03/28/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB318 | |
| HB408 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 408 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 28, 2006
8:36 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Hollis French
Senator Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 318(FIN) am
"An Act limiting the exercise of eminent domain."
HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 408(FIN) am
"An Act relating to the standard of proof required to terminate
parental rights in child- in-need-of-aid proceedings; relating
to a healing arts practitioner's duty to report a child
adversely affected by or withdrawing from exposure to a
controlled substance or alcohol; relating to disclosure of
confidential or privileged information about certain children by
the Departments of Health and Social Services and
Administration; relating to permanent fund dividends paid to
foster children and adopted children; amending Rule 18, Alaska
Child in Need of Aid Rules of Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 318
SHORT TITLE: LIMITATION ON EMINENT DOMAIN
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MCGUIRE, HOLM, HAWKER
01/09/06 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/05
01/09/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/09/06 (H) JUD, FIN
01/11/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/11/06 (H) Heard & Held
01/11/06 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/25/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/25/06 (H) Heard & Held
01/25/06 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/01/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/01/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/03/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/03/06 (H) Moved CSHB 318(JUD) Out of Committee
02/03/06 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/06/06 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 3DP 1NR 2AM
02/06/06 (H) DP: WILSON, ANDERSON, MCGUIRE;
02/06/06 (H) NR: GRUENBERG;
02/06/06 (H) AM: GARA, KOTT
02/09/06 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/09/06 (H) Moved CSHB 318(FIN) Out of Committee
02/09/06 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/10/06 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 2DP 3NR 3AM
02/10/06 (H) DP: HAWKER, MEYER;
02/10/06 (H) NR: KERTTULA, JOULE, WEYHRAUCH;
02/10/06 (H) AM: STOLTZE, HOLM, FOSTER
02/21/06 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
02/21/06 (H) VERSION: CSHB 318(FIN) AM
02/22/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/06 (S) JUD, FIN
03/02/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/02/06 (S) Heard & Held
03/02/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/09/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/09/06 (S) Heard & Held
03/09/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/21/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/21/06 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/22/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/22/06 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/28/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 408
SHORT TITLE: DEFINITION OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/30/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/06 (H) HES, FIN
02/07/06 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/07/06 (H) Heard & Held
02/07/06 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/09/06 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/09/06 (H) Moved CSHB 408(HES) Out of Committee
02/09/06 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/15/06 (H) HES RPT CS(HES)NT 3DP 2NR
02/15/06 (H) DP: GARDNER, GATTO, WILSON;
02/15/06 (H) NR: ANDERSON, CISSNA
02/22/06 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/22/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/01/06 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/01/06 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/07/06 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/07/06 (H) Moved CSHB 408(FIN) Out of Committee
03/07/06 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/08/06 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 3DP 5NR
03/08/06 (H) DP: KELLY, MEYER, CHENAULT;
03/08/06 (H) NR: HAWKER, STOLTZE, KERTTULA, JOULE,
MOSES
03/20/06 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/20/06 (H) VERSION: CSHB 408(FIN) AM
03/22/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/22/06 (S) JUD, FIN
03/22/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/22/06 (S) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 03/23/06>
03/23/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/23/06 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/28/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 318
Craig Johnson, Legislative Aide
Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 318
Peter Putzier, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 318
Dave Feeken
Alaska Association of Realtors
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 318
Garvan Bucaria
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 318
Rynnieva Moss, Legislative Aide
Staff to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 408
Tammy Sandoval, Deputy Commissioner
Office of Children's Services
PO Box 110630
Juneau, AK 99811-0630
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 408
Jan Rutherdale, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 408
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:36:11 AM. Present were Senators
Hollis French, Charlie Huggins, Gretchen Guess, and Chair Ralph
Seekins.
HB 318-LIMITATION ON EMINENT DOMAIN
8:37:05 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced CSHB 318(FIN) AM to be up for
consideration. He said his intent for the day was to have a good
round table discussion on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL MCGUIRE introduced herself for the record.
8:38:18 AM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH advised Representative McGuire of a
memorandum received from Don Bullock of the Legislative Legal
and Research Services Division dated March 22, 2006 that advised
that any "escape hatch" from the eminent domain bill would be
problematic. He expressed concern that a local government would
not be able to control eminent domain in its own community.
