Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/28/1996 02:05 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
March 28, 1996
2:05 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
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 529
"An Act giving notice of and approving the entry into, and the
issuance of certificates of participation in, a lease-purchase
agreement for a centralized public health laboratory."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 535
"An Act relating to postsecondary education."
- PASSED CSHB 535(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 435
"An Act relating to employment contributions and to making the
state training and employment program a permanent state program;
and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 384
"An Act relating to payment requirements for retention in the
Pioneers' Home; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 384(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 348
"An Act requiring that all official interviews with children who
are alleged to have been abused or neglected be videotaped or
audiotaped."
- PASSED CSHB 348(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 159(HES) am
"An Act relating to advance directives for mental health
treatment."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 529
SHORT TITLE: APPROVE CENTRALIZED PUBLIC HEALTH LAB
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG DATE
02/28/96 2912 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/28/96 2912 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/14/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/14/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/19/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/21/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/21/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/26/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/28/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 535
SHORT TITLE: POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG DATE
02/29/96 2962 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/29/96 2962 (H) HES
03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/05/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/07/96 (H) HES AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 106
03/14/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/14/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/19/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/26/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/26/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/28/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 435
SHORT TITLE: STATE TRAINING & EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/19/96 2488 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/19/96 2488 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, HES, STA, FINANCE
01/19/96 2488 (H) 3 FISCAL NOTES (2-DCRA, LABOR)
01/19/96 2488 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/07/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/07/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/14/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/14/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/15/96 2772 (H) L&C RPT 2DP 3NR
02/15/96 2773 (H) DP: ELTON, KOTT
02/15/96 2773 (H) NR: ROKEBERG, KUBINA, PORTER
02/15/96 2773 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
02/15/96 2773 (H) 3 FNS (2-DCRA,LABOR) 1/19/96
03/21/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/21/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/26/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/26/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
BILL: HB 384
SHORT TITLE: PIONEERS' HOME - INABILITY TO PAY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2366 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2367 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2367 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, FINANCE
02/15/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/15/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/96 2827 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 3DP 1NR 3AM
02/21/96 2828 (H) DP: JAMES, OGAN, PORTER
02/21/96 2828 (H) NR: IVAN
02/21/96 2828 (H) AM: WILLIS, ROBINSON, GREEN
02/21/96 2828 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
03/28/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 348
SHORT TITLE: VIDEO/AUDIOTAPE INTERVIEW OF ABUSED MINOR
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES,Therriault,Kelly,Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/13/95 2173 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/13/95 2174 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, JUD, FINANCE
08/26/95 (H) STA AT 1:00 PM
08/26/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/08/96 2383 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY, TOOHEY
01/23/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/23/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/96 (H) STA AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 102
02/10/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/07/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/96 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/09/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/96 3108 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 2NR
03/13/96 3109 (H) DP: JAMES, PORTER, ROBINSON
03/13/96 3109 (H) NR: GREEN, IVAN
03/13/96 3109 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, DPS)
03/28/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 159
SHORT TITLE: MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT DECLARATIONS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) RIEGER, Ellis, Taylor, Salo, Duncan,
Zharoff, Lincoln;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/13/95 1026 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/13/95 1026 (S) HES, JUD
02/14/96 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/14/96 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/14/96 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/15/96 2444 (S) HES CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE
02/15/96 2444 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DHSS)
02/15/96 2447 (S) COSPONSOR(S): ELLIS
03/13/96 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/13/96 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/14/96 2734 (S) JUD RPT 5DP (HES)CS
03/14/96 2734 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DHSS)
03/18/96 (S) RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/20/96 2806 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/20/96
03/20/96 2809 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/20/96 2809 (S) HES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/20/96 2809 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/20/96 2809 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/20/96 2809 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 159(HES) AM
03/20/96 2809 (S) COSPONSORS: TAYLOR, SALO, DUNCAN,
03/20/96 2809 (S) ZHAROFF, LINCOLN
03/20/96 2810 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
03/20/96 2817 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/21/96 3233 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/21/96 3233 (H) HES
03/21/96 3260 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
03/28/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education; and
Executive Officer, Alaska Student Loan Corporation
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2113
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 535
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General
Fair Business Practices Section
Department of Law
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
Telephone: (907) 269-5100
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 535
MIKE FORD, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 535
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 535
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
Telephone: (907) 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 435
JOE ALTER
Box 20304
Juneau, Alaska 99082
Telephone: (907) 586-6680
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 384, but in
opposition to CSHB 384(STA)
ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
Telephone: (907) 465-2200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 384
JAMES KOHN, Deputy Director
Division of Senior Services
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110211
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0211
Telephone: (907) 465-2159
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 384
GENE DAU, Representative
American Association of Retired Persons; and
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Box 20995
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-3816
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 384
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 348
DIANE WORLEY, Director
Division of Family & Youth Services
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 1106330
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Telephone: (907) 465-3191
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 348
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-34, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
was called to order by Co-Chair Con Bunde at 2:05 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Toohey,
Davis, Rokeberg and Vezey. Members absent were Representatives
Brice and Robinson. A quorum was present to conduct business.
HB 529 - APPROVE CENTRALIZED PUBLIC HEALTH LAB
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced the first order of business to come before
the committee was HB 529, "An Act giving notice of and approving
the entry into, and the issuance of certificates of participation
in, a lease-purchase agreement for a centralized public health
laboratory." He noted that testimony had previously been taken
and the committee had received written comments on the questions
that were raised at an earlier hearing on the bill. He asked if
there were any additional questions from committee members.
Hearing none, he closed public testimony.
Number 054
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 529 out of committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing
no objection, it was so ordered.
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY stated she hoped the Department of Health
& Social Services would take into consideration the economic
problems facing the state and keep the cost of the project under
budget as much as possible.
HB 535 - POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
Number 134
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated this was the second hearing on HB 535 after
many subcommittee meetings of the HESS Committee. The committee
had a committee substitute before them.
Number 219
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt CSHB 535, Work Draft 9-
LS1748\K, Ford, dated 3/27/96. Hearing no objection, the committee
substitute was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE arrived at 2:08 p.m.
