04/10/2003 09:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 2003
9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 47
"An Act prohibiting discrimination by credit rating or credit
scoring in certain insurance rates; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 47(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Expressing support for Vancouver, British Columbia's, bid for
the 2010 Olympic Winter Games and the Paralympic Winter Games.
- MOVED HCS SJR 7(EDT) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 229
"An Act relating to special medical parole and to prisoners who
are severely medically and cognitively disabled."
- MOVED CSHB 229(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 5
"An Act prohibiting discrimination by credit rating or credit
scoring in insurance rates; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 5(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 102
"An Act relating to concealed deadly weapons."
- MOVED CSHB 102(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 55
"An Act expressing legislative intent regarding privately
operated correctional facility space and services; relating to
the development and financing of privately operated correctional
facility space and services; authorizing the Department of
Corrections to enter into an agreement for the confinement and
care of prisoners in privately operated correctional facility
space; authorizing the Department of Corrections to enter into
agreements with municipalities to expand existing correctional
facilities; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSSHB 55(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5(STA)
Urging the President of the United States and the Congress to
act to ensure that federal agencies do not retain records
relating to lawful purchase or ownership of firearms gathered
through the Brady Handgun Bill instant check system.
- MOVED CSSJR 5(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 221
"An Act making it a class C felony to knowingly make a false
statement relating to citizenship or residency on an application
for voter registration or reregistration."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 47
SHORT TITLE:INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION BY CREDIT RATING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CHENAULT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0043 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0043 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0043 (H) STA, L&C
02/05/03 0135 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS
02/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
02/10/03 0173 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CRAWFORD
03/29/03 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
03/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/10/03 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SJR 7
SHORT TITLE:VANCOUVER'S BID FOR 2010 WINTER GAMES
SPONSOR(S): WORLD TRADE AND STATE/FEDERAL RELATIONS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/07/03 0132 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/07/03 0132 (S) L&C, STA
03/04/03 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/04/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/04/03 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/05/03 0354 (S) L&C RPT 2DP 1NR
03/05/03 0354 (S) NR: BUNDE; DP: DAVIS, FRENCH
03/05/03 0355 (S) FN1: ZERO(LEG)
03/11/03 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/11/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/11/03 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/12/03 0469 (S) STA RPT 5DP
03/12/03 0469 (S) DP: STEVENS G, HOFFMAN,
COWDERY,
03/12/03 0469 (S) DYSON, GUESS
03/12/03 0469 (S) FN1: ZERO(LEG)
03/13/03 0493 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/13/2003
03/13/03 0493 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/13/03 0493 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/13/03 0494 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 7
03/13/03 0494 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
03/13/03 0496 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/13/03 0496 (S) VERSION: SJR 7
03/14/03 0531 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/14/03 0531 (H) EDT, STA
03/31/03 (H) EDT AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/31/03 (H) Moved HCS SJR 7(EDT) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(EDT)
04/02/03 0735 (H) EDT RPT HCS(EDT) 6DP
04/02/03 0735 (H) DP: CISSNA, KOTT, KOHRING,
MCGUIRE,
04/02/03 0735 (H) CRAWFORD, HEINZE
04/02/03 0736 (H) FN1: ZERO(LEG)
04/10/03 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 229
SHORT TITLE:PAROLE FOR MEDICAL/COGNITIVE DISABILITY
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/31/03 0712 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/31/03 0712 (H) STA, FIN
04/10/03 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 5
SHORT TITLE:INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION BY CREDIT RATING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CRAWFORD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0031 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0031 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0031 (H) STA, L&C
03/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/06/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/06/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/03 0566 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT
03/29/03 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
03/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/10/03 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 102
SHORT TITLE:CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPONS LEGAL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CROFT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/14/03 0215 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/14/03 0215 (H) STA, JUD
02/19/03 0257 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GATTO
03/13/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/27/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/27/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/03 0688 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ANDERSON
04/07/03 0830 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAHLSTROM, KOTT