Senator Gene Therriault joined the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE responded she would look favorably at a
"voting threshold" if that is what the committee preferred. She
reminded the committee that Kelo versus City of New London came
about due to a local action taken by a local government. She
speculated that the people of the City of New London might wish
that their state had legislation to protect them at the state
level when the city let them down.
8:44:12 AM
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS advised that the discussion in the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee has been whether or not to allow a
local governing body by a two-thirds majority to make the
decision. She noted the subject was a difficult balance between
local control and free will and expressed concern that smaller
communities do not get the representation that they need in the
state capitol.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE said she liked the idea of a two-thirds
threshold.
SENATOR FRENCH noted the non-delegable aspect is important and
the greater majority provision protects minority rights. He
expressed support for the idea.
CHAIR SEEKINS agreed. He said he objects when the city assembly
responsibility is handed off to private developers.
8:48:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE noted state policy makers should ensure
that the rights of the people are equal for all. She said she
would accept the will of the committee. Paragraph 7 on page 4
allows for a stopgap because it is difficult to think of every
situation that the bill might cover.
8:51:57 AM
MR. JOHNSON added four large communities have already made the
decision to enact ordinances similar to this legislation. The
discussion on the bill is really whether to afford the rest of
the state the same protection of eminent domain.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he did not want to step on local control.
Everyone wants to protect private property but at the same time
Alaskans know the importance of access to recreational areas.
8:54:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE pointed out that the issue goes both
ways. The Tony Knowles Coastal Trail runs right through her
district, she stated, and some people love it while some hate
it. The local control bypass allows a measure of balance to the
bill.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted the difference between a developer and
conservationist is that the developer wants to build a cabin
this summer where as the conservationist built his last summer.
He said access to recreation was a huge topic in Alaska.
8:57:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE agreed there are unique circumstances in
this state. She said the argue against local control would be
that the bill takes care of people's concerns regarding access
to recreational areas, such as navigable waters and hunting and
fishing rights. The bill would not limit the state's ability to
use the power of eminent domain in any other circumstance except
to take property from one private entity and transfer it to
another private entity. In a state where private ownership
represents one percent of the land, there should be creative
options for taking land to accomplish the goal.
CHAIR SEEKINS stated the recreational side was not restricted to
private-to-private transfer.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE stood corrected.
9:00:41 AM
SENATOR GUESS noted page 5, line 11 lists what is excluded from
the definition of recreational. She referred to subsection (e)
on page 4 and said there is nothing to override that provision.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE responded that subsection (7) was added
due to the fact that the bill already had many exclusions. She
said she would support it if the committee chose to add the same
legislative approval provision to the recreational side of the
bill.
MR. JOHNSON advised it would be a simple fix for the committee.
On page 6 line 18 simply just change the (1)-(6) to (1)-(7).
That would roll the legislative oversight into the private
property prong.
9:03:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE advised the committee that the concepts
developed separately for the economic and recreational aspects.
People question the reason the state could take their homes for
recreational reasons if they can't for economic purposes.
SENATOR GUESS referred to page 3, lines 29-31 and asked whether
that would allow for a statute to be created that would allow a
real estate company to exercise eminent domain.
MR. JOHNSON said the definition of private person could be
utilities, pipeline companies, or any one other than the
government.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE advised "private person" is defined in AS
09.55.240.
9:08:41 AM
PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Department of
Law (DOL), responded to the question regarding "private person."
He handed out a default definition of " private person" and said
it includes corporations and a wide variety of other entities.
Utilities have been granted the right of eminent domain. Lines
29-31 are in the bill to make it clear that their authority
remains status quo.
9:09:51 AM
SENATOR GUESS said for the record she read AS 09.55.240 and
there is no definition.
MR. PUTZIER said if there were a question regarding what
"private person" means, it would be as defined in Title 1.
SENATOR FRENCH asked the number of express authorizations that
exist in statute regarding eminent domain.
MR. PUTZIER offered a list of all the authorizations to
committee members.
