Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/28/1995 03:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
March 28, 1995
3:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bert Sharp, Chairman
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice-Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Jim Duncan
Senator Dave Donley
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 4(STA)(title am)
"An Act allowing, for the purposes of permanent fund dividend
eligibility, an individual to accompany, as the spouse or minor or
disabled dependent, another eligible resident who is absent for
vocational, professional, or other specific education for which a
comparable program is not reasonably available in the state, for
secondary or postsecondary education, for military service, for
medical treatment, for service in the Congress or in the Peace
Corps, or for other reasons that the commissioner of revenue may
establish by regulation; requiring, for the purposes of permanent
fund dividend eligibility, an individual who is not physically
present in the state to maintain and demonstrate at all times an
intent to return to the state to remain permanently; relating to
the eligibility for 1992, 1993, and 1994 permanent fund dividends
of certain spouses and dependents of eligible applicants; relating
to appeal periods for certain 1994 permanent fund dividends; and
providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 110
"An Act relating to administrative adjudication under the
Administrative Procedure Act."
SENATE BILL NO. 135
"An Act relating to permanent fund dividend program notice
requirements, to the ineligibility for dividends of individuals
convicted of felonies or incarcerated for misdemeanors, and to the
determination of the number and identity of certain ineligible
individuals; and providing for an effective date."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 74(FIN)
"An Act relating to the assault of children by adults."
SENATE BILL NO. 120
"An Act relating to the operation of state veterans' home
facilities; and providing for an effective date."
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 22(STA)
Relating to the maritime boundary between Alaska and the former
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 42 (STA) am
"An Act relating to absentee voting, to electronic transmission of
absentee ballot applications, and to delivery of ballots to
absentee ballot applicants by electronic transmission, and enacting
a definition of the term 'state election' for purposes of absentee
voting."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 4 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/21/95.
SB 110 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/21/95.
SB 135 - No previous senate committee action.
HB 74 - No previous senate committee action.
SB 120 - No previous senate committee action.
HJR 22 - No previous senate committee action.
HB 42 - No previous senate committee action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Teresa Williams, Assistant Attorney General
Commercial Section, Civil Division, Department of Law
1031 W. 4th Ave., Ste. 200, Anchorage AK 99501-1994¶269-5100
POSITION STATEMENT: representing prime sponsor of SB 110
Senator Steve Frank, Co-Chairman, Senate Finance Committee
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶465-3753
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of SB 135
David Skidmore, Aide to Senator Frank
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶465-3753
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of SB 135
Tom Williams, Aide to Senator Frank
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶465-3753
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of SB 135
Michael McGee, Chief, PFD Operations
Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110460, Juneau, AK 99811-0460¶465-2622
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 135
Representative Con Bunde
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 74
Patty Swenson, Aide to Representative Bunde
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 74
Senator John Torgerson
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶465-2828
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of SB 120
Jeff Morrison, Legislative Liaison
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
P.O. Box 110900, Juneau, AK 99811-0900¶465-4730
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 120
James L. Kohn, Deputy Director
Pioneers' Homes Central Office/Advisory Board
Div. of Senior Services, Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110211, Juneau, AK 99811-0211¶465-4400
POSITION STATEMENT: opposes to SB 120
Dave W. Williams, Director
Div. of Medical Assistance, Dept. of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110660, Juneau, AK 99811-0660¶465-3355
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 120
Joe Ryan, Aide to Representative Vezey
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶465-3727
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HJR 22
Thomas Anderson, Aide to Representative Martin
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 42
Rupe Andrews
League of Women Voters of Alaska
9416 Long Run Drive, Juneau, AK 99801¶789-7422
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on HB 42
Gaye Vaughan, Clerk
Kenai Peninsula Borough
144 N. Binkley, Soldotna, AK 99669¶262-8608
POSITION STATEMENT: supports HB 42
Dave Koivuniemi, Acting Director
Division of Elections
P.O. Box 110017, Juneau, AK 99811-0017¶465-4611
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on HB 42
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-13, SIDE A
Number 001
SSTA - 3/28/95
HB 4 PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND ELIGIBILITY
CHAIRMAN SHARP calls the Senate State Affairs Committee to order at
3:35 p.m. and brings up HB 4 as the first order of business before
the committee. The chairman states the bill was heard previously,
and notes information requested from the Permanent Fund Dividend
Division has been received. The information received shows a
breakdown of categories and numbers of people out of state who
receive dividends. The chairman asks if anyone wishes to comment
on the bill.
