Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120

03/28/2019 03:00 PM STATE AFFAIRS

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= HB 96 PIONEERS' HOME AND VETERANS' HOME RATES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 71 STATE PERSONNEL ACT: VETERANS' EXPERIENCE TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 71 Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
*+ HB 82 DISCRIMINATION: GENDER ID.;SEXUAL ORIENT. TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Presentation: TBA TELECONFERENCED
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                           
                         March 28, 2019                                                                                         
                           3:07 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Co-Chair                                                                                
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Representative Andi Story                                                                                                       
Representative Adam Wool                                                                                                        
Representative Sarah Vance                                                                                                      
Representative Laddie Shaw                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 96                                                                                                               
"An Act relating to Alaska Pioneers' Home and Alaska Veterans'                                                                  
Home rates and services."                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 71                                                                                                               
"An Act relating to hiring for positions in state service based                                                                 
on substitution of military work experience or training for                                                                     
required civilian work experience or training."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HB 71 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 82                                                                                                               
"An Act adding to the powers and duties of the State Commission                                                                 
for Human Rights; and relating to and prohibiting discrimination                                                                
based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 96                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: PIONEERS' HOME AND VETERANS' HOME RATES                                                                            
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FIELDS                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
03/15/19       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/15/19       (H)       STA, HSS                                                                                               
03/26/19       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/26/19       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/26/19       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/28/19       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 71                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: STATE PERSONNEL ACT: VETERANS' EXPERIENCE                                                                          
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STORY                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
02/25/19       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/25/19       (H)       MLV, STA                                                                                               
03/12/19       (H)       MLV AT 2:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/12/19       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/12/19       (H)       MINUTE(MLV)                                                                                            
03/14/19       (H)       MLV AT 2:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/14/19       (H)       Moved HB 71 Out of Committee                                                                           
03/14/19       (H)       MINUTE(MLV)                                                                                            
03/19/19       (H)       MLV AT 2:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/19/19       (H)       Moved HB 71 Out of Committee                                                                           
03/19/19       (H)       MINUTE(MLV)                                                                                            
03/20/19       (H)       MLV RPT 4DP                                                                                            
03/20/19       (H)       DP: TARR, JACKSON, RAUSCHER, LEDOUX                                                                    
03/26/19       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/26/19       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/26/19       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/28/19       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 82                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: DISCRIMINATION: GENDER ID.;SEXUAL ORIENT.                                                                          
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
03/06/19       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/06/19       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
03/28/19       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
CLINTON LASLEY, Director                                                                                                        
Division of Alaska Pioneer Homes (DAPH)                                                                                         
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions during the hearing on HB                                                              
96, Version U.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MIKE COONS                                                                                                                      
Palmer, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified in  opposition to HB  96, Version                                                             
U.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
STAN PARROT                                                                                                                     
Palmer, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified in  support of HB 96,  Version U;                                                             
his testimony was read by Lisa Smayda.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
ANNEMIEK BRUNKLAUS                                                                                                              
Palmer, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 96, Version U.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ARDIS STANLEY                                                                                                                   
Palmer, Alaska & State                                                                                                          
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Testified  during the  hearing  on HB  96,                                                             
Version U.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
BILL BROKAW                                                                                                                     
Palmer, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Testified  during the  hearing  on HB  96,                                                             
Version U.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
DAVE BROWN                                                                                                                      
Palmer, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 96, Version U.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
DOROTHY DITTMAN                                                                                                                 
Palmer, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Testified  during the  hearing  on HB  96,                                                             
Version U.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ROCKY PLOTNICK                                                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 96, Version U.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
KATIE BOTZ                                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Testified  during the  hearing  on HB  96,                                                             
Version U.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB  82, as prime sponsor, with the                                                             
use of a PowerPoint presentation.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff                                                                                                         
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION   STATEMENT:     Co-presented   HB  82   on  behalf   of                                                             
Representative Josephson, prime sponsor.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:07:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JONATHAN  KREISS-TOMKINS called the House  State Affairs                                                             
Standing   Committee    meeting   to    order   at    3:07   p.m.                                                               
Representatives  LeDoux, Story,  Wool, Vance,  Shaw, Fields,  and                                                               
Kreiss-Tomkins were present at the call to order.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
          HB  96-PIONEERS' HOME AND VETERANS' HOME RATES                                                                    
                                                                                                                              
3:08:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  announced  that   the  first  order  of                                                               
business would be  HOUSE BILL NO. 96, "An Act  relating to Alaska                                                               
Pioneers' Home and Alaska Veterans' Home rates and services."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:08:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW moved to adopt  the committee substitute (CS)                                                               
for HB 96,  [Version 31-LS0646\U, Marx, 3/27/19],  as the working                                                               
document.   There being  no objection, Version  U was  before the                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:08:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR FIELDS, as  prime sponsor of HB 96,  Version U, remarked                                                               
that there were a few substantive  changes in Version U.  He said                                                               
that the  cost of the Alaska  Pioneer Homes (APH) failed  to keep                                                               
pace with inflation going back  to 2004; therefore, in Version U,                                                               
the rates for Levels I-III align  with what 2004 rates would have                                                               
been  if they  had  kept pace  with inflation.    He stated  that                                                               
because the population  of APH has changed, under  Version U, the                                                               
current three  tiers of care would  be expanded to five  tiers of                                                               
care.   This change is  consistent with the current  direction of                                                               
the  management  of APH  and  with  the Agnew::Beck  [Consulting]                                                               
study ["Staffing  Plan and  Cost Impact  Analysis for  the Alaska                                                               
Pioneer Homes,"  11/29/18, document not provided].   He explained                                                               
that  having complex  behavior  neighborhoods  within APH  allows                                                               
residents to be moved from  Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) to                                                               
APH,  thus,  saving the  state  money.    He relayed  that  under                                                               
Version U, the Consumer Price  Index (CPI) would be replaced with                                                               
the   Social  Security   [Administration]  (SSA)   cost-of-living                                                               
adjustment, which  is preferred by  the Department of  Health and                                                               
Social Services (DHSS).                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR FIELDS  maintained that  the proposed  legislation would                                                               
still provide  certainty to residents  that rate  increases would                                                               
be capped  and indexed annually  to inflation.  He  expressed his                                                               
hope  that  under Version  U,  APH  rates  would keep  pace  with                                                               
inflation and  provide a balance  between capturing a  fair share                                                               
of   the   revenue   yet   protecting   consumers   by   ensuring                                                               
accessibility.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  FIELDS   related  that  through  research,   his  staff                                                               
confirmed that under Version U,  the state would capture the full                                                               
