Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/07/1998 10:05 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, 1998
10:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ivan Ivan, Vice Chairman
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Fred Dyson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL 338
"An Act relating to the repeal of provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act, prohibiting the adoption of regulations by an agency
of the executive branch of state government, annulling all
regulations adopted by an agency of the executive branch, and
relating to additional legislation to carry out the purposes of
this Act; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL 359
"An Act relating to regulation of health insurance plans; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL 362
"An Act relating to the use of space for military lounges in state-
owned or state-controlled airports."
- MOVED CSHB 362(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 329
"An Act amending the definition of correctional facility to include
a therapeutic treatment center; providing for the conveyance of the
Harborview Developmental Center and appurtenant land to the City of
Valdez for the purpose of conversion and lease of a part of the
center for a therapeutic treatment center for the Department of
Corrections; providing that such a land conveyance counts toward
the general grant land entitlement of the City of Valdez; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 338
SHORT TITLE: ANNUL ALL ADMIN. REGS; REPEAL APA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) VEZEY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/21/98 2099 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/21/98 2099 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
3/03/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/03/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/05/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/05/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/07/98 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 359
SHORT TITLE: HEALTH INSURANCE REGULATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) RYAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/28/98 2153 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/28/98 2153 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, LABOR & COMMERCE
3/03/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/03/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/05/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/05/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/07/98 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 362
SHORT TITLE: AIRPORT MILITARY LOUNGES
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL CMTE MILITARY & VETERANS AFFAIRS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/28/98 2153 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/28/98 2154 (H) MLV, STATE AFFAIRS
2/19/98 (H) MLV AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 17
2/19/98 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
2/24/98 (H) MLV AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 17
2/24/98 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
2/25/98 2427 (H) MLV RPT 7DP
2/25/98 2428 (H) DP: RYAN, KOTT, NICHOLIA, FOSTER,
2/25/98 2428 (H) JOULE, MULDER, MASEK
2/25/98 2428 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOT)
3/03/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/03/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/05/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/05/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/07/98 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 329
SHORT TITLE: HARBORVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/16/98 2068 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/16/98 2068 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
1/16/98 2068 (H) FISCAL NOTE (COR)
1/16/98 2068 (H) 3 ZERO FNS (ADM, DHSS, DNR)
1/16/98 2068 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
3/03/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/03/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/05/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/05/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/07/98 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
on HB 338.
NANCY MICHAELSON
HC05 BOX 6916-F
PALMER, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-6673
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
DIANA BUFFINGTON, President and State Coordinator
Children's Rights Council of Alaska; and
Chairman, Alaska Task Force on Family Law Reform
314 Maple Street
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-2290
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
MARLENE LEAK
771 Eighth Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-1015
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
REBECCA MICHAELSON
HC05 BOX 6916-F
PALMER, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-6673
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
HARRY NIEHAUS
P.O. Box 55455
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-9328
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 420
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3875
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
DON STOLWORTHY, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Beverly Masek
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 362.
BETSY ROBSON, Assistant Director
Division of Institutions
Department of Corrections
4200 Diplomacy Drive, Suite 207
Anchorage, AK 99508
Telephone: (907) 269-7410
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 329.
DUGAN PETTY, Director
Division of General Services
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110210
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0210
Telephone: (907) 465-2250
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 329.
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4859
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 329.
JOE REEVES, Manager
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Correcrions
P.O. Box 112000
Juneau, Alaska 998111
Telephone: (907) 465-3315
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 329.
ACTION NARRATIVE
[NOTE: SIDE A, AND A PORTION OF SIDE B, WERE INADVERTENTLY TAPED
OVER AND CANNOT BE RECOVERED.]
TAPE 98-32, SIDE A
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Ivan, Elton and Vezey.
Representative Berkowitz arrived at 10:10 a.m., and Representative
Hodgins arrived at approximately 10:30 a.m.
HB 338 - ANNUL ALL ADMIN. REGS; REPEAL APA
CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is HB 338, "An
Act relating to the repeal of provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act, prohibiting the adoption of regulations by an agency
of the executive branch of state government, annulling all
regulations adopted by an agency of the executive branch, and
relating to additional legislation to carry out the purposes of
this Act; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0296
JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Affairs Agency, continued, "...to one specific example because I
worked on this Legislative Council for the past three years. When
Senator Green decided that she wanted to revise the agricultural
regulations, she proposed changes that necessarily affected the
regulations that were then in place and she specified in the bill
that the regulation should be annulled, and we gave her that draft.
Both in the 1995 and 1996-session, when that bill passed and got
caught up in the argument of whether it was vetoed and the veto
properly overridden - and in the bill that passed last year, there
are specific regulations that are contrary to the proposed laws
that she had been encouraging, and those regulations are identified
and they are annulled. And, in point of fact, they are noted as
annulled in the Administrative Code."
Number 0307
MR. CHENOWETH stated it's going to take more work, no doubt about
it. Whether you stick with the current system and try to identify
particular regulations that should be set aside or should be
amended, it's going to mean more focus on how you draft and enact
statutes. He said, "If you go with something like this, my fear is
that it's going to be each agency, each board, each commission for
itself."
Number 0306
MR. CHENOWETH continued, "Finally, there are a number of places
where I'm not sure what the impact of this thing is. My
recollection in Cleary v. State of Alaska [management of correction
facilities and inmates' rights] is that one of the ways that Cleary
v. State of Alaska, the (Department of) Correction's litigation,
has been implemented is by requiring the adoption of an extensive
body of regulatory material. If that material goes out are we no
longer in compliance with what we're required to do in Cleary v.
State of Alaska? In all of the places where the Legislature has
said that we want to encourage agencies to bring in and conform
their processes so that they would comply with federal law, what
does it mean when an agency can no longer do that under something
like an Administrative Procedure Act?"
Number 0310
MR. CHENOWETH said, "And finally, I'll go back again and express
whether you really want to spend your time worrying about things
such as how to regulate the taking of the fishery and game
resources in this state when it can be left to another agency or
board or commission to be handled through the adoption of
appropriate regulations. The same thing is true with the insurance
or the regulation of insurance. The same thing is true with the
regulation of public utilities in this state. All of the things
that require examination and rate-making are held up to being
unrepealed by this bill, and I'm not sure how you proceed."
MR. CHENOWETH concluded, if this bill passes, where does that leave
the Administrative Regulation Review Committee, what does it do.
There are no rules and regulations for the committee to look at
anymore.
Number 0316
CHAIR JAMES said, "The one thing I wanted to -- in your testimony,
that I would like to comment on is SB 109, the agricultural bill.
And one of the reasons why I believe that those -- and I knew that
you can negate Administration's regulations by law, by a statute,
yes we can do that. And the reason that needed to be done, that
just changing the law wasn't enough, is because they put
regulations on that didn't implement the law. In other words, it
went beyond the law and established things that was never intended
originally in the law. There's lots and lots of cases of that."