Number 025
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS makes a motion to discharge HB 4 from the
Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
Number 030
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, orders HB 4 released from
committee with individual recommendations.
SSTA - 3/28/95
SB 110 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATIONS
SENATOR SHARP brings up SB 110 as the next order of business before
the Senate State Affairs Committee.
Number 043
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS makes a motion to adopt the State Affairs
Committee substitute for SB 110.
Number 051
SENATOR DONLEY introduces and explains a proposed amendment to SB
110 (9-GS0006\A.1, Bannister, 3/24/95). The amendment would
increase the public notice required before regulations can be
adopted. Senator Donley informs the committee that the
administration is opposed to this amendment.
Number 110
SENATOR DONLEY makes a motion to adopt Amendment #1 to SB 110.
Number 115
SENATOR LEMAN expresses concern that the amendment does not apply
to regulations necessary to meet federal requirements. We need to
fight back and not allow the federal government to over-run us.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asks Ms. Williams if she would like to testify on
the amendment.
Number 135
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, testifying from
Anchorage, thinks the amendment would increase the cost of the
regulatory process because of additional advertising and additional
board and commission meetings. She states the original intent of
SB 110 was as a cost-saving measure, while the amendment would
increase state costs. Ms. Williams also thinks the amendment would
complicate the regulatory process enough so that beneficial changes
to proposed regulations will not be made. For that reason, she
thinks it might adversely affect public input.
MS. WILLIAMS also thinks departments would not be able to adopt
regulations in a timely manner for seasonal conditions, such as a
construction season or a timber season. She asks what would happen
if a regulation is thrown out by a court. In an instance where
fees are involved, would there then be no fees?
Number 200
MS. WILLIAMS believes the power to challenge regulations will be
immense, if amendment #1 is adopted. She thinks it will lead to
more litigation. Environmental groups often use every tool in the
book to stop something.
Number 215
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks Ms. Williams if the administration will
be supporting the amendment if the issues she raised are addressed.
Number 220
MS. WILLIAMS thinks there are some good things to the amendment,
but there would have to be a fiscal note with it, and she does not
think the legislature would add the funds.
Number 232
SENATOR DONLEY asserts that the seasonal example given by Ms.
Williams as a potential problem should not be a concern, because
regulations could be adopted under the emergency regulations
process. And Ms. Williams' concern with increased litigation could
not even occur, so long as departments comply with the law. For
court cases, the court may grant relief appropriate under the
circumstances. So if a court had a problem with a regulation, they
wouldn't necessarily have to strike down the whole regulation.
Number 250
SENATOR LEMAN asks Senator Donley if, under Section 2, subsection
(c), if it would be appropriate to add language to the end of the
subsection stating, "or a portion of a regulation", or similar
language to clarify that a whole regulation need not be thrown out.
SENATOR DONLEY responds he would totally support such an amendment
to amendment #1. He suggests, on page 2, line 9, that the
amendment read, "...including the invalidation or partial
invalidation of the regulation...."
SENATOR LEMAN does not care how the amendment is made, just that
the intent be clear.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks the intent is: if there is an area of any
regulation that is not impacted by the change with which the court
is concerned, that the unaffected portion of the regulation still
remain in effect.
SENATOR LEMAN is not sure how the amendment to amendment #1 should
be worded, so he moves the conceptual amendment to amendment #1.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, states the conceptual
amendment to amendment #1 has been adopted.
CHAIRMAN SHARP notes he does not see language in amendment #1
stating there must be a hearing, just language specifying
additional time for public comment.
SENATOR DONLEY responds the language specifies, "...there is a
notice and opportunity for public comment." He thinks this is the
exact language used in legislation that was worked on three years
ago. His understanding is that language would require a public
hearing procedure.
