Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/19/2021 02:00 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB76 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 76
"An Act extending the January 15, 2021, governor's
declaration of a public health disaster emergency in
response to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
pandemic; providing for a financing plan; making
temporary changes to state law in response to the
COVID-19 outbreak in the following areas: occupational
and professional licensing, practice, and billing;
telehealth; fingerprinting requirements for health
care providers; charitable gaming and online ticket
sales; access to federal stabilization funds; wills;
unfair or deceptive trade practices; and meetings of
shareholders; and providing for an effective date."
2:32:53 PM
Co-Chair Merrick listed individuals available online for
questions. [Note: The committee began hearing amendments to
HB 76 on 3/18/21 at 1:30 p.m. See separate minutes for
detail.]
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 32-GH1011\B.21
(Dunmire, 3/15/21) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "and"
Following "shareholders;":
Insert "and school operating funds;"
Page 10, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"Sec. 12. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a new section to read:
SCHOOL OPERA TING FUNDS. (a) Notwithstanding AS
14.17.505(a), a school district may accumulate in a
fiscal year an unreserved portion of its year-end fund
balance in its school operating fund, as defined in
regulation by the Department of Education and Early
Development, in any amount.
(b) Notwithstanding AS I 4.l 7.505(b), the unreserved
portion of the year-end operating fund balance of a
school district for the preceding fiscal year may not
be used to reduce the state aid paid to that school
district in the current fiscal year."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 10, line 31:
Delete "Sections 1 - 3 and 5 - 12"
Insert "(a) Sections 1 - 3, 5 - 11, and 13"
Page 11, following line 4:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) Section 12 of this Act is repealed June 30,
2023."
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
2:33:25 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz reviewed the amendment with a prepared
statement:
Under current law, AS 14.17.505, school districts are
prohibited from carrying forward more than 10 percent
of their unreserved fund balance into the next fiscal
year. This amendment, if adopted, waives that
provision for a two-year period in order to offer more
flexibility to districts in managing their financial
resources.
On April 9, 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic,
Governor Dunleavy issued COVID-19 disaster order of
suspension No. 3, which suspended AS 17.505 and ACC
09.160, also referred to as the 10 percent provision.
This allowed school districts to carry forward more
than 10 percent of their end of the year unreserved
balance. Twenty seven of the fifty three school
districts use this waiver to carry forward
approximately $15 million into the current school
year. With the expiration of the state disaster
declaration, school districts are again required to
adhere to the 10 percent provision.
In FY 21, school districts experienced tremendous
fluctuations in student enrollment. Districts with
established statewide correspondence programs saw a
large increase in students and subsequently state
revenue. Foundation dollars are distributed to school
districts on a monthly basis with distribution in the
first nine months of the fiscal year based on the
former year ADM count. State entitlement is then trued
up in the last three months of the fiscal year to
align a district's state revenues to their full
foundation entitlement based on the actual current
student count.
It is now the final months of the fiscal year. The
districts are making decisions on how to best spend
their remaining funds. A temporary waiver of the 10
percent provision offers districts flexibility in
meeting the continued challenges they face as they
adapt to COVID and hopefully, post-COVID school
environment.
Vice-Chair Ortiz relayed that adoption of the amendment
would restore the intention of Governor Dunleavy's first
disaster declaration that allowed school districts to carry
forward more than 10 percent.
2:36:00 PM
Representative Carpenter spoke to his objection. He
believed the committee had heard in a previous meeting that
while school districts had suffered some very unusual
circumstances and financial strains, they were doing fine
financially. He did not believe the amendment or bill were
necessary. He provided a recent letter from the governor
addressed to the presiding officers of the legislature
clarifying the emergency declaration was unnecessary
[letter dated March 18, 2021, addressed to House Speaker
Louise Stutes (copy on file)]. He believed the entire
process the committee was currently undergoing was
superfluous.
Representative Josephson supported the amendment. He
addressed the fiscal direction the state and local
governments were heading. He believed it would not be
possible to true up and know how agencies, nonprofits, and
districts were fairing until about 2023 or 2024. He was
uncertain the experts in Juneau could tell the legislature
precisely how the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds
could be used because the guidance had not yet been
released. He reasoned that getting to the truth of any
matter would be especially difficult for the next couple of
years because of the large amount of incoming federal
funding. He highlighted that some school districts under
the foundation formula were suffering more than others. He
detailed that there had been significant downward pressure
on school budgets, there had not been a Base Student
Allocation (BSA) increase in "a long time," and the last
$30 million increment had been vetoed. He pointed out the
complexity of the situation. He believed that in the
current situation it was best to allow districts to keep
their lapsed funds in excess of 10 percent for the next two
years.