CHAIR JAMES noted, having been Chairman of the Regulation Review
Committee for these last two years, it's a horrendous job just to
look at those. The whole process of the notice of the regulations,
which she believes we're making a few changes there, when it just
says the area that is being changed, then you have to see that in
the paper or people get noticed, then you have to send for the
writing so that you can understand just exactly what is being
changed, then you have to hold a hearing and make your comments and
you don't know if they've listened to you or made any changes until
you get the final draft when it's too late to say anything. Chair
James said that's part of the problems that the public has that she
hears about all the time.
Number 0328
CHAIR JAMES mentioned Representative Vezey admits this bill needs
to be tweaked if it's going to work and admits that it's just
thrown out there for an idea. She said we need to think about it.
CHAIR JAMES stated, even with the legislation of the negotiated
regulation making, that we're trying to get through this year, we
still have not addressed the communication that we need between the
Administration and the Legislature on the meaning of the
legislation, and it's a two-way street. She said, "Number one, I
don't think when the Legislature passes legislation that they have
thought about it thoroughly enough - it sounds good so let's do it
and let the Administration fix it. And then when the
Administration follows it, that's not what they meant, and it's not
down anyplace where it meant. I'm not saying that it is all the
Administration's fault, I'm saying it's a dual problem. And I'm
saying if we're going to be able to meet the public's needs, we
have to have more communication at this level of just exactly what
(indisc.) legislation means. And there has to be then, if someone
gets off ship in the Administration and puts in regulations that
they want to implement this and thinks it fits, there needs to be
a double-check there from the Legislature and the voice should be
loud enough that they can make changes."
CHAIR JAMES reiterated the public is bewildered and they look to
the Administration and say they don't like this regulation and the
Administration's response is the Legislature passed the law, we're
just implementing the law, go talk to them. And the Legislature
says, we can't do anything about it, it's a regulation. So they
get the runaround and feel totally disenfranchised with their
government. She said what she is trying to do is make the
government more responsive to the public's needs, and that's why
we're hearing this bill today.
Number 0349
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY explained the reason that the bill takes
away the rule-making and regulation-making authority from the
Administration, is because in 1980 the supreme court deflated rules
and regulations of the agencies with law. The intent of the bill
is simply to bring lawmaking power back to the Legislature. He
said, "We're into a game of nomenclature here because nothing in
this bill says the agencies can't make guidelines, they're not
going to be law. Many of us think of rules as guidelines and what
not, but the supreme court has said that rules and regulations
enacted by the agencies are law and that the Legislature does not
have the authority to annul those laws. So all we're really trying
to do is separate the, what I would tend to call regulation and
rule-making authority of agencies, we're going to have come up with
new nomenclature and call it guidelines because it's not going to
have the full force of effective law, if this becomes law."
Number 0358
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ on that point noted we do have the
ability to repeal regulations, we just have to do it consistently
with what the constitution says. We can repeal regulations if we
do it by passing a bill, and then having that bill become signed
into law, then we can repeal that regulation. We have delegated
powers to agencies to make regulations. We (indisc.) that
delegation consistent with the bill process - not a resolution
process consistent with the bill process. He said once we make
that delegation, the only way we can repeal those delegated
regulations are through law, not resolution.
CHAIR JAMES stated it raises that to a higher level. She said,
"Let's say you've worked with the Administration and they refuse to
change it. You're assuming that you wouldn't have to do a bill to
erase a regulation if you tried the other method and they refused
to change it. So you decide, they refused to change it, the only
way that we can get rid of this onerous regulation is to pass a
piece of legislation. It is subject to the Governor's veto, he or
she's going to stand behind his Administration who refused to
change the regulation and veto it, which then takes a two-thirds
vote to override."
CHAIR JAMES concluded we're only dealing with a law that doesn't
have constitutional or even financial interest, and we have to have
a majority to implement the negation of a regulation. She
expressed, therein lies the problem.
Number 0372
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated then the solution is simple, then
don't delegate authority to agencies to make regulation.
CHAIR JAMES remarked, that's where we are today.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ continued, "But we've already done that
and the answer isn't undo all the regulations that have already
been done, it's next time any one of us proposes legislation that
within the legislation delegates power to an agency to make
regulation, we make the regulation part of the legislation. And we
don't do that, we don't do it for a simple reason, it's very
complicated, it takes a lot of time, we don't actually have the
expertise. What we do with legislation is set out guidelines.
Now, the regulatory process can be enhanced, public participation
can be improved, but once we make that delegation we've made that
delegation. We are bound by the law that's created just to show
you that it's a regular law. That's what the supreme court said."
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Berkowitz do you think we spend
sufficient time on defining the law that we're putting into effect
to have considered what the consequences would be.
Number 0383
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied, Madam Chair, when you allow me a
softball I'm going to smack it out of the park. There is no way
that we give due consideration of legislation we pass. We don't
give it...
CHAIR JAMES interjected don't you think something like this would
require us to be more cautious.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded you had entered the current
circumstances, we're not cautious enough. Under the current
circumstances, bills move forward insufficiently today. He said,
"So, if I think if we would add to our responsibility we're going
to be more careful, I don't think so. I think it paves the way to
what the supreme court cautioned against in the opinion. They say
the dangers of having the Legislature get involved in the minutiae
that are involved in regulation, legislative veto encourages
secretive, poorly informed and politically unaccountable
legislative action. And that's one of the problems of getting
involved in the detail."
CHAIR JAMES said, what if we didn't have the Administrative
Procedures Act, and what if the Administration wasn't required to
write the regulations and what if we were. Wouldn't we be able to
address that by passing a piece of legislation that had an
effective date that's a year and a half down the road and in the
mean time a legislative group working for the Legislature had to
write the regulations and then we take a look at those to see
whether we really like the legislation or not?
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied, that's possible.
CHAIR JAMES indicated that wouldn't take any more money because the
same people that are writing the regulations would be replacing the
ones that are currently doing them. But it would certainly be a
better system. She said, "What I'm saying is, just because we've
always done something a certain way, and if it has problems, there
certainly is a better way. And we definitely have a problem with
regulations and the public and we need to spend more time thinking
about how to fix it."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "And I agree completely, but this
isn't a fix, this is just a..."
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Elton.
Number 0404
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said he has a couple comments and a
question of Mr. Chenoweth.
[NOTE: TAPE 98-32, SIDE B IS BLANK.]
