Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/12/1995 09:10 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
April 12, 1995
9:10 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
SENATE BILL NO. 115
"An Act relating to the establishment, modification, and
enforcement of support orders and the determination of parentage in
situations involving more than one state; amending Alaska Rule of
Administration 9; amending Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 79 and
82; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to administrative establishment of paternity and
establishing paternity by affidavit; relating to child support
enforcement; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 137
"An Act relating to retirement incentive programs for the public
employees' retirement system and the teachers' retirement system;
relating to separation incentives for certain state employees; and
providing for an effective date."
SB 138 (TUBERCULOSIS CONTROL) was scheduled, but not taken up this
date.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 115 - No previous action to record.
SB 116 - No previous action to record.
SB 137 - No previous action to record.
SB 138 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Glenda Straube, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
500 W 7th Avenue, Suite 410
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed SB 115 and SB 116.
Art Peterson
Uniform Law Commissioner for Alaska
350 N. Franklin
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed how UIFSA evolved and pointed out
the importance of SB 115.
Marilyn May, Assistant
Attorney General's Office
Child Support Enforcement Division
1031 W 4th, No 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Reiterated the importance of eliminating
multiple court order in SB 115. Offered
information regarding back arrears of child
support in relation to SB 116.
Joan Connors
Office of the Ombudsman
333 W 4th, No 305
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information.
Stuart Hall, Ombudsman
PO Box 113000
Juneau, Alaska 99811-3000
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for SB 115 from the Office of
the Ombudsman.
Bea Hagen, Deputy Ombudsman
250 Cushman Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the importance of direct wage
withholding.
Art Snowden, Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2084
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 115.
Rebecca Eames, Chief
Field Operations
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 240249
Anchorage, Alaska 99524-0249
POSITION STATEMENT: Clarified confusion regarding the amount of
child support received by an AFDC family.
Rick Krueger
PO Box 8172
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Related his personal experience with CSED.
Al Zangri, Chief
Bureau of Vital Statistics
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110675
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0675
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 116.
Annalee McConnell, Director
Office of Management & Budget
Office of the Governor
PO Box 110020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the RIP process under SB 137 and its
projected savings.
Bob Stalnaker, Director
Division of Retirement & Benefits
Department of Administration
PO Box 110203
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0203
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the pay ranges of state positions.
Carolyn Floyd, Mayor
City of Kodiak
PO Box 84
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested an amendment to SB 137.
Val Koeberlein, Finance Director
City of Homer
491 E Pioneer Avenue
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Agreed with Ms. Floyd's statements.
Claudia Douglas
National Education Association-Alaska
114 Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Richard Barlow
Mat-Su School Employees
HCO 2 Box 7550 A-Z
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Bill Munroe
Classified Employee of Mat-Su
2950 Mariann's Place
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Maryjane Murphy
University of Alaska
PO Box 3185
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Michael Daugherty
City of Homer
4060 Heath Street
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Gary Bloomquist
City of Kodiak
PO Box 1397
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Corky McCorkle
PO Box 1397
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Karen Pennington
PO Box 5766
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Mike Haddix
83 Mt. Ash Heights
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Dale Robbins
3710 Hillside Road
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Jackie Kline
PO Box 895
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Jim Chambers, KPCLC
PO Box 3386
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Carol Baldridge
Department of Motor Vehicles
PO Box 3773
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Chris Rankin, FWP
PO Box 2745
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
Lucy Hope
PO Box 870887
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 137.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-30, SIDE A
SB 115 UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT
Number 002
CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:10 a.m. and introduced
SB 115 as the first order of business before the committee.
GLENDA STRAUBE, Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division
(CSED), informed the committee that the Administration has
identified as a priority, a welfare package which is cost
effective, equitable, and ensures that the needs of children are
met. Child support is a critical portion of welfare reform. SB
115 addresses interstate collections which are the most difficult
cases in which to collect. She noted that interstate collections
comprises 44 percent of the division's caseload. She said that
most non-custodial parents know that crossing state lines is the
best manner in which to avoid supporting their children. The
federal government has recognized this and the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act (UIFSA) has already been passed by approximately
21 states. Most other states will be passing UIFSA this session.