Representative Josephson responded to Representative
Carpenter's statements. He highlighted that 30 days earlier
the governor had asked the legislature to pass HB 76 in the
bill's transmittal letter. He considered that the governor
could decide in April that he wanted the bill to pass. He
speculated that perhaps the governor was not looking
forward to the pressure of signing the bill if it passed.
He noted that the committee had heard from Ms. [Heidi]
Hedberg, Alaska's chief public health officer. He noted
that Vice-Chair Ortiz had asked Ms. Hedberg the question
and she had replied that the bill met every need the
agencies had including the Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs (DMVA), Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), and the command team. He reiterated his
support for Amendment 3.
Co-Chair Merrick recognized that Representative Johnson was
online. She reminded committee members to limit discussion
to the amendment under consideration.
2:40:11 PM
Representative LeBon supported the amendment. He thought
about his past experience on the Fairbanks School Board. He
recalled his first impression that the fund balance of the
Fairbanks North Star School District was too small. He had
asked the fiscal officer why the reserve was so small, and
he had been told the district was limited to a certain
amount. He supported the amendment because the timing of
federal assistance the school districts may receive was
unknown. He noted that the amendment would sunset in two
years. He believed extending the option to enable school
districts to manage their funding for the most efficiency,
encouraged sound fiscal management.
2:41:23 PM
Representative Wool spoke in support of the amendment. He
reported that his school district had taken a major hit and
had felt the economic impacts of COVID. He referenced
information provided by the Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED) in a past meeting listing
different impacts of COVID. He noted that the information
had included a column showing fund balances in various
regions. He stressed that his school district had a fund
balance in the 4 percent range, well below the 10 percent
cap. He explained that the fund balance was calculated as
spendable and figured into the school district's total
financial picture. He had spoken with the DEED commissioner
who fully expected a significant amount of federal money, a
portion of which would go to school districts.
Representative Wool emphasized that the timing of the
incoming federal money was unknown. Additionally, the state
did not know whether it would be the last of the federal
funding. He believed the state should let school districts
hold onto the federal funding beyond the 10 percent if it
was the last of the incoming funds. He stressed that what
the effects of COVID would be on enrollment and health and
safety were unknown. He reiterated his support for the
amendment. He believed school districts needed the ability
to hold onto the reserve funds.
2:43:02 PM
Representative Carpenter remarked that he found it
concerning when the chair of the meeting limited comments
to "only things that they want to hear." He stated that the
issue was large and had taken up multiple meetings. He did
not want to be constrained to talking about the amendment.
He thought that not allowing conversation about other
applicable items that may influence the topic was short
sighted. He felt that his comments had been specifically
called out. He believed it was clear that the legislature
may not understand its own authorities. He agreed that if
there was another need for a disaster declaration at any
point in the future, the governor alone had the authority
to declare an emergency. He emphasized that the authority
did not reside with the legislature. He added that the
legislature had not been given the authority to declare a
disaster declaration retroactively, no matter how much
members would want to do so.
2:44:39 PM
Representative Edgmon supported the amendment. He shared
that he represented many small school districts in House
District 37, and he had heard from those districts that HB
76 was a critical tool going forward for numerous reasons.
He explained that the issue was not limited to declining
enrollments and additional costs related to COVID. He
relayed that one school district had to dig deeply to
provide what limited broadband capabilities it could in
order to deliver remote learning.
Representative Edgmon stressed that the additional costs of
keeping schools open in a very uncertain time had been
extremely challenging. He believed the bill would provide
additional tools going forward. He remarked that the bill
did not have a fiscal note and did not necessarily obligate
the legislature to fund anything additional. He believed
the bill could be a means for school districts in need of
more resources with or without COVID. He stated that the
resources could come from federal funding sources that
otherwise may go unused if they could not be carried over.
He thought it was the epitome of "penny wise and pound
foolish."
Representative Edgmon clarified that the letter from the
governor did not address the specific provision. He pointed
out that the governor's letter addressed the disaster
declaration, which was a separate section of HB 76, albeit
both the amendment and provisions in the bill would be in
uncodified law.
2:46:27 PM
Co-Chair Foster referenced Co-Chair Merrick's statement
asking members to speak to the amendment. He clarified his
belief that she had been speaking to a different member. He
did not believe the remark had been directed to the member
who had spoken about it [prior to Representative Edgmon's
comments above]. He thought perhaps Co-Chair Merrick had
been speaking in a broad sense. He supported the need to
speak to the amendment and agreed there needed to be some
latitude, especially if a topic was pertinent. He believed
it was a long standing tradition in terms of not veering
too far away from an amendment. He recognized the co-chair
had discretion in evaluating whether the conversation moved
too far from a topic under consideration. He expressed
support to the co-chair.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Co-Chair Foster and noted that
when the committee voted on the bill, members would have
time to make their opinions heard.
