03/31/2005 09:00 AM House RULES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB95 | |
| HB88 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HB 95 | |||
| HB 88 | |||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 31, 2005
9:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative John Coghill, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beth Kerttula
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 95
"An Act relating to public health and public health emergencies
and disasters; relating to duties of the public defender and
office of public advocacy regarding public health matters;
relating to certain claims for public health matters; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 95(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to certain weapons offenses involving minors;
to aggravating factors in sentencing for certain offenses
committed against a school employee; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 88(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 95
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC HEALTH DISASTERS/EMERGENCIES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) HES, JUD
02/10/05 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/10/05 (H) Moved CSHB 95(HES) Out of Committee
02/10/05 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/11/05 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 2DP 2NR 1AM
02/11/05 (H) DP: CISSNA, WILSON;
02/11/05 (H) NR: GARDNER, ANDERSON;
02/11/05 (H) AM: KOHRING
03/04/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/04/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/07/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/07/05 (H) Moved CSHB 95(JUD) Out of Committee
03/07/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/09/05 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 1DP 6NR
03/09/05 (H) DP: ANDERSON;
03/09/05 (H) NR: GRUENBERG, KOTT, DAHLSTROM,
COGHILL, GARA, MCGUIRE
03/31/05 (H) RLS AT 9:00 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
BILL: HB 88
SHORT TITLE: OFFENSES BY MINORS/AGAINST TEACHERS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/19/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/05 (H) JUD, FIN
01/26/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/26/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/02/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/02/05 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to Fri. 2/4/05>
02/04/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/04/05 (H) -- Rescheduled from Wed. 2/2/05 --
02/07/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/07/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/07/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/16/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/16/05 (H) Moved CSHB 88(JUD) Out of Committee
02/16/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/18/05 (H) JUD RPT CS NT 1DP 6NR
02/18/05 (H) DP: GRUENBERG;
02/18/05 (H) NR: ANDERSON, KOTT, COGHILL, DAHLSTROM,
GARA, MCGUIRE
03/16/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/16/05 (H) Bill Postponed To 3/17/05
03/17/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/17/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/17/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/21/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/21/05 (H) Moved CSHB 88(FIN) Out of Committee
03/21/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/22/05 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 8NR
03/22/05 (H) NR: HAWKER, WEYHRAUCH, JOULE, MOSES,
HOLM, KELLY, CROFT, STOLTZE
03/31/05 (H) RLS AT 9:00 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. RICHARD MANDSAGER, Director
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 95 and
proposed amendments to it.
DAN BRANCH, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Division
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 95 and
proposed amendments to it.
JOHN BITNEY, Lobbyist
Alaska Nurses Association
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed Amendment 2 to HB 95.
RANDY RUARO, Assistant Attorney General
Legislation & Regulations Section
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 88.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Rules Standing Committee
meeting to order at 9:07:37 AM. Representatives Rokeberg,
Coghill, Harris, Kohring, McGuire, and Berkowitz were present at
the call to order.
HB 95-PUBLIC HEALTH DISASTERS/EMERGENCIES
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 95, "An Act relating to public health and
public health emergencies and disasters; relating to duties of
the public defender and office of public advocacy regarding
public health matters; relating to certain claims for public
health matters; making conforming amendments; and providing for
an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 95(JUD).]
9:08:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE referred to HB 95 as the quarantine bill.
She informed the committee that Alaska is one of the few states
without quarantine capabilities. She explained that the
legislation includes language which would allow for a civil
cause of action against a state employee. However, it has been
determined that a criminal penalty would be more appropriate,
with which she noted her agreement [to the notion and the
amendment]. The legislation expands the different locales where
there could be a cause of action against a state employee who
abused his or her power. She pointed out that [the committee
packet should also include another amendment] which would add
nurse practitioners to the list of medical individuals in the
legislation. She noted her support of the aforementioned
amendment.
9:09:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS moved that committee adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 24-GH1002\F.2, Mischel, 3/24/05, which read:
Page 2, line 29:
Delete ", isolation, medical treatment, or"
Insert "or isolation, or by"
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "in circumstances provided under
AS 18.15.388"
Insert "for damages caused by medical treatment
provided under AS 18.15.355 - 18.15.395 by a state
employee"
Page 9, following line 17:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) A person who knowingly discloses
identifiable health information in violation of this
section or a regulation adopted under this section is
guilty of a class B misdemeanor. In this subsection,
"knowingly" has the meaning given in AS 11.81.900(a)."