SB 115 provides a tool to collect in those interstate cases as well
as minimizing the confusion with multiple orders. Ms. Straube
explained that SB 115 would end multiple state orders; the bill
defines a continuing exclusive jurisdiction state. The bill also
provides a long arm jurisdiction allowing the division to reach
out-of-state obligors. SB 115 would allow administrative actions
in paternity modifications and enforcement of child support orders.
In response to Chairman Green, Ms. Straube explained that often the
courts have to be involved in particular, when the support order
comes from the court. She commented that some states must have
everything go through the court. Any time there are modifications
to an order which was originally established through the court,
those modifications must also go through the court; the court has
a tremendous backlog.
Ms. Straube explained that CSED uses the same guidelines and rules
as the court which is why SB 115 would allow administrative actions
in paternity modifications and enforcement of child support orders.
Usually when someone is out-of-state, the income withholding takes
time and often many individuals have moved on to another job.
SB 115 would allow direct income withholding. She noted that there
is a portion of the bill which deals with federal forms, computer
networks, and others which are all aspects of efficiency. The
elimination of the multiple orders alone is reason enough to pass
SB 115. Ms. Straube predicted that CSED would increase their
collections by approximately $170,000.
Number 119
SENATOR LEMAN asked if SB 115 was the same bill that was before the
legislature last year and if so, what happened with that bill.
GLENDA STRAUBE said that last year's bill did not pass.
ART PETERSON, Attorney with Dylan and Finley, informed everyone
that he was appearing in his capacity as a Uniform Law Commissioner
for Alaska. In response to Senator Leman, SB 115 is the same bill
as last year's with a few technical changes. That bill of last
year was stuck in committee due to other matters that seemed of
higher priority and the bill was never heard again.
SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to the significance of the technical
changes to the bill; would this create difficulties when applied
nationally? ART PETERSON said that if everyone begins from the
same base. For example, Alaska has certain drafting requirements
which are non-substantive and would not create a significant
deviation from the national version. Other states have similar
requirements. The greatest degree of uniformity is always
attempted in order to achieve the interstate benefit from these
acts. SB 115 is practically identical to the national version.
Mr. Peterson noted a slight difference in the definition of state
which does not specifically refer to Indian tribes however, that
issue could be dealt with in other ways. The Chair of the drafting
committee of the Uniform Laws Conference indicated that the
difference in definition is not a significant deviation that should
hold up the act.
GLENDA STRAUBE pointed out that the federal government has asked
states to pass this act and the Congressional House of
Representatives has passed out their welfare reform legislation,
including child support. With that passage, UIFSA is being
mandated.
Number 184
ART PETERSON informed the committee that the drafting committee of
the National Conference began work on this issue due to the
Congressional action of 1975, 1984, and 1988. The National
Conference addressed support guidelines, enforcement procedures,
wage withholding, tax intercepts, and credit reporting which are
all federally required. As the drafting committee worked on the
project, the need for a comprehensive revision of the Uniform
Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) became more apparent.
Every state and jurisdiction has adopted URESA; now they would all
be adopting UIFSA. The main beneficiaries of the adoption of UIFSA
would be the children. Mr. Peterson noted that the system would be
less confusing, more efficient, and most importantly there would
less conflicting court orders. Multiple court orders has been a
major problem under URESA. SB 115 assures that a court which
obtains jurisdiction would keep that jurisdiction. The more
efficient system should benefit the government agencies.
With regards to Mr. Peterson's statement that the children would
benefit, SENATOR LEMAN asked if the children would actually receive
more money or would this be a timing issue? ART PETERSON explained
that typically the amount owed by the debtor parent is
substantially more than AFDC receipts. Therefore, the child would
benefit and benefit earlier without the uncertainty of the current
system.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that the fiscal notes are prepared with regards
to the bill's impact on the state. There is probably a cash flow
that far exceeds the amount designated in the fiscal note that
would be a benefit to children.