2:47:37 PM
Representative Carpenter MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson, LeBon, Edgmon, Ortiz, Thompson, Wool,
Rasmussen, Johnson, Merrick, Foster
OPPOSED: Carpenter
The MOTION PASSED (10/1). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
2:48:47 PM
Representative Rasmussen WITHDREW Amendment 4, 32-
GH1011\B.32 (Dunmire, 3/16/21) (copy on file).
Representative Rasmussen WITHDREW Amendment 5, 32-
GH1011\B.33 (Dunmire, 3/16/21) (copy on file).
2:48:55 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked Megan Wallace, director of
Legislative Legal Services to explain Section 12 of the
legislation dealing with civil liability.
MEGAN WALLACE, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, ALASKA
STATE LEGISLATURE (via teleconference), relayed that she
was available for any additional questions following
discussion on Section 12 in the meeting the previous
afternoon.
Co-Chair Merrick asked Ms. Wallace to provide a brief
summary of Section 12.
Ms. Wallace explained that Section 12 of the bill specified
that persons would not be liable for conduct occurring in
the gap period between the time the disaster declaration
expired and when the legislature extended the disaster
declaration via HB 76. The liability provision was intended
to protect people from expectations of conduct that was not
mandated at the time they acted in a specific manner. The
section provided general liability protection for actions
taken that may differ from future mandates or orders that
had not been in place at the time of the actions.
2:51:45 PM
Representative LeBon viewed the topic as a question of
reasonable conduct and gross negligence. He stated that if
a person acted in a reasonable manner during the [gap] time
period, the civil liability would protect them under
reasonable conduct. He asked if there would be a legal
exposure if an individual acted with malice or gross
negligence.
Ms. Wallace replied that the language currently in the bill
was a broad liability protection. She suspected if a person
were accused of ordinary or gross negligence, they might
claim protection under the liability provision.
Representative LeBon provided a hypothetical example where
a person flew into Anchorage and opted to skip the [COVID]
testing, which was no longer mandated after February 14.
Under the scenario, the person later on found they were
COVID positive and may have passed the disease on to
another person. He believed the individual deserved to be
protected because of the state's decision to not test the
individual upon their arrival in Anchorage. He provided a
second scenario where an individual flew into Anchorage,
knew they were COVID positive, and transmitted the disease
once they arrived in Alaska. He asked if the action under
the second scenario was an example of gross negligence.
Ms. Wallace responded it was difficult to know what may or
may not amount to liability for a person whether it was
negligence or gross negligence. She opined that the
liability protection in the bill protected conduct
irrespective of whether the person complied with the order,
proclamation, or declaration. She elaborated that whether
the testing was or was not mandated or discretionary there
was a presumption that a person would not knowingly
transmit the disease to other unknowing persons. She did
not want to speculate; however, there could be
circumstances where the knowing conduct amounted to
something more serious than civil liability. She stated
there could be some potential criminal violation for such
conduct; however, she did not want to opine on the issue.
2:55:27 PM
Representative LeBon provided a hypothetical scenario where
a legislator tested positive for COVID in the Capitol
Building. He expounded that the individual would be
instructed to spend the following ten days in quarantine.
He believed if the individual snuck into the building
before the end of the ten day period, it would constitute
gross negligence. He emphasized that if the person knew
they were coming back into the building early it would be
gross negligence.
Representative Wool surmised that the legislation covered
the timeframe between February 14 and whenever the bill
passed. He believed that if the bill were to pass as
written, the civil liability would cover February 14
through the date the declaration ended on September 30. He
asked for the accuracy of his statement.
Ms. Wallace replied that the civil liability provision
protected action taken on or after February 14 and before
the effective date of the bill. The liability provision was
intended to protect people from expectations of conduct
that was not mandated at the time they acted in a specific
manner. The provision only applied to the gap period, but
it would apply to any order or mandate issued by the
governor from the effective date of the bill through the
end of the disaster declaration (under Section 2 of the
legislation).
Representative Wool stated that he was having difficulty
because much of the issue was abstract. He remarked on Ms.
Wallace's statement that she was unable to speak to the
specific examples provided. He thought that under a
disaster declaration that certain things were loosened. He
cited the ability to do telehealth or get certain medicines
as examples. He believed a doctor would not be held liable
for something they did or ordered under the loosened
restrictions. He stated his understanding that during the
period between February 14 through the bill's effective
date that there was no disaster declaration and things were
effectively back to "normal." He provided a hypothetical
example taking place between February 14 and the effective
date of the bill. He considered a situation where a health
provider acted as if there was a disaster declaration, and
a patient was mistreated. He stated that under a disaster
declaration health providers may have had more latitude. He
stated that if the new disaster declaration passed, there
would be a gray area where providers may have been acting
as if there had been a declaration in place.
Ms. Wallace did not believe it accurately reflected what
the provision covered. She provided an example regarding
the liability provision in Section 12 of the bill. She
highlighted that in the absence of a disaster declaration,
the state currently had discretionary testing for travelers
entering Alaska. She provided a scenario where the passage
of the legislation returned the state to disaster status
and the governor reinstituted a travel mandate requiring
travelers to have a negative test or to test upon arrival.
Under the scenario, if a person traveled to Alaska during
the period of discretionary testing, opted against testing,
and unknowingly gave someone COVID, they would have
liability protection under Section 12 of the legislation.
The person could not be held to the standard that had been
reinstituted after their travel took place. She explained
it was a general legal principle that would likely apply
anyway, but the provision made it very clear that the
person could not be held to a standard that was put in
place later on because the disaster declaration was not in
effect at the time of the conduct. She noted there could be
numerous examples that existed.
3:02:34 PM
Representative Wool stated that the example provided by Ms.
Wallace was more of a tightening of restrictions compared
to his prior example that reflected a loosening of
restrictions. He was concerned that someone who unknowingly
or innocently gave COVID to another person could
potentially be subject to a lawsuit. He believed a
situation involving a person who did not get a test and
transmitted COVID was a gray area.
Co-Chair Merrick clarified that Amendment 6 had not yet
been moved. The purpose of the current conversation was to
provide clarity on Section 12 of the legislation prior to
considering additional amendments.
Representative Josephson considered a scenario where the
bill passed on April 1. He asked if Section 12 would apply
to events between February 14 and April 1 only.
Ms. Wallace agreed. She clarified that the liability
protected a person who did or did not comply with an order,
proclamation, or declaration adopted by the governor. She
stated it was about conduct that was regulated pursuant to
the disaster declaration and health standards prescribed by
order, proclamation, or declaration adopted by the
governor.
3:05:00 PM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6, 32-
GH1011\B.27 (Dunmire, 3/16/21) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 9, following "vaccines;":
Insert "providing immunity from liability and
disciplinary action for occupational licensees for
exposure of clients to COVID-19; providing immunity
from liability for persons engaging in business and
their employees for exposure of customers to COVID-
19;"
Page 10, following line 21:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 13. AS 08.02 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 08.02.022. Licensee liability for client exposure
to COVID-19. (a) A licensee is immune from
disciplinary action under this title for sickness,
death, economic loss, and other damages suffered by a
client of the licensee from exposure to novel
coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in the course of the
licensee's practice of the licensee's trade or
profession.
(b) To qualify for immunity under this section, a
licensee must have been practicing the licensee's
trade or profession in substantial compliance with the
applicable federal, state, and municipal laws and
health mandates in effect at the time of the client's
exposure to COVID-19.
(c) Immunity under this section does not apply to
exposure to COVID-19 resulting from the gross
negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct of
a licensee.
(d) Immunity under this section is in addition to any
other immunity from liability provided under state or
federal law.
(e) In this section, "licensee" has the meaning given
in AS 08.01.110.
* Sec. 14. AS 45.45 is amended by adding a new section
to read:
Sec. 45.45.940. Business and employee liability for
customer exposure to COVID-19. (a) A person who
engages in business and an employee of that person
when working in the business are immune from civil
liability for sickness, death, economic loss, and
other damages suffered by a customer from exposure to
novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) while patronizing
the business.
(b) To qualify for immunity under this section, the
person engaging in business must have been operating
the business in substantial compliance with the
applicable federal, state, and municipal laws and
health mandates in effect at the time of the
customer's exposure to COVID-19.
(c) Immunity under this section does not apply to
exposure to COVID-19 resulting from the gross
negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct of
a person engaging in business or an employee of that
person.
(d) Immunity under this section is in addition to any
other immunity from liability provided under state or
federal law."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 10, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 17. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICABILITY. Sections 13 and 14 of this Act apply to
novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) exposure
occurring on or after the effective date of this Act."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 7:
Delete "If this Act takes effect after February 14,
2021, this Act is"
Insert "Sections 1 - 12 and 15 of this Act are"
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson relayed that he wanted to offer an
amendment to Amendment 6.
Co-Chair Merrick asked Representative LeBon to explain
Amendment 6 first.
Representative LeBon explained that Amendment 6 would
provide private sector business protection from civil
liability for sickness, death, economic loss, and other
damages suffered by a customer from COVID-19. The amendment
would also make licensees immune from disciplinary action
under state licensing laws for sickness, death, economic
loss, and other damages suffered by a client of the
licensee in the course of the licensee's practice of their
trade or profession. He detailed that in both cases the
licensee or business had to be in compliance with
applicable federal, state, and municipal laws and health
mandates in effect at the time of the exposure. He intended
nonprofits to be covered by the liability protection as
they too, operate as a business. He expounded that
licensees and businesses would still be liable if the
exposure was the result of gross negligence, recklessness,
or intentional misconduct. He thanked Representative
Johnson and her staff for helping with the amendment. He
noted that language from Representative Johnson's HB 4 had
helped him write the amendment.