Number 241
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education and Executive Officer, Alaska Student Loan
Corporation, said she had reviewed the committee substitute and
believed there were portions of the bill that support their
commitment to make changes necessary for the financial success of
the loan program. She pointed out the Executive Order introduced
by the Governor earlier in the session and disapproved by the
legislature, would have consolidated all agency functions under one
board with a clear and distinct focus on the general welfare of the
program and their customers. She said this legislation makes some
positive changes in the way of separating the institutional
authorization function by leaving it to the staff of the Department
of Education, while moving the administration of the loan fund and
the loan program to the Department of Revenue under the Alaska
Student Loan Corporation. This legislation does however, leave
unresolved the question of why two boards would continue to exist.
When she was asked the question of why the institutional
authorization function was not simply transferred to an already
existing body within the Department of Education, the State Board
of Education, she was unable to respond with any convincing or
compelling reason. Under this legislation there would still be
some inefficiencies of a state agency having to administer the
functions of separate entities without a clear basis for why one
would not suffice. By that she was referring to the fact that the
Department of Education already is subject to direction by the
Board of Education, a Board that is subject to legislative
confirmation and that is a function they could incorporate in their
existing activities already. However, having raised these
concerns, she pointed out the clear benefits to some of the changes
in the legislation.
Number 385
MS. BARRANS said the size of the administrative body (the
corporation under the bill) and the commission would be reduced
from 17 to 10, with 3 ex officio members. This change would
provide for some cost reductions similar to the fiscal note the
ACPE attached to the Governor's Executive Order. It would also be
easier to arrange meetings and to conduct Board business because of
the smaller number of members and the expectation of achieving a
quorum with less trouble. It does move the corporation to the
Department of Revenue and consolidates all administrative activity
with respect to the loan program into the one governing body. It
also refines the focus on the financial basis. The legislation
moves the institutional authorization function away from the loan
program to be staffed by an entirely separate governmental agency.
This would be part of refining the focus to eliminate the blurring
between institutional authorization activities and student loan
activity, which currently is a concern and does create some legal
liability for the loan program, as well. It also provides cleanup
to the archaic or unnecessary language that currently exists in law
which was discussed previously. She was appreciative on behalf of
the management team at the loan program, for the improvements over
the current situation that have been attempted in this legislation.
She reiterated that the Department of Education would probably have
some concerns with respect to having responsibility not only for
additional functions, but for overseeing the activity of another
board or commission.
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON arrived at 2:12 p.m.
Number 550
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referenced the institutional authorization function
being transferred to an already existing body - the Board of
Education, and asked if the Board of Education had ever had a role
before where they authorized institutions?
MS. BARRANS said to her knowledge they have not; however, it is
certainly a goal of the current Commissioner of Education to look
at authorizing or accrediting institutions at the elementary and
the secondary level. It would be a natural next step that the
board would look at the entire K-12+ spectrum of institutions
within the state.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the Board of Education had been just K-12,
not postsecondary education to this point?
MS. BARRANS responded that was correct.
Number 649
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business
Practices Section, Department of Law, said she would be available
via teleconference to answer questions. She advised the committee
that someone from the Attorney General's office would also be
available.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that Kathleen Strasbaugh was present from the
Attorney General's office as well as Mike Ford from the Division of
Legislative Legal Services. He reiterated that HB 535 was an
attempt to streamline the postsecondary education commission and
get it to the point of reflecting reality, while still maintaining
legislative oversight of the appointments to the board. He asked
if there were any questions or further testimony on HB 535.
Hearing none, he closed public testimony.
Number 710
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked why the decision had been made to
have the board confirmed by the legislature. She recalled the
discussion that took place in the State Affairs Committee about
what groups could be confirmed and which ones could not. It was
her understanding having this board subject to confirmation would
be in violation of the state Constitution.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the question was why his goal was to keep the
legislature involved with the postsecondary education commission
and the student loan process as much as possible. He noted that in
discussions with the various attorneys, concern was expressed to
ensure that we were in sync with the state Constitution. There is
always a possibility of court challenges and a variety of opinions.
However, the bill has been drafted so the postsecondary education
corporation maintains a quasi-judicial role; that is it meets on
appeals for the institutional authorization and is the ultimate
court of appeals, via the executive director, for loans to students
who were turned down. In Co-Chair Bunde's mind that maintains the
quasi-judicial requirement that is necessary for legislative
confirmation. He asked Mr. Ford if he had correctly characterized
the bill.
Number 843
MIKE FORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services, said
the power of the legislature to confirm flows from certain
functions of the agency. Under this draft, the agency would still
have a regulatory function over postsecondary institutions which is
a function it currently has, so the function is being maintained
for the commission. By virtue of maintaining that, the legislature
has power of confirmation over the board members. He believed that
in this particular draft the concept is to also have an influence
over the loan program, which would be moved to the corporation.
(Indisc.) the governing bodies of the corporation and the
commission are the same people, that legislative connection is
maintained. (Indisc.) have a power of confirmation over the
members of the public corporation because they are wearing two hats
in this situation; they are also the head of the commission and by
virtue of the commission having regulatory functions, there is also
the power of confirmation.
Number 906
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law, said the two different boards do indeed have a
different status under the Constitution. The loan corporation is
not subject to confirmation. She noted in glancing at the latest
draft, it appeared to her the postsecondary commission is similar
to the status quo and has a variety of functions including
regulatory activity. There is a potential argument that the
regulatory activity might subject this board to confirmation, but
it has never been confirmed and it has been the opinion of the
Department of Law since 1977 that it should not be. She believed
the history had to do with that regulation is only a part of what
they do. She pointed out that governors of both parties have
tolerated legislative membership on the commission and in the loan
corporation, even though it's not constitutional because it didn't
spend a lot of time performing its regulatory function. That
approach had to do with the fact that it was not subject to
confirmation and the trade-off was there were two legislators to
observe and participate. Consequently, the history is that this
board is not subject to confirmation. In her view there would only
be a strong argument for confirmation if the function was solely
regulatory. She disagreed with the statement that the loan
application function presents a regulatory or quasi-judicial
function sufficient to bring the board under Article 3, Section 26
of the Constitution which states what boards are to be confirmed.
The processing of loans and taking appeals is incidental to the
main function which is to raise the money and to make sure the
program operates. She commented there is a fairly substantial
amount of case law which supports the notion that the public
corporations, as Mr. Ford said, are not subject to confirmation and
in particular, public corporations that float loans. She thought
there was a fundamental difference as to what would happen if this
were to be argued, but no one has yet argued it, so that
institutional dispute which has always been there would remain if
this legislation was passed.
