Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/07/1996 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 7, 1996
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ed Willis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 532
"An Act relating to determination by executive branch agencies of
the costs of reviewing, adopting, amending, and repealing
regulations."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 348
"An Act requiring that all official interviews with children who
are alleged to have been abused or neglected be videotaped or
audiotaped."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 110
"An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain information in
motor vehicle records; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 359
"An Act relating to the appointment and confirmation process for
members of certain boards, commissions, and similar bodies;
relating to terms of certain appointees; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 302
"An Act relating to the release of runaway minors from licensed
programs for runaway minors and from runaway minor shelters."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 372
"An Act relating to liquor licenses issued to a restaurant or
eating place; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 532
SHORT TITLE: COSTS OF ADOPTING REGULATIONS
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/28/96 2912 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/28/96 2913 (H) STA, FINANCE
03/07/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 348
SHORT TITLE: VIDEO/AUDIOTAPE INTERVIEW OF ABUSED MINOR
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES, Therriault, Kelly, Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/13/95 2173 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/13/95 2174 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, JUD, FINANCE
08/26/95 (H) STA AT 1:00 PM
08/26/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/08/96 2383 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY, TOOHEY
01/23/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/23/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/96 (H) STA AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 102
02/10/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 110
SHORT TITLE: CONFIDENTIALITY OF MOTOR VEHICLE RECORDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BARNES, Green
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/23/95 116 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/23/95 116 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
01/25/95 136 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
03/10/95 701 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
03/10/95 701 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/10/95 701 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/07/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst
Office of the Director
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0001
Telephone: (907) 465-4676
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 532.
SCOTT CALDER
P.O. Box 75011
Fairbanks, Alaska 99704
Telephone: (907) 474-0174
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in favor of HB 532.
PAM LA BOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
217 Second Street, Suite 201
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in favor of HB 532.
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Jeannette James
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided committee substitute for HB 348.
DIRK NELSON
P.O. Box 2437
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-5894
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 348.
HARRY NIEHAUS, Member
Guardians of Family Rights
P.O. Box 55664
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-9328
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 348.
CAM CARLSON
P.O.Box 80234
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: Not available.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 348.
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4356
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 348.
DIANE WORLEY, Director
Central Office
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Telephone: (907) 465-3191
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 348.
LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
130 Seward Street, Suite 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3650
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 348.
STEVE GRUNSTEIN, Member
Guardians for Parent's Rights
P.O. Box 30604
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 789-7131
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 348.
SCOTT CALDER
P.O. Box 75011
Fairbanks, Alaska 99704
Telephone: (907) 474-0174
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 348.
GENE OTTENSTROER
c/o P.O. Box 1059
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: Not available.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 348.
JEANNE' PHIPPS
c/o P.O. Box 704
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: Not available.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 348.
ELEANOR ROSER, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Ramona Barnes
State Capitol, Room 403
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3438
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 110.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief
Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
Telephone: (907) 465-4361
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 110.
JAY N. DULANY, Director
Central Office
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
Telephone: (907) 269-5559
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 110.
BOB MOTZVICH
8801 Spendlove Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 344-6254
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 110.
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4356
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 110.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-30, SIDE A
Number 0000
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair
Jeannette James at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Green, Ivan, Porter and James. Members absent
were Representatives Ogan, Robinson and Willis.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced Representative Ed Willis was
excused from today's meeting. Representative Scott Ogan and
Representative Caren Robinson would be joining the meeting shortly.
HB 532 - COSTS OF ADOPTING REGULATIONS
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 532.
CHAIR JAMES explained HB 532 was sponsored by the House State
Affairs Committee. She called it a simple bill so it did not have
a sponsor statement. She did not plan to move it out of the
committee today. The Administration was concerned about HB 532's
direction. She explained there were other House Bills, HB 105 and
HB 267 that also addressed the issue of regulations. House Bill
105 established a special group to write regulations, and HB 267
required the legislature to extend regulations every session. In
an attempt to address the issue of regulatory reform, she asked the
Administration last year for information from the agencies
regarding the amount of time and effort spent on writing
regulations. The Administration tried to get the information, but
it was hard to go back and recreate the time and effort put forth.
Therefore, HB 532 required each agency that reviewed proposed
regulations and changes of another agency to determine the direct
and indirect cost of reviewing and writing the proposed changes
incurred. She was interested in the who, the time and the cost of
writing regulations for all agencies. She said the Administration
was concerned about the fiscal note. She commented she expected a
$0 fiscal note. She explained the tracking would be incorporated
into the already existing daily activities. The Administration
would probably be interested in this information as well, so she
was looking for cooperation.
The record reflected the arrival of Representative Caren Robinson
at 8:08 a.m.
Number 0388
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN was concerned about the fiscal notes. He
commented he had seen a wide latitude of fiscal notes from the
departments, and explained, if a department liked a bill, the
fiscal note would be low; if a department did not like a bill, the
fiscal note would be high. Therefore, he questioned if the
information would be reliable. He suggested a targeted audit
approach instead.
