Legislature(2019 - 2020)CAPITOL 106
04/23/2019 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
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 | |
| SB37 | |
| HB96 | |
| HB133 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 133-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
3:47:09 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 133, "An Act relating to care of juveniles and to
juvenile justice; relating to employment of juvenile probation
officers by the Department of Health and Social Services;
relating to terms used in juvenile justice; relating to
mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect; relating to
sexual assault in the third degree; relating to sexual assault
in the fourth degree; repealing a requirement for administrative
revocation of a minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to
drive, or privilege to obtain a license for consumption or
possession of alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective
date."
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ, speaking as the sponsor of HB 133, explained
the bill was introduced at the request of the Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), to address outdated language and other issues in
statute. She paraphrased from the following sponsor
statement[original punctuation provided]:
HB 133 is a statutory cleanup bill that updates the
terms used to describe the facilities operated by the
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and provides
updated definitions for those terms. Current statutes
contain references to facilities which DJJ does not
operate, and facilities that do not exist in the state
of Alaska. The bill also makes a clear distinction
between the role of juvenile probation officers and
adult probation officers in places where the
difference is unclear. Additionally, HB 133 adds
juvenile justice staff to the list of mandatory
reporters of child abuse and neglect. These updates
are necessary to provide statutory clarity to ensure
the Division can manage its facilities effectively
throughout the state. Currently, Alaska Statutes
reference places like work camps and juvenile
detention homes, which are not recognized or operating
in the state of Alaska. HB 133 adds "juvenile
treatment facility", "juvenile detention facility" and
"temporary secure juvenile holding area" as facilities
currently being operated by the division and provides
clear definitions for each of these terms. Because
references to these facilities occur in many places in
statute, this bill also touches upon many sections of
statute. These changes are necessary to provide the
clearest regulation over facilities in existence and
operated by the DJJ. HB 133 clarifies the role of
juvenile and adult probation officers, first by
distinguishing clearly between the two, and second by
providing a clear definition for the term juvenile
probation officer. These are meaningful changes to
provide the best protection for juveniles in the
custody of the Division of Juvenile Justice. Lastly,
HB 133 adds DJJ staff to the list of mandatory
reporters. It is the Division's objective to engage in
the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Adding DJJ
staff to the list of mandatory reporters provides the
best guarantee that when DJJ staff discover cases of
child abuse and neglect, those cases are reported,
investigated, and resolved for the best interest of
the child. While these technical language updates
touch many sections of statute, the changes in
language do not substantially alter the authority of
the Division over juveniles in its care. Rather, these
updates protect juveniles by making it clear where
juveniles can be placed and clearly defining the
authority of DJJ, its staff, and facilities using
current and relevant language.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ added another update is to correct an
oversight revealed by [the recent court decision in State vs.
Daniel M. Carey]. She explained state law directs that having
sex with a person one has authority over is illegal; currently
however, DJJ staff is exempt from this law, and HB 133 adds DJJ
staff to the list of professionals who have authority over
others and therefore could be found responsible for sexual abuse
of a minor in certain circumstances. Generally speaking, HB 133
would make clarifications in language to describe DJJ facilities
and staff and would update statute.
3:51:46 PM
TRACY DOMPELING, Director, DJJ, DHSS, listed the many state
departments, agencies, and divisions, and other entities, that
contributed to HB 133. She said updating the terms of DJJ
facilities and staff has been a priority for DJJ as inaccuracies
and outdated definitions complicate its work with the
legislature, law enforcement, and the public. The changes would
also clarify which statutes apply to the adult and juvenile
systems of justice. Many of the definitions or clarifications
within HB 133 are located throughout statute; also, as
legislation directed at DJJ is "pretty rare," the bill creates
an opportunity for other minor corrections and adjustments. Ms.
Dompeling restated DJJ's concern about a "loophole in Alaska
Statute" within the state's criminal code - regarding the
prosecution of a significant crime - that is corrected by HB
133. She continued, noting areas of reporting for child abuse
are considered mandatory in the policy of the division thus
clarification in statute is warranted, as are other
clarifications: charging documents filed by probation officers;
releases of information; victim notifications; the revocation of
driver's licenses.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out HB 133 is 21 pages long, so staff
developed two sectional analyses, one that describes substantive
policy changes and their affected statutes, and another which
describes changes as they are located in the bill.
3:55:38 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Spohnholz, sponsor of
HB 133, directed attention to a document entitled, "Definition
Reference Document" provided in the committee packet. She said
the majority of the bill repeals antiquated language, amends
terminology, and creates new definitions where necessary. Ms.
