Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
02/26/2018 01:30 PM Senate HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Citizen Review Panel Presentation on the Department of Health and Social Services Office of Children's Services | |
| SB122 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | SB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 26, 2018
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator David Wilson, Chair
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Vice Chair
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Tom Begich
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CITIZEN REVIEW PANEL PRESENTATION ON THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES
- HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 122
"An Act repealing the authority for a child abuse or neglect
citizen review panel in the Department of Health and Social
Services; and establishing the Child Protection Citizen Review
Panel in the office of the ombudsman."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 122
SHORT TITLE: OCS CITIZEN REVIEW PANEL
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) COGHILL
05/17/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/17/17 (S) HSS, JUD, FIN
02/26/18 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
DIWAKAR VADAPALLI, Ph.D., Chair
Alaska Citizen Review Panel (CRP);
Assistant Professor of Public Policy
Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Alaska Citizen Review Panel.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
Senator John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 122 on behalf of the sponsor.
KATE BURKHART
State Ombudsman
Alaska Office of the Ombudsman
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 122.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:30:29 PM
CHAIR DAVID WILSON called the Senate Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Present at the
call to order were Senators Giessel, Begich, von Imhoff, and
Chair Wilson. Senator Micciche arrived soon thereafter.
^Citizen Review Panel Presentation on the Department of Health
and Social Services Office of Children's Services
CITIZEN REVIEW PANEL PRESENTATION ON THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES
1:31:14 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced the business before the committee would
be a presentation from the Citizen Review Panel.
1:31:42 PM
DIWAKAR VADAPALLI, Ph.D., Chair, Alaska Citizen Review Panel
(CRP) and Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Institute of
Social and Economic Research (ISER), University of Alaska
Anchorage, presented Alaska Citizen Review Panel. He noted that
this is his fifth year as chair of the panel.
He gave the presentation outline.
• Goals and recommendations from 2016-2017
• Goals for 2017-2018
• Recent attempts to improve CRP-OCS collaboration
• Way forward
DR. VADAPALLI said this was the second presentation in the 15
years of the panel's existence. In his presentation, he will
focus on challenges that led to SB 122. In a letter last week,
Alaska's ombudsman expressed support for the potential move of
the Citizen Review Panel (CRP) as intended by SB 122. He will
try to present his views on the work of the CRP in a way that
complements the bill.
1:33:43 PM
DR. VADAPALLI presented Goals 2015-2016.
• GOAL 1: Explore the evolving relationships between Tribal
organizations and OCS.
• GOAL 2: Review the implementation of the OCS grievance
policy
• GOAL 3: Develop and disseminate public awareness materials
on OCS' intake and IA processes
• GOAL 4: Evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the new
administrative review process
The CRP annual work plan is available at crpalaska.org. The
goals were pursued through policy review, data analysis,
discussions with more than 100 individuals in key positions, and
OCS leadership. The next slides will present recommendations
that came from these goals.
He presented OCS-Tribal Relationships.
Recommendation 1: Consider assigning the CRP a
significant role in implementing various priority
areas of "Transforming Child Welfare Outcomes for
Alaska Native Children: Strategic Plan 2016-2020".
With its statutory authority, CRP will be an asset for
OCS in implementing this strategic plan.
DR. VADAPALLI said everyone is aware that there has been a lot
of activity around providing a better structure of OCS-tribal
relationships and recognizing the inherent ability of Alaska
Native tribes to address endemic challenges of child
maltreatment within their communities. CRP has long been focused
with OCS-tribal relationships. Specific recommendations in past
years have addressed the structure of OCS-tribal relationships
and the relationships on the front lines between OCS workers and
tribal ICWA [Indian Child Welfare Act] workers. CRP has been
surveying ICWA workers every year about their relationships with
OCS workers. Although CRP was not party to the conversations in
preparation of Transforming Child Welfare Outcomes for Alaska
Native Children: Strategic Plan 2016-2020, the panel was invited
as a stakeholder to participate in work groups to implement
plans in the six priority areas. That was a welcome development,
but this invitation to participate in the work group activities
implies that CRP is a stakeholder group like any other group or
individual interested in OCS. On the contrary, CRP is not a
stakeholder group. It cannot dial in whenever it is interested.
