Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/10/1998 04:50 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
10 May, 1998
4:50 p.m.
TAPES
SFC 98-167, Side A
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Bert Sharp, Co-Chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 4:50 p.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-Chair Sharp, Senators Pearce, Torgerson,
Adams, Parnell, Donley, and Phillips were present at the
meeting.
Also Attending: Representative Fred Dyson, Sponsor; Senator
Gary Wilken; Julie Lucky, Staff, Senator Rick Halford,
Chair, Senate Resources Committee; Barbara Miklos,
Director, Child Support Enforcement Division, Department of
Revenue; Dan Branch, Department of Law; Representative John
Davies, Sponsor.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
CSHB 344(FIN)
PATERNITY/CHILD SUPPORT/NONSUPPORT
SCS CSHB 344(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with zero
fiscal notes by the Department of Administration,
the Department of Revenue, and the Department of
Community and Regional Affairs Committee.
HB 367 PART-TIME PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT ENROLLMENT
SCSHB 367(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
no recommendation and an indeterminate fiscal
note by the Department of Education.
CSHB 408(FIN)
SEISMIC HAZARDS SAFETY COMMISSION
CSHB 408(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
no recommendation and a fiscal note from the
Office of the Governor.
HOUSE BILL NO. 367
"An Act relating to part-time public school students;
and providing for an effective date."
Senator Pearce MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1.
Senator Adams OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, SPONSOR, spoke to Amendment 1.
He stated that he preferred a second amendment, which would
put the same thing in intent language instead of in
statute. He stressed that the intention was that the school
districts not discriminate against students on the basis of
academic classes. The intent was to have the law be
absolutely silent in terms of interscholastic sports and
activities. He suspected that the second amendment would
clearly speak to academics only.
Co-chair Sharp noted concerns that had been communicated to
him that the item not result in recruitment of athletes
between different teams or schools.
Senator Pearce referred to a communication from the
Anchorage School District. She questioned changes that had
been made in the language.
Representative Dyson replied that the language was put in
by the House to address concerns that people would think
the item would allow part-time students to have access to
all school activities. He believed the bill was clear about
the issue. The language was then taken out in the Senate
Health, Education and Social Services Committee (HESS) to
allay other concerns.
SENATOR GARY WILKEN spoke to Amendment 1. He explained that
the language in the amendment had been in the bill and then
removed by the Senate HESS Committee. He reported that his
district was supportive of the bill with the amendment and
against it without the amendment. He requested the sentence
stipulating that extracurricular activities not be included
be put back in the bill. He believed that there would be
serious consequences in schools without the item. He
encouraged full public debate on the issue and noted that
the school districts of Valdez, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and
Kenai were against the bill without the amendment.
Senator Phillips referred to Amendment 3 (expected to be
offered by Senator Donley), which he believed would do
essentially the same thing.
Senator Wilken responded that he did not think intent
language was sufficient.
Senator Adams MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Phillips, Torgerson, Sharp, Pearce
OPPOSED: Parnell, Adams
Senator Donley was absent from the vote.
The motion PASSED (4/2). Amendment 1 was adopted.
Senator Sharp pointed out that Amendments 2 and 3 were
moot.
Senator Torgerson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4.
Senator Adams OBJECTED.
Senator Torgerson stated that his school district was
against the legislation and did not feel the amendment
would help. However, he supported the sponsor, who wanted
the legislation with the amendment, which related to a
rural exemption.
Representative Dyson stated that HB 367 was against
discrimination. He referred to a letter from the Kenai
School District that he felt exactly explained the issue.
He pointed to sentence three:
I find it hard to believe that we should give equal
access to our school programs for students who only
want to select one or two classes at a time…Our
constitution says that we must provide public
education to all students. It is this attitude that I
believe contravenes our constitution and indeed will
elicit lawsuits. The law that we passed unanimously in
both houses last year said part-time students must be
treated the same as full-time. Denying access to a kid
just because he is part time clearly contravenes last
year's law, and I find it reprehensible.
Co-chair Sharp noted that a district might assume that it
would get one full-time-equivalent student for
correspondence students, which may not be the case in a few
days. He thought districts might get a lot less.
