02/14/2006 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Office of Children's Services | |
| HB393 | |
| HB414 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 271 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 393 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 414 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 14, 2006
3:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 393(HES)
"An Act requiring that certain health care insurance plans
provide coverage for the costs of colorectal cancer screening
examinations and laboratory tests; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 393(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 414(HES)
"An Act relating to allowing a parent or guardian of a minor to
intercept the private communications of the minor and to consent
to an order authorizing law enforcement to intercept the private
communications of the minor."
- MOVED CSHB 414(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 271
"An Act relating to limitations on overtime for registered
nurses in health care facilities; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 393
SHORT TITLE: INSURANCE FOR COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ANDERSON
01/25/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/06 (H) L&C, HES
02/03/06 (H) L&C AT 4:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/03/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/06/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/06/06 (H) Moved CSHB 393(L&C) Out of Committee
02/06/06 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/08/06 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 5DP 1NR 1AM
02/08/06 (H) DP: CRAWFORD, LYNN, LEDOUX, GUTTENBERG,
ANDERSON;
02/08/06 (H) NR: KOTT;
02/08/06 (H) AM: ROKEBERG
02/14/06 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 414
SHORT TITLE: INTERCEPTION OF MINOR'S COMMUNICATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOTT
02/01/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/06 (H) HES, JUD
02/14/06 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
TAMMY SANDOVAL, Deputy Commissioner
Office of Children's Services
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the Office of
Children's Services.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
to Representative Anderson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSHB 393, Version Y, on behalf of
Representative Tom Anderson, sponsor.
EMILY NENON, Director
Alaska Government Relations
American Cancer Society (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support for CSHB 393, Version
Y.
MARIANNE BURKE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in strong support of HB 393.
REED STOOPS, Lobbyist
Aetna and American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Proposed amendments to CSHB 393, Version Y,
on behalf of Aetna and AHIP.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as prime sponsor of HB 414.
JOSH FINK, Director
Office of Public Advocacy
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 414.
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 414.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:06:27 PM.
Representatives Wilson, Anderson, Kohring, Gardner, and Cissna
were present at the call to order. Representatives Seaton and
Gatto arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW: Office of Children's Services
3:07:13 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
the overview by the Office of Children's Services (OCS).
3:07:56 PM
TAMMY SANDOVAL, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Children's
Services, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), began
by providing an update on the agency's performance improvement
plan, which the agency has worked on with the federal government
since 2003. August 31, 2005, completed the two-year period
during which OCS was measured. She related that OCS was able to
complete 100 percent of its action steps and 100 percent of its
benchmarks. However, OCS was only able to complete 18 of 23
outcomes set by the federal government. One of the outcomes
that wasn't met was the timeliness of investigation, which is
the time period after which a report is received and assigned
for investigation. The agency has one more year to meet the
timeliness outcome before penalties are instituted. Ms.
Sandoval explained that the agency must meet the goal two
consecutive quarters and at the end of the week she expected to
receive news that the goal was met. Two other outcomes that
weren't met were the worker visits with the child and worker
visits with the parents. Again, she expected that the agency
will meet those two goals. Ms. Sandoval noted that OCS wasn't
able to achieve two national indicators, which are reunification
in less than 12 months and adoption in less than 24 months. The
aforementioned are data measures that come out of the data
management information system, ORCA. She expected that OCS
would meet those goals by the end of August. She related that
the federal government wrote a very complimentary letter with
regard to how OCS has shored up its quality assurance system,
which OCS believes to be the foundation for how the department
will continue to measure itself long after the federal
government relaxes its oversight.
MS. SANDOVAL then related that in July 1, 2003, some prevention
programs came under the purview of OCS, which has resulted in
review as to how best to integrate prevention and child
protection services. Therefore, the agency has a number of
initiatives and projects to better connect the two processes.
3:14:05 PM
MS. SANDOVAL then informed the committee that in the past year
there was review of a three-year strategic plan of 2004
performed under the former deputy commissioner. The three-year
strategic plan, the federal outcomes and goals, and the agency's
own goals were broken down into one-year increments. She noted
that before the committee is a draft of this year's "road map."