9:12:28 AM
DAVE FEEKEN, Alaska Association of Realtors testified that the
Kelo decision defined economic development as a public use,
taking private property from one owner and giving it to another
for the purpose of economic development. In a survey conducted
by the Association of Realtors, 97 percent were opposed to that
type of eminent domain powers. The US Supreme Court found in the
Kelo case that pursuant to a well conceived plan, the public
benefits through increased tax revenues was good enough to be
called a public use.
With only one percent of Alaska's land in private hands, the use
of eminent domain needs to be severely restricted. Currently
there are 10,000 active private-to-private eminent domain case
takings in process in the United States. "Your home is only your
castle so long as somebody doesn't come along and convince the
city council they have a better use," he stated. The key to
eminent domain use is a good definition of "public use" and
"economic development," he advised. The Alaska Association of
Realtors will continue to work on eminent domain legislation
throughout the summer.
9:16:02 AM
GARVAN BUCARIA, Wasilla, testified that the language of the bill
was perplexing and difficult to keep up with. His previous
testimony questioned the need for using eminent domain for
recreational purposes. He said he is subject to eminent domain
under the 2004-2005 Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities study, which has notified him that his property might
be taken for a main street widening project in Wasilla. Two
years later, he said, he still does not know what the DOT is
planning to do and it has been very stressful.
He agreed with the local control provision but said it was a
relative question. He has attended many meetings on the issue
and said he is aggrieved by the lack of public participation
even though it affects everyone in the community. He believes
there is not sufficient public notification within the
communities.
9:20:37 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked the location of Mr. Bucaria's property.
MR. BUCARIA responded with the location of his property. The
proposed road would go through his house and completely destroy
the center of Wasilla, he stated.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked the length of time he has lived in his
house.
MR. BUCARIA said he has lived in his house since 1986 but has
been an Alaska resident since 1975.
9:23:23 AM
SENATOR GUESS moved Amendment 1. Page 4, line 9: Delete "by law"
and following "transfer": Insert "in an Act, the subject of
which is limited to the transfer."
CHAIR SEEKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
SENATOR GUESS explained Amendment 1 would ensure that if the
Legislature does approve a transfer of property that it does so
under a separate bill, which would ensure public process.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE expressed support.
Hearing no further objections, Amendment 1 was adopted
unanimously.
SENATOR GUESS moved Amendment 2. Page 5, line 8: Delete "small
boat harbor."
CHAIR SEEKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
SENATOR GUESS advised Amendment 2 would remove "small boat
harbor" from recreational facility or project. She expressed
concern over unintended consequences due to a lack of
definition.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the small boat harbor land would already
be owned by the state and wondered whether Senator Guess's
concern was over the access to it.
9:25:50 AM
SENATOR GUESS responded she was uncomfortable since the phrase
was undefined and nebulous.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked the bill sponsor where the language
came from.
MR. JOHNSON advised they tried to encompass as much as possible
with regard to recreational facilities. He said they could not
come up with a scenario where a home would be taken for a small
boat harbor.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted the restrictions would be to within 250 feet
of the home.
MR. JOHNSON surmised the small boat harbor would be mainly in
the water anyway so the likelihood of the taking of any property
would be difficult to conceive.
CHAIR SEEKINS speculated that the access to the harbor could
affect private property.
MR. JOHNSON agreed.
9:27:55 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS removed his objection.
SENATOR HUGGINS cautioned the committee against deleting "small
boat harbor" too quickly. He suggested the committee work on a
definition first.
9:30:55 AM
SENATOR GUESS asked Senator Huggins whether page 5, line 9
wouldn't cover his concerns.
SENATOR HUGGINS indicated no.
9:33:12 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS expressed concern over the lack of definition. He
posed a hypothetical scenario of a right-of-way to a navigable
stream. In order to accommodate the ability to launch a boat,
the city might need to take a small portion of the waterfront
and that could be within 250 feet of someone's home. The
question remains whether that would be defined as a small boat
harbor.
9:36:04 AM
SENATOR GUESS withdrew Amendment 2 in order to obtain a
definition of small boat harbor.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE committed to work on that issue.
SENATOR GUESS moved Amendment 3. Page 6, line 4: Delete "rather
than primarily for recreation."
CHAIR SEEKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
SENATOR GUESS explained that the words "rather than primarily
for recreation" bother her since the committee has not defined
the word "recreation."
