Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/25/1998 03:21 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
February 25, 1998
3:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 383
"An Act relating to expected deaths that occur at home or in a
health care facility."
- MOVED HB 383 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 400
"An Act combining parts of the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development and parts of the Department of Community and Regional
Affairs by transferring some of their duties to a new Department of
Commerce and Rural Development; transferring some of the duties of
the Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the
Department of Community and Regional Affairs to other existing
agencies; eliminating the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs;
relating to the Department of Commerce and Rural Development;
adjusting the membership of certain multi-member bodies to reflect
the transfer of duties among departments and the elimination of
departments; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 383
SHORT TITLE: EXPECTED DEATHS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DAVIS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/06/98 2239 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/06/98 2239 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY
02/25/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 400
SHORT TITLE: DEPT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOHRING, Austerman, Barnes,
Cowdery, Hodgins, Kelly, Mulder, Ogan, Ryan, Therriault, Vezey
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/12/98 2307 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/98 2308 (H) L&C, FINANCE
02/23/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/23/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/25/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 383.
DEB DAVIDSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Gary Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 383.
DR. MICHAEL PROPST, State Medical Examiner
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 269-5090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against the "no duty to notify peace
officer" portion of HB 383.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4322
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against the "no duty to notify peace
officer" portion of HB 383.
CYNTHIA ELLIOT, Staff Registered Nurse
First Choice Home Health Care, Incorporated
460 Roy Way
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 260-5959
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 383.
TOM WILKINSON, Staff Nurse
Central Peninsula General Hospital
250 Hospital Place
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-8157
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 383.
DEBRA SHUEY
HC 2, Box 737
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 283-6650
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 383.
LIZ SCHUBERT, Executive Director
Hospice of the Central Peninsula
35477 Kenai Spur Highway, Suite 214
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-0453
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 383.
CHIEF SHIRLEY WARNER, Soldotna Police Department
44510 Sterling Highway
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-4455
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against the "no duty to notify peace
officer" portion of HB 383.
DAVID CORAY
P.O. Box 3234
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-4839
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 383.
LORI BROWN, Administrator
First Choice Home Health Care, Incorporated
245 North Binkley, Number 101
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 260-5959
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 383, suggested
possible amendment.
JEFF BUSH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110800
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0800
Telephone: (907) 465-2500
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 400, provided
information.
LAMAR COTTEN, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
P.O. Box 112100
Juneau, Alaska 99811-2100
Telephone: (907) 465-4700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 400, provided
information.
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2186
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 400.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-18, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:21 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Cowdery, Hudson
and Ryan. Representative Sanders, Brice and Kubina arrived at 3:23
p.m., 3:32 p.m., and 3:33 p.m. respectively.
HB 383 - EXPECTED DEATHS
Number 0044
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first item of business
would be HB 383, "An Act relating to expected deaths that occur at
home or in a health care facility." He invited the bill sponsor to
come forward.
Number 0059
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS came forward to present HB 383. He
stated HB 383 addresses a concern that was brought to his attention
over the interim. He gave the situation of a person who is dying
and whose death is considered imminent, who is known to be in a
physical state where survival is not expected, and who is being
cared for by an agency such as a hospice, home health care service,
or some existing organization providing a bereaving service. He
noted these services assist not only the patient, but also the
family members. Representative Davis stated that current statutes
require the police department be notified when that person passes,
and the police then come and investigate the cause of death. He
said it seems this process is often invasive, noting different
peace officers react differently. He said it takes a tactful
person to enter that situation, and he wondered why there is even
the statute requiring the person at the scene to call the police
officer in the case of an expected death where that is agreed and
signed by the patient and a physician. Representative Davis
indicated he thought, with all the duties and work peace officer
groups are involved in nowadays, they would welcome a reduction in
workload.
Number 0258
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated HB 383 actually clarifies the statute
because they have found this situation is currently treated
differently in different parts of the state. In some areas the
policeman will automatically come to the house, with sirens going,
and do his investigation. Representative Davis noted he was not
sure, but he thought then the policeman pronounced death and the
body could then be moved. He said it is currently a bit vague in
statute, noting there is a "may" which some treat as a "shall." At
this time, some police departments respond and others don't. He
stated HB 383 would also clarify that and that was the
legislation's intent. Representative Davis referred to the
sectional analysis of Section 1 of HB 383. That part of the
sectional analysis reads: "Amends AS 08.68.395 "Determination of
death by registered nurse," subsection (a) to specify that required
documentation for anticipated death include the physician's
agreement to sign the death certificate if the death occurs as
anticipated." Representative Davis indicated, because of the cost
factors involved in the care of a dying person, they are currently
offering as many opportunities as they can for that person to pass
as peacefully as possible at home with family members, rather than
in a more expensive hospital setting. He stated there is an
"expected death form" currently utilized which is signed by the
patient and a physician. Representative Davis said when that form
is in place, and there is an imminent and expected death, then this
"no duty to call the police officer" would come into play. He
noted this is the essence of HB 383.
Number 0451
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, for purposes of clarity, he appreciated
the inclusion of copies of the relevant statutes in the bill
packet. He asked where the reporting requirement was located,
questioning whether it was in Chapter 65.
Number 0485
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied he thought the reference was in AS
12.65.005 which reads: "Sec. 12.65.005. Duty to notify state
medical examiner. (a) Unless the person has reasonable grounds to
believe that notice has already been given, a person who attends a
death or has knowledge of a death, in addition to notifying a peace
officer, shall immediately notify the state medical examiner when
the death appears to have" [continues with subsections (1) through
(10), and subsection (b)].
Number 0516
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON indicated this was a topic not many
people thought about unless they were personally affected, and he
appreciated Representative Davis bringing it to his attention. He
referred to the copies of the statutes in the bill packet, Sec.
12.65.010, subsection (c), which read: "The body of a person whose
death has been or should be reported to the state medical examiner
under this section may not be moved or otherwise disturbed without
the permission of the state medical examiner." Representative
Hudson stated there was no change in that language, asking
Representative Davis if that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated Representative Hudson was correct.
Number 0570
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that was kind of important as they
looked at this.
Number 0578
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Representative Davis how it worked if the
police officer was not going to be notified, but the body was not
going to be moved.
Number 0591
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied it was his understanding that the body
could be moved after death had been pronounced. He asked his staff
to come forward.
Number 0631
DEB DAVIDSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Gary Davis, came forward. She asked Chairman
Rokeberg to restate the question.
Number 0638
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG restated his question, referring to
Representative Hudson's question about not being able to move the
body until the medical examiner was notified.
Number 0668
MS. DAVIDSON responded that, according to the copy of the
procedures she received from the state medical examiner's office,
there is an "800" phone number which she thinks is 1 (888) DECEASE.
She said it appears this is a 24-hour number rotated among the
staff or going directly to the medical examiner, which can be
called at any time of the day when death occurs. Ms. Davidson
stated, "You tell them that the death occurred, certain information
that's already required: name, address, that type of thing." She
said at that point the medical examiner gives permission for the
body to be moved, and then the funeral director or whoever may be
called. Ms. Davidson indicated the state medical examiner might be
able to answer that question better.
Number 0734
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN stated, for the record, his wife is a
registered nurse. He noted he thought Representative Davis's wife
was also a nurse.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied in the affirmative.
Number 0750
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if this was going to incur an added
liability on registered nurses' licenses, noting only a physician
previously has had the power to sign the death certificate.
Number 0766
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated he would answer and then refer to his
staff who has done more research. He said currently registered
nurses are authorized to pronounce death, so he doesn't think that
would be impacted.
Number 0790
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY stated he has had members of his family
expire in his home on more than one occasion, noting the police
showed up without sirens and, in fact, he said the police had been
comforting. Representative Cowdery said it was a crazy world,
indicating somebody might sign something like an expected death
form and then miraculously live ten more years. He asked what
would happen if foul play entered this and how was that situation
addressed, noting he thought police involvement was for the
assurance that no foul play is involved.
Number 0864
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied he thought there were two obvious
questions which came to everyone's mind in this. He noted the
notice of imminent death is valid for 120 days - it is not
unlimited, so he said there is a limit there. Representative Davis
commented that number is adjustable, but he thinks it is what is
used in the current paperwork. Representative Davis said bring up
the possibility of foul play is a very good point, and something
many people are concerned with these days. He stated the
professionals involved are licensed and their reputations are on
the line, noting he referred to home health care and hospice
personnel but there may be others. Representative Davis stated he
would expect these professionals to call the police if they had any
suspicion themselves, indicating he thought just the implication of
foul play getting to the press or the community would ruin an
organization and possibly that individual professional. He said he
didn't know whether that is enough rationale to relieve the
suspicion on any individual's part, but stated that is how he has
rationalized the situation.
Number 0967
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented he would like address questions to
representatives of the Alaska State Troopers.
Number 0978
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the presence of Representative Sanders,
Representative Brice and Representative Kubina. Chairman Rokeberg
stated he had some questions, but would like to proceed first to
the other witnesses.