Page 16, lines 22 - 25:
Delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.
9:10:49 AM
DR. RICHARD MANDSAGER, Director, Division of Public Health,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), echoed
Representative McGuire's earlier testimony that Alaska is the
only state in the nation without adequate quarantine and
isolation authorities. He noted that the committee packet
should include PowerPoint slides that summarize the journey of
this legislation through the committee process. The
legislation, he opined, does three things of importance for the
state: it updates the state's public health authorities; it
places due process provisions in the legislation for someone who
wants to appeal action; and it updates the standards and
management of identifiable health information. Amendment 1 is
in response to an amendment on page 16, lines 22-25, added in
the House Judiciary Standing Committee. The parts of Amendment
1 that make changes on page 2, place DHSS employees at the same
level as any other health care practitioner in the state.
Therefore, if DHSS employees don't manage medical treatment,
they are held to the same standard as any other physician or
nurse in the state. Furthermore, if [DHSS employees] don't meet
medical standards of care, there is liability for the lack of
appropriate medical care. The part of Amendment 1 that makes
changes to page 9 inserts subsection (c) regarding the
identifiable health information, and makes a knowing violation
of the disclosure of health information a criminal violation.
Dr. Mandsager viewed it as appropriate that [DHSS employees] be
held to a standard that imposes criminal penalties as
individuals. The reason to eliminate the civil liability is
because when there is an appeal, the courts are involved, except
for an emergency order by a medical officer. The aforementioned
can even be taken to court within 72 hours, if there is the
contention that the department isn't managing appropriately.
9:15:28 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG related his understanding that a licensed
physician in the state who reveals confidential patient
information is subject to criminal prosecution as a misdemeanor.
DR. MANDSAGER clarified that there are federal Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) standards that must
be met.
9:16:08 AM
DAN BRANCH, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Division, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, said that
he is unaware of any state provision regarding a private
physician breeching confidentiality.
CHAIR ROKEBERG recalled that in the patients' bill of rights he
authored there were standards of privacy, but he didn't recall
any criminal sanctions. Therefore, he questioned whether it
would be a federal cause of action.
MR. BRANCH said that he wasn't sure how it would proceed. The
HIPAA standards place a heavy burden on the state and physicians
to protect confidential or identifiable health information. He
offered to let committee staff know the answer after some
research.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said he would appreciate such because this would
create a new crime.
MR. BRANCH clarified that this is analogous to other provisions
protecting confidential information, such as child protection
information. Those in violation of AS 47.10 would be liable for
a misdemeanor.
9:17:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to how knowingly
quarantining someone is distinguishable from kidnapping or
falsely imprisoning someone.
MR. BRANCH specified that the legislation wouldn't make it a
crime to violate the quarantine and isolation provisions. As
Dr. Mandsager explained, there's no need to have a civil cause
of action for suing the state for violations of quarantine and
isolation provisions because the rights provided by the
provision to the respondents can be enforced within the hearings
provided by the statute itself. An individual wrongly
quarantined will be able to come before a judge and relate his
or her story and have an attorney help with that. At the time
it's most important to protect an individual's rights, there's
already a remedy provided by this legislation. Therefore, it's
unnecessary to provide a criminal sanction or a civil sanction
for a violation of the quarantine and isolation provision.
9:19:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that the aforementioned
presumes that the individual knows to secure an attorney and is
capable of doing so.
MR. BRANCH opined that the provision provides a requirement of
notice to be given to an individual being quarantined.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that he was posing a
situation in which there is a knowing violation, a knowing
quarantine even though it's improper, and he questioned the
recourse the improperly quarantined individual would have.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether the individual would go the
Attorney General's Office.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that the history of imposing
quarantines in this country isn't particularly impressive.