Holland said on page 1, the document enumerates repealed,
amended, and new terms as directed by the bill. On page 2, in
section 24, HB 133 repeals the definition and powers of youth
counselors.
3:56:49 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:56 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.
MS. HOLLAND directed attention to changes in terminology that
are made by the bill and are separate from the policy
clarifications. The term "youth counselors" is repealed because
it is antiquated and "youth counselor powers" is inaccurate.
She noted the document is color-coded: terms being repealed
have an orange background; terms amended have a green
background; new terms have a blue background; locations in
statute have a yellow background; references to relevant areas
of statute have a white background. Additional terms being
repealed in the bill are juvenile detention home, youth
detention facility, juvenile work camp, and correctional school.
She further explained juvenile detention home is replaced by
juvenile detention facility and is defined to be a secure
facility for the detention of minors under DJJ custody. Further
indicated on page 2, for accuracy and consistency, the bill
replaces the terms "juvenile detention home" and "youth
detention facility" with "juvenile detention facility" in AS
Title 9, Title 14, Title 17, Title 18, and Title 41.
4:02:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked if the new terminology allows
flexibility for additional changes in statute should there be
future policy changes.
MS. DOMPELING opined the new definitions are sufficiently broad
unless there are unforeseen drastic changes.
MS. HOLLAND continued to [page 4], noting section 28 of the bill
amends the definition of "minor" to include a person who was
under [18 years of age] at the time an offense was committed.
Section 27 amends the definition of "juvenile detention
facility" to be a secure facility for the detention of minors
under DJJ custody. Also, on [page 4 and continuing to pages 5
and 6] are the references to statute affected by the
aforementioned definition.
4:06:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked, "If we change the definitions from
a correctional school juvenile detention home, is that to say
that we can never have one?"
MS. DOMPELING, in response to Representative Jackson's
clarification of her question, said to her knowledge the state
has never had a correctional school; DJJ partners with local
school districts to provide youth with education in a locked
facility, but not in a correctional school per se.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked whether the state has ever had a
juvenile detention home.
MS. DOMPELING explained there are many definitions for the same
thing and so the name juvenile detention home could have been
used to describe a certain facility; the bill seeks to clarify
the statute by providing one definition for various facilities.
In further response to Representative Jackson, she said DJJ
operates two types of secure facilities: juvenile detention
facilities and juvenile secure treatment facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON surmised, were the state to operate a
correctional school, it would be included in the "generic name."
MS. DOMPELING said yes.
MS. HOLLAND returned attention to [page 6] and noted section 29
defines "juvenile treatment facility" as a secure facility for
treatment of minors adjudicated delinquent and committed by a
court to the care and custody of DJJ under a "(b) 1 order."
Current statute defines juvenile treatment institutions, which
is an inaccurate connotation of DJJ's facilities, thus
throughout the bill "institution" is replaced with "facility."
Further, the bill clarifies "secure residential psychiatric
center" is a separate institution that would not be operated by
DJJ, for example, the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API).
4:11:25 PM
MS. DOMPELING, in response to Representative Jackson, explained
DJJ requested changes to the language [in statute] not because
it sounds too strict, but because it does not reflect DJJ's
mission. Youth are ordered by the court into DJJ juvenile
secure treatment programs; however, DJJ facilities are not
jails: youth are required to participate in school, substance
abuse treatment, family therapy, and other treatment.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY expressed her understanding the intent of the
bill is to bring alignment and consistency into all related
definitions in order to more accurately reflect the activities
within DJJ.
MS. DOMPELING said correct.
4:12:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON said, "... you're saying we're doing the
same things, but we just want to call it a facility."
MS. DOMPELING advised DJJ has two different types of secure
facilities: detention facilities are for youth alleged to have
committed a crime but who have not been convicted, and therefore
are put in a short-term holding situation without treatment;
secure treatment facilities are for youth who have been
adjudicated for a crime and sentenced to treatment for up to two
years. In further response to Representative Jackson, she
confirmed youth were sent to a detention home prior to
sentencing.
4:15:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON cautioned, "What I'm just trying to
clarify ... as a kid I don't want to go to a detention home ...
but a facility doesn't sound so bad."
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked Ms. Dompeling to discuss the mission of
DJJ as it differs from that of the Department of Corrections
(DOC).
MS. DOMPELING explained the mission of DJJ is to hold youth
accountable for their actions, to promote the safety and
restoration of victims and communities, and to provide
competency and development for youth in order to prevent them
from committing crimes in the future.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked how DOC completes its work.