It has a statutory responsibility. It is a mechanism to
facilitate public participation in OCS policy and practice.
DR. VADAPALLI said currently CRP has been engaged in the
community engagement work group, one of the six work groups. The
work group identified two specific projects, a joint effort to
survey all the ICWA workers and a townhall meeting with
stakeholders as part of the CRP site visits. These are
developing, collaborative projects between CRP and OCS. It is
accurate to say that CRP identified these two projects,
persuaded OCS, and is leading the effort to make them happen.
1:37:12 PM
He presented the OCS Grievance Policy.
Recommendation 2: Speed up the process and implement
the new tracking system by December 2017
Recommendation 3: Establish adequate connection
between a case file and any related grievances, with
necessary protection for worker identity.
Recommendation 4: Publish monthly aggregate data on
number of grievances received, nature of those
grievances, and time to resolution of those grievances
online.
He said OCS grievance policy continues to be under the
microscope since the 2012 ombudsman's report calling for a
complete overhaul. CRP continues to hear from stakeholders that
the new policy is no more effective than the old. That led them
to examine the policy and implementation in 2016. CRP found
grievances are not being tracked from beginning to end, as was
intended. None of information collected around grievances is
public. OCS is waiting for a software update to track the
grievances and their resolutions. CRP recommended that there be
a link between a case file and any associated grievances with
adequate protections for worker identity. The logic is that if
new workers take over a case, they need to know the grievance
history. Not knowing any grievance history can be detrimental to
a new worker's effectiveness. Aggregate data on grievances
should be available to the public.
DR. VADAPALLI said grievances are often considered confidential
and most of it is not available for public view. There is a
general perception that all OCS data is confidential. There are
ways to ensure confidentiality through aggregate data--masking
anything lower than 20 (or another number) while publishing
aggregate data. In research masking numbers lower than 20 is
common practice.
He said current legislation specifies certain data indicators
that OCS must publish. The focus of that legislation seems to be
forcing OCS to release certain data. Instead, if OCS is required
to publish all data while protecting individual privacy, that
would allow more public awareness and knowledge of what OCS is
working with, the challenges associated with their work, and how
anyone can help them resolve those challenges.
1:40:34 PM
DR. VADAPALLI presented CRP Structure and Functions.
Recommendation 5: OCS should work with CRP to
strengthen CRP's ability as a robust mechanism for
public participation, and rely on it to improve public
awareness of the nature and content of OCS work.
Recommendation 6: OCS should continue to work with CRP
to identify a clear working relationship under the
participatory evaluation framework.
He said these two recommendations bring them to SB 122. CRP and
OCS have had a rocky relationship due to multiple factors. An
overwhelming factor is the lack of oversight about this
relationship. CRP existed for several years without any
regulation, evolving as its members saw fit with a budget that
was stuck at $100,000 a year. While Alaska CRP has enjoyed the
attention of top leadership at OCS and the legislature (no other
CRP has garnered such attention consistently across the
country), it has been hard to establish the impact of CRP in
Alaska. The purpose of CRP and its relationship to OCS has been
unclear and haphazard. Neither the federal nor state statutes
provide any specifics on that issue. No one ever questioned the
lack of regulation of CRP despite a clear legislative mandate
for such regulation.
Every year since 2002 OCS and CRP religiously submitted their
reports on time. The question that was seldom posed was, "So
what?" Recommendations 5 and 6 are a result of posing the
question. Alaska's CRP had one of the most significant impacts
that any CRP could have had, creation of the Western Region, but
not a single document acknowledges it or a single action that
built on that momentum. One of the basic principles of community
action is to ride such momentum toward greater impact. It
appears that each opportunity is let go and OCS notes that it
cannot burden the CRP system further because it is already
lacking in capacity.
He described that reasoning as convoluted. The state should
invest in mechanisms that have a proven record of success. It is
counterintuitive to back away from success.
1:43:15 PM
DR. VADAPALLI said the CRP recommendations over the years fall
into five categories:
• Quality Assurance
• Management
• Practice
• Public participation
• CRP's role and functions
He said CRP, in addition to the goals, digs into things people
bring to their attention.
Other Work 2016-2017
• Backlog of IAs
• CRP reorientation and reorganization
o Is CRP a stakeholder?
o Is the current location most appropriate?
o Is the contract mechanism most meaningful?
• Organized and hosted the 2017 National CRP
Conference
• Grand Jury Investigation
He said in addition to the review function, CRP has a
substantial outreach function and presents to many different
groups.
Sometimes they outline what CRP does and sometimes they reach
out to a specific group. For example, when they present to the
Alaska Court Improvement Project, they try to impress upon that
group, which consists of a lot of judges, that the courts can
ask CRP to examine a specific policy that they see as a
challenge.
Work During 2016-2017: Outreach
• Attended the two-day Casey Family Permanency Work
organized by OCS
• Presentation to:
o Resource Family Advisory Board
o Children's Justice Act Task Force
o OCS senior leadership on reorienting Alaska
CRP
o BIA Providers Conference
o Alaska Health Summit
o Day-long workshop on CRP for ICWA workers
o Alaska Court Improvement Project
He said that when he presented to the Court Improvement Project,
it was clear that judges are not aware of the CRP and its role
and potential.
1:45:44 PM
DR. VADAPALLI presented the Goals for 2017-2018.
• GOAL 1: Examine the effectiveness of the
current administrative review process (retained).
• GOAL 2: Examine if 'family reunification' is
prioritized as a goal for children in out-of-home
placement, and OCS' efforts in pursuit of 'family
reunification.
• GOAL 3: Examine OCS' efforts in finding
relatives for placement of children in foster
care.
• GOAL 4: Expand Public Outreach in collaboration
with efforts under the Tribal-State strategic
plan.
• GOAL 5: Strengthen the panel through aggressive
recruitment of new members, enhanced website, and
tools to reach diverse groups of stakeholders.
1:45:55 PM
DR. VADAPALLI presented Continual Challenges.
• CRP's unclear role and responsibilities
• Minimal capacity to perform its statutory functions
• Unclear accountability
He said the current coordinator has been proactive and has
gotten 11 members on the panel. Last year when he presented it
barely had four. He's happy to see the numbers increase, but
they are all volunteers and they cannot count on that number as
definite capacity for the panel, so staff capacity is very
important. The budget has been $100,000 for several years. He
said SB 122 addresses the accountability issue of who is
responsible for overseeing the CRP and its relationship with
OCS.
He presented Functions-Mandates. He noted that Alaska does not
have local child protection agencies, although some ICWA offices
function as that. That may change with tribal compacts with OCS.
Federal Mandate (42 U.S.C. ? 5106a.(c)):
– Examine the policies, procedures, and practices of
state and local child protection agencies and evaluate
the extent to which these agencies are effectively
discharging their child protection responsibilities
– Conduct public outreach both to assess the impact of
current policies and procedures, and to solicit public
comment on the panel's recommendations.
State Mandate (AS 47.14.205):
"The CRP shall examine the policies, procedures, and
practices of State and local agencies and where
appropriate, specific cases, to evaluate the extent to
which State and local child protection system agencies
are effectively discharging their protection
responsibilities."
DR. VADAPALLI said these mandates do not mention advocacy, but
it is clear that CRP has an advocacy role.
1:48:22 PM
DR. VADAPALLI said to sum up Primary Functions, this is what the
panel is supposed to do:
Central focus
• Policies, procedures, and practices of OCS
Review/Evaluate (from statute):
• States' CAPTA Plan
• Child protection standards
• And any other criteria that the Panel considers
important
Conduct public outreach (from statute):
• Assess the impact of OCS policies, procedures, and
practices on children and families
• This assessment should inform its review function
Advocate for (from congressional record):
• Relevant changes based on its review
He presented Central Purpose.