value of  long-term care insurance.   He clarified that  with the                                                               
value  of  standard  long-term care  insurance  and  the  average                                                               
tenure  of residents  in APH,  the  rates under  Version U  would                                                               
capture the  full value  - the  maximum payout  - of  the typical                                                               
long-term insurance plan, except in very unusual circumstances.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:12:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STORY asked  whether there  was a  need to  raise                                                               
rates  to bring  them up  to date  and whether  a public  comment                                                               
period would be necessary if  it was determined that rates needed                                                               
to be higher than the SSA index.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FIELDS  responded  that   under  Version  U,  the                                                               
maximum rate increases would be capped  at the SSA increases.  If                                                               
in  the future  the  legislature decided  that  more revenue  was                                                               
needed for  Level III  care and could  be collected,  a statutory                                                               
change  would be  required.    He maintained  that  this was  the                                                               
reason for bringing the rates up to date for inflation.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:14:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE cited the Agnew::Beck  study and the efforts                                                               
of APH  to assess whether  the needs  of Alaskans are  being met,                                                               
the  sustainability  of  its  services,   the  intense  needs  of                                                               
dementia patients, and the tiered  levels of care.  She mentioned                                                               
that the study was the first of its  kind to be done on APH.  She                                                               
asked  for  comment  regarding   the  scenarios  that  have  been                                                               
recommended for implementation for  best practices to utilize the                                                               
beds and  services to  the community.   She  asked how  Version U                                                               
would help APH reach that goal.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS  expressed his belief that  the Agnew::Beck                                                               
study properly recognized  that APH has always had  a diverse mix                                                               
of residents.   Some  residents are  quite independent  and other                                                               
have much  more intense  needs.   The Agnew::Beck  study supports                                                               
continuing to have  a diverse group of residents.   He maintained                                                               
that Version U is targeted  toward APH continuing to be welcoming                                                               
to people  who live  independently.  It  has been  suggested that                                                               
APH could be exclusively for  people needing higher level of care                                                               
and could  exclude the traditional population  of self-pay people                                                               
who live independently  in the Level I service of  care.  He said                                                               
that the Agnew::Beck study maintains  that it is valuable to have                                                               
a  diversity   of  residents  in   APH  -  in  terms   of  social                                                               
relationships and  quality of life.   He commended APH  staff who                                                               
try to accommodate residents with a wide range of needs.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:16:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE cited page 7  of the study under the section                                                               
entitled  "Cost  Impact Key  Findings,"  which  read in  part  as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
          Scenario 1: Operational status quo.                                                                                   
          Scenario  2:   Balance  the  social   and  medical                                                                    
          services of  assisted living  and operate  at full                                                                    
          capacity.                                                                                                             
          Scenario  3: In  addition  to  the assumptions  in                                                                    
          Scenario  2,  increase  number  of  higher  acuity                                                                    
          residents served to maximize community benefit.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE  directed attention to the  cost analysis in                                                               
the  study  demonstrating the  financial  impact  of moving  from                                                               
Scenario 1 to Scenario 2 and 3.   She expressed that she does not                                                               
understand how  Version U of HB  96 would help reach  the goal of                                                               
generating the revenue and meeting the needs of the residents.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered that a  key change under Version U                                                               
is the expansion to  five tiers of care.  He cited  page 8 of the                                                               
study, which read:                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     However, the  rate structure of the  Pioneer Homes does                                                                    
     not currently  reflect the actual  cost of  this higher                                                                    
     level of care, so the  increased revenue does not cover                                                                    
     the  increased  costs.  This is  most  pronounced  when                                                                    
     staffing up  for a complex  behavior neighborhood  at a                                                                    
     higher  staffing  intensity  of one  direct  care  aide                                                                    
     (such as  a CNA)  for every  three residents,  24 hours                                                                    
      per day, seven days per week. Under the current rate                                                                      
     structure, these residents would be charged for level                                                                      
     3 services.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR FIELDS said  that under Version U and  in APH's internal                                                               
planning, APH would have five levels  of care; the fifth level of                                                               
care would  have higher reimbursement  rates because the  care is                                                               
higher  intensity.   He  added that  even if  the  state did  not                                                               
capture  higher reimbursement  rates, it  could still  save money                                                               
through a fifth tier of care  - a complex behavior neighborhood -                                                               
in a  separate area  in the  APH building.   People  with complex                                                               
behavior health  needs could be  relocated from API,  which would                                                               
bring in  over $500,000 per year.   He maintained that  the major                                                               
change in the proposed legislation  - allowing for the fifth tier                                                               
of care -  supports the cost-saving measure, the  quality of life                                                               
measure, and the safety measure.   He added that under Version U,                                                               
the fifth  tier allows  for prices  to match the  cost of  care -                                                               
recognizing that  there could be  higher reimbursement  rates for                                                               
tier-five care.  He pointed out  that for the existing tiers, APH                                                               
would provide a  degree of protection for  residents who expected                                                               
affordable rates.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:21:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE  asked whether APH could  implement the five                                                               
tiers  of care  if  mandated under  Version U.    She also  asked                                                               
whether  APH  could implement  Scenario  2,  as outlined  in  the                                                               
study.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:22:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CLINTON  LASLEY,  Director,  Division  of  Alaska  Pioneer  Homes                                                               
(DAPH),  Department   of  Health  and  Social   Services  (DHSS),                                                               
responded  that under  Version U,  which caps  rates not  meeting                                                               
current costs to provide services,  and the state budget that has                                                               
been passed  by the House  Finance Committee, there would  not be                                                               
the funding.   The way  the budget  has been proposed,  APH would                                                               
charge the  full rate of  providing services, and there  would be                                                               
no  general fund  (GF)  money  within the  APH  component of  the                                                               
budget.   The only GF  money would  be in the  payment assistance                                                               
component of  the budget,  which would  be a  separate component.                                                               
Individuals  who   are  "private   pay,"  although   still  being                                                               
subsidized by the state, would  be paying the full rate requested                                                               
by APH and  would not qualify for  payment assistance; therefore,                                                               
APH would  not be  able to use  the payment  assistance component                                                               
funds  for them.   Under  payment assistance  there is  an income                                                               
requirement,  and if  a person's  resources are  above the  level                                                               
set,  he/she would  not qualify  for payment  assistance and  APH                                                               
would  not be  able  to use  the payment  assistance  funds.   He                                                               
concluded  that  APH could  not  continue  to  operate as  it  is                                                               
currently, if the rates are capped as outlined under Version U.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE asked  how  APH would  provide for  current                                                               
residents.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LASLEY reiterated  that the  current version  of the  budget                                                               
does not  fund individuals not  on a payment  assistance program.                                                               
The budget  was designed  with the intent  that APH  would charge                                                               
residents  what  it  truly  costs to  provide  services.    Under                                                               
Version U, Level IV would be  capped with a $10,000 maximum rate;                                                               
it currently costs $13,333 to  provide that service, which leaves                                                               
a $3,333  gap.  If  an individual can  pay the $10,000,  then the                                                               
state would  subside the  $3,333.  In  that case,  the individual                                                               
would not qualify for payment  assistance because he/she would be                                                               
paying the full rate, and APH would  not be able to use the funds                                                               
in the payment  assistance component.  It is designed  to be used                                                               
only for  those individuals who  qualify for  payment assistance.                                                               
