Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/21/1994 09:13 AM 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 21, 1994
9:13 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chair
Senator Mike Miller, Vice Chair
Senator Robin Taylor
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Jim Duncan
Senator Johnny Ellis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 43(FIN)
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the rights of crime victims.
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 26
Declaring 1994 to be the year of Vancouver.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 249(HES)
"An Act relating to assisted living homes; relating to the
conversion of an assisted living home to a nursing home; repealing
references to residential facilities for dependent adults;
abolishing the authority of certain municipalities to license or
supervise institutions caring for dependent adults; and providing
for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 302
"An Act relating to the establishment, modification, and
enforcement of support orders and the determination of parentage in
situations involving more than one state; amending Alaska Rule of
Administration 9; amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82; and
providing for an effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HJR 43 - See Judiciary minutes dated 11/16/93 and State Affairs
minutes dated 3/9/94.
HCR 26 - No previous senate committee action.
SB 249 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated
2/2/94, 2/4/94, 2/16/94, 2/23/94, and 3/9/94.
SB 302 - No previous senate committee action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Brian Porter
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶465-4930
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HJR 43
Margot Knuth, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300, Juneau, AK 99811-0300¶465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on HJR 43
Linda Giguere, Aide
Representative Hudson
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶465-6827
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HCR 26
Connie Sipe, Executive Director
Division of Senior Services
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110209, Juneau, AK 99811-0209¶465-3250
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 249
John Mallonee, Deputy Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
550 W 7th, Suite 312, Anchorage, AK 99501-3556¶269-6800
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 302
Laraine Derr, Deputy Commissioner
Treasury
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110400, Juneau, AK 99811-0400¶465-2302
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 302
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-18, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN LEMAN calls the Senate State Affairs Committee to order at
9:13 a.m.
Number 010
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up HJR 43 (RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS) as the
first order of business before the Senate State Affairs Committee.
The chairman calls Representative Porter as the first witness.
Number 018
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER states HJR 43 would take statutory
rights currently given to victims and make those rights
constitutional. This would put the victim's rights on par with
those of the defendant. One of the differences between the senate
version and the house version on this subject is that the senate
version contains the section 12 amendments dealing with penal
administration. Representative Porter states that, as sponsor of
the house legislation, he would have no problem with the re-
insertion of that section in to the house bill. The one
qualification of that would be to make sure the legalities of that
do not present problems. The only other difference between the two
pieces of legislation is the drafting form.
Number 045
SENATOR TAYLOR asks what happened to this amendment on the house
side.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responds there was a single subject question,
and rather than seek a final answer, the house just separated the
two subjects.
Number 050
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says the Senate State Affairs Committee requested
that the Legislative Council to address that. The Legislative
Council did say a title amendment to the house bill would require
a concurrent resolution and two-thirds vote for passage. Of course
it will take a two-thirds vote to pass HJR 43 at any rate.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says he sees three main differences between the
house and senate legislation. One difference is the section in the
senate bill which addresses penal administration. The second is
the format. He thinks it is easier to read if it is numbered, but
also thinks the legislation should be consistent with the existing
language of the constitution. The third main area of difference is
whether these provisions are listed as rights versus allowances,
entitlements, or requests. Those are some of the things the
committee should address. We also are concerned that the state not
take on liability for restitution.
Number 101
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER mentions there has been discussion that
notifying the victim if the offender escapes from custody should be
added to the legislation.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN thinks that is a very good point and plans to add
that to the new committee substitute (cs).
SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to adopt the cs.
Number 114
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, states SCS CSHJR 43(STA) has
been adopted in lieu of CSHJR 43(STA). The chairman calls Ms.
Knuth from the Department of Law to testify. The chairman asks Ms.
Knuth how the legislation should be formatted, or if it will be
automatically put in the same format as the rest of the
constitution when it is inserted.
Number 125
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law says she cannot answer the chairman's question
about how the bill should be formatted. However, she doesn't think
the type of format would make a substantive difference. Just for
consistency, there is an argument to be made in that no other part
of the constitution is formatted in this style. She does not think
it should be a matter of major concern though.
Number 141
MS. KNUTH expresses appreciation that the reference to the juvenile
justice system was omitted on the proposed amendment to section 12,
article 1, section 12. That will help keep the juvenile justice
system a little neater.
She has a minor concern that including restitution from the
offender could be used as a defendant's right, instead of a
victim's right. We are careful to set out the rights of victims of
crimes separately, while restitution is listed in a different
section. Defendants will argue that that needs to be a factor
during sentencing. She would hope the courts would reject that
argument, but we have had some less than reasonable rulings from
the courts. If this is the wish of the legislature, then that is
fine, but she simply wants to make the committee aware of that
argument.
Number 178
CHAIRMAN LEMAN states the scenario Ms. Knuth just mentioned was
exactly what he had in mind: that restitution could be considered
part of a sentence. We do change, to some extent, the way we look
at penal administration. The chairman is not interested in
releasing people who are dangerous to the public simply for the
purpose of restitution. But he is interested in using restitution
in those cases where the other conditions are met. Restitution
should be a part of the penal administration, in his opinion.
Number 189
SENATOR TAYLOR believes strongly in restitution, but is concerned
about restitution possibly taking the place of part or all of
serving a sentence. He has just seen on TV that Michael Jackson
can sleep with any little boys he wants; all he has to do is pay
them enough money and they disappear. If that isn't restitution,
Senator Taylor does not know what it is. He is concerned that if
a person is wealthy enough, they can continue to violate any laws
they want to, as long as they pay for it. We need to be very
serious in giving consideration to restitution being used as a
portion of sentencing, and he does not want to see people being
able to buy their way out of the process of justice.
Number 207
CHAIRMAN LEMAN responds inserting restitution probably wouldn't
change the case just mentioned by Senator Taylor, or other similar
cases, since restitution is listed as a lower priority than
community condemnation of the offender and public protection. The
chairman asks if there is further discussion or anyone else wishing
to testify on HJR 43. Hearing none, he announces HJR 43 will be
held over until Wednesday's meeting. He hopes the committee will
be able to move the bill out at that time.
Number 223
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up HCR 26 (DECLARING 1994 THE YEAR OF CAPT
VANCOUVER) as the next order of business before the Senate State
Affairs Committee. The chairman asks for testimony from the prime
sponsor.
Number 227
LINDA GIGUERE, Aide to Representative Hudson, says HCR 26 was
introduced to bring attention to the 200th anniversary of the
voyages of Captain Vancouver. There will be many educational
activities going on to celebrate these voyages, and Representative
Hudson thought a resolution would be a nice way to focus attention
on the activities.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN thanks Ms. Giguere for bringing the anniversary to
the committee's attention. The chairman asks if there is any
discussion on the resolution. Hearing none, he asks the pleasure
of the committee
SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge HCR 26 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
Number 240
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, orders HCR 26 released from
committee with individual recommendations.
Number 242
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 249 (REGULATION OF ASSISTED LIVING
HOMES) as the next order of business before the committee. The
chairman calls a representative from the Department of
Administration to testify.
Number 246
CONNIE SIPE, Executive Director, Division of Senior Services,
Department of Administration states CSSB 249(HES) is a governor's
bill and is also supported by the Industry of Adult Foster Homes
and Adult Residential Care Centers, The Alaska Hospital & Nursing
Home Association, the Pioneer Homes Advisory Board, the Older
Alaskans' Commission, the Pioneers of Alaska, and the AARP.
MS. SIPE states there are three key points the bill would address
which she would like to summarize. SB 249 takes a new approach to
living outside of one's own home and outside a nursing home. It
creates a consumer protection or a landlord-tenant type of
atmosphere of adequate disclosure to the consumer. It allows
access to health care in a home-like setting, instead of forbidding
people to get any health care help between the doors of their own
home and those of a nursing home. And it transfers all the
licensing responsibility from DFYS (Division of Family & Youth
Services) for licensing adult type care homes to two agencies with
program experience serving adults. Homes that serve primarily the
elderly and physically disabled will be licensed by the Division of
Senior Services within the Department of Administration, and homes
such as group homes for developmentally disabled will be licensed
by the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities
within the Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS). There
are provisions for dealing with overlap of jurisdiction so that the
person in the private sector who is running this business is not
burdened.
MS. SIPE says she would be glad to answer any questions. She knows
quite a few members of the committee are familiar with the bill, so
she won't go into it in great length, but would be glad to
highlight any parts the chairman wishes.
Number 271
CHAIRMAN LEMAN thanks Ms. Sipe and asks if there are questions from
committee members. The chairman notes many members of the State
Affairs Committee are familiar with SB 249 because of all the work
that was done on it in the Health, Education & Social Services
Committee.
Number 280
SENATOR TAYLOR asks if the state is now going into the licensing
business.
