Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/13/2017 01:30 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 | |
| HB127 | |
| HB47 | |
| HB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 13, 2017
2:09 p.m.
2:09:43 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Scott Kawasaki, Sponsor; Sarah Race,
Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department of
Revenue; Kaci Schroeder, Assistant Attorney General,
Criminal Division, Department of Law; Nancy Meade, General
Counsel, Alaska Court System; Paul Labolle, Staff,
Representative Neal Foster; Representative Jennifer
Johnston; Kevin Worley, Chief Financial Officer, Division
of Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration;
Kathy Lea, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department
of Administration; Christy Lawton, Director, Office of
Children's Services, Department of Health and Social
Services; Representative Jennifer Johnston
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
SUMMARY
HB 47 MUNICIPAL PERS CONTRIBUTIONS/INTEREST
HB 47 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Administration
and one zero note from the Department of
Administration.
HB 127 CRIM. CONV. OVERTURNED: RECEIVE PAST PFD
CSHB 127 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (REV).
HB 151 DHSS;CINA; FOSTER CARE; CHILD PROTECTION
HB 151 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 127
"An Act relating to a permanent fund dividend for an
individual whose conviction has been vacated,
reversed, or dismissed; and relating to the
calculation of the value of the permanent fund
dividend by including payment to individuals eligible
for a permanent fund dividend because of a conviction
that has been vacated, reversed, or dismissed."
2:10:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, SPONSOR, did not have
additional information to add related to the bill.
2:11:43 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-
LS0480\A.4 (Martin, 4/7/17) (copy on file):
Page 2, line 1:
Delete "120 days"
Insert "one year"
Page 3, line 3:
Delete "120 days"
Insert "one year"
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained the amendment that would
delete "120 days" and replace it with one year.
Representative Kawasaki appreciated the bipartisan work on
the amendment.
Representative Grenn asked to sign on as a co-sponsor to
the amendment.
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:13:48 PM
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 30-
LS0480\A.5 (Martin, 4/12/17) (copy on file) [Note: due to
length of amendment it is not included here. See copy on
file].
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Pruitt explained the amendment. He explained
the amendment had been brought forward by a victim.
Representative Ortiz asked for clarification about the
intent of the amendment. He wondered if it would offer an
option for repayment during the timeframe.
Representative Pruitt stated it was an option available to
the courts. He explained the person in the scenario he
outlined had been living freely.
Representative Grenn asked where the repayment funds would
go.
Representative Pruitt replied that he had contemplated
putting the money in the victim's funds. He was open to
putting the money wherever. The goal was to recognize
victims. He was amenable to having the money go to the
victim fund.
Representative Guttenberg was in support of making
restitution for someone convicted of a felony. He stated
that a conviction did not make a person ineligible for the
dividend. He believed there were many questions pertaining
to the issue. He did not know what the legal aspect would
be. He did not support the amendment.
2:20:27 PM
Representative Pruitt answered there were certain
situations where a person was made eligible. He explained
the only reason a person was not ineligible was most likely
because they had not been caught.
Co-Chair Foster noted there were individuals available for
questions.
Representative Kawasaki had some concerns about the
amendment. He stated the amendment could probably be added
to a separate bill. He did not support it at present.
2:25:01 PM
SARAH RACE, DIRECTOR, PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, provided detail on current statute
related to eligibility for individuals. Prior to payment
the Department of Corrections (DOC) provided a list of
individuals who should be ineligible for the dividend. She
spoke to how to move forward with the collections of the
funds.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Jennifer Johnston
in the audience.
Co-Chair Seaton saw the amendment as unrelated to the
current bill. He wondered if the maker of the amendment had
received a Legislative Legal Services memo regarding the
issue.
Representative Pruitt replied in the negative.
Co-Chair Seaton wondered about a fiscal note related to the
amendment. He provided a scenario that could cost money. He
wondered what would be the effect if the individual did not
have any money. He wondered about past circumstances.
Representative Pruitt stated the question was good and he
could not fully answer it.
2:29:45 PM
Representative Wilson stated the amendment would not go
backwards. She reasoned the court would not have imposed a
conviction. She offered a conceptual Amendment 1 related to
victims compensation fund.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson stated that the goal was to help
victims.
