04/11/2006 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB250 | |
| SB12 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 310 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 438 | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 11, 2006
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 250
"An Act extending the termination date of the Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; and eliminating statutory
references to the network on domestic violence and sexual
assault."
- MOVED HCS SB 250(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 12(STA)
"An Act relating to financial relationships with persons
conducting business in or having headquarters in countries that
support or ignore slavery and trafficking in persons."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 12(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 310
"An Act relating to the employment of prisoners; and providing
for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 438
"An Act relating to initiative, referendum, and recall
petitions; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 250
SHORT TITLE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/SEXUAL ASSAULT COUNCIL
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEG BUDGET & AUDIT
01/26/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/06 (S) HES, FIN
02/17/06 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/17/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/17/06 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/22/06 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/22/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/22/06 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/01/06 (S) HES WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE
23
03/03/06 (S) HES AT 2:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/03/06 (S) Moved SB 250 Out of Committee
03/03/06 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/06/06 (S) HES RPT 1DP 2NR 2AM
03/06/06 (S) DP: DYSON
03/06/06 (S) NR: WILKEN, GREEN
03/06/06 (S) AM: ELTON, OLSON
03/14/06 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/14/06 (S) Moved SB 250 Out of Committee
03/14/06 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/15/06 (S) FIN RPT 3DP 3NR
03/15/06 (S) DP: WILKEN, GREEN, BUNDE
03/15/06 (S) NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON, STEDMAN
03/27/06 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/27/06 (S) VERSION: SB 250
03/28/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/28/06 (H) STA, FIN
04/06/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/06/06 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/11/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 12
SHORT TITLE: LIMIT RELATIONS WITH CERTAIN NATIONS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DYSON
01/11/05 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/11/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/11/05 (S) STA, JUD
02/08/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/08/05 (S) Heard & Held
02/08/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/14/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/14/05 (S) Moved CSSB 12(STA) Out of Committee
04/14/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/15/05 (S) STA RPT CS FORTHCOMING 4DP
04/15/05 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, HUGGINS, DAVIS, ELTON
04/18/05 (S) STA CS RECEIVED
NEW TITLE
04/26/05 (S) JUD RPT CS(STA) 4DP 1NR
04/26/05 (S) DP: SEEKINS, FRENCH, THERRIAULT,
HUGGINS
04/26/05 (S) NR: GUESS
04/26/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/26/05 (S) Moved CSSB 12(STA) Out of Committee
04/26/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/02/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/02/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 12(STA)
05/03/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/03/05 (H) STA, JUD
02/16/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/16/06 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/21/06 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/11/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
BARBARA MASON, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Department of Public Safety
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding the council
during the hearing on SB 250.
BILL HOGAN, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Deferred comment to Commission William
Tandeske during the hearing on SB 250.
WILLIAM TANDESKE, Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
250.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Legislative Agencies and Offices
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
250.
PEGGY BROWN, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 250.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07:43 AM. Representatives
Gatto, Elkins, Lynn, Ramras, Gardner, and Seaton were present at
the call to order. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
SB 250-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/SEXUAL ASSAULT COUNCIL
8:08:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was
SENATE BILL NO. 250, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; and
eliminating statutory references to the network on domestic
violence and sexual assault."
8:08:43 AM
BARBARA MASON, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, stated that she
welcomes the opportunity to inform the committee about the
council, because she has discovered that there is a lot of
misinformation about it. She said the committee packets now
include the council's last year's minutes and agendas, as well
as an account of five year's missions and measures. Also
included in the committee packet, she noted, is a response to
"recommendation one of the sunset audit."
8:09:40 AM
MS. MASON stated:
The mission of the Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault is to implement a statewide system of
services for the protection of individuals and
families affected by domestic violence and sexual
assault.
MS. MASON noted that she had distributed a fact sheet [included
in the committee packet], which describes the council and
provides contact information. She relayed that the council has
two main functions: to coordinate with the departments
[represented in council seats], as well as with other state and
community groups dealing with domestic violence and sexual
assault; and to serve as a funding source, which differs from
most of the other advisory-only councils listed on the
governor's boards and commissions. She said the council is
comprised of seven members, with four members from the
Departments of Public Safety, Law, Education and Early
Development, and Health & Social Services, and three members
appointed by the governor. She directed attention to an
organizational chart that shows who sits in those seats, as well
as the makeup of the council's staff [included in the committee
packet].
MS. MASON stated that it is the job of her staff and herself to
move forward the work of the council. One task is to manage
funds received by the State of Alaska and the federal
government. In response to a request from Representative
Gruenberg prior to today's meeting, she said she has included "a
breakout of our budget between what is dispersed to the programs
and what is used by CDVSA for administrative costs," which Ms.