Senator Adams MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Torgerson, Pearce, Sharp
OPPOSED: Phillips, Donley, Parnell, Adams
The motion FAILED (4/3). Amendment 4 was not adopted.
Senator Phillips MOVED to REPORT SCS CSHB 367(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SCSHB 367(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no
recommendation and an indeterminate fiscal note by the
Department of Education.
HOUSE BILL NO. 344
"An Act relating to paternity establishment and to
support orders; relating to the crime of criminal
nonsupport; relating to divorces, dissolutions, and
actions to declare a marriage void; and providing for
an effective date."
Co-chair Sharp noted that a great deal of work had been
done on the Senate version of the legislation (a Senate
companion bill) by the Senate Resources Committee (RES),
resulting in a CS.
JULIE LUCKY, STAFF, SENATOR RICK HALFORD, CHAIR, SENATE
RESOURCES COMMITTEE, agreed that a lot of work had been
done on the Senate companion bill (SB 252) in Senate RES
resulting in changes that were rolled into the CS for HB
344 before the Senate Finance Committee [SCS CSHB
344(FIN)].
Ms. Lucky provided an overview of the changes made. She
noted that the first two sections remained the same.
Ms. Lucky addressed changes in Section 3, dealing with the
revocation of licenses for contempt; Senate RES added
drivers and occupational licensing and a definition for
recreational licensing. There were concerns that people who
relied on sports fishing and hunting licenses for
subsistence and personal use would not be able to engage in
those activities if licenses were revoked. Both custodial
and non-custodial parents had the concern. The committee
created a recreational license category in order to conform
to the federal mandate (requiring suspension of
recreational and sport licenses). The recreational license
category would include sport fishing and hunting licenses
that were not required for subsistence or personal use.
Ms. Lucky turned to changes in Sections 4 and 5, dealing
with revocation of licenses for criminal non-support, with
the same recreational license definition described in
Section 3.
Ms. Lucky addressed Sections 6 through 9, dealing with the
Department of Fish and Game collecting social security
numbers and giving them to the department, which were in
the original bill.
Ms. Lucky noted that Section 10 was also part of the
original bill. The next change was made in Section 21;
"sent by first class mail" was omitted, and "serve" was put
in. Senate RES was concerned that there was no proof that a
person received first-class mail. With the change, people
could either serve or use certified mail/return receipt
requested.
Ms. Lucky turned to Section 23, dealing with employer
reporting. She noted that a provision had been put in on
the floor of the House to allow employers to report by
email; that was taken out, since email was not a secure
method of reporting things like social security numbers.
The reporting had to be done by first-class mail.
Ms. Lucky discussed a change in Sections 23 (d) and 23 (f)
made because of confusion during the bill's drafting
related to definitions by labor organizations about what it
meant to be an employer; the reference to employer
organizations was taken out. The civil penalty was changed
in Section 23 (f)(1) and 23 (f)(2); the mandate did not
require a civil penalty, so the value was reduced to $10
and $100.
Ms. Lucky indicated that there was an amendment regarding
Section 23 (g), which would otherwise take Alaska out of
compliance with the federal act. The error was a drafting
error and the amendment would take the section out.
Ms. Lucky explained that the last line in Section 24 was
reworded for clarity to "as if the subpoena had been issued
by a court" so that people could understand that the
subpoena would have the same weight.
Ms. Lucky directed attention to Sections 25 and 26. There
had been a concern that there was not enough time for a
putative father to respond; the CS lengthened the time to
30 days for a father to get financial records and 45 days
to get genetic testing (if paternity was being reputed).
Section 25 had to be changed as well (for consistency) from
20 to 30 days for the financial records.
Co-chair Sharp clarified that the original bill had 20- and
30-day requirements; the changes were to 30 days for
financial records and 45 days to submit to genetic testing.
Ms. Lucky continued that the next change was in Section 31.
She noted that Sections 31 through 44 went together but
dealt with two different kinds of licensing. Basically, the
agency would be allowed to only revoke licenses if someone
was found in substantial non-compliance; a best-efforts
clause was added to substantial non-compliance. Therefore,
an agency could not revoke an occupational or drivers
license unless a person was found in substantial non-
compliance. The clause was taken out in many sections
because it was repetitive. It used to say that the agency
could take the license if the person failed to comply with
a subpoena; that was put into Section 3 of the bill
(related to the courts).