TAPE 98-33, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON continued, "...And just a comment of
legislative intent, we often do things, and then when the
consequences of our actions ripple out we say, well, we meant to do
this, but we certainly never meant to have that occur.' So
defining legislative intent is often difficult. We don't sometimes
know what the effect of our intent is until it's been out there and
until the regulation process begins, and somebody begins drafting
a regulation we say, 'well, wait a minute, that may have happened
under the terms of the law that we passed, but that wasn't
unintended intent.' And a good regulation process helps us there."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Chenoweth what happens if this bill
were to pass. What would happen in the realm of emergency
regulations? For example, if the Board of Fisheries allows the
department to make an emergency closure in a commercial fishing
area, if this bill passes, will the department be able to make
those emergency closures.
Number 0013
MR. CHENOWETH replied if this bill passes the mechanism for
emergency regulations are no longer available. In the case of the
fish and game example that you offer, he said he would see the
appropriate board, or more likely the commissioner acting in some
fashion to spell out what it is that ought to be done or that
should not be done and finding some other appropriate vehicle by
which to communicate that. He said, "If you can't use something
that has the status of a rule or regulation and the force of law,
it can be called something else, I think Representative Vezey
identified that as a guideline, or call it something else. But the
question is what is the legal status of that (indisc.) by whomever
makes it, the Board of Fisheries or the commissioner, or however
it's made. That's a good question because fish and game matters,
particularly the regulations go directly out to the field to
enforcement officers and they compile them and act on them because
they know that after the running of the 30 days, and the regulation
date becoming effective, those can be enforced. The status of
agency decisions, however handled under this kind of legislation,
is really opened at this point."
MR. CHENOWETH noted he is more concerned about how all of the
agencies that you're concerned about make decisions. Right now, if
an agency program wants to make a decision it would have to at
least notice it up and give the opportunity for public comment. He
said, "Without that kind of requirement here, I'm afraid that
you're going to see agencies essentially trying to fill in the
places that the Legislature has left open in laws by some other
mechanism - memos, desk references, something. There is going to
be as many different devices I suppose as there are people who can
dream them up. And I'm not sure that we'll ever find out what all
of those may turn out to be. But more than that, there's no
requirement that the public has an opportunity to review and
comment before those things are put into play and as those are
being changed. If I understand this correctly, agencies, boards
and commissions may not adopt rules or regulation, they may not
adopt something that has the force of law so they'll do something
else, they will fill the gaps."
Number 0039
CHAIR JAMES said she understands this is a very simple bill and
doesn't have any parameters or any conditions to deal with the
intricacies of the whole issue. She reiterated that it's too
simple and doesn't solve the problem.
CHAIR JAMES referred to Cleary v. State of Alaska. She told Mr.
Chenoweth we could have in law that if the Legislature was going to
approve regulations, we could do it similarly to what she said
earlier ... is that we could have a longer effective date. We
could not pass laws this year that is not effective until down the
line, after the regulations are done, and then decide is that what
we really meant and take another look at it with the public
process. Chair James indicated that we could also establish an
emergency situation where something is wrong, and the time is not
yet for the legislature to meet, that they could have the authority
to go forward and bring it back to the Legislature for approval at
the next session.
CHAIR JAMES continued, "If we were opening our minds up to what
other kinds of methods might work, we might find and recognize some
of the glitches that are in this situation that we have now that we
don't notice because we're too busy following them. My whole idea
is what can we do to make this whole area of law be more responsive
to the public's good. And, that's for further thought, you don't
even have to have an answer on that. But what I'm saying is this
is just an idea that could be expanded in other directions, and I'm
not saying that's the way we ought to go, I'm just saying that it
recognizes that there are some flaws in the current system."
Number 0055
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY added that there are many things that you can
do to address Mr. Chenoweth's concerns. For example, if the
Legislature wanted to, it could give the agencies the authority to
make law with say a 108-day life that automatically expires the end
of the next legislative session if not ratified by the Legislature.
The point being, is that in 1980 the Alaska Supreme Court, without
regard, in his opinion, to some very important sections of the
constitution gave the right to make legislation to the
Administrative branch of government without going through the
legislative process.
Number 0066
NANCY MICHAELSON testified via teleconference in opposition to HB
338. She noted she has serious questions about the wisdom of
passing HB 338 into law and strong objections to it.
MS. MICHAELSON said, "The sponsor's, Representative Vezey's,
statement says that HB 338 will not change any laws or regulations
now in effect. I cannot see that to be true. Although the
statement says, the bill provides for regulations to be brought
before and ratified by the Legislature through the legislative
process, that is very different than saying no laws or regulations
now in effect will be changed. I find the wording of the bill to
be insufficient. Should even one regulation concerning public
safety or protection of our environment run into a snag while being
taken up and approved by the Legislature, such as being tabled,
delayed for any reason or dying in committee, that regulation would
be changed, it would no longer exist. I find this to be
insufficient and irresponsible."
MS. MICHAELSON continued, "I want to understand Representative
Vezey's motives for introducing this bill and I appreciate the fact
that he opens this morning saying that it was philosophy more than
mechanics. It's difficult for me to read the bill however, think
about what it says and take it seriously. Legislative approval
would, in my eyes, affectively shift regulations made for public
interest in word to regulations subject to special interests,
subject to the politics of tradeoffs, special deals, influenced by
special interest, lobbyists and money. It appears introduction of
this bill is done as something theoretically that makes sense to
Representative Vezey but to me it seems like a nightmare. It
appears it's an attempt to show how you, Representative Vezey,
takes so seriously the charge to make the state government
responsive to their responsibility to the state constitution which
is very good, idealistically that is. However, realistically this
bill seems to me to be a joke and a not very funny one."
Number 0084
MS. MICHAELSON stated, "The end results of passing it, looks to me
to be detrimental to the protection of our public health, our
public safety, and irresponsible in that provisions protecting our
environment would be taken away. I think that two-years-ago Joe
Ryan, your legislative aid, was quoted in the hearing as saying,
'The question is, does the Legislature want to shirk its
responsibility and allow major policy changes to be implemented by
the employees of Alaska who are not elected by citizens to their
position?' I say it's not a shirking of responsibility it's
allowing professionals to do their jobs. It's taking important
public protection out of the rings of politics and special deals.
I don't believe it's possible for this body to draft legislation
that would foresee every situation."
MS. MICHAELSON concluded, "I believe it's a logistical nightmare,
a public policy nightmare, and a bill that hopefully will go away
with the next morning's light. I don't think that Representative
Vezey's hopes for what he wants are best done in this bill. I
think, if he wants a constitutional convention, then maybe we can
spend our money planning for that and making sure that gets carried
off instead doing this bill. And, I think you're asking
bureaucrats to be even more bureaucratic by spending time preparing
regulations for legislative review instead of doing their work at
hand."
Number 0097
DIANA BUFFINGTON, President and State Coordinator Children's Rights
Council of Alaska and Chairman, Alaska Task Force on Family Law
Reform testified via teleconference in support of HB 338. She said
"It is about time that we take the special interest groups that
influence the political appointees of whichever ruling body may be
in effect by the Governor's appointees, especially in the family
law areas, we should remove these people from setting down the
interpretation of the Legislature which is usually on conflict with
these agencies." Ms. Buffington gave a definition of rules and
regulations.