GLENDA STRAUBE explained that the fiscal note shows the money that
would come back to AFDC, but the fiscal note does not illustrate
the money returned to the children. In response to Senator Leman,
Ms. Straube said that half of CSED's cases are AFDC which would
assume that the other half would be a similar amount.
Number 253
MARILYN MAY, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Alaska
representing CSED, informed the committee that she had assisted in
the drafting of SB 115. She reiterated the importance of
eliminating multiple orders with UIFSA. Under UIFSA, one state
would have continuing exclusive jurisdiction. UIFSA also sets
forth the rules determining which state has the continuing
exclusive jurisdiction. Furthermore if an obligor moves to another
state, the new state can only enforce the order while the original
issuing state still has the continuing exclusive jurisdiction. She
reiterated that this bill would eliminate much time and confusion
expended in dealing with multiple orders. SB 115 would up date the
current situation of the law regarding child support.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to the degree that UIFSA would deal with
custody determinations. MARILYN MAY informed Senator Salo that
UIFSA deals strictly with child support and spousal support, UIFSA
does not deal with custody determinations at all.
SENATOR SALO asked how the state of jurisdiction portion of SB 115
would affect the Laura Bach case. MARILYN MAY was not familiar
with the child support aspects of the Laura Bach case. That case
had conflicting multiple court orders from multiple states; that
type of situation in a child support setting would be eliminated
under UIFSA.
SENATOR SALO asked if knowing which state has jurisdiction during
custody battles was an issue. GLENDA STRAUBE replied yes, there is
similar confusion across state lines with custody battles as well
as child support matters.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to why that issue had not been dealt with
nationally. ART PETERSON mentioned that the National Conference is
currently working on a project to revise the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction Act which should be completed in 1996.
In regards to Senator Leman's earlier question, GLENDA STRAUBE
explained that the division would collect $340,000 total, of which
half would go to the state. Ms. Straube assumed that if half of
the cases were AFDC, then approximately $340,000 goes to the
children because that amount would match the AFDC amount.
SENATOR LEMAN pointed out that the amount was actually $680,000 per
year, but this fist year is half the fiscal year.
CHAIRMAN GREEN commented on the potential for the system to become
more efficient.
JOAN CONNORS, from the Ombudsman's Office, said that Stuart Hall is
in Juneau with introductory comments.
Number 348
STUART HALL, Ombudsman, informed the committee that the Office of
the Ombudsman supported this legislation. He noted that he had
addressed a letter to the committee on April 5th. The enactment of
this legislation would assist many of those who have sought the
help of the Ombudsman regarding CSED. From the fiscal year 1994 to
date, the Ombudsman has assisted approximately 1,661 individuals
with complaints against CSED with a significant portion of that
being custodial parents who rely on CSED to collect child support
from an out-of-state parent. Mr. Hall emphasized that the
enactment of UIFSA would streamline case establishment which would
result in quicker collections. He urged passage of SB 115.
BEA HAGEN, Deputy Ombudsman, emphasized the importance of direct
wage withholding in other states. Many of the complaints received
in the Ombudsman's Office are regarding the lengthy time that CSED
takes with wage withholding. Often this is not CSED's fault
because the division cannot do this directly, the process can be
lengthy. SB 115 would make direct wage withholding possible.
ART SNOWDEN, Administrative Director of the Judicial Branch of
Government, stated support for this legislation from the Judiciary.
The multiple laws among states are complex and can lead to
problems. Furthermore, the Judiciary also agrees that the only
manner in which to change an order that has been imposed by a
judicial officer is to return to court which increases the courts
work load. The system in SB 115 would be fairest to all people.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that SB 115 be moved out of committee with
accompanying fiscal notes. Hearing no objections, it was so
ordered.
SB 116 PATERNITY; CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Number 406
CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced SB 116 as the next order of business
before the committee.