Mason noted can be found in the handout entitled, "CDVSA Fiscal
Year 2006 Budget." She said the budget shows that less than 10
percent of the funds are used for administrative costs. Program
funds, she said, are dispersed through a request for proposals
(RFP) process on a two-year cycle; the last cycle in which funds
were dispersed occurred in June (2005). If the council receives
extra funds, it will conduct another RFP process in June (2006).
Ms. Mason said the council oversees and audits the programs that
have been funded, thus acting as a monitoring agency.
MS. MASON revealed that she and her staff also administer the
state certified batterer intervention programs. She offered
further details. She said she uses a proprietary database to
capture information from funded CDVSA programs in order to
comply with data requirements from the funding sources. She
said the council meets on a quarterly basis; however, in 2005
there was a fifth meeting to review proposals and award grants
for the valid discretionary funds. She added, "This actually
usually happens, so, we usually have five meetings in a year."
She noted the length of a meeting may last more than one day,
depending on the purpose of the meeting. At each quarterly
meeting, she said, the council reviews the reports sent in by
the programs and notes concerns raised relevant to the
departments it represents in order to address the issues. She
offered an example. She said the minutes show that the meetings
are well attended and are important to the community and all the
departments.
8:12:53 AM
MS. MASON said people often ask her what the difference is
between the council and the network. She explained that the
council is a government entity that manages state and federal
funds, while the network is a private, nonprofit entity that
represents the programs that receive the funds. A common goal
between the two is to provide for the safety and intervention of
for those affected by domestic violence and sexual assault. Ms.
Mason concluded:
I believe the council, as did the legislative auditor,
provides a much-needed public need and operates in a
public interest. The council supports SB 250 as it
stands.
8:13:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Ms. Mason for a summary of what the
problem is and what's being done about it.
8:15:17 AM
MS. MASON responded that domestic violence and sexual assault
affects the community and is an issue addressed by all of the
aforementioned departments represented on the council. She
offered examples. She said the focus on the problem begins with
addressing the issues. Safety is the first issue that is dealt
with, for example. Shelters are built to get people out of a
crisis situation. The next step is maintenance - helping those
people plan what steps to take in the future to stay safe.
8:17:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to Representative Gatto, directed
attention to the aforementioned budget handout.
8:18:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON prefaced his questions by telling Ms. Mason that
the committee identifies [the issue of domestic violence and
sexual assault] as an "extremely important problem." He
explained that the reason he had requested that Ms. Mason bring
forth the large quantity of information that is in the committee
packet is because the sunset extension proposed by the bill is a
long one, and he wants to ensure there is a plan being developed
by the council that will "get the topic addressed most
accurately."
8:20:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that the audit identified that one of the
major problems has been a turnover in the areas of executive
director and program associates in the last four years. He
indicated that he doesn't want Ms. Mason to feel she is being
attacked. He said, "When you have a turnover like that it's
extremely difficult to have a program fully developed and
functioning."
8:20:45 AM
MS. MASON directed attention to a single sheet, entitled,
"Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 2005 Sunset
Audit Response" [included in the committee packet]. She
paraphrased from a portion of the handout, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
In response to the Sunset Audit recommendations,
Barbara Mason, Executive Director of the Council
contacted the Council members from the Department of
Education (DEED) and the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) in order to begin developing a
plan to address the concerns raised by Legislative
Audit. Barbara Thompson from DEED indicated that DEED
is currently developing training modules on various
subjects including domestic violence for their
professional development requirements for school
district staff. Work on the domestic violence module
starts in April and Barbara Mason will be a
participant in the development of that module. The
next step is to assess what curricula are currently
being used in the schools and in what district.
Barbara Mason has also met with Bill Hogan from DHSS
and they have determined that the best place to start
is to have Barbara present at the Division Directors
meeting on the Councils legislative mandate. Bill and
Barbara will then focus on those Divisions most
concerned, Health, Behavioral Health, and Office of
Children Services.
MS. MASON said one of the focuses is to find out what questions
are being asked. For example, in health clinics, when someone
comes in with an injury that is not consistent with the story
being given, the health care provider needs to be asking the
right questions, and to be asking them to the person separately
from his/her partner. Ms. Mason said she will be meeting on
April 17 with division heads within DHSS to focus on the three
top [entities]: the Division of Health, the Office of Children
Services, and the Division of Behavioral Health - the latter
particularly in regard to how to address victims and
perpetrators of violence who may need help in terms of going
through trauma. She said most victims have post-traumatic
stress syndrome (PTSD), which can be a mental health issue.
