Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
03/10/2020 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| SB133 | |
| SB88 | |
| SB231 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 88-OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
3:34:17 PM
CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 88, "An Act relating to the
office of administrative hearings; relating to the types of
proceedings handled by the office of administrative hearings;
relating to the entities that may use the services of the office
of administrative hearings; relating to the duties of the chief
administrative law judge, including the power to hire
professional staff; relating to the qualifications and powers of
administrative law judges, including subpoena power; relating to
the compensation of the chief administrative law judge; relating
to complaints against administrative law judges and hearing
officers; relating to reimbursement for costs incurred by the
office of administrative hearings; relating to procedures for
requesting and conducting proceedings of the office of
administrative hearings; and providing for an effective date."
3:34:52 PM
MICHAEL WILLIS, Intern, Senator Peter Micciche, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the sponsor,
introduced SB 88, speaking to the following sponsor statement:
Senate Bill 88 is a "good government" bill to improve
the process for hearing administrative appeals in
Alaska. This bill updates the Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH) statutes to address due process
concerns, procedural confusion, and inefficiencies,
all with an eye towards improving OAH's ability to
provide timely, cost-effective, and high-quality
administrative adjudication services.
In 2004, under the leadership of Governor Murkowski
and Senator Therriault, the legislature created the
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to centralize
the state administrative adjudication process. The new
system has worked well to reduce cost, improve public
confidence, and provide a speedier process to resolve
disputes. However, the statutory framework needs an
update to correct drafting anomalies and take
advantage of the lessons learned from 14 years of
"test driving" the original innovative legislation.
Some of the corrections and improvements included in
SB 88:
• Reduce procedural confusion over OAH's subpoena
authority by replacing a patchwork system with a
uniform provision. It eliminates gaps that made
it impossible, for example, for a parent accused
of child abuse to subpoena a key witness to the
alleged event.
• Rationalize the system of deadlines that was
created to speed the process. For example, one
final decision deadline applicable to agency
heads, though wise in concept, has been counted
from the wrong event, sometimes leaving
commissioners with virtually no time to consider
far-reaching decisions. At the same time, these
final decisionmakers have had no deadline at all
to act on revised proposed decisions after a
remand, which can lead to long delays that
frustrate the parties.
• Make it possible for parties to respond to one
another's objections to a proposed decision, in
appropriate cases. The lack of a way to allow for
responses has led to due process concerns and
delays. The bill also permits the administrative
law judge (ALJ) to revise a proposed decision
based on errors pointed out by the parties, again
cutting down on inefficiency and delay.
• Permit the Chief Administrative Law Judge to
employ low-cost junior professionals for some
work, correcting an inadvertent omission in the
original legislation. This will create
opportunities for savings.
• Allow OAH to count experience gained in other
jurisdictions toward the minimums needed to serve
as a tax qualified ALJ. This is critical in the
tax docket, where OAH has had serious recruitment
problems and needs to broaden the pool of skilled
practitioners it can recruit from.
• Give OAH a means of reopening decisions that were
entered in error, such as when a party failed to
appear but the failure later turns out to be
because the party was incapacitated, or because
the agency sent the notice to the wrong person.
SB 88 corrects this omission in the original
legislation. The public will be better served by
the corrections and streamlining in the process
for administrative adjudication as provided by SB
88. I respectfully request support for this bill.
3:36:38 PM
ANDREW HEMENWAY, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, read the
following prepared remarks:
Good afternoon. My name is Andy Hemenway. I was
employed by the Office of Administrative Hearings as
an administrative law judge from the time it was
created in 2004 until 2015. I retired from state
service in 2016, and I am appearing before you in a
personal capacity. With your permission, Mr.
Chairman, I'd like to provide the members of the
committee with some background information regarding
the Office of Administrative Hearings, in order to put
into perspective what the agency does and why this
legislation is needed.
