Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/01/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 1, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Jim Nordlund
Rep. Cliff Davidson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 99: "An Act repealing the 65-day time limit for
approval or disapproval of a proposed oil
discharge contingency plan by the Department of
Environmental Conservation; and providing for an
effective date."
PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
HB 97: "An Act clarifying the responsibilities of the
Department of Health and Social Services and
parents for children who are committed to the
custody of the department and are placed by the
department with the parents; and providing for an
effective date."
PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
HB 2: "An Act requiring drug and alcohol tests for
school bus drivers."
PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
AND A LETTER OF INTENT
WITNESS REGISTER
STEVEN B. PORTER
Manager, Permits and Compliance
ARCO
P.O. Box 100360
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Phone: 265-6269
Position Statement: Supported HB 99
RUSSELL HEATH
Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 463-3366
Position Statement: Supported HB 99
ELMER LINDSTROM
Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
Phone: 465-3030
Position Statement: Supported HB 97
REP. GAIL PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 216
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-2689
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 2
GAYLE HORETSKI
Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4990
Position Statement: Answered questions on HB 2
ROMAYNE KAREEN
Pupil Transportation Officer
Department of Education
801 W. 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-8652
Position Statement: Answered questions on HB 2
FRANK J. DILLON
Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association
3443 Minnesota Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: 276-1149
Position Statement: Supported HB 2
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 99
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL 65-DAY DEADLINE: OIL SPILL PLANS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON OIL AND GAS
TITLE: "An Act repealing the 65-day time limit for approval
or disapproval of proposed oil discharge contingency plan by
the Department of Environmental Conservation; and providing
for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/29/93 178 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/29/93 178 (H) OIL & GAS, RESOURCES, JUDICIARY
02/04/93 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/04/93 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
02/05/93 233 (H) O&G RPT 7DP
02/05/93 233 (H) DP: KOTT, OLBERG, MACKIE, SITTON
02/05/93 233 (H) DP: G.DAVIS, SANDERS, GREEN
02/05/93 233 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DEC) 2/5/93
02/15/93 343 (H) RES RPT 6DP
02/15/93 343 (H) DP:HUDSON, CARNEY, GREEN,
MULDER, BUNDE
02/15/93 343 (H) DP: WILLIAMS
02/15/93 343 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DEC) 2/5/93
02/15/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/15/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/01/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 97
SHORT TITLE: PARENTAL CARE FOR CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
TITLE: "An Act clarifying the responsibilities of the
Department of Health and Social Services and parents for
children who are committed to the custody of the department
and are placed by the department with the parents; and
providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/29/93 177 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/29/93 178 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/08/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/08/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/10/93 288 (H) HES RPT 7DP 2NR
02/10/93 288 (H) DP: BUNDE, G.DAVIS, TOOHEY,
OLBERG
02/10/93 288 (H) DP: NICHOLIA, B.DAVIS, BRICE
02/10/93 288 (H) NR: KOTT, VEZEY
02/10/93 289 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DHSS) 2/10/93
02/17/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/17/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/24/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/01/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 2
SHORT TITLE: DRUG TESTING FOR SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS
TITLE: "An Act requiring drug and alcohol tests for school
bus drivers."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/04/93 25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/11/93 25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 25 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/08/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/08/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/10/93 284 (H) HES RPT 5DP 4NR
02/10/93 284 (H) DP: KOTT, TOOHEY, OLBERG,
NICHOLIA, BUNDE
02/10/93 284 (H) NR: VEZEY, G.DAVIS, BRICE,
B.DAVIS
02/10/93 284 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 2/10/93
03/01/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-25, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Committee meeting was called to order at
1:10 p.m. on March 1, 1993. A quorum was present. CHAIRMAN
PORTER announced that HB 99 was the first item of business
before the committee.
HB 99 - REPEAL 65-DAY DEADLINE: OIL SPILL PLANS
Number 028
STEVEN PORTER, MANAGER, PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE, ARCO,
representing ARCO and other parties supporting HB 99,
explained that the Department of Environmental Conservation
was required to approve or disapprove oil spill plans within
65 days of receipt. He said the rule sounded good on paper,
but was not easily implemented. He noted that the process
often stopped for public hearings or requests for additional
information or for other reasons. Because of those delays,
he noted that the 65-day period would have to start at the
end of the process to ensure that the plan was approved
within that time frame.
MR. PORTER commented that the 65-day rule had become a
burden that regulations were written around. He said it
would be best to scrap the 65-day rule and rewrite the
regulations to streamline the process for getting an oil
spill plan approved or disapproved.
MR. PORTER said that oil spill plans had to comply with the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP), a complex process
that analyzed the plans and allowed for public comment.
Compliance with the ACMP assured oil spill plan writers that
the Department of Environmental Conservation would also
approve the oil spill plans.
MR. PORTER commented that he was part of a large coalition
of supporters, including the Prince William Sound Regional
Citizens' Advisory Council, the Cook Inlet Regional
Citizens' Advisory Council, oil companies, coastal
districts, and municipalities.
Number 103
REP. JOE GREEN, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 99, said that he would
entertain any questions the committee members might have.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that BETH KERTTULA of the
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, and ED COLLAZZI of the DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, were present and willing to
answer questions on HB 99.
Number 126
RUSSELL HEATH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ALASKA
ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY, testified in support of HB 99. He
noted that the environmental community's only real concern
regarding the issue was that oil spill contingency plans
were adequately reviewed. He said he thought that repeal of
the 65-day rule would enhance that review process.
Number 147
REP. JAMES made a motion to move HB 99 from the House
Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and a
zero fiscal note.
Number 152
CHAIRMAN PORTER, seeing no objection to the motion, ordered
HB 99 out of committee with individual recommendations and a
zero fiscal note.
HB 97 - PARENTAL CARE FOR CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 97 was the next item of
business before the committee.
ELMER LINDSTROM, from the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES, said HB 97 was sponsored by Rep. Cynthia Toohey,
who could not be at the meeting to speak on the bill. He
said the department supported HB 97. He commented that the
need for HB 97 arose from a 1991 court ruling that would
require the department to pay for medical costs for children
who were in state custody, but were living with their
parents. Mr. Lindstrom noted that while the situation might
seem peculiar, it was in fact common for children to be
removed from their homes, placed in foster care, and later
returned to their homes while still in the custody of the
state. Mr. Lindstrom noted that in December 1992, 235
Alaskan children were living with their parents while
technically in state custody.
MR. LINDSTROM said that the court had ruled that the
department was liable for medical costs for children in that
situation. He added that the Department of Law was
concerned that by extension the state could find itself in
the position of paying for other costs as well, including
food and lodging.
MR. LINDSTROM called the members' attention to the zero
fiscal note attached to HB 97. He said that if the bill did
not pass the legislature, the state could face a substantial
cost.
Number 258
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Lindstrom if he were to appear
before the committee a year from now, would he bring a
fiscal note for HB 97 reflecting a cost savings to the
state?
Number 261
MR. LINDSTROM said the chairman was correct; HB 97 was a
cost avoidance measure, but those costs could not be avoided
for an indefinite period of time.
Number 270
REP. GREEN asked Mr. Lindstrom if HB 97 would have any
adverse effect on children going back to live with their
parents by requiring parents to pay for the costs of raising
their children.
Number 281
MR. LINDSTROM said that he was unaware of any concerns the
department had in that regard.
Number 299
REP. GREEN made a motion to pass HB 97 out of committee,
with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
REP. PHILLIPS stated that she would like to know how much
money the state had spent in the last several years on the
program.
Number 310
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that no money had yet been spent
by the state because of the recency of the court decision
requiring that the state pay medical expenses.
Hearing no objections, CHAIRMAN PORTER ordered that HB 97 be
move out of committee, with individual recommendations and a
zero fiscal note.
HB 2 - DRUG TESTING FOR SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 2 was the next item of
business before the committee.
Number 332
REP. GAIL PHILLIPS, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 2, stated that the
bill would require drug and alcohol testing for school bus
drivers. She said that she had introduced HB 2 at the
request of her constituents and as a result of incidents on
the Kenai Peninsula, to help ensure the safe transportation
of children to and from school. She noted that she had
originally sponsored the bill in 1992, but that bill died in
the House Finance Committee.
REP. PHILLIPS said HB 2 would require a school district or a
Regional Educational Attendance Area (REAA) to establish a
drug and alcohol testing program, including random testing,
if the district or REAA provided transportation for
students. She commented that this type of testing was
already provided for under current law, in the event of an
accident or when reasonable cause existed. She added that
HB 2 required that the Department of Education promulgate
regulations for implementing the program and creating a
hearing process before discipline was imposed. She said HB
2 would go into effect 90 days after it is signed into law
by the governor.
REP. PHILLIPS called the members' attention to a memorandum
from TERRY CRAMER, of the LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION of the
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY. In her memorandum, Ms. Cramer
acknowledged that a school bus driver could challenge the
testing without probable cause. Ms. Cramer's concern
pertained to the random testing aspect of HB 2. Ms.
Cramer's memorandum pointed out that there was precedence in
that some courts had already ruled that random tests were
acceptable without probable cause, in cases where employees'
expectations of privacy were lessened because of the type of
employment and where the public interest was sufficiently
great.
REP. PHILLIPS noted that some states already had laws
similar to HB 2 on the books. She concluded by saying that,
in her opinion, there was no greater public interest than
the safety of children. She added that Alaska already
required the testing of commercial transporters: pilots,
train engineers, etc.
Number 376
REP. JAMES asked what the fiscal note would be paying for.
Number 379
REP. PHILLIPS replied that the figures on the fiscal note
reflected the cost of conducting the drug and alcohol
testing.
Number 383
REP. JAMES commented that her husband was a school bus
driver and a tour bus driver. She noted that the tour bus
company already did drug testing, and said that if the state
took over drug testing, the tour company would benefit by
not having to pay for testing any longer. She said she did
not understand why the bus companies could not pay for the
testing.
Number 389
REP. PHILLIPS responded that under federal law, the
commercial bus companies were required to provide drug
testing. She added that there was no law that said the
state had to provide drug testing for school bus drivers.
Number 393
REP. JAMES stated that she supported the testing of school
bus drivers. However, she did not support the state picking
up the tab for the testing.
Number 401
REP. PHILLIPS commented that the state could not demand that
the private companies pay for and administer drug testing
for school bus drivers because there was currently no state
law requiring that testing.
REP. JAMES asked if the law could be written so that the
private companies would have to pay for the testing.
Number 405
REP. PHILLIPS said that would result in a state-mandated
program, without compensation from the state.
Number 411
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that not all school bus drivers were
employed by private companies. In Anchorage, half or more
of the school bus drivers were employed by the Anchorage
School District.
Number 418
REP. PHILLIPS stated that she imagined that was the case in
every smaller community off of the main road system.
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that public budgets would be
impacted if the state chose not to pay for the drug testing.
Number 428
REP. KOTT said HB 2 did not include a good definition of
"random testing." He stated that his understanding of
random testing was that the entire population of school bus
drivers would not be tested at the same time.
Number 440
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that his understanding was that the
randomness referred to all of the employees of a particular
school district being tested on a particular, random day.
Number 449
REP. JAMES stated that she did not see how an entire
district the size of Anchorage could be tested all on the
same day, but she added that she did support random testing.
Number 457
REP. KOTT said that under HB 2, if a district was tested
once in January, the likelihood of tests being repeated
during that calendar year was slim. He spoke about random
testing by the military, where not everyone was tested at
once, but everyone knew that it could happen at any time.
REP. PHILLIPS commented that the fiscal note could be
increased to provide for the type of program that Rep. Kott
had mentioned.
Number 472
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the fiscal note would not
necessarily have to be increased, but could possibly be
decreased. He noted that the whole idea was to make drivers
think that it was likely that they would be tested.
Number 480
REP. PHILLIPS read from the Department of Education's
position paper, which said that as a minimum, all drivers
should be tested prior to employment and annually. The
latter test would be considered random. All drivers in a
given district would be tested on the same, unannounced day.
Districts would be selected randomly, with each district
selected at some time during each year. Additional testing
would be done after an accident and when reasonable cause
existed.
Number 489
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Rep. Phillips' comments were
exactly why Rep. Kott's observation was correct. He said
that if the Anchorage School District was tested once during
a year, there would be no more likelihood that the drivers
within that district would be tested again during that year.
He said the committee could ask the Department of Education
to come up with a real, random testing program.
Number 500
REP. JAMES indicated her wholehearted support of drug
testing for school bus drivers. However, she noted her
belief that having the state conduct the testing program was
not terribly efficient or cost-effective. She said it made
sense to require the employers, whether they were a
municipality or a private company, to do the random testing.
Number 523
REP. GREEN mentioned that his prior employer had used random
drug testing whereby an employee, once tested, had no idea
when her or his next test would occur. He added that his
employer had some problems with the drug testing program and
the right to privacy. He said he would like to hear some
testimony on how drug testing would mesh with an
individual's right to privacy.
Number 538
REP. PHILLIPS commented that five other states had already
passed laws similar to HB 2, and if right to privacy issues
were involved, the other states' laws would have been
challenged already; which they had not.
Number 542
REP. KOTT asked if those five other states had right to
privacy provisions in their constitutions.
Number 547
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, said she had not done any independent research on
the issue before the committee. She called members'
attention to a memorandum from Terry Cramer of the Legal
Services Division in their packets. In her memorandum, Ms.
Cramer discussed three cases, one of which was a recent
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case. She noted that in that
particular case, the court had approved a pre-employment,
post-accident, and biannual drug testing program for drivers
operating certain motor vehicles. In that ruling, the court
had considered the seriousness of the harm in the event that
the driver was impaired. That court balanced the rights of
the drivers with the public policy right that roads and
passengers be safe.
MS. HORETSKI spoke about another case cited in Ms. Cramer's
memorandum, which was the sole Alaska case that Ms. Horetski
was aware of. In that case, she said, a private company had
implemented a random drug testing policy. She noted that
the court had allowed that policy to stand. Ms. Horetski
pointed out that the case involved a private company, so
constitutional protections like the right to privacy were
not at issue.
Number 586
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Horetski if it would be prudent to
come up with some findings that indicated the seriousness of
the problem of impaired school bus drivers.
Number 590
MS. HORETSKi said she thought it would be a good idea and
would strengthen the law's chances of being upheld by a
court.
Number 604
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was a distinction between
applying HB 2 to existing employees as opposed to future
employees.
MS. HORETSKI expressed her opinion that there was no
distinction.
Number 612
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that he was thinking about the
expectation of privacy for employees who had taken the job
not expecting drug testing, as compared to employees who
took jobs knowing that they would be tested.
MS. HORETSKI said that the court would likely reject that
distinction.
REP. GREEN said he believed that his prior employer had
gotten around the right to privacy issue by requiring random
drug testing for employees operating equipment that could
hurt themselves or others. He commented that the same
rationale would hold for school bus drivers.
Number 627
REP. PHILLIPS stated that it did not matter who paid for the
drug testing, as in the end, the state would end up paying
for it. If a contractor was required to conduct drug
testing, she said, the contractor would simply tack that
cost on to the cost of the contract.
REP. KOTT asked if HB 2 was in response to an existing
problem.
Number 640
REP. PHILLIPS noted that the issue had been brought to her
attention because of several incidents on the Kenai
Peninsula. She said she had been mortified to learn that
the state required drug testing for state-licensed
commercial bus drivers, but not for school bus drivers.
Number 650
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if it would be easier to require
school bus drivers to have a commercial driver's license.
REP. PHILLIPS said that the ramifications for federal
funding would need to be researched.
REP. PHILLIPS stated that the law required commercial,
interstate drivers to be drug and alcohol tested. She added
that the Alaska Trucking Association had come out in support
of HB 2, because all of its drivers were required to be
tested. She commented that some of these drivers probably
just drove within the state, from Anchorage to the North
Slope, for example. She said that the committee could check
into the idea of requiring school bus drivers to get
commercial drivers' licenses and therefore be tested for
drugs and alcohol.
Number 665
REP. JAMES mentioned that her husband was licensed to drive
any type of a bus, or a truck and a trailer. Her husband's
employer required random drug and alcohol testing, she
added.
Number 672
MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to a memorandum
from the Department of Education, dated February 10, 1993.
She stated that the federal government required drug testing
for interstate transportation. She added that drivers of
buses with more than 15 passengers in Alaska were required
to possess a commercial driver's license. Therefore, she
said, some bus drivers would be required to have commercial
driver's licenses and some would not. She noted that state
requirements were the result of a federal mandate. She
added that the state had no option in terms of defining
commercial motor vehicles.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that if HB 2 were enacted, it would be
redundant with existing state law, except for drivers
operating school buses with fewer than 15 passengers.
REP. PHILLIPS responded that many areas of Alaska had school
bus drivers carrying fewer than 15 passengers, particularly
special education buses.
Number 730
REP. JAMES reiterated her support for drug testing school
bus drivers. She expressed her concern regarding the state
performing and paying for the testing. She said that she
would like to see HB 2 define "random testing."
Number 754
ROMAYNE KAREEN, from the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, appeared
before the committee to answer questions.
Number 760
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Kareen if the department would
find it difficult to configure a drug testing program along
the lines that the committee had been discussing.
Number 770
MS. KAREEN said that she agreed with the concerns of the
committee members. She added that the fiscal note was based
on certain assumptions, but no firm plans for implementing
HB 2 were in place. She noted that the department would be
flexible in its thinking regarding random drug testing.
Number 784
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the wording of HB 2 precluded the
department from contracting out the drug testing program.
Number 789
MS. KAREEN said the bill would not preclude the department
from contracting the testing program out.
Number 791
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if it would be Ms. Kareen's intent to
contract out the program.
Number 792
MS. KAREEN said that was her intent, and it was taken into
consideration when the fiscal note was prepared. She
mentioned that the state of Delaware contracted out its drug
testing program and found the contract to be effective.
REP. GREEN asked Ms. Kareen if there was a "chain-of-
custody" problem for drug testing samples taken in rural
areas.
Number 808
MS. KAREEN said the department would adopt regulations
spelling out procedures for the drug testing program. She
added that Rep. Green's concern had been taken into
consideration in terms of the overall cost of the program.
TAPE 93-25, SIDE B
Number 002
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that there needed to be reasonable
controls on samples, but that the controls would not be as
strict as those required for evidence in a criminal case.
He said that in dismissing a driver, it would have to be
shown that reasonable controls had been used on the samples.
Number 027
MS. KAREEN noted that Tundra Tours, which provided
transportation for students, required drug testing in the
event of an accident, whether or not the driver was at
fault. She added that another contractor, Mayflower, did
pre-employment testing. However, she noted that one never
knew who would win a contract in a particular area. She
stated that there was no consistency in drug testing
policies of particular companies.
Number 056
REP. PHILLIPS said that the concerns raised by the committee
could be incorporated into a letter of intent that would
convey to the department how the legislature intended for
the drug testing program to be implemented.
Number 060
REP. JAMES asked Ms. Kareen if she felt that "random
testing" ought to be defined in HB 2.
Number 069
MS. KAREEN replied that it depended on how strongly the
Legislature felt about the issue. As the administrator of
the school bus program, she said that she agreed with the
committee's concerns.
Number 101
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that if the department were to
conduct random tests along the lines that the committee had
been discussing, there would be a wide latitude in terms of
volume of tests performed. He noted that the number of
tests done every year would go hand-in-hand with the
program's deterrent effect. Therefore, he suggested that a
sufficient number of tests be done every year so that the
deterrent effect would kick in.
Number 121
REP. DAVIDSON asked if the testing could be done locally.
Number 125
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the testing could be done locally.
Number 136
REP. DAVIDSON noted that contracting with local health care
providers would result in more random sampling. He stated
that people should not be under the impression that the
legislature was creating a police state, but that a message
should be sent that the state wanted to ensure maximum
safety for school children. He added that the best
discipline was always self-discipline, and the
responsibility for safeguarding public safety had to rest
with the individual. He said he did not want to undermine
privacy rights through drug testing of school bus drivers,
but wanted to ensure the safety of children. He urged the
committee to not get carried away.