Number 283
MS. SIPE responds the state currently licenses adult foster homes
and adult residential care centers, all states do license some
level of adult care facility, the licensing responsibility is
simply being transferred. However, the whole bill is less of a
licensing type of bill than it is a landlord-tenant type of bill.
SB 249 contains residents and landlords rights and responsibilities
explicitly laid out. The current licensing system labels all the
adults who live in these facilities "dependant", treats them like
they were wards of the state, and does not require them to get much
disclosure of what they are purchasing from a dependant care
facility.
MS. SIPE says this would encourage small developers who are
interested in building assisted living homes to do so. Current
licensing is not favorable to assisted living. The pioneers homes
can handle assisted living because they are not required to be
licensed. Literally, if someone cannot take the cap off their
medication bottle, they cannot be in an adult foster home, even if
that home is run by a registered nurse. If they are bedridden with
bronchitis for five days, they are supposed to be discharged to a
nursing home. SB 249 would allow them to have access to health
care in assisted living homes. The state currently licenses, but
this is a change in licensing. It hopefully will require less
state oversight.
Number 310
SENATOR TAYLOR is concerned that pioneers homes are not licensed.
MS. SIPE states the pioneers homes would become licensed under this
bill. But SB 249 was not proposed for the purpose of licensing the
pioneers homes, it was proposed for the private sector. This will
allow the private sector to grow. It will not change the
activities of the pioneers homes, it will not require pioneers
homes to have assisted living, although pioneers homes would be
subject to getting licensed under SB 249.
Number 325
SENATOR TAYLOR is concerned with the length of the bill. On page
18 of the bill, language says, "this chapter does not preclude a
state agency from imposing additional requirements or standards on
an assisted living home in order for the home to receive state or
federal payment for services." There is a blank check for DEC or
the Fire Marshall. Senator Taylor says over the years, he has
watched these agencies with dictatorial power have great effect on
businesses. Senator Taylor says the only reason this is a growing
industry is no one can afford to put their relatives into our
state-supported facilities. So now we are going to let the state
get involved in the private sector. That indicates to him, that
the price for the private sector services will have to increase.
Number 349
MS. SIPE replies the state has the same concern: they do not want
to over-regulate. Senior Services plans to handle this with one
licensing worker. They are going from one year licenses to two
year licenses renewals. The state is trying to minimize the
regulations. The state is de-regulating one and two person foster
homes, so that if you want to arrange with a retired nurse who is
your neighbor, to take care of your mother, you can do that and
they will not be regulated at all. SB 249 actually contains quite
a few deregulatory provisions. By requiring disclosure by the
home, we feel that the state can stay further out of that
relationship and just do the minimal amount of licensing needed.
MS. SIPE says she would like to address Senator Taylor's comments
about the Fire Marshall and DEC, but SB 249 does not address that
issue. That is a whole other area of law. The industry has great
difficulty with the Fire Marshall, partially because of conflicting
local jurisdiction interpretations. Local jurisdictions can have
their own interpretations of law, and can enforce more stringently
than the State Fire Marshall. However, Ms. Sipe has checked with
the State Fire Marshall and they are not interested in a state
over-ride in this bill at this time. They have promised to work
with the Department of Administration to try to get more uniformity
in interpretation. The private sector is running into some of the
problems mentioned by Senator Taylor. DEC is not as big a problem
as the Fire Marshall. The Fire Marshall is the problem Ms. Sipe
hears all over the state. She is sorry this bill does not have a
cure for that problem. Ms. Sipe points out that what to some
people is a problem, to the Municipality of Anchorage is a local
control issue; it depends on which way you look at it.
Number 368
MS. SIPE introduces Pat Denny from the Older Alaskan's Commission
and notes that the commission supports SB 249. There is a position
paper from them in the committee's bill packet.
Number 378
SENATOR TAYLOR comments he is concerned with SB 249 because he is
new to it. He believes in the concept of the bill.
Number 384
SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge SB 249 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
Number 385
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, orders SB 249 released from
committee with individual recommendations.
Number 388
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up (SB 302 UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT
ACT) as the next order of business before the committee. The
chairman calls Mr. Mallonee to testify.
Number 395
JOHN MALLONEE, Deputy Director, Child Support Enforcement Division
(CSED), Department of Revenue states SB 302 addresses one of the
most complex and difficult areas of child support establishment and
enforcement, since we have to deal with multiple states, that have
varying laws and procedures within their own child support
enforcement and establishment. This bill will clarify the
procedures used among the states when this legislation has been
passed by all the states. Currently, these laws are not federally
mandated, however, there are bills in congress which may mandate
this legislation in the future. This legislation has been passed
in eight states, and is pending in twenty-five additional states.