Number 1074
DR. MICHAEL PROPST, State Medical Examiner, Division of Public
Health, Department of Health and Social Services, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He stated he was speaking in
opposition to the portion of HB 383 regarding notification of
police officers. Dr. Propst said he is also familiar with death at
home, noting his mother died at home not many years ago in Oregon
from pancreatic cancer. He said neither he nor his father were
upset or alarmed by the deputy sheriff who stopped by shortly after
his mother died; he said the officer's presence was comforting.
Dr. Propst stated that, as the state medical examiner, he practices
forensic pathology. His duties under the statutes are to
investigate deaths including deaths in suspicious or unusual
circumstances, and he said, in general, that includes deaths which
occur at home. Dr. Propst stated one of the basic principles of
forensic pathology is that the easiest person to murder is a person
who is expected to die, such as those registered in an expected
death program. He said the ability to have a brief police visit at
the time of death provides a final check and balance in the system
for expected home deaths. The officer responds without a blaring
siren or flashing red lights, evaluates the scene, confirms the
identity of the deceased, briefly views the remains for obvious
evidence of injury or violence and reviews the medications of the
deceased. Dr. Propst noted the officer's interchange with those
present allows the officer to assess the demeanor of those present
and (indisc.) the appropriateness of that demeanor. If all is
okay, the officer's visit is relatively brief and, in Dr. Propst's
words, "But a short intrusion." He indicated the checks and
balances provided by the officer's visit includes: 1) confirming
the identity of the deceased, and 2) confirming the lack of
evidence of injury or violence, whether self-inflicted or inflicted
by another. Dr. Propst stated the officer's presence at the scene
allows allegations of a variety of bad actions to be addressed:
elder abuse; covert, "Kevorkian-like" assisted suicide; and
maltreatment by the home health care provider. Dr. Propst stated
he opposes the section of HB 383 dealing with AS 12.65 for those
reasons. He said he thinks the passage of this has the potential
to take away information gathering about the now-deceased patient.
Dr. Propst said he relies, as state medical examiner, on the
information gathered by the police on a death at home. It allows
him to determine that the death was a natural one and did not
involve any kind of malfeasance.
Number 1250
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated being autopsied was a personal phobia of
his, and he asked Dr. Propst what someone had to do when he or she
died to avoid one.
Number 1269
DR. PROPST said dying under a situation which was a natural disease
process under the care of a physician in a hospital would pretty
much guarantee that. Unless the family wanted some sort of post-
mortem examination, he indicated an autopsy would not be necessary
in that situation.
Number 1290
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Dr. Propst if he knew of any strange
circumstances to date in any Alaskan expected home deaths.
Number 1302
DR. PROPST replied that he had investigated at least one case where
elder abuse was alleged within the last two years, and said he was
able to prove that allegation was unfounded.
Number 1314
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated it sounded like Dr. Propst's
concern was Section 3 of the bill, "No duty to notify peace officer
of an expected home death." Representative Hudson asked about the
bill's other provisions.
DR. PROPST responded he had no objections to those other
provisions, stating his objections were to Section 3.
Number 1331
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he understood Dr. Propst had no
objection to the other provisions, but he asked if Dr. Propst could
speak to the validity of the need for the other changes.
DR. PROPST stated he believed that those changes are satisfactory.
Number 1351
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS noted Alaska is a large place and some areas
lack police, but there may be a hospice, home health care, or a
registered nurse attending an expected death. He asked Dr. Propst
how those deaths were currently handled.
Number 1373
DR. PROPST answered there were two points. He said that, for the
most part, the police agency responsible for the area responds to
every scene of death. In areas covered by the Alaska State
Troopers, he believes the troopers respond to each death. Dr.
Propst said other police agencies in other areas, including village
public safety officers (VPSOs), also respond to death scenes.
Number 1401
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if the statutes requiring the body not
to be moved until a police officer has arrived and an investigation
has taken place still applied.
DR. PROPST answered that is correct, and he said that is the way
the current medical examiner statute is structured.
Number 1419
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted the change in Section 3, stating, "It
also doesn't have to be notified in case of expected home deaths
where a person authorized to pronounce deaths was in attendance or
has knowledge of the death. Isn't that a physician or a licensed
registered nurse, and if they are in attendance, or has knowledge
and been treating this person, anticipate the death, are they not
better trained to do this than a police officer?"
Number 1442
DR. PROPST replied that police officers are trained in death
investigation. The doctors and nurses present are trained in
treating living people and not necessarily in dealing with the
investigation of death.
Number 1458
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY related the story of an old-timer who died,
he said, out in Western Alaska near Haines Lake. He said a
Talkeetna bush pilot happened to land to check on the old guy, and
the old-timer was dead in bed. The last mark on the calendar was
on September 18, 1991 and the bush pilot flew in on September 21.
The pilot notified the Alaska State Troopers who then came out.
Representative Cowdery said he wasn't sure how the body was
removed, but said it went to Fairbanks. Representative Cowdery
indicated he was commenting on what he understands to be the
current requirements, noting that guy was 96 years old and it was
determined that he died a natural death.
Number 1540
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Dr. Propst had indicated there was one
incident in his experience, where, because of the investigating
police officers he had been able track down some criminal activity.
The chairman commented that he was receiving some head-shaking from
the committee.
Number 1558
DR. PROPST clarified that there was one instance in the last two
years where elder abuse had been alleged but his further
examination of that case found no evidence of abuse.
Number 1570
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked for rough statistics on the number of
deaths reported to the state medical examiner in the last two
years.
DR. PROPST replied 900 to 950 deaths per year.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified that the Dr. Propst's testimony was
that one alleged incident may have occurred out of approximately
1,900 deaths in two years.
DR. PROPST replied that was what had come to mind.
Number 1596
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was a requirement that a police
officer confiscate all the medications the deceased had been taking
when an officer came into the home after a death.
Number 1610
DR. PROPST responded he did not know. He said he imagined it had
to do with the police agency and the police agency's specific
requirements for its death investigation protocol. Dr. Propst
noted he did not make the rules for the police.
Number 1622
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, in term of the reportage in the state of
Alaska, did Dr. Propst notice a difference in the time frame and
the quality of the investigative work for reports between urban
areas such as the Municipality of Anchorage, where the Anchorage
Police Department (APD) makes the reports, and bush areas where the
Alaska State Troopers are making reports.
Number 1635
DR. PROPST stated that each of those police agencies are very well-
trained, and he has come to rely on both Anchorage Police
Department officers and Alaska State Troopers, in terms of being an
extension and giving reliable information about their findings at
the death scene.
Number 1648
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated there was clear evidence before the
committee that a number of hospice groups and medical providers,
for example, hospitals and assisted living facilities, were
examining ways to facilitate the concept of "expected death." He
also added the review the state has done (indisc.) Comfort One
Program [the Alaska DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) Program, also known as
the Alaska Comfort One Program]. Chairman Rokeberg stated, "I
guess the issue that you wish to raise here is whether there is --
the police officer investigation is necessary. You claim it is
necessary when there has been a - a procedure created by this
legislation to allow for not reporting, is that correct?"
Number 1685
DR. PROPST replied that was correct. He stated he feels the police
officer's visit at the time of death provides a final check and
balance on the system.
Number 1691
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA referred to the case of alleged elder
abuse being discussed and he asked if it had been the police
officer who had given Dr. Propst a report of abuse.
DR. PROPST answered in the affirmative.
Number 1701
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated then that the police officer had seen
something when the officer went out there that made him or her
think that there was some abuse.
DR. PROPST answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said then that was found to be not the case.
Number 1715
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Dr. Propst if he knew of differences in
the way police departments currently handle the situation.
Number 1721
DR. PROPST answered in the affirmative, stating there are
differences depending on the area of the state. To the best of his
knowledge, the Alaska State Troopers go to the scene of a death in
the areas they cover. In the Anchorage area, he said the Anchorage
Police Department goes to the scene of one of these deaths. Dr.
Propst said Juneau is the only area he is aware of where officers
are not routinely sent to the scene of death. He said the Juneau
Police Department is notified, and may or may not send an officer.
Number 1750
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS clarified for the committee that he thinks "no
code," meaning no siren and no lights, is standard in most places,
indicating he used the "flashing lights" analogy to indicate the
differences in the ways different departments handled this
situation and that he was not personally aware of anybody using
flashing lights or sirens as a standard practice in this situation.
Number 1772
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Dr. Propst to differentiate for the
committee what type of institutional settings are allowed to be
exempted from a law enforcement officer investigation of a death,
noting a hospital would probably be exempt from that requirement.
Number 1787
DR. PROPST added that he expected an extended care facility would
be exempt from that requirement. Dr. Propst stated (indisc.) area
he was concerned about is death at home or in a residence, as
opposed to a place where medical care is routinely given.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified that it was death at home, and any
institution would be exempt from the requirement basically.
DR. PROPST replied basically yes.
Number 1808
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG gave the example of a small, assisted living
facility "with just a few that are licensed in the state of
Alaska," commenting that these facilities would not be required to
have a law enforcement officer investigate.
DR. PROPST replied that, quite frankly, he had not thought that
through.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that there are a number of those
facilities, particularly in urban areas of the state.
Number 1826
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked Dr. Propst what the cost was for the
state medical examiner's to perform an autopsy.