SENATOR LEMAN asks if that would be a 30 day requirement.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks it would be a 30 day.
SENATOR LEMAN asks if there would be any way to require a truncated
second public comment period. Or would a new process have to be
established?
Number 290
SENATOR DONLEY replies a new process would have to be established.
He thinks this language would just require one additional hearing.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asks if there are any more comments on amendment #1
to SB 110.
SENATOR DONLEY asks the committee to consider, to bring things into
perspective, that all the administration has to do to adopt
regulations, which are just as powerful as law, is hold one
hearing. Amendment #1 would require an additional hearing if
proposed regulations are changed after the first hearing.
Number 300
CHAIRMAN SHARP asks if there is objection to adopting amendment #1
to SB 110. Hearing no objection, the chairman states amendment #1
has been adopted.
Number 305
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS makes a motion to discharge SB 110 from the
Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, orders SB 110 released from
committee with individual recommendations.
SSTA - 3/28/95
SB 135 PFD NOTICES AND ELIGIBILITY
SENATOR SHARP brings up SB 135 as the next order of business before
the Senate State Affairs Committee and calls the first witness.
Number 313
SENATOR STEVE FRANK, Co-Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee,
prime sponsor of SB 135, states SB 135 is a subject that passed the
senate last year. SB 135 would require persons incarcerated or
convicted of a third misdemeanor to contribute their permanent fund
dividends, on the theory that those persons should incur at least
some part of the costs imposed on the system through their illegal
behavior. It provides the state a way to fund some of the programs
in the Department of Corrections. It would also allow legislative
discretion for utilization of the money for other agencies,
including the Department of Public Safety and the Department of
Law.
Number 334
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks if there are any word changes from last
year's version.
DAVID SKIDMORE, Aide to Senator Frank, responds that the portion of
SB 135 that references the Department of Revenue is slightly
different. Permanent fund dividends forfeited under SB 135 will
not be used to satisfy child support obligations; it is thought
that would be unconstitutional, under the constitutional
requirement that public funds not be used for private purpose.
Another change was in the effective date. Only offenses from the
effective date of January 1, 1996 will be counted.
SENATOR DUNCAN is not sure he understands the entire impact of SB
135. He asks if this is being considered as a source of funding
for the Department of Corrections in the FY 96 operating budget.
If SB 135 does not pass, will it impact funding for the Department
of Corrections?
Number 365
SENATOR FRANK does not think whether SB 135 passes or not would
have any affect on the Department of Corrections budget. The
budget proposal assumes this money will be available. But he does
not think 2.7 million dollars in general funds will be taken out of
the budget if SB 135 does not pass.
SENATOR DUNCAN asks if he understands correctly that SB 135 would
allow 2.7 million dollars of permanent fund earnings to go to the
Department of Corrections, and if SB 135 didn't pass, then that
funding source will have to be replaced by general funds.
SENATOR FRANK replies that is correct.
Number 388
SENATOR DUNCAN says he is not in favor of giving convicted felons
a permanent fund dividend, but he wants to know what the impact
will be on the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) and other
recipients of garnished dividends.
SENATOR FRANK thinks there may be some reduction in garnishment of
dividends for child support obligations. They tried to work around
that, but they felt as though the number of people affected by that
would be small.
Number 405
MR. SKIDMORE thinks about 300 of the approximately 2,050
individuals would have child support obligations that would be
affected. That does not take into account families on AFDC.
Number 415
SENATOR DUNCAN comments he is concerned with impact on child
support, victim restitution, treatment programs, and payment of
fines and judgements.
SENATOR FRANK acknowledges there may be some impact on child
support, but it would only affect those folks who weren't on AFDC.
It is hard to tell how many people would be affected, but since it
is probably such a small number of people, would we be willing to
keep paying dividends to persons convicted of three or more
misdemeanors, just so that small group won't be affected? If we
didn't have AFDC as a back-up mechanism, then there would be more
reason to be concerned about those people losing an obligor's
dividend.
[Senator Duncan asked a question, which was not picked up by the
recording equipment.]
SENATOR FRANK answers maybe.
