sent to the local youth
facility for a certain number of days. This could impact the
overcrowding situation, particularly in Anchorage at the McLaughlin
Youth Facility.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if there was a mandatory jail time for
contempt of court fines?
MS. WORLEY said she didn't know if it was mandatory.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was any other public testimony.
Hearing none, he closed public testimony.
Number 781
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 474 out of committee with
zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS objected. Based on the discussion he believed
there had been a consensus that an amendment should be considered
to include a requirement that notice be passed on to the DFYS.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE believed testimony had indicated that notice would
be given to the division. He asked the sponsor, Co-Chair Toohey to
address that issue.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she would like for the Division of Family &
Youth Services, Ms. Carpeneti, Mary Hughes and Deputy Chief Udland
to come up with an amendment that could be introduced in the
Judiciary Committee, which is the next committee of referral.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any objections to moving HB 474
from committee. Hearing none, it was so ordered.
HB 480 - PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS
Number 855
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced the next bill to come before the committee
was HB 480. He asked Representative Therriault's Legislative
Assistant to come forward to address the bill.
WILDA WHITAKER, Legislative Administrative Assistant, said
Representative Therriault's top priority was Sections 1, 2 and 3 of
HB 480.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Co-Chair Toohey to speak to her amendment.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she totally supported the basis for the bill,
which allows a physician assistant (PA) to have their nomenclature
made simple. Apparently there are some insurance companies that
will not pay physician assistant fees because the statute indicates
that physician assistants are registered rather than licensed. Her
concern is with Section 4, which allows a physician assistant to
receive physician fees. It as her belief that it would be
irresponsible for the legislature to pass a bill allowing a
physician assistant to collect and bill at the same rate as a
physician. She acknowledged that physician assistants are needed,
but they should not be allowed to charge the same rate as a
physician. It is her belief that Section 4 should be totally
deleted from the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned the information in the bill
packet regarding the Blue Cross federal insurance issue.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY explained that in some cases Blue Cross federal
insurance would not reimbursement for physician assistants, but the
nomenclature change in Sections 1, 2 and 3 would address that
problem.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the
amendment were Representatives Davis, Rokeberg, Vezey, Toohey and
Bunde. Voting against the amendment were Representatives Robinson
and Brice.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it had been brought to his attention
by a constituent that phlebotomist should be added to the list of
people authorized under Section 3, lines 17-18, to draw blood. He
wondered if phlebotomists were certified differently than the other
categories listed, or if there was some reluctance to include
phlebotomist?
MS. WHITAKER responded it was her understanding this referred to
withdrawing of blood for a test under AS 18.15.300 - 18.15.320
which dealt with blood tests for persons charged with sex offenses.
She understood that a phlebotomist draws blood as a therapeutic
measure, so for the purpose of AS 18.15.300 - 18.15.320, a
phlebotomist did not fit into that category.
Number 1171
JEANNE CLARK testified via teleconference that Ms. Whitaker was
correct.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the committee had before them House Bill 480,
as amended. He asked for the wishes of the committee.
Number 1198
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to pass HB 480, as amended with zero fiscal
notes and individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was
so ordered.
HB 528 - NURS.HOME MORATORIUM/CERTIFICATES OF NEED
Number 1251
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said this bill had been heard in committee
previously and she had two amendments to distribute to committee
members. Co-Chair Toohey moved to adopt Amendment 1. Hearing no
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Co-Chair Toohey to explain Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she is requesting the language in Section 2,
page 2, line 19 be changed from "may" of the original language to
"shall" with a specific moratorium so a specific plan can be
established at the end of two years to address the existing
concerns.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the amendment returned the language to the
original language.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY raised an objection. He didn't understand why
the committee wanted to make it mandatory that the Administration
approve every request for a new facility.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Kim Duke to respond to Representative Vezey's
question.
Number 1442
KIM DUKE, Researcher to Representative Mark Hanley, House Finance
Committee, explained there were different items the Department of
Health & Social Services had to take into consideration before a
recommendation was approved and Section 2 expands that so the
statewide financial need for additional beds would also be
considered. She added that Representative Hanley is not opposed to
the amendment, as written.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE explained the amendment would reflect existing
statute and it had been determined that hospitals or nursing homes
can't be built without a certificate of need.