8:23:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON said, "We want to make sure that these are not just
your daily contacts with people." He asked, "Is this the track
of developing a strategic plan to get those things done?"
8:23:58 AM
MS. MASON replied that she has spoken with the people putting
together the module and will be meeting with the division heads
when she attends the division head meeting out of DHSS so that
she can make the contacts and "start working with them
individually" and work through the system.
8:24:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that he would like to see a plan or
development strategy on paper related to the statutory
requirements that need to be met. He indicated that he is
talking about "how we are going to proceed with the Department
of Education [and Early Childhood Development] and not do it on
an ad hoc basis." He said he wants something to measure
against, so that the legislature knows where [the council] is in
relation to the plan.
8:25:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER observed that there are approximately 14
duties of the council. She said she is trying to both listen to
the testimony and read the information in the committee packet
"with an eye to measuring how they fit with the duties of the
council." She said from what the committee has heard thus far,
there are elements of the council duty that haven't been
discussed. She asked Chair Seaton if the committee would be
coming back to the bill another day.
8:26:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked that the committee wait to see how the
present meeting fares.
8:26:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that one duty of the council is to
develop and implement a standardized data collection system on
domestic violence and sexual assault crisis intervention and
prevention. She said she would be interested in "seeing what
that looks like." Representative Gardner explained that she is
uncomfortable extending the sunset date for as long as the bill
proposes when she doesn't feel like she has a sense that the
duties of the council currently are being met.
8:27:27 AM
MS. MASON expressed pride in the council's database. She said
this is the first year that the council has been dealing with
the new system, and it is meeting all its requirements. She
offered further examples regarding the use of the database.
8:28:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to [a five-page handout in the
committee packet entitled, "Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault Results Delivery Unit."] After some discussion
between Representative Gruenberg and Ms. Mason to determine how
up-to-date the report is when it read "12/27/04" and "FY 2006"
at the bottom of the first page, Chair Seaton surmised that
there may be a lag time in data preparation or when data is
available. He said, "Hopefully we'll have this 2005 data that
we can add on to the bottom, because right now on page 2 ...
you'll see that the most ... recent data we have is 2004."
8:32:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON indicated the headings on page 1 of the report,
which read: "End Results," "Strategies to Achieve Results,"
"End Results," "Strategies to Achieve Results," and "Major
Activities to Advance Strategies." He said the legislature is
concerned with these categories, and he asked Ms. Mason to lead
the committee through them. In particular, he asked questions
regarding the list under "Major Activities to Advance
Strategies," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided with some formatting changed]:
Conduct state RFP process, allocate funds, support
legislative efforts, write federal RFP
Conduct onsite audits, hold telephonic meetings,
provide written materials
Maintain database, conduct data audits, provide query
reports
Participate in the planning, coordinating, and
implementation of workshops
Conduct needs assessments, evaluate effectiveness of
projects
Analyze data reports
8:33:49 AM
MS. MASON confirmed that onsite audits have been conducted. She
explained that the audits are done on a two-year cycle, unless
there are issues that require an audit to be conducted on an
annual basis. Regarding workshops, Ms. Mason said tribal state
forums have been conducted. Those forums were supported by
[Grants to Encourage Arrest (GTEA)]. Ms. Mason said she hopes
those monies will be received again.
8:35:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON said it is problematic that there are activities
and advanced strategies, but no delineation within the missions
and measures showing how they were accomplished. Referring back
to page 1 of the report, he asked if the council does needs
assessments or if they are done by "the folks that come and
apply for grants."
8:36:34 AM
MS. MASON replied that she doesn't know of one that has been
done recently that is a formalized needs assessment.
8:37:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 2 of the aforementioned
handout pertaining to the results delivery unit. He observed
that under "Performance Measure Detail," the target is for "10%
increase in shelter/support services to victims of domestic
violence, sexual assault, or other violent crimes." Further
down the page, he noted, it shows the total count of incidents
decreasing from fiscal year 2001 (FY 01) to FY 04. He asked,
"If our goal is a ten percent increase in shelter services and
we're getting less days in shelters, ... it seems to me that
that's saying we're failing in our goal. Or is this supposedly
the case that ... there isn't the requirement for sheltered
services?"
8:38:23 AM
MS. MASON responded that this is one of the measures that she
doesn't much care for, because there are fluctuations in shelter
usage. She offered examples.
8:38:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he understands that but is still having
trouble interpreting the numbers.
8:39:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the numbers in question could
be reflective of reduced funding.