MS. DOMPELING said DOC is also aware of research that indicates
incarceration for a sentenced period of time is not a strong
deterrent against recidivism. In fact, research has shown, in
both juvenile and adult systems, that addressing the root cause
of why one is committing a criminal or delinquent offense is
more likely to prevent recidivism. In juvenile facilities,
youth do not have an option as to whether they participate in
treatment programs so they can progress to release; however, DOC
does not have the ability to provide [a similar level of
mandatory individual treatment].
4:18:10 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ, in response to Representative Jackson,
explained HB 133 does not make broad-ranging policy
restructuring by changing the names used by DJJ. The intent of
the bill is to conform law with changes that have been made over
the last several decades related to changes in DJJ operations
and changes in the treatment of youth that have occurred over
several decades, but the law and language in statute have not
kept up with the pace of the changes. In fact, outdated
nomenclature has created problems for DJJ, the court system, and
law enforcement; she stressed the bill does not propose to make
"facilities more or less strict ... and I would argue that the
term facility isn't more or less strict - or more or less scary
- than previous names, it's just that those institutions like
homes, juvenile detention homes, just don't exist anymore so
it's more appropriate to have a broader definition ...."
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked for an example of how the [current
language in statute] interfered with law enforcement.
MS. DOMPELING gave an example of a law enforcement officer who
seeks to place a juvenile in a juvenile detention home but finds
Johnson Youth Center is a juvenile detention facility.
4:22:05 PM
MS. HOLLAND returned attention to [page 6 and continuing through
page 8] which listed the statutes affected by the new definition
"juvenile treatment facility." She continued to [page 9],
noting section 29 creates a new definition for the term
"temporary secure juvenile holding area": separate quarters
used for temporary detention of a delinquent pending court order
or transportation to a juvenile detention facility. Ms. Holland
explained the reason for the new term is that existing statute
relates only to short-term detention in a city jail, which is
not an option in many rural communities in Alaska. On [page
10], section 24 creates a new definition for "juvenile probation
officers" and repeals the definition for "youth counselors."
Section 24 also gives juvenile probation officers the powers of
probation officers and describes the duties of juvenile
probation officers.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked for the difference between a youth
counselor and a probation officer.
MS. DOMPELING explained DJJ no longer has youth counselors but
has juvenile justice officers who are staff who work in DJJ's
twenty-four hour, seven day-per-week facilities providing direct
care and supervision of youth who have been ordered by the court
into secure treatment or secure detention. Probation officers
are DJJ staff who receive and respond to allegations of
delinquency, and work with youth, families, and victims to
determine appropriate formal or informal action, Furthermore,
after a court finding, probation officers work directly with
youth and families, seeking to prevent recidivism. In addition,
if youth are in violation of terms of probation, probation
officers intercede.
4:27:02 PM
MS. HOLLAND turned attention to the [*Edited 4/23* sectional
analysis] in order to review the policy clarifications within HB
133. She noted the document is color-coded: new, amended, and
repealed definitions have an orange background; policy
clarifications have a blue background; references to updated
terminology in relevant areas of statute have a white
background. As indicated in blue on [page 2], section 5 of the
bill clarifies employees of juvenile treatment institutions, and
juvenile and adult probation officers, qualify as legal
guardians; legal guardians are defined as persons who exercise
supervision over a minor, or other person committed to DHSS
custody. To address the aforementioned [State of Alaska vs.
Daniel M. Carey] court decision, section 6 adds correctional
employees and DJJ staff to the list of individuals defined as
being in a position of authority over a minor when applied to
charges of sexual abuse of a minor in the first, second, and
fourth degree.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY surmised this policy change is to address the
aforementioned loophole in statute.
MS. HOLLAND said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for an explanation of the current
loophole in statute.
MS. HOLLAND explained there are two issues, the first of which
is the inaccurate definition of juvenile probation officer -
which is repealed in section 3 of HB 133 - that defines a
juvenile probation officer as one who is assigned to supervising
individuals 18 or 19 years of age. This inaccurate definition
is part of the reason the [defendant in the lawsuit] was not
successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse of a minor.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked, "... can you clarify we're getting
rid of a different terminology than they highlighted in, in a
court case?"
MS. HOLLAND further explained the current definition of position
of authority does not clearly list DJJ staff, parole officers,
or employees of DJJ, even though the definition does include "or
a substantially similar position to examples such as guardian ad
litem, babysitter, teacher, et cetera ...." She restated
section 6 of the bill clearly lists DJJ facility staff members
under the definition of position of authority so they can be
included in charges of sexual abuse of a minor in the first,
second, and fourth degree.