Number 0450
CHAIR JAMES replied an audit was her initial approach. However,
according to the House Legislative Budget and Audit Committee,
there was nothing to audit because of the lack of record keeping.
House Bill 532 would allow the necessary information to be tracked
and kept for future audits.
Number 0499
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON called the issue a moving target.
She explained a department would expend a lot of time and effort
when a regulation was needed producing a "picture in time" result.
The results were also directly related to the bills the legislature
passed that year. She reiterated HB 532 would provide a picture in
time result rather than an overall expended amount of effort.
Number 0564
CHAIR JAMES replied a time study took into consideration her
concerns. She agreed there probably were times when more
regulations were being written, however, considering everything
there was a way to determine a composite amount of time and effort
being spent on regulations. She reiterated, time and effort data
was needed to evaluate a more efficient process.
Number 0657
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Chair James what was the goal and
purpose of the bill?
Number 0662
CHAIR JAMES replied the goal was for true regulation reform in the
state of Alaska, which would take approximately four years to
accomplish. The bill would set aside one year for the information
to be collected. Due to her past experiences and true desires, she
believed she could contribute to the solution making process. She
asserted the process must be more efficient, cost less, implement
statutes better, cause less distress with the public, and provide
accountability.
Number 0735
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented that a moratorium was needed on
passing bills. It was necessary to look at how legislation was
passed, for a true fix.
Number 0765
CHAIR JAMES agreed with Representative Robinson. She said a lot of
the blame laid in the lap of the legislature because of incomplete
pieces of legislation. Therefore, the Administration had to pick-
up the pieces causing friction between the public, the
Administration and the legislature. It was a two-sided coin, and
all had to work together towards the same goal.
Number 0845
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if guidelines would be issued to help
the departments determine a direct and indirect cost. He said it
was vague as written and might produce unreliable data.
Number 0852
CHAIR JAMES replied the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would
be the leader of this project. She was interested in an overall
view of the ratio of time and cost related to regulation writing.
The public wanted a reduction in the cost of government operations,
but they did not want to cut the education budget, for example.
The public wanted to cut the cost of government and this was a way
to accomplish that goal. Furthermore, the cost of government
started with the legislature. She reiterated she agreed with
Representative Robinson that the legislature needed to look at how
legislation was passed and to include more accountability.
Moreover, a government crash was eminent, if it was not handled
better.
Number 0998
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said benefits and overhead were part of the
direct cost involved, and as long as OMB established guidelines he
was more comfortable with the tracking process. He stated the
direct cost was a sizeable amount.
Number 1015
CHAIR JAMES agreed with Representative Green that the direct cost
was a sizeable amount. She explained it touched every employee in
some way.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness in Juneau, Jack Kreinheder,
Office of Management and Budget.
Number 1030
JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of the Director,
Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor, said the
overview of Chair James addressed some of the concerns of the
Administration. He said the Administration was happy to work with
the committee members and the Chair to accomplish the intent of the
bill. The Administration, however, was concerned about the fiscal
notes. The departments indicated they could absorb this as part of
the cost of doing business. The Administration was concerned,
however, about the resources necessary to track the data. The
Governor had asked the departments to review their regulations and
delete any that were out dated or needed to be revised. This would
take time because legislation passed last year that required
regulations were still being written. He further said even though
the efforts could be absorb, it was not insignificant because of
the cumulative efforts over time for each department. He cited the
report at the end of the year would take time. The Administration
agreed the information would be interesting, but believed those
resources would be better devoted to working on the regulations
directly. He further addressed Representative Green's concern
regarding the direct and indirect cost. He agreed that OMB would
oversee the effort. He said an amendment would not be necessary to
clarify that because the bill left it up to the Administration. In
conclusion, he said, OMB would probably define the terms for the
consistent gathering of the information.
Number 1315
CHAIR JAMES explained there would not be a fiscal impact for the
record keeping required, but there would be a fiscal impact to
prepare the report at the end of the year. She stated plenty of
time was given in the bill to prepare a report - June 30, 1997 to
December 1, 1997. It was not mandated, but she expected a norm
would be established by the Administration. She reiterated it was
an overall picture involved for analysis. She said the agencies
and Mr. Kreinheder had been very cooperative, but there was no
parallel thinking yet. Both sides needed to give a little.
Number 1426
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN lauded the efforts put forth. A handle on the
cost of regulations was needed. However, based on personal
experience, record keeping was not always reliable. He was
concerned about the value of the data. It was time consuming to
track data accurately. He asked if the state had ever done this
before, and wondered if Mr. Kreinheder believed the data would be
reliable?