04/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/08/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/08/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/10/03 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 55
SHORT TITLE:CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HAWKER, ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0046 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/17/03)
01/21/03 0046 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0046 (H) STA, FIN
02/07/03 0154 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
03/05/03 0395 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/05/03 0395 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0395 (H) STA, FIN
03/13/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/10/03 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SJR 5
SHORT TITLE:DESTROY BRADY BILL RECORDS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WAGONER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0014 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0014 (S) STA, JUD
02/11/03 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/11/03 (S) Moved CSSJR 5(STA) Out of
Committee
02/11/03 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/12/03 0170 (S) STA RPT CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE
02/12/03 0170 (S) DP: TAYLOR, COWDERY, DYSON,
GUESS;
02/12/03 0170 (S) NR: HOFFMAN
02/12/03 0170 (S) FN1: ZERO(LEG)
03/12/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/12/03 (S) Moved CSSJR 5(STA) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(JUD)
03/13/03 0490 (S) JUD RPT CS(STA) 5DP
03/13/03 0490 (S) DP: SEEKINS, ELLIS, FRENCH,
03/13/03 0490 (S) OGAN, THERRIAULT
03/13/03 0491 (S) FN1: ZERO(LEG)
03/31/03 0646 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/31/2003
03/31/03 0646 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/31/03 0646 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/31/03 0646 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TAYLOR, OGAN,
COWDERY,
03/31/03 0646 (S) WILKEN, GREEN, STEVENS G,
DAVIS,
03/31/03 0646 (S) STEVENS B, SEEKINS, BUNDE
03/31/03 0646 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/31/03 0647 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR
5(STA)
03/31/03 0647 (S) PASSED Y17 N- E3
03/31/03 0648 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/31/03 0648 (S) VERSION: CSSJR 5(STA)
04/02/03 0728 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/02/03 0728 (H) STA, JUD
04/02/03 0751 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): CROFT
04/10/03 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff
to Senator John Cowdery
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 7 on behalf of the Senate
Special Committee on World Trade and State/Federal Relations,
sponsor, which is chaired by Senator Cowdery.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
to Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 229 on behalf of the House
Finance Committee, sponsor, which is co-chaired by
Representative Harris.
JOHN ROBERTSON, M.D., Medical Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 229.
MARC ANTRIM, Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 229.
LEITONI TUPOU, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions by the committee
regarding HB 229.
BOB BRIGGS, Staff Attorney
Disability Law Center of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 229.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 102.
AMY SEITZ, Staff
to Senator Tom Wagoner
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 5 on behalf of Senator
Wagoner, sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-39, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Representatives
Weyhrauch, Holm, Seaton, Dahlstrom, and Lynn were present at the
call to order. Representative Berkowitz arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 47-INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION BY CREDIT RATING
Number 0049
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 47, "An Act prohibiting discrimination by credit
rating or credit scoring in certain insurance rates; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0104
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 23-LS0306\H, Ford, 4/8/03, as a work
draft. [No objection was stated, and Version H was treated as
adopted.]
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report CSHB 47 [Version 23-
LS0306\H, Ford, 4/8/03] out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
Number 0125
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that Version H is based on the
National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) model.
[The motion to report the bill from committee was withdrawn and
then renewed.]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to the motion.
There being no objection, CSHB 47(STA) was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
SJR 7-VANCOUVER'S BID FOR 2010 WINTER GAMES
Number 0240
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7, Expressing support for Vancouver,
British Columbia's, bid for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games and
the Paralympic Winter Games. [Before the committee was
HCS SJR 7(EDT).]
Number 0250
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff to Senator John Cowdery, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SJR 7 on behalf of the Senate Special
Committee on World Trade and State/Federal Relations, sponsor,
which is chaired by Senator Cowdery. He explained that the
resolution lends Alaska's support to Vancouver, British
Columbia, in its effort to obtain the 2010 Olympic Winter Games
and the Paralympic Winter Games. Indicating this would express
cross-border friendship, Mr. Schmitz noted that Alaska has a lot
of shared boundary with British Columbia and said there are many
economic and cultural ties between the two.
MR. SCHMITZ opined that a practical aspect to the resolution is
the economic boost of approximately $1 billion; although
Alaskans won't benefit directly from the games in Vancouver, a
big carryover in terms of publicity for tourism is anticipated.
He said when Calgary and Salt Lake City held the Olympic Winter
Games, for example, there was a boost in Western Canada and the
Western U.S., respectively. Mr. Schmitz said many former Winter
Olympic athletes have hailed from Alaska, and the resolution
would give Alaskans the chance to follow their athletes closer
to home.