MS. BUFFINGTON continued, "These agencies have for far too long
gone out of their way to implement outside the bounds of the intent
of the Legislature. The Alaska Supreme Court says that the
Department of Law, as well as the agencies concerned in the family
referral agencies are usually using very strained interpretation of
the law or a broad remedial reading of the law. And I don't know
where your children are in school ... if they're in the remedial
reading class, they are in the dumb class. And if our Department
of Law cannot make rules and regulations that are within the intent
of the law, then we have a serious problem that affects thousands
upon thousands of people in this state on a very regular basis. We
are for this bill, it is about time somebody did take the
regulators, the bureaucrats who are certainly, absolutely, and
positively, probably more biased against the people that they
serve..."
Number 0122
MARLENE LEAK testified via teleconference in support of HB 338.
She said, "I have seen the legislature turned into essentially a
feel good social club where activity is mistaken for productivity.
And for 120 days the legislators get together and talk about how
the people don't really understand what they go through and how
hard they work and leave the actual responsibility to the
legislation to the bureaucrats in the Administrative branch who are
essentially unaccountable. The opponents that I have heard today,
rather strikingly in my opinion, seem to attribute godlike
qualities to bureaucrats in that they should not need to be
accountable, they are the experts, they know these things and they
would only be influenced improperly by being accountable, by being
responsible for what they do. ... I cannot hold with the totally
authoritarian view of the people who opposed this bill."
MS. LEAK indicated that instead of trying to act as check and
balance over the state's Supreme Court, making this terribly
unwarranted, 1980 decision on the Administrative Procedure's Act,
it has done nothing in response until now. It is not acting as
check and balance. ... Ms. Leak explained state government,
responsibility and accountability and gave an example of being an
authoritarian. She concluded, if you want to make, the way things
(indisc.) now, don't run for the legislature, get a job in the
bureaucracy.
Number 0167
REBECCA MICHAELSON testified via teleconference in opposition to HB
338. She said, "I am a citizen of Alaska and I'm currently 17
years old and a senior in high school. I have great hopes in my
future. Next year I am attending a university down in the Lower 48
and I hope to return to Alaska some day. When I return to Alaska,
however, I wish and hope and pray that I return to one that is not
in the midst of chaos."
MS. MICHAELSON continued, "My purpose today is to comment on HB
338. I see it as a travesty to the American government. I have
spent an immense amount of time studying the American government,
last year I traveled to Washington, D.C. and saw the government at
work on a national level and I have great respect for it. However,
this bill is not realistic and I find it would have awful awful
effects on the state of Alaska. For example, discharging firearms
in public parks is a regulation. I don't see how you can say the
people who made this regulation, and the people who make other
regulations, aren't accountable. They're professionals, they get
paid for what they do and there is a committee set out to review
these regulations. I see this bill as a shortcut for people on the
committee or familiar with the committee. You know, if you get rid
of people who make the regulations and you make the regulations
yourself, then there is less work and I find that awful.
Representative James was saying earlier that the public is
horrified. Well I, a citizen of Alaska, am horrified that this
bill is up for even review. I think it should be killed in the
committee. I do respect that this bill is being brought forth
however and there's discussion on it because it's a part of the
government process, it's a part of democracy and I do appreciate
that. I do appreciate Representative Berkowitz and Elton's
comments on the fiscal impossibility of this and the reality that
this would take an immense amount of work. You'd have to go into
session after session, after session of work to review all these
regulations. So, that is my opinion. HB 338 should not be
considered to make into law."
Number 0199
HARRY NIEHAUS testified via teleconference in support of HB 338.
He said it takes longer to rewrite a statute to correct one of
these regulations than it does to review the ones that have been
brought to your attention because they're simply just not working.
You could look at it and realize this wasn't the intent. For
example, HB 375, page 2, Section 1(a) (short title, Crimes Against
Children/Foster Care), freedom from substantial neglect of basic
needs. ... He said, "You may consider food, clothing and shelter as
a substantial need, but to what degree. You may have people within
a bureaucracy - now we know the nature of a bureaucracy is to grow,
therefore, if they want to secure their jobs, these basic needs
will not be the same as what I consider basic needs. They will
therefore push their intent rather than the people's intent which
you are writing out in bill form. Therefore, I say yes, we need to
review these regulations to say, no, this was not our intent." Mr.
Niehaus gave another example.
MR. NIEHAUS indicated, as lawmakers, you know what the intent is.
He said, "That doesn't mean every regulation that's passed you have
to change, it means the ones that come to your attention and are
blatantly wrong, this is what you have the control over. And yes,
I do agree with you and Mr. Vezey and I hope this bill does go
through."
Number 0221
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN, Alaska State Legislature, came before the
committee in support of HB 338. He said he went back and looked at
the minutes of the Constitutional Convention and why the powers
were separated the way they were separated. He explained King
George III's agents arbitrarily made any rules and regulations they
chose in the king's name which defied people of a whole lot of
liberty, property and a whole lot of personal wealth which was a
value of their work. And so they were very careful when they put
the forms of government together to invest the power to make law in
a representative body which represented the people.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated, "In our constitution, all power comes
from the people and that power is represented by their elected
officials. We choose as a body, both sides of this body, to give
the Governor what administration we choose to give the Governor.
We are mandated by the constitution to create a supreme court and
(indisc.) courts are at our will and we can create them and
dissolve them when we choose. So the ultimate power for the people
in the state of Alaska rests with their elected representatives.
When you delegate something as terribly powerful as the ability to
make law to people whom you hire you must realize that they, and
the person for whom they work, has a political agenda and that
political agenda will very likely be exercised somewhere and their
job of making laws. The fact that they are not accountable for
that is very simple. If you and I pass an odious and (indisc.) law
we will be held accountable at the next election. People will be
angry and they will not support us and we will retire to private
life. But we don't see people in the Administration being retired
to private life for things they do by regulation, so there's no
check and balance. We are told by the administrative branch that
we should sit here and do that for which we were authorized to do
and the governor will run his or her government as he chooses fit.
And if we don't like it, then we can take the appropriate powers
through the budget."
Number 0244
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN continued, "This bill, in the face of it yes
it's pretty simple, I think it should be flushed out somewhat. I
applaud you in the work you've done in the last couple years in
reviewing these regulations. I think there is a better system. I
have complained bitterly that we have given away our lawmaking
power by this Administrative Procedures Act, we've given away our
taxing power by allowing the Administration to charge fees by
regulation, and a fee or a tax are the same thing. ... And now
we're contemplating the idiocy of giving the Governor blocks of
money and holding goals and objectives as the purpose. Well it's
obvious they'll come back in two years, and next year, and say you
didn't give us enough money to accomplish our goals and objectives
and so we did pretty much what we chose to do. I don't think we
should abrogate these powers and abrogate this responsibility given
to us by the public. I think that we are the people that will be
held accountable. I think that, if not this bill, something very
similar to it, or perhaps a committee substitute that goes into a
little more depth is appropriate. I think the time is right and I
plan on supporting legislation of this type."