Ms. Lucky pointed out that a best-efforts clause to
substantial non-compliance was added to Section 42 (c);
when someone was found to be making the best efforts they
could under their circumstances, they would not be found
under substantial non-compliance and would not have their
licenses revoked.
Ms. Lucky explained that Sections 44 through 52 were the
same. Section 53 was added to make the act non-severable;
if any section was found to be unconstitutional, the whole
act would be found unconstitutional.
Co-chair Sharp asked whether there was a strengthening of
an item related to contempt orders by the court.
Ms. Lucky replied that the item was in Section 3 of HB 344.
The Resources Committee had added "the court may suspend,
restrict, or revoke a driver's license or a license as
defined in AS 25.27.244(f)." The section used to apply only
to sport hunting and fishing licenses; by rolling in the
driver's and occupational licenses, the state made it so
the court would have to find the person in contempt in
order to take the licenses away, as opposed to the agency
finding the person in contempt.
Senator Adams asked whether there was anything in the bill
that would make it a crime for any agency employee to sell
a list with social security numbers.
Ms. Lucky replied that the item was in the Senate version
of the bill, but it would have needed a title change to be
in the House version, so there was not a provision
regarding the sale of the lists of social security numbers.
Co-chair Sharp believed there was also reference to
penalties or restrictions on the vendor who sold the
licenses, but that also would have meant a title change.
BARBARA MIKLOS, DIRECTOR, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, explained that the bill
had originally been introduced to comply with welfare
reform requirements, which were passed in 1996 and amended
the year prior by Congress. She stated that the original
intent of the legislation was only to comply with welfare
reform; there could have been serious penalties to the
state of Alaska, including losing all the federal money
that went into child support (approximately $13 million)
and public assistance (about $63 million). The bill was
introduced, and she believed it had been made better as it
progressed through the system, including additional
protections worked on in Senate HESS and Senate RES.
Ms. Miklos emphasized that amending Section (g) on page 10
would bring the legislation into compliance with federal
requirements. The Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED)
also believed that the bill would correct some of the
problems that had been in the previous year's legislation.
For example, some of the court documents were public, yet
contained social security numbers. She stated that the
current bill would make the information confidential.
Ms. Miklos reviewed concerns about two provisions in the
bill. First, Section 50; CSED had originally requested that
the sunset section be repealed, but the section had a
sunset of 2001. She emphasized her desire to improve the
agency, and she believed the legislation would take time
away from her job. Second, there were concerns about non-
severability. She stated that CSED believed that the
previous piece of legislation did not have anything that
was unconstitutional. She did not want the entire piece of
legislation to fail because of one possible provision. With
those two exceptions, CSED believed the current version of
the bill was much improved over the version it had
introduced.
Co-chair Sharp asked for more information about non-
severability.
Ms. Miklos replied that if any part was found
unconstitutional, it would all go.
Senator Torgerson asked whether a provision in the previous
year's bill had been found unconstitutional.
Ms. Miklos responded that a superior court judge had
believed taking a driver's license for non-compliance with
child support was unconstitutional; the issue was still in
the state supreme court and a decision had not been
reached.
Senator Torgerson asked whether the issue was the merits of
taking the license or the merits of not providing a public
defender for the person.
DAN BRANCH, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, responded that the issue was
the merits. He thought one of the problems would be solved
by the present bill; one of the difficulties the court had
was that the occupational licensing statute (which was
almost identical to the driver's license statute) had a
provision that would allow someone to avoid having their
license taken away if they could show they made best
efforts to keep current with their child support debt. The
same provision was not placed in the driver's license
revocation statute and the court felt that created two
disparate classes. The current bill would take care of the
problem by giving someone who was trying to hold onto their
driver's license a chance to do so by showing best efforts
to make the payments.
Senator Torgerson recalled that he had had concerns about
the prior year's version of the bill related to other
states having the power to come into Alaska and put a lien
on personal or real properties or assets without checking
with Alaska agencies. He asked whether the current version
had the provision.
Mr. Branch answered that the current version of the bill
contained a provision that would allow another state to
record a lien, in the same way CSED could record a lien.
