Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/05/1994 03:00 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 5, 1994
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Bill Hudson, Chairman
Rep. Joe Green, Vice Chair
Rep. Bill Williams
Rep. Joe Sitton
Rep. Brian Porter
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Eldon Mulder
Rep. Jerry Mackie
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 301: "An Act prohibiting the sale of certain studded
tires or the sale of certain studs to be installed
in tires; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 388: "An Act establishing a comprehensive policy
relating to human resource development in the
state."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
*HB 458: "An Act relating to certain licenses and
applications for licenses for persons who are not
in compliance with orders, judgments, or payment
schedules for child support."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
REP. MARK HANLEY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 515
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-4939
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 301
JAN HANSEN, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
Alaska Office Building, Room 309
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: (907) 465-3347
Position Statement: Testified on HB 388
ROBERT J. KROGSENG
Legislative Aide
Rep. Jerry Sander's Office
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-4945
Position Statement: Testified on HB 388
ARBE WILLIAMS
Special Assistant
Department of Labor
1111 W. 8th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: (907) 465-2700
Position Statement: Testified on HB 388
DEBRA CALL
Alaska Job Training Council
12342 W. Prince of Peace
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Phone: (907) 696-5786
Position Statement: Testified on HB 388
VINCE BARRY, Director
Education Program Support
Department of Education
Goldbelt Building, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-8689
Position Statement: Testified on HB 388
FAWN HELMS
Legislative Aide
Rep. John Davies' Office
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 269-6800
Position Statement: Presented HB 458
MARY GAY, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th, Suite 312
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3556
Phone: (907) 269-6800
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 458
ROBERT ARMSTRONG
P.O. Box 542
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
Phone: (907) 874-3743
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 458
PAT NEAL
P.O. Box 2059
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
Phone: (907) 874-2519
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 458
DOUGLAS O'BRIEN
P.O. Box 81803
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Phone: (907) 479-7543
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 458
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 301
SHORT TITLE: BAN SALE OF SOME STUDDED TIRES AND STUDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY,Finkelstein
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/06/93 1665 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
05/06/93 1665 (H) TRA, L&C, FINANCE
05/07/93 1695 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FINKELSTEIN
03/15/94 2813 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
03/15/94 2813 (H) TRA, LABOR & COMMERCE,
FINANCE
03/22/94 (H) TRA AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/22/94 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/23/94 2927 (H) TRA RPT 1DP 1NR 2AM
03/23/94 2927 (H) DP: MULDER
03/23/94 2927 (H) NR: HUDSON
03/23/94 2927 (H) AM: G.DAVIS, VEZEY
03/23/94 2927 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DOT) 3/23/94
03/31/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 388
SHORT TITLE: STATE POLICY ON HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMT
SPONSOR(S): COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/21/94 2124 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/21/94 2124 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, HES, FINANCE
03/31/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 458
SHORT TITLE: CHILD SUPPORT NONPAYMENT/LICENSING BAN
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DAVIES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/09/94 2320 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/09/94 2321 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/05/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-31, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN HUDSON called the meeting to order at 3:09 p.m.,
stated there was a quorum present and announced the
calendar. He said Rep. John Davies would be joining the
committee via teleconference to address HB 458. He asked
Rep. Hanley to present HB 301.
HB 301 - BAN SALE OF SOME STUDDED TIRES AND STUDS
Number 010
REP. MARK HANLEY, Prime Sponsor of HB 301, concurred with
Chairman Hudson that the short title of the bill is
misleading. He mentioned that the Department of
Transportation has been doing road wear studies during the
past few years and the results of these, as well as research
done in other parts of this country and other countries, all
indicate that studded tires cause significant wear to the
roads. He mentioned that he introduced this bill last year
to initiate discussion, and since that time he traveled to
Finland and talked with people there about this issue.
Also, during the past year the department has determined
that there are light weight studs that fit into tires and
that decreasing the weight of studs can reduce up to 50
percent of the road wear. He said the actual stud casing is
either plastic or aluminum. He also pointed out that the
bill prohibits the use of studs that are heavier than a
certain weight. The availability of the lighter weight
studs was initially a concern; however, Johnson's Tire
Service, the largest dealer in Anchorage, might elect to use
the lighter studs as soon as next year as a marketing tool,
thereby signifying that availability is not as great a
concern as was anticipated. The additional expense of using
lighter weight studs is estimated to cost anywhere from
fifty cents to two dollars per tire, and as production
increases that cost might decrease. Studies over the past
eight years show that it is the actual change in weight of
the stud that affects the road wear, and with regard to
stopping, the stud itself remains hard and does not wear
out.
Number 038
REP. SITTON said he supports this bill, but questioned if
tire retailers and marketers would if stuck with an
inventory of tires that are illegal to sell, and he wondered
if there would be any recourse with a manufacturer.
Number 042
REP. HANLEY said the act takes effect in 1998 and he might
suggest that it move to 1997. He said there was a concern
to provide adequate time, but since they heard from
Johnson's Tire Service in Anchorage, it appears that people
have plenty of time to adapt. He said there are apparently
only two plants in Europe that manufacture studs for snow
tires and they are already going to be making these light
weight designs.
Number 050
REP. PORTER asked what the observed effect was on traction.
Number 052
REP. HANLEY mentioned that in the more current European
studies it appears that there is little if any difference.
Apparently, from the studies being done in Sweeden and
Finland, the stopping ability between the light and heavy
studs is similar, but the road wear is different. He said
it is only the casing that shows a difference and that is
inside the tires so it does not actually affect whether you
are stopping. He commented that it seems like a win-win
situation.
Number 060
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked what the results were of discussions
with the Department of Transportation. They had previously
asked that the bill be amended to include an additional
requirement regarding maximum stud hardness. Chairman
Hudson also asked if there was anyone from the department to
speak to this issue.
Number 065
REP. HANLEY reported that there has been an on-going debate
with the Department of Transportation. He said there is
only one distributer of studs for snow tires in the United
States, located in Florida, and he will be carrying the new
lighter weight studs. He explained there are two
manufacturing factories, both in Germany, that are
apparently the only ones that make these items, and the
softer metal studs are not being produced anymore. He
commented that some people want to totally ban studded snow
tires, and that evidence shows that with good tires you get
as good a stopping distance. He stated that he does not
want to go to this extent, that there are no studs with the
"Rockwell scale" being made now and he does not want to put
a back door route into the system to eliminate studded snow
tires, especially since there is, seemingly, a win-win first
step that can reduce up to 50 percent of the road wear at a
cost not much more than the current one.
Number 085
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if there were any further questions.
He asked for the wish of the committee.
(Chairman Hudson indicated that Rep. Green had arrived.)
Number 087
REP. PORTER made a motion to move the HB 301 out of the
committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal
note. After some discussion on the 1988 implementation
date, CHAIRMAN HUDSON acknowledged that there had been no
amendment regarding this date and Rep. Porter withdrew his
motion.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated that HB 301 was before the committee,
capable of being amended. He noted that the prime sponsor's
recommendation was to change the date from July 1, 1998, to
July 1, 1997. He asked for the wish of the committee. It
was so moved that the bill be amended with the
implementation date changed to 1997. Hearing no objection,
the amendment was so adopted.
REP. PORTER then renewed his motion to move the bill.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON indicated that there were no objections to
moving HB 301 with the attached fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the next order of business would
be committee substitute (CS) for HB 388.
HB 388 - STATE POLICY ON HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Number 118
JAN HANSEN, Director of Public Assistance, Department of
Health and Social Services, indicated that she did not have
a CS document before her and it was then brought to her
attention that her concerns were actually addressed by the
CS.
Number 126
CHAIRMAN HUDSON determined, after some discussion with the
staff, that CSHB 388, dated 3/18/94, did not include the
amendments. The changes were then referenced at the
following locations: page 1, line 10; page 1, line 12; page
1, line 13; page 2, a wording change on line 18; page 2,
line 20; page 2 (f) on lines 22-24; and (h) on page 3.
Number 147
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. Hansen if she was satisfied with
the changes between HB 388 and the CS for HB 388.
Number 150
MS. HANSEN responded that she was satisfied with the
changes, and in particular referred to the changes made to
section (e) which resolved the problem that was of concern
to the Division of Public Assistance.
Number 157
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if someone from Community & Regional
Affairs would speak to the bill. Chairman Hudson then asked
Robert Krogseng to present the CS to HB 388.
Number 165
ROBERT J.KROGSENG, Legislative Aide, Rep. Jerry Sander's
Office, said the suggested changes were intended to coincide
with changes that were made to Senate Bill 255. His
understanding was that the Job Training Council spent over
one year drafting this bill and the requirements, and this
was an attempt to put those efforts into law. He said the
council's comments have been made available to committee
members and should be in the packets.
Number 179
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked, for the record, if the CS was crafted
with the guidance of the chair of the House Community and
Regional Affairs Committee to be in compliance with the
Senate version.
MR. KROGSENG said he thought this was correct.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if he had seen the amendment that was
delivered.
MR. KROGSENG was not sure if he had seen the amendment to
which the chairman was referring.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to page 2, lines 25-27, and said
this essentially deletes the first sentence of (g). He
asked Mr. Krogseng for a response to the amendment.
MR. KROGSENG said that he was not involved in the original
crafting of this bill. He stated that he did not have any
problems with the amendment, and noted that it appears to
leave the supervisory responsibility, but takes the planning
and monitoring responsibilities away from the council.
REP. SITTON questioned the rationale for this amendment.
Number 230
ARBE WILLIAMS, Special Assistant, Department of Labor, said
she was not representing the Job Training Council, but was
present to ask that the amendment be accepted as proposed,
to delete the sentence, "to plan, monitor and coordinate the
program systems..." She stated the administration felt that
with the inclusion of ten state departments, a number of
programs are not addressed by the council, and the council's
membership only includes the membership of two departments.
She added that the Department of Labor was one of those
departments, so she was not saying that they are not
represented. She expressed the administration's concern
that the responsibilities assigned to the council could not
be fulfilled because membership was not broad enough.
REP. SITTON asked who would be the designee if this
amendment were adopted.
Number 248
MS. WILLIAMS responded that the administration felt this
issue should be addressed separately as it was not properly
addressed under the council. She said the governor was
committed to coordinating state training efforts and can
work within his cabinet to ensure that those programs are
coordinated. She said a coordinated report by the council
would not be inappropriate, but requiring the council to
plan, coordinate and monitor programs that are not in their
purview may be counterproductive.
Number 257
REP. SITTON commented that he was trying to be supportive of
the Department of Labor, but thought the governor could
essentially accomplish this item as a matter of policy. He
said the fact that ten departments are involved in human
resource development is mind-boggling and needs to be
addressed. He said he is concerned with who is in charge
and what is being accomplished.
Number 266
CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to page 2 of the work draft and
said the bill had expanded and now includes a great deal
more than it did previously. He said his understanding is
that the Department of Labor is saying that the governor
shall use the council as the recognized state job training
coordinating council, and they are simply removing that
because of the implications relating to other departments.
Number 279
DEBRA CALL, Alaska Job Training Council, testified via
teleconference and said the need for a state policy was a
point well-taken. She said this was the council's first
attempt and it has been under development for five or six
years, although the efforts have been more concentrated
during the past year. She said there was a need, in light
of the budget crises, to have a state policy to provide
direction. She stated that the council was advisory to the
governor and does plan, monitor, and coordinate certain
programs. She said there needed to be an entity in charge
of delivering a report and actually being able to give
advise to the governor that will produce some results. She
mentioned that the council was composed of a variety of
members, including Jan Hansen in today's meeting, members
from the private sector, the oil industry, and others who
share the vision of Alaska having a world-class work force.
She concluded her remarks by suggesting that the sentence be
modified to include "...as identified by the federal
government", but she advised that the sentence not be
eliminated altogether.
Number 323
REP. PORTER said, "if they don't, there isn't anybody else
that can." He asked if line 26 could be changed to use the
word "may".
Number 332
MS. WILLIAMS said this modification would be fine and the
governor would determine if this was the appropriate method
or if another method like a mini-cabinet would be
preferable. She said the administration had asked for this
sentence to be deleted to clarify that the council does not
function for those ten departments. She said the council
does not fully address issues like economic development or
business proposals because those programs do not have full
representation on the council.
Number 345
CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he understood that this legislation
involved not taking the full measure, and that keeping the
language under (g) and leaving this up to the governor's
discretion indicated that the purpose was to create an
overall coordinated effort, which meant that over time, the
council would be able to work with various departments, the
university, and other outlets to try to pull together a
common plan. He said the change from "shall" to "may" still
maintained a strong statement, but leads in the right
direction.
REP. GREEN posed a question about what needed to be in
statute that could not be done by regulation. He asked if
the problem was that this pertained to various departments.
Number 365
MS. HANSEN said she might regret her comments, but perhaps
could shed some light by responding to Rep. Green's query.
She said it was her opinion that this could be done by
regulation. She offered some background information, given
that she was a member of the council as well as part of the
administration, and said it was a desire of the council to
have a stronger human resources development policy adopted
by the state. She stated that this was the current draft of
a statement of policy, and it had been through many
permutations. She said from the administration's
perspective there was some problem regarding the idea of
coordinating state agencies to achieve the goal of a
successfully trained, competitive, Alaskan work force. She
said those are goals that can be set as a policy statement
by a mini-cabinet or an executive order or by regulations or
by a policy within statute; there are many options.