Representative LeBon stated that as Alaska got back to work
and looked to place the pandemic in the past, it was
important for the private sector to have the confidence
that it would not be subject to unnecessary or frivolous
litigation merely for trying to stay open for business and
adhere to the required state or local health mandates,
however they may apply. He urged the committee's support.
3:07:22 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
GH1011\B.35 (Dunmire, 3/19/21)(copy on file) to Amendment
6.
Page 1, lines 7 - 8 of the amendment:
Delete "Page 10, following line 21:
Insert new bill sections to read:"
Insert "Page 10, lines 16 -21:
Delete all material and insert:"
Page 1 line 9 of the amendment:
Delete "Sec. 13"
Insert "Sec. 12"
Page 2, line 2 of the amendment:
Delete "Sec. 14"
Insert "Sec. 13"
Page 2, line 22 of the amendment:
Delete "Sec. 17"
Insert "Sec. 16"
Page 2. line 24 of the amendment:
Delete "13 and 14"
Insert "12 and 13"
Page 2, line 25 of the amendment:
Delete "the effective date of this Act"
Insert "February 15, 2021"
Page 2, line 31 of the amendment:
Delete "l - 12 and 15"
Insert "1-11 and 14"
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained that the amendment would
strike language in Section 12 that some found to be
ambiguous, complicated, and unclear. He detailed that the
amendment would move Representative LeBon's Amendment 6 to
increase the timeframe. He elaborated that Amendment 1 to
Amendment 6 would cover a couple of additional months or
more. He noted that the net result was a regular liability
law. He highlighted the expired SB 241 law and stated there
were some liability issues there that ran through February
14. Following that time period was the provision proposed
by Representative LeBon.
Representative LeBon stated that he did not object to
Amendment 1 to Amendment 6.
3:09:30 PM
AT EASE
3:10:18 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Rasmussen WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 to Amendment
6 was ADOPTED.
3:10:50 PM
Representative Wool referenced Representative LeBon's
remarks that Amendment 6 included businesses and
occupational licenses. He asked for verification that
Amendment 6 included healthcare providers even if they were
not acting as a business.
Representative LeBon responded that he considered
healthcare providers to be businesses.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW the OBJECTION to
Amendment 6 as amended.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 6 was ADOPTED
as AMENDED.
3:11:45 PM
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7, 32-
GH1011\B.26 (Dunmire, 3/16/21) (copy on file). [Note: due
to the length of the amendment it is not included here. See
copy on file for details.]
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Thompson reviewed the amendment. He read
from prepared remarks:
First it eliminates all reference to a disaster
declaration and in it place gives the administration
public health response authority. This enables the
administration to receive federal SNAP allotments
under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and
certain other COVID related adjustments or waivers.
Requirements to receive funding and waivers is
language starting at: "in response to the ongoing
pandemic, the statewide public health emergency posed
by COVID-19 and tied to the federal public health
emergency and major disaster declarations." This
particular language is found on page 2, lines 3
through 5. The amendment deletes the following from
the committee substitute and inserts a new legislative
intent section. These findings are the basis for the
state to continue to receive funding and flexibilities
that have been provided or implemented by federal
agencies because of the federal authorities that are
in place or because of appropriations made available
by Congress adds in a formal disaster declaration.
This bill inserts new sections outlining the powers of
the governor, the Department of Health and Social
Services, and the Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs. Inserts a new section relating to civil and
criminal liability or a state agency or person
performing acts on behalf of the government. It
deletes the hold harmless section in HB 76. It does
retain parts of HB 76: 1) report of expenditures to
the legislature each month with the last report due 60
days after September 30, 2021; 2) professional and
occupational licensing section; 3) telehealth section;
4) fingerprint section; 5) shareholder meetings
section; 6) online charitable gaming allowance
section; 7) informed consent for vaccine
administration; and 8) personal objection for vaccine.
It provides that the authorities in the Act are
repealed on September 30, 2021. It makes the Act
retroactive to February 14th and provides an immediate
effective date. As noted in the governor's letter,
which my colleague to the left of me passed out, in
the letter of March 18th to Speaker Stutes, the
disaster declaration is no longer needed.
Legislation is needed to support the state's response
to continue the state's public health response.
However, limited authority to support the state's
response are needed and these are addressed in this
amendment that I am offering. None of these items need
a disaster declaration to accomplish the state's
response.
In the event there are technical questions regarding
Amendment 7, online we have Health and Social Services
Commissioner Adam Crum and Health and Social Services,
Legislative Liaison Suzanne Cunningham. They are here
to explain the effects of this amendment, from the
administration's perspective.
3:15:53 PM
Representative Josephson spoke against Amendment 7. Given
the testimony received by the House Finance Committee and
the prior committee, he was unconvinced of the wisdom of
the Amendment. For example, the Alaska State Hospital and
Nursing Home Association (ASHNHA) reported that the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) would not issue
blanket waivers pursuant to 1115. He elaborated that the
legislature could no longer have COVID screening offsites
within federal law. He elaborated that there would be no
more waivers of certain physical environment requirements
which allow for surge capacity and patient quarantine
facilities in non-facility spaces. He reported that
flexibility related to occupational licensing would end.
Representative Josephson continued to address the
amendment. He stated that fundamentally he had to trust in
the wisdom of the Alaska Municipal League, the Alaska
Emergency Medicine Associates, the American College of
Emergency Physicians, Providence Health Services, the Food
Bank, Catholic Social Services, the Advanced Practice
Registered Nurse Alliance, pharmacists, the Anchorage
Economic Development Corporation, as well as the Alaska
State Chamber of Commerce.
Representative Josephson addressed the idea that the
governor's bill provided everything the state needed. He
pointed out that the governor's letter from the previous
day highlighted four things the governor needed, all of
which were included in the bill. He reiterated his
objection to the amendment.
3:17:55 PM
Representative Rasmussen supported the amendment. She
believed the most important voices the legislature needed
to listen to belonged to Alaskans. She highlighted that a
recent poll had been distributed by the Department of
Health and Social Services as a follow up to a poll from
November. She detailed that in November, 14 percent of
Alaskans had reported they believed the worst of the
pandemic was over and in February, 78 percent of Alaskans
believed the worst was over. Additionally, in November, 41
percent of respondents believed government would go too far
in restricting activities of Alaskans and 52 percent
believed government would not go far enough. In February,
48 percent believed government would go too far in
restricting activities and 45 percent believed government
would not go far enough. She shared that many of her
constituents had reached out to her. She believed the
administration had worked closely with Representative
Thompson on the amendment, which included the powers the
administration had requested. She believed it was what
Alaskans were asking for. She stated that the amendment
provided the tools needed to navigate safely out of the
pandemic. She thought it was a policy that would reach
broad consensus in the legislature and with the
administration. She reasoned that the amendment would
benefit Alaskans and provide the administration with the
necessary tools as quickly as possible. She urged support
for the amendment.
3:20:11 PM
Representative Carpenter believed the bill was likely to be
challenged and would delay all of the good things the
governor needed. He would like to be able to support the
amendment. He cited language in the governor's letter
[dated March 18, 2021] reading "Though the above items need
legislation, none need a disaster declaration, nor the
broad authorities contained within the Alaska Disaster Act,
to occur." He remarked that the bill and Amendment 7 would
address the issues the governor needed; however, he
believed it was still acting on the broad authorities the
governor had stated he did not need. He wanted to draw a
compromise between agencies that believed another disaster
declaration was needed and the public who did not want to
see another disaster act. He had a conceptual amendment
that would delete all of the material on page 2 of the
amendment (lines 6 through 22) that gave the governor the
broad authorities that the governor had stated he did not
need. He requested a brief at ease to distribute the
conceptual amendment.
3:22:04 PM
AT EASE
3:29:42 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 7 (copy on file):
Page 2, lines 6 - 22
Delete all material
Page 4, line 21
Delete "September 30, 2021."
Insert "May 31, 2021."
Page 6, line 2
Delete "September 30, 2021."
Insert "May 31, 2021."
Page 5, line 28
Insert "(c) A person may not be held liable for an
action taken on, before, or after the effective date
of this Act that complies with or does not comply with
an order, proclamation, or declaration adopted by the
Governor to respond to the declaration of a public
health disaster emergency or to respond to this Act."
Representative Thompson OBJECTED.
Representative Carpenter explained that the governor had
indicated that he did not need the broad authorities
contained within the Alaska Disaster Act. He read from
Amendment 7, [page 2], line 9: "(1) issue an order or
regulation necessary to implement sections 2-10 of this
Act;" which was taken directly from Section 26.23.020(b).
He furthered that (2) was taken directly from Section
26.23.020(g)(1), (3) was taken directly from Section
26.23.020(g)(2), (4) on line 18 was taken directly from
Section 26.23.020(g)(7), and (5) on line 21 was taken from
Section 26.23.020(g)(10). He believed the list contained
the broad powers that were not necessary.
Representative Carpenter pointed out that the remainder of
the bullet points highlighted in the governor's letter were
addressed within the amendment or within the bill already.
He highlighted the ability to allocate and distribute
vaccines and therapeutics [bullet point 1 in the governor's
letter] as an example. He read language on page 2, line 28
of Amendment 7: "(1) coordinate, allocate, distribute, and
manage the state's vaccination and therapeutic response to
the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic..." He
stated that the items needed by the governor would still be
covered. He explained that the conceptual amendment would
remove language the governor did not need and that members
of the public were not interested in seeing go forward.
Representative Carpenter pointed to pages 4 and 6 of
Amendment 7. He explained that the conceptual amendment
would change the extension date from September 30 to May
31. He moved to page 5, line 28 of Amendment 7, where the
conceptual amendment would insert the broader liability
protection that was included in the committee substitute.
3:33:14 PM
Representative Edgmon requested to hear from the
administration about the topic. He remarked that the
committee was considering the governor's bill and an
amendment he believed was endorsed by the governor.
Additionally, there was a letter from the governor, and a
late arriving conceptual amendment that would nullify an
amendment the committee had just passed. He wanted to
understand what was going on.
ADAM CRUM, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES (via teleconference), noted that he did not have a
copy of the conceptual amendment other than the description
given. He could not speak to whether the conceptual
amendment included any language that addressed enabling the
enhanced allotment of the SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program] benefits to continue. He referenced a
statement by Representative Josephson about ASHNHA and
clarified that a letter had been received several days
earlier from CMS stating that the 1135 waivers tied to the
public health emergency would remain in place absent of
state action. He asked if Representative Edgmon had a
specific question.
3:34:58 PM
Representative Edgmon asked Commissioner Crum to restate
his last statement.
Commissioner Crum asked which specific item Representative
Edgmon wanted information on.
Representative Edgmon explained he was trying to understand
what the governor supported and did not support. He
remarked that the committee was considering the governor's
bill with an amendment he believed was endorsed by the
governor, which would fundamentally change the bill. The
committee also had a letter from the previous day from the
governor in addition to a conceptual amendment, which he
believed was being represented by a member of the committee
as something the governor wanted. He was unclear on what
the governor wanted.
3:35:58 PM
Representative Thompson asked Commissioner Crum for
verification he did not have a copy of the conceptual
amendment.
Commissioner Crum confirmed that he did not have a copy of
the conceptual amendment by Representative Carpenter.
Representative Thompson explained the conceptual amendment
would delete all material on page 2, lines 6 through 22 of
Amendment 7.
Representative Edgmon asked if the conceptual amendment was
being offered on behalf of the governor or if it reflected
the sponsor's representation of what the governor was
trying to accomplish.
Representative Carpenter clarified that the conceptual
amendment was not being offered at the governor's request.
Representative Edgmon thought he had heard that
Representative Carpenter was interpreting what the governor
was trying to accomplish and the conceptual amendment had
been offered to get the governor where he needed to go.
Representative Carpenter clarified that the governor's
letter indicated the governor was not requesting the broad
authorities contained within the disaster act. He stated
the broad authorities were found within the amendment that
he had created a conceptual amendment for. He explained
that even though the governor was not asking for the broad
authorities, the authorities were included in Amendment 7;
therefore, he had offered a conceptual amendment to remove
them. He stated that the governor had not asked him to
offer the conceptual amendment.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if Representative Edgmon wanted
further clarification from the administration.
Representative Edgmon replied affirmatively. He considered
that the administration may need more time to evaluate the
conceptual amendment to Amendment 7.
3:38:26 PM
AT EASE
3:44:06 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter asked whether the department could
speak to the reason page 2, lines 6-22 of Amendment 7 were
necessary to achieve the governor's four priorities listed
in his letter addressed to the legislature. He read the
priorities listed in the governor's letter:
• The ability to allocate and distribute vaccines and
therapeutics.
• Limited immunity for officials performing their
duties related to the state's response plan.
• The continued use of enhanced telehealth services.
• Necessary authority accessing federal relief funding
as they pertain to the state's continued response
and nexus to the federal public health emergency and
major disaster declaration.
Commissioner Crum responded that the four authorities had
been requested by the administration to continue the
response. How the legislature provided for the four
authorities to continue the response was at the
legislature's discretion.
Representative Carpenter asked if the governor required
power under Section 26.23.020, subsections (b) and (g) to
accomplish the four things requested in his letter.
Commissioner Crum could not speak to the exact items to
give the administration the four authorities.
Representative Rasmussen asked the commissioner to
highlight the difference between Section 2 that described
powers of the governor and Section 3 that described powers
for DHSS in Amendment 7.
Commissioner Crum responded that [within Amendment 7] the
powers of the governor included the ability to issue
regulation necessary [to implement Sections 2 through 10],
suspend provisions and waive regulatory authority. He
explained that the items had been useful throughout the
response, but they were not primary items the
administration had identified to continue. He stated that
the authorities necessary for DHSS to have the ability to
distribute vaccines and therapeutics, liability and
immunity for public health officials, items involving
telehealth under Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED), and the ability to continue
work with federal partners on funding. He could not speak
to the exact language necessary to achieve the authorities.
3:48:06 PM
Representative Rasmussen asked if removing the governor's
authority by deleting lines 6-12 on page 2 of Amendment 7
(as proposed by the conceptual amendment) would impact
other departments. She observed that it did not give power
to DCCED, the Department of Administration, or any other
departments that may need regulatory suspension. She
wondered if it was necessary for the governor to have the
powers as the overarching executive of the state rather
than giving the powers only to DHSS. She believed the
conceptual amendment aimed to give the powers to DHSS only.
Commissioner Crum deferred the question to the Department
of Law (DOL).
SUSAN POLLARD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW (via teleconference), asked to hear the question again.
Representative Rasmussen explained that the proposed
conceptual amendment would delete lines 6-22 on page 2 of
Amendment 7. She relayed that the specific lines provided
powers to the governor, while Section 3 provided powers to
DHSS. She asked if other departments would still have the
tools they needed. Alternatively, she wondered if DHSS
would be the only department with the option to suspend
regulations.
Ms. Pollard responded that Section 2 of Amendment 7
provided for a limited but necessary bootstrapping of
powers of the governor in order to implement the rest of
the bill provisions. She explained her potential concern
with the conceptual amendment by stating that Section 2
appeared to allow for limited but necessary power for the
governor to fill the any gap that may occur within a
department such as DHSS or DMVA.
3:52:06 PM
Representative Carpenter asked if DOL had reviewed
Amendment 7.
Ms. Pollard replied that the department had reviewed
Amendment 7. She asked for verification that the committee
was considering Amendment 7, 32-GH1011\B.26.
Co-Chair Merrick responded affirmatively.
Representative Carpenter cited AS 26.23.020(g)(1) and (2)
[under Section 2 of Amendment 7] and read (2):
(2) suspend the provisions of a regulatory statute
prescribing procedures for the conduct of state
business, or the orders or regulations of a state
agency, if compliance with the provisions of the
statute, order, or regulation would prevent, or
substantially impede or delay, action necessary to
respond to and aid in the recovery from the pandemic
related to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19);
Representative Carpenter asked why the provision would be
necessary to allocate or distribute vaccines and
therapeutics, limited immunity for officials performing
their duties, enhanced telehealth services, or access
federal funding that were already written in the amendment
or bill.
Ms. Pollard believed Commissioner Crum could answer more
specifically about how DHSS may be affected. She noted that
throughout the disaster, the ability to suspend statute and
regulations was identified by a number of agencies as
helpful and necessary in order to address some situations
caused by the pandemic. She stated that questions on
specific subject areas may be best answered by particular
agencies.
3:55:03 PM
Representative Carpenter stated that he needed a legal
opinion, not a department opinion. He was struggling to
understand why the power to eliminate a regulation that was
not spelled out in the limited authority requested by
governor was necessary. He remarked that the goal was to
give the governor the needed specifics and not a broad
power to eliminate regulations as he saw fit. He reasoned
that if there were regulations that needed to be eliminated
to address the four bullet points [outlined in the
governor's letter], they would be listed in the bill or in
Amendment 7. He was trying to understand from a legal
perspective why AS 26.23.020(g)(1) was required to do any
of the things the governor was requesting. He believed the
items were already addressed in other sections of the bill.
Ms. Pollard understood that Representative Carpenter was
asking for a legal opinion; however, but to some extent
there may be some policy implications because agencies
could weigh in on which particular statutes and regulations
may require suspension in order for the state to address
the need - in a limited way - to keep state business going
through the pandemic.
Representative Carpenter directed a question to
Commissioner Crum. He read from page 2, line 28 of
Amendment 7:
(1) coordinate, allocate, distribute, and manage the
state's vaccination and therapeutic response to the
novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic;
Representative Carpenter asked what regulations not already
addressed in the bill or in Amendment 7 would need the
governor's authority to suspend regulations in order to
achieve the aforementioned provision. He did not want to
have to go through all of the items in the bill or in
Amendment 7 that solved the four bullets [in the governor's
letter]. He thought it was necessary to understand why, if
something was not listed in the limited authority, it would
be necessary to grant a broad authority to eliminate
regulations as the governor saw fit.
Co-Chair Merrick relayed that the meeting would conclude as
there was another meeting scheduled in the room at 4:00
p.m.
Representative Edgmon requested to have the conceptual
amendment written up by Legislative Legal Services in order
for the committee to understand how it impacted Amendment
7.
HB 76 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the schedule for the next
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 76 Amendment 1 to Amendment 6.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2021 2:00:00 PM |
HB 76 |
| HB 76 Public Testimony Pkt 5 031921.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2021 2:00:00 PM |
HB 76 |
| HB 76 Gov Letter to Speaker 031821.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2021 2:00:00 PM |
HB 76 |
| HB 76 Amendment 1 to Amendment 7 031921.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2021 2:00:00 PM |
HB 76 |