MS. MASON said it could be, but she noted that it also could be
reflective of how data is being gathered. In response to a
follow-up question from Representative Gruenberg, she said the
funding has fluctuated over the years. She directed attention
to page 15 of the audit report, [which shows the schedule of
operating expenditure and funding sources of the council].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that [the numbers] do not seem
to indicate [a drop in resources].
8:42:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred back to page 2 of the previously discussed
report and noted that second target is "5% increase in
coordinated training/educational workshops." He noted that the
table showing the statewide training functions dropped from
2,390 in FY 01 to 1,723 in FY 04, which he calculated as a 20-25
percent decrease. He stated, "I guess I'm having a hard time
figuring out if we're accomplishing these missions, or if ...
the data is showing that we're not accomplishing the missions
and we're going the wrong way." He explained that is why he
would like to see a strategic plan to clarify these numbers.
8:43:23 AM
MS. MASON said she will look into this issue. She said, "I
notice this ... says by ... CDVSA grantees, but I would assume
that we would also want to include the training with the forum
that we did." She added, "And I'm not sure how these numbers
were combined, either."
8:43:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 3 of the report, which
shows the result: "Work toward longer-term solutions to the
root causes of domestic violence, sexual assault, or other
violent crimes." He noted that the target shown is "5%
reduction in domestic violence, sexual assault, and other
violent crimes," but the number of incidents shown in the chart
are 25,787 in FY 00, rising to 27,540 in FY 03. He said that
looks like the numbers are going the wrong way, and he
reiterated his need to see a strategic plan.
8:45:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that the increased number could
indicate, for example, that although the amount of incidents
have remained the same, the amount of reporting has gone up.
8:45:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON remarked that Ms. Mason is in a difficult position
in front of the committee, trying to answer tough questions
based on the available data. He suggested the committee would
benefit from listening to a council member.
8:46:05 AM
BILL HOGAN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), said he cannot shed much light regarding the
council, thus, he suggested the committee ask questions of
Commissioner Tandeske.
8:47:09 AM
WILLIAM TANDESKE, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
stated his appreciation of Representative Gardner's comments.
He said the numbers being discussed by the committee are
difficult to "weave into something meaningful." He said when
there is more reporting [of domestic violence and sexual assault
incidents], that means that the programs "out there in the
field" are having a positive impact. Regarding Representative
Gruenberg's question about funding, he said he thinks the
funding streams have suffered from "flat funding," a problem
that erodes the budget. He noted that there has been some
fluctuation in funding sources. He offered some examples.
Commissioner Tandeske said that in spite of those fluctuations,
the support of what the network and council does remains strong.
He stated that the entire issue of domestic violence and sexual
assault is all encompassing; it involves law enforcement,
prosecution, and the Department of Health & Social Services. He
continued:
Having been involved in it as a police officer - as a
trooper - starting in 1973, I can tell you that we are
so far ahead - and continue to make progress - ... of
where we were back in those days, in terms of
statutory authority and support for programs. I think
that stability is the key that we're looking for; I
think it's very hard for us to do our jobs in working
with the network programs in an unstable environment.
Strategies require long-term planning, and long-term
planning is difficult when you're really operating
year to year.
8:51:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS proffered that when he looks at the
figures showing [the total count of incidents and the number of
incidents reported to law enforcement], he sees the increase
being a sign that the services provided and the outreach
programs have improved to the point that there is more response
to the program, as opposed to there being a failure in the
system.
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE responded that that is certainly a
possibility. He said also as the state's population grows, more
incidents of all sorts of crime can be expected. He added, "I
think as law enforcement expands and is better trained, you also
see those numbers go up." He said he has confidence that the
result of the outreach being done will be improved reporting.
8:52:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed to the previously noted chart on the third
page of the report that shows the target of a 5 percent
reduction, but increased numbers, and he stated, "If we're not
using this data to identify some reasons for ... this, then
there's no use having a measure of it."
8:53:48 AM
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE responded that he is not a big fan of
missions and measures "for this very reason." He said he thinks
numbers can and need to be interpreted over the long haul. He
continued:
A great crime for this kind of example is sexual abuse
of a minor - again, terribly underreported. Folks
might raise their eyebrows when I say I want to see
those numbers go up, but I do, because I know it's
going on [and] I want it reported. And so, yes, I
agree with you that those numbers are difficult to
interpret, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a
terribly underreported crime and we need to work on
getting more of it reported.
... Personally, as I look at missions and measures for
my whole department, I really try to stay away from
[stating], "Well, I'm going to reduce homicides by 10
percent." ... I'd love to do that, but I'm not sure
that that's totally going to be within my ... reach to
do that.