The Office of Administrative Hearings is, in effect,
the executive branch's judicial branch. The agency
(OAH) conducts adjudicative hearings for executive
branch agencies. These hearings provide due process
of law for a member of the public who has the right to
appeal from an agency decision regarding that person's
state benefit, obligation, program or license.
3:37:32 PM
Before OAH was established, each individual agency
conducted these kinds of adjudicative hearings, using
a hearing officer employed by the agency whose
decision was being appealed. Understandably, this
system resulted in a perception among many people who
appealed that the proceeding was stacked against them,
because the agency controlled the adjudicative process
and employed the hearing officer.
In 2004, the Alaska Legislature created the Office of
Administrative Hearings as an independent agency. The
purpose of the legislation was to eliminate the
perception of unfairness in the adjudicative process
and to separate the adjudicatory functions of
executive branch agencies from those agencies'
investigative, prosecutorial, and policy-making
functions.
OAH's jurisdiction is set out in AS 44.64.030. Since
OAH was established, the legislature has added
additional case categories to the list of agencies,
boards and commissions whose cases must be heard by
OAH. In addition, a number of executive branch
agencies and other public entities, such as
municipalities and school districts, whose cases are
not listed in AS 44.64.030, have decided to refer
their cases to OAH in order to take advantage of what
has come to be seen as a professional, experienced,
fair and cost-effective method of resolving contested
cases.
Today, OAH handles cases from approximately 80
different areas of law. Administrative law judges at
OAH have dealt with matters involving as little as $40
to as much as $800 million, as well as cases where
money is not the issue, such as professional
licensing, ethics, and procurement. Some cases
involve teams of attorneys on both sides, while others
involve a non-attorney agency representative and a
self-represented litigant.
3:39:29 PM
In order to provide some context for the specifics of
SB 88, I'll briefly describe the adjudicative process
as it occurs in the Office of Administrative Hearings
Let's say a person disagrees with an agency decision
regarding a matter such as child support, PFD
eligibility, revocation or denial of a professional
license, or entitlement to a welfare benefit. Under
our constitution, that person is entitled to an
adjudicative hearing to contest the agency's decision.
The person files an appeal with the agency, which is
required to forward the appeal to OAH within ten days.
From then on, OAH has control of the hearing process.
The chief administrative law judge assigns the case to
an administrative law judge, who is charged with
issuing a proposed decision within 120 days. The
assigned judge will review the case file, and either
schedule a hearing or, in more complex cases, schedule
a prehearing conference. There may be some
preliminary issues to deal with, in which case the
parties will be given an opportunity to file
prehearing motions.
In many cases, the administrative law judge will
conclude that the issues that have been raised may be
capable of resolution without a hearing, through
alternative dispute resolution. In those cases, the
chief administrative law judge will assign a different
judge to contact the parties and to conduct mediation,
which is an informal, voluntary process in which the
judge attempts to find a workable solution to the
issues raised that satisfies both the individual and
the agency. This has been a particularly beneficial
part of the OAH docket, which has saved agencies money
by reducing the cost of administrative litigation,
while at the same time providing a fair outcome for
all concerned.
Assuming that the case is not resolved through
alternative dispute resolution, or otherwise, the
administrative law judge presides over the hearing, at
which, just as in a court case, witnesses testify
under oath and are cross-examined, and documents are
submitted into evidence. After the hearing, the
administrative law judge issues a written proposed
decision, and the parties are given an opportunity to
request changes by filing a proposal for action. The
administrative law judge's decision is generally not
the final decision, although in some instances, such
as in tax appeals, it is. Assuming the administrative
law judge's decision is not given effect as the final
decision, the administrative law judge's decision and
any proposals for action are sent to the final
decision maker, which in most cases is the
commissioner of whatever department the agency is in,
or, in cases involving professional licensing or other
boards or commissions, the board or commission
involved. The final decision maker can either adopt
the administrative law judge's decision, modify it, or
send it back to the administrative law judge for
additional proceedings. In most cases, the final
decision maker adopts the administrative law judge's
decision in the form it was issued. In any event,
once the final decision is issued, the parties to the
case may appeal that decision to the superior court.
