Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/22/1998 03:50 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
April 22, 1998
3:50 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Bert Sharp
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator John Torgerson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 252
"An Act relating to paternity establishment and child support;
relating to the crimes of criminal nonsupport and aiding the
nonpayment of child support; and amending Rule 37(b)(2)(D), Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 204(RES)
"An Act revising the procedures and authority of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of Fisheries, and
the Department of Fish and Game to establish a moratorium on
participants or vessels, or both, participating in certain
fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 252 - See HESS minutes dated 3/2/98, 3/4/98 and 3/20/98.
HB 204 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Juli Lucky, Staff to Senator Halford
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed draft CSSB 252(RES)
Ms. Barbara Miklos, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 310
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on CSSB 252(RES)
Dan Branch, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Department of Law
100 Cushman St., Suite 400
Fairbanks, AK 99701-4679
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sectional analysis on CSSB
252(RES)
Darrell Watson, Operations Manager
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 310
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions on CSSB 252(RES)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-33, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 252 - PATERNITY/CHILD SUPPORT/NONSUPPORT CRIMES
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:50 p.m., and noted the presence of Senators Lincoln,
Leman, Green and Halford.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD brought SB 252 before the committee, and
explained the reason the Resources Committee is looking at the bill
is because it relates to licenses that apply to resource issues.
He said the legislation had a major rewrite in the 1997 legislative
session, and virtually everything that was in last year's bill is
in the present version. He noted there was a draft committee
substitute that was not complete, and he asked Ms. Lucky to speak
to the committee substitute.
JULI LUCKY, staff to Senator Halford, directed attention to CSSB
252(RES), version "F." The first change in the committee
substitute is that all references to sport fishing and hunting
licenses have been removed. The reasoning behind this is that the
federal law requirement is revocation of occupational and
recreational or sport licenses, and Alaska hunting and fishing
licenses are required for subsistence hunting and fishing, and it
was felt that subsistence was neither recreational or occupational.
In Section 2, paragraph (3) adds a court determination for contempt
revocation of occupational licensing and driver's licensing.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD pointed out that this was an administrative
action in the previous bill.
Ms. Lucky said Sections 3 through 7 is a proposed amendment from
the Alaska Court System relating to keeping social security numbers
private in pubic court documents. She explained there are certain
court documents relating to marriage and divorce and family that
are open to the public, and by making this amendment, the social
security numbers will no longer be on those papers.
In Section 14, subsection (g), it exempts employers who have fewer
than five employees. She said there was a lot of concern about the
employer reporting requirements being onerous to small businesses
that may not be aware of the requirements, as well as those having
temporary employees or very few employees.
Sections 21 through 33 relate to a topic brought up in last year's
legislation, which is a best efforts provision, and relates to
people who are making an effort to comply with their child support
arrears or orders. This amendment came from the department and
through other private concerns.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if this provision is protected by
confidentiality, and MS. LUCKY acknowledged that it is.
MS. LUCKY further explained that Sections 21 through 26 refer to
occupational licensing, and Sections 27 through 33 refer to
driver's licensing. She said the subpoenas and warrants language
is being taken out, and it leaves substantial noncompliance as the
criteria for license revocation.
MS. LUCKY said the remainder of the bill is the HESS version of SB
252.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD summarized that basically the categories addressed
in the Resources CS are: the court system, small employers,
license revocation and requiring court action versus administrative
action, and omission of references to sport fishing and hunting
licenses.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD invited Barbara Miklos and Dan Branch to the table
to go through the bill section by section.
BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division,
Department of Revenue, said the legislation was introduced this
year because the provisions were required by the Welfare Reform
legislation passed by Congress in 1996. Much of the work was done
last year in SB 154, but, as far as the federal government was
concerned, SB 154 was in effect and it met many of the requirements
of Welfare Reform but not all of them.
MS. MIKLOS said when this year's legislation was introduced, it was
the intent that every single provision be something that was
exactly required the Welfare Reform legislation, but in hearings on
SB 252 in the Senate Health, Education and Social Services
Committee, it was found that there were some provisions that
weren't necessary and they were deleted. She said the resulting
HESS CS was their best estimation of what is exactly required by
the federal government.
MS. MIKLOS pointed out that the federal Welfare Reform legislation
requires all employers to report. She checked with the feds on
this earlier in the morning and they reiterated that it must be all
employers. She also inquired if hunting and fishing could be
viewed as something other than recreational, and was told again
that was not true and needed to be in the legislation.
Number 255
DAN BRANCH, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section,
Department of Law, explained that Section 2 amends the civil
contempt statute to allow a court, if it finds somebody in contempt
of court, to suspend or revoke for a period of one year a driver's
license or an occupational license, if relevant. That is only if
the person is a natural person; the contempt is one under AS
09.50.010(4)-10); and the court, sitting without a jury, finds by
a preponderance of evidence that the contempt relates to failure to
pay money in connection with child support or failure to comply
with a subpoena or warrant relating to paternity or child support.