DR. PROPST replied it was approximately $1,000 dollars involved in
transporting the body to Anchorage, preparing it after the autopsy
and transporting it back to the place of death.
Number 1839
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted Dr. Propst had indicated approximately
900 deaths occurred at home annually, asking if he had heard
correctly.
Number 1850
DR. PROPST replied that the question to which he had responded was
how many deaths were reported to the state medical examiner in the
last couple of years, and his answer to that question had been
around 900 to 950 [per year, see Dr. Propst's previous testimony].
Number 1856
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted HB 383 was speaking about those who
want to die at home and who complete the expected home death
registration form, which is signed by the attending physician and
a copy is provided to the state medical examiner. Representative
Hudson said under these and only these circumstances, he presumed
at any rate, the "no duty to notify police officer" kicked in.
Representative Hudson asked Dr. Propst how many of circumstances he
was notified of were dealing with normally anticipated or pre-
anticipated terminal life cases. He asked Dr. Propst, when he was
notified, if most of the cases he was notified of were people who
simply expired because of old age or illness, and how that fit
within the context of HB 383.
Number 1906
DR. PROPST replied that the 900 to 950 did not include the roughly
200 to 250 deaths the state medical examiner's office is notified
of that are expected deaths. He said that of the 900 to 950, about
a third are people who have died suddenly and unexpectedly "from
apparent causes that investigation has no suspicion whatsoever and
no reason to further examine."
Number 1926
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that HB 383 would not exempt police
officer notification in these cases; it would be only those people
who wanted to die at home, who had a limited life expectancy and
literally signed a form and filed a copy with the state medical
examiner's office. Representative Hudson asked Dr. Propst if he
still felt notification of a police officer was still necessary
under those circumstances.
Number 1950
DR. PROPST replied he did.
Number 1958
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the state medical examiner's office
already had a procedure in place of for expected deaths, and what
form did that take.
Number 1965
DR. PROPST answered that an expected home death program has
basically been in operation since the Office of the State Medical
Examiner was created by the legislature in 1993. He said the
program has varied somewhat by geographic area. Dr. Propst noted
the Alaska Comfort One Program passed by the legislature a couple
of years ago has now been implemented and the state medical
examiner's office is utilizing the paperwork generated in that
program as the expected home death registration material.
Number 1993
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what the purpose and value of the medical
examiner's office's expected death program was if it was not to
warn the medical examiner's office about these circumstances.
Number 2002
DR. PROPST replied that was exactly the purpose of the expected
home death program. If there is no suspicion of foul play when the
person dies and the police officer does his brief investigation,
that means the medical examiner's office does not have to
investigate further, saving the state money.
Number 2019
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "Therefore, Dr. Propst, you would prefer
to see a police officer in the loop so that you don't have to be in
the loop, is that right?"
Number 2025
DR. PROPST commented that the number of police officers statewide
was probably in the "tens" and his entire office staff was ten
people covering the entire state. He stated he would like to
(indisc.) that not everybody who is reported to the medical
examiner's office receives an autopsy. Dr. Propst stated each
death is investigated, but some deaths are sufficiently
investigated either by the police officer or by his office's
medical examiner investigators.
Number 2050
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated Dr. Propst was welcome to stand by if
there were further questions when the committee considered HB 383.
Number 2059
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
came forward to testify. Mr. Smith said that to echo most of what
Dr. Propst had said, DPS does have some concerns about this because
of the checks and the balances. Mr. Smith said, noting he thought
Representative Cowdery had referred to this, when he was at the
Anchorage Police Department in the late 1980s the department
established what was called the no-code death response for the very
reasons that have been brought up that day. He said a family who
has just suffered an expected death is still having problems with
that, and he stated, "To have a squad car come skidding the last
half a block with red lights on and people leap out with guns is
not an appropriate response." Mr. Smith said the Anchorage Police
Department still has that response today; they do respond to every
one of those deaths, but they are aware that this is going to
happen so they do the cursory check Dr. Propst referred to. The
Alaska State Troopers do the same. He noted he spoke to Captain
DeCapua of the Juneau Police Department, they do, they don't
necessarily go out to the hospice on all of these situations, but
certainly if it was an unexpected death they would respond, but he
noted the Juneau Police Department is the one agency he found that
doesn't respond to necessarily every one. If they've been notified
by the hospice and they're comfortable with the circumstances,
Captain DeCapua said they don't respond to every one. Mr. Smith
said Captain DeCapua did tell him they felt they ought to be
notified that it was going to occur in all situations, indicating
this was so they could prevent inappropriate responses. Mr. Smith
said he is certainly sensitive from his experience over the years
to responding to these kinds of situations, having his officers at
APD and the Alaska State Troopers respond. He said he guesses, "If
you're going to change that, I just want you to be aware that that
is a check and balance that occurs, and although they may be rare,
there may be a circumstance where somebody's expedited on the way
out that would not necessarily have occurred so quickly." He said
maybe it was his suspicious mind from his business, but he thinks
it is helpful to have the officer respond.
Number 2150
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said then Mr. Smith would basically oppose
this legislation.
MR. SMITH said he thought yes, in the legislation's current form.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Smith if the deletion of some
areas in the bill would satisfy him.
Number 2165
MR. SMITH stated the only area he has discussed is Section 3 of the
bill, noting he had discussed it the previous day with the bill
sponsor and staff. Mr. Smith said he realized there were some
situations where police officers have not appropriately responded,
noting he was not exactly sure how to deal with that. He said he
thought there were seven or so different forms around the state:
the Comfort One Program form, the DNR form, commenting it took him
a while to figure out it meant do not resuscitate, not the
Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Smith indicated this meant
there are things that could be done, but said he is ultimately
concerned, as a police officer, that there might be something
important at the scene that would tip the police officer off that
this person did not go as easily as he or she might have. He noted
Dr. Propst's people based in Anchorage do not get a look.
Number 2211
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG related he had the unfortunate circumstance of
witnessing his father expire at his father's home in Anchorage a
few years previously, after Mr. Smith had left the APD. Chairman
Rokeberg stated the mortuary showed up and they had to wait
approximately 1 1/2 hours for the police department because the
death watch was busy that morning. He said the officers did not
show up with sirens or lights, apologized for the delay, but
indicated their presence was intrusive. He said they interviewed
everyone in the household and confiscated his father's medications
and related supplies. Chairman Rokeberg indicated his father had
been suffering from cancer for several years so his death was
expected situation; he said it clearly did not warrant any kind of
overview by law enforcement. He stated (indisc.) totally
unwarranted, and he thought that is what this bill calls for. To
Representative Davis, Chairman Rokeberg noted HB 383 probably did
not even belong in the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee,
but said he had some concerns about some of the language in even
Sections 1 and 2 of the bill. He stated was not sure he quite
understood those and asked the sponsor what he would like the
committee to do.
Number 2298
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated he had been surprised to see HB 383
referred to Labor and Commerce as well. Representative Davis said
he was a proponent of law enforcement and did not want to interfere
to a degree law enforcement was reasonably uncomfortable with.
Representative Davis noted HB 383's next committee of referral was
the House Judiciary Standing Committee and stated he would like to
see the bill moved. Representative Davis said he wanted to work
with the Department of Public Safety, addressing the reasonable
concerns the department might have. He indicated he thought moving
the bill might help bring about a reasonable solution.
Number 2357
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he was not sure he understood Section 2.
In response to a note delivered by the teleconference moderator,
Chairman Rokeberg announced that there were seven people who wished
to testify on HB 383 via teleconference and the committee had been
unaware of these witnesses until that moment. Chairman Rokeberg
referred back to his question about Section 2, stating it seemed
like the ability of a registered nurse to sign a death certificate
was being taken away, and he asked if that was the sponsor's
intention.
Number 2381
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS answered in the negative. He noted they were
changing the existing statute from wording that says, "The nurse
shall sign the death certificate," to, "The nurse shall provide the
necessary information to the person signing the death certificate,"
which would be a physician. Section 2 of the bill reads:
AS 08.68.395(b) is amended to read: (b) A registered
nurse who has determined and pronounced death under this
section shall document the clinical criteria for the
determination and pronouncement in the person's medical
or clinical record and notify the physician who
determined that the prognosis for the patient was for an
anticipated death. The registered nurse shall provide to
the person who will sign the death certificate [, WHICH
MUCH INCLUDE] the (1) name of the deceased; (2) presence
of a contagious disease, if known; and (3) date and time
of death.
Number 2390
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that wouldn't take the ability of a
registered nurse to sign a death certificate away.
Number 2434
MS. DAVIDSON stated wording was changed because the "expected home
death case report" forms currently used by the state medical
examiner, which may be provided in the background information, have
a statement that the doctor signs. This statement says the doctor
agrees to sign the death certificate in the event that this home
death occurs as expected. Ms. Davidson noted the statute said that
if the nurse in this situation pronounces death she will sign the
death certificate, yet the form sent to the medical examiner's
office says that the physician signs the death certificate. Ms.
Davidson indicated they decided to change the language in the
statute to make it consistent with the form.
Number 2427
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned whether the nurse, in the (a) section,
still had the right to sign the death certificate in those
circumstances.