4:33:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked about the second issue, which is
"the under 18 challenge" and surmised the [DJJ] employee would
have had to be over the age of 18 and thus would have fallen
"within other statutory designations of rape, even." He
discussed several other related scenarios.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ suggested there is confusion between the
perpetrator and the victim: the perpetrator was an adult and
the victim was underage. She remarked:
The way that the statute was written is that a
juvenile probation officer means a person assigned to
supervise another person 18 or 19 years of age when,
in fact, they are supervising people that are ... the
age of 19 and under. ... And, the juvenile probation
officer was not identified in statute as being a
person who has authority over the victim. For those
two reasons, this person was able to demonstrate that
they should not be held accountable for sexually
abusing this minor. ... They were able to
demonstrate in a court of law because our, because our
language hadn't kept up with what was really
happening, they were able to get him off.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY inquired as to the minimum age required for an
individual who works as a juvenile justice officer or a juvenile
probation officer within DHSS.
MS. DOMPELING answered usually 21 years of age; although job
classes differ, probation officer staff are usually a little
older because they are required to have a bachelor's degree or
five or six years of prior experience.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY, in response to Representative Pruitt, advised
the bill will be referred to the House Judiciary Standing
Committee and returned attention to aspects of the bill germane
to the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee.
4:39:10 PM
MS. HOLLAND directed attention to section 8, which adds
treatment institutions and juvenile treatment facilities to the
list of facilities excluded from the legal definition of
"private exposure." Private exposure occurs when an individual
exposes their body or part of their body in a place and under
circumstances where they believe that no one would see or
photograph them, however, private exposure does not occur within
correctional facilities and [by provisions in HB 133], within
juvenile justice treatment facilities. Section 9 clarifies DJJ
facilities and treatment facilities are places were public
education must be provided. [On page 3], section 11 clarifies
juvenile detention facilities and treatment facilities are
included in the list of facilities operated by the state that
are not required to provide medical marijuana. Section 16
inserts "juvenile" before "probation officers" to clarify duties
are specific to juvenile probation officers, and not
correctional officers. Section 17 clarifies DJJ may file
amended or supplemental petitions if new information is
received. [On page 4], section 22 inserts the term "juvenile"
to clarify the authority to arrest a minor rests specifically
with juvenile probation officers. Section 23 clarifies the
authority to detain a minor rests specifically with juvenile
probation officers. Section 25 adds "secure residential
psychiatric treatment centers" to the list of facilities from
which, at the victim's request, they will receive notification
upon release of a juvenile. [On page 5], section 26 corrects
language authorizing the department to disclose confidential
information related to the offense at the time a minor has
received an adjudication, and not at the time of an allegation.
[On page 6], section 38 adds juvenile probation officers, DJJ
office staff, and staff of juvenile facilities to the list of
mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect. Section 39
repeals revocation of driver's licenses for non-driving offenses
that are adjudicated informally - a provision which was absent
from 2016 legislation - and Ms. Holland gave an example.
4:46:26 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY returned attention to sections 5 through 7 and
asked DJJ to provide an executive summary to the committee to
clarify how the bill would resolve the issues related to DJJ
staff who are in a position of authority. Further, she asked
that the executive summary include references to the [State vs.
Daniel M. Carey] court case.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR returned attention to section 22 and asked
for clarification of "parole officers" and "juvenile probation
officers."
MS. DOMPELING explained there are no juvenile parole officers in
Alaska, and all are juvenile probation officers [who are
assigned] whether a youth is placed on probation by the court,
or after release from a DJJ secure treatment facility.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether juvenile probation officers
are involved at pre-trial, during custody, and after a youth is
released.
MS. DOMPELING said yes. She informed the committee in most
areas, the probation officer involved with the first report
alleging delinquency will usually stay with that youth and
family all the way up through their period of probation.
Furthermore, a youth ordered into a secure treatment facility is
assigned a transitional services probation officer who works
with the youth on reentry and during their time of supervised
probation.
4:49:53 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, DJJ, DHSS, in
further response to Representative Pruitt's questions, related
the Department of Law drafted the provisions of HB 133 intended
to close the [loophole] that allowed for the acquittal in the
State vs. Daniel M. Carey court case, and he offered to provide
further information in this regard. He said part of the
confusion [about the remedy] is that the victim was almost 18
and was not a resident of the facility at the time of the
offense. He remarked:
But while the victim was in the facility, Mr. Carey
used his position of authority to develop the
relationship and then upon release, this under-18-
year-old minor developed a relationship with Mr.