He concluded by  saying, "That's where the challenge  is with not                                                               
charging the full rates as they cost to provide service."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:25:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  asked what assets  one can have  and still                                                               
qualify for the payment assistance program.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY replied that statute  lists the resources and assets a                                                               
person  may  retain  and  still  be  on  the  payment  assistance                                                               
program.    He said  that  primarily  the  person  must be  in  a                                                               
position in  which he/she truly needs  assistance; resources must                                                               
have been  liquidated; however, there  are items that  the person                                                               
is  allowed.   He  stated  that  there  is a  payment  assistance                                                               
application;  total  income  and   resources  are  considered  to                                                               
determine whether the person meets  the income level requirement.                                                               
Examples  of items  allowed include  $2,000 in  assets, a  burial                                                               
account, resources  to pay insurance premiums  and federal taxes,                                                               
and one's spouse may retain the home.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked  why a person with  only $2,000 would                                                               
be paying federal taxes.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LASLEY  explained  that individuals  on  payment  assistance                                                               
might be receiving resources monthly;  they pay what they can pay                                                               
out of resources.   He gave an example:   Someone receiving Level                                                               
II services under a rate of  $4,600 per month receives $2,000 per                                                               
month  in SSA  income.   The  state reduces  its  subsidy by  the                                                               
amount the  person can pay; the  person keeps $200 per  month for                                                               
personal needs; the remaining amount  is subsidized by the state.                                                               
He confirmed  for Representative  LeDoux that  a person  can keep                                                               
$200, not $2,000 per month.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  for confirmation  that his  example                                                               
represents how the program works currently.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LASLEY agreed  that what  he described  was how  the program                                                               
works today, and it is in statute.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:29:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether  under the proposed budget of                                                               
the governor  [Governor Michael J.  Dunleavy], there is  no money                                                               
for APH in GF.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY answered that the funds  sourced from GF have now been                                                               
put into a need-based system,  which is a separate component, and                                                               
everyone   who  needs   assistance   would   apply  for   payment                                                               
assistance.   Whatever an  individual cannot  pay would  be taken                                                               
from the payment assistance component.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  posed  a  hypothetical  situation:    The                                                               
budget  sent  to the  governor  is  somewhat different  than  the                                                               
governor's  proposed  budget.   There  is  [APH]  money in  a  GF                                                               
component of  the budget,  but not  much was  in the  new payment                                                               
assistance component.   The proposed legislation  passed, but the                                                               
governor vetoed the  GF component portion.  She  asked what would                                                               
happen to APH under the scenario she described.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY responded  that he cannot speak to  hypotheticals.  He                                                               
said that if  [APH] funds sourced from GF were  put back into the                                                               
budget by an  entity other than the governor, and  the funds were                                                               
vetoed,  then there  would  be  no funds  to  operate  APH as  it                                                               
currently  exists.    He  explained  that  the  governor  made  a                                                               
commitment  to  APH  that  there would  be  funds  available  for                                                               
individuals who  can't pay; GF for  that purpose is still  in the                                                               
budget  but  in  a  separate component,  which  is  a  need-based                                                               
component.   If GF funds in  the main budget were  cut, but money                                                               
was still  in the  payment assistance  component, money  would be                                                               
available for those who truly need the services.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained  that GF refers to  cash in the                                                               
state's treasury.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:33:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FIELDS   commented  that  his  office   has  been                                                               
coordinating  with  Representative  Spohnholz,  co-chair  of  the                                                               
House  Health   and  Social  Services  Standing   Committee,  and                                                               
Representative   Johnston,  a   member  of   the  House   Finance                                                               
Committee, to  ensure that  there is  adequate GF  for APH  to be                                                               
sustainable.   He stated that there  are two moving pieces  - the                                                               
budget  and  the proposed  legislation;  he  intends to  continue                                                               
coordinating  with  the  House Finance  Committee  to  avoid  the                                                               
budget  being  inconsistent with  legislation  and  to allow  the                                                               
director of APH maximum flexibility.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS mentioned  that the  final decisions  on                                                               
both the budget  and the proposed legislation  - absent line-item                                                               
vetoes - rests  with the legislature; therefore,  it behooves the                                                               
legislature  to coordinate  with  itself to  ensure  that HB  96,                                                               
Version U, is  in comportment with the operating budget.   If the                                                               
governor wants  to line-item veto  the funding, he can  answer to                                                               
the seniors in APH.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOOL asked  if billing  at APH  is like  hospital                                                               
billing, in which  costs are inflated to pay for  those who can't                                                               
pay  and  because insurance  companies  typically  underpay.   He                                                               
asked, "When you say your true  cost is $13,000 ... is that truly                                                               
your cost?"                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LASLEY responded,  "That is  our true  cost."   He explained                                                               
that APH charges what it costs to provide services.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOOL asked  for  confirmation that  if a  certain                                                               
level of  care costs $13,000  and the  maximum charged by  APH is                                                               
from  $6,000-$10,000, even  if someone  pays the  full rate,  APH                                                               
loses money on every single person staying at an APH facility.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY answered, "That is correct."                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL  expressed his understanding that  the intent                                                               
of the proposed  rate increase is to fully recover  the true cost                                                               
for those who can pay.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY relayed  that the payment assistance  program has been                                                               
in statute  for a  long time;  therefore, there  is a  program in                                                               
place  that identifies  those  individuals who  do  not have  the                                                               
ability  to pay,  and  the state  will  subsidize the  difference                                                               
between the resources of an individual and the amount charged.                                                                  
He said  that currently,  APH is  not charging  the true  cost of                                                               
providing the  service; therefore, it is  subsidizing individuals                                                               
who can  pay.   He said  that the proposed  system, with  the new                                                               
payment  assistance component,  was  designed  to subsidize  only                                                               
those who truly need assistance and not every resident of APH.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:39:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOOL asked  how the  payment assistance  has been                                                               
funded.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY said  that currently there is about $33  million of GF                                                               
in the  APH component of the  budget.  The proposed  budget would                                                               
move that GF to a separate  component that would be used only for                                                               
those  individuals   needing  assistance;  APH  rates   would  be                                                               
increased to be reflective of  what it costs to provide services,                                                               
therefore, capturing from  those who can pay the true  cost.  For                                                               
those  who  need  assistance,  APH would  pay  from  the  payment                                                               
assistance component the true amount that is needed.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL  suggested that raising rates  would put more                                                               
individuals  into  the category  of  needing  assistance and  the                                                               
state cannot predict the effect of that.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY  answered that  Representative Wool  was correct.   He                                                               
said that  several years  ago DAPH  started asking  residents for                                                               
information on  their resources  to predict  the future  need for                                                               
assistance or eligibility  for federal programs.   He agreed that                                                               
it is  somewhat unknown,  and for individuals  who are  living in                                                               
APH currently,  paying the  new rate will  cause them  to deplete                                                               
their resources quicker.   He said that one of  the challenges of                                                               
APH is  not knowing the  resources of  the individuals in  APH or                                                               
those that will be moving into APH  in the future.  The system is                                                               
designed to serve all Alaskans  regardless of ability to pay; the                                                               
proposal under  the governor's budget  is that those who  can pay                                                               
will pay and the remaining amount will be subsidized.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL pointed out that  the question is whether the                                                               