Number 0472
MR. SCHMITZ, in response to a question by Representative Seaton,
said the two other cities competing [for the chance to host the
Winter Olympics] are Salzburg, Austria, and [Pyeongchang],
Korea.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HCS SJR 7(EDT) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS SJR 7(EDT) was
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 229-PAROLE FOR MEDICAL/COGNITIVE DISABILITY
Number 0540
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 229, "An Act relating to special medical parole
and to prisoners who are severely medically and cognitively
disabled."
Number 0590
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 23-LS0885\H, Luckhaupt, 4/7/03, as a
work draft. There being no objection, Version H was before the
committee.
Number 0635
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered Amendment 1, a handwritten amendment to
the original bill that read [original punctuation provided]:
At page 2, line 25, delete "and"
At page 2, line 29, after "noticeably" add:
"; and (6) an appropriate discharge plan has been
formulated that addresses basic life domains for the
prisoner, including care coordination, housing,
eligibility for public benefits, and health care
(including necessary medication)."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH opined, "If we're going to discharge these
prisoners, I think there needs to be some thought given to
what's going to happen to them."
Number 0785
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered an amendment to Amendment 1 [to match
the page and line numbers to Version H]. Amendment 1, as
amended, would read as follows:
At page 3, line 2, delete "and"
At page 3, line 6, after "noticeably" add:
"; and (7) an appropriate discharge plan has been
formulated that addresses basic life domains for the
prisoner, including care coordination, housing,
eligibility for public benefits, and health care
(including necessary medication)."
[No objection was stated, and the amendment to Amendment 1 was
treated as adopted.]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH continued explaining his reasoning:
In developing this, it was my belief that the
facilities have become an institution for many people
with illnesses and cognitive impairment. And if those
prisoners have been diagnosed with some sort of
illness or discharged from correctional facilities
without some sort of discharge plan in place [with]
regard to the disability, at least it's an amendment
with [the] attempt to have the facility ensure
appropriate discharge planning would be required for,
at least, the most severely impaired persons in the
correctional system, if those people were judged to be
severely impaired, so that at least [they] would be
given some consideration to the after-correctional-
facility sort of care of these type of individuals.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that he'd hold action on Amendment 1
[as amended] until the committee had heard testimony.
Number 0975
TOM WRIGHT, Staff to Representative John Harris, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 229 on behalf of the House Finance
Committee, sponsor, which is co-chaired by Representative
Harris. He said the basic intent of HB 229 is to give the
Alaska parole board the flexibility to grant or deny medical
parole to applicants, and to give the Department of Corrections
(DOC) a little more flexibility in its health care costs by
allowing DOC to find other means to care for inmates with
conditions that have deteriorated to a point that [the inmate]
isn't likely to reoffend.
MR. WRIGHT recalled that the parole board considered two
applicants last year, but [neither] was granted [parole].
Notwithstanding that, he stated, the parole board has had a
"pretty good success rate." It has granted parole to
approximately 45 percent of all discretionary parole applicants.
Noting that there is a difference between discretionary and
mandatory parole, he suggested that the commissioner [of DOC]
could explain in detail if the committee so desired. He said
less than 8 percent of those parolees violated their conditions
by missing a meeting with a parole officer, for example;
approximately 1 percent of those have committed a new offense.
MR. WRIGHT offered to explain the changes in Version H, which he
said was drafted to tighten up some of the conditions found in
the original bill.
Number 1112
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the [recidivism] rates seem good,
but asked how they compare with rates for people who are
[paroled] for other reasons.
MR. WRIGHT clarified that the numbers he'd previously stated
were in regard to all parole applicants. He reiterated that
there were only two medical parole applicants in 2002.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, referring to the fiscal note, asked
how many would be in the potential applicant pool that would
benefit from HB 229. He further asked, "You've got a $500,000
net positive fiscal note. How did you get that?"
Number 1240
JOHN ROBERTSON, M.D., Medical Director, Division of
Administrative Services, Department of Corrections, told the
committee he has held the medical director and health service
administrator position at DOC since 2001. In response to
Representative Berkowitz's question regarding the applicant
pool, Dr. Robertson said it's probably in the range of 10 to 15
inmates, individuals throughout the system who have advanced
medical conditions that would render them extremely unlikely to
reoffend; conditions run the gamut from terminal cancer to
advanced heart failure or being more than 70 years old.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ offered his assessment that the fiscal
note analysis seems rather superficial. He mentioned the 15
people generating $500,000 in costs to DOC. He asked if other
state agencies would pick up the cost of services when those
individuals are released.