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey if he had any more comments.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied no, it's been thoroughly debated.
Number 0256
CHAIR JAMES indicated HB 338 would be held in the House State
Affairs Standing Committee because it is not responsive to the
public's needs.
HB 359 - HEALTH INSURANCE REGULATION
Number 0259
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HB 359, "An Act
relating to regulation of health insurance plans; and providing for
an effective date."
CHAIR JAMES noted HB 359 was heard in the Children's Caucus and
needs to hear tapes and have them put into the record. She
indicated she would listen to them and move HB 359 on Tuesday.
Number 0262
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN explained his staff was instructed to get them
to her right away. He also mentioned there's supposed to be a
committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted there was a fiscal note on his aid's
chair from the Division of Insurance (Department of Commerce and
Economic Development) with an aggregate of $101,000. He said, "I
called the department and asked for an explanation of the note and
they felt that the AG (Attorney General) would have to defend, and
there was $34,000 worth of travel, the staff person would have to
be hired for this committee even though the legislation doesn't say
anything about providing staff - the review committee. So I had
asked to be prepared a committee substitute which holds the review
committee harmless, there's no need for AG defense. And since
there was no staff required we will put that in language that there
is no staff required. The curious thing about that, I called the
Governor's legislative liaison and said that I'd kind of like the
fiscal notes in a more timely manner, especially when they have
that kind of an impact. I was assured that that would take place
and that it wouldn't happen again. But, my aid received a call
from the Division of Insurance that I had asked for someone front
and center to come down and explain that note to the committee.
And I was told that person would have to be subpoenaed. So I plan
on asking the Speaker for subpoena power ... and then I further am
going to call the Governor's legislative liaison and ask why I was
told to get a witness from the Administration to explain the fiscal
note, we have to exercise subpena power."
Number 0279
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to adopt a State Affairs
Committee fiscal note of zero.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections to adopting a zero
fiscal note.
Number 0282
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He noted, after hearing the benefit
of the testimony that was taken in the Children's Caucus, it might
be a better time to decide on what the fiscal note may be.
Representative Elton said he thinks this is a little bit
precipitous today and indicated he wouldn't object to the motion
when more information in front of us.
Number 0290
CHAIR JAMES requested a roll call vote adopting a State Affairs
Committee zero fiscal note. Representatives Hodgins, Vezey, Ivan,
James voted in support of the motion. Representative Elton opposed
it. Therefore, the motion passed by a vote of 4-1.
Number 0293
CHAIR JAMES announced the bill will be carried over to Tuesday.
She asked Representative Ryan to provide a copy of the committee
substitute and a copy of that fiscal note. She said she will
provide a synopsis of the Children's Caucus hearing because
minutes aren't taken in Children's Caucuses.
HB 362 - AIRPORT MILITARY LOUNGES
Number 0305
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business would be HB 362
"An Act relating to the use of space for military lounges in state-
owned or state-controlled airports," sponsored by Representative
Masek.
CHAIR JAMES stated that the committee has taken testimony from
DOT/PF in that they would provide for military lounges in the
airport, without charging rent, providing that the space was
available. She said the language in the previous work draft
indicated that DOT/PF "shall" give them space.
CHAIR JAMES noted there is a proposed committee substitute, Version
H, dated 3/6/98, that says they may instead of shall do it.
Number 0310
DON STOLWORTHY, Legislative Assistant to Representative Beverly
Masek, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. He
said after the previous hearing he spoke with the drafting attorney
and asked to be given a legal rendering. He stated, "And they
said, yeah it could be interpreted as making DOT/PF do it. So we
worked on some language to make it more permissive." It reads:
If the department permits space in state owned or state-
controlled airports to be used as lounges and if the lounges are
operated by nonprofits, then rent may be not charged for the use of
this space.
CHAIR JAMES indicated she is happy with that.
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN IVAN asked if we're referring to H version.
CHAIR JAMES replied yes, we need to have a motion to put the
committee substitute before us.
Number 0316
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute for HB 362, Version H, dated 3/6/98. Hearing
no objections, that version was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he appreciates the changes that have been
made, they do address his specific concern which is the fact that
we would have been creating more troubles than we were solving. He
stated, "I still don't know that anything's broken, that anything
needs to be fixed, but I think I would gamble that we're not doing
any harm here, and I think that's important we're addressing
legislation to fix things that aren't broken."
Number 0323
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move CSHB 362 out of
committee with individual recommendations and with attached fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHB 362(STA) moved from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 329 - HARBORVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER
Number 0326
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HB 329, "An Act
amending the definition of correctional facility to include a
therapeutic treatment center; providing for the conveyance of the
Harborview Developmental Center and appurtenant land to the City of
Valdez for the purpose of conversion and lease of a part of the
center for a therapeutic treatment center for the Department of
Corrections; providing that such a land conveyance counts toward
the general grant land entitlement of the City of Valdez; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0330
BETSY ROBSON, Assistant Director, Division of Institutions,
Department of Corrections presented HB 329 for the Governor. She
noted, also with her, to provide explanation on the bill, are Dugan
Petty - Department of Administration, Larry Streuber - Department
of Health and Social Services, and Joe Reeves - Department of
Corrections. She said the Harborview project is a very important
project for the state of Alaska and has far reaching implications
for being able to reduce recidivism to make our state safer.
MS. ROBSON said HB 329 gives the Department of Corrections the
authority to establish a therapeutic community for the purpose of
providing intensive drug treatment to incarcerated offenders. She
referred to a brochure that was distributed and explained
Harborview Developmental Center is in the process of being closed
down and noted it is the facility that they are looking at having
their therapeutic community at. Ms. Robson noted they have done
preliminary studies with an architectural firm to look at
programming and planning, and find that the therapeutic community
would fit nicely into two wings of this building.
Number 0348
MS. ROBSON further explained that it's part of the Department of
Correction's plan for addressing our severe overcrowding issues,
the facility will incarcerate 16 medium to minimum custody inmates.
The inmates who are participating in this program are inmates who
would not otherwise be eligible for furlough or parole situations
but by participating in this program that will enhance their
possibility for furlough and parole, thus freeing up the beds
sooner. The program will also have a strong transition component
into the community which means that those inmates that are
releasing on probation, parole, or furlough will in fact be
supervised in the community and will have treatments that will
follow them into the community.