MS. DAVIDSON asked if the Chairman meant in other circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated, "'In the following circumstances,' is
the way I read it."
Number 2441
MS. DAVIDSON stated that the physician would sign the death
certificate under the expected home death circumstance. In answer
to Chairman Rokeberg's question, she said it appears they would be
taking away the nurse's right to sign the death certificate. She
stated, "We certainly didn't mean to take anything away that they
didn't want, it was more to make the requirement consistent with
the way the procedure is now."
Number 2458
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "In many areas, particularly rural areas,
they wouldn't be able to ..."
MS. DAVIDSON responded, "As it now stands, the doctor has to sign
a form authorizing ..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 98-18, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "... So Representative Davis, I - I have
some time here real quickly, if you want to take some testimony."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS answered in the affirmative, suggesting
perhaps a time limit so the witnesses could condense any testimony.
Number 0018
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG apologized to the teleconferenced witnesses,
indicating the committee had not been notified they were waiting to
testify. Due to the next scheduled bill, he requested the
witnesses limit their testimony to less than a minute, noting they
would not be cut-off. He indicated written testimony could be sent
to the committee from the Kenai Legislative Information Office
(LIO).
Number 0036
CYNTHIA ELLIOT, Staff Registered Nurse; First Choice Home Health
Care, Incorporated, testified via teleconference from Kenai in
support of HB 383. Ms. Elliot read from her prepared statement:
I am a home health nurse. I have over five years
experience as a hospice nurse working with people who are
dying at home and being cared for by their family
members. I also have experienced the deaths of three of
my own family members at home in three different states.
Nowhere have I encountered the kind of situation we have
here in Alaska at an expected home death. It is unusual
that law makers and law enforcers in this state feel
compelled to involve police in naturally occurring,
expected home deaths. Having police present in the home
at the time of death is unnecessary and traumatic to
family members.
Death is a normal life transition. It is not a crime if
it occurs naturally. Dying at home of natural causes is
not police business, nor is it suspicious or unusual.
Here in Alaska on the Kenai Peninsula, it has become a
crime to die at home. ... Police are called to what they
refer to as the "scene" and conduct a death
investigation. They collect evidence by asking
questions, confiscating medications and taking
photographs of the deceased ... at the home.
Death is a sacred life event, a once-in-a-lifetime
experience for the family. This precious time should not
be intruded upon by officers of the law, or anyone who is
not directly involved with assisting the family to take
care of the deceased and facilitate the grieving process.
To ask a family member who has just witnessed the passage
of their beloved to answer questions and stand by while
photographs of the deceased are taken by a uniformed
officer with a gun and handcuffs on his or her belt is
intimidating and upsetting, and only complicates the
grief process.
Change the law here in Alaska to allow families to care
for their loved ones at home without having to report a
natural occurrence to the police. Legalize expected home
deaths.
Number 0113
TOM WILKINSON, Staff Nurse, Central Peninsula General Hospital
(CPGH), testified next via teleconference from Kenai in support of
HB 383. Mr. Wilkinson stated he was a certified critical care
nurse at CPGH. He thanked Representative Davis for sponsoring this
bill. He related he has unique experience in that he does
pronounce people [dead] at the hospital; he said they notify the
medical examiner and there is no investigation by the Alaska State
Troopers. However, he related he attended the death of a personal
friend at home the previous week who was 87 years old with end-
stage leukemia. Mr. Wilkinson said the Alaska State Troopers and
EMS (emergency medical service) did have to show up. He said he
had pronounced his friend and was with the family. Mr. Wilkinson
stated the responding trooper was very sensitive; the trooper
basically entered the room and viewed the deceased from a distance
without pulling back the covers. Mr. Wilkinson stated, "So if
that's an investigation, I - I find it hard to believe that
anything could have been found out by that," Mr. Wilkinson said it
was more of an observation and anything more would have been an
intrusion and inappropriate. The EMS knew Mr. Wilkinson, and said
they didn't need to see the body because of his presence. He said
the EMS took some information and left, noting they were also very
sensitive. Mr. Wilkinson said he personally thinks it would be
very difficult to prove murder in the case of his friend, stating,
"End-stage leukemia -- short of a knife sticking out of his chest
or - or a bullet wound, it would have been to prove anything or
question it. I think that ... the people most qualified to
pronounce death are also those who are licensed to note life or the
existence of life, and I think that registered nurses are trained
to note the absence of life -- so I think that they're probably the
best. They also have a rapport with the family, whether it be a
hospice nurse, home health nurse, or a nurse in a facility. We -
we develop a close relationship with the families, and the families
bring us into that inner circle, and then bringing somebody in
shortly thereafter is fairly intrusive. So I - I'd like to see
this changed and allowed to move forward."
Number 0218
DEBRA SHUEY testified next via teleconference from Kenai in support
of HB 383. She stated her 14-year-old son had died 3 1/2 weeks
previously. He had been battling cancer for two years, and she
said they were very fortunate they were able to be back home in
Alaska because they had traveled all across the United States for
her son's medical care. She said he had wanted to be around his
friends and at home. Ms. Shuey said the police really were
invasive when they responded. She stated, "They asked for all of
his prescriptions, and I was standing there, 'You want two years of
his prescriptions?' You know, 'What kind of medication do you want
of his, his latest or whatever?' And they took several pictures of
him, and I just felt it was really unnecessary. Everybody in this
community knew my son, was medically involved, in the emergency
room once or twice a week. We had the home health nurse there, and
it seems to me like if they thought that that there was any problem
with his death, that they would have been able to call that. We
had the ... Comfort One form there, we thought everything was all
prepared, and we tried to make it -- Jared (ph) died very
peacefully and with dignity and he accepted his death, and I think
it's very important to that, but I also think it is important to
have the family members that are left afterwards. And in this
particular situation, we had been through a tremendous ordeal in
two years, trying to do all that we could, ask all the questions
imaginable, and when this trooper showed it was like, 'Well, did I
do everything? Should of I done more? What did I do wrong here?'
And I don't think I needed to ask those questions an hour after my
son died. And I fail now -- when I look back at that, I like to
think about him dying peacefully, laying in his bed, and that he's
at rest now, but what also comes in, is the trooper standing there
taking pictures, asking me for his drugs, and I didn't need that at
that point. Everybody knew how ill Jared (ph) was and everybody
accepted it, and it was very difficult for me to go through that,
and it's a memory I do not like."
Number 0315
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any questions for Ms. Shuey,
and stated their hearts went out to her.
Number 0321
LIZ SCHUBERT, Executive Director, Hospice of the Central Peninsula,
testified next via teleconference from Kenai in support of HB 383.
She stated she has been the hospice's executive director since
1991. Ms. Schubert stated, following her prepared statement,
"Traditionally hospice care has focused on terminally ill patients
and their loved ones. ... We focus on the fact that care and
comfort measures will neither hasten nor postpone a death. That
pain control, pain management, be it physical, emotional, spiritual
or psychosocial, will be treated aggressively. That clients and
families can choose where they would like to die and who will be
present at the time of their death. That the client's physician
consents to hospice care and agrees to sign the client's death
certificate, which allows them to remain at home, a choice that
most of us would prefer, should we be allowed to choose this.
Also, ... families feel that by completing, signing, filling out
in-home expected death Comfort One forms, enrolling in Comfort One,
being enrolled with either a home health care or hospice program,
having the needed support from hospice ... that they'll need to
experience an in-home death with dignity with the least amount of
trauma to their already bereaved family does not include a police
officer arriving at the scene, photographs and an EMS that needs to
be called to pronounce the death, when a registered nurse is
already able to do that - is already in the home."
Number 0381
MS. SCHUBERT said she would like to address a comment Dr. Propst
made about people who are terminally ill, people who are expected
to die, being the easiest persons to murder. She stated, from her
experience with hospice care and hospice involvement with families,
that these families are very prepared for the death of their loved
ones, that the families would do nothing to hasten their loved
one's death. She said the dying person does not want to burden his
or her family any further by knowing that pictures will have to be
taken of his or her body and that the person's family members will
be interrogated by a police officer. Ms. Schubert stated she was
in support of all sections of HB 383.
Number 0420
CHIEF SHIRLEY WARNER, Soldotna Police Department, testified next
via teleconference from Kenai. She stated she would be brief
because Dr. Propst and Deputy Commissioner Smith already addressed
some of her concerns. Chief Warner stated she is concerned with
the "no duty to notify peace officer" portion of HB 383. Chief
Warner indicated the reason HB 383 has so much support concerns
her. She informed the committee that Ms. Shuey had left the LIO.
Chief Warner stated she felt very badly for Ms. Shuey's experience,
but said, "The one thing that she will never see, and - and I'm not
saying that would happen, but if there was ever an allegation in
the community that there was some foul play, the officers are there
... to reassure and confirm that there is not." She thinks that
does happen with these cases, and she is concerned about the
safeguards, and Chief Warner wondered if that was perhaps in the
content of the forms that would be developed. She said, "But if
there is abuse, who calls? Who calls if there's a question on foul
play? The home care person? ... I don't think so." Besides the
previously expressed concern about observation of the area, and
noting what drugs were available, Chief Warner commented about
providing protection for a person's property. She indicated she
was had not been in Soldotna long enough, but said when she was in
Anchorage it seemed like she dealt quite a bit with the property of
deceased people, and she commented she wasn't sure who stepped in
in that respect when the police did not.