That meant that CSED could go to the land recording office
and put a notice of lien in the recording for a person with
a child support debt who had property. The notice would
inform the person and anyone else that money was owed and
had to be addressed before the property could be sold.
Senator Torgerson asked whether the provision was standard
on any lien. Mr. Branch replied that it was.
Senator Phillips MOVED to ADOPT CSC CSHB 344(FIN) (version
"K") as a working document before the committee. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
Senator Phillips MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
Senator Donley MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2. He explained the
amendment would add the contents of SB 306 to the omnibus
proposal. He reviewed that SB 306 had been heard by the
committee already, had passed the Senate unanimously, and
was in the House Judiciary Committee. He added that the
bill dealt with some of the same issues that the title
covered for HB 344 in that it provided a slightly different
system for which a parent could get the income tax
deduction in child support cases. The bill put out a system
so that someone who wanted to continue to receive the
benefit of a tax deduction also had to make child support
payments. Failing making the payments would mean that they
could not receive the tax deduction.
Senator Donley stressed that a title change would not be
required. He read part of the title and stressed that SB
306 was the same subject matter.
Senator Adams testified that he supported the amendment;
however, he stated that he would be more comfortable if
there was a legal opinion that SB 306 fit into HB 344.
Co-chair Sharp reported that he had held back from putting
two sections he wanted into the bill (related to penalties
for sale or disclosure of lists) because the items would
require a title change. He was hesitant to do anything that
would require a title change, because of timing.
Co-chair Sharp stated that he would support the amendment
as long as there was a letter from the drafter that a title
change would not be required. There was a discussion about
the issue.
Senator Adams stated that the minority did not mind if the
amendment was attached. He believed a title change could be
done in the Rules Committee if it were needed.
Senator Donley noted that HB 344 had an immediate effective
date and he wanted the amendment to have a delayed
effective date (June 1, 1999) to give the courts a chance
to prepare for the change on support orders. There would be
a new Section 4.
Co-chair Sharp did not believe the proposal would cause a
problem with the severability clause.
Senator Donley pointed to a general severability clause in
statute. There was a discussion about severability clauses.
Senator Donley MOVED a conceptual amendment that the
drafters could draft the legislation so that it was not
subject to the non-severability clause.
Co-chair Sharp summarized that Amendment 2 would add
separate sections to the bill that would incorporate the
items in Amendment 2 with the added effective date of July
1, 1999. Without objection, Amendment 2 as amended was
adopted.
Co-chair Sharp referred to the zero fiscal notes.
Senator Donley MOVED to REPORT SCS CSHB 34(FIN) as amended
out of committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
SCS CSHB 344(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by the
Department of Administration, the Department of Revenue,
and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs
Committee.
HOUSE BILL 408
"An Act establishing the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety
Commission."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, SPONSOR, reported that the bill
would create a seismic hazard safety commission. The
commission would be a catalyst advisory body that would
bring together various groups in Alaska to prepare for
earthquakes. He noted that Alaska was subject to
earthquakes and had experienced three of the ten largest
earthquakes in the world, including the earthquake in 1964.
After the 1964 earthquake, many other states in the Western
U.S. had created seismic safety commissions, but Alaska had
not. He added that nearly every state in the nation
participated in some kind of seismic safety planning. He
pointed out that there were typically 40,000 to 50,000
deaths when there was a large earthquake somewhere else in
the world of magnitude 5 or 6, but in the U.S., there were
few casualties because of building codes. The bill would
prevent the loss of lives during earthquakes in the most
cost-effective way.
Senator Pearce referred to work done by the statewide
Emergency Planning Commission and noted that seismic
emergencies were part of the statewide plan in statute.
Representative Davies responded that the planning
commission dealt with response and not mitigation, which
was true in all the Western states. He stressed that there
was very little overlap between the two activities.
Mitigation related to building codes and [end of tape].
[SFC 98-167, Side B]
Senator Phillips MOVED to REPORT CSHB 408(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note.
There was an OBJECTION to the motion.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Adams, Phillips, Donley, Sharp
OPPOSED: Pearce, Torgerson
Senator Parnell was absent from the vote.
The motion PASSED (4/2).
CSHB 408(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no
recommendation and a fiscal note from the Office of the
Governor.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-chair Sharp recessed the meeting to the call of the
chair at approximately 5:45 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|