SENATOR DONLEY asks Senator Frank to clarify that currently, only
people incarcerated for felonies don't receive their dividends.
SENATOR FRANK responds that is correct.
SENATOR DONLEY asks if SB 135 would continue to deny dividends
after a felon has been released from prison.
MR. SKIDMORE responds SB 135 would not deny dividends to released
felons.
SENATOR DONLEY asks if SB 135 would deny dividends to felons for
the first year following their release from prison.
MR. SKIDMORE thinks it would do that.
SENATOR DONLEY doesn't understand that language in the bill.
Number 458
MR. SKIDMORE replies that the structure of the existing statute was
followed in drafting the legislation. Also taken into
consideration was the qualifying period for permanent fund
dividends.
SENATOR DONLEY asks what happens if a person is convicted of a
felony, but does not go to prison. Would a felon lose his or her
dividend for the rest of their life?
MR. SKIDMORE responds that would not be the case. Under SB 135
they would just lose their dividend for the following dividend
year.
SENATOR DONLEY notes the same thing would apply to persons
convicted of a third misdemeanor, but not imprisoned.
MR. SKIDMORE confirms that is the case. In regards to court fines,
for which dividends are currently being garnished, those fines
would not be extinguished, it would simply be pushed back one year.
Number 484
SENATOR DONLEY is willing to work on SB 135 in the Finance
Committee, but he really thinks the bill should be stronger.
SENATOR FRANK thinks they're trying to strike a balance between
what would be constitutional and what would be supportable by a
majority of legislators. He acknowledges that for some folks, it
probably would be fair to take their dividends away for the rest of
their lives.
Number 490
SENATOR DUNCAN asks if Senator Frank concurs with his statement
about double-dipping into the permanent fund earnings, and that it
will impact everyone's dividend.
SENATOR FRANK responds SB 135 will not impact everyone's dividend,
only the incarcerated folks.
SENATOR DUNCAN reasserts that if SB 135 is a double-dip in the
permanent fund earnings, then it will affect dividends.
SENATOR FRANK replies if that is what Senator Duncan implied, he
was not agreeing with that. Senator Frank asks Mr. Skidmore to
explain why two-years worth of dividends are being picked up to
accelerate the collection. That is what Senator Frank meant by
"double-dipping."
SENATOR DUNCAN concurs with that. It does authorize the
legislature to take over 2 million dollars out of the permanent
fund earnings, which really hasn't been collected as dividends from
the felons or repeat misdemeanants.
SENATOR FRANK states the dividends won't go to the felon or repeat
misdemeanants; that's the deal.
SENATOR DUNCAN points out that the money is in the corrections
budget for FY 96; it is not coming from those dividends, it is
coming from the permanent fund earnings. So it really is double-
dipping in the permanent fund earnings. So Senator Duncan thinks
SB 135 will affect the amount of the dividend.
SENATOR FRANK insists that is not the case. He asks Mr. Williams
to discuss that point.
TOM WILLIAMS, Aide to Senator Frank, states, "the individual was
incarcerated in calendar year 1993. Therefor they were ineligible
for the 1994 dividend. The department calculates the amount that
would have been paid for the 1994 dividend, reports it to the
legislature, and the legislature then appropriates it for fiscal
year 1996. In essence, there is a year's lag in appropriating
those funds to the Department of Corrections and the Department of
Public Safety, because they were actually dividends that were not
paid in fiscal year 1995. What SB 135 would do, it would double up
in one sense by moving when the dividends are paid and
corresponding them to when they are denied."
Number 522
SENATOR DUNCAN continues his assertion that the first year it would
seem to be that the money would be taken out of the permanent fund
earnings account. It will impact the dividends. He states he is
not convinced that dividends will not be reduced. He wants to know
if there will be an impact on dividends, and if that will be
reported on dividend check stubs. Senator Duncan does not know if
he would oppose SB 135 on that point.
Number 531
SENATOR FRANK does not think dividends would be affected by SB 135.
SENATOR DUNCAN agrees with that, with the exception of the first
year after the legislation becomes law. He agrees with everything
Senator Frank has said, with the exception of the first year, when
he believes there will be an extra 2.8 million dollars taken from
the permanent fund earnings. Perhaps he is mistaken, but that is
his perception. Senator Duncan asks if there is anyone from the
Permanent Fund Dividend Division to clarify whether or not his
concern is valid.
MIKE MCGEE, Chief, Permanent Fund Dividend Operations, Permanent
Fund Dividend Division, Department of Revenue, states the governor
strongly opposes SB 135 for the very reason discussed today: the
double-dipping nature of the first year the bill is law. Even if
that provision is eliminated, the governor would still oppose SB
135, because he does not want to see a reduction in the monies
available to those people and state agencies with attachments on
dividends of people affected by the bill. The administration does
see a reduction of 2.7 or 2.8 million in the permanent fund
earnings, because that money will be paid twice.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS comments sometimes the legislature just
doesn't agree with the governor.
Number 549
SENATOR DONLEY wonders how much the dividends will be impacted.
[There is general estimation and consensus that the amount will be
about $4 or $5 per dividend, and that it will probably not be
reportable on the dividend check stubs.]
SENATOR DUNCAN thinks people should know if part of their dividend
monies are being used for departmental operations.
SENATOR LEMAN makes a motion to discharge SB 135 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
Number 567
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, orders SB 135 released from
committee with individual recommendations.
SSTA - 3/28/95
HB 74 ASSAULT BY ADULTS ON CHILDREN
SENATOR SHARP brings up HB 74 as the next order of business before
the Senate State Affairs Committee and calls the first witness.
TAPE 95-13, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, prime sponsor of HB 74, relays
information contained in the sponsor substitute to the committee.
Representative Bunde states there is a lot of public support behind
HB 74.
Number 555
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS commented he has had one phone call on HB
74, and that call was in opposition to HB 74. Senator Phillips
asks where the case is right now.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responds the case is in the process of going
to trial. Prosecutors are having to be "encouraged" to take the
case to trial; they were going to plea bargain.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks what the maximum penalty would be.
PATTY SWENSON, Aide to Representative Bunde, replies the maximum
penalty would be one year incarceration and a $5,000 fine.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE adds he has not heard of any instance in which
first time misdemeanants have been required to serve prison time.
There is usually a suspended sentence.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS refers to the old saying which basically
states law shouldn't be made because of one case. He also asked
how HB 74 would affect a property owner's right to protect his or
her property.
Number 535
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replies, out of the hundreds, if not over one
thousand responses he has received, Senator Phillips is only about
the fourth person to assert that HB 74 might affect a property
owner's right to protect their property. Will a property owner be
charged with a felony for protecting his or her property?
Representative Bunde stresses that prosecutorial discretion will
protect the property owner. First, the kid threatening the
property or the property owner will have to convince a prosecutor
that he was attacked, and was not the cause of the attack. He
understands the concern, but does not see it as a problem.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS reiterates the only call he has received on
HB 74 was in opposition to the bill, for the previously mentioned
scenario. We are referring to one case; unless there are a number
of cases in which this problem is occurring, he hates to pass a law
because of one case.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks, in regards to Senator Phillips' concern that
law not be made because of one case, that there are probably a lot
of cases in which HB 74 would apply, which have simply not been as
visible as the one case which was the impetus behind the bill.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks Senator Donley if he thinks HB 74 would
affect the rights of property owners to protect their property.
Number 515
SENATOR DONLEY responds that any steps a property owner takes to
defend his or her property would not be made any more legal or
illegal by HB 74. It just changes the potential maximum penalty.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS is worried that if a property owner
physically escorts a trespasser from his or her property, they will
be charged with a felony.
SENATOR DONLEY replies a property owner is, and would still be
allowed, to use reasonable force to protect his or her property.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks if a property owner could use a
shotgun.
SENATOR DONLEY responds that is not reasonable force; that is
deadly force. HB 74 will not affect whether the property owner's
defense is legal or not.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks what if the trespasser is destroying
property.