Vice-Chair Gara understood the intent, but he did not think
there was an easy way to do it. If it were up to him he
would send the money directly to the victim. Instead he
thought they were building a bureaucracy around the issue
that would require multiple steps. He observed they did not
know the cost or if the compensation fund would give the
money to the victim
2:33:13 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked queried the order of
victim's compensation versus repaying the defendant.
KACI SCHROEDER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, deferred the question to DOR.
Ms. Race asked for clarification on the question.
Representative Guttenberg asked who would be paid back
first - the victim or the fund.
Ms. Race answered it would go back into funds available for
carrying forward the next year's dividend calculation.
Representative Guttenberg surmised that the money would go
to the victim's compensation fund. He asked who would be
paid back first.
Ms. Race replied that typically when the division did a
collection of funds that had been paid out. There was not a
priority order established. She thought another structure
may need to be put into place.
Ms. Schroeder stated her understanding of the question. She
stated that unfortunately the answer was not known . She
explained that restitution was what the defendant owed - it
would have to be sorted out. The court system was taking
over collections of restitution.
Representative Pruitt returned to a previous conversation.
He underscored that the amendment included "may" and left
the concept in the court's hands. He agreed with the
amendment to the amendment.
2:39:11 PM
Representative Wilson provided wrap up on the conceptual
amendment.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 was
ADOPTED.
Representative Ortiz wondered whether the argument was
based on similar crimes that may not have been tried.
Representative Pruitt explained the intent was related to
individuals who had eluded the state for several years.
2:43:11 PM
Vice-Chair Gara understood the intent of the amendment. He
stated a court would not do that - the standards had to be
in the provision. The court would have no standard to
follow. It was not possible to assume the court would act
like the finance committee. He thought in concept the
amendment made sense, but that it should be written in an
enforceable way.
Representative Guttenberg agreed. He thought the concept
was interesting, but he believed there were numerous
questions that needed to be answered. He provided a
scenario and asked how far back they could go.
Ms. Schroeder answered that it was for crimes committed on
or after the effective date.
2:46:14 PM
Representative Guttenberg pointed to page 3, Section 4 of
the amendment that would add a new section to the dividend
application. He asked about the complexity of the
provision.
Ms. Race believed it would be merely a disclaimer
statement. There were several different bullets where a
person had to certify everything they wrote was accurate
and true.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
introduced herself.
Vice-Chair Gara would prefer to see the money go to
restitution. He asked if the money were to go to the
Victims Compensation Fund would it reduce the amount
available for restitution. Second, the amendment language
stated "the court may order" but did not specify whether
the individual had money.
Ms. Meade answered the money would be due from the
defendant.
Vice-Chair Gara clarified there had been an amendment to
put the money into the Victims Compensation Fund.
Ms. Meade replied that there the fund would be appropriated
from that fund. She stated that the money collected from
the defended, and there would be more money available.
2:51:32 PM
Vice-Chair Gara wondered whether the amendment would limit
restitution to the victim.
Ms. Meade replied that the money in the Permanent Dividend
Fund was not being used for restitution. The court's role
would be to act as a funnel between the debtor and the
creditor in the scenario. By adding money into the dividend
fund there would be more money available.
Vice-Chair Gara asked wondered whether the court received
the money.
Ms. Meade did not believe the court would be collecting or
receiving any of the money. Currently fines were not
collected by the court.
2:53:42 PM
Vice-Chair Gara did not understand the answer. He explained
the standard was not included. He asked if the court would
only go after people with money.
Ms. Meade clarified that the court did not go after anyone;
it imposed fines. The court could impose a maximum fine set
out in statute. The court did not ensure the person paid
the fine. If the court were to order a person to repay
their PFD it would not go after the person for payment. The
PFD Division would have to pursue the issue.
Co-Chair Seaton pointed to page 1, line 9 of the amendment
related to a defendant convicted of an offence. However on
page 2, a person had been convicted of a misdemeanor. He
asked if the amendment could be imposed on a person who had
been convicted for a misdemeanor.
Ms. Meade believed Co-Chair Seaton was correct.
2:57:29 PM
Co-Chair Seaton was trying to figure out how it could be
distinguished from a person working for the state who
received wages.
Ms. Meade replied that she believed if someone committed a
crime in 2012, must pay back to the PFD office the total
amount of the 2014 through 2015 dividend. She did not know
if the court would have enough information about a person's
finances.
2:59:25 PM
Representative Grenn asked about the PFD eligibility
process. He thought the bill would only deal with a few
people per year. He thought the amendment could pertain to
numerous people. He asked what number of individuals who
applied for a PFD were deemed ineligible.
Ms. Race answered it was roughly between 1,000 and 2,000
individuals.
Representative Grenn asked for verification of the 1,500
reports.
Ms. Race explained the current process.
3:01:45 PM
Representative Grenn asked for verification it dealt with
the current year.
Ms. Race answered in the affirmative.
Representative Grenn queried the communication efforts.
Ms. Race responded that the division would have to be in
direct communication with the courts. She highlighted the
several different aspects a person would need to meet
including paying back a given number of dividends.
Representative Grenn asked about the administrative load.
Ms. Race answered it depended on the communication. She
stressed without the information they would not know how to
proceed with the collections in general.
Representative Wilson remarked that it was simply the
courts would make the determination and would pass along
the information to the PFD Division. She characterized the
items as tools in the toolbox for the court to use. She
thought the amendment worked well with the bill before the
committee. She remarked that sometimes court cases lasted
several years. She believed the amendment sent a strong
message that people would not be able to gain from what
they did. She would have been opposed to the amendment if
it included "shall" she thought it sent a strong message.
She wanted to get as much back to victims as possible.
3:06:39 PM
Ms. Meade responded further to an earlier question by Vice-
Chair Gara. She thought the concern he may be expressing
was that defendants had limited means and if the money was
owed there was that much less money available for other
things. It would be an additional monetary obligation,
which may be less money available for restitution.
Representative Guttenberg thought the concept was
interesting. He did not think people committing a crime
thought about the issue - they were not thinking
rationally. He spoke to the misdemeanor component and asked
about a low level crime a person could be convicted of
where they would have to give the money back.
3:09:12 PM
Ms. Meade answered in the affirmative - a person would
become ineligible for a third misdemeanor including three
instances of shoplifting.
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to
Amendment 2 as amended.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 2 as amended FAILED (4/7).
3:10:35 PM
Representative Thompson provided a hypothetical scenario
related to Permanent Fund checks.
Ms. Race did not believe she could answer the question.
Representative Thompson spoke to his concern about
garnishment.
Ms. Race responded replied that it did not necessarily
carry the same garnishment from year-to-year.
Representative Thompson asked if a person were to have
their conviction reversed whether they would have to
collect their money.
3:15:36 PM
Ms. Race answered that it was a question, but was not the
current process.
Representative Thompson asked if the person would have to
reapply to be eligible.
Ms. Race answered there would have to be some sort of
process like the one he mentioned.
Vice-Chair Gara explained the fiscal note from the
Department of Revenue. The funds would come out of the
Dividend fund and.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 127(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSHB 127 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN1 (REV).
3:17:50 PM
AT EASE
3:22:58 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 47
"An Act requiring certain municipalities with a
population that decreased by more than 25 percent
between 2000 and 2010 that participate in the defined
benefit retirement plan of the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Alaska to contribute to the
system an amount calculated by applying a rate of 22
percent of the total of all base salaries paid by the
municipality to employees of the municipality who are
active members of the system during a payroll period;
authorizing the administrator of the defined benefit
retirement plan of the Public Employees' Retirement
System of Alaska to reduce the rate of interest
payable by certain municipalities that are delinquent
in transmitting employee and employer contributions to
the retirement plan; and providing for an effective
date."
3:23:24 PM
PAUL LABOLLE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, discussed
the bill:
SB 125 changed the PERS system from a multiple employe
r plan to a cost share plan. It transferred the indivi
dual liability of the 160 PERS employers and consolida
ted it so that all the employers share in that liabili
ty.
SB 125 also created what is commonly referred to as th
e 2008 salary floor. This requires employer's
contribute 22% of annual salaries or 22% of FY08
salaries, whichever is
greater. The floor was instituted
to ensure that the system could not be "gamed" by disc
ouraging employers from replacing PERS
employees with contract hires to reduce their base con
tribution to the system.