Quarantines have been imposed for various nefarious reasons. If
an individual in a community wanted to impose a quarantine in
violation of these rules, he didn't believe the quarantined
individual would be informed of his or her rights to an
attorney. Therefore, he said he was hesitant to carve out the
liability. The state's liability keeps the infrastructure of
the state vigilant before anyone imposes a quarantine. However,
he said he knows of cases in which health information was
disclosed in small communities for vindictive reasons.
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested that the act of imposing a quarantine
is notice to the public, in and of itself, that there will be
restricted access.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ questioned how anyone would know when
an individual has been quarantined. Furthermore, if the
aforementioned is done in knowing violation of the rules, he
questioned the recourse available to the improperly quarantined
individual.
9:22:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL questioned whether it would be
appropriate to hold a department employee who makes a spurious
claim to quarantine criminally liable.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated agreement, but reiterated
that if the state remains civilly liable, then the state will
remain vigilant in regard to its personnel. If the state isn't
going to be held accountable for the actions of its employees,
then it's difficult to relay the message of accountability.
Every time the legislature makes the state exempt from
liability, the legislature sends a message.
9:23:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE opined that a criminal charge is more of
an incentive for a state employee to be accountable. The old
law was a $1,000 civil fine, which amounts to one permanent fund
dividend check. Representative McGuire then drew attention to
page 12, which lists very specific circumstances under which the
government can impose a quarantine. There are also conditions
and standards, such as notice and a superior court order. She
highlighted that page 13 specifies what the petition to the
superior court has to allege. Therefore, the notion of an
individual being locked up somewhere without anyone knowing is
preposterous.
9:25:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ emphasized that when people don't
follow the rules, there needs to be some recourse for the
victim. The victim would be someone who is falsely or
improperly quarantined. He pointed out that the state would
hold someone criminally and civilly liable for kidnapping and he
didn't see much difference between the aforementioned and a
knowing false quarantine. He questioned why the state should be
exempted from its responsibility to ensure that its employees
are behaving properly.
9:26:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that although he would tend to
agree, he opined that an individual who misuses or circumvents
the state law should be held criminally liable.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that criminal liability
doesn't make the victim whole. Therefore, civil liability
should be allowed if the desire is to allow the victim to be
made whole.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if someone who felt he or she was
improperly quarantined would have any recourse to appeal to the
courts for relief.
MR. BRANCH replied yes, and pointed out that [the department]
must go to court in order to obtain a quarantine in the first
place. He agreed with Chair Rokeberg that the first remedy
would be to appeal to have the quarantine set aside.
Furthermore, the legislation provides for requests for review
during the quarantine if an individual believes it's no longer
necessary.
9:27:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to divide the question such that
Amendment 1A would read as follows:
Page 2, line 29:
Delete ", isolation, medical treatment, or"
Insert "or isolation, or by"
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "in circumstances provided under
AS 18.15.388"
Insert "for damages caused by medical treatment
provided under AS 18.15.355 - 18.15.395 by a state
employee"
Amendment 1B would read as follows:
Page 9, following line 17:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) A person who knowingly discloses
identifiable health information in violation of this
section or a regulation adopted under this section is
guilty of a class B misdemeanor. In this subsection,
"knowingly" has the meaning given in AS 11.81.900(a)."
Amendment 1C would read as follows:
Page 16, lines 22 - 25:
Delete all material.
CHAIR ROKEBERG ruled that the question is divisible as specified
above.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that fundamentally the question
is whether the state should be liable when its employees do
something wrong. He opined that the state has a responsibility
as an employer; it should be no different than a private
employer.
9:29:18 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if there is objection to Amendment 1A [text
provided previously].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected to Amendment 1A.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Harris, Coghill,
McGuire, and Rokeberg voted in favor of the adoption of
Amendment 1A. Representatives Kohring and Berkowitz voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1A was adopted by a vote of
4-2.
The committee took a brief at-ease from 9:29 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
9:31:06 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the adoption of Amendment 1B [text
provided previously] is before the committee.
9:31:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there is a criminal penalty
for someone who knowingly quarantines or isolates [an
individual] in violation of the statutes.
MR. BRANCH replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE highlighted that [Amendment 1B] is an
expansion of rights.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reiterated that there's no criminal
penalty for a knowing violation of quarantine or isolation.