He said, as he understands this and the sections dealing with AS
25.27.244 and 246, that it is the intent of the drafters of this
working draft to basically remove from a more formal driver's
license and occupational license system that was in place as a
result of SB 154 the provisions from those sections that would
allow a driver's license to be revoked and move them to the civil
contempt section.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if it is required to have that done
administratively within the agency, or can it go through the civil
process. MR. BRANCH replied that he thinks it can. He added that
after SB 154 was passed, the federal government indicated that the
state had some flexibility in regards to how it implements this
standard. He noted the HESS CS would have provided the same
treatment for fish and game licenses.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD pointed out that there are some hunting and
fishing licenses that are obviously recreational licenses, but
there are also some, equally required by state law, that are
required to be able to subsistence hunt or fish that are neither
recreational or occupational.
MR. BRANCH said after passage of SB 154, Congress made some
technical amendments to these mandates, and one of the amendments
they did add was language to the license suspension statute that
included the word "sporting" licenses. It states that Alaska must
have procedures in law under which the state has and uses in
appropriate cases authority to withhold and suspend or restrict the
use of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses,
and recreation and sporting licenses of individuals owing overdue
support or failing, after receiving adequate notice, to comply with
subpoenas or warrants relating to paternity or child support
proceedings. He said the argument can no longer be made to the
federal government that sport fishing or hunting in Alaska is not
a recreational activity because, clearly, by its terms, it is a
sporting activity.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the problem is that to harvest for
subsistence requires a hunting or fishing license, and that hunting
license or fishing license says sport fishing or sport hunting,
which is referring more to methods and means rather than the
purpose.
MR. BRANCH asked Chairman Halford that if it is possible to draft
a piece of legislation that would affect sporting licenses but not
personal use or subsistence activities, would he consider an
amendment to the draft committee substitute that would allow
something that would meet federal mandates and still take care of
his concerns. CHAIRMAN HALFORD repled that he would, but the way
the system works is it requires a sport license to engage in
subsistence; it's not just personal use and it's not just a low
income subsistence license. If you don't meet the income guideline
and do qualify, whether it is rural or all state, it still requires
a hunting license or a fishing license to engage in the activity.
MR. BRANCH said he understands his concerns and will try to come up
with some language that won't interfere with personal use and
subsistence.
Number 377
MR. BRANCH said Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are all new amendments
that were put forth by the Court System to make it easier for them
to honor the federal requirement that social security numbers be
kept confidential. SB 154 required that social security numbers be
provided in the pleadings and domestic relations cases and
paternity cases, etc. It would be costly to seal all these records
or retract the social securities numbers, so it would require that
these numbers be in otherwise public documents and that they be
placed in a separate file which would be made available to the
Child Support Division in Alaska and other states.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the Administration has a problem with
this provision. MR. BRANCH suggested they would like to see a
provision that insures that CSED has the right to get those numbers
from the Court System, and he has drafted some proposed language.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that Section 38 contains language that states
that the department shall provide a social security number to CSED,
and she questioned if this is contradicting what is attempting to
be done in Sections 3 through 7. MR. BRANCH pointed out that
Section 37 and 38 relate to driver's license.
Continuing with his sectional overview, MR. BRANCH directed
attention to Sections 8 and 9, and he explained that both of them
are proposed amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support
Act, which is an Act that enhances the ability of states to have
their orders enforced in another state, and to ensure that child
support can be collected from people when they leave Alaska. After
passage of SB 154, the federal government issued an action
transmittal stating there had to be a verbatim version of the
federal act, and the changes in the two sections will provide a as
close as possible verbatim version.
Sections 10 and 11 make amendments to allow another state agency to
request high-volume automated administrative enforcement of their
child support orders. Section 11 also adds a subsection which is
designed to clarify which law an Alaskan employer should follow
when it receives a withholding order from another child support
agency.
Section 12 is a technical amendment to AS 25.27.062(e) so that
income withholding orders may be served on non-employers who
provide the child support obligor with earnings as defined in AS
25.27.900.
TAPE 98-33, SIDE B
Number 585
Because there were numerous questions on Section 12, DARRELL
WATSON, Operations Manager, Child Support Enforcement Division in
Anchorage explained the process of withholding orders.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented that he would like to see that section
constituted in some way that it doesn't stop the agency from using
first-class mail, but the first-class mail is not what constitutes
legal notice for purpose of assessing penalties.