8:55:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON drew attention to the fifth page of the results
delivery unit handout, which outlines that the core services of
a batterers' intervention program would be to develop, oversee,
and audit all state-approved batterers' intervention programs.
He noted that zero part-time and full-time personnel have been
allotted to the program, and he asked, "Has that fallen off of
the list for the council, or was that being addressed some other
way?"
8:55:59 AM
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE suggested Ms. Mason could better answer
that question.
8:56:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, regarding the previous discussion related
to the meaning behind the statistics, said he doesn't interpret
numbers, he merely looks at them and decides whether or not a
goal has been met. He said if a 5 percent reduction is the
goal, but an increase is shown, then it is essential to have an
explanation or justification. He emphasized his reluctance to
grant the enormous extension of time proposed in SB 250 when the
goals are not being met.
8:58:04 AM
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE responded that collectively the council
and the network are doing a great job. He stated that there are
certainly things to be improved upon, as with any program;
however, there are so many factors that explain the numbers.
For example, he said sometimes job situations may be bad, and
victims may have fewer options. He said he heard that last year
shelters were "having longer stays" because battered women had
fewer options available to them.
8:59:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON said that is one of the problems the committee
members are having with the bill - trying to interpret the
numbers before them.
8:59:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a sentence on page 14 of
the audit report, which read [original punctuation provided]:
In fact, the community-based batterers intervention
programs had their budget reduced from $320,000 to
$200,000 in FY 04.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 15 of the
audit report and "Exhibit 1," which shows the schedule of
operating expenditure and funding sources. He highlighted
several of them, and then observed that the numbers are wildly
fluctuating, and he asked Commissioner Tandeske if he could
offer an explanation.
9:01:34 AM
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE answered no. He explained that although
the council resides in his department, he does not handle the
day-to-day operational and budget issues it faces.
9:01:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG repeated his question to Ms. Mason.
9:02:04 AM
MS. MASON said travel is a big part of what the council funds in
order to get out to the programs and to travel for mandated
training. She said she cannot offer an answer more specific to
the fluctuations for each year without checking with the person
in charge of funding.
9:02:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that general fund allocations and
"those receipt authorities" are the purview of the legislature
and are affected by the legislature's priorities.
9:03:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it sounds like the council is
receiving significantly less support from legislative funding.
He asked Commissioner Tandeske if it appears that is true.
9:03:34 AM
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE said he doesn't think that is the case.
He stated his belief that there is strong legislative support.
He said there was "drop off" in other funding sources last year
and the legislature added $1.4 million from the general fund.
Although the support is there, he said he thinks it is difficult
without consistent funding - particularly for the programs
funded through the council - to work out a five-year plan when
trying to pay heating bills month to month. He stated, "... The
sources are all over the board."
9:05:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the committee is less inclined to review the
individual programs, because it thinks the council has done a
good job with statutory requirements related to funding. He
said the committee is trying to find out if there currently is
enough information on a strategic plan for accomplishing "the
other statutorily required portions of the council," in order to
decide whether to extend the date to 2014, as is requested in SB
250. He expressed his agreement with Representative Gatto's
view that the committee has not seen enough strategic plans to
grant that request.
9:06:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked when the extra million was
received.
9:06:49 AM
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE answered 2006.
9:07:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concluded, "So, it wouldn't be
reflected on the figures we have here."
9:07:11 AM
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Legislative Agencies and Offices, in response to a question from
Chair Seaton, outlined that the sunset process, to a large
extent, is defined in Title 34.66. She explained that the
legislation would establish the criteria on which boards and
commissions should be evaluated. She indicated that in the
analysis of the public need portion of the audit report,
statutory criteria is identified. Those criteria include
determining: the public's best interest and whether anything
may impede the work of the organization.
9:08:36 AM
MS. DAVIDSON, in response to a follow-up question from Chair
Seaton regarding timing, stated, "Initially the way that it
worked prior to the change last year, boards and commissions
were to be extended for a period not to exceed four years." She
added that if the boards have a termination date, they are given
one year to conclude their administrative actions. She offered
an example. She said, "During the last legislative session,
that 'not-to-exceed' period changed from four years to eight
years." She said while there are approximately 20 boards and
commissions that are under sunset, most of them are occupational
in nature and less than a dozen are more programmatic
evaluations. She concluded, "It is totally up to the
legislature as to whether they want to extend it eight years, or
feel comfortable in something less, or even in something more."
9:10:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked when a pre-expiration audit takes place and
whether or not it needs to be requested.
