Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/26/1996 01:08 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
February 26, 1996
1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL 433
"An Act relating to an exemption to the unauthorized publication or
use of communications and the prohibition against eavesdropping for
certain law enforcement activities."
- HB 433 PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 391
"An Act relating to succession to assets and liabilities of
dissolved municipalities."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL 493
"An Act relating to involuntary commitment for alcoholism or drug
abuse."
- HEARD AND HELD
WITNESS REGISTER
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99801-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 433
TOM WRIGHT, Staff to Ivan Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Room 503
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 391 and HB 493 as
sponsor's staff
DAVE HUTCHENS
Alaska Rural Electric Co-Op Association
703 W. Tudor, #200
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 463-3636
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 391
PAT POLAND, Director
Municipal and Regional Assistance Division
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
333 W 4th Avenue, Suite 319
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-4500
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 391
MARJORIE VANDOR, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 391
ART SNOWDEN, II, Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2084
Telephone: (907) 264-0547
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 493
DON DAPCEVICH, Executive Director
Governor's Advisory Board on Alcoholism &
Drug Abuse
101 Court Plaza
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4667
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 493
STEVE HAMILTON, Research Analyst
Governor's Advisory Board on Alcoholism &
Drug Abuse
101 Court Plaza
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4667
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 493
LOREN JONES, Director
Division of Alcoholism & Drug Abuse
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110607
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0607
Telephone: (907) 465-2185
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 493
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 433
SHORT TITLE: POLICE CAN INTERCEPT SOME COMMUNICATIONS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/19/96 2485 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/19/96 2485 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/19/96 2485 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (2-ADM, DCED)
01/19/96 2485 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (CORR, LAW, DPS)
01/19/96 2485 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/06/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/08/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/96 2682 (H) STA RPT 2DP 2NR
02/09/96 2682 (H) DP: JAMES, GREEN
02/09/96 2682 (H) NR: WILLIS, OGAN
02/09/96 2682 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (CORR)
02/09/96 2682 (H) 5 ZERO FNS(DPS, LAW, DCED,
2-ADM)1/19/96
02/19/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/19/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/26/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 391
SHORT TITLE: DISSOLVED MUNICIPALITIES/SUCCESSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/05/96 2369 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2369 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2369 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/25/96 (H) CRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/25/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/08/96 (H) CRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/08/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/09/96 2681 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 3DP 2NR
02/09/96 2681 (H) DP: KOTT, NICHOLIA, IVAN
02/09/96 2681 (H) NR: ELTON, AUSTERMAN
02/09/96 2682 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, DNR, DCRA)
02/23/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/23/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/26/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 493
SHORT TITLE: INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT:ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/09/96 2698 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/09/96 2698 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/23/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/23/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/26/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-24, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER called the House Judiciary Committee meeting
to order at 1:08 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Bunde, Toohey and Davis. Representatives Green and
Finkelstein arrived respectively at 1:15 p.m. and 1:12 p.m.
Representative Vezey was absent.
HB 433 - POLICE CAN INTERCEPT SOME COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the first bill for consideration was HB
433, which was held over from last week. There were questions
about whether or not the language regarding this additional
exception to already existing law was drawn too tightly. Chairman
Porter stated that the Departments of Law and Public Safety
intended this language on purpose because it deals with an area of
law which they wished to retain within the statute and to avoid it
being challenged constitutionally. These departments did propose
an amendment to this legislation though.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to adopt this amendment for
discussion purposes. This amendment number one regarding language
on page two, line 17, specifically deleted "refusing to exit or
surrender" and inserting in it's place, "not existing or
surrendering."
Number 240
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
stated that after the previous hearing regarding this bill, Lt.
Cassanovas of the state troopers to clarified what his concerns
were. This exception was crafted to address a situation where a
person is barricaded in a building, but is not communicating with
the police. Rather than broaden this exception to extremes, they
crafted the proposed amendment as a compromise, one which the
Department of Public Safety agreed upon, as well as, the Department
of Law.
Number 346
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to move HB 433 as
amended with attached individual recommendations and zero fiscal
notes from the House Judiciary Committee. Hearing no objection, it
was so moved.
HB 391 - DISSOLVED MUNICIPALITIES/SUCCESSION
Number 380
TOM WRIGHT, Staff to Ivan Ivan, presented information regarding HB
391 and read the sponsor statement into the record.
"This bill was introduced by request of the Department of Community
and Regional Affairs and the Local Boundary Commission (LBC).
Currently, the state automatically becomes the successor to a
dissolved municipality unless another municipal government assumes
such responsibility. In most cases, the state becomes the
successor by default. This means the state takes over the
responsibility and liability of owning properties such as solid
waste facilities, bulk fuel storage facilities, power utilities,
sewer systems and other facilities previously owned by the
municipality.
"CS for House Bill 391 (CRA) allows the Local Boundary Commission
to designate an Indian Reorganization Act council, a council that
provides services under federal law, another municipality, non
profit corporation or the state to be a direct successor to a
dissolved municipality. The terms of the transfer of assets and
liabilities of the dissolved municipality must be approved by the
Department of Law. The bill also specifies that any transfer of
assets or liabilities does not constitute recognition by the state
of that organization."
Number 540
DAVE HUTCHENS, Alaska Rural Electric Co-Op Association (ARECA),
testified in regards to HB 391 and referred to a letter dated
February 16, 1996 from the Co-Op's law firm, Kemppel, Huffman and
Ginder which outlined the changes they felt should be made to this
bill. Mr. Huthchens stressed for the record that they have no
interest or concern regarding who the surviving entity is that
manages the local affairs of these communities. Their concern is
simply that the transfer of authority and responsibilities be
complete, that existing obligations not be left in limbo during the
transition. He noted the language which provides that if no other
entity commits to manage the affairs of the community, the state
may assume the responsibility. ARECA thinks the language should be
rather, "shall" assume responsibility if the municipality goes out
of existence. He added that there are valid obligations which need
to be honored by someone.
Number 705
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked for clarification about how often does
this happen, why, and who is responsible? Suppose there is
something which has gone wrong, for example, if the water becomes
contaminated with lead. What steps are taken to assure that the
municipality is not transferring a whole bunch of headaches to the
state. It was decided that this issue be addressed later on in
testimony.
Number 790
PAT POLAND, Director of Municipal and Regional Assistance Division,
Department of Community and Regional Affairs testified in regards
to HB 391 and stated that the department submitted written
testimony to the previous committee of referral. He stated the
department's support for this legislation and made himself
available for questions.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if Mr. Poland had heard the previous
testimony by Mr. Hutchins. Mr. Poland stated that he had, but did
not have the benefit of seeing the letter as referenced.
MR. POLAND responded to Mr. Hutchins concerns that the department's
intention was that the local boundary commission in accepting a
dissolution petition would condition acceptance upon transfer to a
succeeding entity. By using the language "may," they wanted to
eliminate a situation where a community literally can compel the
state to receive assets which might have significant liability
attached to them.
Number 909
MARJORIE VANDOR, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
testified on HB 391 and stated that she had not seen the letter
from Rebecca Pauli of Kemppel, Huffman and Ginder either. She
stated that section (b) might need to be more extensively worded
beyond adding the word "may." Ms. Vandor stated that she would
want to make certain that new language offered would result in what
Mr. Poland had outlined that the state isn't left in a liable
situation and the Local Boundary Commission is forced to transfer
this liability to the state.
MS. VANDOR stated that she had been involved with six second class
city dissolutions in unorganized boroughs, five of which were
successful. Five of these entities simply stopped acting in their
municipal capacity. Due to this, because there was no city council
and they weren't holding elections or conducting any municipal
work, the village entities were running the facilities themselves.
She noted that there was a process in law for the Local Boundary
Commission after hearings, reports and briefings of such situations
are considered, they can allow a municipality to dissolve
contingent upon certain conditions. The entity has to be free of
debt and the creditors of the former municipality have to be taken
care of.
MS. VANDOR continued to explain the situation surrounding these
five dissolutions. The state dealt with the court in Bethel to
have a trust account set up for these second class cities they had
not applied for from the state for several years so the state could
assist them in paying their creditors, since they had no means to
tax to pay off creditors. This was the only source of money the
state could use to pay off the creditors. Studies were also
conducted by the Department of Environmental Conservation and all
of the agencies which had touched there communities were very
involved in the dissolution. The only community which succeeded so
far is Atmautluak. They have signed the agreement which the
Department of Law prepared. The remaining assets and liabilities
will be transferred and they've waived their sovereign immunity,
which are the types of things required. The agreement will be
recorded. The department is working with the other remaining four
cities in regards to their lands.
MS. VANDOR said this legislation will change this present procedure
to provide for a successor entity who would be available to run
these communities. The way the law is currently established it
provides for the state to succeed to the assets and liabilities of
a community in order to transfer them. There is a split second of
time when the transferring document is recorded by operation of law
where the state is in this transfer of title. This shouldn't need
to be if there is an entity available to assume responsibilities
for these communities. In all of the dissolution cases so far
there was an entity available to assume responsibility.
Number 1172
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY noted that the general requirement at any
time a land transaction takes place is the title has to be clean.
How does the state know there aren't any environmental problems
with property being transferred with these dissolution situations.
Number 1217
MR. POLAND stated that the department does a basic investigation of
the community which is relatively superficial. The department does
not have the resources to do any in-depth studies. The example
which Representative Toohey outlined is precisely why the
department is seeking this legislation, which is to keep the state
out of these types of transfers. The department doesn't see the
need to include the state legally into this chain of title issue.
Basically, the legal responsibility should remain with the
community.
Number 1277
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked that in this by-passing concept
would the state be opening itself up to assume responsibly for what
went on in a municipality beforehand. If they dissolve assets to
cover costs of environmental concerns before forfeiture there might
not be any more assets left to defray additional costs.
MR. POLAND, as well as, Ms. Vandor stated that they were unable to
answer this question at the present moment.
Number 1335
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked in this general area, if it would be a fair
statement to make that the assets and the liabilities of these
municipalities would be transferred or just those assets and
liabilities which have been left in limbo.
MS. VANDOR noted that it has to be all the assets and liabilities.
Each one of the creditors have to be taken care of before an entity
can be dissolved, much like a bankruptcy.
Number 1358
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if he was correct in assuming that these
transfers take place in villages where the people who run things
are tired of the job and they want to turn their responsibilities
over to a traditional council. He asked if this was a fair
assumption.
MS. VANDOR responded that these entities as she understood it,
didn't want another layer of government on top of the systems
already in place.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if these problems with unorganized
boroughs would not contribute to the additional unorganized areas
which become the sole responsibility of the state.
MS. VANDOR stated that anything which ends up in the unorganized
borough comes under the jurisdiction of the legislature. She said
this process would add to the existing load. She noted that these
second class cities don't have their own school districts, but they
have planning powers and taxing powers. Some of them might have a
sales tax, but planning and platting was something they had power
to do. Also, education has always been through a Rural Education
Attendance Area (REAA).
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE used the example of taxation. If an entity
got tired of taxing themselves and decided to dissolve, he noted
that there are people in Anchorage who would just as soon dissolve
than pay taxes.
MS. VANDOR pointed out that this is why these issues go to the
Local Boundary Commission because this is where everything starts
and this is where the studies occur. They look at these things
from a statewide perspective.
Number 1483
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned a point in fact that there isn't any
individual responsibility which can be laid by the state if a
second class city decides on it's own to dissolve with liabilities.
He asked if there was any possible recovery in these situations.
MS. VANDOR said they could declare them not dissolved and then sue
them in their own right, but she said she wasn't sure where this
would get anyone. Until these entities dissolve under law, they
retain an incorporated status which can be sued. The state could
certainly cut off all funding and such to them.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that they might not know until the check came
back.
MS. VANDOR pointed out that it is a process allowed by law to allow
a city to dissolve and this new legislation just assists the LBC in
directing how to deal with the assets and liabilities if such a
dissolution is allowed by them and what they can condition this
dissolution on, as well.
Number 1568
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to recent discussions about tribes in
Alaska and indian country. He asked if dissolving local
governments and turning these functions over to a traditional
council, whether or not this would have any impact on determining
what is indian country.
MS. VANDOR stated that in the draft agreements as they are written
now these tribes would have to waive their sovereign immunity in
order to get the assets and liabilities, land included. There is
an actual assertion in this agreement that they will not claim this
property to be indian country now or in the future. A lot of this
land is municipal trust land, as well, and there are conditions on
it already in that if a municipality forms out there and this
municipality wants this land, the entity that it was transferred to
must give it back after a certain amount of time. This clause is
in the quit claim deed. As the law stands now, a successor could
not quit claim deed a clear title if it's municipal trust land.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if this was for people who want to
dissolve the entire entity. He asked if it had any impact on those
who would like to remove themselves from an entity.
MS. VANDOR said that a detachment proceeding is totally separate.
Number 1687
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked about a situation where this
procedure were to take place on native corporation land where the
natives were able to retain subsurface rights and municipalities
would only have surface rights. He asked if there was any
possibility of clouding issues if the municipality disengages
itself, or becomes unincorporated and it reverts back to the state,
what happens to the surface rights of the municipality.
MS. VANDOR apologized that she was not a lands attorney and said
that she's not familiar with these very specific questions. She
offered to propose this question to a colleague.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked that the departments work on Mr. Hutchins
concerns and get an answer regarding surface and subsurface rights
in preparation for the next scheduled meeting.
HB 493 - INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT:ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE
Number 1830
TOM WRIGHT, staff to Ivan Ivan, read the sponsor statement
regarding HB 493 into the record.
"Representative Ivan introduced HB 493 as one of the solutions to
assist with the public inebriate problem faced by many communities
throughout the state.
"Under current statute, AS 47.37.190, provisions allow for the
involuntary commitment of alcoholics. These provisions allow for
30 day commitments with recommitment for 90 days. This current law
has been found to be unwieldy, expensive and treatment options are
not readily available. According to a community survey report by
the City/Borough of Juneau, in March 1993, communities use the
commitment policy sparingly, if they use it at all. This report
also stated that the current commitment process simply is not
working.
"Under HB 493, the involuntary commitment process is similar to
those found in the involuntary mental health commitments.
"It is not Representative Ivan's intent to impose unlawful
restrictions on an individual. However, by using the involuntary
commitment process, he hopes that lives may be saved. He also
hopes that the financial impacts on different agencies may be
lessened if the revolving door process many inebriates find
themselves when the protective custody statues are applied."
MR. WRIGHT also added that work was done on this legislation with
the Department of Law and the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse.
He noted the CS as well with explanations about the changes to it.
Number 1930
ART SNOWDEN, II, Administrative Director, Alaska Court System
stated that they had a lot of small questions which they have no
answers to and some suggestions about this bill. He did give these
questions and suggestions to the sponsor's aid.
MR. SNOWDEN referred to page 1, line 7 - 15. The courts want to
know if there is a reason why this new commitment standard and the
addition of drug abusers was included in the involuntary commitment
statute, section 190 and was not included in the emergency
commitment statutes section 180. If the current standard is
inappropriate for regular commitments, why does it remain
appropriate for emergency commitments. These are the types of
issues they are most concerned with and felt confident that staff
could work these out. He noted their next comment regarded page 1,
line 11, and noted that the following words appear to be missing,
between the words health and despite, which are "and who continue
to use alcohol or drugs." He pointed out as a comparison on page
5, lines 23 and 24 where these words are spelled out. There are
additional technical sections such as this which could be cleaned
up as necessary.
MR. SNOWDEN stated that the fiscal note attached to this
legislation is just under $80,000. Their fiscal note could be cut
more than in half if some small changes were made. On the original
bill and also in the present draft, on page 2, line 26, it is
suggested that the court would appoint a guardian ad litem. The
courts would have to do this privately and it has a cost. If it
was stated rather that the court could appoint the Office of Public
Advocacy (OPA), who has guardian ad litem services, then it
wouldn't have a cost for the court system. OPA presently has some
of the best trained guardian ad litem representatives in the
nation.
MR. SNOWDEN stated that if the court has to pay for appointed
counsel, perhaps it should be in OPA, for example, now the public
defender does represent people who have been committed based on
mental illness. The only significant comment Mr. Snowden wished to
make other than the technical, was that the courts think there is
an unworkable provision in the bill, which requires the
respondent's next-of-kin be notified of the commitment petition and
be given notice of a hearing. It is often the case that
respondents in this type of hearing are very transient and
uncooperative, or might have mental illness and don't know who
their next-of-kin is. It is very hard to make these notifications,
if not impossible. The courts believe that this legislation should
allow a provision for a waiver of this requirement. If not a
waiver, at least a notice in the newspaper.
Number 2182
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked in his long history of handling these
involuntary commitments, did Mr. Snowden feel that these ever
worked.
MR. SNOWDEN pointed out that his job is to administer the court and
keep it efficient. He felt as though judge's opinions on this
subject would vary. A lot of people might say that it's good to
get these individuals off the street since they pose a danger to
themselves or others, but there are some people who say that this
commitment process would not make a difference one way or another.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said she feared that this type of commitment
would be very expensive. She also questioned this procedure being
applied in small villages which might not have incarceration
facilities. Would these individuals be shipped to Anchorage or
Nome?
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was a requirement for appointed
counsel under the current commitment procedure.
MR. SNOWDEN responded that they have done this, but it's very rare.
However, the court felt that under the terms of this bill that the
appointment of an attorney for indigent people, which would cost
over $45,000 of this bill's fiscal note which would go to the
private bar. He thought a guardian ad litem provision would cut
the cost in half.
Number 2300
DON DAPCEVICH, Executive Director, Governor's Advisory Board on
Alcoholism & Drug Abuse, testified in support of HB 493. In
preparation for this hearing his staff prepared a cost benefit
analysis related to commitments, based on commitments executed in
the community of Juneau. Juneau is the only community which uses
the commitment law presently in place. Mr. Dapcevich was the
treatment director for this program in a previous life and he's had
the opportunity to bring 35 commitments, a first hand exposure to
the process.
MR. DAPCEVICH felt as though this commitment process was a humane
way to treat people who are not willing or unable to recognize
their needs for intervention. The board recognizes that the
treatment success rate is fairly low with this population, but the
successes which do take place are best measured in a legal sense
and a legislative sense, in terms of dollars and cents in relieving
human suffering. In the cost analysis, people who undergo
treatment under an involuntary commitment have less need for
services, such as dependency treatment, medical care and the police
services after commitment, much less than before. The cost
analysis tracked those people six months prior to their commitment
and six months after their commitment to see if there was a
difference in their use of a 12 hour hold in community corrections,
in emergency room use, transportation of community service patrol
and the police transportation associated with administering to
them. Mr. Dapcevich noted his staff person, Steve Hamill, was
available to answer any questions about the cost benefit analysis.
Number 2414
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if they had tracked individuals for
more than one year and were the summer months considered when
natives go back to their villages. Are these people employed. She
felt as though one year for a program which costs over a half a
million dollars was not a fair way to spend this type of money.
Representative Toohey said she was opposed to this because if she
wanted to be a size 12, with a 24 inch waist, that's her problem,
not his. Nobody is feeding her the food that she eats, nobody is
feeding her the alcohol that she drinks. Until she is able to
recognize it is her problem then she is the only one who can do
anything about this. She felt as though the state, municipalities,
and the cities have all tried to take care of this problem. It
can't be taken care of by committing someone and forcing them to
rehabilitate. It has to come from inside.
MR. DAPCEVICH agreed that she should have this choice as long as
she can make this rational decision. This program does not deal
with people who can make wise choices. They're dealing with people
who don't make these choices and if it's not made for them, they
create enormous costs to their fellow citizens. He noted an
example of one patient who ended up costing over $100,000, someone
who could not make a rational choice regarding treatment. He also
mentioned the first person he ever committed six years ago who is
celebrating his 5th year of sobriety right now. He is a productive
member of this community. This program does work to produce
permanent sobriety for a long period of time, if not a lifetime,
for a very few. For nearly all, it produces some sobriety, some
lessening of the burden that their placing on their fellow
taxpayers and that's what the board is really concerned about.
TAPE 96-24, SIDE B
Number 033
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY felt as though they were missing the boat and
if he thought this is a mental illness problem, then maybe they
should be put into a different slot. They should be put in Alaska
Psychiatric Institute (API) or somewhere where they are committed
mentally. If this is a disease which can only be cured by someone
else, rather than the patient, then it might be a whole different
ball game. She felt as though they were going about it the wrong
way.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN stated that it seemed from the
presented analysis that these people are being treated regardless.
One way or another they are being treated and the recommendation
the committee is receiving is that it's more cost effective to
treat under a commitment program. The decision to be made here is
what's the best program to run these individuals through, what's
best for society and this individual.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Dapcevich if it was their intent to track
these individuals further than six months after a commitment.
MR. DAPCEVICH said absolutely and they wanted to be more
comprehensive in the way they track these individuals. They've
only been able to track the community of Juneau. Also, they were
only able to, in the short time they had to prepare for this
hearing, look at the costs in only a few other communities as a
comparison.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted an Alcoholic Task Force study and an
Ombudsman inquiry regarding Alaska's alcohol problem sometime ago
which indicated that the programs tasked to mission to and address
these problems really didn't have an evaluation component which was
reliable. These studies measured more the amount of people the
programs touched, rather than those people's behaviors the programs
were able to change. He felt Mr. Dapcevich's analysis is on target
in terms of meaningfulness, rather than how many individuals cycle
through the system. The longer this evaluation can be extended,
the more valuable this information will be.
Number 154
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how this legislation would affect
Anchorage's repealed law against public drunkenness.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the public drunkenness ordinances
around the state were criminal statutes and that this was a civil
involuntary commitment procedure. Within the structure that
statutorily exists now, this civil procedure has been found not to
raise constitutional problems, which criminal statutes do.
Generally, he noted a Supreme Court case which found that
alcoholism, as opposed to a crime which encompasses intent, is a
condition which takes away the ability for a person to make cogent
decisions for themselves. Consequently this nullifies the
requisite intent requirement for criminal violations.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that Mr. Dapcevich had indicated
that before commitment there is a $9,000 cost as versus $6,800
after, which is a savings of better than 25 percent. He asked if
this included all kinds of inebriants. Does this comparison
include some of those who are habitual, as opposed to some of those
picked up once or twice. Representative Green also asked if the
response of the committed person wanes after a few days or weeks of
drying out.
MR. DAPCEVICH noted that these individuals are chronic, they don't
have the hills and valleys which would normally be seen in a
problem drinker. If these people don't have their drink, they go
into withdrawal. The detox facilities are taxed around the state,
but their taxed by a very small number of people who go through
over and over again. The wide majority go through detox once or
twice, enter complete treatment and lead productive lives for a
period of years, if not a lifetime afterwards.
MR. DAPCEVICH pointed out that in regards to evaluation, the
legislators should have received the new independent, standards
study done regarding the quality and outcomes in treatment
throughout the state which was recently published. The assessment
regarding these programs was extremely positive and very comparable
with the best treatment programs available in other states. The
Advisory Board on Alcohol has recently taken the lead in
quantifying and qualifying the treatment outcomes in the state.
People from their board, treatment providers and state government
people have come together to hammer out some standardized outcome
measures that will be used for all programs in the state.
STEVE HAMILTON, Research Analyst, Advisory Board on Alcoholism and
Drug Abuse responded to Representative Green's question about the
numbers Representative Green previously cited about what group of
people are these, treatable or chronic, or a mix of both which the
cost analysis addresses. The numbers for all the commitments were
a core of people that were the repeat offenders, people who
accessed all of the services, both police, ambulance, hospital,
etc. repeatedly. He cited numbers related to one year's worth of
consecutive admissions to detox recovery in Juneau. Out of 897
admissions for that year there were 17 individuals who accounted
for 231 admissions. This is 4 percent of the people accounted for,
25.4 percent of all of admissions. When this core of 17
individuals are identified, they become the committed population.
Other communities have these same core situations.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if they measurably see as an improvement
in this hard core, habitual population. If these people, for
example, have been in the program for an extended period of time
and they go through a commitment program. If it's decided that
they're not as bad as they were before, what relatively do they
look at to make this determination.
MR. HAMILTON stated that they look at the number of times these
individuals are subjected to either a Title 47 hold or a detox
admission as surrogate markers for impacting the system. In
Juneau, when these people start drinking again and it gets out of
control they invariably go into detox or a Title 47 hold with the
police department. These are the surrogate markers which they use
to determine whether they are impacting the system again. Rarely
do they show up at the jail or the hospital on their own.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if these individuals do or don't come
back as often in the six month period.
MR. HAMILTON said they do not come back as often.
MR. DAPCEVICH added that they did not look at admissions to detox,
but those individuals who went through a 30 or more day commitment
It was those people after the commitment who did not come back to
detox, did not use the ambulance, etc.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that detox is where individuals go after the
community service patrol finds that person incapacitated.
MR. DAPCEVICH added that these individuals, as soon as they're
sobered up, they're back on the street. Four or five years ago the
board tracked people with 100 detoxes, which were targeted for
commitment. Now they target people with far fewer detoxes. In
Fairbanks, Dillingham, and Bethel the 12 hour, Title 47 holds are
very high and would be impacted dramatically if these communities
intervened, even in very small numbers. The board doesn't
anticipate a large number of commitments to done once the statute
is changed. Mr. Dapcevich said that they're not changing the basic
tenants of the statute, but making it more user friendly. The
fiscal note for the first year would be zero.
Number 667
LOREN JONES, Director, Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse,
Department of Health and Social Services, testified in support of
HB 493 and thought that the issues raised by Mr. Snowden could be
worked out. He then outlined the history behind this legislation.
The original statute was written back in the 1970's and has not
been changed significantly since. The commitment concept has been
used on an off-again and on-again basis, often times at the
initiative of a particular person who's committed to making this
concept work in their community. When this person moves on and
changes jobs, the program falls off. The Attorney's Office in the
City and Borough of Juneau, supports this program to help alleviate
the hospital and police department costs, etc. As noted by the
cost analysis, Mr. Jones said that this legislation has some good
financial benefits on other parts of the system and have provided
individuals with a needed break.
MR. JONES said the division would like to take this Juneau example
and over the next year work with their providers to identify those
high risk persons who are impacting the system in extreme fashions,
teach them how build the history required to go to court to
undertake a commitment and he pointed out that this is not
something they do lightly. In essence, this procedure takes away
the individual's liberty and the court system wants to know if
other alternatives have been tried before taking these steps of
commitment. He said they want to train these people to work with
the programs and get them ready. In the second year he hopes there
are enough providers interested in trying this program, in order
that money gets put aside to off-set the legal costs.
MR. JONES stressed that unlike the mental health commitment, the
alcohol and drug use commitment is a private one. A spouse,
guardian, private physician, and the program director of a private
or publicly funded treatment program can do these commitments.
In the circumstances of a private facility, they usually don't have
an attorney on staff who is familiar with commitments that include
clinical diagnosis, medical records, and dealing with the court.
There has to be some support for these programs to get the
attorneys to represent them.
MR. JONES noted that it's obvious from the statements made today
there still is an inebriate problem on the streets and because of
this most people might think that treatment must not work. Unless
the division can reduce the numbers of these people, they will have
a hard time convincing people otherwise. This commitment tool will
keep these inebriates in a program long enough that their treatment
be more effective. He noted the severe cases of people who have
done neurological damage to themselves, so extensively that they
don't understand the concept of intensive treatments or are unable
to hold down a job. They need a place for these individuals.
MR. JONES mentioned the issue of a jury trial in the first 30 days
if a person requests it. At a recommitment a person can ask for a
jury trial and they kept this clause in the new legislation,
although not in the first 30 days. This is an impediment, because
the time it takes to impanel a jury. The CS goes a long way to fix
some of the problems that the Department of Law had with it.
Number 1023
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS agreed that this process would make it
easier for them to commit people, but she doesn't understand when
Mr. Jones says this would decrease costs. She thought it would
increase because the money needs to loaded on the front end. There
are not enough programs to solve this problem. She asked who would
treat these people and where will the beds come from.
Number 1070
MR. JONES noted that for them it's a matter of priorities. They
realize that the division could put in a large fiscal note, since
they have hugh waiting lists, some 500 people. The division has
considered putting certain priorities on certain populations for
treatment. Pregnant women, for instance, get treatment right away
and they anticipate doing these same types of things with persons
who they were committed to serve. They're not about to commit
someone they don't feel they can bring into treatment. Some
individuals may need to wait longer, but these people probably
won't have an impact on police, emergency rooms, etc.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS made the argument that as they begin to put
these people at the top of the list, they leave the people on the
waiting list even longer. These kinds of people might not be going
to hospitals or jails on a regular basis, etc., but their children
might be in custody or the children are at home in marginal
situations. There has to be some money put in this legislation or
the home system will be upset.
Number 1188
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN assumed that this involuntary commitment
is tried where there are beds available in a particular community,
at a particular time. The issue of bed availability might affect
this legislation, but he noted this involuntary commitment does not
get used very much and if it does get used more it will be when
beds are available.
MR. JONES said that the main reason this commitment process is not
used more is because programs feel as though it's a cumbersome
process. Attorney's have to be hired. Given even existing beds,
if this process was made easier, programs would use it more.
Juneau serves a lot of southeast for outpatient and residential
treatment. Juneau has been very successful finding places for
these people without significantly impacting others.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY noted the breakdown of the survey group
studied as indicated by race. She pointed out that this is largely
a problem that deals with the native community. It's a major
problem and something Alaska has been dealing with for years.
Number 1379
MR. JONES said that the numbers which Representative Toohey
referenced came from the Department of Corrections and deals with
those individuals by race who have been put into jail on existing
12 hour protective custody (indisc.). In a five year period, 85
percent of the admissions were individuals committed once, twice or
three times. Over five years, this is not a large impact. One
person in the study had 170 admissions to a jail in a five year
period. This type of person they would like to get into an
involuntary program.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that two things were happening at the same
time. He felt as though this legislation was a good idea. A
person can't be helped unless they can be held for a certain amount
of time based on individual need. Also, the sobriety movement has
been embraced by the native population which exemplifies and gives
real validity to the movement. It is the best hope this state has
ever had, but it has to have the support of this program to help
people who need to get to a level where they can recognize the
value of sobriety. This legislation will target many of these
people, to get them into this position and then many of the
communities which have these problems now, along with this sobriety
movement, can help these people.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY absolutely agreed with these statements and
agrees that the sobriety movement has impacts. It's a shining
light, but committing over half a million dollars of state money
which will be used up anyway... what happens to Indian Health
monies, where does their money come in with any kind of mental
health. Is there any commitment by the INS to commit to mental
health. She questioned what involuntary commitment would come
under, whether under mental health, as a physical illness, etc.
MR. JONES stated that Indian Health Service currently funds
significant portions of the alcohol and drug abuse prevention and
treatment effort throughout Alaska. Through their existing
contract mechanisms many of the programs use the state's money,
Indian Health Service money and local money. This doesn't change
under the commitment process. The commitment process is unique by
statute to an approved alcohol and drug abuse treatment program.
The division approves programs, even those they don't fund. Under
existing legislation, an individual can be committed to a private
treatment agency, one that receives absolutely no funds.
Alcoholism is a complex, physical and psychological disease. It
can be successfully treated very well. Alcoholism is not just a
mental health problem, a physical problem, or an addiction problem,
they all work together. The physical toxicity has to get out of
the system before the individual can address the rest of the
problem. The division, through the process of commitment is trying
to get the body less toxic enough for a person to handle their
remaining issues.
Number 1697
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if Mr. Jones could project three to five
years down the road how this legislation would impact the programs
and does he anticipate what kind of an increased need would exist.
MR. JONES noted that this was a long way down the road. If the
division instigates a significant amount of commitments, the
division may want to do some unique treatment for these individuals
in order to move them out of the existing treatment system. This
is reflected in the fiscal note. He felt as though the way in
which individuals in the substance abuse field are being treated is
under a lot of scrutiny and change. Issues around managed care,
patient placement, matching a client to appropriate treatments are
really making changes in how the division delivers services. He
noted a move from less residential into more intensive out patient
for those individuals who are able to move into less restrictive
kinds of care and treated more cost effectively.
MR. JONES added that three years from now Alaska will be further
along in this process and new ways of treatment for people of
different cultures, or from rural or urban settings across the
state will be taken into effect. They will never have enough
available to treat everybody on a treatment demand basis. He noted
that the division has a strong prevention and education message.
Given the resources the division does have and the new state-of-
the-art treatment available, he felt as though they could keep
their heads above water.
Number 1886
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked about these revolving clients helping to
pay for their own treatment through private contributions.
MR. JONES noted that the department currently requires all of their
programs to charge on a sliding fee scale and to look at how a
client can contribute to a program. He mentioned clients working
off some of their treatment through volunteer work. They also look
at the permanent fund as a source of money too. Some of the
voluntary commitments may be able to tap veteran's benefits or
native corporation benefits, as well as social security monies.
The department looks at all of these sources. It is in their
statute, that the inability to pay, is not a determinate as to
whether or not they receive treatment or whether these individuals
stay in treatment.
MR. JONES noted that in a lot of ways the permanent fund is
untouchable, if a person is on social security and they're medicaid
eligible, they can tap these resources, but if they're in an
ineligible service status, the programs aren't allowed to bill the
patient under federal law. Some of their treatment is not covered
under medicaid because of federal rules. In some cases the
individual is billed, but they might refuse to pay. There are some
limitations. In regards to the permanent fund, a person may not
have applied for one, or it might already be seized because of
taxes, or child support enforcement, it might be taken by the
Department of Corrections for the person's incarceration costs. If
an individual has been convicted on felony charges and
incarcerated, they are not eligible for the permanent fund.
Number 2317
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to adopt CS HB 493 (C/2/26/96)
for the committee's consideration. Hearing no objection it was so
moved.
Number 2395
MR. JONES responded to a question by Representative Toohey
regarding situations where an involuntary client might sue the
state and what the state is fiscally responsible for in such an
instance. He outlined that under a commitment proceeding, the
state of Alaska is not involved in the commitment process at all on
the legal end. They might be the funder of the treatment program
and they do the approval of commitment. Under the commitment act,
as it currently stands, the persons who have standing to bring a
commitment proceeding are a legal guardian, spouse, etc.
TAPE 96-25, SIDE A
Number 001
MR. JONES said of the person requests an attorney appointed by the
court, then the court would appoint that attorney. Under current
law, the state would pay for this service if the person was unable
to.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS requested that when the Department of Law and
the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse work the language changes
to the legislation, as well as, the numbers regarding the fiscal
note, could they also talk to other agencies to see what their
impacts will be as they shift this procedure from the court to
these other agencies. She would like to know what the costs will
be.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 176
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the House Judiciary Committee Meeting at
2:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|