Carey. It was not a sexual assault because of, some
of the consensual natures because she was a 16-year-
old. ... So, the provisions of sexual assault don't
apply in that case. ... So, that's why you see that
definition in the bill where there's 18- and 19-year-
olds under juvenile probation officers ... that's
about these young adults who are supervised, and we
want to make sure that our staff are not allowed to
engage in consensual or not, you know, consensual
relationships with people they are supervising.
MR. DAVIDSON said the provisions of sexual assault did not apply
in the State vs. Daniel M. Carey case, so the prosecutor charged
sexual abuse of a minor - also a very serious felony - however,
to support that argument, the definition in statute must be
amended to "juvenile justice facility staff" because position of
authority under current statute says "counselor"; thus the judge
and defense attorneys in the case argued successfully that the
[statute] did not apply because the defendant was not a
counselor, or in a substantially similar position, but was a
juvenile justice officer, "and so, that's what we're trying to
fix here ...." He further reviewed both of the changes within
HB 133.
4:53:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT expressed his understanding of portions of
the preceding testimony related to the State vs. Daniel M. Carey
case and observed [HB 133] intends to address not the charge
that there was sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree, but
the abuse of a position of authority, which is "that small
loophole, and it is a small loophole, from which we have make
that slight adjustment."
MR. DAVIDSON confirmed that the position of authority was the
loophole that was the basis for the court ruling even though it
was intended to be a broad definition [of position of
authority]. He pointed out the term youth counselor was used to
define staff in the past; however, after the creation of DJJ in
1998, a new job class of juvenile justice officers was
developed.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT surmised the broad terminology changes
within HB 133 are necessary because of the State vs. Daniel M.
Carey court case and its ramifications.
MR. DAVIDSON acknowledged DJJ was working on the bill prior to
the judgement on State vs. Daniel M. Carey, and said, "We cannot
allow another case like this to move forward."
4:56:33 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY opened public testimony on HB 133. After
ascertaining no one wished to testify, public testimony was
closed.
[HB 133 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB133 Supporting Document-Carey Case 4.22.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB133 Sectional Analysis ver M 4.22.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB133 Supporting Document-Reference by Definition 4.22.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB133 Sponsor Statement 4.22.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| SB37 AVAP Renewal vsn A 1-25-19.PDF |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Hearing Request HSS 1-30-19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Letter of Support AK Pediatric Grp 1-24-19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Letter of Support American Academy of Pediatrics - AK 1-24-19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Sponsor Statement 1-28-19.cg.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Supporting Document WA Post Anti Vaccine NC outbreak 11-18.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Supporting Document Alaska Public Health Advisory 1-29-19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Supporting Document AVAP Annual Report 2018.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Supporting Document AVAP Status Update 2017.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Sectional Analysis 2-3-19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Supporting Document NPR 2-2-19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Supporting Document AVAP Payers.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| HB133 Fiscal Note DHSS DJJ 4.21.2019.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| SB37 Supporting Document AVAP Providers.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| HB096 Bill Version A 3.25.19.PDF |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Sponsor Statement 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 3/9/2020 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Sectional Analysis 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Fiscal Note DHSS-APHPA 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Supporting Document Alaska Pioneer Homes Advisory Board Report 2018 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Supporting Document Consumer Price Index in AK Statutes 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Supporting Document-PPT Presentation 3.5.19 HSS Finance Subcommittee, 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Letters of Support 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Supporting Document AK Dept of Labor Consumer Price Index 2018 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Fiscal Note DHSS-PH 3.26.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Supporting Document DHSS Budget Subcommittee Amendment No. 1 PASSED 3.26.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Letter of Support #11 3.27.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Letter of Support #12 3.27.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Letters of Support Redacted 3.27.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Letters of Support Redacted 3.27.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 ver U Sectional Analysis 3.28.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Opposing Document - Letter of Opposition 3.28.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Supporting Document - Letter of Support 3.28.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Fiscal Note ver U PHPA-HSTA 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/2/2019 4:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Sectional Analysis Version M 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Hearing Request Memo-Rep Fields to HSS Committee 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Fiscal Note Pioneer Home Allocation 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Fiscal Note Payment Assistance Allocation 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB0096 Bill Version M 4.3.19.PDF |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Version U 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Supporting Document Combined Letters of Support 4.8.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Summary of Changes Version M to Version U 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Sponsor Statement 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |