HB 155 - HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FEES & HEARINGS The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HB 155, "An Act relating to hearings before and authorizing fees for the State Commission for Human Rights; and providing for an effective date." Number 0575 PAULA HALEY, Executive Director, Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, was the first person to testify via the telephone in Anchorage. The bill was part of the agency's response to increased demand for services from the Alaskan public in the wake of diminished resources. Over the past 15 years complaints of discriminations filed had nearly tripled while at the same time the agency had lost 35 percent of its staff. As a result, the agency had been working to increase its efficiency but because of the increase in filings it had not been able to bring its inventory down. In fact, the filings had burgeoned to an all time high. The commission realized that seeking additional resources alone was not enough so to better face the work load challenge it had reviewed and revised its internal processes and procedures, amended its regulations, and proposed HB 155. The bill would allow for both a cost-saving measure and would give the authority to charge fees for certain services. Any fees generated or money saved, from holding hearings at the agency's office, and by not transcribing every hearing would be used towards the investigation and enforcement of the law. The money would allow the agency to use temporary staff, for processing, investigations, pay overtime, and quicker investigations. The public was not satisfied with the time it took to complete an investigation. At this moment, there were over 360 cases that were not assigned to an investigator and could stay on hold for up to nine months. Therefore, HB 155 would be an essential piece of the commission's effort to grapple with the delays by saving money, streamlining its process, and allowing for the collection of fees. She and the commissioners urged the support of the committee members. Number 0762 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked Ms. Haley if she had a breakdown of the cases for the whole state? Number 0814 MS. HALEY stated that the agency would hold hearings only in instances where there was substantial evidence. And if the employer, for example, did not wish to fly to the commission's office, the hearing would be heard telephonically. If it was important to see the chief witness, for example, he or she would be brought to the hearing site. However, often the complaining party in rural Alaska moved from the area and the state. Therefore, telephonic communication would help deal with the problem. She also hoped that the impact on the non-urban areas would be very limited. CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Haley to provide to Representative Ivan a recap of where the majority of the cases came from in Alaska. Number 0930 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he could provide to Representative Ivan the annual report that gave the information today. Number 0941 MS. HALEY replied in the annual report there was pie-shape chart of the areas where the cases came from around the state. Number 0963 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Haley who the fees would be assessed to? Number 0971 MS. HALEY replied the commissioners had not spent a great deal of time discussing the particulars of the assessment. It would have to be done by regulation. The initial reaction was in response to the educational aspect of the commission. She did a fair amount of training, as resources allowed, hoping that the training would prevent complaints from being filed. And many that approached the commission were willing to pay for the seminars or the materials prepared but it was unable to accept the money. If those fees could be secured, they could go to the enforcement aspect of the commission. Number 1035 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Haley if there was intent to assess a fee from those that filed a complaint? Number 1045 MS. HALEY replied the commissioners could look at that under the bill. However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that gave $100,000 to $120,000 to support its efforts strongly discouraged and had indicated by letter that it would terminate its contract if the agency was to charge a fee for filing a claim. Number 1099 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he would be even more concerned if we were looking at assessing a fee for those who were required to defend themselves. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Haley why the entire sentence was not deleted on page 2, lines 19-21? By deleting the entire language, it reverted to the Open Meetings Act. Number 1124 MS. HALEY replied the requirement for a transcript had been in the statute for a long time. The hearings were sometimes very short and informal and sometimes they were like mini-trials lasting up to a week. It was very expensive to contract for those services. The agency wanted to just be able to record the hearings and to make the tapes available rather than transcribing every hearing. She did not fully understand his reference to the Open Meetings Act because the hearing process was already open to the public, except for the deliberations. Number 1181 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wondered why the entire sentence was not deleted because the commission was required to follow the Open Meetings Act by law anyway. Number 1203 MS. HALEY replied she was not sure about the applicability of the Open Meetings Act. In other words, these were administrative hearings on cases presented under the Human Rights Law. They were not meetings of the commissioners as public policy makers that would be bound by the Open Meetings Act, for example. Number 1247 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained he had a part in getting this going when he was on the Human Rights Commission. The dilemma that the commission faced was a huge back log of investigations and complaints of untimely investigations. As a result, the commissioners found themselves directing the activity of the staff. For instance, when Ms. Haley conducted a training, time was spent away from the job. He wondered, therefore, if the commission could be reimbursed for her expenses. The answer was, no, under existing law. Thus, he suggested a bill that would allow the commission to be reimbursed for the out of pocket expenses incurred. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON further explained the second step was to eliminate the mindless obedience of the law on where the meetings were held when it did not serve the purpose of justice and the complainant. This allowed for more flexibility, cost effectiveness, and effectiveness for the complainant and the defendant. Number 1368 MS. HALEY replied she had been allowed to be reimbursed for the cost of an airplane ticket but not for the time away from the agency or for the value of the training in terms of preparations and materials. It was time to look for cost effective measures and if telephonic hearings would save money then that was the way to go and the bill would allow for that. It also allowed for people to request a change of venue for good cause. Number 1449 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he was concerned about the broad nature of Section 1. The bill would give the agency the regulatory authority to assess fees for investigations, complaints and hearings. CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey if he was proposing a change to the bill? Number 1492 MS. HALEY replied the commissioners would not be opposed to a change. The original version had the word "educational" included for clarification. Number 1524 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN explained he also had the same concern as Representative Vezey. CHAIR JAMES announced the bill would be held until Tuesday, March 25, 1997 in order to look at Section 1 further.