GLENDA STRAUBE, CSED, stated that SB 116 would provide for the
administrative establishment for paternity. Currently, all
paternity cases must be handled by the Alaska Court System which is
backlogged. CSED does the genetic work and identifies the punitive
father, then the case goes to the court. Only after the case
returns to CSED can the amount of money owed be determined and
collections received. Paternity establishment must be determined
before collections can take place.
Ms. Straube pointed out that the federal regulations have changed
and in order for CSED to conform, CSED must establish 75 percent of
their orders in six months and 90 percent of their orders in 12
months. She reiterated that in order to do the orders, paternity
must be established first. Establishment of paternity alone could
take two and half to three years. She commented that CSED is doing
other administrative things in an attempt to solve this problem.
Currently, the court portion of this could take up to six months.
Under SB 116, CSED would use the same standard as the court which
is already the case. She explained that a case is not sent to the
court unless it meets the standards set forth in AS 25.20.050.
Those standards review if there has been a voluntary
acknowledgement or if there is a 95 percent chance or better
through the genetic test that the person is the father. SB 116
would still allow due process with the option of judicial review.
Ms. Straube reiterated that this legislation would alleviate some
of the backlog in the courts. She indicated that most people
would not use judicial review if CSED uses the same standards as
the court in the establishment of paternity.
Currently, there are 3,200 cases in progress regarding the
establishment of paternity, approximately 70 percent of those cases
are AFDC cases. SB 116 would eliminate at least six months of the
process and perhaps even more. Ms. Straube asserted that CSED
would not be able to meet the federal standards unless this
legislation is passed as well as many in-house and inter-
governmental changes.
Ms. Straube discussed a scenario in which a child born in wedlock
is the child of a third person who acknowledges that he is the
father; everyone agrees that the third person is the father. By
law, CSED cannot accept those affidavits, only the court can accept
those. Currently, those people would have to go to court and file
a paternity action. SB 116 would allow CSED to take the word of
these three people through affidavit; there are other similar
situations in which SB 116 would help. Ms. Straube did not foresee
any problems with SB 116 nor the process.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to the definition of tribunal. AL ZANGRI,
Chief of the Bureau of Vital Statistics for DHSS, directed the
committee to page 2, line 18 of the bill.
SENATOR SALO asked if the application of this referred to CSED.
GLENDA STRAUBE replied yes, CSED is the administrative agency; we
would be the tribunal.
Number 481
SENATOR SALO expressed concern with the six month period in which
a case would sit in the court, but the two years in which it may
take to establish parentage would be of more concern. What are
some of the things being done to deal with this problem? GLENDA
STRAUBE stated that a portion of the governor's welfare reform
deals with co-location. The goal is to place people in the public
assistance office during intake hours in order to do the affidavits
correctly as well as doing the genetic testing. Doing an affidavit
through the mail could take up to six months. Ms. Straube noted
that the Attorney General's Office is also making some changes to
expedite the process on their end.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there would be any point in the process in
which a persons' rights would be infringed upon. GLENDA STRAUBE
clarified that people would have the same rights that they
currently do. Currently, the process begins with an informal
hearing and then a formal hearing and finally, if the person
remains unsatisfied, they could go to court.
SENATOR SALO mentioned the possibility of the mother being
unwilling to name the father; why would that be? GLENDA STRAUBE
informed the committee that of the 3,200 paternity cases, 2,600 of
those have names of the father and 639 do not have the father's
name. Of those 639 cases without names, 482 are AFDC cases. In
her opinion, women do not name the father for reasons ranging from
fear to the desire to not have the father be a part of their life.
Some women do not feel the need to name the father at a particular
time. Ms. Straube also proposed the psychology of protection as
another reason not to name the father.
SENATOR SALO commented that in all the reasons Ms. Straube had
cited the notion that women do not name the father of their
children in order to receive more AFDC was not mentioned. GLENDA
STRAUBE did not believe that a mother would collect more AFDC if
she did not name the father. Ms. Straube explained that the family
receives the first $50 of any child support. They would also
receive anything over the grant.