Number 0356
MS. ROBSON pointed out this program will allow the department to
address some of our seriously addicted inmates. She said they
estimate approximately 80 percent of the people who come to them
have had involvements with substance abuse. They're also aware
that they have very seriously addicted offenders, and up until this
point in time, they have not had the opportunity to address that
serious addiction. Ms. Robinson said, "We do have substance abuse
programs in our facilities, they include education, a pretreatment
component, and then an outpatient model. With the addition of this
therapeutic community we would be able to address those seriously
addicted offenders in a 24-hour a day program."
Number 0362
MS. ROBSON emphasized the significant impact on their success with
this program is the fact that they are designing culturally
relevant programming. Last year the Legislature appropriated
$50,000 for them to look into their current treatment, and to look
at their existing treatment as far as making it relevant to the
population. With that funding they are putting together training
that will be provided to the prison substance abuse councilors and
probation officers so that they will be able to evaluate people
that will be going to this program and will be able to address the
cultural issues with our population.
MS. ROBSON said she believes the most significant point of this
program is that it has the potential to reduce recidivism. She
called the members attention to the research summary of the
pamphlet, April 1997, and noted they recently received it from the
federal substance abuse folks. Ms. Robinson said the fifth program
demonstrates the effectiveness of this type of treatment. Last
week they meet with a national expert, Doctor Gary Field, who
informed them that they tend to see anywhere from a 30 to 45
percent reduction in recidivism when this type of treatment is
applied to offenders. Ms. Robinson indicated they expect to start
out with a 25 percent decrease in recidivism by these offenders and
anticipate that it will rise as the program gets underway. She
noted that they are very excited about this program and are really
urging that people give it due consideration.
MS. ROBSON noted, "As part of the process of locating the
therapeutic community, it is necessary for the State to convey a
State facility, and that is the Harborview Hospital." She asked
Dugan Petty, from Department of Administration to explain Section
2 of the bill which addresses the conveyance of the property.
Number 0388
DUGAN PETTY, Director, Division of General Services, Department of
Administration, came before the committee in support of HB 329. He
said the Department of Administration has been working with the
City of Valdez, the Departments of Health and Social Services,
Corrections, Natural Resources and Transportation and Public
Facilities in preparing an interim agreement to prepare for the
conveyance of the property. He pointed out this building is
approximately 89,000 square feet, with a replacement value that is
estimated to be over $40 million. It's currently being used as the
hospital in Valdez and, of course was used as the Harborview
Development Center.
MR. PETTY stated this is the first time they have decommissioned a
(indisc.--coughing) building of this nature. He noted the
Department of Administration has screened other state agencies and
the only use within the system for this building, which has been
expressed to them, is the one by the Department of Corrections. He
reiterated they have been working with the City of Valdez to
prepare an interim agreement based upon the indications that they
received from the Legislature of last year in funding some funds to
make available to explore this project. Mr. Petty said, "We have
excessed the personal property from the building except for that
will remain with the facility and are prepared to move forward with
this project. We think it makes good sense and support the
project."
Number 0401
CHAIR JAMES asked if the current hospital is at one end of this.
MR. PETTY replied yes.
CHAIR JAMES asked who owns the hospital.
MR. PETTY responded, "The hospital, it's been my understanding is
owned by the..." [owned by the State of Alaska].
TAPE 98-33, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIR JAMES said she understands that one of the reasons it was
closed down and was not to be used as it was before was the high
cost of operations. She asked what were the specific instances
that caused it to be so expensive to operate in that building.
MR. PETTY deferred to Larry Streuber, Department of Health and
Social Services because he is more familiar with the operating
costs of the facility. He said he knows that they have taken some
efforts to put some energy conservation devices in there to both
get a better read on the facility, to break them out, and also to
reduce some of the operating cost.
Number 0011
CHAIR JAMES expressed one of the concerns she has with these types
of programs, of treating people who are subject to addictions, is
that when they go back home sometimes they fall right back into it.
She asked what kinds of provisions do they have for those kinds of
conditions.
MS. ROBSON explained they recognize that the return to the
community is a very critical point for these individuals and in
fact, as part of the staffing for this facility, they will have a
transitional counselor and a counselor aid. They will begin
working with that individual as soon as he enters the program to
help design his release plan in terms of the type of employment
he'll have, where he'll live, what kind of housing. Ms. Robinson
explained that when they're ready to release the offender they will
have made contact with the community to and make sure that support
systems are in place because studies do show that there is a marked
increase in success if you're able to have effective aftercare or
transitional planning.
CHAIR JAMES referred to the training program for the offenders.
She asked "Are you going to be associated with some other ability
for getting education such as the Prince William Community College
or are you going to be doing all of the training for job
opportunities throughout your program or is it associated in any
other way with any kind of education for these people."
MS. ROBSON replied they have been primarily focusing on the
treatment aspect of it. She said they know they will have to have
an education component and have had brief discussions with the
community college in Valdez. That program has not been designed
yet, but they understand that they need to have an educational
program.
CHAIR JAMES asked what is the time line.
Number 0033
MS. ROBSON responded they are looking at the program opening in
October of this year and indicated they do have some very real
concerns in terms of the renovations that have to be made on the
facility because the two wings that we will be occupying (indisc.--
coughing) will have to be renovated. She noted last year the
Legislature approved a federal appropriation of $400,000 that came
through grant funding which will be transferred to the City of
Valdez to be used for (indisc.--coughing) process. The City of
Valdez has also indicated a willingness to support, through funds,
the renovation of the building. She added that they are concerned
with the time line.
Number 0046
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN called the State Affairs Meeting at-ease due to
a fire alarm at 11:46 a.m.
CHAIR JAMES announced the meeting will be called back to order at
12:00 p.m.
Number 0053
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA, Alaska State Legislature, came before
the committees. He said, "...and as Health and Social Services
shut it down, it would create great problems for us in our hospital
in what we would do with it. You asked the question of why it was
so expensive. Health and Social Services made a decision years ago
that they would not put more people in Harborview. In the last six
years or so, it's been housed at less than half its capacity. It
was in my opinion housed in so that it was made to be expensive so
they could close it. They philosophically did not want to house
developmentally disabled people in a large institution. So it's
just a philosophy, they've all gone out to community based so
that's why it was so expensive. ... We did have a facility before
the earthquake, in old town, and this facility was built pretty
much on federal funds to house the hospital and Harborview
Developmental Center after the quake mostly on federal dollars."