MS. HANSEN said she would like to respond a little more
specifically to Ms. William's statement regarding the
proposed modification that the governor "may" use the
council. She pointed out that this may be problematic
because the council was required to be used by the governor
for certain coordination activities in order for federal
monies to be made available for those activities and that,
in fact, this bill brings in departments that go beyond the
required activities of the council. She said the council
must review certain plans in her department and other
departments as well, and from that perspective, in order to
get federal monies, the governor must use the council as the
coordinating entity for those functions. She wanted to
point this out so as to not create a conflict. She said the
concern is that it is beyond the current purview of the
council to have planning and monitoring authority for all of
the departments that are mentioned in the first section.
She said she could not offer an immediate suggestion, but
was trying to point out areas of concern.
REP. PORTER asked about the intent to eliminate the words
"plan and monitor" based on his understanding of Ms.
Hansen's testimony that the council is required to
"coordinate".
Number 420
MS. HANSEN responded that the council has a responsibility
to plan and to some degree monitor within the purview of
those programs over which it has federal responsibility.
She said there must be a way of wording that would resolve
this concern.
Number 427
REP. GREEN referred to section 1 and asked if he understood
correctly that if there was just regulation, then the other
departments would have the option of voluntary interaction,
and therefore statute was necessary.
Number 431
MS. HANSEN responded that this was not actually what she
intended. She said, in fact, it was the position of the
administration to coordinate among all of these departments
whenever necessary whether it be for economic development,
job training, educational components or whatever. From her
perspective, the administration performs this function of
"cooperating and coordinating."
Number 441
REP. GREEN said he was not being argumentative but he did
not quite understand why the statute was necessary.
Number 444
MS. HANSEN responded that a statute was not required, but
would elevate this to a greater (indiscernible). She said
the coordination that was being requested does not require a
statute, but placing it as policy in statute gives it
greater visibility, and it was her understanding that the
council's desire was to have it as a more publicly
established policy.
Number 454
REP. HUDSON asked, "But you are doing it anyway?"
MS. HANSEN replied, "Yes, from my perspective, as part of
the administration, I think that we are doing it, and of
course we can do it better and more. But I believe it is
being done."
REP. SITTON referred to page 2, line 9, and asked about the
reference to "public officials" and wondered if this was
applicable to local school boards.
MS. HANSEN replied that this was an excellent comment and
she did not have a response concerning what was intended.
Number 466
CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to page 2, line 26, and asked about
the substitution of the word "may" for "shall". He said he
did not understand how this fails to assure compliance with
federal requirements. He said it was not that the governor
would not use the council to comply with federal law; the
governor would have to do that, because that law would
precede anything in a public policy of this nature. But, he
continued, this rewording might result in the governor's use
of the council as a coordinated effort to develop a more
specific plan. He stated, for the record, that this
committee would not do anything to preclude the governor's
responsibility of using the council in compliance with
federal law or regulation.
Number 489
MS. HANSEN said this was going a little beyond her purview.
She was trying to assist in informing the debate and wanted
to raise this as an issue for discussion.
Number 497
MS. CALL said even though she respected Ms. Hansen's opinion
on coordination, one problem she has seen is the lack of an
over-riding policy in Alaska, and a policy is necessary
because Alaska is facing a budget crises. She added that
she had no problem using the word "may". She said she
represented a company and an industry that hire from outside
the state and she questioned why there continues to be
hiring from outside when Alaska has an excellent university
system. She added that Alaskan industries other than oil
need to be developed and this document addresses the fact
that now is the time to develop some goals and objectives
for the next ten years.
Number 516
REP. PORTER moved that the committee adopt CSHB 388, dated
3/18/94 J.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON, hearing no objections, stated that CSHB
388, dated 3/18/94 J, was properly before the committee.
REP. PORTER moved that on page 2, line 26, the deletion of
the word "shall" and replacement by the word "may".
CHAIRMAN HUDSON, hearing no objection to that amendment,
declared the amendment adopted. The chair then withdrew the
amendment that had been prepared.
Number 523
VINCE BARRY, Director, Education Program Support, Department
of Education, said the department disagreed with the idea
that the council should plan, coordinate, and implement
these programs. He said he wanted to make it very clear
that the department supports the concept of a comprehensive
policy, and he pointed out that currently the ten
departments and the university do collaborate on dozens of
activities. He suggested, as an example of a possible
comprehensive policy statement, that this committee direct
the ten departments and the university to plan, coordinate,
and implement their programs. He said, "as soon as you give
it to some entity, you are involved in a program, as opposed
to a policy." He added that this was simply too phenomenal
of an undertaking for one single entity.
TAPE 94-32, SIDE A
(NOTE: TAPE 94-31, SIDE B, BROKEN)
Number 001
CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to page 2, section (g), and said
that the governor's power and responsibility was, in effect,
being maintained by this legislation.