Number 0509
DAVID CORAY testified next via teleconference from Kenai. He said
his brother had passed away in December of pancreatic cancer,
noting his recent experience with the issue at hand. Mr. Coray
stated that all forms relating to the expected death were filled
out, and, at the time the death occurred, the paramedics, according
to current procedure, did make a cursory appearance to determine
that death had occurred, followed by a city policeman who made the
same determination, and who then asked detailed questions of all
those present. Mr. Coray said, "And while these particular police
officers were tactful and sensitive, my position is that this
doesn't always run across the board, and that there might be a
variance in the particular police individuals involved in terms of
how they approach these delicate family matters, so I'm in favor of
freeing up the police from having to make these home visit and
vesting these powers with the home health care agencies that are
professionally trained to actually determine ... when death has
occurred and to look for any evidence of foul play. ... I stated
earlier, they are with the families during this transition and have
a history of dealing with the transition process ... with the
survivors. ... The presence of police is often viewed as a
domestic disturbance, which potentially creates a social problem
for the survivors in terms of dealing with - with neighbors and
that sort of thing; it just ... seems invasive. It seems like
we're re-inventing the wheel here by having so many agencies
involved, and that a streamlining effect could take place by having
just one agency determine that death did occur, and it would lend
itself to a ... more stable transition for the survivors, and with
that, I'd like to voice my support for HB 383."
Number 0586
LORI BROWN, Administrator; First Choice Home Health Care,
Incorporated, testified next via teleconference from Kenai in
support of HB 383. She stated she understood Dr. Propst's and the
police departments' concerns. However, she said she has seen
several instances where it has really interfered with the families.
She noted although the police try to be comforting, et cetera, she
said she personally would feel it very invasive if her loved one
died and a stranger came into her home. Ms. Brown stated she
supported HB 383 and understood the concern. If any changes were
to be made, she suggested the addition of something like the
wording "unless there is suspect of abuse" to Section 12.65.007, no
duty to notify peace officer in an expected home death. Otherwise,
she would like to support the bill as it currently reads. Ms.
Brown stated they have highly-trained, state-licensed nurses, and
the "Kevorkian" reference really bothered her, noting Dr. Propst
had mentioned it, and it had been mentioned to her by one of the
local police officers. She said, "I'm sorry, we are highly
regulated, the nurses have worked very hard to receive their
licenses and I don't think that they would step out on any ... type
of a limb to lose their licenses. And as a home health care
agency, I don't think any of you have any idea the regulations that
we have to go through, both state and federal."
Number 0653
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the impact of HB 383 on social
security or insurance claims had been explored. He stated that if
Representative Davis did not know, Representative Cowdery would
like to have that information before he voted on the bill.
Number 0668
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied he did not have any information.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG added, "Social security pays $250 ..."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY replied he knew that, but said a certain
criteria was also required.
Number 0678
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA made a motion to move HB 383 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the zero fiscal note.
Number 0690
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG objected to comment that he was a little
concerned about some of the language, particularly in the second
section. He noted perhaps he wasn't reading it right. The
Chairman indicated he hoped Representative Davis would work with
the DPS to clean this up before it came to the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
Number 0705
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS indicated the make-up of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee would ensure the bill would not pass if the DPS
objected highly to it.
Number 0730
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG withdrew his objection. He noted again to the
teleconference witnesses from the Kenai LIO that the committee had
not been aware of them until just after 4:00 p.m., apologizing for
"trying to rush them along," noting that was not his intent.
Number 0742
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated they needed to add the term of art "with
the committee's zero fiscal note attached" to HB 383, asking if the
committee was all in order on the motion. Hearing no objections,
Chairman Rokeberg stated HB 383 was so moved.
Number 0796
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 4:26 p.m. The
committee reconvened at 4:28 p.m.
HB 400 - DEPT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Number 0800
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next item of business
was HB 400, "An Act combining parts of the Department of Commerce
and Economic Development and parts of the Department of Community
and Regional Affairs by transferring some of their duties to a new
Department of Commerce and Rural Development; transferring some of
the duties of the Department of Commerce and Economic Development
and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs to other
existing agencies; eliminating the Department of Commerce and
Economic Development and the Department of Community and Regional
Affairs; relating to the Department of Commerce and Rural
Development; adjusting the membership of certain multi-member
bodies to reflect the transfer of duties among departments and the
elimination of departments; and providing for an effective date."
Chairman Rokeberg indicated the committee was continuing with
testimony from the February 23 hearing.
Number 0815
JEFF BUSH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development (DCED), came forward to testify. He indicated much of
his testimony would be a summation of several weeks of testimony on
HB 409, a similar piece of legislation which went through lengthy
hearings approximately two years previously.
Number 0853
MR. BUSH stated it is the DCED's and the Administration's position
that the fundamental missions of the DCED and the Department of
Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) are not similar. He said
DCED focuses on economic development for the private sector. DCRA
focuses on local and municipal development, on government projects
and programs. Mr. Bush noted there was not a lot of similarity
between international trade and statewide tourism promotion, and
local sewer and water projects. He said, as he had stated in his
testimony two years ago, he has looked closely at allegations of
duplication of services between DCRA and DCED and has not been able
to find any, noting he would welcome the opportunity to address
anyone else's perceived duplications at any time. Mr. Bush stated
at the present time DCED is an effective advocate for economic
development in this state because DCED has economic development as
its sole focus. He stated it is important to retain that focus,
commenting that HB 400 would dilute that.
Number 0907
MR. BUSH indicated his principle concern with HB 400 is that it is
a massive reorganization of government functions and agencies with
very little benefit. He stated, "We should be talking instead
about restructuring and eliminating programs, and not simply moving
people around." He indicated simply moving people around is
counterproductive because it only creates short-term expenses, high
employee anxiety and morale problems, and wasted administrative
time and effort. Mr. Bush said they would welcome a reasonable
discussion on the merits of programs or particular agencies in his
department, and he is sure the same can be said for DCRA, but they
see no particular value in this piece of legislation because it
doesn't deal with the crucial issues of what programs are valuable
and how valuable they are. Mr. Bush quoted Representative Mackie
regarding HB 409 in 1996, "Why take the action if it will not
eliminate services or save money?" Mr. Bush noted Commissioner
Irwin of the DCRA had used the "if it isn't broken, why fix it?"
analogy in the previous hearing on HB 400, and Mr. Bush said he
thinks that is true of the programs of both DCRA and DCED, noting
it is certainly true for the programs in his department. He said
the programs are working efficiently and effectively and if there
is a perception of a problem relating to a particular program in
DCED, again, he said he would welcome any kind of discussion
regarding that particular program with this body or any other body
in the legislature. Mr. Bush noted that the performance-based
budgeting process this body was undertaking, and which the DCED
supports, is designed to do just that, to elicit and better define
agency and program missions, goals and objectives; and to set up
ways for the administration and the legislature to assess success
or failure of those programs. He said the process then leaves it
to the agencies to implement the defined objectives, and this
particular bill, in its micro-management and organization focus,
flies directly in the face of that performance-based budgeting
process.
Number 1018
MR. BUSH said he thought HB 400 was poorly thought out in some
ways, and didn't take the lengthy testimony heard two years ago on
HB 409 into consideration. In 1996 they heard extensive testimony
that day care assistance and the Head Start Program needed to be in
the same department for coordination purposes, noting sponsor may
be correcting this, but as the current version of HB 400 is
written, those particular programs end up in different departments.
He stated testimony was heard in 1996 stating that the child care
facility revolving loan program should remain with other state loan
programs. He noted a good deal of energy and effort has gone into
combining state loan programs under one division, the Division of
Investments in DCED, for administrative savings and purposes. Mr.
Bush said to split that particular loan program and put in the
Department of Health and Social Services (H&SS) did not make sense,
as they had testified two years ago, noting no one had disagreed
with them. Mr. Bush commented that if it were done, he thought he
could safely say the result would be an interagency agreement
moving the program back because that is what is currently being
done with several other loan programs in the state. Mr. Bush noted
the DCED currently operates several loan programs for other
departments. Mr. Bush stated another principal concern with HB 400
the discussion of the so-called finance division. Mr. Bush
indicated he thinks there is a misconception by the bill sponsor if
he thinks placing independent agencies like the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), Alaska Science and
Technology Foundation (ASTF), the Aerospace Development Corporation
(AADC), and the Tourism Marketing Council (ATMC) into a division
will suddenly bring those agencies under the management and control
of that division director. He stated those particular entities are
run by boards of directors that are independent of state control
and government. Mr. Bush noted they are not currently under the
control of the Commissioner of the DCED. He indicated
representatives of the DCED sit as members on those boards and have
an influence, but other people appointed from the public and
private sectors also sit on those boards. Mr. Bush said those
boards run as independent agencies; it has been the will of the
legislature for a long time that that's the way these agencies
operate. Those agencies are truly independent, and without a
change to their management structure or an elimination of their
current management structure, they will never really fall into a
division under the control of the division director. Mr. Bush
stated that if they want to make those agencies particular programs
under a division, the legislature is certainly free to do that, but
HB 400 bill does not currently do so.