9:38:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE did not object to the proposed amendment.
CHAIR SEEKINS removed his objection and the committee adopted
Amendment 3 unanimously.
9:40:38 AM
SENATOR FRENCH advised the committee that he would have a
proposed amendment concerning the locally elected body having to
approve transfer of property by a two-thirds vote and that it is
non-delegable.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he did not object provided there were
provisions for notice and public hearings.
SENATOR HUGGINS expressed support for local control.
CHAIR SEEKINS held the bill in committee.
At ease 9:46:52 AM
HB 408-DEFINITION OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
9:54:55 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced CSHB 408(FIN) AM to be up for
consideration.
Rynnieva Moss, Legislative Aide for Representative John Coghill,
introduced the bill. She advised the committee that the bill was
the product of a friendly takeover of the Governor's
legislation, which originally defined child abuse and involved
medical personnel who were involved in a delivery to report any
suspected adverse conditions to a newborn child from alcohol or
drug abuse. Language from HB 327 has been added as well and many
members of the House have added amendments along the way.
9:57:03 AM
MS. MOSS summarized the sections of the bill. Section 1 raises
the level of proof from "a preponderance of evidence." Section 2
raises the standard for termination of parental rights to "clear
and convincing evidence." Section 3 contains language clean up
to accommodate Section 2. Section 4 clarifies that the employee
has five working days to respond once the information is
requested. Section 5 would allow OCS the ability to disclose the
nature and validity of any report of harm if the parent makes
public disclosure, if the perpetrator is charged with a crime,
and if there is a death or near death of a child.
9:59:34 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Moss to define what constitutes "public
disclosure."
MS. MOSS responded that would be disclosure of confidential
information to the public. It would normally be disclosed to the
press.
TAMMY SANDOVAL, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Children's
Services (OCS) agreed with the description.
10:00:56 AM
MS. MOSS continued Section 6 broadens the Department's ability
to discuss a report of harm with any child who is in the care of
a perpetrator. Section 7 comes from a real life incident where
the foster parents took the children's Permanent Fund dividends
(PFD). The money would be put into a trust and once the child
ages out in the system they would be able to file for the PFD.
CHAIR SEEKINS clarified that the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) has the affirmative responsibility to apply for
the PFD under existing law.
MS. MOSS noted the bill contains a provision for the legal
guardian to petition the court for the PFD. Section 8 requires
that practitioners of the healing arts involved in the delivery
or care of a child who determines the child is adversely
affected by a controlled substance or alcohol must notify OCS.
Section 9 comes from a recommendation from the Citizens Review
Panel. Section 10 contains indirect court rules. Section 11 is
the applicability to pending and non-pending cases. Section 12
is the immediate effective date.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked for a definition of "practitioner of the
healing arts."
MS. MOSS read it the definition as, "includes chiropractors,
mental health counselors, social workers, dental hygienists,
dentists, health aides, nurses, nurse practitioners, certified
nurse aides, occupational therapists, occupational therapy
assistants, optometrists, osteopaths, naturopaths, physical
therapists, physical therapy assistants, physicians, physician's
assistants, psychiatrists, psychologists, psychological
associates, audiologists and speech language pathologists,
hearing aide dealers, marital advisors, religious healing
practitioners, acupuncturists and surgeons.
10:06:25 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether the list was all-inclusive.
MS. MOSS deferred to the Department of Law.
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL), indicated the definition was very precise.
CHAIR SEEKINS expressed concern with terms of limitations of
prosecution for someone implied to be on the list but was not on
the list.
MS. RUTHERDALE speculated a prosecutor would only attempt a case
with a person on the list.
CHAIR SEEKINS suggested specifying the practitioner of the
healing arts as defined in AS 47.17.290(13).
MS. RUTHERDALE agreed.
10:09:00 AM
MS. SANDOVAL added the original intent of HB 408 was to comply
with federal law.
REX SHATTUCK, Staff to Representative Mark Neuman, explained
that Section 9 is language from HB 346 and adopts language from
the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 into state
statute.
10:12:01 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked whether the Citizens Review Panel report
was confidential.