That, in a nutshell, is how cases generally proceed in
OAH. Over the course of years since the agency was
created, however, it has identified a few provisions
of its enabling statute that could be improved in
order to streamline the adjudicative process and to
clarify the agency's powers. SB 88 was drafted with
the direct and close involvement of OAH and the
Department of Law.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing me with an
opportunity to testify in support of SB 88.
Administrative Law Judge Chris Kennedy, who was the
primary OAH contact in the bill drafting process, will
take the committee through the bill's provisions in
detail, but in the meantime if there are any questions
for me, I am happy to address them.
3:43:03 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if a person who appears before OAH
typically will have counsel.
MR. HEMENWAY answered that defendants typically do not have
counsel for cases involving child support, the permanent fund
dividend, and welfare benefits. However, if enough is at stake
in dollars or in principle, the person typically will have
counsel. Counsel may also appear if the principle will apply to
a lot of Alaskans, even if the dollar amount is not very
significant, so it varies based on the type of case.
3:44:24 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how many OAH cases are settled and how
many are appealed to superior court.
MR. HEMENWAY said he did not have the information on hand, but
it is in the annual report. He deferred to Administrative Law
Judge Kennedy to respond further.
3:45:19 PM
CHRIS KENNEDY, Administrative Law Judge (Tax), Office of
Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, State of
Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, in response to Senator Kawasaki,
stated that less than one percent of cases are appealed to
superior court. He offered to follow up with the specific
number.
CHAIR REVAK said the committee would appreciate the figure.
MR. KENNEDY said he has worked for the agency since 2005. He
served as the deputy chief until 2016. He presented the
sectional analysis for SB 88:
Sec. 1: Amends AS 18.80.120(b) and is a conforming
change to remove the statutory reference that is being
repealed in section 20 (AS 44.64.055). (Page 1, line
12 Page 2, line 6)
Sec. 2: Amends AS 39.25.120(c)(20) and is a conforming
change to align with the proposed change in section 4.
It adds "professional staff" to the partially exempt
service in the Office of Administrative Hearings.
(Page 2, lines 7-9)
He explained that Section 2 is one of a pair of sections that
address an inadvertent problem created by the original statute.
The statute did not authorize hiring a professional staff, such
as a staff attorney. Other panels in other states have been able
to increase productivity by having junior attorneys do some of
the more repetitive tasks. If done right this can be a means to
reduce overall cost.
Sec. 3: Amends AS 44.64.010(d) to correct two
anomalies in the chief administrative law judge's
salary. The chief administrative law judge would be
paid at step 27 according to the personnel rules and
the duty station where he or she works. (Page 2, lines
10-14)
He said because of the applicability clause, this provision
would not apply to the current chief. The chief currently is
paid on the Juneau salary schedule, but she is located in
Anchorage. This provision would correct that anomaly. Also, the
position is capped at step F, which has effectively prevented
governors from recruiting from senior attorneys at the
Department of Law when selecting a Chief Administrative Law
Judge because those individuals would lose too many steps by
transferring to OAH.
Sec. 4: Amends AS 44.64.020 to provide more
flexibility in staffing structure of the Office of
Administrative Hearings and includes language clean-
up. (Page 2, line 15 Page 4, line 12)
3:48:00 PM
MR. KENNEDY said Section 4 is the other part of the change he
mentioned in Section 2 to use professional staff. It also adds
language regarding alternative dispute resolution, which as Mr.
Hemenway mentioned has become one of the core duties of OAH. It
was not fully foreseen in 2004, but the agency has found that
greatly expanding its mediation capabilities has been a
tremendous cost-saving tool for OAH. It has twice permitted OAH
to downsize. This section updates the core duties and has some
technical cleanup language that Legislative Legal Services
recommended.