Number 1501
MR. KREINHEDER replied according to the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) the effort could be accommodated easily within
its existing operations. Permit costs were paid by the permitees
so the departments already tracked that information using a project
accounting system. He shared the concern of Representative Green
regarding the value of the data. He wondered if the cost of the
regulation projects in FY 97 were worth the time expended.
Number 1567
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if there was a way, short of a
computer program, so that at the end of the day the data was
recorded. He was concerned about data being forgotten if it was
collected weekly, for example.
Number 1596
MR. KREINHEDER said the enforcement of the data collection would be
left to department managers and supervisors. He agreed, for a time
keeping system to work it needed to be tracked on a daily basis,
otherwise it was only rough estimates.
Number 1618
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Kreinheder if he had any suggestions
for a method to track the information. He agreed the information
was needed, but he did not know how to get it.
Number 1634
MR. KREINHEDER replied the survey approach used by the Legislative
Audit Division was reasonable.
Number 1690
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER wondered if DEC's permitting process
would be necessary to track according to HB 532.
Number 1712
MR. KREINHEDER replied, "no." He said he used DEC as an example
because it had a system in place already.
Number 1726
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON again wondered what the information would
reveal and how it would be used. She agreed it would be good
information to know, but she did not understand how it would help
the legislature change its way of business.
Number 1756
CHAIR JAMES responded the question of how the information would be
used had yet to be determined. She explained the basic information
collected would be the starting point to analyze the current
system.
Number 1826
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if a piece of legislation was
necessary. She suggested choosing a few pieces of legislation and
backtracking the time and effort required to implement the
regulations. She said it would be faster and it made more sense.
Number 1863
CHAIR JAMES replied backtracking would not yield accurate data.
She was distressed because the information was not being tracked
now. In the private sector cost accounting was standard procedure.
The government never considered evaluating the cost involved
because time keeping was not recorded. Furthermore, the lack of
data affected the continued passage of HB 105 in the system because
she could not determine how many people would be necessary to
establish a regulatory writing group.
Number 2020
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reiterated it was still a moving target
because certain divisions within departments would be working on
regulations based on legislation at that given time.
Number 2055
CHAIR JAMES replied for every program it was a moving target.
Therefore, a preestablished tracking system was needed. She
understood the concerns of Representative Robinson, and reiterated
a cost analysis was the beginning of making any changes.
Number 2112
MR. KREINHEDER asked the Chair what level of detail she envisioned
from the departments? A grand total? A breakdown by specific
regulatory project?
Number 2138
CHAIR JAMES replied she expected the hours by specific regulation
or statute. She also expected the cost incurred relative to time.
Everything would be relative to time, she explained.
Number 2193
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered if asking for subjective information
was reasonable as well. He cited explaining a statute that caused
the biggest problem while trying to develop a regulation as an
example.
The record reflected the arrival of Representative Scott Ogan at
8:45 a.m.
Number 2225
CHAIR JAMES replied it would be in the best interest of the
Administration to include as much narration as possible to help
reform the system. She did not want to mandate that in the bill,
however.
Number 2253
MR. KREINHEDER responded it did not need to be specified in the
bill. He said there had been some discussion about whether a bill
was necessary or a request from the committee would suffice, and
that in his personal opinion, a bill would be more effective.
Number 2288
CHAIR JAMES thanked Mr. Kreinheder for his time. She reiterated
she did not plan to move the bill out of the committee today. She
explained she was willing to include a fiscal note to address the
tallying of information at the end of the period, however.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Scott Calder.
Number 2315
SCOTT CALDER said the goal of the 19th Alaska State Legislature
should be to help all Alaskans witness the closure of vast fissures
between the needs of Alaskans and the activities of the government.
He said there was an ongoing and contemporaneous public process to
allow action from the people. The goal should be to restructure
the government to act at the people's request. He said HB 532
seemed wasteful on one hand, but it was important the agencies face
the true cost and impact of their regulations.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Pam La Bolle.
Number 2393
PAM LA BOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, said the
Chamber supported HB 532. She explained regulatory reform was the
Chamber's second priority, and the information HB 532 would provide
was something that the Chamber had been trying to acquire. She
explained the business community was not addressing this issue to
the dismay of the Chamber. A handle on the resources applied was
necessary in both the private and public sectors. Furthermore, the
information would help in the analysis of several areas.
TAPE 96-30, SIDE B
Number 0000
HB 348 - VIDEO/AUDIOTAPE INTERVIEW OF ABUSED MINOR
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 348.
CHAIR JAMES called on Barbara Cotting, Legislative Assistant to
Representative James to present the committee substitute.
Number 0021
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Assistant to Representative Jeannette
James, said on February 10, 1996 a subcommittee was formed to
establish an agreement between the legislature and the agencies
involved. The subcommittee members consisted of Representatives
James, Porter and Robinson; Elmer Lindstrom, Department of Health
and Social Services; Diane Worley, Division of Family and Youth
Services; Lt. Chris Stockard, Department of Public Safety; and Anne
Carpeneti, Department of Law. The result was CSHB 348(STA) (9-
LS1187/F).
