Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/01/1995 09:05 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
March 1, 1995
9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chairman
Senator Loren Leman, Vice-Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Judy Salo
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SHES - 3/1/95
SB 88 (PILOT PROGRAM FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS) was scheduled, but not
heard this date.
SENATE BILL NO. 83
"An Act relating to the appointment and removal of the commissioner
of education; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 15
"An Act extending the termination date of the Citizens' Review
Panel for Permanency Planning; and providing for an effective
date."
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 27
"An Act relating to child visitation rights of grandparents and
other persons who are not the parents of the child."
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 17
Supporting the Alaska Humanities Forum and the National Endowment
for the Humanities; endorsing federal legislation reauthorizing and
funding the National Endowment for the Humanities; requesting the
United States Congress to fund the National Endowment for the
Humanities at a fair and reasonable level; and urging the President
of the United States to support legislation reauthorizing and
funding at a fair and reasonable level the National Endowment for
the Humanities.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 88 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated
2/22/95.
SB 83 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated
2/20/95.
SB 15 - No previous action to record.
SB 27 - No previous action to record.
SJR 17 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Jan Levy, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
The Governor's Office
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed that SB 83 addresses the concerns of
the Department of Law and the Governor's
office.
Senator Ellis
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of SB 15.
Cecilia Kleinkauf
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged that SB 15 be moved out of committee.
Paulene Hafund, Volunteer Panelist
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the endorsement of SB 15.
Sharon Barton, Director
Division of Administration
Citizen Foster Care Review Supervisor
P.O. Box 110208
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0208
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the presence of the fiscal note in
SB 15.
Senator Donley
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of SB 27.
Senator Rieger
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of SJR 17.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-9, SIDE A
SHES - 3/1/95
SB 88 PILOT PROGRAM FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS
Number 002
CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:05 a.m. and noted that
SB 88 would be held until the next meeting.
SHES - 3/1/95
SB 83 COMMR OF ED TO SERVE AT GOV'S PLEASURE
CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced SB 83 as the next order of business
before the committee.
SENATOR MILLER moved to adopt CS SB 83(HES), Lauterbach K version
2/28/95, in lieu of the original bill in order to have a working
draft.
SENATOR ELLIS objected.
SENATOR MILLER clarified that the motion was to adopt the
Lauterbach K version 2/28/95 of SB 83 as the working committee
substitute.
JAN LEVY, Department of Law, stated that she would be testifying on
behalf of the Department of Law and the Governor's office. She
inquired as to which CS the committee was referring.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that it was the CS dated 2/28/95.
JAN LEVY explained that the original legislation introduced by the
Governor's office was in response to concerns regarding the
Commissioner of Education. When the Administration changed, the
Commissioner of Education did not submit his resignation at the
request of the Governor which resulted in financial costs to the
state. The original bill had the commissioner serve at the
pleasure of the governor; the Governor's office has understood the
committee's concerns with this issue. This CS addresses the
Governor's concerns as well as the concerns of the Department of
Law. She stated that the commissioner should be accountable to
someone, whether it would be the Governor of the Board of
Education.
Ms. Levy noted the discussion of whether or not removing the cause
provisions from the existing law would be good policy. She pointed
out that the Board, by statute, is composed of individuals from all
over the state. She commented that when a commissioner loses the
confidence of four members of the board, the Governor's office
believes that should be sufficient cause for the board to replace
that individual. This CS addresses the concerns of the Department
of Law, the Department of Education, and the Governor's office
Number 100
SENATOR ELLIS removed his objection to the adoption of the CS.
SENATOR LEMAN pointed out that the CS with regard to the
Commissioner of Fish and Game retains some of the power within the
Board through the method of removal; the method of removal is to
submit a resolution to the governor requesting the removal of the
commissioner. The final decision to remove or retain the
commissioner would be made by the governor. He stated that the
Department of Education was different in that the commissioner
would serve at the pleasure of the board. He explained that with
the Commissioner of Fish and Game, the board would have to initiate
the action, but the governor would still have the ultimate
authority.
JAN LEVY said that Senator Leman was correct. She mentioned that
the Department of Law holds the position of the Constitution which
maintains that a principle head of a department serves at the
pleasure of the governor. Therefore, an individual serving as a
department head would serve at the pleasure of the governor. She
interpreted that section as providing a mechanism in which the
board could initiate action if they have concerns and the governor
has not begun any action. She emphasized that the Department of
Education is the only department which the legislature has chosen
to be headed by a board.