Sec. 5: Amends AS 44.64.030(b) to correct an anomaly
in statute, whereby municipalities and school
districts are expressly permitted to contract with the
Office of Administrative Hearings for services under
AS 44.64.055, but are omitted from the provision for
referral of cases. This section streamlines the
statute and permits the repeal of AS 44.64.055 in
section 20. (Page 4, lines 13-23)
Amends AS 44.64.030(b) to clarify that agencies,
municipalities, and school districts referring cases
to the Office of Administrative Hearings may agree
with the office that certain procedures will apply.
(Page 4, lines 20-21)
He explained that the original statute did not include
municipalities and school districts in the authorization to
accept case referrals. The OAH has accepted those referrals
which has been a significant win-win for cost savings, but OAH
would like to put it on a solid statutory footing.
Sec. 6: Amends AS 44.64.030(c) to add the word
"entity," which makes it explicit that a municipality
or school district may choose to delegate final
decision authority to OAH. (Page 4, lines 24-29)
Sec. 7: Amends AS 44.64.040(a) to require the minimum
experience for all classes of administrative law
judges be four years, but in the case of tax qualified
ALJs it would remove the requirement that the
experience be in Alaska. (Page 4, line 29 Page 5,
line 11)
3:49:37 PM
MR. KENNEDY said Section 7 is surprisingly important because
some of the most important work OAH does is to act as the
state's tax court. The way the statute is currently worded, OAH
cannot hire tax judges unless they have been practicing law in
Alaska for two years even though Alaska experience is not
necessary for tax work. He offered his view that it is almost
impossible to find a good tax attorney in Alaska who is not
making a lot more money than the state can pay. Advertised
positions have gone unfilled for over a year at a time. He said
he is the last employed tax judge at OAH, and he is
transitioning into retirement so the organization would like the
option to recruit outside Alaska, if necessary.
Sec. 8: Amends AS 44.64.040(b) to clarify that
delegation of a referring agency's or entities'
procedural powers applies to any proceeding the agency
or entity has referred. By adding the term "entity,"
this includes cases accepted from municipalities and
school districts. (Page 5, lines 12-27)
He said Section 8 corrects imprecise drafting in the 2004 bill.
This makes it clear that OAH would have the agency or entity's
power for cases referred to it.
Sec. 9: Amends AS 44.64.040(c) to make a technical
change regarding judges that serve part-time in a
position that is authorized as full-time. (Page 5,
line 28 Page 6, line 2)
3:50:55 PM
MR. KENNEDY said the current language seems to require even
part-time judges to devote full-time to the office if they are
serving in a position that is authorized as a full-time
position. As a cost-savings measure, OAH needs to be able to do
partial fills of full-time positions when case demand is down.
This change will make it clear that OAH can do so.
Sec. 10: Amends AS 44.64.050(c) to put a statute of
limitations on complaints for code of conduct
violations. The section creates a dual limitations
period. First, any person can bring a complaint about
conduct that occurred less than three years ago.
Second, any person can bring a complaint about conduct
that occurred during a proceeding that ended less than
two years ago (even if the conduct itself was more
than three years ago). (Page 6, lines 3-20)
He explained that Section 10 relates to the Chief Administrative
Law Judge's duty to review code of conduct complaints against
hearing officers throughout the state system. He said most of
the code of conduct complaints that OAH reviews come from other
tribunals, not OAH. Currently, there is no statute of
limitations on those complaints and disgruntled people can come
in and complain about things that happened many years in the
past. This provision would limit the look-back period to three
years, except for long running proceedings, in which it would
allow for complaints two years after the proceeding ends to file
a complaint. He said stale complaints have been a problem.
Sec. 11: Amends AS 44.64.060(a) to clarify that if a
municipality sends a case to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, its ordinances apply. Aligns
this section with AS 44.64.030(b) by making it
explicit that preemption by OAH regulations does not
apply to voluntarily referred cases. (Page 6, line 21
Page 7, line 2)
MR. KENNEDY said the current preemption provision is a little
too strong. It could be read to mean that when a municipality
voluntarily refers a case to OAH, the OAH's regulations will
preempt the municipality's ordinances. This makes the language
more precise and ensures that municipalities can refer cases and
not cause an override of their own rules.