Therefore, if an individual knowingly and falsely quarantines
someone, there is no criminal penalty. [Amendment 1B] speaks
only to the disclosure of health information.
9:32:27 AM
DR. MANDSAGER reiterated his earlier testimony that the only
time a departmental employee can quarantine an individual is in
an emergency and for only a maximum of 72 hours. Every other
time there is a quarantine, a court must be involved.
Therefore, he couldn't see how there could be a knowing
quarantine or isolation.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ maintained that an individual with the
authority to impose a quarantine can do so, and it could be a
knowing violation, and yet there is no direct criminal sanction
attached.
9:33:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt a
conceptual amendment to Amendment 1B "that would bring in
knowing violations of quarantining or isolation."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that the aforementioned would
fall under AS 18.55.385.
9:34:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked then if the penalty is merely a
class B misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that the aforementioned seems
to be a problem.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if Representative Berkowitz wanted to make
knowing violations of quarantining or isolation symmetrical with
kidnapping.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised that the prosecution would
have some discretion in regard to how to charge in these
circumstances.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to the
conceptual amendment to Amendment 1B. There being no objection,
the conceptual amendment to Amendment 1B was adopted.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that Amendment 1B, as amended, is
before the committee. There being no objection, Amendment 1B,
as amended, is adopted.
9:35:53 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG then announced that before the committee is
Amendment 1C [text provided previously].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He opined that the state
shouldn't be "let off the hook," which would be the case with
the deletion of the language specified in Amendment 1C.
9:36:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE characterized this as a difference in
philosophy. Over the last couple of years, the legislature has
expanded some of the sovereign immunity provisions in the state.
Representative McGuire opined that a criminal penalty sends a
strong message. However, placing a civil cause of action
provides a liability that sits. The aforementioned is onerous,
she opined. Furthermore, there is no precedent for it. She
reminded the committee of the DNA legislation, which seems to
fall in line with this and it has a criminal penalty as well.
9:37:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS surmised that if the amendment passes, any
reference to civil penalties would be deleted and due to the
adoption of Amendment 1B, as amended, criminal charges have been
added. He questioned why it wouldn't be appropriate for a
[victim] of a [false quarantine or isolation] to able to receive
civil compensation.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE reiterated that it's a philosophical
difference. Imagine a circumstance in which a quarantine is
imposed; she suggested that it would be absolute chaos. She
opined that it would be quite a [burden] to also have civil
liability exposure with a $1,000 fine for each single violation.
Furthermore, those civil actions hang over an individual's
ability to secure loans, purchase houses, and follow the
individual forever. Representative McGuire emphasized that this
is a matter of public health, which benefits all. Moreover, the
civil penalty might deter individuals from doing such work.
9:40:22 AM
DR. MANDSAGER related that this amendment has caused a great
deal of distress for [Division of Public Health] staff because
of the compensatory damages for which the division employee
would be personally liable. He expressed concern with [the
division's] ability to recruit staff if they may be personally
liable for their actions.
9:41:19 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that he is sensitive to where Alaska sits
in relation to international trade, traffic, and importation of
infectious diseases. He said he would vote in favor of the
amendment as a vote of support for the [division's] staff.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ maintained his objection.
9:42:01 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Harris, Coghill,
Kohring, McGuire, and Rokeberg voted in favor of Amendment 1C.
Representative Berkowitz voted against it. Therefore, Amendment
1C was adopted by a vote of 5-1.
9:42:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE withdrew Amendment 2, labeled 24-
GH1002\F.4, Mischel, 3/30/05.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested offering Amendment 2 without
the portion on page 12, line 13, following "restrictive",
inserts "or most effective".
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE explained that she had thought Amendment
2 would only add nurse practitioner and expand the definition.
She said that although she would be willing to [consider] the
portion of Amendment 2 on page 20, line 18, which deletes
"nurse," and inserts "licensed nurse, nurse practitioner," she
still had concerns. She characterized the first part of
Amendment 2, which on page 12, line 13, following "restrictive",
inserts "or most effective", as egregious because it expands
governmental authority beyond what is desired. The portion of
Amendment 2 that addresses highly toxic agents actually moves in
the complete opposite direction of where the debate led the
legislation in the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Therefore, she decided to withdraw Amendment 2.