Number 1060
MS. STRASBAUGH said there have been boards with dual functions
before, so she couldn't say that a board couldn't wear two hats.
She noted that was previously done with the Personnel Board and the
Labor Relations Agency before they were split, but in both those
cases they were clearly regulatory and quasi-judicial. At any
rate, she thought it would remain a substantially up in the air
question with respect to the postsecondary as it is drafted in the
committee substitute.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for Ms. Williams' comments.
Number 1094
MS. WILLIAMS said she would defer the question of confirmations to
Kathleen Strasbaugh as that was her area of expertise.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY noted there was legislative confirmation of
the PERS and TERS Boards.
MS. STRASBAUGH said the appeals that come before those boards are
really substantial. She represents the administrator in those
appeals and they are full trial type proceedings with evidence
being presented and it is one of their chief functions. She said
there was some difference, at least in how much time they spent on
it.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY agreed there was some difference, but asked if
their duties weren't almost the same.
MS. STRASBAUGH said they might occupy the same number of pages in
the statute books, although she thought it might even be shorter,
but one of their central functions is to hear those appeals.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what the disadvantage would be of having
legislative confirmation?
MS. STRASBAUGH replied because it's not constitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "You can't tell me that the duties, if
you don't quantify them just list them, you can't tell me the
duties of this new board doesn't look very similar to dozens of
other boards with legislative confirmation."
MS. STRASBAUGH disagreed with Representative Vezey.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the past policy of the postsecondary education
commission sitting as a quasi-judicial body was to hear, with some
inconsistency granted, student appeals on loans from people who
were having problems with their loans.
MS. STRASBAUGH said that was correct.
MS. WILLIAMS said that is not a quasi-judicial role, as quasi-
judicial roles are viewed as more of a role of a lender making
decisions on what sort of leeway that lender is going to give under
the law. It's not an APA hearing, for example. It's a real
distinction if the institution authorization (indisc.) clearly APA
and you're sitting with a quasi-judicial body determining what kind
of institutions will remain open.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Williams to take it to the next step which
would be if an institution did not receive authorization and wished
to appeal to the board, would that be quasi-judicial in her
opinion?
MS. WILLIAMS responded yes, because they are sitting as the agency
under the APA that makes the ultimate decision of whether or not
that institution is going to stay open.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Barrans if people who have had problems
with their authorizations in the past have come to the board and
asked for an appeal.
MS. BARRANS said she believed in the last five years, which is what
she could address with certainty, there had been one such appeal.
MS. STRASBAUGH asked to make a correction for the record that the
three members on the PERS are the Personnel Board, which makes
personnel rules and conducts hearings under the Personnel Act.
Number 1327
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked why the student was a nonvoting member?
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said one of the goals in reducing the membership of
the commission was to eliminate designated seats. He has heard
that students have been assured that a student would be appointed
to the board, but we can't always depend on future executives being
as enlightened as this Governor. He added it wasn't that he didn't
want a student, but the concern was that if a student had a seat on
the board, other people would lobby heavily for a seat as well and
the board would begin to grow.
MS. BARRANS referred to page 2, line 19, and said one of the issues
they had requested was that the loan origination fees be deposited
into the origination fee account. She pointed out this is the
Alaska Student Loan reference, and the same language is in Section
30 of the committee substitute with reference to the Memorial
Scholarship Loan. She said the language in Section 30, has the
preferred reference where it simply indicates a direct deposit of
origination fees into the origination fee account, without the
subject to appropriation language.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE questioned what her intended goal was.
MS. BARRANS responded the goal is to have consistent language with
respect to the treatment of the origination fee in both the
Memorial Scholarship Loan Fund and the Alaska Student Loan Fund.
She thought it may have just been an oversight.
Number 1458
MR. FORD said it is the belief of the Legislative Legal Services
staff that the Section 22 language should remain because the
amounts are subject to appropriation. To delete it was, while not
constitutionally significant, of some instruction to the public and
to the legislature. With regard to the language in Section 30, he
didn't know why that hadn't been changed, but thought perhaps it
should be changed as well.
Number 1515
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the committee members would be comfortable
with considering this as a conceptual amendment for technical
cleanup.
MR. FORD stated he thought the language should be consistent.
MS. BARRANS informed the committee that the bond counsel to the
corporation would have an opinion on whether or not these fees
would be subject to appropriation. She suggested getting advice
from the corporation's bond counsel on the appropriate language,
which would be conveyed to Mr. Ford.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Ford if he had sufficient guidance from
the committee to make the language consistent.
MR. FORD said he could phrase the question to make sure it was
clear to everyone: The question is whether these fees are subject
to appropriation by the legislature? He said legally they are,
that's why the language was included originally. He added that he
would be glad to review it if the commission had a different
opinion.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE thought it was something that needed to be looked
at. He referred to the last sentence on page 5 and the first
sentence on page 6, and said he thought it had been duplicated.
Co-Chair Bunde mentioned it is very likely there will be a fiscal
note which meant the bill would end up in the Finance Committee so
these issues could be addressed in Finance.
Number 1599
MS. WILLIAMS suggested that "program" be changed to "programs" on
page 4, line 21.
MS. STRASBAUGH referred to page 4, line 29, and said it needed to
be clear that under the procurement act and in general, that all
legal counsel is subject to the approval of the attorney general.
It doesn't mean that private counsel won't be retained from time-
to-time, but ultimately those contracts require the approval of the
attorney general. The language in the committee substitute creates
some confusion because there are procurement code sections relative
to that. She suggested that it might be better to leave out
subsection (b) and have it track with existing legislation.
MR. FORD said he had no problem with that suggestion.
MS. BARRANS believed the language on page 3, line 6, should read,
"...a person representing the Department of Education..."
MR. FORD pointed out "department" is defined as the Department of
Education in the Definitions Section of the bill.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that since the bill would definitely go to
the Finance Committee because of the fiscal note, he would like the
question reviewed about the appropriation and then it could be
addressed in the Finance Committee.
Number 1702
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to pass CSHB 535(HES) to the next committee
of referral with individual recommendations and no fiscal note.
MS. BARRANS said that a fiscal note from both the Alaska
Postsecondary Education Commission and the Department of Education
would be available on Monday, April 1.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE made a friendly amendment to the motion to include
"anticipated fiscal notes." Hearing no objection, CSHB 535(HES)
moved from the House HESS Committee.