Sec. 12: Amends AS 44.64.060(b) to require basic
information be submitted when a case is referred to
the OAH. In addition, this section changes the appeal
process of a denial of referral from the Superior
Court to the OAH. Also, in this section, the timeline
for compiling a full agency record is modified. (Page
7, lines 3-19)
3:52:52 PM
MR. KENNEDY explained that Section 12 gives agencies a few more
days to assemble the full agency record. This change is based on
practical experience of what is possible and not possible at the
beginning of a case. It would also provide that if an agency
denies a hearing and refuses to refer a case to OAH, the person
requesting the hearing can appeal that issue to OAH rather than
going to superior court. This approach is used through
regulations in half of the OAH hearing dockets. It has been a
quick and efficient way to resolve front-end disputes, such as
whether the hearing request was timely.
Sec. 13: Amends AS 44.64.060(d) to adjust the deadline
for stayed cases, allowing the 120-day deadline for a
proposed decision to be suspended while a parallel
case is moving forward. (Page 7, lines 20-29)
He offered his view that the timeline has been a tremendous tool
in keeping OAH as a faster, better, cheaper way to resolve many
cases, but there are times when it is necessary to stop the
clock completely to allow a parallel criminal case or other
court litigation to go first. Currently, both parties must
concur, and it can be cumbersome to get that agreement, he said.
Sec. 14: Amends AS 44.64.060(e) to make changes to the
decision-making process in the majority of OAH cases.
Page 7, line 31: This change brings the language into
line with current drafting standards, without changing
meaning.
Page 8, lines 5-6: Permits extension of the period for
parties to comment on a proposed decision if all
parties agree.
Page 8, line 8: Ensures that proposals for action are
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings for
forwarding to the final decision-maker.
Page 8, lines 9-14: Permits the administrative law
judge to allow parties to reply to one another's
proposals for action, establishes a time limit for
transmittal of the proposed decision and the parties'
briefs, and permits the administrative law judge to
return a proposed decision to make revisions in
response to a proposal for action.
Page 8, lines 15-19: Changes the date from which the
final decision-maker's action deadline is calculated
to the date on which the final-decision-maker receives
the proposed decision.
Page 8, lines 26-27: Permits a final decision-maker to
set the length of time in which a remanded case must
be processed.
MR. KENNEDY said Section 14 is the most complicated section. As
Mr. Hemenway stated, OAH has a proposal for action process after
the proposed decision is circulated, and the current statute
sets a hard 30-day timeline on these objections that OAH cannot
extend it even if both sides agree. This provision will allow
OAH to manage the deadline like any other litigation deadline.
There is also a problem with the proposal for action structure
being a little too rigid. Often one of the best features of the
process is that when parties read the proposed decision, they
finally realize the key issues of the case and tend to make
their best arguments in the proposal for action. However, in
order to consider those arguments and still give due process,
OAH must be able to let the other party respond. This provision
allows OAH to do so. It also allows OAH to revise a proposed
decision to correct any errors before the decision is sent to
the final decision maker.
He said both changes will allow OAH to transmit a case to the
final decision maker that is truly ready for final action,
rather than to ask that person to remand the case to OAH for
more work.
3:55:46 PM
MR. KENNEDY said Section 14 also addresses a major frustration
that commissioners have expressed to the OAH, which is that the
deadline for final decision makers to act is tied to the wrong
trigger. Currently it is counted 45 days from the day OAH mails
the decision to the parties and not when it is sent to the final
decision maker. When parties take the full time to execute their
proposals for action, the commissioners are often left with only
a few days to act. This is problematic in complex cases because
when the deadline for action is missed, it can usurp the
commissioner's decision. This provision would more appropriately
start the 45 days on the date the commissioner receives the
case, consistent with how other deadlines are counted.