MS. COTTING said it was a radical change from the original bill.
The original bill, she explained, had a Senate companion that was
moving forward, SB 188. Therefore, the concept had not been
dropped, entirely.
MS. COTTING read the title and Section 1 into the record.
"An Act establishing the interagency work group on agency
accountability and child interview methods."
"Section 1, "INTERAGENCY WORK GROUP AND MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON
AGENCY ACCOUNTABILITY AND CHILD INTERVIEW METHODS. (a) The
interagency work group to increase agency accountability for and to
improve methods of interviewing minors who are alleged to have been
abused or neglected is established in the department. The work
group consists of five representatives, whose job description
includes participation in the work group, from the following
departments:
"(1) two persons from the department, one of whom shall be an
employee of the division of family and youth services;
(2) one person from the Department of Public Safety;
(3) one person from the Department of Education; and
(4) one person from the Department of Law.
"(b) The interagency work group shall prepare a memorandum of
agreement that will guide all participating agencies in their
involvement with interviews of minors who are alleged to have been
abused or neglected. At a minimum, the memorandum of agreement
must
"(1) identify the best and most effective methods to establish
accountability for those who interview minors who are alleged or
suspected to have been abused or neglected;
"(2) identify the best and most effective methods for (A)
videotaping; (B) audiotaping; (C) team interviews; (D) note taking;
(E) documentation; and (F) enforcing file content standards:
"(3) provide for interagency cooperation in (A) initial and
continuing training or education for interviewers, including
education regarding new and updated methods of interviewing minors
and regarding new equipment useful for interviewing minors; (B)
establishing respect for family members during the interview
process; (C) maintaining family unity during the interview process;
and (D) sensitivity to public response and public input;
"(4) focus on increasing agency and interviewer accountability and
minimizing negative effects on families; and
"(5) review the statutory definition of "abuse or neglect" to
determine if the definition leads to uniform and fair results.
"(c) The memorandum of agreement shall be made available for review
by the legislature and the public. The work group shall notify the
legislature that the memorandum of agreement is available for
review.
"(d) The interagency work group shall meet at the times the members
of the work group consider necessary. At a minimum, the memorandum
of agreement must be reviewed and updated in the year following
each gubernatorial election year as determined under AS 15.35.010,
and must be completed in those years before the beginning of the
next regular session of the legislature the following year. Each
revised and updated memorandum of agreement shall be made available
to the legislature and the public for review. The work group shall
notify the legislature that the memorandum of agreement is
available for review."
MS. COTTING explained Section 2 dealt with the time frame for the
initial memorandum of agreement. The first review would be January
1, 1997 followed by another review in two years.
Number 0234
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said HB 348 had come a long way and was
moving in a good direction. She referred the committee members to
page 1, line 12, and wondered if "two" persons from the Department
of Health and Social Services were necessary.
MS. COTTING explained in this context the word "department" in AS
47.17 meant "the Department of Health and Social Services."
Number 0260
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered about child sexual assault cases
in the language on page 2, line 22, "(C) maintaining family unity
during the interview process; and"
Number 0289
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested adding the language, "where
appropriate."
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON agreed with Representative Porter.
Number 0295
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked when the agencies would sign the
memorandum of agreement.
Number 0310
CHAIR JAMES replied it was not clear when the agencies would sign
and review the memorandum of agreement. She had mixed feelings
about including a public review process as well because it was an
interagency agreement. She did not expect a public review would
create any changes to the memorandum. She called it a living
document. She reiterated the memorandum was an agreement and not
a public process. It did not fall under the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA).
Number 0405
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she assumed it would be signed by all
the parties by January 1, 1997. Therefore, the public and the
legislature would not review it until after it was signed.
Number 0418
CHAIR JAMES replied that was her understanding also.
Number 0422
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN wondered if the local government agencies
were lost in the committee substitute.
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Ivan which local government agency
was he referring to?
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied the tribal organizations in the rural
communities, for example.
Number 0455
CHAIR JAMES said that issue did not come up in the subcommittee
meeting. She suggested Representative Ivan ask the departments
directly.
Number 0473
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained this was a state government
agency agreement. The municipal agencies and the non-profit
agencies would be part of the public review process.
CHAIR JAMES replied that was her understanding also.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Valdez, Dirk Nelson.
Number 0515
DIRK NELSON explained he was a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, and
a Licensed Marital and Family Therapist. The oversights were
necessary to oversee the actions of the Division of Family and
Youth Services (DFYS). He said anything to assist in mitigating
the harm of DFYS was good. He explained DFYS had done an admirable
job but at the same time there were isolated cases where harm was
done. He said the bill was not a "cure-all." There were aspects
of the bill that could put the state and child into danger of
culpability. He understood the desire to maintain family unity and
called it a good goal, but agreed with earlier comments that there
was the potential to go in the other direction.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Harry Niehaus.