REBECCA EAMES, representing the Division of Public Assistance,
clarified that if the child support exceeds the AFDC needs
standard, then the mother would be denied AFDC. If the amount of
the child support is less than the AFDC needs standard, the mother
would receive $50 and CSED would receive the remainder.
Number 538
RICK KRUEGER, testifying from Fairbanks, related his personal
experience in which he was notified that CSED was looking for him
in 1986. He called CSED and was informed that a woman whom he had
not seen in seven years was claiming that he was the father of her
child. He cooperated with CSED and filled out the paperwork. CSED
said that they would contact Mr. Krueger regarding taking a blood
test. Six years later, CSED is taking Mr. Krueger to court for six
years of arrears for child support and welfare which total $65,000.
He noted that the amount was reduced by half with the help of an
attorney.
Mr. Krueger said that CSED is currently taking half of his take
home pay for the arrears. He explained that he did not have a
problem with paying the child support, but he felt that he should
only have to pay from the time he received the results of the blood
test. He asserted that CSED recognized their fault in this manner,
but they did not care and wanted the arrears. CSED is a
bureaucracy that is out of control and it does not answer to
anyone. He noted that he had talked to various legislators and
there seems to be nothing that can be done. Mr. Krueger expressed
frustration that his situation took six years when he remained in
the same state. In conclusion, Mr. Krueger recommended the state
taking responsibility in a timely manner in 90 days. If a mother
does not name a father when she applies for welfare, the mother
should not receive benefits. The father should be named
immediately.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Krueger if he was ever informed that he
had a child before CSED was in the matter. RICK KRUEGER said he
was not and added that he is not on the birth certificate.
CHAIRMAN GREEN recognized the concern with late notifications which
create large arrearage. That type of situation does seem punitive
and unfair, but it is not necessarily the state's responsibility to
deal with this.
SENATOR SALO pointed out that although one may sympathize with Mr.
Krueger, meanwhile someone is raising his child and it takes money
to do so. The larger issue here is the care of the child which
should be the parents responsibility, but the state should be
available for assistance if necessary.
GLENDA STRAUBE explained that the lengthy time in which someone
could be notified of their child is not in the purview of CSED, it
is part of federal regulations. However, the amount of time
between any blood test and the establishment of paternity, which SB
116 would help, as well as the time between the establishment of
paternity and their notification of the amount owed should be
controlled.
SENATOR LEMAN said that it did not seem unfair to require the
father to participate in raising their child, it is proper.
TAPE 95-30, SIDE B
Number 590
SENATOR LEMAN indicated that for a woman to name a father years
after the child has been born is unfair; the father has been denied
the opportunity to be a father for that time. There should be a
reasonable amount of time to receive back collection, after that
time the back collection would not be possible. Is there such a
limitation in federal or state law? GLENDA STRAUBE did not know.
In response to Senator Leman, MARILYN MAY did not believe there was
a statute of limitations until after the emancipation of the child.
She noted that most courts have went back six years from the date
the paternity complaint was filed; collection of arrears are
allowed that far back. Ms. May did not believe there should be a
limitation. When a man has unprotected sex it is his
responsibility to know the consequences. It is not appropriate to
penalize the child and the mother for the fact that the father did
not know and did not check the results of his action.
SENATOR LEMAN said that he did not have a problem with the father
taking responsibility, but if the father is not informed of his
child that is another situation. In this case, the father has lost
an opportunity to be a father, even a non-custodial father. He
felt that the mother should take on some responsibility with
regards to notifying the father of the child. MARILYN MAY
reiterated that in most cases the father is held for six years of
arrears prior to the time he was notified of the paternity
complaint which seems to be the limitation for what the mother can
hold the father responsible. Ms. May opposed the penalization of
the child, the loss of support of the child, because the mother had
waited a certain number of years to inform the father of his child.
Ms. May recognized the unfairness to which Senator Leman was
speaking however, a greater unfairness would result if a father
could escape responsibility for a child entirely.