3:56:57 PM
Sec. 15: Amends AS 44.64.060(f) to conform with
language in section 14. (Page 9, lines 8-12)
MR. KENNEDY said Section 15 recognizes that what the final
decision maker may be receiving is the revised proposed
decision.
Sec. 16: Amends AS 44.64.060 to add new subsections
(g-h). Subsection (g) creates uniform authority for
the issuance of subpoenas in some cases. Subsection
(h) allows for the final decision maker in a case to
reopen the proceeding for a reason provided in Rule
60(b) Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure. (Page 9, lines
13- 21)
He said Section 16 solves several practical problems in case
administration. First, OAH currently has subpoena authority in
most of its cases. However, this authority comes from dozens of
sources with quirky variations. This provision would provide
ordinary subpoena authority across the board. The main areas in
which it has been lacking have been in PERS [Public Employees'
Retirement System] and TRS [Teachers' Retirement System], where
hundreds of thousands of dollars can be at issue. He explained
that a drafting error in the enabling legislation inadvertently
omitted subpoena authority for those types of cases. It also
affects substantiation of child abuse where litigants need to
have the ability to compel testimony in order to get due
process.
MR. KENNEDY outlined a second issue, which has been the
inability of commissioners or boards and commissions to reopen a
decision that has been issued in error. For example, when a
decision has been entered by default because a party failed to
appear, and later OAH discovers that the party did not receive
notice due to an address error. The current remedy is through
superior court, and this provision would create a standard
system for reopening cases parallel to the one used in the court
system.
Sec. 17: Amends AS 44.64.080(c) to clarify what agency
staff can do and what the agency head can do, but does
not change how this section has been interpreted
historically. (Page 9, lines 22-28)
Sec. 18: Amends AS 44.64.200(1) to correct a drafting
oversight in the original legislation. (Page 9, line
29 Page 10, line 2)
Sec. 19: Amends AS 44.64.200 to add three new
paragraphs to the definition section (to define
"entity," "other proceeding," and "school district."
(Page 9, lines 3-9)
Sec. 20: Repealer due to the function of AS 44.64.055
being moved into AS 44.64.030 in section 6. (Page 9,
line 10)
He explained that Section 20 repealed the existing statute on
municipal and school district referrals because the provision is
folded into other sections of the bill.
Sec. 21: Applicability clause. Makes changes to
compensation or prior bar membership requirements
applicable to new hires only. Makes the statute of
limitations in section 10 applicable only to
complaints filed after section 10 is effective. (Page
9, lines 11-25)
Sec. 22: Delays by one year the effective date of the
statute of limitations in section 10. (Page 9, line
26)
MR. KENNEDY said the language in Section 22 ensures that the
statute of limitations is constitutional, such that people would
have notice that a statute of limitations was coming into
effect.
4:00:42 PM
CHAIR REVAK asked for his perspective on the requirement for
administrative law judges to be licensed in the state for four
years instead of two years.
MR. KENNEDY acknowledged that he did not touch on that issue.
The OAH found that it is important for people to have experience
before becoming an administrative law judge. In fact, ten years
would be good, so two years seemed insufficient. That provision
was meant to be a noncontroversial recognition of the basic
experience necessary to preside over the types of cases the OAH
encounters.
4:01:48 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if OAH has struggled with payments from
municipalities or just with the docket
MR. KENNEDY answered that the 2004 enabling legislation did not
address that area sufficiently. In the last few years, in
practice it has worked very well. He offered his view that
smaller municipalities have found tremendous cost savings by
sending procurement or tax cases to OAH since the cases are
heard quickly and efficiently. He said OAH has not encountered
any difficulties in payments.
SENATOR COGHILL asked him to elaborate on potential school
district cases and if the cases would focus on retirement
issues.