Number 1169
MR. BUSH indicated there may be another misconception about HB 400.
He noted the sponsor said HB 400 would create only four divisions.
Mr. Bush stated several other divisions currently exist in state
statute and HB 400, as drafted, does not eliminate those divisions.
As examples he gave the Division of Insurance; Division of Banking,
Securities and Corporations; and Division of Tourism. He indicated
several other divisions in state government exist even though they
are not in statute; Mr. Bush said nothing in HB 400 would prohibit
divisions from continuing to exist. He commented he could probably
safely say, for example, that the Division of Occupational
Licensing would probably remain as separate division under any
management structure because it does not really fit under the same
division as other divisions in the DCED. He indicated occupational
licensing would not be run as a separate program in a division
which also included international trade because it is not a program
in the same sense that international trade is. Mr. Bush stated
committee members in 1996 recognized many of the problems this bill
has, and he wanted to point out some comments made in 1996 by
committee members from the House Standing Committee on Community
and Regional Affairs. Mr. Bush said Representative Austerman noted
the concept of a "one-stop shop" for rural communities at DCRA was
very valuable. Representative Austerman also noted that the Head
Start Program and child care were interrelated and should remain
together. Representative Nicholia stated it was important for
child care to remain with an economic or rural development
department, not H&SS, and Mr. Bush noted she said so, based upon
testimony the committee heard at the time, because she did not want
child care to be viewed as a welfare program. Mr. Bush noted
Representative Kott had stated he hoped the particular piece of
legislation at that time would not be viewed as a rural versus
urban issue, but that in fact it is. Representative Nicholia
pointed out that DCRA bridged the gap between Juneau and rural
Alaska, and that people in rural Alaska have learned, over the
years, how to deal with government through DCRA. Mr. Bush said
consolidation and elimination would "upset the apple cart," noting
he was using Representative Nicholia's words, and it would take
years for the people to relearn the system. Representative
Austerman had commented that a merger of DCRA and DCED would cause
"heartburn" in rural Alaska and he hoped that the bill would not be
seen again; Mr. Bush noted that was a quote. Representative Kott
stated that he was not convinced that the consolidation was in the
people's best interest, and that the disruption to lives and
programs was more than intended. Mr. Bush commented that
Representative Ivan had concluded the lengthy tedious hearings on
HB 409 by stating that he and Co-Chairman Austerman, with the
concurrence of all majority members of the committee, believed that
HB 409 was not in the best interest of the state.
Number 1338
MR. BUSH indicated he had just received the sponsor's analysis of
cost savings associated with HB 400. He said he had a few comments
about the forthcoming fiscal note so the committee had an
understanding of how the note was put together. He said it was a
massive undertaking, commenting that the fiscal note two years ago
took a month. He indicated DCED was able to use that fiscal note
as a starting point, and he stated the department hopes to have
the fiscal note on the current version of HB 400 ready by the next
week. There would be a single note for all departments instead of
the multiple notes done two years ago, because savings in one
department are costs in another. Mr. Bush stated it seemed more
beneficial for the committee to have the complete picture of what
this proposal involved. He said they had several assumptions: a
commissioner and a commissioner's secretary would be eliminated,
and an administrative services director would be downgraded to a
staff member. Mr. Bush said other members of the commissioner's
office under the proposed fiscal note would not be eliminated,
however. They felt there would not be a reduction in work in the
short run, at least, because a significant amount of work would be
added by moving people around and dealing with the administrative
process of a move. Furthermore, Mr. Bush noted this proposal would
add significant responsibilities to the remaining commissioner.
Mr. Bush said the DCED'S commissioner currently sits on
approximately 25 boards, commissions and task forces, and he thinks
ten of those exist in statute. HB 400 alone added six more
commissions and boards by statute to this commissioner's
responsibilities. Mr. Bush indicated the representatives of DCRA
could inform the committee how many other entities its commissioner
sits on that would have to be taken on by the new commissioner. He
said the result would be a combination of 19 current agencies and
divisions in one department. In DCED's view, administering a
department of that size would take two deputy commissioners not
one, at least in the short run. Mr. Bush noted the cost savings in
the sponsor's proposal showed the elimination of the special
assistants existing in both departments. Mr. Bush commented he
couldn't even imagine how he would operate his current department
without a special assistant, noting having a larger department with
no special assistants struck him as unrealistic.
Number 1496
MR. BUSH stated those types of things would not be included in the
department's fiscal note. He indicated personnel moves would be
minimized, with one caveat: entire programs would be kept
together. He indicated they wanted to avoid a situation where, for
example, a division in Juneau has three or four different offices
under one division director, noting that was not realistic. So, he
said, everybody in one division would be co-located under the
proposed fiscal note. He stated two years ago the Department of
Administration determined that a full-time space planner on a
short-term basis would be necessary in both Juneau and Anchorage to
help implement the necessary moves, noting there is no reason he
can see why that won't happen again, and that will probably appear
in the fiscal note. Mr. Bush said they've talked at length about
the problem of the move. Two years ago it was decided that
temporary space would be necessary, indicating it would be to house
dislocated personnel in order to effect the move. He said the
estimate two years ago was $25,000 a year, and he is assuming that
will also be in the fiscal note again. Mr. Bush stated that the
computer compatibility issues are probably the most disconcerting
part of the proposal from an administrative standpoint, and part of
the most difficult thing for them to do from the perspective of a
fiscal note. They don't really know what will happen regarding
computer compatibility if these two departments are combined, but
Mr. Bush assured the committee it would not be cheap. He said the
estimate two years ago was $250,000 just to make the computers
themselves compatible and money was also included for data
processing personnel to make the two systems work when they were
combined.
Number 1632
MR. BUSH stated, finally, they expect unforeseen expenses will
probably come before the legislature at some point, but these will
not be included in the fiscal note. For example, DCRA's building,
as he understands it, is not currently ADA (Americans with
Disabilities Act) compatible. "You cannot move people, you can't
work on that building, you can't do things to that building without
making it ADA compatible," he said, and it becomes a difficult
problem if the building is going to continue to be used, unless it
is used in the set-up it currently has.
Number 1670
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked which building Mr. Bush was referring to.
Number 1679
MR. BUSH clarified it was the DCRA building in Juneau just below
the court building, across the street and down the hill from the
Capitol. He stated, in conclusion, they believed this proposal
would not result in any significant reduction in the state's fiscal
gap and would cost the state money in the short run. He said HB
400 is in direct opposition to the testimony of all departments,
the Governor, and the people of Alaska who spoke out and testified
in 1996. They also feel that the delivery of service and the
organization of government and the reorganization of government is
a function that should remain with the executive branch, and they
are somewhat concerned that they were not consulted on this
particular issue until very recently. Finally, Mr. Bush said, the
sponsor's statement says cross-department coordination is
difficult. He stated, "I do not believe -- I have (indisc.) seen
any evidence of cross - of cross department coordination between
Commerce and Community [and] Regional Affairs." He said he works
very closely with DCRA on a fairly regular basis, noting Mr.
Cotten, Deputy Commissioner, DCRA, could confirm that. Mr. Bush
stated coordination has never been a problem under the Knowles
administration, noting he can't speak for prior times. He
apologized to the committee if he sounded a bit "testy" about the
bill, explaining he and several members of his staff spent the
better part of a month two years ago testifying, preparing
testimony, doing fiscal notes, working with the sponsor back then,
working with the committee back then and working with several other
legislators. He said they attended many hearings, they prepared
and delivered testimony on several occasions, and at the end of
that process, the entire committee, every Republican and Democrat
on that committee, determined that the merger was a bad idea. Mr.
Bush said he just simply doesn't look forward to going through that
long and tedious process again, stating "It was, quite simply, a
bad idea back then, it's still a bad idea and I believe that both
you and the administration and myself have more important things
that we should be doing than ... looking at this particular piece
of legislation again. So with that, I urge the committee to move
on to some other business, and hope that this bill stays here."
Number 1849
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated he took it that Mr. Bush was not for
HB 400. He asked Mr. Bush how long he has been in state
government.
Number 1861
MR. BUSH indicated that he had been in state government since 1982,
with a 2 1/2 year gap in the middle of that time.
Number 1869
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how long DCED has been in existence.
MR. BUSH said it was his understanding that the Department of
Commerce and the Department of Economic Development had been merged
in the mid-1970s, in approximately 1976.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG added, "(Indisc.) there's always been a
Department of Commerce and there always will be."
Number 1915
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how many departments in government
were there 10, 15 or 20 years ago.
Number 1920
MR. BUSH responded he has been with state government since 1982 and
did not think there have been any new departments since then, but
he noted a lot happened in the few years before 1982, when there
was a lot of money.
Number 1938
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated Mr. Bush had referred to morale
problems, noting it was Representative Cowdery's understanding that
approximately a dozen people have left DCED in about the past 18
months. Representative Cowdery indicated some of those people had
conveyed to him that they left because of morale problems and asked
Mr. Bush if that was the truth.
Number 1968
MR. BUSH responded that was probably true, and indicated that may
be true of any department, some employees like different management
styles. He thinks, in a department of approximately 390 people,
losing a dozen a year is not too bad.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented, "Especially in trade and
development ...? You have a large overturn in that?"
Number 2000
MR. BUSH replied they've had what he considers a significant
turnover in the Division of Trade and Development, but from a
morale stand point, he could only think of two people he would say
left for morale reasons, left because they were unhappy with the
department. He said the others moved on to bigger jobs, noting the
head of their trade office moved to San Francisco, California.
Number 2030
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY referred to Mr. Bush's previous mention of
AIDEA, noting it was independent agency and they all understood the
vote Representative Cowdery asked if it really mattered which
department AIDEA was under, commenting that it could be under the
Department of Administration, for example.
Number 2056
MR. BUSH said that was a reasonable debate, noting he thought AIDEA
was only put in DCED because it does a commercial-oriented
business. Mr. Bush said an even more extreme example would be the
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARR), because it isn't under normal
budget processes. He said DCED has virtually no connection with
ARR besides the fact that it shows up in DCED's phone book.
Number 2081
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented that he did not think HB 400, as
he read it, had any intention of doing away with the Division of
Banking, Securities and Corporations; or the Division of Insurance,
or any those others. He asked Mr. Bush if he thought this would do
away with that.
Number 2096
MR. BUSH responded that was the way the sponsor had described it to
him: there would be only four divisions under his proposal, and
all of the existing divisions would be moved into one of those
four, so that they would become subgroups - sections or programs
within those divisions.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted they would still exist.
MR. BUSH replied that they would exist as programs, not divisions.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented, "A different title (indisc.)."
Number 2136
MR. BUSH stated, in clarification, his only point was that there's
apparently an inconsistency between the sponsor's statement and
intent, in the way the bill is drafted, because they exist in
statute as divisions.
Number 2157
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he was asking Mr. Bush for some of
the DCED's results in economic development over approximately the
past 18 months. He stated, "I know everybody claims that FedEx
[Federal Express Corporation] moved in because of them, but I claim
that too ...."
Number 2196
MR. BUSH replied he thought there were several things going on.
For example, he referred to a power superconductor proposal down in
Ketchikan he said the legislature is currently looking at, and he
noted was generated by DCED through a direct contact between a
member of the Division of Trade and Development and the private
sector. Mr. Bush noted two appearances in the past two years on
QVC [television home shopping channel by QVC, Incorporated] which
were very successful for several merchants in Alaska. He said
those appearance, which he confessed he had not seen, were
generated from contacts made by his department directly to or with
the television companies. Mr. Bush said he was caught a bit off
guard here because he does not do the trade and development side.
He noted Commissioner-designee Sedwick would be in front of the
committee next week, indicating she would provide many more
examples, addressing "where we've been and where we're going."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY excused himself for the House Special
Committee on International Trade and Tourism hearing on HB 432.
TAPE 98-19, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated the testimony had been very interesting
[FROM TAPE LOG NOTES]. He continued, "... (Indisc.) perhaps
instead of putting departments together -- I know there's a
duplication if you move two departments together, you have
duplication of administration; you don't need two administrations
so there's a definite savings there." Representative Ryan stated
the number of boards and commissions the new commissioner would be
required to sit on could be reduced by amendment. Representative
Ryan said they do have a huge department in state government which
seems to "bumble and struggle along," commenting that he was
speaking of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT/PF), stating, "I mean they're, they're outrageous, but they
manage to - to get along." Representative Ryan said some of the
things Mr. Bush described seemed to be poor management choices on
the part of a lot of administrations. Representative Ryan said Mr.
Bush mentioned computer compatibility. Representative Ryan noted
he has seen that coming through over and over again in budgets,
using the description, "Why we all can't play from the same sheet
of music?" He referred to the point Mr. Bush mentioned about
coordinating with the governor. Representative Ryan stated he
remembered from his reading of the state constitution that all
power comes from the people and it's invested in their
representatives, the legislature, and there is a governor and there
is a court. He noted only a supreme court is mentioned in the
state constitution and the legislature may establish other courts
from time to time as it sees fit. He said, as far departments'
administration, it's up to the legislature to decide what they give
the governor to operate. Representative Ryan said then,
necessarily, if the legislature chooses to do away with and/or
consolidate, et cetera, he thinks that would be within the
legislature's constitutional purview, and he stated, "It might be
nice to contact the governor from time to time and say, 'What do
you think?' if you have a governor who's willing to talk to you.
I haven't found that forthcoming from the third floor. It seems to
be a confrontational attitude of, 'This is what I want, and I'm not
about to discuss it with you,' so under those circumstances we [the
legislature] take the initiative." Representative Ryan noted Mr.
Bush mentioned some key points that, with perhaps a little change
in language might make this bill work a little smoother, commenting
that was his "two cents."
Number 0213
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated for the information of all present he
would be adjourning this meeting no later than 5:15 p.m. because of
other commitments and other hearings. Chairman Rokeberg invited
Mr. Bush back to future hearings on HB 400, noting the bill would
be taken up Friday, February 27.
Number 0244
MR. BUSH noted he would not be able to attend on Friday, but would
available the following week.
Number 0274
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the presence of Lamar Cotten, Deputy
Commissioner, DCRA and Dwight Perkins, Special Assistant,
Department of Labor (DOL), asking them to limit their comments to
7 1/2 minutes.
Number 0274
LAMAR COTTEN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Community and
Regional Affairs, came forward to testify. He stated Commissioner
Irwin of DCRA had testified at the previous hearing, but Mr. Cotten
noted he wanted to briefly comment on a couple of points brought up
by the sponsor in his presentation. Before beginning, Mr. Cotten
said he wanted to reiterate Mr. Bush's comment; that is, DCRA also,
unequivocally, does not support HB 400. Mr. Cotten stated it is
not the type of bill DCRA would like to see go forward, however,
they would not suggest they have a monopoly on all of the good
ideas on how to run government. He said DCRA is certainly open to
ideas, but the department is not sure that this approach is the
right approach, both for government and more importantly, the
clients that DCRA serves. Mr. Cotten stated the issue of
government efficiency was addressed as a problem in the February 23
hearing. Mr. Cotten noted efficiency was in question because of
allegation of duplication of services by the two departments, and
the bill sponsor had laid out a series of points where overlapping
missions and activities had occurred. Mr. Cotten indicated he
would like to briefly go through those points to show the
difference between the perception of the sponsor and the reality of
what actually happens in the two departments. He stated the first
point addressed by the sponsor is rural economic development and
rural small business development. Mr. Cotten noted he is not aware
of very much DCED does in that area because DCED deals directly
with private industry. He noted DCRA does not deal primarily with
the private sector, DCRA deals with the small community governments
and nonprofits, and what they consider "communitive" development -
helping small communities build the infrastructure that will
hopefully someday eventually attract the private capital.
Number 0416
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked why was it called "rural economic
development" if that was the case, noting that had confused him for
a number of years.
Number 0429
MR. COTTEN said he wasn't sure if he had ever called it that, and
DCRA prefers to use "community development." He said, "I guess the
distinction I'm trying to make ... is that community development is
really working those basic -- whether it's energy to build a
generator, whether it's to assist somebody with a grant to - to
build a road or help build waterfront projects ..."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected, "Aren't most of your grant monies
from the Department of Agriculture for rural economic development?"
Number 0460
MR. COTTEN responded that they were not, noting in the past they
had primarily been from the federal government for Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). He indicated that then until last year
funding had come through rural development assistance which was
primarily general fund, and, for one year, through AIDEA.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "So there's no more 'ag' money from the
feds then?"
Number 0481
MR. COTTEN replied there was a small grant program of about
$100,000 or $150,000, stating, "That has always been a very small
portion of the -- our rural ..."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that was for "rural council" or whatever
they called it.
Number 0493
MR. COTTEN replied actually, it came through their department and
has been used for planning grants. He said it has rarely been used
for economic development other than the planning feasibility stage.
Mr. Cotten continued, noting an overlap on fisheries had been
brought up. He said he was assuming the reference was to the
Community Development Quota Program (CDQ). Mr. Cotten said it is
a program which is being coordinated between the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G), DCED and DCRA. It is a program involving
fishing groups in rural Alaska working and becoming partners with
the private sector. Mr. Cotten stated, "In our minds it's a good
example of how there's not overlap, but the expertise and the
backgrounds of staff in those three departments are a good example
of how they coordinate to work with those groups. So, it is not as
if we have duplicate services in the three departments that work
with CDQ, but we meet as a team. And I thinks it's not only with
CDQ, but you'll see with many programs that the state works with is
that, rightfully so, no agency has a monopoly, if you will, on what
succinct (ph) or particular services that a project or an economic
activity really needs. So I think there's a real clear distinction
between coordination and overlap. Rural tourism ..."
Number 0576
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred back to the CDQ program, noting three
different departments were involved. He asked, "Do we get any kind
of a share from the funds that are provided by the private sector
to the state of Alaska for administration of (indisc.) program?"
Number 0585
MR. COTTEN responded, "The state contributes the money to do the
oversight, directly. There is, however, ..."