SENATOR DONLEY replies HB 74 will not affect the parameters of what
property owners can and cannot do to defend their property.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE adds that, under existing statute, reasonable
force may be used to defend one's property. In some cases,
reasonable force could be pretty aggressive; in other cases,
depending on the situation, a property owner's response could be
considered assault. Representative Bunde understands Senator
Phillips' concern. HB 74 will not change the restrictions by which
a property owner is constrained in defending his or her property or
life. The only change would be, if there was a charge brought
against a property owner, and if the prosecutor was convinced that
it was a really egregious case, the property owner could be charged
with a felony instead of a class A misdemeanor. We all know that
in practical application, a first time conviction receiving the
maximum penalty allowed for a class A misdemeanor is more severe
than the minimum penalty for a felony. There is public outcry that
this tool be available to prosecutors, if necessary.
[Representative Bunde show the committee approximately 500
signatures on petitions in favor of HB 74, and informs the
committee he has more in his office.]
Number 480
SENATOR DONLEY states he is concerned with the use of deadly force,
because he thinks there is too much constraint put on property
owners, in that one is supposed to allow one's self to be
endangered before protecting one's self. He did look into that as
Judiciary Chairman several years ago, and satisfied himself that
Alaska Statutes are pretty good on that subject. Deadly force is
allowable when one is physically threatened. Other reasonable
force is allowed to protect one's property. To go beyond that, to
allow property owners to shoot people because they are carrying off
a bird bath--I don't know if you would want to do that.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS thinks the question needs to be asked.
Secondly, should law be made on one publicized case?
SENATOR DONLEY agrees with that, but he thinks that whole area of
law should be revisited and that there should be stronger assault
laws. It is a shame it has to be driven by the event that was the
impetus for HB 74. He thinks there is a problem with assault being
taken to lightly by the justice system. Judges, police, and
prosecutors become desensitized to assault with all the murders,
rapes, and kidnappings with which they have to deal.
SENATOR LEMAN makes a motion to discharge HB 74 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, orders HB 74 be released from
committee with individual recommendations.
SSTA - 3/28/95
SB 120 STATE VETERANS' HOME FACILITIES
SENATOR SHARP brings up SB 120 as the next order of business before
the Senate State Affairs Committee and calls the first witness.
Number 451
SENATOR TORGERSON relays information contained in the sponsor
statement for SB 120 to the committee. Senator Torgerson expresses
surprise at the amount of the fiscal note, and asserts SB 120 will
have no fiscal impact on the State of Alaska.
Number 423
CHAIRMAN SHARP asks Senator Torgerson to confirm that SB 120 will
simply modify existing law to state veteran's facilities would not
just be housing facilities, but would also have nursing care.
SENATOR TORGERSON responds that is the intent.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asks if he is correct in his belief that there are
currently no veteran's homes in the state, and that SB 120 does
nothing but set up enabling legislation.
SENATOR TORGERSON replies that is his understanding.
Number 408
JEFF MORRISON, Legislative Liaison, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs, states one of the department's duties is to
advise the legislature what we believe veterans would want. He
thinks it would be safe to say veterans would support SB 120.
Number 392
JIM KOHN, Deputy Director, Division of Senior Services, Department
of Administration, states the change made by SB 120 would not be
just a technical amendment to an existing law, which makes the
existing law operational. The state law will remain, even with
passage of SB 120, incompatible with the federal veterans' program
requirements. The present statute requires that the veterans'
homes be operated without state subsidy. Nothing in SB 120 changes
that. The Veterans' Administration (VA) requires that a state
receiving a construction grant for construction of a state
veterans' home provide assurance that the state will be responsible
for the operating costs of that facility. When the VA contributes
65% of the construction costs, and the state contributes 35%, the
agreement up front is that the state will provide assurance they
will foot the future operating costs, as well as maintaining the
building.
MR. KOHN states that replacing the term "domiciliary care" with the
term "nursing care" has only one effect: it increases the daily
rate paid by the VA from approximately $10.83 to $25.35 for
eligible veterans. Since the cost of a nursing home bed in Alaska
is approximately $250 per day, a resident without state subsidy
would be responsible for the difference. On a yearly basis, the VA
would pay approximately $10,000 of these costs, while the resident
would be required to pay approximately $80,000. Understandably,
few residents would be able to pay the costs involved. Yet it
would be required by the agreement with the VA that 75% of all
residents in a nursing home be eligible veterans, which means that
their income would have to be lower than the appropriate maximum
allowed. That puts them in the position of being unable to pay for
their care.