Number 014
MR. BARRY pointed out that this was not as simple as it
seemed because the Department of Education and other
departments were not members of the council, so if the
council were to become the entity, other issues would then
be created. He reiterated that a policy statement was
included in Section 1.
Number 027
CHAIRMAN HUDSON mentioned that perhaps the council could be
expanded to include the Department of Education. He said
the current language leaves the selection of a coordinating
entity as being discretionary with the governor and he asked
Mr. Barry if he felt very strongly about "planning,
moderating, and coordinating through the council."
Number 041
MR. BARRY restated that this would be an impossible task
under these circumstances. He said he found it difficult to
imagine all the reports that would be necessary to bring the
information into a meaningful format. He said he did not
mean to be disrespectful, but other than paying lip service
to the fact that people need to be trained and educated, he
did not want to be misleading and say that passage of this
legislation "would effectively bring things together."
Number 055
CHAIRMAN HUDSON said there seems to be a need for a
coordinating aspect between the different departments,
possibly similar to the Telecommunications Information
Council (TIC). He added that he really was not sure, but
possibly the council was not the right entity for this
function.
Number 068
REP. GREEN referred to page 3 and read, "the council shall
submit a report every year to the governor and the
legislature, and every four years there will be an audit"
and expressed his concern that this does seem to be a major
job, and yet there was a zero fiscal note.
Number 077
MR. BARRY said as soon as you insert any entity, even if it
is a benign approach, then you are off of the policy issue.
He said that deleting the issue on lines 25-27 allows this
to be a comprehensive policy relating to human resources and
development in the state.
Number 098
REP. PORTER said he did not have a problem with the
legislature stating a policy and making suggestions for
implementation; indeed that was the role of the legislature.
He pointed out that the council has better access to private
sector involvement than other departments and this
facilitates the coordination of job training. He said his
interest was in training pertaining to private jobs rather
than training pertaining to public jobs. He mentioned that
the council already has this set up and coordinated. He
added that perhaps the role of the council would be
expanded, and this would be fine. He asked, "What would we
have if we took this statement out?" He said, "We would
have a policy, but with no direction at all." He concluded
by saying he was comfortable with reducing the language to
"may" but stated this was the work of the council.
Number 119
CHAIRMAN HUDSON said that a slightly amended CS was before
the committee. He asked if there was any further
discussion.
Number 123
REP. SITTON said he agreed with the idea of having a unified
work policy, but his personal view was that this piece of
paper did not accomplish anything, that the governor already
has the power to gather together the commissioners and the
university, and that this was simply "clogging up the
lawbook and will not accomplish anything in the end."
Number 131
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked for the wish of the committee.
REP. PORTER emphasized that a year and a half of work had
gone into this.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated that HB 388 would be held over.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON brought CS for HB 458 to the attention of
the committee and noted that Rep. John Davies was no longer
able to be on-line.
HB 458 - CHILD SUPPORT NONPAYMENT/LICENSING BAN
Number 151
FAWN HELMS, Legislative Aide to Rep. John Davies, Prime
Sponsor of HB 458, stated that child care enforcement can
attach to wages to collect back child support, but
unfortunately this has not taken care of the back child
support owed to both custodial parents and to the state in
lieu of Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). She
explained that before issuing a licence, the licensor must
check the applicant's name against a list compiled by the
Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) that lists people
who are substantially not in compliance. In the CS, "being
not in substantial compliance" means not having made a
payment in the last year or being $2500 in arrears. She
said once this mechanism is triggered, as long as the person
otherwise qualifies for the license or certificate, a 150-
day temporary license would be issued. During that time
there would be an opportunity to work with the CSED to
either show that the CSED's records were in error, or to
make arrangements to be in compliance. Following this, the
regular license or certificate would be issued. She
referred to an informal survey, "State Responses On
Licensing Restrictions And Revocations" in the packets,
conducted by the federal office of Child Support
Enforcement. She said they checked with other states that
had implemented similar programs and indications show that
this has helped in collecting back child support. She said
there have actually been very few instances where they have
had to resort to denying a license or certificate. She
added that this was basically a way to get people's
attention to the fact that they need to tend to their
payment responsibility.
Number 190
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked for the specifics to be reiterated.
MS. HELMS confirmed that $2500 in arrears was on the bottom
end, and she read the definition located on page 7, line 17.
Number 202
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked, for the record, if there were a lot
of people in major noncompliance.
MS. HELMS responded that the division would be better able
to speak to this issue, but it was her understanding that
there was at least $300 million in arrears in Alaska.
Number 215
MARY GAY, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division
(CSED), Department of Revenue, said there are $330 million
in unpaid child support, a large portion of which is owed to
the state for AFDC money because the money was given to
families because the absent parent was not providing
support. She said this legislation would substantially
increase CSED collections because it would make the
nontraditional wage earner, the self-employed person,
address the situation of either paying child support or
losing a license. She said last year the CSED collected $50
million in child support from only 46 percent of the cases,
leaving 54 percent of the cases as having paid nothing.
She said somebody was taking care of those families and she
thought it was the state.
MS. GAY explained that a portion of the 54 percent would be
self-employed and she referred to a national statistic which
states that 46 percent of the population is employed in
nontraditional wage earning jobs. She said if they
estimated that 25 percent of all the cases were in that
category, they would be able to increase their collection by
$16 million. Of that amount, one and one half million
dollars would be returned to the general fund because that
would be the portion of AFDC collected. She said that about
three million dollars in AFDC is collected and 50 percent of
that would go to the general fund and 50 percent would go
back to the federal government.
MS. GAY said that child support's funding comes from the
federal government at a 66 percent match. She mentioned
that the licensing entities involved in helping the agency
would be able to submit their expenditures to the division
and there would be a 66 percent match on the efforts put
forth in helping the CSED.
Number 256
REP. GREEN noted that this was an astonishing amount of
money and asked, "How much do you have a feel for
approximately how many of these deadbeats are outside of
Alaska that would not be pressured by this loss of
licenses?"
MS. GAY responded that it would probably be less than ten
percent.
REP. GREEN commented that most of them are in Alaska. He
then asked, "Can you give us an overview of what kind of a
person this is, that is in arrears in child support?"
MS. GAY responded that the person is usually a male, in the
age range of 25-45, and that there are quite a few that have
multiple cases. She explained that some conceal their
assets, and some work in a cash economy.
REP. GREEN explained that the reason he was asking was
because he wondered if that kind of person was likely to be
thwarted by the loss of a license.
MS. GAY gave the example of a trucker who would be affected
if he did not have his commercial driver's license. She
said a truck driver can be considered as a subcontractor and
is not necessarily employed; he is paid a check and taxes
are not taken out. She said he might send in his tax
return, but he might not send in child support checks.
Number 296
REP. GREEN asked if it would enforce the intent of the
legislation if this were expanded to include other types of
licenses, such as limited entry permits, fishing licenses,
etc.
MS. GAY said she was happy to see this legislation because
it would be helpful, but as she did not write it, this
question would better be directed to Rep. Davies.
Number 306
REP. GREEN reiterated that he was wondering if the threat of
not having a driver's license would influence somebody to
pay what they obviously owe, and furthermore, he questioned
if expanding this to other mechanisms would amplify the
pressure to respond.
MS. GAY said yes, if the categories were expanded, then the
collections would also be increased.
Number 313
REP. GREEN asked what portion of the collection on the $330
million in arrears would then go to the state.
Number 317
MS. GAY explained that of the $330 million in unpaid child
support, there is a portion that is uncollectible, and they
guesstimate that 30 percent is collectable. She said they
have not touched it very well as yet because they only
collect one and one half percent of that unpaid amount, and
it is growing because there is interest accruing on it. She
said if they could collect 25 or 30 percent of it, that
would be very helpful to the state. Of that portion, she
figured 74 percent would go to the custodial parents and 24
percent would go to the state. She added that 50 percent of
the state's portion is federal.
Number 329
CHAIRMAN HUDSON figured that the state would get 12.5
percent.
Number 331
REP. PORTER asked if someone could beat the system by paying
one dollar a year.
MS. GAY replied, "and not owing more than $2,500." She
added that in a lot of these cases the amount was much more
than that.
REP. PORTER said that if more than $2500 was owed, this law
could still be beat by paying one dollar a year.
MS. GAY pointed out that the wording is "and".
REP. PORTER pointed out that a person is in compliance if
they have made one payment or a partial payment during the
past twelve months.
MS. GAY said if a person owes $2,499 and has submitted a one
dollar payment, that person could slip under the wire. She
said they do not want to be chasing people unless the back
payments are large because it causes more work for the
division.
Number 361
REP. PORTER said when someone owes that much money, it is
wise to try to get it, and if that person was using the help
of an attorney, "that attorney reading this would see that
hole quicker than I did."
Number 365
MS. GAY said she did not know what the average child support
amount is. She guessed that maybe it was about $300 or $400
and therefore it does not take very long for the amount to
reach $2,500. She added that payment due is figured as a
percentage of one's income and also on the number of
children involved. She said it is 20 percent for one child
and 27 percent for two children.
Number 377
REP. PORTER said he could circumvent the entire bill by
paying one dollar a year.
MS. GAY repeated that this pertains only to the situation of
the back payments ALSO being under $2,500. She said she
thought the CSED would keep busy focusing on those who had
accumulated more than $2,500.
MS. GAY said something she found interesting was the
inclusion that the CSED would report back to the legislature
in the following year. She suggested that time might
possibly be used to try something different.
REP. GREEN asked exactly what the $330 million represented.
MS. GAY said that $330 million was in arrears, and 50
million was paid.
REP. GREEN reiterated that if $330 million had accumulated
as unpaid, he wondered what was the percentage of deadbeats
and he asked, "Was it five percent or ten percent? How many
people legitimately paid?"
MS. GAY replied that of the 50 million that was paid, those
payments came from 46 percent of the obligers, so 54 percent
did not pay anything.
Number 416
REP. GREEN brought up the point that the CSED would not have
a record of a person who had been paying all along.
Number 427
MS. GAY clarified that they do not have records of all the
child support cases. She said when someone goes on AFDC,
they have to have a case with the CSED or sometimes the
court says a person has to go the CSED. She agreed that
there are a portion of the cases that the division never
sees. She said the CSED does not see the people who pay
their child support and have arrangements that are working
out.
Number 440
REP.GREEN posed a question about the process of divorce and
asked if it was more likely that payments were made through
the courts or through the CSED.
MS. GAY said, more likely than not, payments are made
through the CSED.
Number 445
REP. GREEN asked, "And you said that any number of these
people have two or three sets that they are responsible
for?"
MS. GAY said in many of these instances there was never a
marriage, and when the child is born, there may not be a
father listed on the birth certificate because there was not
a marriage. She said blood testing is involved and they
determine who the father is.
Number 460
REP. GREEN asked about the current collection efforts, not
including the proposed legislation.
Number 462
MS. GAY said the division currently has a staff of 170
people and approximately 24 people work in the enforcement
section and they are just beginning a new section called the
investigator unit intended to pursue people who are
concealing their assets. She said there is also a locate
section and an employer reporting program that has been
under statute for the past three years.
Number 483
REP. PORTER asked if the payments collected were generally
monthly collections.
MS. GAY said they are very effective with the traditional
wage earners because wages are with-held with every
paycheck. She said they have a problem with nontraditional
wage earners.
Number 497
REP. GREEN presented the theoretical situation of a mother
and her children, with the mother having a settlement that
is due her on a monthly basis from her ex-husband, but that
goes in arrears. Meanwhile, if the state provides AFDC as a
means of support, then when the collection process begins,
who has the rights to that money? Who has the first draw?
Number 500
MS. GAY responded that as long as the mother is on AFDC, the
money goes to the state except for a 50 dollar pass-through
amount that goes directly to her.
Number 501
MS. GAY presented a scenario where a mother had been on AFDC
for five months, receiving $800 a month. Because the man
does not make very much money, it is figured that he can pay
$200 a month, so over a period of five months he owes $1,000
of the $2,000 total that is owed to the state. The amount
is calculated on how much he earns, not on how much the
state gave to the family. She said if he won a $10,000
jackpot, $1,000 would go to the state, she would get the
other $9,000, and she would be able to go off of AFDC.
REP. GREEN asked if her past due would be diminished.
MS. GAY said the state's portion would be paid and she would
receive the rest of the money. If she were not receiving
AFDC and he suddenly had access to $10,000 and he owed her
money, then she would be paid first and the state would be
paid later.
Number 511
CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he would hold this bill over; that he
would like to have the prime sponsor present before moving
on this bill, and added that it needs to be tightened up.
Chairman Hudson asked Ms. Helms to relay to Rep. Davies that
"there is at least one section in here that we believe a
good, or not even a good, but maybe even a bad attorney
could probably get all the way through."
Number 515
REP. PORTER suggested eliminating the phrase "or partial
payment" on page 7, line 20, and then adding some other
verbiage so that it would read, "and has made at least one
payment in the past 12 months that represents at least one
twelfth of the required annual payment."
Number 523
MS. GAY said they would prepare a fiscal note for the
committee and mentioned that the costs from the licensing
entities would impact the CSED's costs.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced they would address the
teleconference calls.
Number 527
ROBERT ARMSTRONG testified from Wrangell and said he has
been involved in child support since 1976 when he got his
first divorce. He began by saying that they did not have
the current bill in Wrangell.
TAPE 94-33, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. ARMSTRONG continued by asking if he would be in
compliance (indiscernible).
MS. HELMS responded to Mr. Armstrong's question and said
that he would be in compliance because he would be making
regular payments and he would have been making at least one
payment a year.
MR. ARMSTRONG asked if this meant that anyone with a wage
garnishment would be in compliance.
MS. HELMS said, yes, as long as they were employed and the
CSED was receiving payments through the employer.
MR. ARMSTRONG asked if this would also apply if he were a
seasonal worker and went on unemployment during the winter
months.
MS. HELMS replied this was correct because unemployment was
also attached by the CSED, so he would still be in
substantial compliance.
Number 012
MR. ARMSTRONG said his biggest concern was judicial in
nature. He referred to the 14th amendment in the
constitution and read, "No state shall make or force any law
which shall abridge the privileges or..." and then stated
that taking away the privilege of a driver's license is, in
effect, violating the 14th amendment. He added that this
bill would be obstructing his "pursuit of happiness" which
is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. He said
this bill does the opposite of what is needed because what
is needed are business and productive incentives for the
person who has to make child support payments. He pointed
out that if someone was in noncompliance and their license
was taken away, they could not even drive to work. He
restated that he had major problems with this legislation
and it seems to have some strongly negative connotations.
He questioned the efficiency of the agency and its ability
to use the tools it already possesses and he voiced his
opinion that the legislature should think twice before
giving the agency more tools to work with. He said, "Don't
blame everything on the obligor out there. Look at the
agency and see what they are doing." He concluded by
pointing out that the "pass through" payment remains $50
even if a person's monthly payment changes significantly.
Number 057
REP. PORTER commented that it was unfortunate that the CS
for the bill was not available to Mr. Armstrong. He said
his understanding was that this legislation supplied the
agency with the additional tool of reaching the self-
employed person who is otherwise unavailable for
garnishment. He mentioned that the 14th amendment does not
guarantee such things as life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, but rather that a person will not be deprived
without due process. He said most of these orders are the
result of a court process, and that is due process.
Number 067
CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked Mr. Armstrong and said if he had
information to submit to the committee, they would be happy
to receive it and to pass this on to the prime sponsor so
they would have a better answer in the future.
Number 071
PAT NEAL testified from Wrangell and said she is married to
a noncustodial parent who has been in compliance with child
support payments. She said she has kept a log of her
dealings with child support enforcement during the past one
and one half years and it does not paint a very good picture
of the CSED. She said both she and her husband have been
treated rather badly by the CSED and the division's
unprofessional and ineffective treatment is frightening to
her in light of the current legislation. She said the CSED
does not need another tool because much of what is covered
in this bill is already covered under present law. She said
if the CSED would do their job, this bill would be
unnecessary. She pointed out that the CSED has 50 percent
garnishment, places liens on personal property and vessels,
intercepts IRS and permanent fund dividend payments, and has
access to lists of directors from organizations and
companies that incorporate. She stated she did not feel
there was a need for this bill and that it would generate a
bureaucratically created deadbeat problem that would be
worse than it is now.
Number 092
DOUGLAS O'BRIEN testified from Fairbanks and stated that
child support is composed of physical and financial support
and also emotional support or visitation. He said Alaska,
unlike successful states that have high compliance rates,
does not enforce visitation. He noted that in Michigan,
which he understands has the highest compliance rate, there
is enforced visitation. He said this bill is built on the
myth of the deadbeat dad and this is a misnomer. He
suggested that they not go forward with this bill until they
achieve a better understanding of how the system works. He
explained that the CSED is almost impossible to deal with
and the legislature has empowered the agency to go back ten
years to investigate compliance history. He mentioned that
people have problems with the IRS and the IRS only goes back
seven years unless fraud is proven. He said the CSED's
requirement for producing ten year's worth of records was a
mistake on the legislature's part, and with the attached
penalties and interest, it becomes totally prohibitive. He
asked if there was time to continue with his testimony.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON responded that Mr. O'Brien was offering some
meaningful information, but he wanted to be sure that he had
access to the current bill copy and he wanted the prime
sponsor to be available to respond to Mr. O'brien's
comments.
MR. O'BRIEN interjected that Rep. Davies had been sitting
right next to him and they had talked at length for about 30
minutes. He added that people are not aware of what the
CSED is all about and they assume that this is about
deadbeat dads and the collection of real and viable past
payments.
Number 142
CHAIRMAN HUDSON agreed that this was the viewpoint of some
of the legislators and indicated that they are open to being
educated. He suggested that Mr. O'brien submit any written
information that he cared to, and said they would try to
give Mr. O'brien more time when this legislation is brought
up again. He thanked Mr. O'Brien for testifying.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON said HB 458 would be carried over.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|