Number 185
REP. JAMES reiterated her concerns about the cost of
implementing the program. She said that regulations should
be written so that as much of the burden as possible rested
on the shoulders of the employer, saving the state money.
Number 199
REP. DAVIDSON commented that "you get what you pay for." He
said, oftentimes, government tries to do things in the
cheapest manner possible. He asked Ms. Kareen if there were
cheaper, less reliable testing methods and more expensive,
more reliable testing methods.
Number 209
MS. KAREEN said that it depended on what sort of monitoring
was done by the state. She expressed her opinion that
adequate money should be provided to the department to do a
good job.
Number 225
REP. DAVIDSON emphasized his belief that testing should be
done on the local level as much as possible.
Number 231
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that collection could often be
done locally, but analysis likely could not. He said the
most effective and least expensive form of analysis was done
by large companies. He added that in nearly every community
in the state, there were people capable of gathering
samples; however, few communities had analysis facilities.
He noted that there were two levels of testing recognized by
the federal system, but the higher level and more expensive
test would probably not be required for the state's
purposes. He stated that he thought the department's fiscal
note was a bit high due to the assumption of a return
requirement for positive tests.
Number 258
REP. JAMES noted her concern that most entities that
employed school bus drivers also employed nurses, who could
collect samples.
Number 270
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the nurse, as a fellow
employee of those being tested, could not be trusted to
ensure the integrity of samples.
Number 287
REP. DAVIDSON commented that there needed to be a fail-safe
system for ensuring the integrity of samples. He noted that
there was nothing worse than to be falsely accused or
thought to be guilty of something that one was not guilty
of. He said that he could envision a person who had never
taken drugs or drunk alcohol being the victim of a mix-up in
sampling.
Number 316
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the department would probably
want to contract with companies that were experienced in
providing drug testing services. He noted that experienced
companies had procedures for guarding against the kind of
situation that Rep. Davidson had described.
Number 341
MS. KAREEN stated that several states already drug test
their school bus drivers, and Alaska could look to those
other states when developing its program.
Number 345
REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Kareen what problems she had heard
of that other states had experienced.
Number 350
MS. KAREEN said she had not extensively researched the
subject. She stated that she knew that Delaware contracted
with a large company to do all of its drug testing for
school bus drivers. She added that she thought the testing
was done district by district, or private contractor, by
private contractor.
MS. KAREEN commented that in Arizona, there was a hearing
process when a school bus driver tested positive, before the
driver's license was taken away.
Number 370
REP. DAVIDSON noted that the more the legislature talked
about things, the more they realized there was to talk
about. He said it was important to gather information and
to ensure that laws were not being made too quickly. He
said that he would like to know about the experiences of
other states that had implemented drug testing programs for
school bus drivers.
Number 389
REP. PHILLIPS said that the legislature need not look to
other states when it could look within Alaska, at the drug
testing system employed by the Alaska Marine Highway System.
Number 397
REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Kareen if she had spoken with
officials from the Alaska Marine Highway System.
Number 399
MS. KAREEN replied that she had not.
Number 402
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that HB 2 was an enabling statute, and
he did not set out specific procedures for the drug testing
program. He said that it was up to the committee if they
wanted to set out procedures.
Number 421
REP. JAMES asked if other school employees were currently
drug tested.
Number 423
MS. KAREEN said that she was not familiar with any programs
for drug testing other school employees.
Number 429
REP. JAMES expressed her opinion that all school employees
should be tested.
Number 433
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that it was easy to articulate the
need to drug test school bus drivers, but it would be less
clear as to how a "high" janitor would endanger children.
He commented that court cases looked at the infringement of
privacy versus the public's interest.
Number 453
FRANK DILLON of the ALASKA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION said that
under current federal law, any driver who operated a vehicle
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,000 pounds or more
and was involved in the handling of interstate freight was
required to undergo drug testing. He further defined
interstate freight to include freight picked up from the
Port of Anchorage and delivered within the Anchorage area.
He added that the program had been in existence for about
three years.
MR. DILLON said that the Alaska Trucking Association ran a
drug testing consortium program for its 900 members. He
stated that the Alaska Trucking Association favored passage
of HB 2, saying that his organization felt that it was
incumbent on all commercial drivers to be as safe and as
sane as possible. He said that they were looking forward to
the federal government's announced move to cover all truck
drivers for alcohol and drug testing within the next 18 to
24 months.
Number 485
REP. GREEN asked if the Alaska Trucking Association's drug
testing program was random.
Number 490
MR. DILLON replied that his association's program followed
federal guidelines, which required an initial biannual test
along with a regular physical examination. He said that the
drivers were then put into a pool, reformed every month,
from which a certain number of drivers were randomly
selected to receive drug tests. He said that it was
conceivable under their program that a certain driver could
be tested monthly.
Number 506
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Dillon what sort of testing worked,
as far as keeping the drivers aware of their
responsibilities.
Number 515
MR. DILLON responded that the major element in keeping a
truck driver "straight" was the fact that a positive test
would result in the loss of the driver's job.
Number 528
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Dillon about the procedure his
association used for drug testing.
Number 539
MR. DILLON replied that some companies did testing at their
terminal locations. However, most of the companies involved
allowed a driver to route herself or himself to a collection
site, which existed in 13 communities in Alaska. Personnel
at these collection sites have been trained in using strict
protocols when collecting samples to ensure the integrity of
the samples.
Number 550
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Dillon if his association had had
any problems with the mix-up of samples, or if any employees
had protested the results of the tests.
Number 551
MR. DILLON said that there was a procedure for persons who
protested the results of their tests. He stated that his
association used an outside testing laboratory with
excellent accuracy. He said drivers had recourse if they
felt that the results were inaccurate.
Number 566
REP. JAMES asked Mr. Dillon who paid for the truck drivers'
drug tests.
MR. DILLON indicated that some companies paid for the tests,
whereas other "owner-operator" truck drivers paid for their
own tests.
Number 582
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that he would entertain a motion, as
he felt that the committee had given the department
substantial direction.
Number 585
REP. PHILLIPS recommended that the department look into the
Alaska Trucking Association's protocol for drug testing when
writing the regulations.
REP. JAMES asked how much money the state would be paying
for testing that was already being conducted by private
contractors.
Number 601
CHAIRMAN PORTER questioned how the state could "tap" the
tests that were already being done without having to repeat
them.
Number 606
REP. PHILLIPS said that records of tests done by private
contractors could be incorporated into the state's records,
and the state would therefore not need to test those private
contractor drivers. She noted that this provision could be
incorporated into the regulations and not the statute.
Number 618
REP. PORTER commented that the committee was giving the
department a great deal of latitude.
REP. PHILLIPS suggested including the suggestion about
private contractor testing records being accessed by the
state into the letter of intent.
Number 628
REP. JAMES asked Mr. Dillon if drug testing was required for
drivers with commercial driver's licenses.
Number 634
MR. DILLON replied that it depended on what sort of freight
a truck was carrying and the vehicle's size. He said he
believed that the federal government handled passenger
carriers by the number of seats in the vehicle, as far as
drug testing went. He said if the vehicle seated 15
passengers or more, the driver would have to undergo drug
testing.
Number 669
REP. JAMES asked if the Municipality of Anchorage drug
tested its bus drivers.
Number 671
CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that he was not sure, but he did
not believe the municipality drug tested its bus drivers.
Number 677
REP. NORDLUND made a motion to move out HB 2 with individual
recommendations and a Department of Education fiscal note.
Number 681
REP. PHILLIPS suggested that the committee pass out an
accompanying letter of intent that specified the
legislature's expectations for the Department of Education's
regulations.
Number 687
REP. NORDLUND amended his motion so that the bill would be
transmitted to the Chief Clerk's office pending the
committee's approval of the letter of intent.
Number 700
CHAIRMAN PORTER reported HB 2 out of the Judiciary
Committee, with individual recommendations, a Department of
Education fiscal note, and a letter of intent to be drafted
and reviewed prior to the bill's transmittal to the Chief
Clerk's office.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that a joint Senate and House
Judiciary Committee meeting would be held at 1:30 on the
following Wednesday. The subject of that meeting would be
confirmation hearings on certain appointees to boards and
commissions.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 2:36 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|