Number 0065
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noted that this is the only real option that
anybody's come up with of what to use the facility for. He said
it's basically not to house people. Last year, in the budget, we
did approve $400,000 of federal crime dollars. He read, "For a
therapeutic treatment community program of up to 100 beds in Valdez
where the cost per inmate-day exclusive of treatment costs would
not exceed the statewide average per inmate day for correctional
institutions." So they've put in a ceiling. They said, all right
you can have this program, but you have to come in at this cost,
and that's what we're approving.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA mentioned they had a meeting in the fall with
the Chairs of both Finance Committees and they gave a report. He
pointed out members of the Finance Committee insisted they have a
recording mechanism to ensure -- it says, according to backup the
savings generated by treatment will be substantial. In other state
programs a cost average of a seven-dollar return for every dollar
invested. Future savings should be documented for each dollar
invested in Harborview and that again was in the budget last year
that we passed. He reiterated that the department knows that they
cannot go over a certain price for this thing and they have to
show, over a period of time, that it's cost-effective.
Number 0080
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA mentioned they weren't able to get Doctor
Gary Field in front of the House State Affairs Committee. He noted
Doctor Field runs a similar program in Oregon and reported, in the
last seven years, they've been able to document huge savings that
they now have added three other programs in Oregon - spread around
the state.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA mentioned HB 329 has three other referrals
and there is a catch, in the budget of last year, of the price that
is has to come in at. While it's not in the budget, it is included
in the Governor's overall budget number that is there so it's not
an add-on to his proposal.
CHAIR JAMES reiterated her concern of the offenders returning to
their community. She suggested the offenders work during the day
and return to Harborview in the evening as a transition. Chair
James mentioned she was also interested in the training they would
be given because just getting them well isn't enough because most
of the people, who have substance abuse problems, don't have any
work skills either. She asked if there are halfway-houses anywhere
else in the state where these people can go out to work and come
back. She said she believes those suggestions may make it a more
successful program in the long run.
Number 0119
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA responded Doctor Field said, statistically
one of the big things about this program is that it is separated
and away by itself during the program. Doctor Field said they have
found that when the offenders are still in a prison setting, drug
and alcohol programs don't work. He suggested isolating them from
all other inmates, to keep them with people that are going through
this same type of program - maybe staggered in there depending on
how long they've been there, how far they've gone, etcetera. He
also mentioned the program shouldn't be less than six months long
and maybe, depending on the individual, maybe up to a year.
Representative Kubina suggested, once they reach the point of being
released, rather than just say go home, suggest a halfway-house.
CHAIR JAMES said there are so many laws affecting this person, the
length of their sentence, that whether or not you have enough time
to do this, and if you don't you might as well not spend any time
on it. Chair James noted, because we haven't had a system like
this before, maybe the rest of our system needs to be amended or
adjusted to be sure that this is an opportunity for these people.
Number 0135
MS. ROBSON pointed out they did survey the population prior to
beginning any planning on this project to determine if we had an
inmate population that had the need that this type of treatment
would provide. She said they have completed three different
surveys and found that there is certainly a population that has the
sentence length to be able to participate in this program. In
fact, there are easily 60 individuals in our system right now that
could benefit from that. Substance abuse councilors look at each
individual offender to determine if they were individuals who would
benefit from this program, if they had the kind of background that
would make them good candidates for this program.
MS. ROBSON explained this would allow them to address serious
substance abuse problems so that these individuals could be
considered for furlough, for parole and their chances for being
granted those early release mechanisms would be greatly enhanced by
having gone through the treatment.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he would assume that a lot of the
folks that would come through this program would be felons, because
of the duration of the program, which would mean that subsequent to
participating in this they would get a halfway-house as a further
transition and then be on some form of intensive parole.
Number 0150
MS. ROBSON responded they could possibly be furloughed to a
halfway-house situation. One of the things the experts tell us is
that once an individual completes this very intensive treatment,
you have to be very careful that you don't put them back into a
more restrictive setting because what you can do is you can undo
the work that you have done. Ms. Robson said, "But there are
cases, in fact when we were talking with Doctor Field, where there
maybe individuals who need that very structured environment, to go
out to work, to have somebody to be accountable to when they come
back. The individuals, once they've finished, if they were
furloughed to a halfway-house, or go out to the community, they
would be under supervision - either it would be mandatory parole,
in some cases there maybe an instance of discretionary parole. So
there would be some furlough status there. In almost all cases in
Alaska felons do receive probation supervision, so there would be
supervision of these individuals out in the community."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Robson if she anticipates that
there will be aftercare and that aftercare is going to be flexible
enough so you can cater to the individual who's being treated.
MS. ROBSON replied that's correct. She noted that is one of the
reasons they have two transition counselors, is to begin working on
that release planning the minute they come into that program. If
the individual for instance wants to go back to his village they
can start making contact and ask if they have that support system
there, is community treatment available. If it's not, how can we
address that issue. They're looking at trying to send people back
into their communities safely.
Number 0167
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he believes this makes economic sense.
He stated, "One is we don't have enough beds in the system anyway,
and so we're adding beds, ... and those beds will be no more
expensive than the beds that you're already providing on a
statewide average, and so you're kind of redirecting how the dollar
is being spent on the prisoners. You're spending the same amount
of dollars on each individual that's incarcerated but, as Pete
Wilson notes, each dollar that you spend on treatment you're saving
seven dollars down the road so it makes economic sense in future
savings. You're nodding your head, so I'm understanding correctly
about the economic benefits."
MS. ROBSON replied yes it has been shown nationally that there are
economic benefits to doing this type of treatment. When they've
done the studies and look at what substance abuse costs when a
person is in an addictive cycle in terms of hospital courts,
criminal justice system.
Number 0178
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON mentioned a dollar is not going to be an
added-on dollar, that's a dollar you'd be spending on these people
because they would be incarcerated elsewhere. So you're not adding
dollars on because of the requirement that the cost of keeping that
person in that bed, not exceed the cost of keeping that person in
a bed - in any other part of the correctional system.
MS. ROBSON responded that's correct. She said they've done an
analysis and found that the cost of this program is comparable to
the cost of their other facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked is the flow of people into these beds
going to be completely controlled by the correctional system. Or
can the court, as part of the sentencing portion, can they say we
sentence you to two years in Palmer and eight months at Harborview.
MS. ROBSON explained this program would be similar to some of their
other treatment programs and that is the courts frequently will
make a recommendation for treatment, it may be sex offender
treatment, substance abuse treatment, batterers program, and when
the Department of Corrections receives those judgements, they will
look carefully at those and try to honor the request if at all
possible for treatment if the person has the length of time and
custody level and all to fit into the programs. That would be the
same with this program.
Number 0192
MS. ROBSON further explained this program adds to their continual
month care. She said they have substance abuse education,
introduction to treatment and then an outpatient treatment model,
but they don't have the end of that treatment continuum which is
this therapeutic community. So, by adding this, they now have a
full continuum of care so when the councilors in the jails see
these individuals coming in they can say, "Okay this is an
individual that needs therapeutic community introduction and
education aren't going to do the bill, this guys been at this for
25 years and needs some serious intervention." So it adds that
extra tool on so that we can actually meet the needs of the
offenders.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted that is the department's tool and not
the court's tool. The Department of Corrections would be in
control of the flow of people.