Some municipalities have found themselves under the 20
08 floor through no fault of their own. A large
change in population results in a reduced tax base, wh
ich affects the services a city can provide. As that
financial reality drives a city to downsize, current l
aw exacerbates this problem by keeping their PERS cont
ribution at the 2008 level. This bill targets the comm
unities whose population has dropped by more
than 25% since the previous census.
HB 47 will address this issue in two ways:
1.Establish a new floor of FY 2012 for communities who
se population decreased by more than 25%
between 2000 and 2010.
2.Allows the PERS administrator to negotiate penalty i
nterest rates on delinquent payments.
HB 47 does not intend to repeat the "2008 floor" debat
e but to correct one of the unintended
consequences caused by the arbitrary line that debate
created.
3:25:51 PM
Representative Ortiz understood the intent of the bill. He
wondered how the department assessed things at present. He
wondered if there was a process in place to determine
whether municipalities were doing their part. He followed
up on his question.
Mr. LaBolle replied that the original bill a couple of
years ago - the bill before the committee the debt was not
absolved.
3:28:31 PM
AT EASE
3:28:36 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-
LS028\A.1 (Wayne, 4/8/17) (copy on file). [Note: due to
length of amendment it is not included here. See copy on
file].
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Pruitt explained the amendment.
3:32:04 PM
Co-Chair Foster was open to hearing from Representative
Johnston.
REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON, stated the bill was a
great example about how the state may not be able to manage
the unfunded retirement liability. She stated that she had
previously been in the Alaska Municipal League and had
considered the issue of the unfunded liability. She
believed the larger entities needed to manage their
employees - not to penalize individuals for the way they
did business. She thought the committee should reassess the
fiscal note.
3:37:04 PM
Representative Johnston asked if the committee had
addressed the 2008 floor. It gave other abilities to manage
the unfunded liability. She thought it was time to address
the issue. She was looking to fiscally manage an elephant
in the room.
3:39:12 PM
Representative Pruitt thought the last component was very
important. He stressed that if the state was not enforcing
the issue it could come up in the future. He believed it
needed to be dealt with
Co-Chair Seaton asked the Department of Administration
(DOA) to address the committee.
Representative Johnston had been hesitant to say the last
statement, because of possible liability issues.
KEVIN WORLEY, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, DIVISION OF
RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,
stated that the division looked at annual salaries, and had
recently completed the FY 16 evaluation in the previous
June. Those salaries were compared to the floor of 2008. He
stressed that statutes stated that there should be a bill
for the difference between the actual paid salaries and the
2008 floor.
3:42:34 PM
KATHY LEA, CHIEF PENSION OFFICER, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT
AND BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, shared that her
division continued to enforce termination and there were
three aspects to termination.
3:47:35 PM
Representative Thompson wondered whether the cost of a
termination study was approximately $15,000.
Ms. Lea replied that it depended on the number of
terminated employees.
Representative Wilson wondered whether a termination study
would be required after a division ceased to exist.
Ms. Lea answered in the negative, if the people were
assigned to another PERS position.
Representative Wilson wondered whether a termination study
was required when 15 employees were lost.
Ms. Lea answered in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson queried the cost of the study.
Ms. Lea answered it was difficult to answer because it was
based on individual employees.
Representative Wilson stressed that the state required the
study, to ensure that the employer was paying enough into
the retirement.
Ms. Lea stated that the study was done to examine the
individual employees retirement.
3:51:24 PM
Representative Wilson thought it was almost as big of a
deal than the original bill to the smaller communities. She
spoke to individuals being penalized by the state for
something that was not their fault.
Ms. Lea did not characterize it as penalizing.
Representative Wilson asked if many of the employers had
known they would be in the current position.
Ms. Lea answered that it had happened about 10 years
earlier. The basic consideration was how much the GF could
absorb. The amount needed to pay the unfunded liability
would not change, it was about who would pay.
Representative Ortiz asked if the net effect of changes
made in 2008 that it was much harder for smaller
communities to comply.
Mr. Worley asked Representative Ortiz to repeat the
question.
Representative Ortiz complied.
3:54:50 PM
Mr. Worley asked for clarification.
Representative Ortiz reiterated his question.
Ms. Lea answered that the number of employees with each
employer varied. There could be a smaller employer with
only one or two employees covered or a larger employer with
hundreds of employees covered. She did not believe it was
possible to make a sweeping statement that smaller
employers were more impacted.
Representative Ortiz spoke about triggering a study. He
surmised that if a person was eliminated from a category it
could trigger a study.
Ms. Lea replied in the affirmative.
Representative Ortiz stated that moving employees into a
different classification would not trigger a study.
Ms. Lea agreed.
3:58:35 PM
Co-Chair Foster referred to Representative Johnston's
statement that the bill was similar to a bill introduced in
2014. He believed the fiscal note had been indeterminate at
the time.
Representative Johnston spoke to the issue. She stressed
that termination studies were part of the process. She
remarked that the University of Alaska was below the 2008,
and they were paying for that cost.
4:03:10 PM
Co-Chair Seaton clarified the committee was currently
addressing Amendment 1.
Representative Guttenberg noted that it was possible to
determine liability focusing on certain groups. He wondered
how much of the amendment would challenge the negotiated
agreement rate of 22 percent.
Ms. Lea clarified her understanding of the question.
Representative Guttenberg affirmed.
Representative Guttenberg asked how the balance of burden
between larger and smaller communities.
Ms. Lea answered that it was specific to the employer. It
was difficult to make a generalization. She stressed that
it was very particular to the makeup of the employer and
how their covering.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for clarification. He referred to a
prior fiscal note.
Ms. Lea answered that the fiscal note was not current.
Co-Chair Foster stated that each time the bill did not get
passed it meant fiscal liabilities were adding up. He did
not support the amendment.
4:08:47 PM
Representative Pruitt provided wrap up on the amendment. He
stated the underlying bill may seem like a small bill, but
it was a big deal for communities. Likewise, so was the
amendment. He stated the issue could be addressed at
present or later on. He believed it was worth analyzing
whether they should move forward on the issue.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Kawasaki, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Seaton, Foster
The MOTION FAILED (5/6).
4:12:07 PM
Representative Wilson was sorry the amendment failed. She
thought the bill picked winners and losers.
Co-Chair Seaton felt that increasing the budget was not
prudent.
Representative Wilson interjected it was not $75 million.
Co-Chair Seaton noted the previous fiscal note on a bill
had been that amount.
Representative Wilson stated much had changed.
Representative Pruitt did support moving the bill forward
He suspected that some of the communities would be coming
back with some of the challenges addressed in Amendment 1.
4:15:26 PM
Vice-Chair Gara explained the two fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson stated were not four communities
written into the bill. She asked if there was a way to
cover other communities under the bill in the future.
Mr. LaBolle asked for a repeat of the question.
Representative Wilson complied.
Mr. LaBolle replied in the negative.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to REPORT HB 47 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Tilton, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Ortiz,
Pruitt, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (10/1).
There being NO further OBJECTION, HB 47 was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note from the Department of Administration
and one zero note from the Department of Administration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 151
"An Act relating to the duties of the Department of
Health and Social Services; relating to training and
workload standards for employees of the Department of
Health and Social Services; relating to foster care
licensing; relating to placement of a child in need of
aid; relating to the rights and responsibilities of
foster parents; relating to subsidies for adoption or
guardianship of a child in need of aid; requiring the
Department of Health and Social Services to provide
information to a child or person released from the
department's custody; and providing for an effective
date."
4:19:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, SPONSOR explained detail about the
need for the bill. He stressed it was not prudent to have
youth see a different foster parent. The bill was a fix to
try to make the system work. Without the bill the negative
consequences would continue to occur. He stressed the state
could not keep doing it. He remarked a caseworker could
handle about 12 to 15 cases - they could not handle the
number of cases they currently had. The caseworkers on
average in the Wasilla office handled 43 families; in other
areas the caseload was double what it should be.
4:28:17 PM
Vice-Chair Gara continued to address the bill. in New
Jersey, which many people saw as the gold standard, they
gave 6 to 8 weeks of training to caseworkers. Alaska did
about 2 to 3 weeks. The bill specified Alaska should do 6
to 8 weeks. The caseloads of new caseworkers were limited
to prevent burnout. He stated things went on too long at
OCS because it was an agency in crisis. He provided a
scenario where foster parents had quit because of problems.
4:35:21 PM
Vice-Chair Gara continued to address the bill. He could not
in good conscience recommend leaving the system the same. A
child did not deserve to be bounced between homes. He
thought the fiscal note would be $12 million to $15 million
and he had been nervous. However, due to federal funds and
other, the fiscal note would be approximately $5 million.
Part of the bill had to be dropped. He continued that there
were youth who were 18 to 20 who did not have homes. Some
of those kids would end up in a permanent home, but at $7.8
million it was not the best use of money, which hurt to
say. The fiscal note would disappear.
4:39:08 PM
Vice-Chair Gara addressed the original fiscal note for
caseworkers to meet the standard - he had worked with the
department that had been trying to determine the federal
matching rate. He planned to introduce to raise the
caseload standard to 13 to come up with an affordable
fiscal note. It would still be far superior to the current
caseloads. He reiterated the changes that would mean
roughly $4.2 million for caseworkers and training. Some
office space and equipment would come with that as well. A
caseworker was supposed to look out to see if a family
member could care for the child; often the family member
would become the adoptive parent. The bill would require a
supervisor to double check if a family member was
available.
4:42:32 PM
Representative Wilson agreed there was a problem. She
pointed to page 5, lines 16 to 20 of the bill. She asked
who determined appropriate placement.
Vice-Chair Gara replied that the placement standard was
about what was the best interest for the child.
Representative Wilson asked for the statutory definition of
"best interest for a child."
Vice-Chair Gara did not know the statutory definition. //
He deferred to the department for detail.
CHRISTY LAWTON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, did not have the
definition on hand. She would follow up.
4:47:20 PM
Representative Wilson placed concerns on the record related
to the fiscal note. She wondered why there was not a fiscal
note from the Public Defenders' Agency and other. She was
also concerned about qualifications of workers. She
wondered how the bill would impact supervised visits.
4:50:27 PM
Vice-Chair Gara spoke to the fiscal notes for the other
departments - there were a shortage of guardians. He knew
of at least one caseworker who had not known looking for a
family member was a part of their job.
Representative Wilson was not debating that portion. She
did not believe all of the people who would be hired. She
addressed complaints that came in. There was a possibility
more investigations were done. It had happened in the past.
She was not stating the issue was right or wrong.
4:55:01 PM
Vice-Chair Gara stated that the first sixty days that the
child was in foster care were assigned an assessment worker
who was required to develop a case plan. That person often
did not have time to meet with the parents. He hoped that
the caseload standard would be 13 cases.
Ms. Lawton elaborated stated that the reduction of case
loads and the addition of staff would allow for more
visitation, because those workers could potentially have
time to supervise some of those visits, with the possible
flexibility in the parent home.
Representative Wilson asked how many investigations were
currently investigated.
Ms. Lawton asked for clarification.
Representative Wilson clarified her question.
Ms. Lawton answered the department screened roughly 10,000.
5:00:06 PM
Representative Pruitt asked how to deal with the additional
burden of new requirements.
Vice-Chair Gara replied that the bill aimed to lessen bill.
He had never spoken to his first foster family and had been
taught that he was not supposed to maintain contact with
them. He regretted it.
5:03:23 PM
Representative Pruitt looked at Section 10, and queried the
roll of psychological parents and grandparents as it
related to foster families.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for further clarification.
Representative Pruitt relayed that there was a case of the
psychological grandparents rejecting children.
Co-Chair Foster handed the gavel to Representative
Kawasaki.
Vice-Chair Gara that the section tried to limit the number
of children removed from their family. He provided a
scenario where a grandparent lived at home. Section 10
specified the child should be allowed to remain at home.
5:07:25 PM
Representative Pruitt spoke to trying to determine the
definition of family member.
Vice-Chair Gara answered there was no attempt in the bill
to change the definition of family member.
HB 151 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Representative Kawasaki addressed the schedule for the
following day.
Representative Wilson asked about the amendment due date.
5:10:00 PM
AT EASE
5:12:36 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Gara relayed he would aim to remove the portion
related to adoption subsidies and changing caseworker
standards to 13 instead of 12.
Representative Wilson wondered whether the statutes would
be based on appropriation to meet that standard.
Vice-Chair Gara replied that the fiscal note would reflect
the actual cost for meeting the caseload.
Co-Chair Foster communicated amendments would be due by
noon on Saturday. He addressed the schedule for the
following day. He recessed the meeting to a call of the
chair [note: the meeting never reconvened].
ADJOURNMENT
5:15:52 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.