Number 0619
HARRY NIEHAUS member of the Guardians of Family Rights, said he
opposed CSHB 348(STA). This was a far cry from what was originally
requested of a mandatory videotaping bill. The Guardians were in
full support of SB 188. He called the committee substitute
worthless. He said it did not regulate the regulators.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Cam Carlson.
Number 0661
CAM CARLSON said she opposed CSHB 348(STA). She appreciated the
attempt, but the committee substitute was nothing but a piece of
"fluff." It protected the agencies and the agency workers. The
committee substitute hid the accountability as well. It was
frustrating to not be able to audio/videotape an interview with a
child. She did not see what the problems were and why it was so
impossible for the agencies to videotape an interview.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Jayne Andreen,
Department of Public Safety.
Number 0735
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, commended the
committee members for their work done on CSHB 348(STA). She said
the bill would go a long way to provide a greater level of
accountability and coordination between the agencies. She referred
the committee members to page 2, line 22, "(C) maintaining family
unity during the interview process; and." She suggested adding the
language, "when appropriate," to ensure the best interest of the
child's safety first.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Diane Worley,
Department of Health and Social Services.
Number 0791
DIANE WORLEY, Director, Central Office, Division of Family and
Youth Services, Department of Health and Social Services, commended
the committee members for their work done on CSHB 348(STA). The
bill went a long way in moving towards agency accountability. The
Division was extremely pleased to be a part of this agreement and
looked forward to working with the other agencies towards an
understanding. The Division supported family unity whenever
possible, but also wanted to protect the child's interest.
Furthermore, within the Division, there were Indian child welfare
act agreements with many of the tribal entities to address the
concerns of Representative Ivan. Moreover, the Division did have
the option now and the ability to audio/videotape an interview. It
was working towards improving the availability due to a lack of
equipment, however.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Lauree Hugonin,
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.
Number 0946
LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, appreciated the direction of CSHB
348(STA). The best interest of a child was protected when the
agencies worked together. The Network echoed the Council's
concerns regarding family unity. The Network believed flexibility
was needed in that area because there were instances when it was
necessary to remove a child from his home. She asked the committee
members to consider language to clarify that issue. She asked if
the memorandum of agreement would recommend changes to the
legislature regarding the definition of "abuse and neglect?"
Number 1032
CHAIR JAMES replied the language was subjective. It was a
controversial area. She understood the suggestion to amend the
language to include "when appropriate" to maintain the family
unity. However, family unity should be the focus. There were
other parts of the family included such as aunts and uncles, for
example, that would help maintain the unity of a family.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Steven Grunstein.
Number 1172
STEVEN GRUNSTEIN, Member, Guardians for Parent's Rights, said a
bill like this was needed. The bill started off being a protection
and a check for the parents. He said a few years ago he and his
son were involved in the system. He explained he had not seen his
son for six years when he returned to Alaska. His son was only in
Alaska for 14 days, and on the 17th day he was told by DFYS he had
been abusing his son his entire life. He asked the DFYS official
to further explain and the official responded by stating, "you
heard me, how dare you question me." It was his word against his
son's. He said the bill would be best if both the interview of the
child and the parents were required. He said the parents were
helpless. The system was not currently working to reunite the
families. The original intent of the bill was a safety for those
that lived and worked within the framework of the laws. He said a
videotape would be the best for the system. If there was a sexual
assault case something needed to be done, but he generally agreed
with Chair James that the focus needed to remain on keeping the
family united. The parents needed help at the legislative level,
because there was not any help at the judicial level. He said he
was against abuse in any form - sexual, physical or mental.
However, many children were using it as a weapon against their
parents, and that was when an interview on a videotape would be
helpful.
Number 1448
CHAIR JAMES explained the goal was to videotape the interviews.
However due to the diversity within the state and the various areas
of concern, the committee substitute was a good compromise. It
moved the agencies towards the accountability that was needed. The
committee substitute also had the possibility of passing the
legislature and being signed by the Governor.
Number 1548
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said Mr. Grunstein was not against the
bill. It was a good start even though it might not be exactly what
he wanted. She wondered if Mr. Grunstein agreed that it was not
necessarily appropriate to keep a family together in the case of
child sexual abuse.
Number 1589
MR. GRUNSTEIN replied, "that is correct." Furthermore, the
definition of "abuse and neglect" needed to be looked at further.
He cited a personal case where he was charged with abuse for
blocking a punch from his son.
Number 1628
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said a definition existed in statute. It
might not be used formally by all the agencies, however.
Number 1640
CHAIR JAMES said the language was changed based on a recommendation
of the Department of Health and Social Services.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reiterated there was a definition, but it
might be interpreted differently by the agencies involved.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Scott Calder.
Number 1675
SCOTT CALDER said he agreed with Mr. Niehaus' testimony earlier.