Number 0593
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected, "Wait a minute, so the money's being
generated by the private sector to the rural communities that
qualified under federal statutes for this, and we administer it but
we don't get any money for it. We have to pay for it ourselves, is
that right?"
Number 0606
MR. COTTEN replied, "I was going to say 'however.' However, there
was a change in federal law through the Magnuson-Stevens ... Act
[Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act] that, in
fact, did tax the fishing industry, and part of that money is to be
conveyed ... back to the state of Alaska to administer this
program, and that tax is on the fishing industry itself that has
benefitted from this program."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "That's good, because if we have to
have three sacks of bureaucrats to do one program, then we need all
the money we can get from the feds. Go on, I don't want to
interrupt you anymore."
Number 0635
MR. COTTEN laughed and noted he was not sure he agreed with that
conclusion. He continued with his comment on rural tourism, noting
DCRA was not involved in rural tourism. He said on a rare occasion
a community might qualify for a planning grant, but there is a
Division of Tourism in DCED; DCRA does not involve itself in
tourism. Mr. Cotten noted infrastructure scoping, planning and
funding had been brought up and he indicated he assumed this
related back to comments made by Mr. Krieber, Legislative
Administrative Assistant to Representative Kohring, at the February
23 hearing about a scoping process for the communities of Southeast
Alaska affected by the timber industry-related mill closures. Mr.
Cotten said that is, again, a coordination of different agencies
and "hopefully everybody's at the table." Mr. Cotten noted that,
for a small community like Wrangell or Ketchikan, all the services
these communities would receive were not going to come out of one
agency. They might need some help from the Department of Health
and Social Services (H&SS), help from DOT/PF to speed up a project
to get work in a community, help from DCED because of tourism. Mr.
Cotten noted he thinks it's a good example of coordination, but
that there is no overlap there. Addressing another point of
perceived overlap, Mr. Cotten referred to energy development -
electrical utility assistance. He noted the energy authority was
disbanded in 1993 and the portion of that agency which dealt with
bulk fuel, small generators, and alternative energy went to DCRA's
Division of Energy. He said the note for the "four dam pool" went
to AIDEA which has bonding authority, and he indicated that is
AIDEA's only energy-related activity. Mr. Cotten commented that
AIDEA has not made any loans to anybody since 1993 on energy; so,
he said, when it comes to energy, particularly in rural Alaska,
DCRA is really the only agency dealing with that issue.
Number 0733
MR. COTTEN noted Representative Kohring had mentioned rural
sanitation projects and funding. Mr. Cotten stated DCRA deals,
again, as part of a package with small communities, assisting their
staff with utility operation and maintenance and he's not aware of
any capacity in which DCED has to deal with that topic. Mr. Cotten
addressed assistance to economically distressed regions, stating
that, again, this is what they called "community response
partnership," indicating it is a multi-agency coordination process
coming into a community. He noted many times DCRA has been the
"point" agency so that the needs of the community can be funneled
through "one voice." Mr. Cotten stated he wanted to make one or
two extra comments. He referred to a DCED report mentioned by the
sponsor completed in 1994, he thought, which looked at
"overlapping" of the two agencies. Mr. Cotten stated that report
had been done by the last administration, by the commissioner, who
had hired one of his former employees to look at the issue. Mr.
Cotten said he meant no disrespect to the former commissioner or
the report's author, but Mr. Cotten said he thought the report was
really a reflection of the problems those two departments had then
"(indisc.) having to sign memorandums of understanding as to who
was doing what." He stated that was an issue and a problem from
the past administration and did not exist anymore. Mr. Cotten said
it was not an issue in front of DCRA as a department, or as a
department dealing with DCED.
Number 0819
MR. COTTEN noted, as a final point, "The sponsor spoke about a one-
stop process for communities to come in and work, and he used the
example of - of having AIDEA, if I remember right, and ASTF and PCE
under one division." Mr. Cotten said, from his experience as a
former city and borough manager, and therefore as a client of a
process like that, it simply did not make any sense. He said,
"PCE, municipal systems and revenue sharing, are - are straight
grants. [For] Municipal systems and revenue sharing, we have one
person in our department do all that. It isn't something you come
in and negotiate with. PCE is a formula-based process. It is not
something you come in to negotiate like you would on a loan or a
grant. AIDEA, by the way, rarely ever loans money to communities.
They are primarily a lender of - of funds to the private sector.
So, I think even though on the surface putting titles together
under one division looks good, but I can tell you, as an ex-client
of this department, and - and Commerce's department to a very minor
extent, it doesn't work that work that way. So, in summary, we
don't claim to have monopoly on all the good ideas ... but I can
say, having worked in local government for over the last 20 years,
along with some state service, that I thinks there's a compelling
argument to keep a department that focuses primarily on dealing
with communities, whether they be large ones or small ones. And
that, to me, is a succinct, different mission than Commerce that
really does deal with economic development, and directly, as a
client, the private sector."
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted he had to leave as he was late for
another meeting.
Number 0930
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Cotten if he could condense some of his
comments into the form of a written outline, noting the portion of
his testimony when he was comparing a couple of different functions
as it related to the sponsor's statement. Chairman Rokeberg said
that might be helpful for the committee.
MR. COTTEN answered in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the time was 5:10 p.m. He asked Dwight
Perkins, DOL, if he could delay his statement until the next
hearing which was scheduled for Friday, February 27.
Number 0958
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Department of Labor, stated it
was up to the Chairman, commenting that his statement was less than
five minutes.
Number 0963
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he preferred to wait until the next hearing.
Chairman Rokeberg asked the bill sponsor if he wished to comment,
noting Representative Kohring had been present at all times during
the testimony.
Number 0984
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING came forward to testify, indicating he was
there with his staff member, Mr. Krieber. Representative Kohring
stated he was frankly not surprised to hear the previous testimony,
particularly of Mr. Bush. He commented he thought Mr. Bush was
worried about losing his job, using the analogy of a rabbit backed
into a corner. Representative Kohring noted that they were
speaking about streamlining the bureaucracy of state government,
not eliminating programs. He circulated a hand-out to the
committee members which gave an outline of what they were trying to
accomplish with HB 400. He reiterated that they were trying to
streamline the structure of the organization by creating four
different divisions, setting the programs up under a new management
structure without eliminating any. The former DCRA would become a
rural affairs division, the former DCED would become a statewide
development division, and they would take, as mentioned previously,
all the financial-related entities and programs out there,
consolidating them under one financial resources division, and the
fourth division would be the division of administration.
Representative Kohring stated he would like to provide more details
at the subsequent hearing, but he said they do still maintain that
both entities are economic development-related, and he referred to
the second page on the handout, indicating the overlapping
functions occurring in both DCED and DCRA. He said, "You can see
there's about nine or ten of them there." On the third page, he
said, they show what the cost savings would be, noting this
reflects the elimination of the DCRA commissioner's office. Again,
as he mentioned at the February 23 hearing, the identities of the
new commissioner and other upper management personnel in this new
entity would be at the discretion of the governor's office.
Representative Kohring stated the committee could see that the
bottom-line savings would be $1, 054,000, if one of the two
commissioners' offices was eliminated. He said that had been a
"nut-shell" recap of his presentation at the previous hearing,
noting he would certainly like to have, and looked forward to, the
opportunity to refute some of the claims made earlier in this
hearing. In closing, he stated this was a good faith effort to
achieve not just simply greater efficiency in government, but also
to try and retain economic development-related programs by spending
less money. He indicated if they were going to continue with their
five-year budget plan to reduce spending, one course of action
would be this "merger bill" which would save $1 million a year
while protecting programs, or they could stay with the existing
structure and simply start "lopping off programs." Representative
Kohring said they are essentially faced with a choice in that
regard. He thinks they owe it to themselves, and the people in
Alaska who want to see them enhance the economy with programs of
this nature, to look at streamlining the bureaucracy so they can
protect some of these programs.
Number 1170
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Representative Kohring and his staff had
reviewed the minutes on HB 409 mentioned in this meeting's
testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING responded Mr. Krieber had reviewed those,
but he personally had not.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested that Mr. Krieber could possibly
highlight some of the statements referred to for Representative
Kohring because the committee would be also be reviewing some of
those minutes. Chairman Rokeberg stated the committee had received
a letter from the Alaska Municipal League in opposition to HB 400,
and a copy would be provided to the sponsor. He noted the letter
points out the concern that there is a constitutional mandate for
a local (indisc.) agency in Article X, Section 14, and the sponsor
might want to be prepared to respond to that [Article X, Section 14
of the Constitution of the State of Alaska reads: "Local
government agency. An agency shall be established by law in the
executive branch of the state government to advise and assist local
governments. It shall review their activities, collect and publish
local government information, and perform other duties prescribed
by law."]. Chairman Rokeberg indicated HB 400 would be held over,
stating the committee would take HB 400 up on February 27 at
approximately 4:00 p.m. after the hearing on HB 458. The Chairman
noted the committee would be hearing Mr. Perkins's testimony; he
believed Jim Nordlund, H&SS, would be testifying, and DCED and DCRA
staff were invited to provide further testimony and/or be available
for questions.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1249
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 5:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|