She highlighted the following critical success benchmark:
moving from investigation to initial assessment such that the
OCS staff review who the family is and determine what it needs.
This initiative will train workers to be initial assessment
workers rather than investigators. She mentioned that
supervisors will also be [trained] to be more involved with what
is happening with workers, which she predicted will increase
worker morale and decrease turnover. The other main initiative
is continued work on resource family assessment, which is the
new term for recruiting foster and adoptive families. She
related her expectation that putting more time in at the
beginning will save time and problems in the end. The
aforementioned are two of the main initiatives for which the
one-time training money from the legislature is being utilized.
3:22:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA explained her experience with foster
family work since 1988, which she characterized as families
being ground up and spit out. Therefore, she opined that the
training money would need to be ongoing to help sustain a pool
of trained foster parents, and thus she asked if OCS needs a
legislative commitment for funds.
MS. SANDOVAL related that part of OCS's success can be
attributed to the new positions that it has acquired, which has
allowed caseloads to be lowered. Furthermore, the training of
the resource family assessment process and the initial
assessment process is occurring statewide and being built into
the training academy at the University of Alaska - Anchorage to
train future new staff. The aforementioned provides a
sustainable foundation through the training academy, she opined.
Moreover, this philosophy maintains the [goal] of, whenever
possible, serving children and their families in their homes as
that is the best way. Therefore, front-line social workers are
equipped to make better assessments in the beginning and thus
will sustain the progress and continue improvement.
3:26:55 PM
MS. SANDOVAL related that in the past three years there have
been many changes with OCS in the following ways:
reorganization of the office, the federal review, and initiative
work. She expressed the need for OCS to now have time to
implement and experience the benefits that are to come. She
highlighted that the new positions, which were mainly front-line
social workers, have been crucial to the success of OCS this
last year. The next biggest increase in staff at OCS was the
licensing positions. Other positions that were filled were
independent living positions, of which there is one in each
region for a total of four were filled. She explained that
these independent living specialists help those who are
graduating or moving out of the system due to age to prepare for
adulthood. Two positions were quality assurance positions,
which she suggested is the area in which the federal government
has probably noticed the most improvement. Having a strong
quality assurance unit within OCS allows the agency to
constantly review and evaluate the agency. New positions were
also included in support of ORCA, the new automated system to
track case monitoring.
3:30:44 PM
MS. SANDOVAL concluded by pointing out that the OCS brochure she
provided the committee includes the five goals the agency views
as its most important goals, which are as follows:
strengthening families; keeping children safer; decreasing
disproportionality; having a quality and stable work force; and
improving community partnerships. If OCS achieves the
aforementioned goals, the other smaller pieces will come along,
she opined.
3:31:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER requested that Ms. Sandoval discuss the
ways in which OCS is addressing the disproportionality issue.
MS. SANDOVAL informed the committee that OCS has partnered with
the tribal leaders statewide as well as Casey Family Programs to
take on the issue of the disproportional amount of Alaska Native
children in the system. Since November 2004 when OCS learned of
this disproportionality, OCS was committed to determining why
with the help and funding of Casey Family Programs. Three times
a year this partnership group gathers for "courageous
conversations" during which tribal leaders challenge state
employees to review their policies, procedures, and practices.
These conversations also further the partnerships between the
groups as well as recognize that [the disproportional] problem
isn't all about OCS. She related that 15 local teams have been
assembled to develop plans and strategies. There is also a
Breakthrough Series Collaborative that utilizes experts on the
issue of disproportionality to create a structure that can be
utilized to test ideas on a local scale. This is about the
ground up rather than the top down; the people in the field are
empowered to inform leadership what needs to happen on the
ground, she explained.
3:36:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the aforementioned has
eliminated the situation in which after there is a permanent
placement outside the home the tribe would disagree with the
placement and everything would halt and start over again.
MS. SANDOVAL said that remains part of the work ahead. She
emphasized the importance of OCS ensuring that the tribal
partners have been engaged early. She reiterated that doing a
better job during the initial assessment phase will result in
the identification of deficiencies and work to remedy them will
occur. Therefore, better decisions will be made for the
children all through the process.
3:37:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if a better job of establishing
paternity and tracking relatives is occurring early on.
MS. SANDOVAL opined that OCS is doing better, although finding
absent parents remains one of the agency's goals.
3:38:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO turned attention to the information in the
brochure that specifies that 60 percent of the children in OCS
are Native, but the exit rates are lower. He asked if there is
a corrective factor that specifies that OCS is on task and
identifies the problem as the crowding or exit rates.
MS. SANDOVAL related her belief that Alaska does have a
disproportionality problem. For instance, at the beginning of
this work in Juneau 80 percent of the children in foster care
were Alaska Native, although that isn't proportional to the
Alaska Native population in the area. The same is true of
Anchorage. Until more data is available on disproportionality,
OCS will continue the work on the disproportionality problem as
if it's as large as reported in November 2004.
3:41:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired as to what would be the correct
proportion.
MS. SANDOVAL indicated that what has to be reviewed is why a
disproportionate number of Alaska Native children are placed in
foster care when there isn't a disproportionate number of calls
made about Alaska Native children.
CHAIR WILSON asked if part of the problem could be that perhaps
not enough services are being provided to the Native
communities, and thus there are more problems. She questioned
whether there could also be cultural differences that should be
considered. Chair Wilson then suggested that perhaps some early
childhood development tools could bring about change.
MS. SANDOVAL noted her agreement with Chair Wilson and specified
that OCS is merely questioning why the [disproportionality
exists] and trying to determine what can be done to address the
situation.
3:43:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that there is a significant
amount more children in the Native population than in the
general population and thus he presumed that's being considered.
He then recalled a recent presentation from Petersburg Mental
Health during which the organization expressed the need to cut
its clients by half due to reporting requirements and the
reporting system problems. Therefore, he inquired as to how the
ORCA system is working for OCS. He further inquired as to
whether in remote locations, the automated reporting requirement
is causing less services to be provided as is the case in
Petersburg.
MS. SANDOVAL acknowledged that there are problems [with the
automated reporting system], but emphasized that it doesn't
impact OCS's level of service because the work has to be done.
However, she did agree that there is a connectivity problem in
remote locations and the department's technology staff continues
to work on improving the situation. In the meantime, a regional
input system is being utilized for new reports.
3:46:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that OCS's level of service
would be impacted because if it takes longer than it should to
do a report and those reports have to be done, then staff isn't
available to perform other work. He then related his recent
understanding that the notes and personal information that was
thought to have been required to be entered in the electronic
database due to the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPPA) requirements isn't necessary. He
explained that the electric database merely has to specify that
the notes are in the file. He suggested that the aforementioned
may simplify the process and allow the agency to provide more
service.
3:49:10 PM
MS. SANDOVAL, in response to Representative Gatto, specified
that everything in the brochure is part of the three-year
strategic plan under the former deputy commissioner. The
brochure the committee has specifies what OCS believes to be the
most critical to the agency's success for this year's road map.
In further response to Representative Gatto, Ms. Sandoval opined
that by working on the five goals in the brochure and the
[federal] goals, OCS will come closer to accomplishing the goals
of the three-year strategic plan.
HB 393-INSURANCE FOR COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING
3:50:53 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 393, "An Act requiring that certain health care
insurance plans provide coverage for the costs of colorectal
cancer screening examinations and laboratory tests; and
providing for an effective date."
3:51:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, speaking as the prime sponsor,
introduced HB 393 and paraphrased from his sponsor statement
[original punctuation provided]:
Colon cancer (technically known as colorectal cancer)
is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in Alaska
and across the nation. An estimated 57,000 Americans
died from the colon cancer in 2005. Screening has the
potential to drastically reduce this number. Consider
these facts:
When caught through routine screening at the localized
stage, the 5-year survival rate from colon cancer is
over 90%.
If not caught until it has distant metastasis, when
symptoms are likely to appear, the 5-year survival
rate is only 10%.
Colonoscopy is over 90% effective at detecting colon
cancer and can remove pre-cancerous polyps, actually
preventing cancer from ever developing.
3:54:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to adopt proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 393, Version 24-LS0780\Y, Bailey,
2/13/06. There being no objection, Version Y was before the
committee.
3:55:36 PM
HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Anderson, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the key changes between CSHB 393(L&C) and
Version Y; directing the committee's attention to page 2, line
3. This change establishes the American Cancer Society
standards as the guidelines for colorectal cancer screening, and
removes the United States Preventative Services Task Force
guidelines reference from the bill. In addition, he pointed out
that the word "current" was removed [in this section] as a
suggestion from the legal drafters, who opined that including
the word "current" would require Alaska law to comport with an
outside standard; an unconstitutional delegation of authority.
3:57:11 PM
EMILY NENON, Director, Alaska Government Relations, American
Cancer Society (ACS), echoed Representative Anderson's sponsor
statement adding that with the colonoscopy screening method,
precancerous polyps can be immediately removed, making this the
only screening tool that can actually prevent cancer. She said
that for the average risk patient, the ACS guidelines recommend
this procedure every 10 years after the age of 50. She pointed
out that this could limit an insurance plan from having to pay
for more than two of these procedures, as Medicare coverage
would apply after age 65. She highlighted that the cost savings
of early diagnosis and prevention versus contracting cancer and
undergoing cancer treatment, are significant.
4:01:27 PM
MS. NENON pointed out that colon cancer occurs more frequently
in Alaska than in the general U.S. population and is the second
leading cause of cancer death. She said that the Alaska Native
population represents an anomaly, with the single highest rates
of colon cancer of any population group in America; double that
of the U.S. white population. The ACS and the Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium are researching this phenomenon;
however, she reiterated that the screening tools and procedures
are available to prevent this cancer.
4:02:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Ms. Nenon to estimate the number of
Alaskan lives that might be saved if this bill passes and what
the diagnosis frequency represents.
MS. NENON said that colon cancer screening increases survival
rates by 80 percent, and provided that 5-10 percent of the
general population will develop colorectal cancer.
4:04:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated that the cost for screening is about
$2,500.00, including the hospital fees, and that about 3 percent
who come in for screening have polyps removed during the
procedure. In comparison, he noted the high cost of cancer
treatment. He also noted that, with these facts and figures
before them, it is evident that this bill is a benefit to the
population and the insurance companies.
4:07:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, pointing out whom this bill will
effect, stated that current State of Alaska employees are
already covered for this screening, along with other self-
insured employers such as Providence Medical Center, adding that
this bill targets retirees. He also noted that there are three
types of screening procedures, with various degrees of
invasiveness.
MR. HILYARD added that this screening is subject to policy plan
provisions already in place with regard to co-pay and deductible
requirements.
4:10:21 PM
MARIANNE BURKE stated strong support for HB 393, saying that
this coverage should be mandated. She said that from a
humanistic and financial point of view, "it is a no-brainer" to
mandate insurance coverage for a procedure that can eliminate
colon cancer. Having served as the director of the Division of
Insurance for the State of Alaska, she said that she has upheld
the belief that personal choice issues should not be covered by
statute. However, she opined, that this issue goes beyond
personal choice given the fiscal and life-saving impacts.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked whether Ms. Burke, as former
director of the Division of Insurance, would concur with the
zero fiscal note issued from the Division of Insurance.
MS. BURKE said that she would concur, and further stated that
there would be no impact on the state as the state's insurance
coverage is not affected by this bill.
4:14:31 PM
REED STOOPS, Lobbyist, Aetna and American Health Insurance Plans
(AHIP), presented a proposal for an amendment to HB 393. He
said that the amendment will serve to reflect the updates of
screening standards by ACS and prevent the need to change state
statute accordingly. He also proposed an amendment to allow
health plan administrators to notify policyholders of this
screening coverage in conjunction with other health care
communications/mailings. He pointed out that this mandate will
only apply to a small number of Alaskans who are not insured or
whose coverage does not already encompass this procedure. In
answer to a question, he clarified that the "legislature can't
mandate coverages on any self-insured program or federally
funded programs that don't come through the state." To a
further question, he stated that it is hard to project who will
take advantage of this screening coverage.
4:20:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON directed the committee's attention to
the amendment to CSHB 393(L&C).
4:20:43 PM
MR. HILYARD described the two versions of the same amendment,
explaining that the concern was who would be responsible for
notification of coverage to policyholders and the frequency of
notification. He pointed out that the amendment inserts the
word "annually," and the word "current" is omitted.
4:22:21 PM
VICE CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read [with
handwritten changes]:
Page 2, Lines 21-25
(f) Each [HEALTH CARE INSURER OR] health benefit plan
shall notify each enrollee annually of the coverage
for colorectal cancer screenings and provide the
[CURRENT] American Cancer Society guidelines for
colorectal cancer screenings. The notice shall be
[DELIVERED BY MAIL UNLESS THE ENROLLEE AND HEALTH
CARRIER HAVE AGREED ON ANOTHER METHOD OF NOTIFICATION]
included in health benefit handbooks or be provided by
written or electronic communication between health
plan administrators and enrollees.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked for clarity regarding how the state
will be informing policyholders of this benefit.
CHAIR WILSON explained that the state plan already covers
employees for colorectal screening procedures and this bill will
encompass state retirees as well.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she was inquiring about the broadcast
of information regarding colorectal screening procedures and the
screening coverage.
CHAIR WILSON said that Amendment 1 specifies that each enrollee
will have to be notified annually of the coverage provided from
colorectal cancer screenings and provide the ACS's guidelines
for colorectal cancer screening.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered that Aetna and Blue Cross should
not be mandated to provide monthly/annually notification to
policyholders versus the electronic correspondence and
[edited/issued policy pamphlet].
4:26:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA clarified that she wants to ensure that
the ACS guidelines are contained in the current information
provided to state employees.
MR. HILYARD stated that this information is currently in the
state insurance pamphlet.
4:27:47 PM
CHAIR WILSON reiterated that in the long run this procedure will
save human suffering and the insurance company's money. She
relayed her personal experiences relating to colorectal
screening and cancer.
4:30:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 393, Version 24-
LS0780\Y, Bailey, 2/13/06, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected to the effective date of the bill
and asked how this date was established.
MR. STOOPS explained how the employees, who sign up for
insurance after this legislation passes, will receive the
information in their handbook at that time. The bill allows for
"other communication," which may be used by the employer during
the interim of issuing the updated annual handbook.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection.
4:32:29 PM
CHAIR WILSON stated that there being no objection, CSHB 393(HES)
was reported out of the House Health Education and Social
Services Standing Committee.
HB 414-INTERCEPTION OF MINOR'S COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIR WILSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 414, "An Act relating to allowing a parent or
guardian of a minor to intercept the private communications of
the minor and to consent to an order authorizing law enforcement
to intercept the private communications of the minor."
4:33:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 414, Version 24-LS1565\G, Wayne, 2/13/06,
as the working document. There being no objection, Version G
was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT as prime sponsor introduced HB 414
paraphrasing from his sponsor statement [original punctuation
provided]:
The Committee substitute for House Bill 414 will
protect minors from predators and other insalubrious
characters. HB 414 amends AS 12.37.030 to allow a
parent or guardian of a minor to consent to the
interception of communications of the minor under
certain, specific circumstances. Specifically, where
the parent of the minor has a good faith and
objectively reasonable belief that it is necessary for
the welfare, and in the best interest of the minor to
do so, he or she may consent on behalf of the child to
the interception of a communication by the minor. The
parent's properly given consent may be utilized by a
judge to grant an ex parte order permitting the proper
authorities to monitor and intercept the minor's
communications.
HB 414 also amends AS 42.20.320 to permit the parent
of the minor in question to himself or herself [to]
intercept the communication without fear of criminal
prosecution. Under current law, no person who is not
party to the communication may intercept any portion
of a communication between others. To do so
constitutes a criminal offense in Alaska. Section 3
of HB 414 creates an exception that allows the parent
of a minor child to intercept a minor child's
communications.
With passage of this legislation, we allow parents and
guardians to protect their children, and we provide
them the tools to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that in Section 4 of the bill,
"minor" is defined as under the age of 18 and not emancipated;
emancipated minors are exempt from HB 414.
4:36:20 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked if a parent observed a child in an Internet
chat room and deemed the content inappropriate, will this bill
allow the parent to call the police for investigative purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT answered that HB 414 provides for
appropriate parental intervention, although there is an inherent
weakness in this legislation given our state's constitutional
right to privacy. He submitted that privacy is not an absolute
right when given the compelling need to override that right to
protect children. He stated that certain insalubrious
individuals prey on children over the Internet, and although
there are computer programs for purchase to provide monitoring
capabilities, using these programs does not allow parents to
intercept the messages or intervene on a legal level. He
maintained that HB 414 will assist parents who are faced with
raising today's children and provide them with the tools and the
authority to act responsibly on their child's behalf. He
explained that while parents are legally responsible for the
actions of their minor children, they are not provided the
"tools" to assist them in monitoring their child's activity in a
way that could help to stem a situation. He provided several
examples of how parents are at a disadvantage due to today's
technologically connected children. He assured the committee
that this bill does not run afoul of the federal Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act [1968]. Although not tested in the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, he opined, that if these measures
are placed in statute and challenged they would be viewed
favorably in the courts.
CHAIR WILSON instructed the committee to look at this bill not
in a judicial light, but whether HB 414 creates a good policy
for the state.
4:41:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated support for HB 414 as it provides
a formalization and legal authority to what here-to-fore has
been a parent's assumed privilege in providing for their child's
safety and well-being. She maintained that when parents are not
afforded appropriate means to manage their child's welfare, they
are crippled and may abdicate responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT acknowledged the importance of the informal,
nonconsensual, eavesdropping measures historically employed by
parents.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA interjected that there is a difference in
what occurs at home informally, and what is being discussed in
HB 414; information that may be gathered and presented as
evidence in a court case. She asked how this bill would effect
a situation involving a divided home with opposing parents.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT answered that the intent of the bill is to
provide for the welfare and safety of a child, and protect the
child from engaging in dangerous behavior. He conceded,
however, that it does not ensure against opposing parents
construing the opportunity for their own interests. He pointed
out that some states do have variations of this bill in place
and their circuit courts generally uphold the vicarious consent
ruling; other states maintain the two-party consent rule.
4:46:37 PM
JOSH FINK, Director, Office of Public Advocacy, Department of
Administration (DOA), stated that adding the exception for the
minor's attorney or guardian ad litem was an important addition
to this bill. He called the committee's attention to the Alaska
Rules of Evidence 501-506, where the policy decision as to what
communications are confidential has previously been addressed.
He explained that the Rules expand the confidentiality exemption
to cover discussions with a therapist, physician, or clergyman,
and he asked the committee to consider what exception policy it
would deem appropriate.
4:48:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked, considering custody and divorce
situations, should the language on page 1, [line 9], include the
term "custodial" prior to parent or guardian.
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), clarified
that in custody situations one of the parents is often
restricted to visitation rights, and either parent may have some
need to monitor conversations in the child's best interest. He
stated:
There's certainly a good policy basis for extending
these same rights to someone who has legal custody as
opposed to simply physical custody. ... It would come
as a shock to ... parents that they can't ... pick up
the phone and listen in to a conversation, or read
their child's e-mail, or tape record a conversation,
but given our eavesdropping statute and the breadth of
it ... all of those things are problematical ... and
this bill fixes that.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained the importance of ensuring
against custodial manipulation that may result in overturning
parental custody of a child; stressing the need for this aspect
to be addressed as a policy or clarified/considered when the
bill is reviewed by the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
MR. GUANELI stated that there is an option to provide the rights
of HB 414 only to the parent with physical custody. In agreeing
that this area of the bill requires further attention, he
explained that when parental rights have been terminated by
court order it presents a different question than when
visitation is allowed. In response to a question of how parents
might manipulate this right to monitor communications between a
child and the opposing parent, he answered that the way the bill
is written either parent would have the ability to listen in on
conversations. He stated that the issue to consider is how
information is gathered, by whom it is gathered, and how it may
be used in a court of law. Further, he questioned the wisdom to
"allow a system to persist if it is a disincentive for parents
to fully exercise their parental rights..."
4:56:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked that the bill sponsors clarify the
eavesdropping language of HB 414 between parents in custodial
situations in which one parent may inadvertently have more
rights than the other.
4:57:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report CSHB 414, Version 24-
LS1565\G, Wayne, 2/13/06, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHB 414(HES) was reported from the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
4:58:01 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 4:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|