The committee substitute was a bit of fluff. The original bill at
least attempted to place some accountability onto the state. The
committee substitute was completely unrelated to its Senate
companion, SB 188. He said CSHB 348(STA) avoided the issue. He
further said each new Administration had the opportunity to
influence the process and cited various statutes. He said a code
would be the way to address the problem in that it would provide an
external citizen review of the foster care system, for example. He
called for citizen reviews in each of the four judicial districts
to satisfy Representative Ivan's concerns. He encouraged him to
look at the Citizen Review Panel Act of 1990. He further called
the committee substitute a self study waste of time.
Number 1884
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she agreed with Mr. Calder regarding
the Foster Care Review Panel. She said it was originally funded at
$500,000 while last year it was funded at $176,000. She stated it
would not be in the trouble it was today if it had been implemented
correctly. Furthermore, CSHB 348(STA) was another piece of the
accountability.
Number 1958
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN reiterated his concerns regarding the native
tribal organizations. He wanted to meet with the Departments to
question the existing agreements.
CHAIR JAMES suggested to the testifiers who opposed the committee
substitute to push for and support SB 188.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Delta
Junction, Gene Ottenstroer.
Number 2042
GENE OTTENSTROER said the committee substitute was nothing. He
said the original bill was good. The departments did not want
videotaping for some unknown reason. He suggested deleting
language addressing audiotaping. He said, "a picture was worth a
thousand words." He questioned why two people were needed from the
Department of Health and Social Services. He said they were very
intimidating, and he wondered if it was stated as such to take over
the meetings, or to cover their "butts." He preferred mandating a
videotaped interview rather than allowing the work group to
identify the best method for the interview. He said the
departments did not want to be accountable for fear of the
discovery of what was going on behind the scenes.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Delta
Junction, Jeanne' Phipps.
Number 2205
JEANNE' PHIPPS wondered why it took five department people, when
all the departments were suppose to have a vested interest in the
Department of Health and Social Services. She said videotaping
should be made mandatory any time a public agency was involved in
an attack on families. She said she was against CSHB 348(STA).
Furthermore, a constitutional law was needed to make the Department
of Health and Social Services, the legislature, and other
departments more accountable for their actions.
Number 2342
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to include the phrase, "unless the
nature of the investigation clearly indicates otherwise," on page
2, line 22, subsection (c). (Amendment 1) Hearing no objection,
Amendment 1 was so adopted.
Number 2420
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested an amendment to reduce the number
of participants from the Department of Health and Social Services
from "two" to "one."
Number 2440
CHAIR JAMES said it was the intent to include two participants
because one would be from the Department of Health and Social
Services, and one would be from the Division of Family and Youth
Services. She deferred to the committee members for further
discussion.
Number 2464
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said testimony indicated the reason two
members were needed from the Department of Health and Social
Services was to represent the family and the child.
TAPE 96-31, SIDE B
Number 0000
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it should be the responsibility of the
Commissioner. The appointed group member from the Department would
work closely with the other agencies involved within the
Department.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Worley to address the issue.
Number 0073
MS. WORLEY said the Department could go either way. There were
arguments for both sides. There was a perception the Department
would overbalance the work group. Furthermore, Representative
Porter was also correct that the bill would impact both the youth
services and the family services. She suggested a person in a
policy position, and a person from the field. She reiterated she
was not committed either way, however.
Number 0198
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied the Department of Public Safety,
for example, could say the same thing. The responsibility was to
reach out to the affected parties and it was the responsibility of
the appointed work group member to bring the perspective of his
department to the table. She said it was not a big issue, but it
could be a potential additional cost.
Number 0279
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to adopt a conceptual amendment to
include "one" member from the Department of Health and Social
Services. Hearing no objection it was so adopted.
Number 0299
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he was not against the bill. He
understood the intent. He wondered if it would affect the Indian
Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
Number 0399
MS. WORLEY replied approximately eight years ago the agreement
between the state and ICWA was reexamined. A number of tribal
organizations chose not to sign-on because it was complicated.
Consequently, a tribal state collaboration group was formed to
discuss the issues surrounding ICWA. The goal was to make it more
workable to meet the needs of all the different tribal
organizations.
Number 0519
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN wondered if there were outside state agencies
involved in the memorandum agreement. He questioned if there would
be any input from the public, or would a statute be needed to make
changes?
Number 0558
CHAIR JAMES replied any changes would require a statute. The bill
mandated the work group reach an agreement between the agencies.
The information would then be made available to the legislature and
the public. If the legislature did not agree with the agreement,
it could talk to the group or address a change through a statute.
Moreover, the bill did not fall under the APA because it was a
policy and not a regulation.
Number 0686
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he was not against the bill. He was
concerned about a check and balance in the system. He called the
agencies a powerful force against a family.
Number 0714
CHAIR JAMES replied the bill demanded the type of accountability
Representative Ivan was concerned about.