SENATOR MILLER moved that the CS SB 83(HES) be moved out of
committee with individual recommendations. Without objection, it
was so ordered.
SHES - 3/1/95
SB 15 EXTEND FOSTER CARE REVIEW PANEL
Number 160
CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced SB 15 as the next order of business
before the committee.
SENATOR ELLIS, prime sponsor, thanked the Chair for having the bill
before the committee. He stated that children in the custody of
the state deserve a high commitment. He recounted the history of
the issue of permanency planning, independent citizen dominated
foster care review. Independent citizen dominated foster care
review is a group of citizens and service providers working with
social workers to achieve the best for the child, placing the child
in a permanent placement as early as possible. He pointed out that
a child often endures abuse first, from an individual and then from
the system; the legislature has the power to change the abuse of
these children by the system.
Senator Ellis explained that SB 15 proposes to extend the
permanency planning effort in Alaska, although it would not be the
full-blown effort envisioned with the original legislation. He
noted that Representative Toohey has a similar bill. This
legislation is a bipartisan effort. He directed the committee
members to the state audit in their packets which justified the
extension.
CECILIA KLEINKAUF thanked the committee for the opportunity to
testify. She noted her involvement in the effort to establish
foster care review in Alaska. She explained that under the federal
Adoption Assistance and Health Welfare Act of 1980, children's
foster care is required to have a written case plan within a short
time period after a child is placed. The case plan must be
reviewed on a regularly scheduled basis, but states are given the
ability to decide whether to do those reviews internally or through
an external citizen review. Alaska chose to do internal reviews
until 1990. When concerns began to arise, the original legislation
Senator Ellis referred to was introduced.
Number 236
Ms. Kleinkauf stated that the original legislation established an
independent citizen foster care review board. Many other states
have established similar independent foster care review boards due
to the need to review the state agencies from an outside vantage.
She noted that research, particularly in Nebraska, has illustrated
that independent review is more successful in returning children
home or to a permanency plan. Due to the high case loads and
stress which social workers face, the federally mandated reviews
may fall to the wayside in order to deal with other issues.
Ms. Kleinkauf clarified that the independent review board's sole
function is to review child welfare cases in order to ascertain if
the state is providing reasonable effort to either prevent
placement or to reunite children when possible. The independent
review board also reviews the efforts for permanent plans for
placement of the child. She stated that she always supported
legislation in this area. The independent foster care review board
is a more beneficial approach to permanency placement than an
internal review approach. She urged the committee to pass SB 15
out of committee. She noted that independent review, in other
states, has demonstrated increased permanency for children and
decreased costs to the state.
Number 280
PAULENE HAFUND, volunteer panelist for foster care review,
appreciated the opportunity to testify. She informed the committee
that there are approximately 20 volunteers who have contributed
over 1,650 volunteer hours on this project in the last 15 months.
These children are our future and should be supported in the best
manner possible. She said that they were working with the Division
of Family and Youth Services (DFYS). She explained that as a
volunteer citizen, their input may be different than that from a
social worker. From December of 1993 to January of 1995, the panel
has reviewed the cases of 263 children of which 50 percent were
pre-school age. Furthermore, 142 of those children have been
reviewed more than once. She believed that this indicated that the
panel is having an impact. She urged the committee to endorse
SB 15.
CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to the will of the committee.
SENATOR ELLIS moved that SB 15 be moved out of committee with
individual recommendations.
SENATOR LEMAN objected. He noted the presence of a fiscal note and
the back up attached. He asked if it would be necessary to have
new staff for this panel or could it be integrated into the system.
SHARON BARTON, Department of Administration, stated that she
currently supervises the Citizens Foster Care Review program. The
fiscal note was essential when the legislation was written because
the funding had been zeroed out of the Governor's budget. She
pointed out that the Governor's amended budget, sent across
yesterday, restored the funding for the program. The fiscal note
would now be zero. If the bill passes, the funding would be
supported in the department's budget. She specified that this
would merely maintain the current level of staffing of the program.
SENATOR LEMAN asked how many children's cases were reviewed by the
three person panel. SHARON BARTON reiterated that in the last 14
months, they have reviewed 260 cases. The two social workers do
most of the organizational work for the panels such as preparing
the packets, setting up the logistics, reviewing and summarizing
the files.