9:44:39 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2, 24-
GH1002\F.4, Mischel, 3/30/05, which read:
Page 12, line 13, following "restrictive":
Insert "or most effective"
Page 12, line 14, following "others":
Insert "or to prevent the exposure to or
transmission of a highly toxic agent or substance.
The department shall carry out isolation or
quarantine"
Page 19, line 7:
Delete "radiological"
Insert "radioactive"
Page 19, line 10:
Delete "radiological"
Insert "radioactive"
Page 20, line 18:
Delete "nurse,"
Insert "licensed nurse, nurse practitioner,"
Page 20, following line 19:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(13) "highly toxic agent or substance" means an
agent or substance, or the quality of an agent or
substance, that can cause serious illness, injury, or
death to a person exposed to the agent or substance;
"highly toxic agent or substance" includes a
radioactive material or an individual who has been
exposed to a radioactive material."
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE objected.
9:44:50 AM
JOHN BITNEY, Lobbyist, Alaska Nurses Association, acknowledged
that Amendment 2 opened up more than was intended. Furthermore,
he related that he now understands that the toxins are covered
elsewhere in HB 95. The idea [with Amendment 2] was to ensure
that things such as dirty bombs, although not contagious, could
be transmitted from another person, should also be subject to
the legislation.
MR. BITNEY did request that the committee consider adopting the
portion of Amendment 2 on page 20, line 18, which deletes
"nurse," and inserts "licenses nurse, nurse practitioner,". A
licensed nurse would essentially be an R.N., he noted.
9:46:26 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG moved to amend Amendment 2 such that it would
read as follows:
Page 20, line 18:
Delete "nurse,"
Insert "licensed nurse, nurse practitioner,"
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE asked if Dr. Mandsager could think of a
[situation] in which the public health would benefit from
including LPNs or another class of nurses or nurse
practitioners.
DR. MANDSAGER pointed out that the on page 20, line 13, the
definitions section includes "nurse practitioner". With regard
to whether to include a general nurse, he suggested just keeping
"nurse" as long as "nurse practitioner" is kept [in the
definitions section].
9:48:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE said she could understand that there are
situations in which a nurse practitioner would be [desirable],
but she believes the legislation covers them. However, she said
she didn't want to exclude pieces of the public health model.
CHAIR ROKEBERG withdrew his amendment to Amendment 2. He then
announced that Amendment 2 was off the table.
9:49:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt
Amendment 3, which read:
Page 26, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
'*Sec. 15. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
GRANT APPLICATIONS. The Department of Health and
Social Services is encouraged to apply for appropriate
funding sources relating to transforming health care
quality through information technology, including one
or more of the implementation grants sponsored by the
United States Department of Health and Human Services,
the National Institutes of Health, and the National
Library of Medicine."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
CHAIR ROKEBERG objected.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ informed the committee that there are
many grants that could be available to the state from the health
information networks. The health information networks have been
touted as a way to improve the quality of health care while
reducing the costs. He expressed the hope that Amendment 3
would encourage the Division of Public Health to apply for some
of these grants.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE said that she had no objection to
Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that he has no objection to the
concept, but he questioned whether HB 95 is the correct vehicle.
He suggested that perhaps budget legislation would be a better
place for such language.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ maintained his motion to adopt
Amendment 3. He pointed out that Amendment 3 merely encourages
the department to apply; there is no mandate.
CHAIR ROKEBERG inquired as to whether Amendment 3 fits under the
current title of HB 95.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the legislation is an
Act relating to public health.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS commented that Amendment 3 is germane to
the title of HB 95.
9:52:22 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG withdrew his objection, and therefore Amendment 3
was adopted.