Number 0733
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the bill should not be interpreted to
mean that a statutory exception was being created to existing
statutes regarding the confidentiality of criminal investigation
procedures. The agreement was available through the freedom of
information act anyway. However, there were exceptions when the
process was not in the best interest of justice. The bill would
not change those exceptions. Furthermore, the conceptual amendment
just created an even member group. He was concerned about ties.
Number 0839
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented the fiscal note gave him
"heartburn."
Number 0887
CHAIR JAMES replied the committee substitute did not have a fiscal
note attached. It needed to be discussed. She expected a $0
fiscal note, however.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented the bill started with a horrendous
fiscal note, and wondered how it could be a $0 fiscal note now.
CHAIR JAMES reiterated it could be a $0 fiscal note, or it could
include some money for training or reporting, for example. She
reiterated she was looking for a $0 fiscal note, however.
Number 0900
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he could not vote in favor of this bill
without seeing a fiscal note first. The first fiscal note called
for $3.5 million. He was concerned the fiscal note would be $0 now
because the division was in favor of it.
Number 0946
CHAIR JAMES said a fiscal note was necessary before passing the
bill forward. She reiterated a fiscal note did not exist right
now. She reiterated she was looking for a $0 fiscal note because
the departments could absorb any cost into their already existing
structures.
Number 0986
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented he was concerned about a fiscal note
going to the other extreme.
Number 0997
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Green if the fiscal note should
have a dollar value, and where?
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied, "absolutely." He did not know where,
however. He said there was more than "tweaking" involved, if a
fiscal note could go from $3.5 million to $0. He said he had to
see it before he could support it.
Number 1012
CHAIR JAMES responded the original bill mandated all interviews be
audio/videotaped. The committee substitute on the other hand only
suggested it through an interagency memorandum of agreement.
Number 1066
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated if it was suggested and not mandated
the fiscal note would be somewhere between $3.5 million and $0.
Number 1094
CHAIR JAMES replied she understood Representative Green's concern.
She was not worried about the original fiscal note, however. She
reiterated the bill would not move forward without a fiscal note.
Number 1116
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he supported the notion that the
committee substitute would generate a $0 fiscal note. It provided
the opportunity for increased training, but that was a normal
agency budget function presented through the budget process. The
need for equipment existed before the bill and would continue to
exist after the bill. The agencies knew how to handle that.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied, "I fully understand that."
Number 1159
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON also believed there would not be a large
fiscal note. Even if the need for training was included, it would
be a small fiscal note. Furthermore, she referred the committee
members to page 2, lines 28 - 30, subsection (c); and page 3, lines
3 - 6, and wondered if the language was redundant. She suggested
adding the language, "prior to signing of the agreement," or "at
the completion of the agreement" for clarification.
Number 1230
CHAIR JAMES replied she wanted to leave the language alone because
there might be a need to present a tentative agreement to the
legislature or to the public.
Number 1254
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON responded she was concerned about the
legislature rejecting the memorandum of agreement after the
completion date of January 1, 1997. She was concerned about the
public complaining about not being able to see the memorandum of
agreement before it was signed.
Number 1282
CHAIR JAMES stated she wanted a committee substitute from the House
State Affairs Committee that would make it through the rest of the
process. She explained she asked the leadership to waive the next
committee of referral - the House Judiciary Committee.
Number 1310
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered how the working group would notify
the legislature.
Number 1326
CHAIR JAMES wondered if the language stated it would be available
for review.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON read, "The work group shall notify the
legislature that the memorandum of agreement is available for
review," page 3, lines 5 - 6.
CHAIR JAMES said, if it was available for review, it was up to the
legislature to request it.
Number 1351
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained the normal process was for an
agency to send a letter to the Chief Clerk's office or the Senate
Secretary's office.
Number 1365
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if the language in Sec. 2, page 3
was necessary.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Worley to respond to Representative
Robinson's concerns.
Number 1387
MS. WORLEY agreed the language seemed redundant. She suggested
eliminating the language on page 2 rather than page 3, however.
Number 1409
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to delete lines 28 - 30, subsection
(c), page 2. (Amendment 2) Hearing no objection, Amendment 2 was
so adopted.
Number 1445
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Worley if the language should be
clarified regarding the timing of the public review of the
memorandum agreement?
Number 1452
MS. WORLEY replied the issue of accountability was the major
concern here, therefore, a review prior to signing a memorandum of
agreement was preferable to eliminate the perception of not
including the public.
Number 1499
CHAIR JAMES wondered how long the period of review would be left
open. She wondered if a regulation would be needed to enforce the
bill. She hoped a regulation would not be necessary. She
reiterated the memorandum of agreement was a policy, and wondered
if a policy should be subject to the APA? She did not think so.
A policy was a policy and it should not be subject to a public
review process. She explained she was concerned about setting a
precedent.
Number 1608
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied she would drop the issue.