9:10:33 AM
MS. DAVIDSON replied that by statutory requirement, an audit
must be presented to the legislature in the January before the
termination date.
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to language that was being
deleted [the bold and bracketed portion of Section 1, subsection
(a), paragraph (1), which read as follows:]
*Section 1. AS 18.66.020(a) is amended to read:
(a) The council consists of
(1) three persons appointed by the
governor [AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE NETWORK ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, A NONPROFIT
CORPORATION; THE NETWORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND
SEXUAL ASSAULT SHALL SUBMIT A LIST TO THE GOVERNOR OF
PERSONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPOINTMENT];
9:12:45 AM
MS. DAVIDSON, in response to remarks by Chair Seaton, noted that
initially the network was not a grantee of the council.
However, more recently, not only does the network get funds
through certain federal grants, it also receives some
discretionary money. She continued:
The concern is that if you are the organization that
is established in statute to be making
recommendations, and ... the governor, by statute, is
to consider ... [those] recommendations, ... members
that are appointed to the council - possibly
recommended by ... the network - might carry or appear
to carry an interest of the network, ... when the
network is competing for funds with all the other
programs.
... We are not trying to tie the hands of the
governor, but having one particular nonprofit
identified in statute at that level didn't appear to
be necessary. Anybody can make recommendations to the
governor; the governor can consider anybody he wants
to place on the council. It's just taking one
organization and establishing it in statute. There's
not a firm conflict of interest, but it didn't appear
to be necessary to appoint members to the council.
And in that vein we just recommended that it be
deleted.
9:14:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked which statute sets forth the
expiration date for various boards such as licensing.
9:15:18 AM
MS. DAVIDSON responded that the statute relating to occupational
boards is found in AS 08.01 or 08.03.
9:16:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER mentioned the possibility of having at
least one council member who is related to or is him/herself a
victim of domestic violence or sexual assault.
9:16:44 AM
MS. DAVIDSON responded that from an audit standpoint, the
division has not had any concerns regarding the composition of
the board; however, she said that would be a choice up to the
legislature.
9:17:14 AM
MS. MASON, in response to the same issue, said she thinks there
have been victims represented on the board; however, she said
she thinks not all people who have been victims of violent crime
or sexual assault want to identify themselves as such. She said
she doesn't think any board members object to having members on
the board who have been victims or have a family member who is a
victim. Furthermore, she stated that considering the number of
violent crimes and domestic violence, she thinks it would be
hard to avoid knowing someone who has been a victim. She said
she wouldn't mind showing an interest [in having board members
who have been victims or know victims]; however, she suggested
that making that a requirement may be setting a limit on the
makeup of the board.
9:18:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Mason to get back to the committee
regarding missions and measures for 2005.
9:19:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved Amendment 1, as follows:
On page 2, line 14:
Delete "2014"
Insert "2008"
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that Amendment 1 would also
include "an accompanying letter dealing with a strategic plan to
accomplish the goals set in statute."
9:20:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS objected. He stated that he sees no need
for Amendment 1. He said looking at [the council's] record is
like looking at a glass and deciding whether it's half full or
half empty. He said when he views the statistics, he sees the
glass as half full, and he has no problem supporting the bill
with the 2014 date.
9:22:07 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Gruenberg,
Gatto, Lynn, and Seaton voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Ramras and Elkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
9:22:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that Amendment 1 included an
accompanying letter requesting strategic plans to address the
goals set in statute, and he said that letter would be sent to
the council.
9:23:06 AM
PEGGY BROWN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, distributed two handouts [included
in the committee packet], entitled, "The Challenge: Victim
Safety in Alaska," and "ANDVSA Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence & Sexual Assault 2005 annual report." She noted that
the challenge sheet shows a snapshot of what has been going on
in Alaska related to domestic violence and sexual assault in the
last few years. Regarding funding, she said, "We've had a 4
percent increase and over 43 percent request in services."
MS. BROWN said the network would like "to remain in statute as
recommending names to the governor." A small percentage of the
network's budget comes from a federal grant and is discretionary
money, as Ms. Mason said. Much of what the money is used for is
continuing legal education of legal advocates across the state.
Ms. Brown said the council has been in existence for 25 years,
while the network has existed for almost 26 years. Initially,
she explained, the network helped set up the council, which
became a model protocol, she said, because it was housed within
the Department of Public Safety. Ms. Brown noted that there has
been a lot of turnover in the council, while there has not been
so much turnover in ANDVSA.
9:26:29 AM
MS. BROWN revealed that she has a good working relationship with
Ms. Mason and they both have plans to get things done "that have
been remiss in the last few years," including training, funding,
and technical assistance. She told the committee that domestic
violence and sexual assault is not as private and hidden an
issue as it once was. She said federal money doesn't go
directly to the programs to keep the doors open; "that's kind of
what the state has been tasked to do."
MS. BROWN admitted that everyone could work towards doing a
better job. She said there is a new, passionate director and a
well-informed council. She stated, "We believe that the public
members should represent the public." She said she has been
with the network for 10 years, and she offered to answer
questions from the committee.
9:27:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON returned again to [Section 1, subsection (a),
paragraph (1) - text provided previously], and asked Ms. Brown
if she sees that as an impairment to her ability to recommend
names to the governor. He indicated that two of the last five
were selected from the list provided by [the network]. He
asked, "Would you continue to nominate people to the list?"
9:28:16 AM
MS. BROWN said that's a good question. She said it is quite a
process to find somebody to nominate who is willing to serve as
a public member who also has knowledge of domestic violence and
sexual assault. She stated, "I honestly don't know if we would
continue; I would think that that would probably fall upon the
council to do that, or some other agency. We would, of course,
maybe make recommendations every now and then."
9:29:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he understands that if the network is required
to make the nominations in statute, that is work that will be
done, but without the requirement in statute, it may not happen.
MS. BROWN credited Janna Stewart, chair of CDVSA, as having
said, "The expertise and knowledge of the network far outweighs
any potential or theoretical conflict." Ms. Brown stated, "In
some ways we're trying to fix what's not broken. This is a
relationship that has worked, that has never been a conflict of
interest. It is an adherence, potentially."
9:30:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said the legislature knows how important an
issue domestic violence and sexual assault is and it won't let
[the council] disappear. However, he said it's important to
question whether the council is pursuing the goals in statute.
Asking the council to check in with the legislature in two years
is an important way for the legislature to address any faults
that it finds. He noted that in two years' time many new faces
will be around and the focus can change to different issues as a
result.
9:33:30 AM
MS. BROWN said she appreciates Representative Gatto's point of
view. She continued:
I fully recognize that sometimes it's necessary to
create a space to get people to move into in order to
improve things and tweak things, and I appreciate
everyone's passion, ... devotion, and knowledge on
domestic violence and sexual assault. You know, 10
years ago, I'd have to be knocking on doors just to
try and get the issue discussed.
9:34:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
9:34:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2, as follows:
Beginning on page 1, line 5, through page 2, line 11:
Delete Sections 1 and 2
On page 1, lines 2-3:
After "Assault"
Delete "; and eliminating statutory references to
the network on domestic violence and sexual assault"
9:36:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected.
9:36:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that if Amendment 2 were adopted, the
network would remain in the system for recommending persons for
appointment by the governor.
9:36:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG spoke to Amendment 2. He described the
network as important, knowledgeable, involved, and having "a
broad base of membership and representation across the Alaska
domestic violence community." He said the governor can select
whomever he/she wishes, but leaving the network in the process
provides additional input. He continued:
I realize that this does mention a specific nonprofit
corporation, which is a little unusual, but this is a
unique organization. I can't think of any other
organization like it in other spheres ....
Again, nobody has said there is a problem with the way
the system is working. If anything, I think that
having the network involved strengthens the system.
9:38:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated her support of Amendment 2 for
many of the reasons that the sponsor has stated. She added that
the network has been in existence for [almost 26 years] and the
governor is in no way obligated to accept the network's
recommendations. Given all that, she said she sees no reason to
dismantle something that seems to be working well and
representing the entire state.
9:39:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled the previous testimony that revealed that
if the network were not required to [recommend nominees], it may
not choose to do the work without that requirement. Regarding
the previous discussion about conflict of interest, Chair Seaton
said he doesn't think "that conflict rises to the level that ...
we should risk losing the mandate of the network to forward
names to the governor."
9:40:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a remark by Representative Gatto,
clarified again what Amendment 2 would do.
9:40:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection to Amendment 2.
9:40:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS objected to Amendment 2.
9:40:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the administration
itself has not come before the legislature to say it doesn't
want to continue consulting with the network; therefore,
Representative Gruenberg said he cannot conclude that the
administration specifically wants to eliminate the network.
9:41:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he wants to know the opinion of both
the council and the network regarding Amendment 2.
9:41:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled that Ms. Brown had said that the network
would like to continue to make recommendations to the governor.
He asked Ms. Mason to reiterate what the council's opinion is
related to this issue.
9:42:05 AM
MS. MASON restated that the council supports SB 250 "as it
stood."
9:42:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked, "So, ... has the council taken a policy
decision that it does not want the recommendation of the
network?"
9:42:29 AM
MS. MASON answered, "No, basically what our stance has been is
that either way the network can continue to make recommendations
as they do now, whether they are in the statute or not.
Currently, the governor can or can not -- to us it doesn't
change anything."
9:42:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked, "Are you talking about you as the executive
director, or are you talking about the council has taken a
policy position that they want to eliminate the nomination
process as is currently in this bill?"
9:43:13 AM
MS. MASON said she spoke with all of the council members, and
each one told her that the network can make recommendations
regardless of whether or not that is specified in statute.
Furthermore, she said the governor can or can not accept the
recommendations of the network whether or not those
recommendations are required by statute. She concluded, "I
wouldn't say it was a policy statement, because I did that by
contacting each of the members. I don't think they would object
either way."
9:43:42 AM
MS. DAVIDSON stated:
Actually the recommendation with regard to eliminating
the network was a current status of a prior audit
recommendation. The last time we did the council
sunset review in 2001, we had some problems with some
of the grants going to the network. Some of the
things that we saw happening is that the network had
modified their final grant prohibiting the council
from reviewing the records - that was in 2001. In the
year 2000, requests from reimbursements from the
network were not supported by sufficient documentation
of expenditures.
In 2001 and 2000, the network was excluded from the
monitoring schedule of the council, and as we were
following up on those recommendations, that's
originally where that recommendation to eliminate the
network came from. ... In that council as opposed to
the current council, more of the members had been
recommended by the network. ... It's a conflict of
interest [in] appearance only. When we saw issues
like that where the network, ... excluded from
monitoring, was changing their grant agreements, none
of the other grantees were doing this. That's the
genesis of the recommendation that had been made.
MS. DAVIDSON said that the audit report that the committee has
shows the current status of the recommendation, but does not
bring all that history with it.
9:45:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if it would be fair to say that the
problems identified in the 2001 audit, relating to the network's
participation, were resolved by the time of the most recent
audit.
9:46:10 AM
MS. DAVIDSON answered yes.
9:47:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG told Ms. Mason he thinks it is
incorrect to say that there would be no change, because the
current law requires the governor to consult with the network,
and if the law were amended, that requirement would not longer
exist. He asked Ms. Mason if the members of the council
"understood that would be a change."
9:48:24 AM
MS. MASON responded that the council members understand that the
requirement of the governor would change. She clarified that
the council is stating that the actual effect would not change;
the network could still make recommendations and the governor
could still accept them.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:49:04 AM to 9:51:08 AM.
9:51:15 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Gruenberg,
Gatto, Lynn, and Seaton voted in favor of Amendment 2.
Representatives Elkins and Ramras voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
9:51:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report SB 250, [as amended],
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objections, HCS SB
250(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
9:53:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that Representative Gatto was
contemplating offering a letter of intent. He said that if
that's still the case, he may have an amendment to the letter of
intent.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO specified, "It was to come back with
recommendations as to how they can implement a plan that
satisfies the statutes." In response to Representative
Gruenberg, Representative Gatto indicated that it's probably
appropriate to specify a date.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the date be the first
day of the next legislative session.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted his agreement.
CHAIR SEATON reviewed, "Okay, so we have a motion for a letter
of intent that will set forward a strategic plan to accomplish
the requirements of the statute and to report back to the [House
State Affairs Standing Committee] by the first day of next
session, and that's by Vice Chair Gatto and Representative
Gruenberg."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the report be provided
to both the House and the Senate [and thus could refer to the
legislature].
9:54:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted his agreement to the aforementioned
change.
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to the letter of
intent [as amended]. Chair Seaton noted that there was no
objection. [The letter of intent was again addressed at the
4/18/06 House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting.]
SB 12-LIMIT RELATIONS WITH CERTAIN NATIONS
9:54:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 12(STA), "An Act relating to financial
relationships with persons conducting business in or having
headquarters in countries that support or ignore slavery and
trafficking in persons."
9:55:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON reviewed the bill and the previous amendments that
had been made by the committee.
9:56:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt the proposed House committee
substitute (HCS) for CSSB 12, Version 24-LS0143\S, Bullock,
3/31/06, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version S
was before the committee.
9:56:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HCS CSSB 12, Version 24-
LS0143\S, Bullock, 3/3/06, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, HCS CSSB 12(STA) was reported from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
9:57:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the House State Affairs
Standing Committee introduce a House Concurrent Resolution,
labeled, 24-LS1816\A, Bullock, 3/31/06. There being no
objection, the motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:58:30 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|