state wants to  subsidize the cost of care for  every resident of                                                               
APH or only for those in need.   He acknowledged that such a rate                                                               
increase would stress a person's finances.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY agreed  that it is a philosophical  question for which                                                               
the state must decide.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:44:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STORY maintained that  under the DHSS proposal the                                                               
long-term policy of  the state to provide  seniors assistance for                                                               
care would shift  to one in which the expectation  is for seniors                                                               
to be self-sufficient.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY  asserted that under  the regulations  proposed, there                                                               
would be  no change in the  way APH operates.   The proposal does                                                               
not  require  individuals  be self-sufficient;  the  rates  would                                                               
reflect the  cost to  provide care; if  individuals can  pay, the                                                               
states asks  for them to pay;  if they can't pay,  the protection                                                               
of the  payment assistant  program is  available.   He emphasized                                                               
that it  would not be  a shift  in policy but  establishing rates                                                               
that  are  reflective of  what  it  truly  costs APH  to  provide                                                               
services.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:46:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  relayed that APH  is most likely  the last                                                               
home for  a resident.   She suggested  that the committee  or the                                                               
legislature must  decide whether the  state wants its  seniors to                                                               
be able to will their assets to  their heirs or pay what they can                                                               
to the  State of Alaska  for the  services.  She  maintained that                                                               
assets  of $500,000  or  $1 million  would  disappear quickly  at                                                               
$15,000 per month.  She  added that seniors could continue living                                                               
in APH,  but when they  die, there would  be no assets  for their                                                               
heirs.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS  offered that the actual  question is, What                                                               
is the correct  rate structure so that APH  remains attractive to                                                               
a  diverse population  - a  healthy  mix of  socioeconomics.   He                                                               
maintained  that  if  the  rates  are  too  high,  the  state  is                                                               
inadvertently telling people  to go to the Lower  48 for assisted                                                               
living  care.   According to  the Office  of Management  & Budget                                                               
(OMB)  presentation  to  the House  Health  and  Social  Services                                                               
Standing Committee  Finance Subcommittee on 3/5/19,  [included in                                                               
the committee  packet], other regions  have comparable  rates for                                                               
assisted  living; it  is about  $5,000 per  month in  the Pacific                                                               
Northwest.   He asserted  that the  state is  trying to  strike a                                                               
balance between APH being  financially sustainable yet continuing                                                               
to attract  people, which requires  that APH continue  to attract                                                               
middle class and  affluent people.  Under any  model, senior care                                                               
is expensive, and people will deplete  much of their savings.  He                                                               
said that  rates too high  would discourage affluent  people from                                                               
moving  into  APH,  which  raises a  concern  for  the  long-term                                                               
political and  financial viability  of APH.   He  emphasized that                                                               
APH  are  incredibly  valuable, an  important  resource  for  the                                                               
state,  and part  of the  state's commitment  to Alaska  seniors;                                                               
therefore, they must be financially viable into the long-term.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:50:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  opened  public   testimony  on  HB  96,                                                               
Version U.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:50:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MIKE COONS  stated that he opposed  HB 96 and supports  the model                                                               
in the governor's budget presented by Mr. Lasley.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:52:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
STAN PARROT,  as a resident of  the Veterans & Pioneer  Home, had                                                               
his  testimony   read  by  Lisa   Smayda  as   follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     I,  Stan Parrott,  am concerned  that  the governor  is                                                                    
     considering  cutting  funding  for the  Pioneer  Homes.                                                                    
     These facilities  are necessary for our  state's Senior                                                                    
     Residents because  most of them  are unable to  live on                                                                    
     their own and many of  their families are unable or not                                                                    
     in  Alaska to  care for  them. These  seniors who  have                                                                    
     given so much to society now need society's help.                                                                          
     If  funding is  cut,  then many  of  the Pioneer  Homes                                                                    
     would not be able to  remain open. If they closed their                                                                    
     doors  where  would the  residents  go?  There are  few                                                                    
     private  facilities in  the state  and none  that offer                                                                    
     the care  and respect for  which the Pioneer  Homes are                                                                    
     noted.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Living should  be more than  existing, and  the Pioneer                                                                    
     Homes  offer activities  that enrich  the lives  of the                                                                    
     people  who live  here.  Speaking  specifically of  the                                                                    
     Pioneer  Home in  Palmer I  want to  make sure  you are                                                                    
     aware of  the care  the staff    and volunteers    take                                                                    
     with each  resident. They do  their best to  ensure all                                                                    
     needs (physical/ mental/ emotional) are met.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:55:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ANNEMIEK  BRUNKLAUS, as  a  resident of  the  Veterans &  Pioneer                                                               
Home, testified that she supports HB  96.  She stated that she is                                                               
88 years  old, has lived in  Alaska since 1960, has  no family in                                                               
Alaska, and cannot afford to live anywhere else.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:57:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ARDIS  STANLEY, as  a resident  of  the Veterans  & Pioneer  Home                                                               
Veterans &  Pioneer Home, testified  that she has found  the care                                                               
at the  Pioneer Home exceptional.   She  has been at  three other                                                               
locations in  Alaska near  Palmer and Anchorage.   Her  family is                                                               
close by  to visit.  She  asked for information on  the proposals                                                               
that would be understandable to residents.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:00:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BILL  BROKAW  testified  that  he  has been  a  resident  of  the                                                               
Veterans & Pioneer  Home for nine months; he moved  in because of                                                               
his wife's Alzheimer's  disease.  He stated that he  would not be                                                               
able to  afford the increased  rate.  He  offered that he  is not                                                               
yet familiar with what HB 96  proposes; however, if it proposes a                                                               
cost-of-living increase,  then he  believes he  would be  able to                                                               
afford that level of increase.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  Mr.  Brokaw  whether the  following                                                               
scenario would  cause him concern:   the governor's  proposal was                                                               
adopted;  the  charge went  up  to  $15,000; however,  the  state                                                               
provided payment assistance funds to pay for the charge.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROKAW  replied that  he has  been told  that the  rate could                                                               
increase, and because  the state would loan him money  to pay the                                                               
charge,  he  would be  able  to  afford  it.   He  expressed  his                                                               
understanding  that it  would  be a  loan; it  would  need to  be                                                               
repaid; and  the state,  instead of  his children,  would receive                                                               
his assets.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:04:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DAVE  BROWN,  as a  resident  of  the  Veterans &  Pioneer  Home,                                                               
testified  that  he gets  excellent  care  at  the home;  he  has                                                               
suffered several  traumas in  the last couple  years; and  he has                                                               
very  little  family.    If the  governor's  proposed  budget  is                                                               
adopted,  Mr.  Brown  does  not  know  if  he  could  afford  the                                                               
increased rate.   He offered  his support  for HB 96,  because he                                                               
could afford a cost-of-living rate increase.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:05:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DOROTHY DITTMAN,  as a resident  of the Veterans &  Pioneer Home,                                                               
testified that  her understanding is  that the rate for  the home                                                               
will more than  double in 2019.  She asked,  "What is the outlook                                                               
for  the  Pioneer  Homes, particularly  the  Veterans  &  Pioneer                                                               
Home?"   She  offered that  privatizing the  Pioneer Homes  would                                                               
result  in  either  collusion or  competition  with  the  private                                                               
sector nursing homes.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:08:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ROCKY  PLOTNICK  stated that  she  supports  HB  96 in  order  to                                                               
maintain  reasonable prices  for residents  of APH.   She  stated                                                               
that her  husband has  Parkinson's disease and  is a  resident of                                                               
the  Anchorage  Pioneer  Home.   She  maintained  that  the  home                                                               