HB 435 - STATE TRAINING & EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
Number 1778
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented she had contacted Greens Creek to
find out what kind of involvement they planned to have in this
program. She received a letter in response from the lobbyist
representing Greens Creek which indicated their definite plans to
participate with the university in this program, in addition to
training of the individuals they plan to hire in the future.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Dwight Perkins of the Department of Labor to
briefly address the concerns raised by committee members in the
last hearing on HB 435.
Number 1806
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor, directed committee members' attention to his
letter to Representative Rokeberg which addressed the question
concerning how the distribution of State Training & Employment
Program (STEP) funds is determined and what communities were
located within each state delivery area (SDA). In response to
Representative Rokeberg's request earlier that day about numbers of
people for each area, Mr. Perkins said he had the total numbers,
but apologized for not having it broken down by area. He did
however have the State Training & Employment Program subgrants by
service delivery area, which included statewide, Anchorage-Mat/Su
and Fairbanks SDA.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY inquired as to Representative Rokeberg's reason for
the question; had he heard of anyone in Anchorage being denied
training by STEP?
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the nature of his question was based
on the idea that all the state workers throughout the state pay for
this, and his concerns were in regard to the methodology used in
applying these monies. Therefore, he had asked the department to
supply information as to the numbers and dollars put into specific
communities and locales. He didn't think it was unfair to ask the
department how much money goes to specific areas when they are
spending $3.5 million to $4 million. Additionally, he was curious
about the formula used. For example, the city of Wrangell is
experiencing substantial unemployment because of the closure of the
mill and he wondered if there was anything in the formula that
would accommodate additional job training in a situation like that.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she could appreciate Representative Rokeberg's
thoughts, but asked how would people be trained in a profession
that is not ongoing in their community.
Number 1986
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it was her understanding that through
the university system, the mining industry for example has
contributed equipment and money to a small mine outside of Juneau.
When the underground mining training is offered in Juneau, there
are individuals that come from all over the state and when they
have completed the training they go work in other mines or fill
existing jobs in Juneau. Therefore, it may not necessarily be a
program that's offered in a specific community to address a
specific job need, but it brings people from all over the state who
get training and go to work in that field.
Number 2053
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there was nothing in the formula
mentioned in Mr. Perkins' letter that indicates general employment
and wondered if unemployed parents inferred that unemployment is a
major portion of the statistical formula for the allocation.
MR. PERKINS said as was mentioned in his March 28 letter, the
formula was updated annually using labor market statistics.
Pertinent statistics, by service delivery area, include the number
of the six factors listed in his letter. He said we're going after
a work force of people who are out of work, people who are looking
to upgrade their training skills, or workers making less than the
average annual wage. He referenced Representative Rokeberg's
concern about whether people were being trained in an industry
where there are no jobs, for example the mining industry, and said
yes, people have been trained and have gone to work in mines in
other parts of the state.
Number 2132
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed disappointment that the
department wasn't able to furnish a better breakdown as to where
the money was going.
MR. PERKINS noted that he had provided an extensive package of
information last week.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the information contained the areawide
SDA, the Anchorage SDA and the Fairbanks SDA, but it didn't have
the names of individual programs.
MR. PERKINS pointed out there was a breakdown in committee packets
that showed the FY 95 actual statewide service delivery area grant
line items. The total was footed through the breakdown of the
different names of businesses and training groups that had received
the amounts, the locations, and the total amount. Unfortunately,
it didn't indicate the exact number of people, except for the
Fairbanks service delivery area which specified the names of the
people, how much was spent, the industry specific on-the-job
training, participants at UAF for training, upgrading skills, etc.
Mr. Perkins offered to provide Representative Rokeberg with the
information to his liking if Representative Rokeberg would let him
know exactly what information he was seeking.
Number 2254
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony.
Number 2259
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved HB 435 out of committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes to the next
committee of referral. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted for the record there were corrected fiscal
notes. Fiscal notes 3 and 4, and a new fiscal note from the
Department of Community & Regional Affairs dated 3/18/96 were the
corrected fiscal notes.
HB 384 - PIONEERS' HOME - INABILITY TO PAY
Number 2297
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, Sponsor, said House Bill 384 provides a
statutory protection for the residents of the state's Pioneers'
Homes. It has always been the policy of the state of Alaska not to
evict a resident if they did not have the resources or the money to
pay. Currently, 86 of the approximately 600 residents of the
Pioneers' Homes in the state do not pay the full rent. He
expressed concern that when the Governor, with the concurrence of
the Senior Commission in the state, advised and agreed to raise
significantly the rents in the Pioneers' Homes this year, the
residents of the homes became very fearful of what was going to
happen to them. He became aware of this because his mother is a
resident of the Anchorage Pioneer Home in the first level of basic
assisted living. He noted for the record that his mother is fully
capable and has sufficient net worth to withstand any increase in
the rates, so that's not why he's interested in this bill.
TAPE 96-34, SIDE B
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he has made many friends in
the Pioneers' Homes and his interest stems from the fear and
concern he has seen in the eyes of those residents of the homes.
These people have extraordinary concerns because they know they
don't have the ability to meet the new rate schedules. They are
fearful to this day because they don't understand how politics work
and the way the world works. All they know is that the rates are
going up, they don't have the money to pay for it and are fearful
of being thrown out in the street.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it was kind of ironic that he first
became aware of the legal circumstance and the lack of any
statutory protection for the residents when Representative Davis,
Representative Robinson and he were on a subcommittee last year and
there was testimony by Director Connie Sipe as to the fact that
there was no statutory authority. It's just something that all
residents of the state of Alaska truly believe because it has been
the policy since 1913 that no one would be thrown out due to their
inability to pay.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said HB 435 memorializes the state policy
in statute. He said normally most legislators are concerned about
the fiscal notes attached to their bills, but he felt he could take
the fiscal note and the footnote to the fiscal note and make it his
sponsor statement for this legislation. The administration is
fully supportive of this bill. It has a zero fiscal note as it
will not have any fiscal impact on the state because of the
existing state policy.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG directed the attention of the committee to
the Ombudsman Office report, specifically area 4 which states, "The
legislature should insist by either enacting statute or adopting a
resolution that the state agencies unwritten policies be set out
either in statute, regulation or departmental policy and procedures
manuals so that the affected members of the public are informed of
the policies and procedures that apply to them when dealing with
state agencies." He said it has been the unwritten state policy
never to throw anyone out of a Pioneers' Home, and it needs to be
given statutory authority. He referred to the memorandum in the
committee packets dated March 13, 1996, addressed to him from James
Kohn, Deputy Director of the Division of Senior Services and said
his mother's rate for the basic assisting living was $860 per
month. He noted that had been increased twice in the last two
fiscal years; this year there was no increase because they were
anticipating another raise. In any event, it's been raised 10
percent in the two fiscal years it was raised. Starting July 1,
1996, her rent will go up 50 percent to $1289, and there will be a
one-seventh increment each succeeding fiscal year. In FY 98, it
will raise to $1718 which is about a 33 percent increase from the
current rate; $2147 in FY 99 which is a 25 percent raise, and so on
up to $3,862 in just seven years. He said there is no question
this is a bargain. He thought the committee should guard against
discussing the entire philosophy of the Pioneers' Homes, but on the
other hand the nature of these homes should be addressed which is
to provide a place of care.