Number 1348
MARC ANTRIM, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, said the
theory is that [DOC] will "cost shift" over to Medicaid
services, for example, possibly even working with the
"interstate compact" in moving the individuals to other states.
He said, "It not about dumping prisoners into the street by any
means; it's about cost shifting into other health care
providers."
Number 1400
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Commissioner Antrim if he had any
objection to Amendment 1 [as amended].
COMMISSIONER ANTRIM answered no.
Number 1420
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how difficult it would be for a
prisoner to fake a cognitive disability such as dementia.
DR. ROBERTSON responded that nothing in medicine is 100 percent,
but there are objective as well as subjective findings. He
explained that there are people with advanced disease states,
such as Alzheimer's and multi-infarct dementia, for whom an MRI
[magnetic resonance imaging] of the head will show
abnormalities. He continued as follows:
The intent of this was that these would be carefully
picked individuals that had all the other background
corroborating medical information to ensure that this
was not something that was short-term. There's a
series of more formal, psychometric testing that can
be performed. It's generally pretty hard to fake,
once you get a more advanced state. And it's
something that, obviously, has to be looked at
carefully. But I think to have the latitude to do
this would be very beneficial to us.
Number 1520
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if any other cognitive conditions
besides irreversible dementia would substantially reduce an
individual's ability to commit an offense, or why the definition
of cognitive condition is being limited solely to irreversible
dementia.
Number 1550
DR. ROBERTSON related his understanding that [it isn't being
limited]. For example, someone who'd suffered a massive head
injury could be cognitively disabled. He noted that dementia
has a different medical meaning and refers to a different
process; the end result, clinically, would be someone who
wouldn't be capable of being particularly aware of his/her
surroundings. Someone in a vegetative state, for example,
wouldn't [suffer from] dementia, but wouldn't be capable of
functioning independently.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to Section 3 [page 3, lines
16-17], which read:
(11) "severely medically or cognitively
disabled" means that a person has a medical condition,
or a cognitive condition due to irreversible dementia,
He suggested the definition needs some reworking.
Number 1620
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Dr. Robertson if there is a way to
"finesse" the definition of "cognitively disabled".
DR. ROBERTSON responded that it could be expanded to say "other
medical conditions that, in the opinion of the appropriate
specialist - a neurologist, a neuropsychologist, et cetera -
leads to a state where a person is cognitively disabled." Thus
it could be expanded to include more than just dementia. He
surmised that examples could be included, and said the intent
was not to be restrictive.
Number 1680
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he didn't think "a cognitive
condition due to irreversible dementia" would have to mean that
the only cognitive condition would be [dementia], because
another cognitive medical condition could reduce the ability to
commit the offense. He pointed out that the word "reduces"
appears [in Section 3, page 3, line 18].
Number 1738
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he was "sort of agreeing with
Representative Seaton," and suggested that removing the phrase
"due to irreversible dementia" may solve the problem. He asked
what the bill does that is not already permitted in statute. He
commented that the [statute] already allows for "medical
condition". He said it seems that a cognitive disability would
be a medical condition.
Number 1812
LEITONI TUPOU, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Corrections, informed the committee that he has
worked with the [State Board of Parole] for probably less than
three years. Referring to Representative Berkowitz's previous
question regarding how the [proposed legislation] is different
from existing law, Mr. Tupou said the current law is very tight,
[which affects the ability of] the parole board to make
decisions regarding any medical parole obligations. In layman's
terms, he added, "You are basically ready to die before they
even look at you." The legislation will give [the parole board]
the flexibility to consider a lot of the applications that will
be made, as well as give [DOC] the flexibility to consider the
cost associated with most of the applications.
Number 1892
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 1
[as amended].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for a definition of the phrase
"basic life domain" [included in the amendment as "basic life
domains"].
Number 1940
BOB BRIGGS, Staff Attorney, Disability Law Center of Alaska,
told Representative Gruenberg he thinks the appropriate
[committee] to provide a definition is the House Finance
Committee. He explained, "It's basically focusing on the
elements of how this person can be sustained once discharged."
He said it is a common issue "in our work" that people with
disabilities are discharged from the prison system and struggle,
in particular, with housing. A convicted felon is not eligible
for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) housing, which he
said is an issue. He said, "We think that before people should
be discharged, there ought to be an appropriate discharge plan
in place."