provides  a  wonderful,  vibrant,  and diverse  community.    She                                                               
relayed that the original intent of  APH was to allow Alaskans to                                                               
live  out  their final  years  with  respect  and dignity.    She                                                               
reminded  the  committee that  APH  was  established long  before                                                               
Alaska was  enriched with  oil money  or permanent  fund dividend                                                               
(PFD) payments  were made.   She offered that continuing  to fund                                                               
APH is  a bipartisan Alaska issue;  and it is the  right thing to                                                               
do to have compassion and take care of Alaska's seniors.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:11:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KATIE BOTZ  testified that elders  have helped Alaska in  so many                                                               
ways.   She  maintained  that it  is only  right  that the  state                                                               
repays them by taking care of them.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  closed  public   testimony  on  HB  96,                                                               
Version U.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:15:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY,  in response  to the question  posed by  Ms. Dittman,                                                               
said that the governor's budget  does not propose privatizing APH                                                               
or having APH  compete with the private sector.   He relayed that                                                               
the  governor has  made a  commitment to  every senior  in Alaska                                                               
that APH will be fully  funded; the current budget proposal fully                                                               
funds them but  under a different funding  mechanism; the funding                                                               
in the fiscal year  2020 (FY 20) budget is the same  as in the FY                                                               
19 budget.   He maintained that  there has been no  discussion on                                                               
privatization of  APH; the  administration guarantees  that every                                                               
APH resident has a home and  community in which to celebrate life                                                               
until  his/her final  breath.   He  gave his  assurance that  the                                                               
state  is not  changing  how  APH operates;  everyone  in APH  is                                                               
protected; it is in statute.   He maintained that for individuals                                                               
in APH  who are  currently on  payment assistance,  nothing would                                                               
change under the  rate increase proposal.  For  those on Medicaid                                                               
waivers,  their  resources  have  already been  submitted  and  a                                                               
determination  made of  their qualification  for Medicaid  waiver                                                               
benefits; nothing more would be asked  of them.  He asserted that                                                               
for those on  the payment assistance program,  nothing more would                                                               
be asked  of them,  because it has  already been  determined that                                                               
they do not have the resources to  pay the full rates.  The state                                                               
is  subsidizing these  residents.   He maintained  that the  only                                                               
change is  for individuals  who are  in a home  or moving  into a                                                               
home in  the future  and have resources  above what  is currently                                                               
being  charged.    These  people   would  be  asked  to  pay  the                                                               
difference    between   what    is   currently    being   charged                                                               
and the  true cost  of providing  services.   If they  cannot pay                                                               
that  difference, then  the payment  assistance program  would be                                                               
utilized.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY, in  response to Mr. Brokaw, whose wife  is in APH and                                                               
receiving  Level III  services, explained  that  if she  is on  a                                                               
Medicaid  waiver,   there  is  no  indebtedness   to  the  state;                                                               
therefore,  Mr. Brokaw  would not  need to  expend his  resources                                                               
above what he is already expending.   He continued by saying that                                                               
for  someone  on payment  assistance  who  has  a spouse  in  the                                                               
community, the  state would  only consider  the resources  of the                                                               
individual  in   the  home   and  file   a  claim   against  that                                                               
individual's estate - not against  the individual's spouse living                                                               
in the community.  He  clarified that [payment assistance] is not                                                               
a  loan  to  the  spouse  living  in  the  community;  it  is  an                                                               
indebtedness to the state for the individual in the home only.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:19:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked  if a dependent of a resident  of APH -                                                               
a spouse  or offspring -  would be asked  to pay APH  charges, or                                                               
only the resident.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY  responded that under the  payment assistance program,                                                               
a dependent's resources  would not be considered,  but a spouse's                                                               
resources would  be considered.  If  the spouse is living  in the                                                               
community,  there  are  provisions   in  the  payment  assistance                                                               
program  to  allow the  spouse  to  keep resources  necessary  to                                                               
provide quality of life and keep  the home.  The resources of any                                                               
other person who is paying for  the care of the individual in the                                                               
home  are not  considered.    If the  rates  increase,  a son  or                                                               
daughter can  choose to pay  a portion; however,  their resources                                                               
are not  considered to be  resources of  the elder living  in the                                                               
home.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL  mentioned that  the sponsor of  the proposed                                                               
legislation  discussed the  concept  of striking  the right  rate                                                               
balance.  If  it is too high,  people will not choose  to live in                                                               
APH, and  the only residents  living there  will be the  ones who                                                               
are subsidized.  If it is too  low, it would be because the state                                                               
is  providing everyone  subsidy.   He mentioned  that residential                                                               
care  may be  lower in  another state;  however, if  the resident                                                               
runs  out  of money,  most  likely  that  other state  would  not                                                               
subsidize  payment.   He said  that  Mr. Lasley  has assured  the                                                               
committee that in  Alaska, the state will cover the  charges.  He                                                               
suggested  that Alaskans  are  understandably  anxious about  the                                                               
policy changing in the future.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LASLEY reaffirmed  that under  the state's  long-term model,                                                               
residents who use  up their resources and don't  have the ability                                                               
to pay would not be evicted; it  is clear in statute and will not                                                               
change.  He mentioned Co-Chair Fields's reference to the socio-                                                                 
economic mix  of APH and said  that APH has never  considered the                                                               
socio-economic  status of  an individual  when  he/she is  moving                                                               
into a home.   He said that APH is for everyone  65 and older who                                                               
has the need  to move into a Pioneer Home,  regardless of his/her                                                               
resources.   He  mentioned  that  it is  nice  to  have a  socio-                                                               
economic and ethic  mix of people from  all backgrounds; however,                                                               
APH  does not  accept individuals  based on  their resources;  it                                                               
wants to serve individuals that choose and need to live in APH.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:25:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  said that  even if the  spouse [of  an APH                                                               
resident] had possession  of the home, a  $15,000 monthly payment                                                               
to  APH would  indubitably have  a large  impact on  the spouse's                                                               
life.    She offered  that  in  many  marriages, the  assets  are                                                               
totally joint; and  if they are not joint and  are totally in the                                                               
possession of  the person in APH,  the spouse could be  left in a                                                               
bad way.   She asked for  a clarification of treatment  of assets                                                               
in these situations.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY replied that by  statute and regulation, the spouse is                                                               
allowed the  primary residence, $2,000 for  one's personal needs,                                                               
and  some other  assets.   The  DHSS has  requested a  regulation                                                               
change  to  change  the  amount allowed  for  personal  needs  to                                                               
reflect the  standard used  under the  Medicaid waiver,  which is                                                               
$3,100.  He stated that he would provide more information.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  stated that mortgage payments  of $1,500 -                                                               
$2,000 per  month would leave  the spouse very little  money even                                                               
if the amount allowed is increased to $3,100.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LASLEY  replied that  neither  HB  96,  Version U,  nor  the                                                               
current statute  would change that  policy.  He offered  that any                                                               
federal  or  state assistance  program  has  resource limits  and                                                               
resource  requirements.   He reiterated  that  the allowance  has                                                               
been  $2,000 for  many years;  DHSS is  requesting the  amount be                                                               
tied to Medicaid at $3,100 per month.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX relayed  that  the  difference [under  the                                                               
governor's  budget] is  that  the maximum  rate  is now  $15,000,                                                               
which would quickly deplete the estate  and leave the spouse in a                                                               
difficult predicament.   She maintained  that she  is sympathetic                                                               
to the  concept of  raising the  rates when she  views it  in the                                                               
context of the assets going to  the entity that is providing care                                                               