Number 174
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted this bill had a hearing before the
State Affairs Committee where committee members expressed concern
about the future fiscal realities of the state and the ability of
the Pioneers' Homes to exist. Therefore, they insisted that a
change be made in the language to indicate that as of the effective
date of this bill, only those people who were presently residents
of the Pioneers' Homes would be protected as far as being evicted.
Thus, any future resident could potentially be evicted if they did
not have the money to pay. Representative Rokeberg said he agreed
to the amendment only to move the bill along in the process, but as
the bill stands now with the State Affairs committee substitute, he
would withdraw the bill unless it was amended in the HESS
committee. He noted that he had prepared an amendment.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to the memorandum regarding the rate
increase and said obviously the Administration's goal was to raise
the rate in 2003 to the level of the estimated monthly cost, but
that's the monthly cost in 1996. Using the basic assisted living
as an example, he pointed out that presently the cost to provide
the service is $3,000 more per month than the rent. He questioned
when the cost to provide the service reaches $3,862 a month in the
year 2003 how will that relate to the actual cost?
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that Mr. Kohn was available to respond
but he wanted to comment that those are the costs of the state
running an operation. He said to him, that doesn't necessarily
mean what the private sector costs are and he believes there are
ways that monies can be saved even with the existing program. In
other words, he believes that efficiencies could be implemented to
offset any inflationary costs (indisc.-paper shuffling).
Number 303
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he appreciated the amendment and agreed
wholeheartedly that segregating the new residents from existing
residents was wrong. He also suggested that perhaps the logic
behind the State Affairs Committee was that the future fiscal
impact was faulty by not having this language in the bill.
Number 344
JOE ALTER testified that he had a deep interest in Pioneers' Homes.
He is currently serving as chairperson for a volunteer board made
up of representatives from each of the geographic areas where
Pioneers' Homes are located. He noted that once a year the entire
board visits each Pioneers' Home for the purpose of holding a
public hearing in which the residents, family members and community
persons may participate. He said that last fall the board visited
each of the homes, which is what led him to testify in opposition
to CSHB 384, but in support of the original HB 384. He advised
that in the hearings throughout the state, there was fear expressed
that the rates would be raised in the Pioneers' Homes to help close
the fiscal gap and residents were concerned about what would happen
if they were unable to pay the rate. The board debated these
issues, but the board in its knowledge of the need to close the
fiscal gap and its need to make the payments more fair for each of
the residents, particularly those who could pay more than what they
have been paying, adopted a recommendation. The recommendation was
made to the Governor in letter form dated October 9, 1995, that
recovery of the full cost of care be made over about a seven year
time period, with the idea the board was doing their part in trying
to cooperate in meeting the fiscal gap and yet dealing with people
in a humane way. He said the residents expressed concern, even
more than before, about what would happen to them when they were
unable to pay their rent. He noted the third paragraph of the
October 9 letter, states these are crossroads times in which we
need to define public policy in relation to the Pioneers' Homes.
He said particularly it needs to be defined for the comfort and the
ability to live a healthy life for those people who are now living
in the Pioneers' Homes as well as future residents.
MR. ALTER stated with those thoughts in the background, he had no
other recourse than to say he supports the original bill. He felt
that if the State Affairs committee substitute was adopted, a mixed
public policy message would be sent in that one group of residents
would be treated differently than the other residents. He asked
what would happen to people if they were thrown out and who pays
the bill? In his opinion, it would be the same person that's
paying when they can't afford to pay, whether they're in a
Pioneers' Home or outside of the Pioneers' Home.
MR. ALTER said that since most of the people in Pioneers' Homes are
suffering from Alzheimer's or related dementia, and currently there
isn't any other place for them to go other than the Pioneers' Home,
unless they were sent to a mental hospital where the cost is
significantly more.
Number 543
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted there is no mental hospital that accepts
Alzheimer's patients. The Alaska Psychiatric Institute does not
take Alzheimer's and Harborview is being closed. She referred to
a letter dated December 15, 1994, from Connie Sipe, Director of
Senior Services, which states, "The new rates will be effective
beginning February 1, 1995. If you have income or assets, you must
pay the rate charged. If you do have sufficient income or assets,
please talk to the social worker or a business office staff member
for assistance. No one who is unable to pay the full rate will be
asked to leave the Home or be discriminated against in any way."
She asked Mr. Alter if anyone has ever led him to believe there is
any other plan that would cause people not to believe the letter?
MR. ALTER responded that question comes up repeatedly from the
residents in the Pioneers' Homes.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked him if the residents were not made aware of
the letter.
MR. ALTER said yes, but generally when people address the issue
with the residents of the homes, it is usually prefaced with "It
has been the policy to do this, but we don't know what the policy
is going to be in the future." He added that based on the past 80
years, the policy has been not to throw people out.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE made reference to the Board's proposal to the
Governor that residents pay gradually up to the cost, and the
memorandum from Deputy Director Kohn that indicates the cost in
2003 will be the same as the cost is now and said he didn't think
people were getting the full information.
MR. ALTER said Co-Chair Bunde's point was well taken. The Board
was under the impression that the estimated cost for the year 2003
is estimated to be the full cost of care at that time for the type
of service that the homes are rendering. He added that the homes
are gradually zeroing in on not being everything to everybody, but
focusing on where the greatest need can be met for the greatest
number of people.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said if mixed messages were being sent to the
public, it needed to be stopped.