MR. BRIGGS noted that [Amendment 1, as amended] doesn't state
who will prepare the discharge plan, and he added, "But we
certainly continue in our advocacy to favor partnerships with
community mental health service providers, hospitals, [and]
hospices, [for example], so that appropriate discharge planning
takes place."
MR. BRIGGS, in response to a question by Representative
Gruenberg, said "life domain" is "areas of function." He said
it includes housing, shelter, food, and health care.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Tupou if DOC understands that
definition.
MR. TUPOU answered yes.
Number 2060
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if anyone has done an analysis of
HB 229 to ascertain consistency with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
MR. BRIGGS answered:
We don't find any problem with this bill in terms of
discrimination. Our effort always is to seek the
institutionalization of people with disabilities. ...
You always are focusing on a least-restricted
environment for somebody with a disability. And I
don't know about the fiscal note and whether it really
will save as much as we anticipate it will save, but I
can't say that we would be opposed to this.
Number 2103
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked, since "basic life domains" includes
housing, why housing is specified as well.
MR. BRIGGS explained that the purpose for the delineation of
areas of life domain was because those are the most common areas
that would have to be addressed before somebody could reasonably
be discharged from any facility. For someone who has been in a
long-term institutional placement, housing is an issue after
discharge, but the same isn't usually true when a person is
discharged from a hospital, for example. He said the severely
disabled and severely cognitively impaired may not have the
ability to arrange for housing for themselves; care coordination
for those people is important. He said [the legislation]
doesn't resolve how that will be done, but "we recognize the
fiscal situation, and we just all have to keep working on that
issue."
Number 2194
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said the conundrum is that "we want to let
people out, but we want to give them the freedom when they're
out to be as flexible as they can be." He said he doesn't quite
"get that." He added, "It seems to me that if we're trying to
help the State of Alaska reduce its medical treatments, we
shouldn't be putting restrictions on the State of Alaska to
provide all of these other things at the outside." He said he
was having trouble grasping [Amendment 1, as amended].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he understands the attempt to protect
the people under someone's charge, but questions what is in the
state's best interest. For example, a sociopath will have
nothing to pay and "can go out and do anything he wants to."
Representative Holm said he has a problem with writing laws that
let people out, to be taken care of "any way that they want to
be taken care of, or that someone chooses to take care of them."
Number 2324
MR. BRIGGS said this bill addresses a very narrow population of
the correctional system, [including] people with severe mental
or cognitive impairment who aren't likely to be able to function
well in total independence, but will need support and help to
function at all outside of the prison system - if they are going
to die in dignity, rather than just on a street corner. He
said, "I think the folks sitting to my left recognize that
discharge planning is an element of what is planned. The
amendment just simply recognizes that."
MR. BRIGGS said he is satisfied with the colloquy if the
amendment is not adopted, but said "we" think it ought to be in
the statute to recognize that discharge planning is "an
important piece of helping these people move on with whatever
life they're going to have outside this institution."
Number 2381
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it sounds as if there is a plan
and then the person is cut loose. He said both he and
Representative Holm are speaking to the issue of aftercare and
"after supervision" and are concerned about protecting the
public. He indicated there is another concern regarding
protection of the prisoner and assurance that he/she is able to
function "on the outside." He said there is a common solution
to both concerns that is not specifically addressed in
Amendment 1, but may be elsewhere. He asked, "What is the
required supervision and care of these people after they're
discharged, or are they just cut loose?"
MR. BRIGGS responded that a focus of disability and health care
laws involves trying to recognize the freedom of individuals to
have a choice in the matter. He said he thinks the short
answer is that there's no strict requirement; it will [depend
on] the conditions imposed by the parole board. He said he
thinks [HB 229] gives the parole board the flexibility to ensure
public safety.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked who would take care of practical
things such as arranging for housing.
MR. BRIGGS replied that he thinks that is left open in [HB 229].
He added, "But I don't think ... existing law resolves that
question. It is something that we will have to continue to work
on." He said the [issue] is the strength of [the State of
Alaska's] social service network outside the institutions, and
its ability to interact with the correctional system. Mr.