versus the  heirs.   She emphasized that  concern for  the spouse                                                               
presents a much different view.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. LASLEY  relayed that if there  is a mortgage on  the spouse's                                                               
primary residence,  it is a  deduction that can be  taken through                                                               
the  assistance  program.   By  statute,  the payment  assistance                                                               
program  protects  the  spouse   living  in  the  community;  the                                                               
proposed $3,100  would be  for the  spouse's personal  needs; and                                                               
deductions   may  be   taken  for   taxes,  insurance   premiums,                                                               
medications,  the  cost  of maintaining  the  home,  and  similar                                                               
items.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  stated that HB  96, Version U,  would be                                                               
held over.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
         HB 71-STATE PERSONNEL ACT: VETERANS' EXPERIENCE                                                                    
                                                                                                                              
4:31:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS   announced  that  the  next   order  of                                                               
business would be  HOUSE BILL NO. 71, "An Act  relating to hiring                                                               
for positions in state service  based on substitution of military                                                               
work   experience  or   training  for   required  civilian   work                                                               
experience or training."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:31:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STORY, as prime sponsor  of HB 71, stated that her                                                               
hope  is  that  the  proposed legislation  would  be  helpful  to                                                               
veterans  to ensure  that their  military  experience counts  for                                                               
work experience with the State of  Alaska.  She asserted that one                                                               
of the most  difficult transitions that veterans  make is finding                                                               
employment.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:32:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony  on HB 71.  After                                                               
ascertaining  that no  one wished  to testify,  he closed  public                                                               
testimony on HB 71.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:33:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at-ease from at 4:33 p.m.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:33:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW moved  to report HB 71 out  of committee with                                                               
individual  recommendations and  the attached  zero fiscal  note.                                                               
There  being no  objection, HB  71  was reported  from the  House                                                               
State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
        HB 82-DISCRIMINATION: GENDER ID.;SEXUAL ORIENT.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:34:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  announced  that   the  final  order  of                                                               
business  would be  HOUSE  BILL NO.  82, "An  Act  adding to  the                                                               
powers and duties  of the State Commission for  Human Rights; and                                                               
relating  to  and  prohibiting  discrimination  based  on  sexual                                                               
orientation or gender identity or expression."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:35:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at-ease at 4:35 p.m.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:35:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,  Alaska State Legislature, relayed                                                               
that HB  82 would add to  Title 18 that  it is the policy  of the                                                               
State of Alaska not to  discriminate based on sexual orientation,                                                               
gender  identity,  or  expression;  in the  event  someone  does,                                                               
he/she  can be  brought before  the Alaska  State Commission  for                                                               
Human  Rights (ASCHR);  and failing  conciliation, he/she  can be                                                               
sued for various  remedies.  Several states have  similar laws in                                                               
place  as   does  the  City   and  Borough  of  Juneau   and  the                                                               
Municipality of  Anchorage.  Recently the  Fairbanks City Council                                                               
passed a  similar ordinance by  a vote of  4-2; it was  vetoed by                                                               
the mayor,  who asked that  the question  be placed on  a ballot.                                                               
Representative   Josephson  added   that  the   issue  of   anti-                                                               
discrimination addressed  under HB 82  is the "last  frontier" of                                                               
the civil  rights movement.   He maintained that since  Alaska is                                                               
The Last Frontier  it is appropriate that it  add this protection                                                               
for  the  tens  of  thousands  of people  in  Alaska  who  regard                                                               
themselves as within this population.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  referred to  slide 1 of  the PowerPoint                                                               
presentation  to review  the goals  of the  proposed legislation,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
   • To add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity or                                                                        
     expression" to the list of classes protected under                                                                         
     Alaska law                                                                                                                 
   • To ensure that all Alaskans enjoy the right to                                                                             
     participate in commerce and active lives in our                                                                            
     communities                                                                                                                
   • To strengthen Alaska's civil rights statutes                                                                               
   • To shape Alaska into a shining model for protection of                                                                     
     human rights                                                                                                               
   • To protect one of the fastest growing communities of                                                                       
     individuals in Alaska from discrimination and afford                                                                       
     them the same protection as all other Alaskans                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON added that  the protections would relate                                                               
to housing,  lending, employment, and  the like.  He  stated that                                                               
after the  U.S. Civil Rights Act  [of 1964] became law,  the U.S.                                                               
Supreme Court  in Heart of  Atlanta Motel, Inc. v.  United States                                                             
wrote that non-discrimination represents good commerce.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  turned to  the  timeline  on slide  2,                                                               
entitled  "Alaska's Civil  Rights  History in  Brief," and  noted                                                               
that during  the Thirtieth  Alaska State  Legislature, 2017-2018,                                                               
the  House State  Affairs Standing  Committee advanced  a similar                                                               
bill, [House  Bill 184], by  a bipartisan  vote.  He  pointed out                                                               
that  the  Alaska  Equal  Rights   Act  of  1945,  championed  by                                                               
Elizabeth  Peratrovich, predates  the U.S.  Civil Rights  Act; he                                                               
maintained that HB 82 would be an extension of that effort.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:42:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  moved on  to slide 3,  entitled "Policy                                                               
Overview: Local  Trends," and noted  the three  large communities                                                               
of  Alaska recognizing  protections  of  lesbian, gay,  bisexual,                                                               
transgender, transsexual, queer/questioning  (LGBTQ) citizens and                                                               
the efforts  of non-governmental  organizations (NGOs)  listed on                                                               
the slide, which read as follows:                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Alaska Communities that protect LGBTQ citizens:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Anti-discrimination ordinances are in place in 3                                                                     
     Alaska communities:                                                                                                        
        square4 Juneau (Adopted August 2016)                                                                                    
        square4 Anchorage (Adopted September 2015 and upheld by                                                                 
          Anchorage voters April 2018)                                                                                          
        square4 Sitka (Adopted December 2017)                                                                                   
   square4 Anti-discrimination ordinance passed but vetoed by                                                                   
     mayor:                                                                                                                     
        square4 Fairbanks                                                                                                       
   square4 NGOs and community organization working to end                                                                       
     discrimination in Alaska include:                                                                                          
        square4 Fair Anchorage Campaign by the ACLU Alaska                                                                      
        square4 Human Rights Campaign Alaska                                                                                    
        square4 Identity Alaska                                                                                                 
        square4 Alaskans Together for Equality                                                                                  
        square4 Pride Foundation                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  mentioned that  the City of  Bethel has                                                               
an ordinance  prohibiting discrimination for employment  based on                                                               
sexual orientation.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  referred to  slide 4,  entitled "Policy                                                               
Overview:  Other  States  with  Similar Laws,"  and  pointed  out                                                               
Alaska's  sister states  who have  followed the  proposed policy:                                                               
California,  Colorado, Connecticut,  Delaware, Hawaii,  Illinois,                                                               
Iowa,  Maine,  Maryland,  Massachusetts, Minnesota,  Nevada,  New                                                               
Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  New Mexico,  New  York,  Oregon,  Rhode                                                               
Island,   Utah,   Vermont,   Washington,  Washington,   DC,   and                                                               
Wisconsin.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  provided a sectional analysis  of HB 82                                                               
by  reviewing  slides  5-12 shown  below,  [original  punctuation                                                               
provided].   He discussed  Section 1  on Slide  5, which  read as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     SECTION 1:                                                                                                                 