Number 682
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON thought some of the fears stem from the
residents hearing about government downsizing, budget cutting,
privatizing and not quite understanding how politics work. For
many of them receiving a letter from the government indicating
there will not be a problem if they are unable to pay their rent is
not enough security for them.
Number 735
ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration,
testified that Co-Chair Bunde was correct in talking about the
potential for people to be misled about what the full cost of care
will be in the year 2003, but it is the department's intent to be
at full cost of care by dividing by the remaining number of years,
each year as the rate adjustments are done. She said, "The concern
we had in trying to project what that cost of care would be is
that, when we look at the historical patterns of the Pioneers'
Homes, in fact we are appropriating less money today for the
Pioneers' Home operations than we were three or four years ago
because the nature of the business has changed." She emphasized
that the department would do everything they could to hold the cost
down in providing these services. She commented that rather than
using some projected inflationary cost to demonstrate what that
rate would be, the department was basing it on today's full cost of
care.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he takes comfort that the department is working
toward an undetermined but real number at some time and people
would be kept informed. He questioned the zero fiscal note and
asked if there was a fiscal note somewhere that reflected the cost
of the Pioneers' Homes?
MS. ELGEE responded the Pioneers' Home budget is a part of the
Department of Administration budget and the proposal for FY 97
reflected an increase in the designated receipts that come from
residents based on this plan to raise rates effective July 1.
Number 817
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how diligent the department was in following
up on residents' assets and incomes?
MS. ELGEE replied the department was currently in the process of
drafting new regulations for the (indisc.-paper shuffling) rate
increases and the existing regulations will be substantially
modified to more closely correspond to the spousal impoverishment
statutes for Medicaid, so people are not put in a position of one
family member living in a Pioneers' Home and another family member
still living in a private residence. The department does not want
to jeopardize that kind of environment.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the department tracked the other assets.
She said it is very clear that an individual cannot live in a
Pioneers' Home and then go to their empty home on the weekend. She
was personally aware of cases in Anchorage where that was
happening. She objected to that because there were people trying
to get into the Pioneers' Home who don't have the money and qualify
for the original intent of the Pioneers' Home, which was to help
indigent Alaskans. Her concern was if the department was not
following up on this, then the services are not being provided to
the people who really need the service of the Pioneers' Home. In
her opinion, this bill was not really needed because there is
assurance that people are not going to be kicked out of the
Pioneers' Home because of their inability to pay.
MS. ELGEE stated that just one of the outcomes of the announcement
that rates were going to be raised, is that those individuals who
don't really need the services of the Pioneers' Home are in fact
relocating out of the Pioneers' Home.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Co-Chair Toohey if there was an amendment to
the bill that would require enforcement of regulations.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY thought the best thing to do was to review the
entire program. She reiterated she just did not see the need for
this legislation.
MS. ELGEE said as the department has gone into this regulation
development process, their attorneys have advised them that the
existing statute is being stretched to put into regulation the
statement that admission will not be disallowed based on ability to
pay or kick people out. The attorneys would be more comfortable if
this policy statement was set in statute, and it would be helpful
to the department in that respect. It has always been the policy,
and it is the department's intent to continue the policy, but they
would be on firmer ground if it was in statute.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented he is a member of the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee and if Co-Chair Toohey felt the regulations
were not being judiciously applied, he would be happy to
investigate and precipitate an audit.
Number 1021
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Elgee to respond to the statement
under number 3, reasons for termination of contract of the
Pioneers' Home Assisted Living Contract which reads, "for violation
of the terms of the residential services contract, including
failure to pay costs incurred under the contract."
MS. ELGEE asked Mr. Kohn, Deputy Director of the Division of Senior
Services to respond.
Number 1070
JAMES KOHN, Deputy Director, Division of Senior Services,
Department of Administration, said the department is moving toward
implementing the assisted living legislation that was passed last
year and all the Pioneers' Homes will be assisted living
facilities, which require under that legislation, that contracts be
drawn up between the resident and the Pioneers' Homes. The
contract in the committee packets is a draft of the contract and
changes have since been made. For example, a parenthetical
statement has been added following the statement referred to by
Representative Rokeberg which indicates it is based on the
resident's ability to pay and advises residents of their rights
under the Administrative Code to apply for the stipend. He pointed
out that couldn't pay and won't pay are two different things; there
have been people who could pay, but wouldn't pay and then there
have been residents who can't pay. The department requires a full
disclosure of assets and income for residents who can't pay and
then the department determines what they are able to pay. The
amount the individual is unable to pay is maintained in a ledger as
a debt to the state and if there is an estate at the time of the
resident's death, the department applies to the estate for the
indebtedness. Often times there is nothing in the estate.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented that often times there is a spouse living
in the original residence which she believes should certainly
continue. She questioned if the state has the ability to apply to
the estate at the time of the spouse's death.
MR. KOHN said the department's regulations at the present time are
unclear about that; however, they have attempted to put a lien on
the estate at the time of the resident's death so the estate
couldn't be transferred without payment of the lien. The
department has done that at times; however, it is few and fairly
far between because usually when the resident gets to that point
there are not many assets left. He reiterated that regulations are
being rewritten and will focus on the aspect of spousal
impoverishment.
Number 1260
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked where and when the department would have the
ability to collect Medicare?
MR. KOHN said that Medicare is for hospital care.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY interjected Medicaid, SSI or any help for people
who are unable to pay.
MR. KOHN said he would not say never; however, he thought that with
certain changes at the federal and state level there is a
possibility that in the next few years something like that could
happen. He hastened to point out that if the federal government
caps the amount of money given to the state, it isn't really going
to help the state because it's not new money. It appeared to him
that it would be better to get the new money from the residents who
can pay and decrease the dependence of the Pioneers' Homes on
general fund monies by, they predict, 50 percent over the next
seven years rather than go after federal funds that most likely
won't be there.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the spend down requirement included the
residents' permanent fund dividend?
MR. KOHN replied it included all income to the resident. He noted
the spend down requirement was not the same as it was for Medicaid.
The department requires residents to spend their assets to pay for
their rent, for their care and for their expenses. However, in the
case of a spouse living in the original residence, the state does
not require the house to be sold; a lien is placed on it later on.