GLENDA STRAUBE specified that these cases often happen because the
mother was not on AFDC when it occurred and paternity was not
established at the time. The problem begins when the mother goes
on AFDC, then CSED takes the case and the mother is required to
name the father.
In response to Chairman Green, MARILYN MAY clarified that even in
a case without AFDC, a mother can apply for services and name an
alleged father and go through the paternity establishment process.
Ms. May did not know how far back the support award could go; the
courts have differed in the allowed arrears prior to the time the
mother requested services.
Number 518
SENATOR SALO was confused because she thought there was a six year
back collection limit. MARILYN MAY said that was true for cases
involving AFDC. Ms. May explained that when a mother applies for
AFDC she is required to assign her right to collect child support
to the state, who requires the mother to name the father. There
are no general requirements that a mother must name a father in
order to receive AFDC. Ms. May pointed out that there is leverage
to make the mother name the father because she could be determined
by the court to be non-cooperative. In an AFDC case, the state has
the right to the repayment of those benefits that were paid to the
mother which is why the courts would go back six years from the
claim made by the state. Ms. May offered to check on the
information regarding the court's stance in those cases that do not
involve AFDC.
GLENDA STRAUBE asserted that regardless of the issues that have
come up today, this bill would help establish paternity and notify
these people faster.
SENATOR SALO said that the bill is a step in the right direction in
order to alleviate some of the court time involved and make the
establishment of paternity an easier process. All the other issues
discussed are important to other pieces of legislation.
In order to clarify for Chairman Green, GLENDA STRAUBE explained
that in AFDC cases back arrears can go back to six years, but in
non-AFDC cases the back arrears would depend upon the court.
MARILYN MAY agreed and added that most of the courts have not went
back for arrears in non-AFDC cases.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if CSED and AFDC would go after the non-
custodial parent on their own for fees that CSED or AFDC did not
have anything to do with paying in those years. GLENDA STRAUBE
believed that CSED and AFDC would not. Ms. Straube offered to get
that information to the committee members. Ms. Straube emphasized
that issue does not change SB 116.
MARILYN MAY pointed out that administrative establishment of
paternity would happen upon the advocation from a mother, custodian
or a legal custodian of the child or from the state. The one
person missing from that list would be the punitive father who is
presumed to be the father of the child by operation of law, if the
man and woman are married. In some cases the husband wants
paternity disestablished. SB 116 would not allow for that type of
case, the bill only addresses the normal establishment of
paternity.
SENATOR SALO concluded that such cases would remain in the purview
of the court. MARILYN MAY said yes, this type of case does not
require an administrative establishment of paternity. Such cases
could be done in court.
Number 441
AL ZANGRI, Bureau of Vital Statistics for DHSS, stated that SB 116
focuses on two primary issues: the three party affidavit and the
establishment of the administrative procedure for the establishment
of paternity. The three party affidavits recognized are voluntary
establishments of paternity by everyone involved. Currently in
statute, there are two party voluntary affidavits of paternity that
are being used. He informed the committee that approximately 30
percent of the births in Alaska are to single mothers which means
that approximately 3,100 children have one named parent.
Approximately 1,400 affidavits are processed in voluntary paternity
every year. The remaining go through involuntary processes through
the court, SB 116 would allow CSED to utilize an administrative
procedure.
Mr. Zangri noted that the other dissatisfied clients would fall
under the three party affidavits. Under current law, three party
affidavits cannot establish paternity. Approximately 300 or 400
people are affected by three party affidavits. By the time the
Bureau of Vital Statistics receives a call, the client is very
upset. Often there is nothing that can be done. When a man and a
woman remain married after many years of separation, if the woman
has a child by another man, the woman's husband must be placed on
the birth certificate and must be give parental rights although, he
is not the father. The husband is legally the father of the child.
Mr. Zangri discussed various scenarios in which the biological
father is not legally recognized as such. The bill would help
these situations. The department supports SB 116.
GLENDA STRAUBE informed the committee that she could have answers
to the committee's questions within an hour.