       ADDS 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' AND 'GENDER IDENTITY OR                                                                        
     EXPRESSION' TO THE LIST OF CATEGORIES PROTECTED BY THE                                                                     
     HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     THE ALASKA  STATE COMMISSION ON  HUMAN RIGHTS  PASSED A                                                                    
     RESOLUTION  IN 2016  REQUESTING  THIS  CHANGE BUT  LACK                                                                    
     AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT IT ON THEIR OWN                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON relayed that there  are two areas of law                                                               
that one  would see  such codification:   Title  6 of  the Alaska                                                               
Administrative  Code (AAC),  relating  to how  cases are  brought                                                               
before  ASCHR; and  Title 18  in  Alaska Statutes,  which is  the                                                               
substance of  existing state  law naming  discriminatory practice                                                               
violations.   He relayed that  Title 18 also lists  the remedies,                                                               
such as restraining orders and backpay.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  continued with  slides 6,  7, and  8 to                                                               
describe Sections  2, 3,  4, and 5  of the  proposed legislation,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     SECTION 2:                                                                                                                 
     ADD  CATEGORIES  OF  'SEXUAL ORIENTATION'  AND  'GENDER                                                                    
     IDENTITY  OR  EXPRESSION'  TO  THE  LIST  OF  PROTECTED                                                                    
     CLASSES WHICH THE  LEGISLATURE FINDS TO BE  A CAUSE FOR                                                                    
     PUBLIC CONCERN                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     SECTION 3:                                                                                                                 
     ADDS  'SEXUAL  ORIENTATION'  AND  'GENDER  IDENTITY  OR                                                                    
     EXPRESSION' TO  THE LIST OF  CATEGORIES THAT  THE STATE                                                                    
     PROTECTS AGAINST  DISCRIMINATION IN  EMPLOYMENT, CREDIT                                                                    
     AND  FINANCING,  PLACES  OF  PUBLIC  ACCOMMODATION  AND                                                                    
     MATTERS RELATED TO PROPERTY SALE, LEASE AND RENTAL                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     IN CURRENT  ALASKA STATUTE OTHER PROTECTED  CLASSES ARE                                                                    
     HIELDED  FROM DISCRIMINATION  BASED ON  RACE, RELIGION,                                                                    
     COLOR, NATIONAL  ORIGIN, AGE,  SEX, PHYSICAL  OR MENTAL                                                                    
     DISABILITY,  MARITAL   STATUTES,  CHANGES   IN  MARITAL                                                                    
     STATUS, PREGNANCY, OR PARENTHOOD                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     SECTION 4:                                                                                                                 
     ADDS  'SEXUAL  ORIENTATION'  AND  'GENDER  IDENTITY  OR                                                                    
     EXPRESSION'  TO  THE   CATEGORIES  OF  PROTECTED  CIVIL                                                                    
     RIGHTS                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     'CIVIL  RIGHT IS  AN  ENFORCEABLE  RIGHT OR  PRIVILEGE,                                                                    
     WHICH IF  INTERFERED WITH BY  ANOTHER GIVES RISE  TO AN                                                                    
     ACTION  FOR  INJURY.  DISCRIMINATION  OCCURS  WHEN  THE                                                                    
     CIVIL RIGHTS OF AN  INDIVIDUAL ARE DENIED OR INTERFERED                                                                    
     WITH  BECAUSE  OF  THE  INDIVIDUAL'S  MEMBERSHIP  IN  A                                                                    
     PARTICULAR GROUP OR CLASS? CIVIL  RIGHTS REFER TO LEGAL                                                                    
     PROVISIONS THAT STEM FROM NOTIONS OF EQUALITY.'*                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     *HTTPS://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/WEX/CIVIL_RIGHTS                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     SECTION 5:                                                                                                                 
     PROHIBITS   UNLAWFUL  EMPLOYMENT   PRACTICE  BASED   ON                                                                    
     'SEXUAL   ORIENTATION'   AND    'GENDER   IDENTITY   OR                                                                    
     EXPRESSION'                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     A 2011  SURVEY OF LGBTQ INDIVIDUALS  IN ANCHORAGE FOUND                                                                    
     THAT  62%  OF  RESPONDENTS   HAD  HIDDEN  THEIR  SEXUAL                                                                    
     ORIENTATION,  GENDER IDENTITY  OR GENDER  TRANSITION AT                                                                    
     WORK                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON   relayed  that  Section   6  addresses                                                               
religious exemption;  in the area of  religious organizations and                                                               
ministerial jobs,  the proposed  bill would have  no application.                                                               
Section 6 is described on slide 9, which read as follows:                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     SECTION 6:                                                                                                                 
     PROVIDES   A   RELIGIOUS   EXEMPTION   FOR   EMPLOYMENT                                                                    
     RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION AND A                                                                        
     MINISTER EMPLOYED BY THE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to Section 7 on slide 10,                                                                     
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     SECTION 7:                                                                                                                 
     PROHIBITS UNLAWFUL  PRACTICES IN  PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS                                                                    
     BASED ON  'SEXUAL ORIENTATION'  OR 'GENDER  IDENTITY OR                                                                    
     EXPRESSION'                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     LGBTQ INDIVIDUALS  IN A 2011 ANCHORAGE  SURVEY WHO WERE                                                                    
     DENIED ACCOMMODATIONS:                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     ? 13.1% DENIED SERVICE IN A RESTAURANT                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     ? 6% DENIED USE OF PUBLIC RESTROOM                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     ? 3.4% DENIED ROOM IN HOTEL                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     ? 8.2% DENIED MEMBERSHIP TO GYM OR FITNESS CLUB                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON reminded the committee of the history                                                                  
of   certain   people   in    Southeast   Alaska   being   denied                                                               
accommodations due to the color of their skin.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved on to slide 11 to describe                                                                       
Section 8, which read as follows:                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     SECTION 8:                                                                                                                 
     PROHIBITS UNLAWFUL  PRACTICES IN THE SALE  OR RENTAL OF                                                                    
     REAL PROPERTY BASED ON  'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' OR 'GENDER                                                                    
     IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION'                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     ? A  2015 SURVEY  OR TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS  IN ALASKA                                                                    
     REPORTED THAT 32% OF  RESPONDENTS EXPERIENCED SOME FORM                                                                    
     OF  HOUSING DISCRIMINATION  IN THE  PAST  YEAR AND  43%                                                                    
     HAVE EXPERIENCED  HOMELESSNESS AT  SOME POINT  IN THEIR                                                                    
     LIVES                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     ?  A  2011 SURVEY  OF  LGBTQ  INDIVIDUALS IN  ANCHORAGE                                                                    
     FOUND THAT 18.7% OF RESPONDENTS  HAD BEEN HARASSED BY A                                                                    
     LANDLORD  OR  OTHER  TENANT  BECAUSE  OF  THEIR  SEXUAL                                                                    
     ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY/EXPRESSION                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON reviewed Section 9 on slide 12, which                                                                  
read as follows:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     SECTION 9:                                                                                                                 
     PROHIBITS   UNLAWFUL   PRACTICES   IN   FINANCING   AND                                                                    
     EXTENDING  CREDIT  BASED  ON  'SEXUAL  ORIENTATION'  OR                                                                    
     'GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION'                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     A 2011  SURVEY OF LGBTQ INDIVIDUALS  IN ANCHORAGE FOUND                                                                    
     THAT 3.7% OF RESPONDENTS WERE  DENIED A LOAN OR LINE OF                                                                    
     CREDIT WHEN OTHERWISE QUALIFIED                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON briefly described Section 10 on slide                                                                  
13, which read as follows:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     SECTION 10:                                                                                                                
     PROHIBITS  UNLAWFUL  PRACTICES  BY  THE  STATE  OR  ITS                                                                    
     POLITICAL  SUBDIVISIONS BASED  ON 'SEXUAL  ORIENTATION'                                                                    
     OR 'GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION'                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     INCLUDES ALL  STATE AND  LOCAL GOVERNMENT  AGENCIES AND                                                                    
     WILL  END  DISCRIMINATION  IN SCHOOLS,  IN  COURTS,  BY                                                                    
     POLICE AND  PUBLIC SAFETY  OFFICIALS AND  BY GOVERNMENT                                                                    
     SERVICES AND AGENCIES                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:48:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ELISE  SORUM-BIRK, Staff,  Representative Andy  Josephson, Alaska                                                               
State Legislature,  referred to slide  14 to describe  Section 11                                                               
and to explain the concept of  "blockbusting."  The slide read as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     SECTION 11:                                                                                                                
     PROHIBITS  UNLAWFUL   PRACTICES  IN   BLOCKBUSTING,  OR                                                                    
     PRACTICE BY A REAL ESTATE AGENT TO CLOSE A TRANSACTION                                                                     
     BASED ON  'SEXUAL ORIENTATION'  OR 'GENDER  IDENTITY OR                                                                    
     EXPRESSION'                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     'BLOCKBUSTING'   MEANS   AN   UNLAWFUL   DISCRIMINATORY                                                                    
     PRACTICE  BY   A  REAL   ESTATE  BROKER,   REAL  ESTATE                                                                    
     SALESPERSON,  OR  EMPLOYEE  OR  AGENT OF  A  BROKER  OR                                                                    
     ANOTHER   INDIVIDUAL,   CORPORATION,  PARTNERSHIP,   OR                                                                    
     ORGANIZATION FOR THE PURPOSE  OF INDUCING A REAL ESTATE                                                                    
     TRANSACTION  FROM   WHICH  ANY   SUCH  PERSON   OR  ITS                                                                    
     STOCKHOLDERS  OR MEMBERS  MAY  BENEFIT FINANCIALLY,  TO                                                                    
     REPRESENT  DIRECTLY OR  INDIRECTLY  THAT  A CHANGE  HAS                                                                    