Briggs opined that it's a larger question than this bill can
address.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 1 [line 8], which says
an application [for medical parole] could be made by the
"prisoner or the commissioner". He gave an example of a
prisoner who applies to get out, but can't understand that
he/she is not going to be able to function; as a cost-saving or
administrative measure, the corrections system cuts that person
loose and he/she is out on the street. He asked if there is any
provision in the law to ensure that that doesn't happen. He
said people on the street will reoffend and be back in [prison],
which will be "a revolving door situation."
MR. BRIGGS reiterated that the population addressed by the bill
is a very limited part of the [prison] population, made up of
severely disabled people who aren't likely to reoffend;
therefore, "revolving door" is really not a part of the current
debate. In response to a follow-up comment by Representative
Gruenberg, he said with Amendment 1, the bill will solidly
demonstrate that there should be a discharge plan in place
before the parole board can sign off on discharge. He explained
that the discharge plan should include care coordination; it
would become the care coordinator's responsibility to ensure the
safety of that individual out on the street.
Number 2612
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred again to Section 3. He said the
population being considered is not made up of people who are
going to "go out and recommit offenses." He referred to
Amendment 1 and said it [would] solve "the other problems of
mandating it." He said people [on] the parole board aren't just
"cutting these folks loose," but have a responsibility for them.
Representative Seaton indicated Medicare isn't available to
those in prison, and said it is more economical to [release]
people [who don't have] the ability to reoffend and to get them
into more economical [care] programs.
Number 2701
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ emphasized that parole is permissive,
not mandatory. He referred to [Section 1, subsection (a)],
page 1, which read in part, "a prisoner who is serving a term of
at least 181 days, may, upon application by the prisoner or the
commissioner, be released by the board on special medical parole
if the board determines". He emphasized that the word used is
"may", not "shall". A medical or cognitive condition doesn't
require the parole board to grant parole; thus he said that
safety valve is still present.
Number 2739
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided
previously, as amended to conform to Version H]. There being no
objection, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.
Number 2758
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt [Conceptual Amendment 2]
as follows:
Page 3, line 17
Delete "due to irreversible dementia"
Number 2791
DR. ROBERTSON said he has no objection to it and thinks it
"clarifies." He added, "It was our intent to have flexibility
here."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Dr. Robertson if, without the
language [that would be deleted with Conceptual Amendment 2],
there would be any possibility that the parole board wouldn't
understand that dementia would be one of the cognitive
conditions considered under this bill.
DR. ROBERTSON explained the process as follows:
Prior to the parole board reviewing these requests, I
write up a medical summary [that] tells exactly what
the medical condition consists of and what the medical
prognosis and expectations are. So, I can clarify
that. And then the parole board has the opportunity
to either bring me to them, to further discuss or
explain it in person, or to provide them more written
material so that at the time they're looking at it,
they have a full overview, pretty much in layperson
terms, so they can understand exactly what it means.
So if it was a case like you're referring to - of
dementia - I would make it clear what that meant, and
I would define it in my report to the parole board.
Number 2900
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting
Conceptual Amendment 2. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 2929
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his concern that people would
fall through the cracks after [being released].
MR. TUPOU explained that there is an unwritten policy of law
that the parole board requires DOC to basically "explain and
come up with a plan for this person who comes in front of them
... asking for special medical parole." He said there is no way
the parole board will even look at the person until it sees a
detailed plan regarding who will be taking care of the person.
He said the community is the foremost concern of the parole
board.
Number 2964
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that the situation he is
postulating is when the person is no danger to the community;
his concern is with regard to the person's ability to function
and [ensuring] follow-up for that person.
TAPE 03-39, SIDE B
Number 2992
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posited, "If somebody's in for a long
period of time, society has a responsibility for them while
they're in." He reiterated that he wants to be sure follow-up
supervision is available.
COMMISSIONER ANTRIM said [the released prisoner] is on parole
and would be supervised by a probation officer. He referred to
Section 1, page 3, lines 1-2, which read:
(5) the prisoner is incapacitated to an
extent that incarceration does not impose significant
additional restrictions on the prisoner;
COMMISSIONER ANTRIM said [DOC] envisions that the person will be
in a managed care facility. He added, "This is really about
cost shifting."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that made him feel "much
better."
Number 2914
DR. ROBERTSON stated, "We would not put this up to the parole
board unless we had a medically prudent discharge plan." He
told the committee that he has not "put anybody forward to the
board" without having an idea "where they were going," whether
it was [to] a family member or community health center, for
example. If there were no plan available to the department, he
said, the request wouldn't go forward. He added, "That's one of
the stop-gaps, and that's just a pure matter of professionalism,
in terms of a physician. We have a duty to [ensure] that there
is a continuity of care and a plan." Regarding [the people
released on this plan], Dr. Robertson said it's a matter of
maintaining those people in a setting different from that in
DOC, where there really are no inpatient facilities "in that
capacity."
Number 2855
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report CSHB 229 [Version 23-
LS0885\H, Luckhaupt, 4/7/03, as amended] out of committee with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note.
Number 2841
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for purposes of making the
following comments:
The fiscal note here is wholly inadequate, and there's
only one of them. This ... measure's been described
as a cost-shifting exercise. If costs are going to be
[shifted], I think that the other departments that are
going to incur costs ought to include fiscal notes as
part of this package.
Furthermore, this fiscal note is based on assumptions.
It's not based on any sort of empirical evidence.
It's not based on anything specific at all. And, to
me, these are just numbers that have been conjured out
of thin air. And for us - particularly in these
budgetary times - to try and make decisions, we need
better evidence. We need better fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ concluded by asking Commissioner Antrim
to revise the fiscal note and "put more substance behind it"
before it is viewed by the House Finance Committee.
Number 2795
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection.
[No further objection was stated, and CSHB 229(STA) was reported
from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.]
HB 5-INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION BY CREDIT RATING
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 5, "An Act prohibiting discrimination by credit
rating or credit scoring in insurance rates; and providing for
an effective date."
Number 2767
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that before the committee was a
proposed committee substitute (CS), Version 23-LS0021\H, Ford,
4/2/03. [No objection was stated, and it was treated as
adopted.]
Number 2730
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report CSHB 5 [Version 23-LS0021\H,
Ford, 4/2/03] out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection,
CSHB 5(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee. [An amendment was adopted later in the meeting.]
HB 102-CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPONS LEGAL
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 102, "An Act relating to concealed deadly
weapons." [Before the committee, adopted as a work draft on
4/8/03, was a proposed committee substitute (CS), Version I,
labeled 23-LS0515\I, Luckhaupt, 4/2/03.]
Number 2708
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
noted that the three issues raised at the [hearing on April 8,
2003] related to the bill's title, the so-called Patriot Act
[the federal Act entitled "Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001"], and the definition of
"contacted by an officer".
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated he'd distributed a memo from the
bill's drafter, Mr. Luckhaupt, regarding the definition of and
some history on "contacted by an officer". He agreed with Mr.
Luckhaupt's contention that "it is a sufficient definition that
has worked well in the old permit system, and can continue to
work well." He suggested that any further questions about the
definition be addressed in the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, the next committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the Patriot Act is new and that
the bill deals with "concealed carries." He indicated there
would be extended discussion regarding the Patriot Act and said
a resolution regarding it is coming before the committee.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that the Senate is seriously debating
the Patriot Act.
Number 2590
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT emphasized that all the restrictions in
current law would be kept. He mentioned privacy rights and
Section 6 [beginning on line 5], which read in part: "permits,
and renewals are not public records under AS 40.25.110-40.25.125
and may only be used for law enforcement purposes". He
remarked, "Whatever the results of that, I didn't feel like I
could tackle them or even adequately deal with them in this
bill." With regard to the breadth of the title, he indicated he
wasn't aware of any reason for tightening it to prevent some
action in the Senate, for instance.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said the subject of the title had simply been
brought up [during the prior hearing], and that he wasn't
proposing anything. In response to a question by Representative
Dahlstrom, he said public testimony was closed at the last
hearing.
Number 2466
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 102 [Version 23-
LS0515\I, Luckhaupt, 4/2/03] out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being
no objection, CSHB 102(STA) was reported from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 5-INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION BY CREDIT RATING
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH returned attention to HOUSE BILL NO. 5, "An Act
prohibiting discrimination by credit rating or credit scoring in
insurance rates; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2458
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that he'd been informed of
something about the bill that doesn't appear to be true. He
referred to the previous hearing [April 5, 2003] and said his
concern had been that the Division of Insurance would be able to
get the information regarding Fair Isaac's [model] so that it
would know internally the basis for the credit scoring; that
information would remain confidential. He continued:
I was informed that there was a provision in there
that dealt with this. And I'm looking at the proposed
CS. It's on page 4 and 5. And this was supposed to
have been taken off of the version that passed the --
it was Senate Bill 320 that passed the House last
time. There were four subsections in that. And the
first three subsections are on pages 4 and 5:
[Section] 21.39.035 (b)(1), (2), and (3). But there
was a fourth that is not in the current version of the
bill, and I don't know why. And that would add the
phrase: "may be displayed by the insurer that files
the information."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern because he'd been
informed that [the two were] identical.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he hadn't noticed that discrepancy.