He added the department will probably place a lien sooner rather
than waiting until the resident dies. He pointed out the
regulations are fairly old and have been changed in bits and
pieces. He emphasized the whole Pioneer's Home system was built on
the premise that the resident is indigent; that's how it got
started and it was that way until 1990 when the legislature changed
from giving preference to indigents to allowing people to come in
as their name came up on the list. He informed the committee the
statute written for Pioneers' Homes is based on indigency, but for
about the last six years the program has been operating not based
on indigency. He felt that was another reason to support this
legislation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Mr. Kohn felt there was a need for an
entire legislative cleanup of the statutes?
MR. KOHN replied absolutely. He explained that the statute still
reflects a 15-year residency before getting on the waiting list for
the Pioneers' Homes, the levels of care in the statute are not
reflective of what is being done, the focus of the program has
changed and there are a number of things that are not longer
applicable.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the department had any way of tracking the
average length of residency in Alaska.
MR. KOHN replied that 95 percent of people presently on the active
waiting list have been in the state in excess of 15 years. Five
percent of people on the waiting list have been in the state for
less than 15 years and the average of that is about 7 1/2 years.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked what the department's time frame was for
revising the statutes?
MR. KOHN commented it is a very big job and the department is
trying to start from the inside out.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she didn't even want to consider legislation
that would jeopardize that process in any way. She commented that
she personally would like to see this bill stay in the HESS
Committee until it is really needed.
Number 1546
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said it appears that the time is approaching
where we are differing public policy as it relates to the Pioneers'
Homes and he felt that Mr. Alter's argument for not accepting the
committee substitute was that it is different public policy. The
wording in the committee substitute was fine with him in that it
didn't restrict the department from establishing an eviction policy
if that's what was needed in the near or far future and it assures
current residents that they won't be evicted.
Number 1660
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE didn't think there was anything that would
stop the legislature from revisiting the statutes associated with
the Pioneers' Homes if the need existed. He felt it was the
prerogative of the HESS Committee and this legislature to move on
this bill. He added it addresses the needs now as well as the
needs of the future. He moved the amendment presented by
Representative Rokeberg.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was further public
testimony.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said there was no one else signed up to testify.
GENE DAU, Representative for the American Association of Retired
Persons and Veterans of Foreign Wars, indicated he would like to
testify.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE withdrew his motion.
Number 1730
MR. DAU referred to Co-Chair Toohey's comment that residents of the
Pioneers' Homes do not need to be concerned about the rate increase
because the state will pay it and remarked that many of the
residents do not understand politics nor do they know who the
legislators are. However, he felt it would be a sense of security
for residents if the current policy was placed in statute.
Number 1837
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to the memorandum from Terri
Lauterbach dated February 26, 1996, and said he believed the
argument was made that CSHB 384(STA) establishes some shaky
constitutional questions relating to the Pioneers' Homes. He
believed the Pioneers' Homes and its administration had been in the
courts enough and it was better to error on the side of safety with
respect to this issue. He remarked there was no need to
differentiate between the current residents of the Pioneers' Homes
and those individuals who will be there arbitrarily the day after
this bill is signed into law. He doesn't believe the fiscal impact
is going to be associated with whether or not someone can be
evicted, but rather people will pay what they can pay which is the
whole nature of the Pioneers' Home. He said it's a community, not
a nursing home. In his opinion the amendment goes a long way
toward bringing the Pioneers' Home back to the ideal of a
community.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he didn't understand what the amendment
did.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the committee substitute states the provisions
of this bill only apply to the people currently in the Pioneers'
Homes and future residents could be evicted. The amendment removes
that and provides that all residents be treated the same.
Number 2025
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he felt there was ample opportunity to
discuss with the department the impacts of this as it relates to
future policy. He understood the intent and said he could pursue
this later, so he withdrew his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY maintained the objection. He asked if the
intent was to go back to the language in the original bill?
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained there was a slight change in the
wording with regard to income and assets. He added that it does
take it back to the original bill in concept.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY sought clarification that the committee substitute
allowed an exemption only for current residents of the Pioneers'
Homes.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE further explained that the amendment removes that.
He asked if there was further objection to the amendment.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it's clear that we can discriminate in
certain instances, but usually between different classes of people.
All the residents of the Pioneers' Homes are of the same class,
therefore, their constitutional grounds and equal protection clause
would be a lead pipe (indisc.), citing Vest and Zobel.
TAPE 96-35, SIDE A
Number 017
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON spoke in strong support of the amendment.
She did not support the change made to the bill in the State
Affairs Committee and commented there was nothing to lose by
setting this policy in statute. She discussed the security it
would provide to the residents of the Pioneers' Homes to know they
would not be subject to eviction if there were rate increases and
were not longer able to pay the full rate. She urged committee
members to support the amendment.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Voting to adopt
Amendment 1 were Representatives Brice, Robinson, Vezey, Davis,
Rokeberg, Toohey and Bunde.
Number 145
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved to pass CSHB 384(HES) out of committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note.
Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 348 - VIDEO/AUDIOTAPE INTERVIEW OF ABUSED MINOR
Number 291
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Prime sponsor, said she had
introduced a bill in the Eighteenth Legislature which required
mandatory videotaping of all interviews in suspected abuse cases.
That bill was hotly contested and had a large fiscal note.