MS. ROBSON replied yes we would be in control of the flow.
Number 0200
CHAIR JAMES asked if you have somebody who is really a victim of
substance abuse and now they're incarcerated, and it's not
available to them, how do you take care of those people, how do
they survive.
MS. ROBSON stated an institutional substance abuse treatment
councilor will do an assessment on the individual and they will
determine the level of treatment the individual needs. In the case
of someone that needs intensive treatment, they don't have that
currently available. She said they may decide to put them in the
next lower level of treatment which is the outpatient model and
have them treated there. They may also, when the individual comes
up furlough or parole, they may say, "I think this person needs
wait longer, we need to wait and see if we can get him in a
treatment program in the community when they're close to the end of
their sentence or at the end of their sentence."
MS. ROBSON asked Chair James, "Treatment in the community."
CHAIR JAMES replied any level of that treatment. She asked if that
is part of the Department of Correction's budget, is there any
reimbursement by the offender.
MS. ROBSON explained the treatment that occurs in the institutions
with the substance abuse councilor is part of the Department of
Corrections budget. The treatment facility that individuals might
be furloughed to are paid for by the Department of Health and
Social Services who have a specific number of grant positions
available to the department for that. She said she believes, in
the case of the individual in the community, that some of that is
paid for through alcohol and drug grants and then the individuals
may pay some of that if they're in the community.
Number 0216
CHAIR JAMES said, "Gene [Representative Kubina] indicated that with
the budget that was authorized last year to review this opportunity
- and that 400 beds - and also to keep the level exclusive of the
health provider, exclusive of the medical part that the cost to
keep them in this facility would be the same as the average
statewide. So, if the cost of keeping them there is the average
statewide, but then on top of that you have the medical coverage --
what we we're talking in the hallway when I said what do these
people do all day, and you said their treatment is all day. But
you did say they would be doing their laundry and they're working
in the kitchen and doing the scrubbing and those kinds of things.
And then I asked well do they get paid for that. It occurs to me
that if there's additional expense, over and above the amount that
it costs just to keep them at the average cost, and they're going
to get medical treatment that's past that, which has a cost, that
may be they could get credit for working to pay for that so that at
least they have some responsibility for what they're getting." She
asked if her suggestion makes sense. She said she doesn't know if
our law allows that or not, but was thinking that might be a way to
deal with that extra cost for the medical.
MS. ROBSON replied yes it does. She said she believes that
(indisc.--noise) cost of care per day that they do have, in fact
the health care is built in here, including the amount for inmate
gratuities and wages. She mentioned Joe Reeves could go over the
cost of care per day.
Number 0234
JOE REEVES, Deputy Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Corrections, Manager, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Corrections came before the committee. He
said he has been on board with the Valdez therapeutic community
transition from the Department of Health and Social Services to the
Department of Corrections as a therapeutic community for the last
couple of years and has helped Ms. Robson and other members of the
agency's transition team develop costs that would be within the
(indisc.) of the legislative intent that was given to them.
MR. REEVES referred to page 4 of the handout, he said it shows the
statewide average that they currently operate under in the
institutions, and that captured all cost categories that were
provided in the fiscal note they attached to this bill -
institutional costs, inmate programs, inmate health care and the
Division of Administrative Services in support cost for a total.
He stated, "And you say that, apparently in 1998 the statewide
average for the institutions is $100.07 a day. We took the
proposed Harborview therapeutic community and derived the cost of
that on the fiscal note and that made up $1,800,000 - 58.9 of which
we broke out to be $84.88 a day. You add the inmate programs at
$28.49 a day, you add inmate health care that was in the fiscal
note of $10.68 a day, you add the admin. support cost which was
basically the date of communication... It works out to be about
thirty-one cents a day, and that makes out to a total -- statewide
indirect is not included in the Valdez therapeutic community
because statewide indirect in this calculation pertains to
equipment of building depreciation and capital resources which we
don't have any in this project. So the statewide total is $124.36
a day, and when you extrapolate that, the inmate treatment. It
comes out to be $95.87 a day."
Number 0255
CHAIR JAMES reiterated there is approximately $30 a day calculated
in for the treatment.
MR. REEVES replied treatment would now be $28.49 a day.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned that has to be paid for by the state. She
indicated Mr. Reeves said the statewide indirect, which refer to
maintenance and so forth is zero. She asked who's going to
maintain the facility.
MR. REEVES responded that it will be maintained by the City of
Valdez.
CHAIR JAMES said she understands this building was under the
Department of Health and Social Services and is currently being
transferred to the City of Valdez, and then the city will contract
with the Department of Corrections to do this.
Number 0260
MR. REEVES stated the facility will be transitioned from the State
of Alaska to the City of Valdez and we will lease the portion of
the facility from the City of Valdez.
CHAIR JAMES said, so you're going to lease it maintained.
MR. REEVES replied yes.
CHAIR JAMES asked who will these people be working for.
MR. REEVES responded they will be working for the Department of
Corrections.
CHAIR JAMES indicated she would like to have them working for the
City of Valdez.
Number 0266
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA pointed out, because some people have had a
fear of what the cost will be to maintain the building, the city
has taken on that responsibility and that liability. He said the
Health and Social Services maintenance person is going to be
transferred to the City of Valdez. So if the roof has a problem,
the city's taken on that responsibility, it will not be a State
one.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned the Legislature has dealt with a lot of
issues in the area of prevention with calculations of how much
money you're going to save if you do this. They're really a hard-
sell only because you really don't know until you've done it. Even
though you use other people's experiences, it's really difficult
for people to buy into that. She noted that's one of the things
that she's ever found to sell are prevention programs of any kind
no matter where it is. She asked Representative Elton if he had
any other questions.
Number 0279
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he was going to make a motion to move HB
329 out of committee.
CHAIR JAMES stated we're not going to be able to move this out
today.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he thought the packet of information that
the people provided was pretty thorough and appreciated the
comments and testimony and this does have some legislative history
that goes before the drafting of the legislation. He said he
agrees with Chair James comment that you don't know what's going to
happen until you try it. He mentioned one of the things that has
given him some comfort is the fact that somebody has tried this in
another jurisdiction. Representative Elton said, "I think that the
comments by Governor Pete Wilson, that are part of the supporting
packet, where he talks about the value of the dollars that you
invest in this, giving you a savings for every one dollar, giving
a savings of seven dollars down the road, now that may or may not
be accurate and that may or may not be what happens here. But, I
think that I'm comfortable enough to give this a boost in the right
direction and I think that it is something we ought to try."
CHAIR JAMES said he could make a motion.
Number 0292
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON withdrew his motion.
CHAIR JAMES said she thinks we can move HB 329 out on Tuesday.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0295
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee at 12:21
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|