MR. KOHN reminds the committee that in Alaska there is a VA
community nursing home program right now. Under this program, the
federal government is obligated to pay the total costs of the care
of veterans placed in community nursing homes by the VA. We need
to realize, that if a veterans' home is opened, the state will be
exchanging federal money for state obligations. In addition,
though he understands that veterans' organizations would like to
see a veterans' home, he is not sure that individual veterans would
be favorably impressed when faced with the bill. At present,
veterans can enter nursing care homes in their own communities, and
continue to have their families nearby. If a centralized
veterans' home is created, people will have to move to that central
location to get any subsidy.
Number 310
MR. KOHN explains that the large fiscal note is to make disclosure
of costs, rather than following the actual law. The fiscal note
does not follow the law, because under the law, it is not possible
to even construct the home, or make the deal with the VA. The
fiscal note is based on the costs associated with building a home
similar to the Juneau Pioneer Home, with staff similar to the
Juneau Pioneer Home.
Number 332
CHAIRMAN SHARP asks Mr. Kohn if the veterans' homes in the rest of
the country all operate with only $25 a day from the federal
government.
MR. KOHN replies that is correct.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asks if that has always been the case. He thought
the federal government paid nearly all the costs associated with
veterans' homes.
MR. KOHN responds that since there is no veterans' home in Alaska,
the VA does pay the full cost of the care of eligible veterans
placed in a community nursing home. Eligibility is based upon
total income and assets. The VA also requires that 75% of the
residents in a veterans' home be of that eligible income status.
There is therefore the possibility that the costs to other veterans
ineligible for subsidy residing in the home will be increased, in
order to offset the loss caused by those unable to pay.
Number 298
DAVE WILLIAMS, Director, Division of Medical Assistance, Department
of Health & Social Services, states the division has followed the
development of home care for many years, and SB 120 seems to take
things in the opposite direction. The division is also aware that
many nursing home beds are pending construction. A home care
system is being set up in this state, and money will all come from
the same direction. If money is put into facilities, it will be
harder to develop a home care system. Also, when an eligible
veteran comes out of a hospital and placed in a nursing home, that
veteran will have 90 days of benefits in the nursing home. If care
goes beyond that, and a veteran is eligible for medicaid, then
medicaid pays the bill. In a state veterans' home, the home would
be eligible as a medicaid provider. The Department of Health &
Social Services has no position on SB 120, but the state will be
liable for 50% of the cost of care, under the medicaid program.
Number 268
SENATOR LEMAN asks Mr. Williams to explain his statement that the
money will come from the same direction.
MR. WILLIAMS responds there is a limited amount of money available
for long-term care. If that money is spent on nursing home care,
he assumes it will be more difficult to fund a home-care system.
Number 235
SENATOR TORGERSON reasserts that SB 120 does not build any
facilities or appropriate any money. It will give veterans in the
state the opportunity to build a nursing home.
Number 220
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS makes a motion to discharge SB 120 from the
Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, orders SB 120 released from
committee with individual recommendations.
SSTA - 3/28/95
HJR 22 ALASKA/RUSSIA MARITIME BOUNDARY
SENATOR SHARP brings up HJR 22 as the next order of business before
the Senate State Affairs Committee and calls the first witness.
Number 210
JOE RYAN, Aide to Representative Vezey, prime sponsor of HJR 22,
relays information contained in the sponsor statement to the
committee.
Number 180
SENATOR LEMAN makes a motion to discharge HJR 22 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, orders HJR 22 released from
committee with individual recommendations.
SSTA - 3/28/95
HB 42 ABSENTEE VOTING & USE OF FAX
SENATOR SHARP brings up HB 42 as the next order of business before
the Senate State Affairs Committee and calls the first witness.