MS. SANDOVAL said by statute they have an obligation to release
the report to legislators and then it becomes a public document.
MS. MOSS affirmed that it is a public document.
SENATOR HUGGINS said the report lists weaknesses with Mat-Su
Valley OCS. He asked whether the bill addressed and corrected
the weaknesses.
10:14:57 AM
MS. SANDOVAL said as the deputy commissioner her responsibility
is to ensure that corrections to system weakenesses happen.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Ms. Sandoval to comment on whether HB 408
strengthens the confidence level of the community.
MS. SANDOVAL said she is committed to reviewing all of the
confidentiality laws and co-training assistant attorney generals
as well as OCS staff. There are inconsistencies around the state
regarding the amount of information shared. Everyone involved
will be re-trained according to current legislation.
10:18:37 AM
MS. MOSS advised the committee that the legislation would give
OCS transparency and allow the public to see more of what OCS is
doing. The system is not broke it's just that the policies have
not been implemented in the past.
SENATOR GUESS asked whether the change to five working days was
in conflict with the recent decision by Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics on confidentiality.
10:20:57 AM
MS. MOSS replied the Ethics decision dealt with hearing officers
and do there would be no contradiction between the bill and the
decision.
SENATOR GUESS asked whether "clear and convincing" was a higher
standard that "preponderance of evidence."
MS. MOSS replied yes. It puts a higher burden of proof on the
DOL to terminate parental rights.
SENATOR GUESS asked Ms. Moss to comment on the committee
substitute (CS) before the committee.
MS. MOSS stated it contains the addition of Section 9.
10:23:01 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked for explanation of the higher burden of
proof standard. He clarified there are certain situations in
which the court does not order changes in the behavior of the
parent in order to allow the child to return home.
MS. RUTHERDALE said whenever a child is removed the state must
prove they have attempted to keep the child in the home even if
that involves correcting of parental behavior. Once they have
removed the child, OCS must show reasonable efforts to correct
the behavior so the child can return home, such as getting an
alcoholic parent into rehabilitation. If OCS comes to the
conclusion that the child can never return home and they change
their plan to termination of parental rights, they must show
with clear and convincing evidence that reasonable efforts have
been made to return the child home.
In 1998 the Legislature decided that it would be an exercise in
futility for OCS to make reasonable efforts in some cases. For
example, if the parent has murdered a child and is in jail there
would be no need to waste their resources.
10:27:02 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked for explanation of Section 2.
MS. RUTHERDALE advised Section 2 is already in law and the state
already has to prove that a child is a "child in need of aide"
due to the parent's behavior and that the parent hasn't remedied
the behavior so that the child can return home. Section 2
increases the standard to prove that the state has made good
attempts to return the child home.
When the statute was enacted in 1998 it didn't contain the part
about "reasonable efforts." That was added later because federal
funding required it. It has since come to the attention of the
DOL that there is a legitimate constitutional reason for the
higher standard.
10:29:42 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Ms. Sandoval whether the Ombudsman has a
role in OCS.
MS. SANDOVAL responded yes. They can review cases and make
inquiries and the OCS is required to respond.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked whether OCS has contract employees.
MS. SANDOVAL said OCS does engage in grants in contracts with
agencies in the community that provide direct services to
families.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked whether that creates a recurring problem
in that Ombudsmen do not have the authority to get information
from contract employees.
MS. SANDOVAL responded that was not a routine concern.
10:31:16 AM
SENATOR GUESS referred to Section 7 and said she knows a foster
parent who is concerned about handing over 18 years of PFDs to a
young person. She asked whether there has been any discussion on
that and whether there should be options for children who have
been in long-term childcare.
MS. SANDOVAL replied the OCS has regional independent living
specialists who plan with youth who are aging out of the system.
They work with them on successful transitions and they do
consider the amount of cash that the child is about to receive.
10:33:13 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS commented once the child is out of state's
custody, the law requires the state to give them their money.
SENATOR THERRIAULT added unless the state has deemed the child
is not capable. Absent of that it is a property right.
SENATOR HUGGINS moved to adopt version L as the working document
before the committee. Hearing no objections, the motion carried.
CHAIR SEEKINS held the bill in committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Seekins adjourned the meeting at 10:34:43 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|