Number 2307
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee rescind its
action [in reporting CSHB 5, Version 23-LS0021\H, Ford, 4/2/03,
out of committee earlier in the meeting]; that an amendment be
adopted to put paragraph (4) in, as previously described; and
that CSHB 5 [Version 23-LS0021\H, Ford, 4/2/03, as amended] be
reported out of committee [with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal note]. There being no objection, the
action was rescinded, the amendment was adopted, and CSHB 5(STA)
was reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 55-CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
Number 2275
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 55, "An Act expressing
legislative intent regarding privately operated correctional
facility space and services; relating to the development and
financing of privately operated correctional facility space and
services; authorizing the Department of Corrections to enter
into an agreement for the confinement and care of prisoners in
privately operated correctional facility space; authorizing the
Department of Corrections to enter into agreements with
municipalities to expand existing correctional facilities; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 2267
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 23-LS0285\W, Luckhaupt, 4/9/03, as a
work draft. [No objection was stated, and Version W was treated
as adopted.]
Number 2236
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSSSHB 55, Version 23-
LS0285\W, Luckhaupt, 4/9/03, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
The committee took a brief at-ease at 10:10 a.m.
Number 2156
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH informed the committee that Version W maintains
the title of the original version regarding a privately operated
correctional facility; maintains the intent in Section 1;
removes specific language where the legislature expects [the
Department of] Corrections to contract with the City of
Whittier; anticipates a competitive management style being
brought to Alaska; allows the facility to be built in the city;
and adds the language "whichever is less" to Section 2,
subparagraph (A). He said he thinks the most significant
amendment in Version W makes the facility generic, rather than a
correctional facility in Whittier.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to a question by Representative
Gruenberg, confirmed that the Department of Corrections would
make the decision where to build the prison.
Number 2070
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there is a procedure set forth
or in law as to how that decision is made.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH answered no. He said that would be decided in
[the House Finance Committee].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that he was closing public testimony.
He asked if there were any more comments or questions.
[No objection was stated to the motion, and CSSSHB 55(STA) was
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.]
SJR 5-DESTROY BRADY BILL RECORDS
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was CS
FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5(STA), Urging the President of
the United States and the Congress to act to ensure that federal
agencies do not retain records relating to lawful purchase or
ownership of firearms gathered through the Brady Handgun Bill
instant check system.
Number 2025
AMY SEITZ, Staff to Senator Tom Wagoner, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SJR 5 on behalf of Senator Wagoner,
sponsor. Noting that a similar House resolution hadn't passed
the previous year, she explained that when Congress passed the
so-called Brady Handgun Bill in 1993, it did so to promote gun
safety and reduce gun-related violence. A criminal background
check system was enacted; those with criminal backgrounds
couldn't purchase firearms. When the Act was established, it
wasn't meant to retain records of law-abiding citizens who could
legally purchase and own firearms. Thus SJR 5 urges the
President and Congress to ensure that federal agencies don't
retain these records, and that they make statutory changes to
ensure that this doesn't happen in the future.
Number 1941
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred to language on page 1, lines 13-14,
that read: "the system shall ... destroy all records of the
system with respect to the call". He asked if that would be
done electronically.
MS. SEITZ replied that she believes the system is electronic.
She said the intent of the original Brady Handgun Bill was that
as soon as an individual was approved to legally purchase and
own a firearm, all information except for the identifying number
and the date was supposed to be destroyed from the system.
Number 1895
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked, when the FBI [Federal Bureau of
Investigation] indicates its intent to keep records gathered
through the Brady Handgun Bill, whether it's under any statutory
authority or is "a terrorist thing," for example.
MS. SEITZ responded that it was the interpretation of the
administration in 1993 after the Act was voted in.
Number 1862
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSSJR 5(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSJR 5(STA) was
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1834
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:17 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|