MS. DUKE said, "Right. They have expanded language in this area to
take other -- language is expanded to allow the department, if they
find a lack of available health care resources in this state, and
also take into consideration services that are more cost effective,
which is the point of this whole bill, is to allow the department
time to explore more community based services and this will be one
of the considerations they have to take into -- before they approve
a CON (Certificate of Need). It expands that."
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented that several years ago Project Choice
came to Alaska, which allowed senior citizens to go into community
nursing assisted living care in lieu of a nursing home. The cost
of assisted living care is $13,000 per year, whereas a bed in a
nursing home is $80,000 per year. This legislation expands the
assisting living services in the communities.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he still didn't understand why the use of
"shall" was better than "may."
MS. DUKE said she believed the nursing association was concerned
that once all the requirements were met, the department still had
leeway to not approve their certificate of need. She believed with
the expansion of the criteria, there would be enough restrictions
before they are required to approve a CON (certificate of need).
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY disagreed. He explained the use of "shall"
would give people a position to sue the state for not funding a
program. There are all kinds of need, but there's the question of
a lack of money to fund all of the needs.
MS. DUKE say there is a requirement to take into consideration the
state and federal financing available for these services before
determining that a certificate be granted.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY didn't see where a lack of funds is grounds
for saying the need doesn't exist.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor to
adopt Amendment 1 were Representatives Robinson, Davis, Rokeberg,
Toohey and Bunde. Voting against the adoption of Amendment 1 were
Representatives Brice and Vezey.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that Amendment 1 had been adopted. He
asked Co-Chair Toohey to explain Amendment 2.
Number 1745
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY stated that Amendment 2 establishes a working group
to study the issues and report on long-term care. The Alaska State
Hospital & Nursing Home Association and the Department of Health &
Social Services felt there were some major concerns that needed to
be addressed as this is a large growing segment of our population.
The department has assured there would be no cost for the working
group. The report would be worked on during the interim and
delivered to the legislature by the first day of the Twentieth
Alaska State Legislature. At the end of two years when Sections 1
and 3 sunset, it is hoped that some of the questions and concerns
can be answered.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was a reason why no one from
the legislature was involved in the working group.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY responded there was no particular reason.
Number 1851
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he would like to consider an amendment to
the amendment by changing "1998" to "1997". He commented that last
year there was a long range fiscal planning group that accomplished
a lot of work in one year. He assumed there were statistics and
data already available, so he felt the group could have their work
completed in a year. Representative Davis made a motion to amend
the amendment by changing the date in the title from July 1, 1998
to July 1, 1997.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented she had no objection to the amendment to
the amendment.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE inquired if there was any objection to Amendment 2.
Hearing none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1985
CHRISTINE CULLITON testified her daughter, Courtney, was born in
Alaska 11 years ago, before home and community based services were
available. What was available to her family was to divorce,
(indisc.) institutionalize or give their daughter up to foster in
order to get Medicaid benefits to keep her with them. The family
ultimately ended up in bankruptcy trying to keep Courtney in their
home, but she ended up in an institutional setting. As a result of
OBRA 87, her daughter was able to come back to the state of Alaska,
but not to their home. Courtney was what Ms. Culliton considers to
be one of the victims of a hospital association bed. The money was
tied up in that bed and her cost in the institution was $178,000
for one year of care. Because there were no home and community
based services available, Courtney went into foster care in Alaska,
which cost the state $57,000 per year, and kept her out of her home
and away from the family that loved her. After three years of
being in foster care, the family found out that Courtney is
terminally ill. Courtney and her family lost the opportunity to be
together as a family during the four years she spent in a hospital
bed and state money went to hospital bed services. Ms. Culliton
remarked that she sat on Project Choice from the conception of the
project and helped with the TEFRA Option. When she hears and sees
what community based services are currently doing in the state, she
brims with pride. She encouraged the committee to support this
bill for a two-year moratorium. She commented the state of Alaska
has only had the opportunity for home and community based services
for two years, the first of which was a rough year because it was
a new philosophy for the state. She agreed with Mr. Knudson's
comment made a few days previous that this issue has made friends
from opposite sides of the fence. She said it's unfortunate
because ultimately the goal for everyone is to look out for the
best interest of individuals in the state and how best to meet
those needs. She asked committee members to walk the two blocks up
and two blocks over to St. Ann's Nursing Home and ask anyone of the
individuals in the beds if that was their choice. If they had been
given the opportunity to stay in their home with their loved ones
and receive community based services, would they have chosen that
bed? Of course the answer would be no. Ms. Culliton said not one
of us is more than a walk across the street away from needing home
and community based services or an institutional bed, if that's all
that is available. Given the reductions proposed by the House to
home and community based services and the administrative costs that
have been proposed, in addition to looking at this certificate of
need bill, people like her daughter will be forced back into
institutional care, and the cost will not just be monetary. She
encouraged the committee to allow the state to continue with the
success currently experienced with home and community based
services. Courtney has been living at home for two years and is
receiving the services she needs at a cost to the state of less
than $30,000 per year.