9:53:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt
Amendment 4, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Insert the following language:
AS 47.04.020(b) is amended to read:
(13) persons under age 19 who are not covered
under (a) of this section ANS whose household income
does not exceed
[(A) $1,847 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD
CONSISTS OF ONE PERSON;
(B) $2,489 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS
OF TWO PERSONS;
(C) $3,130 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS
OF THREE PERSONS;
(D) $3,722 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS
OF FOUR PERSONS;
(E) $4,414 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS
OF FIVE PERSONS;
(F) $5,055 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS
OF SIX PERSONS;
(G) $5,697 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS
OF SEVEN PERSONS;
(H) $6,339 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS
OF EIGHT PERSONS;
(I) $6,339 A MONTH, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $642
A MONTH FOR EACH EXTRA PERSON ABOVE EIGHT PERSONS
WHO IS IN THE HOUSEHOLD IF THE HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS OF
NINE PERSONS OR MORE] 200 percent of the federal
poverty guideline as defined by the Federal Office of
Management and Budget and revised under 42 U.S.C.
9902(2);
(14) pregnant women who are not covered under (a)
of this section and whose household income does not
exceed
[(A) $2,489 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD
CONSISTS OF TWO PERSONS; A PREGNANT WOMAN IN A
HOUSEHOLD ALONE IS CONSIDERED TO BE A HOUSEHOLD OF
TWO PERSONS;
(B) $3,130 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD
CONSISTS OF THREE PERSONS;
(C) $3,772 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD
CONSISTS OF FOUR PERSONS;
(D) $4,414 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD
CONSISTS OF FIVE PERSONS;
(E) $5,055 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD
CONSISTS OF SIX PERSONS;
(F) $5,697 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD
CONSISTS OF SEVEN PERSONS;
(G) $6,339 A MONTH IF THE HOUSEHOLD
CONSISTS OF EIGHT PERSONS;
(H) $6,339 A MONTH PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $642
A MONTH FOR EACH EXTRA PERSON ABOVE EIGHT PERSONS WHO
IS IN THE HOUSE HOLD IF THE HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS OF NINE
PERSONS OR MORE;] 200 percent of the federal poverty
line as defined by the Federal Office of Management
and Budget and revised under 42 U.S.C. 9902(2).
CHAIR ROKEBERG objected.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ specified that Amendment 4 is for
Denali Kid Care. He reminded the committee that when Denali Kid
Care was changed a couple of years ago, [the legislature] locked
in to some numbers rather than a percentage of poverty. As a
result, fewer and fewer people are able to take advantage of
Denali Kid Care, which was a successful program. The
aforementioned was a step the legislature shouldn't have taken.
Given the budget surplus today, health care can be provided to a
broader group of people, he opined.
CHAIR ROKEBERG maintained his objection, and indicated that he
didn't believe HB 95 is the appropriate venue for Amendment 4.
9:54:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS commented that Amendment 4 would cause HB
95 to have a fiscal note and thus would require a referral to
the House Finance Committee.
9:55:20 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Berkowitz voted in
favor of the adoption of Amendment 4. Representatives Coghill,
Kohring, McGuire, Harris, and Rokeberg voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 1-5.
9:55:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 5, which would change the title in order to more
accurately reflect the quarantine subject of HB 95. There being
no objection, Conceptual Amendment 5 was adopted.
9:56:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE moved to report CSHB 95(JUD), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
95(RLS) was reported out of the House Rules Standing Committee.
HB 88-OFFENSES BY MINORS/AGAINST TEACHERS
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 88, "An Act relating to certain weapons
offenses involving minors; to aggravating factors in sentencing
for certain offenses committed against a school employee; and
providing for an effective date."
9:57:10 AM
RANDY RUARO, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation &
Regulations Section, Office of the Attorney General, Department
of Law, informed the committee that the Anchorage school
District supports HB 88. He related his understanding that the
Fairbanks School District has submitted a letter of support for
the Senate's [companion] legislation. Mr. Ruaro said that there
are three substantive sections of HB 88, Sections 2-4. Section
2 creates a new aggravating factor for certain crimes against a
person or arson committed on school grounds or a school bus.
Section 3 limits an existing mitigator that has been applied in
at least one [Alaska] Superior Court in a manner not believed to
be as it was originally intended. He explained that in one
superior court, the mitigator for assisting authorities
determined that it can apply that mitigator, even in subsequent
cases. Therefore, a person who assisted authorities, say five
or more years ago and received credit for an offense at that
time, can claim that credit again in future cases. However,
[the department] doesn't believe that was the intent of the
original language. This provision clarifies that the mitigator
only applies for the offense before the court at the time.