Number 496
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if CSED uses withholding orders for people
that are paid up, or do they only use the withholding order for
people who are behind in their payments. MS. MIKLOS explained they
use withholding orders for everyone, which is something the federal
government changed about three or four years ago just to make it
very routine that the money is withheld. MR. BRANCH added that
there is an option that the court can provide that there will not
be immediate income withholding, but the parties have to establish
that certain facts exist, and the provisions state that once the
person slips into arrears, then the withholding order kicks in.
Continuing his overview, MR. BRANCH said Section 13 is the section
that will amend the medical support order provisions. It provides
that if the child support agency receives notice that a child
support obligor has changed or will be changing employment and
under that new employment is eligible for family health coverage,
the agency will then send the employer a medical support order.
Section 14 is the employer new hire information section, and MR.
BRANCH said it was his opinion that this working draft would place
the state out of compliance with federal requirements because it
would not apply to an employer who has fewer than five employees.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thinks that federal requirement is going
to be a real problem for the small employers because it reaches the
entire bureaucracy at the lowest level of one single employee, and
will be a disincentive for hiring any of these people.
SENATOR LEMAN agreed with Chairman Halford's concern, saying he
thinks it is something that will drive people to contract work.
MR. BRANCH explained Section 15 would allow CSED to go to court and
ask for a hearing where a person who received a child support
subpoena of this state or another state failed to comply with the
subpoena.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD questioned if this was a federal provision. MR.
BRANCH answered that it is a way to meet a federal provision which
requires a provision for enforcing the child support subpoenas of
other states. He pointed out that there would have to be a finding
that a person had notice of subpoena and they had the opportunity
and the ability to comply with it.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he had concern with the terminology "compel
obedience" in that section. MR. BRANCH said he didn't think there
would be a problem with changing that wording to "failure to
comply."
MR. BRANCH said Section 16 would clarify that, in the course of an
administrative action to establish paternity, the department could
enter a default of order of paternity if the punitive father, or
the person who is thought to be the father, fails to appear and
comply with a paternity testing order or fails to respond to a
paternity testing order.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD thought the 20-day period in which to respond to
the paternity testing order was too short a period of time, and he
suggested changing it to 30 days. MS. MIKLOS said there are some
federal time frames and there are places in statute that this may
be spoken to, but she would look into the possibility of changing
it.
MR. BRANCH said Section 17 allows CSED to ask the court to find
that somebody is in contempt for failing to follow a genetic
testing order issued by this state or the tribunal of another
state. He noted this is also a federal requirement.
TAPE 98-34, SIDE A
Continuing his overview, MR. BRANCH said Sections 18, 19 and 20 are
all sections which would change the lien law to bring the state
into compliance with federal requirements. Section 18 would allow
the assertion of a lien if an arrearage occurs. Section 19 would
provide that a lien arising in another state would be given full
faith and credit in this state, and it would be asserted in the
same way that a lien in Alaska would be asserted against property
of a child support obligor.
Sections 21 through 33 are all sections that were added to this
working draft by committee staff, and they are designed to remove
from the process created by AS 25.27.244 and AS 25.27.246 people
who have their names on a list because they didn't comply with a
child support subpoena or a paternity subpoena.
Section 34 would amend AS 25.27.250, the income withholding
statute, to provide that income withholding could begin if there is
an income withholding order issued by the court providing for
immediate income withholding, or if there is an arrears on a child
support order, or if it has gone past 30 days after the issuance of
an administrative support order or a paternity decision.
Sections 35 and 36 provide definitions.
Section 37 requires that the social security of an applicant for a
motor vehicle license be provided on the application, but it does
not mean that it has to be on the license itself.
Section 38 would provide the Department of Administration to
provide social security numbers that are in the motor vehicle
records to child support agencies.
Section 39 would repeal the sunset of SB 154.
Section 40 is an applicability section which would clarify that AS
25.27.075, the employer hire provisions, only affect the hiring,
rehiring, or return to work that occurs after the effective date of
the Act.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD referenced Section 35 and asked what a support
order issued by a tribunal includes. He wondered if such an order
could be from an outside tribal entity on a reservation, as well as
if there are any interactions between this and the Indian Child
Welfare Act.
MR. BRANCH said Alaska's version of the Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act (UIFSA) does not define states as including Indian
tribes, so if a tribal court entity issued a child support order
and they sought to have it enforced, it could not be enforced under
the terms of UIFSA.
MS. MIKLOS said she thinks this is something that needs to be
looked into because Welfare Reform has provisions for tribes to
take over child support enforcement. It is her understanding that
there are tribes in Oregon and Washington that are already doing
child support enforcement, so she thinks this is an important
question. She added that CSED is working with the Department of
Health and Social services and the Alaska tribes, however, so far
no one in Alaska has expressed interest in taking over child
support enforcement.
There being no further testimony on SB 252, CHAIRMAN HALFORD
adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|