CHAIR JAMES announced the next hearing was scheduled for Saturday,
March 9, 1996. A fiscal note would be attached.
HB 110 - CONFIDENTIALITY OF MOTOR VEHICLE RECORDS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 110.
CHAIR JAMES called on Eleanor Roser, Legislative Administrative
Assistant to Representative Ramona Barnes, to present the sponsor
statement.
Number 1687
ELEANOR ROSER, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Ramona Barnes, read the following sponsor statement
into the record.
"This legislation was introduced at the request of two of my
constituents who had experienced stalking by persons who had
obtained their addresses from the (DMV) through license plate
information. Additionally, in 1994, confidentiality of license
plate information was included in the President's Crime Package.
"The intent of the federal legislation (18. U.S.C. 2721) was to
protect the personal privacy of persons licensed by states to drive
a motor vehicle or persons who register a motor vehicle by
prohibiting disclosure of information on drivers maintained by the
state. This information is only to be disclosed under permissible
uses.
"If Alaska is not in compliance with the federal law by September
13, 1997, the DMV could be liable for civil fines of $2,500.00 per
day and the state could be subject to fines of $5,000.00 per day
until compliance is reached.
"This bill is supported by the Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault and the Anchorage Police Department.
"I appreciate your consideration of this bill and request your
support."
MS. ROSER said she would be happy to answer any questions of the
committee members.
Number 1745
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered how HB 210 would affect this bill.
Number 1774
CHAIR JAMES replied HB 210 would not affect HB 110.
Number 1785
CHAIR JAMES wondered what the language "legitimate interest" meant
in the bill. She cited in previous business expenditures she
needed to research information through the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) using a license plate number. There were many
reasons why a private individual would have a legitimate interest
to research vehicle information.
Number 1883
MS. ROSER deferred to Juanita Hensley, Department of Public Safety,
to answer the question.
CHAIR JAMES called on Ms. Hensley to join the committee members at
the table.
Number 1921
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if legislation was needed due to
the federal requirement.
Number 1940
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor
Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, explained HB 110 would bring
the state one step closer into compliance with the federal law.
The President's Crime Bill required that more vehicle records be
confidential. If the state did not comply with the federal law,
the federal law would preempt the state law and DMV would be
subject to a fine. Therefore, the DMV would either have to violate
a federal law and be subject to a fine, or violate a state law.
She explained there were provisions to allow the information to be
released for legitimate business interests.
Number 2023
CHAIR JAMES asked if a legitimate business interest was specified
in the federal law?
MS. HENSLEY replied it was defined in the federal law, and left to
the states to adopt the regulations. She cited mechanic or storage
companies, towing companies, banks or finance companies, and
insurance companies, as examples that would have a legitimate
business interest.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Jay Dulany, Department of Public Safety.
JAY DULANY, Director, Central Office, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Public Safety, said he was available to answer any
policy questions. He suggested including language to refer to 18
U.S.C. 2721 in Section 1.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Bob Motznick.
Number 2168
BOB MOTZNICK explained in his business a log was kept of all
inquiries made. He said that was a far better way to handle the
stalking concerns. His company experienced 300 to 500 inquires
everyday. The bill was preventing help to those that needed it
because as written it would not allow legitimate business
interests. He recommended deleting Section 1, and implementing the
minimum that the federal law required.
Number 2376
CHAIR JAMES commented this was a typical quandary between the state
and federal government. It was distressing, however, to not be
able to obtain information from a license plate, if needed. She
agreed the stalking concerns were serious. She wanted to leave as
little as possible to regulations, and put as much as possible into
statute.
MS. HENSLEY replied the DMV preferred everything in statute because
it was easier to defend its actions. She would be happy to work
with Chair James to incorporate some of her concerns within the
limitations of the federal law.
TAPE 96-31, SIDE B
Number 0000
MS. ROSER explained the bill could include model language from the
various states Attorney's General. The sponsor was not opposed to
including all the requirements in a statute. It was drafted as
such to keep it simple.
Number 0020
MS. HENSLEY explained the model language was developed last year by
the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators because
every state was in the same position.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Jayne Andreen,
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Department of
Public Safety.
Number 0044
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, said the Council
supported HB 110. It did not have a problem including more in the
statute. The primary issue was to provide safety for the victims
of domestic violence and stalking, whose batterers used DMV to
locate the victims.
Number 0070
CHAIR JAMES suggested working with Ms. Roser further to develop a
committee substitute for the next hearing on Thursday, March 14,
1996.
MS. ROSER said she not foresee a problem with that.
CHAIR JAMES announced HB 359, HB 302, and HB 372 would be rolled
over to Tuesday, March 12, 1996. Furthermore, she explained she
was filing a resolution opposing the changes in the functions of
the federal Office of Veterans Affairs in Anchorage for
Representative Willis because it was too late to file a resolution
in the Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0134
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee meeting at
10:35 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|