Section 4 automatically waives 16-17 year olds charged with
certain serious crimes, such as misconduct involving weapons,
using a firearm at a drug deal, or shooting at someone in a
drive-by shooting. The criminal division has reviewed
Representative Hawker's proposed amendment and supports it.
9:59:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE moved that the committee adopt Amendment
1, 24-GH1096\I.1, Luckhaupt, 3/24/05, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "minors;":
Insert "relating to the definition of 'recreation
or youth center' for purposes of misconduct involving
a controlled substance;"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "Sections 1, 2, and 4"
Insert "Sections 1, 3, and 5"
Page 1, following line 10:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 11.71.900(20) is amended to read:
(20) "recreation or youth center" means a
building, structure, athletic playing field, or
playground
(A) run or created by a municipality or the
state to provide athletic, recreational, or leisure
activities for minors; or
(B) operated by a public or private agency
to provide shelter, training, or guidance for minors."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, line 12:
Delete "Sections 2 - 4"
Insert "Sections 2 - 5"
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He turned attention to
subparagraph (B) of Amendment 1, and opined that "operated by a
public or private agency" encompasses practically everything and
everyone.
MR. RUARO explained that the genesis for Amendment 1 was the
Covenant House, which houses many youth in treatment for drug
issues. Apparently, dealers are aware of the aforementioned and
hang around such treatment facilities and try to sell drugs to
the youth residing there.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he is supportive of the
intent. However, he expressed concern with the loose language
of Amendment 1 because a public or private agency encompasses
everything. He related the need for the language to be more
precise.
MR. RUARO related his understanding that because these treatment
facilities are operated by both private and public entities, the
language was broadly stated in order to cover all the various
types of organizations that offer assistance to youth.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if this language would include
his [private residence].
MR. RUARO said that he wasn't sure that a private residence
would qualify as an agency. Certainly, the legislation isn't
intended to apply to private residences.
10:02:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE suggested adding language to subparagraph
(B) of Amendment 1 so that it would read: "operated by a public
or private agency licensed to provide". She suggested that the
facilities being [discussed] have to obtain a license.
MR. RUARO assumed that such facilities would at least have to
have a business license.
10:03:28 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested inserting the following language:
"formally organized and operated" to [subparagraph (B)].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that "agent" is defined in
AS 11.71.900 where it means an authorized person who acts on
behalf or or at the direction of a manufacturer, distributor,
and dispenser. Therefore, he suggested changing the reference
from "agency" to "entity."
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested the word "organization."
10:04:35 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that purveyors and sellers of drugs and so
forth actually target school buildings and
[rehabilitation/treatment facilities] because of the lack of an
aggravator. The intention [of the amendment] is meritorious and
the committee just needs to wordsmith the language.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE suggested using the following language:
"operated by a public or private entity that specifically
provides".
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested the following language: "formally
organized" which relates the legislative intent.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE suggested that the language [in
subparagraph (B) in Amendment 1] could read as follows:
"formally organized public or private entity that specifically
provides ...".
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that "organization" has a
definition specified in AS 11.81.900. Representative Berkowitz
related his preference to utilize words that are already [used].
He then suggested the following language: "operated by an
organization that is licensed to provide".
CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that "licensed" is of concern because
as Mr. Ruaro mentioned one could say that having a business
license means the entity is licensed.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS interjected that a business license may be
all that some of the facilities being discussed have.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ maintained that he is leery about
including private homes [residences].
10:06:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL highlighted that [in the Fairbanks area]
there are shelters that are nothing more than residences that
open their doors for local youth.
10:06:48 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG related his understanding that the language in
subparagraph (B) of Amendment 1 would read: "operated by a
public or private organization licensed to provide shelter,
training, or guidance for minors."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if the aforementioned language would
exclude a residence from being licensed, as mentioned by
Representative Coghill.
CHAIR ROKEBERG should be able to do so.
10:07:45 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt an amendment to
Amendment 1, as follows:
Line 16 [as numbered on Amendment 1], after "private":
Delete "agency"
Insert "organization licensed"
There being no objection, the amendment to Amendment 1 was
adopted. Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, was before the
committee. There being no objection, Amendment 1, as amended,
was adopted.