MARILYN MAY stated that CSED does not seek back payments prior to
the time of the paternity complaint in cases that do not involve
AFDC. If there are cases in which the courts have went back with
arrears, then it is very rare and does not represent the norm.
GLENDA STRAUBE commented that the reason for that is that AFDC is
a federal regulation that CSED does not control.
BEA HAGEN informed Mr. Krueger that could call the 800 number for
the Office of the Ombudsman in Anchorage since Fairbanks does not
have an office.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that SB 116 be reported out of committee with
individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
CHAIRMAN GREEN acknowledged that there were people present to
testify on SB 137 who were from out of town. She informed everyone
that SB 137 would probably not be completed today. The committee
took an at ease from 10:19 a.m. to 10:20 a.m.
SB 137 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Number 366
CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced SB 137 as the next order of business
before the committee.
SENATOR SALO noted that a good portion of SB 137 was in SB 132,
therefore, it might be more appropriate to focus on the portions of
SB 137 that are not in SB 132. The portion of SB 137 that was not
present in SB 132 is the state employees participation in the
program. CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed.
SENATOR SALO felt that those who wanted to testify would possibly
forego their opportunity to testify if they knew that the committee
intended to pass the bill out of committee.
SENATOR MILLER said that he had an amendment which would authorize
the court system to include the executive director in the
retirement incentives program (RIP). This provision was in last
year's bill, although it is not in the governor's bill this year.
He understood that it was the intention of the Chair to move the
bill today. Senator Miller moved that Amendment 1 be adopted.
Hearing no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR SALO reiterated that SB 132 was passed out of HESS last
week which included all the school district employees. SB 137 is
essentially the same process of early retirement. Perhaps, the
discussion today should focus on the state employees included in SB
137. She noted that the only conflict with SB 137 would be
regarding the possibility of the state saving money.
Number 321
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, Director of the Office of Management & Budget
(OMB), emphasized that this retirement incentive program had been
developed differently than past RIPs in order to ensure saving
money and helping with the needed downsizing and restructuring.
One difference in this RIP is that it is not an across the board
program. This RIP is only available if a department has determined
that its plans for restructuring, downsizing, and saving money can
be accomplished by using the RIP. She explained that RIP would be
used in a strategic area with very stringent savings calculations.
The calculations would include employer costs, training costs, and
specialized equipment costs.
Ms. McConnell differentiated between the two scenarios in which RIP
would be used. The first scenario would involve a vacant position
due to downsizing. She expected that type situation to utilize RIP
the most. The savings in that case would be in eliminating the
position all together. She clarified that OMB would eliminate the
vacant position in the following budget cycle. Another scenario
would involve the replacement of a position, but the level of
scrutiny would be extremely high in order to ensure real savings.
She ensured everyone that the costs taken into account would be
very comprehensive in order to have a true savings. Another change
to tighten up the savings was to demonstrate the savings in a three
year period after the position was replaced versus the five year
period of past programs. Ms. McConnell also pointed out that the
budget environment currently is very different than the budget
environment of prior RIP bills. Furthermore, the need for
management tools to accomplish downsizing has changed as well.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were many positions in state
government that allow the range of the Department of Corrections in
which a position could start at a 11A range and move up to a 15J
range; are there some positions that simply begin at a certain
range that cannot be changed. ANNALEE MCCONNELL did not know the
number of situations with the wide range in pay ranges.
Number 234
BOB STALNAKER, Director of the Division of Retirement & Benefits
for the Department of Administration, explained that the majority
of state positions begin at a 15A going through the longevity step.
There are a lot of positions such as a Retirement Specialists who
begin as a Retirement Specialist 1 and moves up to a Retirement
Specialist 3. He noted that moving up to Retirement Specialist 3
was gained by years of learning the systems and counseling. There
are a lot of such positions which seem to be common to many
departments in state government. He stated that there was some
value to not tying the RIP to the elimination of a position, but
replacing the position with a lower paid person.