     OCCURRED OR WILL  OR MAY OCCUR FROM  A COMPOSITION WITH                                                                    
     RESPECT TO  RACE, RELIGION,  COLOR, OR  NATIONAL ORIGIN                                                                    
     OF THE OWNERS OR  OCCUPANTS OF THE BLOCK, NEIGHBORHOOD,                                                                    
     OR AREA  IN WHICH THE  REAL PROPERTY IS  LOCATED, ANDTO                                                                    
     REPRESENT DIRECTLY  OR INDIRECTLY THAT THIS  CHANGE MAY                                                                    
     OR  WILL  RESULT  IN UNDESIRABLE  CONSEQUENCES  IN  THE                                                                    
     BLOCK,  NEIGHBORHOOD,   OR  AREA  IN  WHICH   THE  REAL                                                                    
     PROPERTY   IS  LOCATED,   INCLUDING  THE   LOWERING  OF                                                                    
     PROPERTY VALUES, AN INCREASE  IN CRIMINAL OR ANTISOCIAL                                                                    
     BEHAVIOR, OR DECLINE  IN THE QUALITY OF  THE SCHOOLS OR                                                                    
     OTHER FACILITIES                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     (AS 18.80.30 (1))                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SORUM-BIRK  relayed that  blockbusting  is  the practice  of                                                               
persuading owners  to sell  property cheaply due  to the  fear of                                                               
people of  another race  or class  moving into  the neighborhood,                                                               
thereby,  creating a  margin of  profit based  on reselling  at a                                                               
higher   price.     This  was   seen   historically  in   certain                                                               
neighborhoods  in which  a  real estate  agent  would attempt  to                                                               
convince  a resident  to  sell  his/her house  at  less than  the                                                               
assessed  value  due  to  an African  American  moving  into  the                                                               
neighborhood.   The  real  estate agent  could,  thereby, turn  a                                                               
profit.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  added  that   ASCHR  has  stated  that                                                               
although  there  may be  remedies  [for  discrimination based  on                                                               
gender identity  or expression], such  as through the  U.S. Equal                                                               
Employment   Opportunity   Commission    (EEOC),   the   proposed                                                               
legislation is  the remedy  that ASCHR must  have to  protect the                                                               
civil rights of these individuals.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  how  HB 82  would  affect  women's                                                               
shelters  that did  not want  to  accept people  who identify  as                                                               
women but  are not  biologically women.   She  asked additionally                                                               
how  HB 82  would affect  sports teams;  for example,  a man  who                                                               
identifies as a woman and wants to complete in women's sports.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  expressed his belief that  the proposed                                                               
legislation  would not  address  domestic  violence shelters  but                                                               
would research this issue.  He  said that a sporting event is not                                                               
the subject of  the proposed legislation; nothing in  HB 82 would                                                               
affect eligibility for a sporting event.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:52:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOOL asked  whether there  has been  a documented                                                               
case of blockbusting regarding the LGTBQ community.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to  the November 2011 Anchorage                                                               
survey,   entitled   "Anchorage   LGBT   Discrimination   Survey:                                                               
Preliminary Report," included in  the committee packet, and cited                                                               
the following  statistics:   10.1 percent  of the  LGBT community                                                               
was denied  a lease when  otherwise qualified; 20.9  percent were                                                               
turned down for a job  when otherwise qualified; and 73.1 percent                                                               
reported  having   to  hide  their  sexual   orientation,  gender                                                               
identity,    or   gender    transition   to    avoid   employment                                                               
discrimination.  He mentioned that  he does not have any specific                                                               
information on Representative Wool's question.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SORUM-BIRK  relayed that  she  is  not  aware of  cases  [of                                                               
blockbusting]  in   Alaska;  however,   there  have   been  cases                                                               
nationally.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW offered his  understanding that the intent of                                                               
HB 82  is to  prohibiting discrimination  "across the  board" and                                                               
not just for housing.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON replied  that  under HB  82, the  broad                                                               
civil rights intent  described in the preamble  language would be                                                               
advanced through  the protection of LGBTQ  against discrimination                                                               
in housing, employment, lending, and public accommodation.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:56:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW  stated that  his comment concerns  the title                                                               
of HB 82, which read:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
                      FOR AN ACT ENTITLED                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     'An Act  adding to the  powers and duties of  the State                                                                    
     Commission  for  Human  Rights;  and  relating  to  and                                                                    
     prohibiting discrimination based  on sexual orientation                                                                    
     or gender identity or expression.'                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW  maintained that the  title of HB 82  is very                                                               
broad and  the stated goals  of the  legislation, on slide  1, do                                                               
not mention  housing.  He asked  whether HB 82 would  cover broad                                                               
community issues.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  answered  that  like  the  U.S.  Civil                                                               
Rights  Act,  the  proposed legislation  would  require  that  in                                                               
employment  or  business,  the merchant  must  subscribe  to  the                                                               
greater  tenant  of   the  Act;  however,  every   action  of  an                                                               
individual would  not be monitored  for politically  correct (PC)                                                               
compliance  with some  greater civil  rights tenant.   He  stated                                                               
that HB  82 would add  "sexual orientation" and  "gender identity                                                               
or  expression" repeatedly  to existing  law; it  would add  this                                                               
class  to  the many  classes  already  protected -  physical  and                                                               
mental  disability,   marital  status,  race,   religion,  color,                                                               
national origin.  Beyond that there  would be no expansion of the                                                               
civil rights [U.S.] Code [Title 42, Chapter 21].                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  for  a legal  opinion  on  women's                                                               
shelters   and  sports   teams   in  respect   to  the   proposed                                                               
legislation.   She  expressed her  understanding that  it is  not                                                               
illegal to discriminate  against a person if there  is a rational                                                               
basis for  doing so unless  the person  is in a  protected class;                                                               
race,  religion,  and  national  origin have  always  been  those                                                               
protected  classes;  and to  discriminate  against  someone in  a                                                               
protected class requires  a compelling state interest.   She said                                                               
that her concern is that  adding "sexual orientation" and "gender                                                               
identity or expression" puts these  categories into the protected                                                               
class,  which  would  require a  compelling  state  interest  and                                                               
everything else that follows.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  responded that  in the case  of gender,                                                               
it is not a compelling interest  but an important interest - or a                                                               
middle  tier test;  therefore, women  are not  as protected  as a                                                               
racial minority.   He  agreed that  "compelling interest"  is the                                                               
test;  under HB  82, the  classifications [of  sexual orientation                                                               
and  gender  identity  or  expression]  would  be  added  to  the                                                               
protected  class in  the  ASCHR code;  the  Alaska State  Supreme                                                               
Court  would recognize  that  when  applying a  tough  test.   He                                                               
acknowledged that the test could be overcome.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
[HB 82 was held over.]                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
5:00:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:00                                                                  
p.m.                                                                                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB096 CS ver U 3.28.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 96
HB096 ver U Sectional Analysis 3.28.19.pdf HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM
HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 96
HB096 Summary of Changes Version M to Version U 3.28.19.pdf HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM
HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 96
HB096 Letters of Support Redacted 3.27.19.pdf HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM
HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 96
HB082 ver A 3.19.19.PDF HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Sponsor Statement 3.19.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Sectional Analysis 3.19.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Letters of Support Redacted 3.27.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Supporting Document - 2010 Census 3.19.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Supporting Document - Alaska Public Media Article 3.27.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Supporting Document - 2015 AK Transgender Survey 3.19.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Supporting Document - ASHRC Resolution 3.19.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Supporting Document - HRC State Laws 3.19.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Supporting Document - Legal Memo 3.19.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Supporting Document - Memorandum, Religious Exemptions 3.19.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Supporting Document - The Commerce of Diversity 3.19.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Supporting Document - Anch LGBT Discrimination Preliminary Report 3.19.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Supporting Document - Williams Institute 3.19.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 PowerPoint 3.28.19.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Opposing Document - Letters of Opposition 4.1.19 Redacted.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82
HB082 Supporting Document - Letters of Support 4.1.19 Redacted.pdf HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 82