10:08:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt
Conceptual Amendment 2, which would delete Section 3 and the
portion of the title that reflects it.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed concern that often law
enforcement officers are able to make deals that may or may not
be related to the offense. Without fully hearing the impact
this amendment would have on law enforcement's ability
(indisc.), he said he didn't believe it needs to be changed,
especially if this is based on a single case. In response to
Chair Rokeberg, Representative Berkowitz pointed out that
Section 3 adds the following language, "after commission of the
offense for which the defendant is being sentenced". He then
posed a situation in which someone tells [law enforcement] about
a crime, with which he or she is going to be involved, that is
going to happen.
10:10:31 AM
MR. RUARO informed the committee that the language has been
vetted by District Attorney Bob Linton in Anchorage, who
believes the language will work. He related that [District
Attorney Linton didn't believe law enforcement's] ability to
obtain information would be compromised by this. The concern is
that other superior court judges could apply mitigators to cases
when individuals assisted authorities several years prior. The
intent is to stop doubling and tripling of credit for the
mitigator.
10:11:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE suggested that [the language in Section
3] might even allow a defendant on the hook for a separate crime
to provide information about a crime and receive a mitigated
sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he would feel better if District
Attorney Linton were present in order to field some hypothetical
situations.
10:12:19 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG related his understanding that there is case law
or actions of the judiciary that give rise to this particular
provision.
MR. RUARO replied yes, [Section 3] arose out of an Alaska
Superior Court decision in a felony case in Ketchikan. One of
the superior court judges gave the defendant credit for a
mitigator for an act of assisting authorities, the act was prior
to the time the offense was committed and it related to a
different case.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that he shared Representative Berkowitz's
concern that an individual shouldn't receive a mitigator for a
an action that hasn't taken place because that's prevention of a
crime.
10:13:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE opined that there is enough "wiggle room"
to get at what is desired. She characterized this as a
philosophical question regarding whether one wants more crimes
mitigated or not. Although a mitigator should be allowed when
someone is assisting, the problem is that the legislation is
broadened with the earlier mentioned superior court decision.
It's disconcerting, she opined, that [a judge] could look back
in time and apply a mitigator to a completely separate occasion.
Therefore, she expressed the desire to clean it up. She related
her philosophical belief that the fewer mitigators, the better.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that the objections to Conceptual Amendment
2 were maintained.
10:14:37 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kohring and
Berkowitz voted in favor of adopting Conceptual Amendment 2.
Representatives McGuire, Harris, Coghill, and Rokeberg voted
against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a vote
of 2-4.
10:15:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ turned attention to Section 4 of CSHB
88(FIN), and inquired as to why the bolded language doesn't
track with AS 11.61.190.
MR. RUARO explained that it doesn't track with AS [11.61].190
because it includes a section about shooting at property. The
House Judiciary Standing Committee amended [Section 4] such that
the situation should be limited to factual cases in which there
is a person who was threatened by the shooting.
10:16:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the language missing
from AS [11.61].190 refers to the "discharge of firearm from a
propelled vehicle while the vehicle is being operated".
MR. RUARO clarified that he was referring to the deletion of "or
damage to property", which was the language that was dropped in
the House Judiciary Standing Committee
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE highlighted that the underlying point of
this legislation is that it's an auto waiver of a minor into the
adult system, which is very serious. The concern is that when
discharging a weapon at property is involved, there are
circumstances that she didn't believe one would want to include
for auto waivers. Therefore, the language deviated from the
original statute and was made more narrow.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL recalled that part of the discussion [in
the House Judiciary Standing Committee] was that the crime
against the person rose to the level of an auto waiver while a
crime against property didn't.
10:18:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE moved to report CSHB 88(FIN), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes numbered 3 and 4.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that his committee packet didn't
include a fiscal note from the Department of Corrections.
Furthermore, some of the fiscal notes said that the legislation
may or may not lead to increased costs, which could be said of
anything at any time.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE interjected that the fiscal note to which
Representative Berkowitz is referring is from the House Finance
Committee, and noted that this [legislation] is not that
committee's area of expertise.
There being no objection, CSHB 88(RLS) was reported from the
House Rules Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Rules Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:20:04 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|