Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
02/22/2022 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HSCR2 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HSCR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HSCR 2-DISAPPROVING EXECUTIVE ORDER 121
3:22:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2, Disapproving
Executive Order No. 121.
3:23:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER, in response to Representative McCarty, reviewed
that in order to make any changes to an executive order, the
legislature must draft legislation, and that is the purpose of
HSCR 2.
3:25:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked whether the administration could still
introduce a bill after the personal legislation deadline.
3:25:46 PM
ANDREW DUNMIRE, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, confirmed that the governor may
introduce bills after the personal legislation deadline.
3:26:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER noted that the committee had heard from
Legislative Legal and Research Services, the Department of Law
(DOL), and the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
during the previous meeting on Saturday. She highlighted the
issue of potential additions and subtractions to EO 121 that may
broaden or reduce legislative authority.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER highlighted Sections 28, 29, 133, and 65. She
questioned whether a change in wording of Section 28 would be
considered a broadening of authority. She noted that DOL had a
response and asked Mr. Dunmire to give a brief overview of the
concerns outlined in his memorandum ("memo").
3:28:32 PM
MR. DUNMIRE responded that under AS 44.29.020(a), DHSS shall
administer "state programs including" [emphasis on "including"]
and observed that under current Alaska state law, the legal
definition of including - "including but not limited to" means
the proposed Department of Health (DOH) would be able to
administer any state program.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER asked if the word "including" was a less
concerning issue than the removal of the specification of public
health and social services related programs under EO 121.
MR. DUNMIRE responded that Co-Chair Snyder was correct; however,
if that phrase is removed, the issue wouldn't be present.
3:30:18 PM
MR. DUNMIRE, in response to Representative McCarty, offered his
understanding that statute currently lists the programs assigned
to departments; however, he reiterated that the use of
"including" does not limit the department to what is currently
listed. In response to a follow-up question, he indicated just
one section in EO 121 laid out the programs that would be run by
DOH.
3:33:59 PM
STACIE KRALY, Director, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of
Law, in response to Representative McCarty's question,
highlighted Section 41 of EO 121, which provides a multi-page
list of items that DOH would manage as a result of the
reorganization. She mentioned the instructions to the advisor,
which are in Section 134 and 135. She stated that every
division has its own statutory scheme under which it operates.
For example, she stated that the Division of Healthcare Services
operates the Medicaid system, and all of the provisions under
the statute relating to Medicaid are currently found under AS
47.05 and AS 47.07. She stated, "Those references are further
clarified and reassigned and reorganized under the executive
order through instructions to the advisor, so it's clear that
those duties ... [would be] assumed by the Department of
Health." She offered further examples of where the instructions
for other divisions are found under statute and how further
instructions to the advisor clarifies the management role of
DOH. In response to Representative McCarty, she confirmed that
"the totality of the executive order frames the duties that
apply to each one of the departments."
3:37:57 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER observed that the language in that section is
"loose," and some may be concerned that it may open up a door
for DOH to engage in activities within DFCS, for example. Other
sections in EO 121 may point to more specific duties. She asked
if that summation was correct.
MS. KRALY responded, "That's exactly right." She added that
when looking at the entirety of EO 121, how statutes are
constructed, and how the administration has reallocated the
divisions under the executive order, "it would be kind of hard
to ... add those additional far-flung ideas to the Department of
Health."
3:39:45 PM
MR. DUNMIRE, in response to Co-Chair Snyder, confirmed that the
only way to change the executive order would be to pass a
concurrent resolution; there is no way to amend EO 121 directly.
MS. KRALY concurred.
3:40:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS suggested it would make more sense to
address EO 121 and HSCR 2 simultaneously.
MS. KRALY responded that that is one way to do it; however, she
explained that the administration wants to ensure everything has
been identified "through this process" so that "we are not doing
successive companion bills."
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS opined that it would be "cleaner" to do
both at the same time.
MS. KRALY disagreed. She said the idea that [EO 121] is an
overreach is broad. There are technical issues that need to be
addressed. She speculated this would require more than one
companion bill because "this is a big fix" to a big document,
and the intent is "to get it right." She added that some of the
things Legislative Legal Services thinks need to be fixed may
not need to be fixed because they are "more operational in
implementation."
3:42:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed a conceptual obstacle that "if we
do nothing, this executive order becomes effective." He said,
"We want to do something and nothing at the same time." He
concluded, "We've got a whole bunch of stuff to go through, and
it might be good to just put this in a parking lot and deal with
it later."
3:43:29 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY expressed that there seems to be a shared
desire to remedy programs that seem to be in crisis. She
acknowledged the concern about protecting the institution with
respect to the legislature and ensuring the constitutional
obligation to set policy is protected. She asked Mr. Dunmire
and Ms. Kraly, because an executive order cannot be amended,
what tools are available to the legislature to protect the
institution from ceding its authority to set policy. She said
she understands the concern expressed by Ms. Kraly at the prior
meeting on Saturday, regarding the cumbersome process of making
this proposed change via legislation, but she also expressed her
concern about any unintended consequence regarding separation of
powers.
3:46:30 PM
MR. DUNMIRE responded that EO 119 had been far more egregious,
with blatant statutory changes. He said he does not think EO
121 "rises to a level that it would risk being invalidated by a
court ... if the legislature were to not disapprove it." He
recommended that the legislature, in protecting its statutory
authority, could either disapprove EO 121 outright or make
changes by drafting a companion bill.
3:47:55 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked Ms. Kraly whether DOL or [DHSS] has made
recommendations on statute the legislature might consider.
MS. KRALY responded that [DOL] has an idea of the things that
may need some technical revision but has not drafted a companion
bill to that effect. She expressed that some of the issues can
be fixed through a revisor's bill, and other issues may
necessitate a companion bill. In response to a follow-up
question, she explained that a revisor's bill is a technical
bill that fixes things like typographical errors.
3:51:48 PM
MR. DUNMIRE added that the revisor's ability to change law is
extremely limited to technical matters. Any changes to the
meaning of the law or wording of statute would require a
companion bill.
3:52:26 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY highlighted the difficulty with time
constraints. She asked Ms. Kraly what the timeline is in terms
of consideration of a companion bill.
MS. KRALY responded that she does not have a date, but that if
one looks at the history of executive orders, some of which need
fixes, the intention is to make sure that the executive order
works, and any necessary fixes can be made outside of the 60-day
timeline.
3:55:43 PM
ADAM CRUM, Commissioner, Department of Health and Social
Services, to the same line of questioning, responded that DHSS
would work to address some of the large items and get something
back to the legislature and ensure that options are presented.
3:56:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ offered her understanding that
legislation is the guidebook for the thousands of employees in
DHSS. She expressed that she is reluctant to wait until next
year for companion legislation for the executive order. She
asked Mr. Dunmire for a description of the process behind a
revisor's bill versus a companion bill.
MR. DUNMIRE responded that he is unable to answer the question
because he has not worked as a revisor.
3:58:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY speculated on the amendments or edits
that may need to be made and the importance of getting it right
at the beginning rather than waiting a year, for example.
3:59:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER asked about "potential additions and
subtractions." She turned attention to AS 44.29.020, which
lists the duties of DHSS. She noted that Section 29 of EO 121
states that DOH would establish regulation of "scheduled
reasonable fees" for services provided by the department. She
mentioned there is another section that addresses DFCS. She
indicated it would be reasonable to think the duties from one
are transferred to the other without change, but in the subset
of duties directed to DFCS, what was "Child Welfare Services"
under AS 44.29.020(a)(12) would be "Child Welfare and
Delinquency Services" under EO 121. She asked where the change
came from and what the implications might be. She clarified
that is in Section 36 of EO 121.
4:03:04 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER, in response to Ms. Kraly, clarified her
question.
MS. KRALY responded that within DFCS would be the Pioneer Home,
the Division of Juvenile Justice, Delinquency Services, the
Office of Children's Services, Child Welfare, and the Alaska
Psychiatric Institute. She explained, "So, what we were trying
to do was identify the programs that would be administered under
the department," to "replicate the intent and the language of
the previous statute" but "to create this new statute." She
emphasized, "It's not an addition; it's not a new program." She
further explained that this was framed in a way that would
describe what was being assigned from the old department to the
new one.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER said she understood but commented that "it seems
to open the door for some additional programming." She
questioned the rationale.
MS. KRALY answered that the rationale was to ensure that the
provisions under AS 44.29 matched the duties under AS 44.05 and
44.06, because there was no reference to the delinquency
programs, and clearly those programs are managed by DHSS. She
concluded, "It's an existing program in [a] division within the
department that needed to be allocated within this executive
order." In response to Co-Chair Snyder, she further clarified
that it reassigns all existing programs to at least one of the
two new departments [formed under EO 121].
4:08:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said she understands both sides of the
discussion. She pointed to "management of state institutions"
on page 44, line 2, of EO 121, and said it references the
Division of Juvenile Justice; line 3 includes Delinquency
Services. She said it seems that two terms of art were used to
describe the same services, but she asked if they mean different
things.
MS. KRALY responded that there was nothing intended other than
to clarify the existing programs being allocated to the two
departments; "they are not intended for different purposes."
4:09:36 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER made brief closing comments.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| EO 121, Legislative Legal Department Memo, 2.14.22.pdf |
HHSS 2/22/2022 3:00:00 PM |
EO 121 HSCR 2 |
| EO 121 Packet 2.18.2022.pdf |
HHSS 2/22/2022 3:00:00 PM |
EO 121 HSCR 2 |
| Law response to 2.14.22 Leg Legal memo_Final1.pdf |
HHSS 2/22/2022 3:00:00 PM |
EO 121 HSCR 2 |
| HSCR02A.PDF |
HHSS 2/22/2022 3:00:00 PM |
EO 121 HSCR 2 |
| HHSS EO121 Legislative Communication Summary Response- (2-22-22).pdf |
HHSS 2/22/2022 3:00:00 PM |
EO 121 HSCR 2 |
| HB 308 LOS.pdf |
HHSS 2/22/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 308 |
| HB 308 Written Testimony as of 2-22-22.pdf |
HHSS 2/22/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 308 |