TAPE 96-25, TAPE A
Number 001
MS. CULLITON continued to not allow that moratorium, to have the
certificate of need continue, to have those beds be built, will
reduce adult funding for services under Medicaid. She commented
that adults in the state have already taken a severe reduction in
dental, vision, physical therapy and other services from the
optional listing in the face of budget reductions. It's
disheartening to see those services removed and to think of
spending money for a facility that will not support the people in
their homes and communities. She thanked the committee for the
opportunity to testify and again urged the committee to pass the
bill.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Jay Livey to come forward to testify.
Number 152
JAY LIVEY, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health & Social
Services, said he understood the effect of Representative Davis'
amendment to Amendment 2 was to change "1998" to "1997" on line 1
of the amendment, which changes the date in the title of the bill.
He said Section 5 of Amendment 2 sets the time of the
subcommittee's report back to the legislature as the first day of
the Twentieth legislature, which is next January. He believed that
what Representative Davis wanted to accomplish with his amendment
to the amendment, was already done in Amendment 2.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said with the committee's permission, the amendment
to the amendment would be withdrawn, and the committee would have
then adopted Amendment 2 unamended. According to Deputy
Commissioner Livey's testimony, the amendment moves the report up
to the Twentieth Legislature, which is next January.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG thought the amendment was to move the
period of moratorium from two years to one year.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that was his intent.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the committee had already adopted Amendment 2,
as amended and he assumed Representative Davis would object to
removing his amendment to the amendment.
Number 307
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "My desire was to have -- I think the
study group when it comes back with its report, would have any
basis for establishing this statute - this bill. If the bill is
valid and there is a concern and the study recommends an extension
to another year as initially indicated in the bill - they wanted a
two-year moratorium - I want a one-year moratorium with the
understanding that the working group is going to go out and analyze
the situation as it stands now which will then verify the need for
this legislation. If it says yes, we need this protection from
additional expenses, then we would come back and extend the
moratorium at that time. That was my intent. That's what I see
the task of the working group is to determine whether there is a
need for this legislation for two years."
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Livey to comment.
Number 415
MR. LIVEY said the department believes a two-year moratorium was
more reasonable for what was trying to be accomplished, which is to
create an atmosphere where more home and community based services
can develop. That will more likely occur if individuals know that
for two years there is a moratorium and during those two years work
will be done on developing a home and community based system,
instead of a one-year moratorium with maybe a second year. It was
the department's desire that the two-year moratorium be retained.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented it was her understanding the goal
was to look at the big picture regarding long term care. She asked
if Mr. Livey perceived that the working group would determine if
there was a need for a two-year moratorium?
MR. LIVEY responded the purpose of the working group was to
determine the number of individuals who could be served in the
community or in a nursing home, what the relative costs were
between the home and community based services and the nursing home
and to do some long term planning that would predict where
individuals would have to go in the system as they get older.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the department would need to come
back before the legislature in order to go to a one-year moratorium
if the working group decided the need for a two-year moratorium did
not exist.
MR. LIVEY thought it would depend on how Section 4 of the current
bill was rewritten, because Section 4 contains the moratorium
language and states that the moratorium will survive until July 1,
1998.
Number 618
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that for the information of the committee,
some committee members thought the amendment changed one date, but
a more significant part of Amendment 2 had been changed.
Therefore, the committee needed to move to rescind Amendment 2,
then rescind amending Amendment 2, if desired.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that he agreed with Representative
Davis on going back to July 1, 1997, because it would require the
next legislature to address the issue. He believed it would
benefit the long care system if discussions continued and that
plans to move ahead in this area should be based on need and cost,
as well. He thought a one-year moratorium was the appropriate way
to go.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS agreed with Mr. Livey's argument for wanting
two years to pursue long term care and assisted living
alternatives, but Representative Davis thought it could be done in
one year. He pointed out that with Amendment 2 in place, the date
in Section 4 would need to be changed to July 1, 1997.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS made a motion to adopt Amendment 3 to change
the date in Section 4 to July 1, 1997.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted it was a clarifying amendment. An objection
was raised.
Number 810
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she understood Section 4 was the two-
year moratorium section, so Amendment 3 would change it to a one-
year moratorium.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified the amendments. The date of the report
back to the legislature was amended in the amended Amendment 2.
Amendment 3 reduces the moratorium from two years to one year. A
vote against Amendment 3 is a two-year moratorium with an interim
report to the legislature. A vote for Amendment 3 is a one-year
moratorium with a one year report to the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked when the report would be coming to the
legislature? It was his understanding that it changed back to the
original language of the first day of the First Regular Session of
the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature, so there would be 120 days
in which to act to extend the moratorium.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said as the bill exists currently, the report will
be provided on the first day of the Twentieth Legislature, but the
moratorium will still exist for two years. If Representative
Davis' amendment is adopted, the report would be due to the
legislature on the first day and the moratorium would cease on the
first day.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE interjected on July 1.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated that was correct; it would be July 1, 1997.
Number 913
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said to further complicate matters, if the
amendment is voted down, they would need to go back and fix the
title, because they had amended it in Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON repeated her earlier question of whether
or not the department could lift the moratorium without legislative
action.
Number 974
MR. LIVEY asked Representative Robinson to clarify her question.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the bill is left as it currently
exists with the report coming back in one year and working group
decides a two-year moratorium is not what should be done, can the
department lift the moratorium on their own at that point?
MR. LIVEY said it was understanding, based on committee action
taken, the department could not grant a moratorium or license a
long-term care bed until July 1, 1997.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON interjected her question was based on the
bill as it currently exists, and based on his response she assumed
it would be July 1, 1998, instead of July 1, 1997.
MR. LIVEY responded that was correct.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the moratorium is in effect until 1998 as the
bill exists right now, with the second amendment. The effect of
Amendment 3 would be a report in one year and the moratorium would
last for one year.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked where does it state that the moratorium
would sunset in July 1, 1997.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE replied in Section 4. He asked if committee members
were clear on Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied no. Amendment 2 was adopted by the
committee so Section 4 is now Section 6 in the original bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "So now we revert back to Amendment 2
which says in Section 5, `Section 4 of this Act is repealed on the
first day of the First Regular Session of the Twentieth Alaska
State Legislature.' So what calendar date would that be?"
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he did not like that.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "Mr. Chairman, we need to relate the
actual date of the First Regular Session of the Twentieth Alaska
State Legislature with July 1, 1997."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it should be July 1, 1997?
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded affirmatively.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS withdrew Amendment 3.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted without objection, it was so ordered.
Number 1140
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE pointed out the new Section 6 needed to read
July 1, 1997.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to page 2 of Amendment 2, and said
Section 5 of the Amendment should be amended to read, "Section 4 of
this Act is repealed on July 1, 1997."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented the new Section 4 is the study
group.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS suggested the committee review the legislation
before any further action is taken.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public discussion and announced he was
placing HB 528 in a study group headed by Co-Chair Toohey.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the House Health, Education & Social
Services Committee at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|