Number 177
TOM ANDERSON, Aide to Representative Martin, informs the committee
that HB 42 is very similar to HB 49 from the previous legislature.
The bill allows for the electronic transmission of absentee
ballots. There are some very minor differences between the two
bills: some cost saving measures for the Division of Elections, and
an extension of the secrecy waiver statement. Mr. Anderson states
the major concern with the bill in the past has been the waiver of
secrecy. Legislative Legal Services and the Attorney General's
Office have both written letters of support for HB 49, stating that
the right and ability to vote is a more significant concern than
the right to vote in secret. Mr. Anderson states the subject has
had support from disabled groups, the military, and AFN, among
others.
Number 115
RUPE ANDREWS, League of Women Voters in Alaska, states the league
does not specifically support or oppose HB 42. However, the league
agrees with the overall intent to improve the efficiency of voting.
Mr. Andrews states the two concerns he has with the bill are: the
constitutionality of the bill in regards to the potential for
coercion and secrecy, and the implementation of the bill. He sees
equipment failure, lack of equipment, and 24 hour monitoring by
staff as potential problems in implementation.
Number 090
SENATOR LEMAN asks how electronic transmission could enhance the
opportunity for coercion any more than current standard absentee
ballots could. He doesn't know how electronic transmission changes
that.
MR. ANDREWS is not sure either, but thinks that somewhere along the
transmission line, there could be a problem with coercion. He also
questions whether the press could obtain copies of ballots cast in
this manner under the freedom of information act, since a secrecy
waiver will be signed by the voter giving up the right to secrecy.
SENATOR LEMAN thinks it would be a stretch to consider these type
of ballots information available to the public. It would certainly
not be his intent that these ballots be considered public
information.
MR. ANDERSON adds that has never been a point of contention.
GAYE VAUGHAN, Clerk, Kenai Peninsula Borough, states she is
testifying as clerk, and not on behalf of the assembly. She states
the Kenai Peninsula Borough did adopt a variation of HB 42 over a
year ago for municipal elections. Many people took advantage of
the program. However, the program did not allow the fax of the
voted ballot. Ms. Vaughan supports HB 42, and sees it as an
assistance in increasing voter turnout.
Number 027
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS states he has a natural fear of cheating,
and asks Ms. Vaughan if there has been any attempted fraud relating
to faxing ballots.
MS. VAUGHAN responds this is Alaska, this isn't Chicago. She
states she has been a municipal clerk for almost 18 years. She has
caught people who have voted twice: people who didn't understand
that you can't go to every polling place, or that you can't vote
two weeks ahead of time and the day of the election. Ms. Vaughan
does not see fraud as a problem at this time. She supports HB 42.
TAPE 95-14, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN SHARP comments he had several complaints regarding
absentee ballots during the last election. The complaints were
that people had applied for absentee ballots, but never received
them. HB 42 would help solve that problem.
Number 024
MS. VAUGHAN adds that a lot of people think the elections are
always held in November, which isn't the case; so absentee voting
by fax really helps in municipal elections, because all of a sudden
someone gets a reminder that there is an election coming up, and
can apply for a ballot with shorter notice.
Number 040
DAVE KOIVUNIEMI, Acting Director, Division of Elections, states the
division is taking a neutral stance on HB 42.
CHAIRMAN SHARP thinks the biggest thing is to be able to receive an
absentee ballot from the division by fax. If an individual doesn't
want to lose the secrecy, then they can always mail the ballot back
to the division. It doesn't need to be faxed both ways.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks Mr. Koivuniemi what the concerns of the
division are regarding HB 42.
Number 061
MR. KOIVUNIEMI replies the biggest concerns are technical, and
relate to implementation. How often will the division have to try
to fax the ballot, if transmission keeps failing? His personal
opinion is that the state has some of the most liberal absentee
methods of voting in the country. But it is mainly questions
regarding implementation, rather than any philosophical problem.
The division already accepts applications for absentee ballots by
fax.
Number 095
SENATOR LEMAN makes a motion to discharge HB 42 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, orders HB 42 released from
committee with individual recommendations.
Number 106
CHAIRMAN SHARP adjourns the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting
at 5:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|