SENATOR SALO agreed and explained that school districts save money
by replacing positions with a lower paid person. She noted that
eventually, the new hire would move up to the higher range anyway.
Senator Salo pointed out that the scrutiny provision was missing
from the last bill. She felt that the scrutiny provision improved
the bill.
SENATOR LEMAN commented that he had voted for a RIP bill in 1989,
after which he was not convinced that this program saved money.
This RIP is much better and will work if the commitment is honored.
He emphasized that the key to the success of the program is the
commitment to the program. If a program can be designed and there
is commitment to it, then the program could work. Senator Leman
would then support such a program.
ANNALEE MCCONNELL informed Senator Leman that with regards to her
commitment, she has had experience in saying "No". She informed
the committee that she was the Director of Management & Budget in
Anchorage when the RIP bill came up in the late 1980s. At that
time, Anchorage elected not to participate in the RIP. She
emphasized that she would not hesitate in saying no if a
department's plan does not save money or the savings were too
speculative. She explained that since the majority of positions
would be eliminated under this RIP, the uncertainty is not so close
or speculative.
Number 171
SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to the up front costs of RIPs which would
pose a concern. BOB STALNAKER pointed out that SB 137 provides
that the employer must demonstrate savings. The employer pays the
cost by virtue of that savings. Mr. Stalnaker explained that if an
employer can show a savings over three years by utilizing RIP, then
those costs can be paid over the same three years. There is no
front loading; the agencies must maintain within the approved
budget. The agencies must take a portion of their savings to pay
the RIP costs before the person qualifies.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that she intended to move SB 137 out of
committee today. Those who are not in support of the bill and wish
to testify should come forward. Chairman Green informed everyone
who had signed up to testify that they would be shown in support of
SB 137, unless they wished to speak in opposition to the bill. She
proceeded to ask if any of the sites on teleconference wanted to
testify.
CAROLYN FLOYD, Mayor of the City of Kodiak, informed the committee
that Kodiak is facing a real dollar reduction in their budget and
they are looking for additional savings. She noted that the
committee should have a letter from Kodiak in support of SB 137.
She emphasized the need for an amendment that would make
eligibility for three years begin July 1, 1995 or not later than
October 1, 1995. She explained that this earlier opening date with
an extended length of eligibility was due to the increased turnover
caused with this program. Under the proposed program, the City of
Kodiak would have to hire and train 25 percent of their entire work
force, 16 employees would be eligible for early retirement. Many
of these positions are a more experienced and knowledgeable level.
Furthermore, a longer period would allow the counsel and management
the opportunity to evaluate personnel resources and restructure the
city's operations. She noted that the reduced hours of vacation
had not been calculated which would also affect Kodiak's budget.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if those comments were included in her letter.
CAROLYN FLOYD replied yes. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that suggestion
would be passed on to the Finance Committee, the next committee of
referral.
BOB STALNAKER stated that this concern of Ms. Floyd is an issue for
many employers. He pointed out that another difference between SB
132 and SB 137 is that SB 137 includes political subdivisions not
just school districts. The delayed process is present in order to
provide the most efficient staffing needs so as not to delay
retirement or the employers ability to enter necessary contracts.
The staffing needs could be reviewed to allow the political
subdivisions the same amount of time as the state.
Number 072
VAL KOEBERLEIN, the Finance Director for the City of Homer, agreed
with Kodiak's comments. The extended time would afford the city
the opportunity to restructure. He informed the committee that if
Homer had to fill 11 positions all at once, they would still save
$370,000 over three years. With the extended time in which some of
the positions would be eliminated, the savings would increase to
approximately $700,000.
SENATOR SALO moved that CS SB 137(HES) be reported out of committee
with individual recommendations.
SENATOR LEMAN objected in order to point out that the last line on
page 1 is repeated on the top of page 2. He recommended that
technical problem be noted for clean up. Senator Leman removed his
objection.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was further objection. Hearing no
further objection, CS SB 137(HES) was moved out of committee with
individual recommendations.
There being no further business before the committee, the meeting
adjourned at 10:44 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|