Number 405
CHAIRMAN LEMAN states that would bring the total number of states
with this legislation to 33, assuming all twenty-five states in
which legislation is pending, passed that legislation. The
chairman asks if there are questions from committee members. The
chairman comments uniform acts tend to be quite long pieces of
legislation, and he has not had time to review SB 302 in detail.
The chairman notes SB 302 is supported by the U.S Commission on
Interstate Child Support, the American Bar Association, and the
state Child Support Enforcement Division.
Number 418
CHAIRMAN LEMAN notes that the analysis for fiscal note #2 states
the "U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support recommends
verbatim enactment of this legislation, under penalty of losing
federal funding." The chairman says he does not want to tinker
just for the sake of tinkering, and asks if it is Mr. Mallonee's
opinion that even changing something small would put the state in
jeopardy of losing federal funds.
MR. MALLONEE does not think minor changes would create problems for
the state or problems with the other states. The problem with
changes to a uniform bill, however, is that it needs to be as
uniform as possible throughout the states. Minor changes should
not be a problem, but no substantive changes should be made.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there have been any other hearings in the
legislature on SB 302.
MR. MALLONEE responds this hearing is the first.
Number 438
SENATOR TAYLOR states he is concerned with the 1.5 million
projected operating costs.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN replies 1.5 million is a revenue fund source, not an
operating cost.
Number 443
MR. MALLONEE says SB 302 will not so much simplify the procedure of
interstate child support, as it will clarify who has responsibility
for certain aspects of the procedure. This bill has several
requirements which will increase the work of CSED. One, is that
certain notices will have to be given within 48 hours. Another is
that there will be more persons utilizing the child support
enforcement system when this legislation is enacted. Those things
will increase the caseload to some extent. CSED's caseload
consists of approximately 30% to 35% interstate cases. Mr.
Mallonee believes this percentage will increase as procedures are
simplified.
Number 464
SENATOR TAYLOR asks where the funding is coming from for the
revenue fund source on fiscal note #2
LARAINE DERR, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue clarifies
Senator Taylor is looking at an old fiscal note. The current
fiscal note was signed 3/10/94.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says he is looking at the fiscal note dated 1/31/94.
MS. DERR states the original fiscal note was revised to show CSED's
best guess as to increased caseload.
Number 490
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says CSED expects an increased caseload, but that in
all cases, revenues coming in will exceed expenditure. The money
coming in will exceed money spent by the state on such things as
welfare.
MS. DERR says half the money brought into the state is reimbursed
to the federal government.
MR. MALLONEE states those would be interstate collections of AFDC
(Aid to Families with Dependant Children) disbursements.
Number 499
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if CSED has any comparisons between URESA
(Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Support Act) and UIFSA (Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act).
MR. MALLONEE replies he does not have anything at hand, but can put
something together.
Number 512
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says he would like to get a little more familiar
with SB 302. The committee could bring the bill back up Wednesday
morning, if the committee can get some information by Tuesday
afternoon.
Number 516
SENATOR TAYLOR asks where the provisions are in SB 302 concerning
visitation.
MR. MALLONEE responds there are no provisions in SB 302 which
specifically address visitation.
Number 520
SENATOR TAYLOR says there were provisions addressing visitation in
URESA.
MR. MALLONEE replies SB 302 deals strictly with enforcement of
child support and establishment of paternity.
SENATOR TAYLOR asks if the administration is going to address the
issue of visitation, or is the administration only concerned with
the amount of money non-custodial parents are expected to pay.
MR. MALLONEE says he does not have the answer to that question. He
does realize that visitation has become a key word for many people,
and he understands the concern with visitation. However,
visitation is not for CSED to determine. The courts determine
visitation.
Number 534
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says the question that needs to be answered is, if
URESA is repealed, and UIFSA does not address visitation, how will
the issue of visitation be affected? The chairman asks Ms. Derr
and Mr. Mallonee to look at that issue and be prepared to address
it on Wednesday. The chairman asks if anyone else wishes to
testify. Hearing none, he announces the committee will hear the
bill again on Wednesday, March 23, 1994.
Number 548
CHAIRMAN LEMAN adjourns the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting
at 9:55 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|