Number 337
SENATOR LEMAN asked if Ms. Barton felt that such a workload for
three individuals was reasonable. SHARON BARTON expressed
confidence in stating that the state is receiving great work for
minimal resources. The social workers are Range 14 and work many
hours of overtime. Ms. Barton pointed out that the panel does not
have any clerical support, their furniture is surplus. Ms. Barton
indicated that they have contemplated the possibility of organizing
this staff in another configuration in order to cover more children
statewide. There may be a manner in which this money could be
spread to touch more children.
SENATOR LEMAN removed his objection.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that without other objection, SB 15 would be
moved out of committee with individual recommendations.
SHES - 3/1/95
SB 27 MISC. GRANDPARENT VISITATION RIGHTS
Number 386
CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced SB 27 as the next order of business
before the committee.
SENATOR DONLEY, prime sponsor, noted that SB 27 has been around for
at least four years. He explained that SB 27 would allow
grandparents the right to have standing to petition the courts for
visitation rights. Alaska is the only state where grandparents do
not have such standing. He clarified that there is a statute which
references grandparent visitation, but the court must take the
action. The grandparents are not allowed to initiate such action.
He said that there was a strong public policy reason for allowing
this, family relations. He recounted the past of SB 27. In
conclusion, he emphasized that SB 27 is clear regarding that
visitation would only be allowed when in the best interest of the
child.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to how SB 27 compared to the legislation
last year. She also asked if Senator Donley could address the
problem in the past regarding the issue of dissolution. SENATOR
DONLEY pointed out that SB 27 does not contain Section 4 which
referenced that in last year's bill.
SENATOR SALO asked why that section was eliminated. SENATOR DONLEY
explained that Section 4 was eliminated due to controversy
surrounding it.
SENATOR SALO said that she recalled the controversy being related
to the definition of dissolution. A dissolution is an agreement
which does not involve review by a judge. She asked how that would
happen under SB 27. SENATOR DONLEY stated that it would not happen
because the issue is no longer covered in this legislation.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that SB 27 be reported out of committee with
individual recommendations. Without objection, it was so ordered.
An at ease was called at 9:36 a.m.
SHES - 3/1/95
SJR 17 NAT'L ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
Number 435
CHAIRMAN GREEN called the committee back to order at 9:40 a.m. and
introduced SJR 17 as the last order of business before the
committee.
SENATOR RIEGER, prime sponsor, stated that SJR 17 addressed the
National Endowment for the Humanities which is under federal
consideration for reauthorization. He noted that the National
Endowment for the Humanities is a far-reaching organization in
Alaska. He supported budget reductions at the federal level, but
all aspects of federal spending should be reviewed. SJR 17 does
not request a hold harmless for this endowment, but it would
request a fair and equitable solution. He encouraged the committee
to review the backup of SJR 17, a lot of benefits have been
achieved with little money.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were other questions.
SENATOR LEMAN agreed that the National Endowment for the Humanities
has achieved many beneficial programs. However, should the general
public be forced to contribute to these programs through taxation?
He reiterated that there are benefits gained, but he objected in
principle to this non-core governmental function. Obtaining
private donations or other funding mechanisms in order to end
federal funding and control would seem more appropriate.
SENATOR MILLER stated that he shared some of the concerns of
Senator Leman. He asked at what point should the government be
involved in the arts and when should private donations come into
play. Government funding carries government control. He did not
want censorship; do not require that everyone fund these programs
some of which are felt to be objectional to some people, use your
own funding. The vast majority of the programs in the Alaska
Humanities are good programs, however, programs regarding political
issues do not seem appropriate. Perhaps, the funding of political
programs should be obtained elsewhere. In conclusion, this
legislation seems to be a philosophical debate.
Number 499
SENATOR RIEGER acknowledged that he had given that point some
thought, but throughout history most great cultures have devoted a
portion of their national resources to the arts and humanities. In
a historical context, the amount of funding of this would be
considered low in comparison to previous cultures.
CHAIRMAN GREEN moved that SJR 17 be moved out of committee with
individual recommendations. SENATOR LEMAN objected to the funding
mechanism.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Ellis, and Salo voted "Yeah"
and Senators Leman and Miller voted "Nay." The motion passed and
SJR 17 was passed out of committee with individual recommendations.
There being no further business before the committee, the meeting
adjourned at 9:49 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|