However, this year she thought a good compromise had been worked
out by deciding what they were hoping to accomplish, and that issue
was accountability. The Department of Health & Social Services
admitted they wanted to establish accountability and understood
they were having a problem in that area, but they were willing to
do whatever needed to be done. As a result, this legislation was
put together that doesn't make anything really mandatory, but it
sets up a criteria for the establishment of a working group between
the Departments of Public Safety, Education, Law and Health &
Social Services to establish a most effective method of
interviewing children that might include videotaping, audiotaping,
team interviews, note taking, documentation and enforcing the file
content standards which has been a big complaint in that enough
information has not been left behind after an interview has been
conducted. One of her complaints about the interviews and why she
supported videotaping of interviews is that she thinks it is
unnecessary to put children through multiple interviews. Also, she
felt it was important to cause as little stress as possible on the
families. She said frankly, the people who wanted her to file the
original bill, hate this piece of legislation and don't think she
has done anything. She agrees this legislation is a far cry from
what they asked for and wanted; however, she feels it's a step in
the right direction. She noted it doesn't have a fiscal note
although she would liked to have had some funds for training and
equipment, but the department is willing to let it go forward
without a fiscal note because they believe it is an important tool.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the State Affairs Committee had worked
hard on the bill and felt the language was about as good as it
could be. She added the departments are being asked to put
together some policies which will be made available to the public
for comment. If there are some valid concerns raised, the
departments would have the ability to change the policy. She noted
there is a bill similar to her original bill currently in the
Senate, but she didn't know the status of it. The bottom line of
her interest is that HB 348 will make some difference. It won't be
an overnight fix, but she felt it was very important that children
be treated kindly and when there is a suspected abuse or neglect,
not to make the child a victim twice nor make the family a victim
if they are not a victim. There have been cases of suspected abuse
in which the staff of the department have been very ardent in their
duties to find the problem, when in fact the problem hasn't been
there. There have been numerous discussions with the departments
involved on these issues and she is convinced at this point in time
that this will be a good thing to move in the direction of
accountability and more respect for family unity. She said the
only concern she has heard is that this legislation calls for a
work group of four people. Originally, there were five which
included two people from the Department of Health & Social
Services; one from the department and definitely one from the
Division of Family & Youth Services. Concern was expressed that
the group was overloaded with Health & Social Services people.
Also, there had been discussions about a public member being
included in the working group but they couldn't figure out how that
person would get chosen and who that person should be.
Number 710
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY expressed concern that there was no mental health
directive in this group. She felt that good mental health
directives were vital when dealing with traumatic children, and she
wondered which department would direct that.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said it would be the Department of Health &
Social Services.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY felt it was important to have input from a child
psychologist.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that she would have liked five
people instead of four making the policy, but there was a problem
in the State Affairs Committee in deciding who that fifth person
should be.
Number 787
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON believed this bill had come around to be an
excellent piece of legislation. She felt it definitely set out
accountability and she was not concerned with the number of people
in the work group. She suggested that language could be added that
these four people shall work with all their existing divisions
which would address Co-Chair Toohey's concern. She was confident
the commissioners of the departments involved would ensure the
people participating in the work group would be the working
advisors for their respective department.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that Diane Worley was present to testify and
asked her to come forward.
Number 897
DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family & Youth Services,
Department of Health & Social Services, testified the department
supports HB 348 and extended the department's sincere thanks to
Representative James and her staff for their hard work on this
legislation. She noted the department was extremely distressed
with the mandatory aspect of the first legislation Representative
James had introduced. She stated this is the direction the
department wants to be moving. In fact she is already moving in
this direction with better training for her staff, particularly in
the area of interviewing, working jointly with the Department of
Public Safety in doing joint interviews, looking at when it is
appropriate to use videotaping and moving in the direction of
audiotaping, whenever possible. Based on Co-Chair Toohey's
comments, she recommended that perhaps two people from the
department could participate in the work group; one from the
Division of Mental Health and one from the Division of Family &
Youth Services.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY interjected as long as the mental health person is
qualified. For example, there are people involved with mental
health for geriatrics who are not qualified for pediatrics. She
indicated she would like to see that included in the bill.
Number 986
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "It appears the thrust of this group is
from a legal aspect, documenting and legal and I don't know exactly
what the file would contain - the purpose of all this. But it
seems to me as indicated already, there's a psychological aspect
and I would think there would also be a medical aspect."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the file referred to in the legislation
is the file that is kept by the person interviewing the child. She
noted that the problem experienced in the past was that notes were
taken when an interview took place and it turned out to be a
suspected case not a valid case, so when the Ombudsman's Office
went to investigate, there was no record of what took place.
That's what is being addressed by setting a standard of what kinds
of things should be contained in the file to back up the action
taken.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she understood what Representative James was
saying, but on page 1, lines 7 and 8 state, "The interagency work
group to increase agency accountability for and to improve methods
of interviewing minors..." She said there is a certain way to ask
questions of these children and if they are asked the wrong way,
you'll get a different answer. She felt that aspect was very
important.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to Ms. Worley's suggestion of changing the
composition of the work group and asked if this required an
amendment?
The response is inaudible due to more than one person speaking at
the same time.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said it would change the number of
representatives from four to five representatives. Two would be
from the Department of Health & Social Services; one from
children's mental health and one from the Division of Family &
Youth Services.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if changing the make up of the work group from
four to five would still maintain zero fiscal impact?
MS. WORLEY nodded in the affirmative.
Number 1128
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said Yvonne Chase who is the Deputy
Commissioner of the Department of Health & Social Services is one
of the most knowledge people in the world; hence, she would rather
it be left to read two people from the department and as far as the
rest of the participants, she was certain the commissioner would
determine who the most qualified person was to participate in the
group. She would like to leave the designation of the two
participants in Health & Social Services to the commissioner.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for Ms. Worley's reaction.
Number 1190
MS. WORLEY felt there was validity in both arguments. She
understood Co-Chair Toohey's comments regarding children's mental
health, which is a big concern during the interview process and
also something the department deals with. On the other hand, she
understood Representative Robinson's comments and concerns as well.
She didn't think the department would have a problem either way.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said since it is the family and youth services
and children's mental health issues we want to address, she would
feel more comfortable if it was so stated. She added this is
designed to be revamped with a new administration, so while we may
be comfortable with the individual now making the decision, she
felt it might be wise to state exactly what we want rather than
leaving it open to interpretation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the amendment would change the language on page
1, line 12, to read, "two people from the department, one from the
Division of Family & Youth Services and one from the area of
Children's Mental Health" and on page 1, line 9, delete "four" and
insert "five".
Number 1261
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to adopt Amendment 1. Hearing no objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1274
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass CSHB 348(STA) am out of
committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes.
Hearing no objection, CSHB 348(HES) moved out of committee.
CSSB 159(HES) am - MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT DECLARATIONS
Number 1300
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the next item before the committee was CSSB
159(HES) amended, which was virtually identical to HB 318 that was
heard in the HESS Committee earlier and was now in the House Rules
Committee.
Number 1309
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented HB 318 passed out of committee with five
"Do Pass" and one "Do Not Pass." This bill allows the mental
health directives. She noted that her bill, HB 318, and Senator
Reiger's bill, SB 159 came to the exact same place at the exact
same time. It was her agreement that he could certainly carry the
bill.
Number 1334
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to pass CSSB 159(HES) amended out of
committee. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the House Health, Education & Social
Services Committee at 4:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|