• Congress created CRPs to help child protection systems
be more responsive to community needs.
• A CRP is a mechanism for public participation in child
protection.
• It should facilitate robust and meaningful
participation by citizens in diverse roles.
• Those diverse roles will be performing the three
functions.
DR. VADAPALLI said that the role of CRPs to help child
protection systems is often lost in contention between CRPs and
child protection agencies.
1:48:49 PM
CHAIR WILSON noted the presence of Senator Micciche.
CHAIR WILSON asked, considering the federal mandates for
policies and procedures for state and local child protection
agencies, whether CRP has looked at expanding that role with
OCS, considering the tribal compact agreements give that role
and authority to local tribes.
DR. VADAPALLI said CRP was not party to any of those
conversations for the current memorandum of agreement. They were
aware of those conversations, but CRP was not invited to the
discussion, so he cannot address how CRP might be involved.
CHAIR WILSON said the question around federal mandates might be
a question for the department. He said the federal mandate
refers to state and local child protection agencies (CPA). In
other states there are county-based child protection agencies,
such as in North Carolina. Alaska has no state-authorized child
protection agencies. To the extent that tribes work with OCS in
performing these functions, CRP has a role, but it is not
clearly defined or discussed yet to operationalize it. CRP meets
with tribal partners to ask about CPA practices. They do not
oversee or examine what the tribal offices do.
1:52:01 PM
DR. VADAPALLI presented Functions--What CRP Does Not Do. He said
it is often easier to present on what CRP does not do than on
what it does.
• Comment on proposed or pending legislation
• Get involved in individual cases, contract, or
situations
• Micromanage OCS operations
• Program evaluation
• Lobby
He presented Ecosystem of CRP. CRP connects with the court
system, state administration, and legislature. He said CRP is
located somewhere between the CPS [child protective services]
agency and the community because it is not quite a community
agency. Its responsibility is to create a forum that is a safe
space where all parties can engage. OCS is not the focus of
review but party to that review conversation. The focus is the
CPS enterprise as a whole, with everyone with their own roles.
CRP brings all the parties together for a constructive
conversation to resolve challenges involving all parties. It is
often misunderstood that CRP is overviewing OCS. This is a
slight mischaracterization of what CRP should be doing. He said
the illustration of three wheels is an easy way to understand
what CRP does. CRP's job is to check that the three wheels of
policy, practice, and needs of children and families are turning
as expected. The questions to ask are these: What is supposed to
be done? What is actually done? What is needed?
He gave an example of the CRP ecosystem from last year when
Representative Tammie Wilson of North Pole called for a grand
jury investigation of OCS. The grand jury had two
recommendations after going through the documentation she
submitted. One was for the Ombudsman's Office to take on the
relevant review and the other was for CRP to pick up the review
process that Representative Wilson was requesting. The
Ombudsman's Office has the authority, CRP has the
responsibility. They asked the grand jury corresponding attorney
if this language was by choice or accident. It was clearly by
choice. CRP has statutory role that it needs to perform. CRP
took the documentation that Representative Wilson took to the
grand jury and identified five basic topics that CRP could be
looking at.
1:56:06 PM
DR. VADAPALLI said as a result of the grand jury recommendation,
CRP has Goal 2, Examine if 'family reunification' is prioritized
as a goal for children in out-of-home placement, and OCS'
efforts in pursuit of 'family reunification' and Goal 3, Examine
OCS' efforts in finding relatives for placement of children in
foster care. These are well within the scope of CRP. That is an
illustration of how CRP can fit in with the court process or
other investigative mechanisms.
He said they are working on how CRP can better relate to OCS
with three parallel approaches.
– Legislative approach
• SB 122
– Agency approach:
• Instituting regulations
• Identifying a framework for better working
relationship
SENATOR BEGICH asked if CRP makes an exception to not lobbying
or commenting on legislation when it comes to defining their
future role, since that is part of the legislative approach.
DR. VADAPALLI acknowledged that it is a contradictory issue when
they say they don't comment on legislation but are commenting on
this. The reason is that there is no authority better able to
comment than the authority performing the function, if not to
influence then to inform.
He said the key feature of SB 122 is to move the CRP out of OCS
into the Ombudsman's Office. While that may help, other
challenges need to be addressed. The Ombudsman's Office is a
review or evaluation mechanism. It does not have the outreach or
advocacy function that CRP has. If SB 122 passes, those details
of how those can be performed by CRP need to be worked out.
Although there are some concerns about undue influence of OCS on
CRP processes, CRP does enjoy autonomy that many CRPs do not
have. Alaska is better off for it and that autonomy should be
preserved and enhanced. The most important challenge is that the
path that led to SB 122 is the lack of oversight over this
enterprise. There has been no consistent oversight over CRP and
its relationship to OCS. If the CRP is moved to the Ombudsman's
Office, he asked how will oversight be ensured and who will ask
the "so what" questions.
2:01:57 PM
At ease.
SB 122-OCS CITIZEN REVIEW PANEL
2:03:19 PM
CHAIR WILSON reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SB 122.
2:03:43 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 122 on behalf of the sponsor. It is An
Act repealing the authority for a child abuse or neglect review
panel in DHSS and establishing the Child Protection Citizen
Review Panel in the office of the ombudsman.
Section 1:
AS 24.55.400. Establishes the Citizen Review Panel in the
legislative branch of state government under the office of
the ombudsman and instructs the panel to emphasize public
participation in the panel's work and to bring all the
stake holders on the panel.
The panel will meet at least every three months and it will
establish guidelines for its operation.
Gives the panel the authority to investigate individual
cases if it deems necessary.
AS 24.55.405. Requires the panel to reviews policies and
procedures of OCS on an annual basis and review reports
submitted annually to the federal government. The panel is
given statutory authority to recommend and advocate for
changes to the department's child protection services.
It requires OCS to provide the CRP the following state
plans submitted to the federal government annually:
State plan for grants for child abuse or neglect
prevention and treatment programs. (42 U.S.C. 5106a(b))
State plan for delivery of child welfare services
prepared jointly by the state and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services. (42 U.S.C. 621 629m)
AS 24.55.410. Mandates that OCS SHALL consult with the CRP
and assist the panel in carrying out its duties, including
providing case-specific information to the panel.
AS 24.55.415. Makes information delivered at a CRP meeting
confidential and the CRP must follow the Open Meetings Act
giving public notice and restricting the CRP members from
meeting privately.
AS 24.55.420. Provides for public outreach and public
comment.
AS 24.55.425. Provides for the CRP to prepare an annual
report to be available to the governor, legislature and
public. Requires OCS to submit a written response to the
report within six months of its release. Requires the panel
and the department to prepare a joint report to the
governor, legislature and public every three years.
AS 24.55.430. Sets a penalty of up to $2,500 for each
violation of confidentiality a person is convicted of.
AS 24.55.435. Provides immunity for panel members from
liability in panel actions.
AS 24.55.440. Definitions.
Department is the DHSS.
Panel is the Citizens Review Panel
Section 2: Gives the CRP access to confidential
documents regarding child protection cases.
Section 3: Repeals the Alaska Statutes that put the
CRP under the jurisdiction of DHSS.
Section 4: Requires DHSS to do a two-year review of
existing processes for reviewing and overseeing the
work of OCS and outline a plan to reduce duplication
and improved coordination amongst agencies involved in
child protection. The report will be delivered to the
senate secretary, house chief clerk, the governor and
the general public.
Section 5: Gives the office of the ombudsman
regulatory authority.
Section 6: Transition language that allows existing
panel members to serve out their term on the panel
even though it has been moved from the department.
The bill does not have an effective date.
2:07:43 PM
MS. MOSS said this bill is not pointing fingers at anyone saying
they are not doing their job. It is saying that CRP is
underutilized and misunderstood and needs to be utilized better.
In 2005, when Senator Coghill carried House Bill 53, it was a
direct result of working with the Murkowski administration and
CRP to take an objective look at OCS to see what was working and
what was not working. It is because of CRP they been able to do
some reforms with OCS and the child protection system.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the panel falls under Boards and
Commission and if the members are governor appointed.
MS. MOSS answered no and yes.
SENATOR GIESSEL said the membership of boards and commissions is
generally well defined to provide diversity. She suggested it
might lend more credibility and force if the membership had more
definition.`
MS. MOSS said that is a good point. She added that she was not
sure whether the governor appoints panel members.
2:10:35 PM
KATE BURKHART, State Ombudsman, Alaska Office of the Ombudsman,
commented on SB 122. She said she has spoken to Dr. Vadapalli
and the leadership at OCS to see how this would work. Prior to
her appointment as ombudsman, she was executive director of
three autonomous, co-located state planning councils. She is
familiar with how co-location can work without jeopardizing the
autonomy of the organizations. She has plenty of comments on SB
122. At the start of the conversation, understanding the
benefits and pitfalls of co-location is important.
MS. BURKHART said co-location requires alignment of missions,
which is set by the legislature in this case. The missions of
the Ombudsman's Office and CRP are in many ways aligned, but not
always. It requires a commitment of the membership and a
commitment to shared values. It requires rigorous management and
adequate resources. SB 122 hopefully will include clear guidance
on how the Ombudsman's Office can provide management assistance
and not just be a fiscal agent. She sees this perhaps managed as
a separate RDU in the budget so there is a clear accountability
on the use of funds with no comingling of funds. That speaks to
the accountability and "so what" questions that Dr. Vadapalli
talked about. It does require staff and management. While the
Ombudsman's Office does not have staff to dedicate, there is a
way to manage in partnership with CRP, such as with the state
council on behavioral health.
She said she does not know that the Ombudsman's Office is the
only place to house the CRP, but it is one place. If SB 122 were
to pass, her office could promulgate regulation within a fiscal
year. The Ombudsman's Office operates with regulations and would
want to do that with the CRP also.
2:15:13 PM
SENATOR BEGICH asked if OCS does not complete the task of
writing regulations, which it has not done since 2015, whether
her office would have the ability to rapidly complete the
regulatory writing process.
MS. BURKHART said it would take a full fiscal year. Her office
has multiple people with legal backgrounds and experience with a
recent comprehensive regulatory overwrite of their office.
CHAIR WILSON asked which areas of DHSS have received an
increased number of complaints.
MS. BURKHART said within DHSS, the most complaints have been
received about OCS and the Division of Public Assistance. She
did not have the report with her, but thought there were about
200 some complaints for each of the divisions.
CHAIR WILSON said he could see people saying that her office is
trying to influence CRP through investigations on that
department.
MS. BURKHART said the ombudsman has rigorous confidentiality
standards and any complaints about OCS remain confidential. If
SB 122 were to pass and a CRP staff member is in the office,
that person would not have access to that information. That
person would have the same access to aggregate data available in
reports. She has talked with Information Services at the
Legislative Affairs Agency about separate hosting, so CRP staff
would not have access to their servers and case management
system. She is used to the idea of a strong wall to prevent
conflict. They would create infrastructure and processes to make
sure CRP staff person was not privy to that information.
2:19:01 PM
CHAIR WILSON said the committee looked forward to getting the
fiscal note. He held SB 122 in committee.
2:19:56 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Wilson adjourned the Senate Health and Social Services
Standing Committee at 2:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 122 Version J.pdf |
SHSS 2/26/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SHSS 2/26/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SHSS 2/26/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 - CItizens Review Panel Power Point.pptx |
SHSS 2/26/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| senate hss presentation_02262018.ppt |
SHSS 2/26/2018 1:30:00 PM |
DHSS OCS CRP SHSS 2.26.18 |