MR. KENNEDY replied OAH has been receiving some retirement and
teacher discipline cases in the last year, but they also handle
special education cases from school districts. He stated that a
variety of cases come from small school districts and using OAH
provides them an economy of scale.
SENATOR COGHILL asked about the language change from "alternate"
dispute resolution to "alternative" dispute resolution.
4:04:53 PM
MR. KENNEDY related that the grammarians said "alternate" means
switching back and forth and "alternative" provides a different
choice. He explained two ways that alternative dispute
resolution occurs. In complex cases, parties may ask OAH to
appoint a mediator, who is not the administrative law judge
hearing the case. This administrative law judge will act as a
neutral mediator who meets with the parties and tries to achieve
a solution. Since OAH is a central panel, its administrative law
judges have a multi-disciplinary knowledge base to achieve
complicated solutions acceptable to the parties. This also
results in cost savings by avoiding costly litigation for the
parties. Second, in the public benefits area, OAH uses a
technique that North Carolina uses, which is that a professional
mediator conducts a one-hour mediation before a hearing. Parties
are put on a mediation track, and mediation is held from 10 days
to two weeks after an appeal is filed. The OAH has found the
settlement rate is 85 percent, which dramatically reduced the
public benefits caseload. In fact, OAH laid off an employee,
which saved costs for OAH and Medicaid. He commented that the
feedback has been positive, in part, because the mediator helps
the parties understand how the process works, so they understand
the outcome, even if it is not the result the parties hoped to
achieve.
4:08:21 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if he could review what is new in the
subpoena authority in Section 16.
MR. KENNEDY responded that the enabling legislation gave OAH the
subpoena powers of the referring agency. He said most state
agencies have some subpoena authority. For example, the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development's
authority in the professional licensing area fall under the
Administrative Procedures Act, which provides full subpoena
authority. However, some of the authority is phrased in strange
ways in the agencies, which could lead to litigation, such that
an argument could be made about the transfer of subpoena
authority to OAH. He said the most troublesome one is in the
PERS/TRS area. The OAH was supposed to inherit the subpoena
authority from the PERS/TRS board, but the provision was not
transferred when the 2004 enabling legislation was drafted and
it has not been fixed. OAH also hears a significant number of
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) child abuse and
neglect hearings. The subpoena authority is necessary since
those accused of those types of crimes need to be able to compel
witnesses to testify on their behalf. However, the DHSS statutes
do not give OAH the authority to do so. This provision would
give OAH clear subpoena authority.
SENATOR COGHILL said he thought OAH already had the authority,
so he appreciated the explanation.
4:12:07 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI referred to pages 4 and 5 of the annual report
that provides a list of OAH's mandatory jurisdiction. He asked
if every case category would be included in the final decision-
making authority.
MR. KENNEDY said this bill does not address that issue. Although
Chief Administrative Law Judge Fredrick advocated in the annual
report for expanding its authority, this bill does not expand
OAH's final decision-making authority. In some cases, it would
mean that OAH's decisions would not go to commissioners or
boards and commissions to make the final decision.
4:13:52 PM
CHAIR REVAK opened public testimony on SB 88. He found none and
held public testimony open on SB 88. He asked members to submit
any amendments to his office prior to March 16, 2020.
4:14:30 PM
CHAIR REVAK held SB 88 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 88 Sectional Analysis 3.6.20.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 88 Sponsor Statement 3.6.20.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 88 OAH-annual-report-2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 231 Draft VPSO Work Group Recommendations 1.23.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 231 |
| SB 231 Sectional Analysis v.U 02.25.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 231 |
| SB 231 Sponsor Statement 02.25.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 231 |
| SB231 Relevant Administrative Codes.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 231 |
| SB 231 DPS analysis 3.9.20.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 231 |
| SB 231 Fiscal Notes 3.9.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 231 |
| SB 210 Fiscal Note 3.9.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 210 |
| SB 88 Fiscal Note 3.9.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 97 Oppose Ak Arts and Culture Found 3.5.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |