Legislature(1999 - 2000)

03/24/1999 01:06 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
HJR 18 - CONST. AM:  ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1558                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business is HJR 18,                                                              
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska                                                               
relating to an office of administrative hearings.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
BOB LOEFFLER, Director, Central Office, Division of Mining and                                                                  
Water Management, Department of Natural Resources, testified via                                                                
teleconference from Anchorage on behalf of the Department of                                                                    
Natural Resources.  He stated that the department has a number of                                                               
concerns about HJR 18.  He cited an example of one of the more                                                                  
controversial permitting decisions the department had, and that                                                                 
was a winter road they approved to the Pogo Mine.  Approximately                                                                
250 people commented on that decision, through two public meetings,                                                             
and the department needed to balance the private rights of the mine                                                             
holders against the potential impacts on those who had cabins and                                                               
used the recreational resources of the area. He pointed out that                                                                
their standard of review is "the best interest of the public," and                                                              
this involves a balancing decision rather than a technical                                                                      
decision.  He felt that their process was quite inclusive, and an                                                               
administrative law hearing would disenfranchise those who are                                                                   
unable to participate.  For a proper balancing, he noted, the                                                                   
department works hard to include all the citizens of the state, and                                                             
he was unsure how that would occur in an administrative law                                                                     
hearing.  He related that a number of their decisions were                                                                      
reasonably technical, and that technical expertise was also an                                                                  
issue.  One of their most recent decisions had to do with fume                                                                  
chemistry, and the project team worked on this issue for two to                                                                 
three months.  He felt it would be difficult to educate an                                                                      
administrative law judge (ALJ) on the technical aspects of fume                                                                 
chemistry.  He noted that a number of the other, more technical,                                                                
divisions of the Department of Natural Resources have similar                                                                   
concerns.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1780                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Mr. Loeffler's comment about the standard                                                             
of review.  He asked, "Would you not agree that that particular                                                                 
standard of review would be somewhat different for every issue, and                                                             
that an administrative law judge, in his capacity, would be                                                                     
required to know that?"                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. LOEFFLER indicated that he had no doubt the ALJ would know the                                                              
standard of review.  However, the best interest of the public is a                                                              
typical standard for the Department of Natural Resources.  He                                                                   
agreed it would be different for other agencies.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1818                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DEBORAH VOGT, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,                                                                  
Department of Revenue, testified with concerns about HJR 18.  She                                                               
related that she had a fair amount of experience over the years                                                                 
with state government, and that she was a hearing officer at the                                                                
Department of Revenue for a few years.  She is currently                                                                        
responsible for the formal hearings function at the department, and                                                             
she has experience working with a number of agencies from the                                                                   
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission and the Department of                                                                     
Transportation and Public Facilities.  She felt this background is                                                              
part of the reason she was chosen to coordinate the state's                                                                     
response to, and position on, this legislation.  She testified that                                                             
the state had two views on HJR 18:  first, that a constitutional                                                                
amendment requiring administrative adjudications to be performed by                                                             
a centralized panel would be dangerous.  On the other hand, there                                                               
is some merit to the idea of a centralized panel for some                                                                       
functions.  The department envisions some problems with a                                                                       
constitutional approach to this legislation,  including a belief                                                                
that the provision, as it is drafted, would make it mandatory for                                                               
all adjudicatory decisions to be made outside the agency charged                                                                
with the primary underlying function.  They understand some people                                                              
argue that the phrase in the proposed amendment "jurisdiction will                                                              
be prescribed by law" means that the legislature can pick and                                                                   
choose which functions go to the centralized panels and which ones                                                              
do not.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOGT pointed out that a constitutional amendment is not needed,                                                             
if the purpose is to simply give the legislature permission to                                                                  
create a centralized panel and assign certain functions to it.  The                                                             
only reason a constitutional amendment would be necessary is if the                                                             
centralized panel was made mandatory, and she stated that making it                                                             
mandatory would foreclose the legislature from ever making a                                                                    
specialized solution in any particular area.  The courts define                                                                 
"administrative hearing" very broadly, she noted, and an example of                                                             
that is the litigation surrounding the Constitutional Budget                                                                    
Reserve.  For example, in a tax matter, the adjudicatory process                                                                
starts as soon as a person objects to an assessment that has been                                                               
issued.  In the Department of Revenue, the assessments get issued                                                               
at a fairly low level;  then, at the time of process, it goes into                                                              
an informal conference.  The formal hearing function for tax                                                                    
matters has been transferred out of the department, but the                                                                     
informal procedure still goes on in the department.  At that time,                                                              
they often catch mistakes that were made, and give the taxpayer an                                                              
opportunity to meet face-to-face with individuals to explain that                                                               
taxpayer's argument.  They read the proposed constitutional                                                                     
amendment to indicate that the early function of the adjudicatory                                                               
process would also go to a centralized panel, and they would not                                                                
have the power to make any kind of an adjudicatory decision on a                                                                
contested matter.                                                                                                               
MS. VOGT noted that the legislature has spent a lot of time over                                                                
the years creating different functions in different departments,                                                                
and HJR 18 would remove a lot of that structure set up for those                                                                
kinds of decisions.  She related that the Department of Revenue                                                                 
handles Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) appeals, child support                                                                    
enforcement appeals, and appeals in charitable gaming matters, as                                                               
well as representing the department in front of the Office of Tax                                                               
Appeals that was created a couple of years ago.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 2026                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOGT added, "One of the concerns that I have about moving the                                                               
function out of my agency is management.  Four years ago, when I                                                                
started in this position, and Commissioner Condon started in his                                                                
position, we had about ... 7000 Permanent Fund Dividend matters                                                                 
pending, between informal conference and formal hearing.  Some of                                                               
those matters were very old."  She noted that today there are only                                                              
about 400 matters pending between the two; almost of them are less                                                              
than two months old at informal conference, and all are mostly less                                                             
than six months old.  She expressed pride at having achieved that,                                                              
and she did not believe that could have been done if an outside                                                                 
agency handled all of their appeals.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOGT also had substantive concerns.  She pointed out that a lot                                                             
of individuals win their informal conferences and their formal                                                                  
hearings, and that is because the hearing or appeals officers are                                                               
properly applying the rules the department has set out.  The                                                                    
department has an overall responsibility for making and                                                                         
implementing those rules, she noted, and taking that function away                                                              
from them would put a hole in the continuity.  She related that she                                                             
learns a lot from those hearings about the way the program is being                                                             
administered, and about issues that could be clarified, made easier                                                             
or changed.  Ms. Vogt and Representative Green worked very hard to                                                              
set up the Office of Tax Appeals, at the request of taxpayers, and                                                              
this is an outside agency that hears the formal hearing level of                                                                
tax appeals.  As the department reads the proposed constitutional                                                               
amendment, that agency would be subsumed in an administrative law                                                               
panel.  One of the driving forces in the way that program developed                                                             
several years ago was the universal agreement that the tax cases                                                                
needed a specialized forum, and tax expertise was important in that                                                             
forum.  That expertise would be lost by sending those cases off to                                                              
a centralized panel.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2150                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOGT summarized by stating, "One size definitely does not fit                                                               
all in administrative hearings."  She felt that it is a mistake to                                                              
try to fit everything under one approach.  Some matters are small                                                               
and can be handled on a very informal basis, and the concern is                                                                 
that a centralized panel would make matters much more formal and                                                                
would be intimidating.  She did agree that some states have had                                                                 
good experiences with centralized administrative law panels, and                                                                
she felt it should be explored, but not mandated by a                                                                           
constitutional amendment.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2231                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there has been any discussion in the years                                                               
past on reviewing the possibilities to work in this fashion.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOGT recalled that there has been, but just in the last couple                                                              
of years.  It has not, however, been looked at from within the                                                                  
Administration.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 2254                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI wondered if the Administration is looking                                                              
at areas that could be candidates for an administrative law panel                                                               
as a result of the fact that it has been discussed for the past                                                                 
couple of years.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOGT felt that they are beginning to do so, but that a lot of                                                               
effort has not gone into that.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked, "In your opinion, could you do that without a                                                              
statute change?"  He wondered if statutory authorization would be                                                               
required or if this administrative law panel could be set up just                                                               
through the regulatory process.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOGT said, "I would imagine eventually you'd run into reasons                                                               
that you needed a statute."  She did not think it could be                                                                      
accomplished in its entirety through executive order or that type                                                               
of route.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2333                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business                                                                      
Practices Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law,                                                               
testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  She referred the                                                                  
committee to the March 23, 1999, letter and its attachment,                                                                     
"Analysis of Language of HJR 18," that was sent to Chairman Kott                                                                
from Attorney General Bruce M. Botelho's office by Ms. Williams.                                                                
She said she was going to reiterate Ms. Vogt's testimony that a                                                                 
constitutional amendment is not necessary if the intent of this                                                                 
amendment is to provide discretion for the legislature to                                                                       
centralize a hearing officer function, as that is already an                                                                    
authority the legislature has.  The problem with a constitutional                                                               
amendment is that it is a powerful tool that would have superior                                                                
power to later legislation attempted;  therefore, it would limit                                                                
the legislature's power.  She detailed some of the language in HJR
18 that the Department of Law labeled as problematic.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILLIAMS first referred to "The Office of Administrative                                                                    
Hearings is vested with the POWER TO CONDUCT ADMINISTRATIVE LAW                                                                 
HEARINGS," and explained that term is very broadly interpreted in                                                               
Alaska.  The Alaska Supreme Court has said that administrative                                                                  
adjudicative hearing proceedings begin when one party serves                                                                    
another party a document that sets in motion a regulatory or                                                                    
statutory procedure for the resolution of a dispute.  She pointed                                                               
out that testimony given to the House State Affairs [Standing]                                                                  
Committee pointed out that dispute over a term such as "student                                                                 
loan" is the sort of procedure that sets forth a regulatory process                                                             
for the resolution to dispute.  Under this constitutional                                                                       
amendment, it would go to an ALJ.  Necessarily, the proceedings                                                                 
would become much more formal, and the agency with the                                                                          
responsibility for the program would lose control over the                                                                      
day-to-day practices of the program.  Also, if the Office of                                                                    
Administrative Hearings was established under this language, there                                                              
would be certain working commissions that would lose their primary                                                              
function, and those would include the Alaska Workers' Compensation                                                              
Board, State Board of Parole, all of the licensing boards for                                                                   
occupational licensing, and many others.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-19, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILLIAMS next referred to the language that stated "The Office                                                              
of Administrative Hearings is vested with the POWER TO RENDER FINAL                                                             
AGENCY DECISIONS," which is a misnomer, because the decision would                                                              
not, in fact, be a decision by the agency, and may be very contrary                                                             
to the policies of the agency.  There would be all sorts of formal                                                              
disputes within the scope of the proposed amendment, such as tax                                                                
matters, public assistance entitlement, employee relations, state                                                               
land allocation, and a number of others.  The constitutional                                                                    
mandate would include agencies of the legislature and the judicial                                                              
branch, as well as the executive branch.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0050                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILLIAMS also noted the clause "THE JURISDICTION OF THE OFFICE                                                              
SHALL BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW."  She indicated that this language                                                                  
does not give the legislature the express authority to exempt                                                                   
agencies or certain levels of proceedings from the constitutional                                                               
mandate.  The Alaska courts hold that the identical language for                                                                
the judiciary does not allow the legislature, by statute, to take                                                               
away judicial powers vested by the constitution in the courts.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILLIAMS noted that the phrase "THE HEAD OF THE OFFICE IS NAMED                                                             
'CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'" is a new concept for Alaska, as                                                               
Alaska has always used hearing officers, with the understanding                                                                 
that this term is meant to refer to a hearing that is much less                                                                 
formal than an administrative law judge.  Administrative law judges                                                             
are more likely to use hearing chambers and wear robes, and they                                                                
are referred to as "judge" and "your honor."  Alaska administrative                                                             
proceedings are intended to be less threatening to the                                                                          
participants.  In addition, this language contains no provision for                                                             
removal of an administrative law judge for cause which would                                                                    
certainly be an issue in cases of misconduct or gross incompetence.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0140                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG observed that it was the third item on the list                                                               
of concerns that alarmed him the most, "THE JURISDICTION OF THE                                                                 
OFFICE SHALL BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW."  He also was concerned that                                                                 
this did not give the express authority to the legislature to                                                                   
exempt agencies or certain levels of proceedings.  He asked if                                                                  
there was case law that essentially refers to that particular                                                                   
issue.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILLIAMS confirmed that there was, and she referred to the case                                                             
Rozkydal v. State.  By using identical language in both provisions,                                                             
in light of the previously-existing case law, the court may find                                                                
that the voters intended to have identical results.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0203                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that other states have done very well                                                             
with this system; although, he agreed that they did not have to use                                                             
a constitutional amendment.  He asked what a hearing officer should                                                             
do when they are pressured to find for the agency.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILLIAMS confirmed that no other state has a constitutional                                                                 
amendment that creates an office such as the one proposed in HJR
18;  however, the final decision is only made in very few cases.                                                                
The decision becomes a proposed decision, and is referred back to                                                               
the agency.  As far as pressure being placed on a hearing officer,                                                              
Ms. Williams pointed out that that would be inappropriate.  The                                                                 
hearing officer should advise the parties of the attempt to make                                                                
that pressure, and they could certainly avail themselves of various                                                             
protections under state law for employees who are being pressured                                                               
to do something that is unlawful.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that sometimes the pressure might                                                               
not be overt; however, there is certainly pressure to perform for                                                               
the commissioner that you work for.  He asked, "What if a hearing                                                               
officer consistently found more often against ... the commissioner                                                              
he worked for than for him?  There is an inherent conflict of                                                                   
interest."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILLIAMS observed that she has been an attorney in Alaska for                                                               
20 years now, and she has always worked in the field of                                                                         
administrative law.  She related that she has never experienced a                                                               
hearing officer who felt obligated to rule on behalf of a                                                                       
particular party.  The hearing officers that she has known, in                                                                  
various capacities and serving various interests, have issued                                                                   
decisions that they felt to be correct.  If there are examples of                                                               
particular hearing officers who are a problem, Ms. Williams felt                                                                
that this should be looked into closely; however, she is not aware                                                              
of any particular person or agency where that has been a problem.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he sincerely doubts a hearing                                                                   
officer would mention to the attorney general that he/she was                                                                   
feeling pressure to be biased.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0350                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
PAUL GROSSI, Director, Central Office, Division of Workers'                                                                     
Compensation, Department of Labor, expressed concerns regarding HJR
18 on behalf of his division and the Department of Labor.  One of                                                               
their main concerns, he explained, is expertise in deciding these                                                               
administrative cases.  He also referred to the "one size fits all                                                               
concept" that was previously mentioned.  He testified that HJR 18                                                               
would take away the balanced approach that has been developed over                                                              
the years with the Workers' Compensation Board.  They are                                                                       
concerned, he added, that this legislation would move away from a                                                               
"compact" that exists between labor and industry.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. GROSSI explained that the [Division of] Workers' Compensation                                                               
is probably one of the earliest quasi-judicial administrative                                                                   
agencies.  It was established around the turn-of-the-century to                                                                 
deal with workplace injuries.  At that time, work-related injuries                                                              
were being dealt with in the courts; consequently, they were tying                                                              
up the courts, causing expense to the employers, and taking a long                                                              
time for employees to get results.  Labor and industry came                                                                     
together and formed an agreement to compact, and legislation was                                                                
passed to deal with workers' injuries by setting up administrative                                                              
agencies.  Both sides had to give up something, and both sides                                                                  
gained something.  The employers gave up the right to defend a case                                                             
because of fault, as [Division of] Workers' Compensation is a                                                                   
no-fault situation.  Employees gave away the right to sue employers                                                             
in court, and formulas were developed for compensating employees                                                                
for wage loss, permanent disabilities, and paying for medical                                                                   
losses. On the other hand, industry received an immunity from being                                                             
sued in court.  Both labor and industry received a faster, more                                                                 
predictable way of dealing with these injuries.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. GROSSI noted that Alaska passed legislation that set up a                                                                   
Workers' Compensation Board for dispute cases to be heard.  This                                                                
board consisted of a labor member, usually someone from a labor                                                                 
union, but always someone from the working side of the formula, and                                                             
an industry seat, someone from management or an owner of a company.                                                             
The third member of the panel is the commissioner's designee, and                                                               
that designee is an expert in workers' compensation law.  They feel                                                             
this a very balanced approach: using private-sector volunteers to                                                               
decide the cases, along with someone who is an expert in the legal                                                              
aspects of worker's compensation.  He indicated that there is 100                                                               
years of case law to refer to, and that volumes have been written                                                               
about it.  In Alaska, there are as many as 10 supreme court cases                                                               
a year that deal with workers' compensation.  The case law is                                                                   
extensive and complicated, Mr. Grossi noted, and it requires a                                                                  
certain amount of expertise, but it also requires some sort of                                                                  
input from the private sector, so that a fair decision can be made.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. GROSSI disclosed that there are presently approximately 300 to                                                              
350 cases a year that are decided by the Workers' Compensation                                                                  
Board.  Of that, approximately 70 are appealed to the courts, and                                                               
the board has a very good rate, over 80 percent, of their decisions                                                             
being affirmed by the court.  The department is concerned that this                                                             
law will take away from that success rate, will make their law                                                                  
unconstitutional, will take away from the balanced approach, and                                                                
will eliminate private sector input on their cases.  Similar                                                                    
problems could arise in a number of different agencies within the                                                               
department:  Fishermen's Fund [Advisory and Appeals Council];                                                                   
Alaska Labor Relations Agency; Employment Security Division; and                                                                
the Department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration.                                                                
He mentioned that one of the strongest advocates of this system is                                                              
Edwin Felter (ph), and he believed him to be the head of the                                                                    
National Association of Administrative Law Judges.  Mr. Felter (ph)                                                             
has indicated that there is no state that has not made exceptions                                                               
for certain types of cases, and not all cases are heard by these                                                                
agencies.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0671                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that there seems to be some confusion, if HJR
18 were to pass and the voters were to approve it, as to whether or                                                             
not the legislature would have that opportunity to provide for                                                                  
those exemptions for those certain categories that, perhaps, would                                                              
not fit the mold very well.  He asked Mr. Grossi whether the                                                                    
Department of Labor would support the measure, if the legislature                                                               
decided to keep them exempt from it in all their capacity.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. GROSSI admitted that some of the things their department does                                                               
may fit well with this legislation; however, he would have a                                                                    
difficult time supporting the measure if it had to do with the                                                                  
Workers' Compensation Board.  The reason for that, he explained, is                                                             
because the current system has been developed over a number of                                                                  
years and it works very well.  He did express willingness to                                                                    
discuss it, however.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0738                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered how long it takes for the Division of                                                              
Workers' Compensation to adjudicate a workers' compensation case.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. GROSSI indicated that it would depend upon the individual case.                                                             
Some cases get heard within 60 days from the date the hearing is                                                                
requested, and others take longer, depending upon what needs to be                                                              
done.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what would be determined a long case, and                                                             
if any have been going on for years.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. GROSSI replied that these cases are not usually litigated that                                                              
long, but some cases do go on from the date of injury through when                                                              
the individual goes off of workers' compensation.  It can take some                                                             
time; it depends upon the extent of the injuries.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Grossi, "Would you refresh my memory on the                                                             
Workers' Comp[ensation] Boards and the time limitations they have                                                               
to take up a case?"                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. GROSSI answered by stating that the vast majority of injuries                                                               
are not litigated.  There are approximately 26,000 to 30,000                                                                    
injuries a year;  of that, maybe 1200 to 1500 come to the Workers'                                                              
Compensation Board for resolution.  If an injury occurs and a                                                                   
medical report is filed along with the bill, the employer either                                                                
pays it or controverts the case within 15 days.  If the employee                                                                
disagrees with the controversion, that employee can then take it                                                                
forward to the Workers' Compensation Board.  That employee can file                                                             
a claim 10 days from that point, and can request a hearing after 20                                                             
days.  If the opposing party does not oppose the hearing, it will                                                               
be set up within 60 days.  If it is opposed, a pre-hearing is                                                                   
scheduled to deal with why it was opposed in the first place.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0858                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT had a question for Teresa Williams, who was                                                                
still present on-line from Anchorage.  He asked, "Would we be able                                                              
to continue the Workers' Compensation Board with it's one industry,                                                             
one labor, under this constitutional amendment?"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILLIAMS said no, unless there was authority expressly in the                                                               
legislature and the amendment to exclude an agency.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0883                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if Ms. Williams was basing that answer                                                             
on the case law dealing with judicial power vested by the                                                                       
constitution.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILLIAMS explained that she was basing her answer on the                                                                    
language, "THE JURISDICTION OF THE OFFICE SHALL BE PRESCRIBED BY                                                                
LAW," which she felt was ambiguous as to what it means.  She                                                                    
indicated that this language does not expressly give the power to                                                               
the legislature to exempt an agency or certain level of                                                                         
proceedings.  In addition, this is identical language that has                                                                  
already been interpreted by the courts, and it would be presumed                                                                
that the language was intended to have the same result.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered whether court cases on the judiciary                                                               
were based on the intent of the constitutional convention.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILLIAMS said no, and pointed out that they go to the first                                                                 
line, which says that the power is vested in the judiciary, just as                                                             
in this provision, the power is vested in the Office of                                                                         
Administrative Hearings.  That language is very powerful and cannot                                                             
be limited by the legislature.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that it was his understanding of the law                                                               
that a record of legislative intent could be built, indicating that                                                             
the legislature can decide who is in and out of this provision.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILLIAMS explained Alaska finds that legislative intent is hard                                                             
to determine and cannot be determined by the statement of a person,                                                             
because the entire legislature votes on a bill.  She pointed out                                                                
that there is nothing concrete that says what legislative intent                                                                
is, especially in this case, when a constitutional amendment would                                                              
need to be voted on by the people.  She suggested that it would be                                                              
preferable if the language were changed to expressly state what is                                                              
intended, rather than having a side-record in which you attempt to                                                              
explain what it means.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1032                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT observed that the important thing about a                                                                  
constitutional amendment is what the people meant when they voted                                                               
on it, and that it is not as relevant as what the legislature                                                                   
intended when it put it before the people.  He added that the best                                                              
legislative intent in the world might not be (indisc.),                                                                         
particularly if there is clear language that seems to go the other                                                              
way.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN felt that was not consistent with supreme court                                                             
decisions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1080                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Central Office, Division of                                                                        
Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic                                                                     
Development, testified in opposition to HJR 18 on behalf of her                                                                 
division, as well as 21 licensing boards that it represents.  Her                                                               
division also administers 16 licensing programs without boards, so                                                              
they make the final decisions directly in those cases.  She                                                                     
mentioned that the Division of Insurance and the Division of                                                                    
Banking, Securities and Corporations, both under the Department of                                                              
Commerce, also had concerns, and they use the same hearing officer                                                              
that the Division of Occupational Licensing does.  She acknowledged                                                             
the sponsor's position that certain agencies or decisions could be                                                              
exempted through statute; however, the Department of Law has a                                                                  
different view.  She stressed that this is a very important issue                                                               
to the licensing boards, who are created for the express purpose of                                                             
making decisions like this.  She echoed that any attempt to have                                                                
the legislature exempt different agencies needs to be very clear in                                                             
any constitutional amendment;  otherwise, boards are being asked to                                                             
support something based on a possibility that the legislature may                                                               
be willing and able to exempt them.  She has based her testimony on                                                             
the assumption that the Office of Administrative Hearings would be                                                              
making all the decisions for Department of Commerce, including the                                                              
licensing boards.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. REARDON declared that she had testified with concerns about the                                                             
original comprehensive bill when it was presented by Representative                                                             
Ogan last year.  One reason that it grew into such a large bill,                                                                
she observed, was because there were references to boards making                                                                
disciplinary decisions and licensing decisions buried within each                                                               
occupation's licensing statute.  If a constitutional amendment like                                                             
this passes and certain agencies need to be exempted, the                                                                       
frustrating and difficult work of making those policy decisions in                                                              
a 100-page bill will still need to be done.  Much of what comes up                                                              
for the hearing officer in occupational licensing involves initial                                                              
decisions, not appeals.  The division gathers evidence and charges                                                              
a professional with incompetence.  Before any action is taken,                                                                  
there is a due process hearing in which the division and the                                                                    
Department of Law present the prosecution case, and the accused                                                                 
professional presents a defense case.  The hearing officer then                                                                 
hears the case and makes the proposed decision to the Board of                                                                  
Professionals.  The individual has the right to appeal to Superior                                                              
Court.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. REARDON informed the committee that the Department of Commerce                                                              
and its various boards are very concerned that they will be losing                                                              
expert knowledge by going to an independent administrative law                                                                  
hearing.  She gave the example of the medical board, which has five                                                             
physicians and two representatives of the public on it, being able                                                              
to actually decide whether the treatment given by a doctor is                                                                   
competent or not.  In that case, she stressed the value of having                                                               
actual doctors involved in making those decisions.  Even though a                                                               
hearing officer can hear expert witnesses, she did not feel sure                                                                
that would be an adequate replacement for the professional and                                                                  
public input that is present now.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. REARDON added that another action coming to a hearing officer                                                               
would be appeals of license denials.  Licensing boards are                                                                      
currently deciding if someone is competent for a license, and this                                                              
often involves very technical decisions about someone's mental                                                                  
health, professional training or problems they have had in other                                                                
states.  She felt that it was valuable having professional peers on                                                             
the board, and that it is a very significant policy decision to                                                                 
change that system.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. REARDON related that the director of the Division of Insurance                                                              
expressed a concern about the cost of training a hearing officer                                                                
who is knowledgeable about insurance law, which is a fairly arcane                                                              
subject.  The Division of Insurance director does not always use                                                                
the department hearing officer.  In some cases, such as insurance                                                               
cases that involve tax issues, they have hired a tax accountant                                                                 
from a large firm to preside, as knowledge in a tax law and                                                                     
accounting is crucial to making the right decision.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1438                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. REARDON summarized by stating her belief that this seems to be                                                              
a switch in philosophy about the definition of administrative                                                                   
appeals.  Initially, these hearings have been a chance to ask a                                                                 
department or agency to reconsider, looking carefully at what it is                                                             
doing one more time, before the case moves to court.  By enacting                                                               
HJR 18, the shift would be towards moving into a more formal court                                                              
situation right away.  She testified that administrative hearings                                                               
in her department are already very formal from a legal standpoint,                                                              
using discovery motions, requests to suppress evidence and offer                                                                
evidence, and other legal motions.  She suspected that the original                                                             
vision, 30 to 40 years ago, was to get the two parties in a room to                                                             
just discuss what happened and review the situation.  She said, "I                                                              
think we are probably moving into a situation where it ...                                                                      
basically is court, and you better show up with your attorney."                                                                 
She indicated that she was not surprised that there are lot of                                                                  
hearing officers that would like this provision, and that there are                                                             
number of hearing officers that would like to be judges.  She has                                                               
been requested by hearing officers to provide funding to build a                                                                
courtroom, complete with flags and a seal, for the Department of                                                                
Commerce and Economic Development.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1568                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to an interoffice memo addressed to                                                                
Commissioner William Hensley from 1997.  He read the following into                                                             
the record from that memo:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Having worked as a part-time administrative hearing                                                                        
     officer for the Department of Commerce (since a certain                                                                    
     day which I won't disclose ... in the 1980's), there are                                                                   
     a number of observations resulting from the tenure which                                                                   
     may help the section to continue to function in an                                                                         
     efficient and helpful way to the public. ...Before his                                                                     
     departure, Frank Flavin and I discussed many of these                                                                      
     items.  The Hearing Officer section sometimes seems to be                                                                  
     an orphaned child, since it belongs to no one, yet serves                                                                  
     everyone.  It is vitally important that the hearing                                                                        
     officer remain a truly neutral and impartial party.  To                                                                    
     that end, the section should continue to be treated                                                                        
     separately, with its own secretary and offices.  The                                                                       
     officer should not be located within the physical                                                                          
     parameters of the Division of Occupational Licensing,                                                                      
     since the tendency to engage in casual conversation is                                                                     
     too great.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     In any new space configuration, the department should                                                                      
     also consider giving the Division of Occupational                                                                          
     Licensing, Boards and Commissions, and the Hearing                                                                         
     Officer section, their own separate hearing and meeting                                                                    
     room.  Since there will now only be one full-time                                                                          
     administrative hearing officer, rather than a full-time                                                                    
     and part-time position, there will, inevitably, be                                                                         
     conflict of interest questions raised.  Although there                                                                     
     should not be many ... it is my recommendation that the                                                                    
     department have one person handle the conflict cases,                                                                      
     rather than signing separate contracts to various                                                                          
     attorneys.  That procedure was tried in [the] early                                                                        
     1980's, resulting in inconsistent results, poorly-written                                                                  
     opinions, lost files, missed hearings, and, in general,                                                                    
     was unsatisfactory.  I would also recommend that any                                                                       
     person who is chosen to do the contract have some                                                                          
     litigation or judicial background, since it is proven                                                                      
     helpful in learning to do hearings...                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN summarized the letter by stating that it brings                                                             
out some interesting points as to how this legislation, HJR 18,                                                                 
came about, addressing general conflicts of interest, neutrality                                                                
and impartiality.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. REARDON commented that she had read this letter approximately                                                               
two years ago, but she does not have perfect memory of it.  The                                                                 
decision to go from one full-time and one part-time hearing officer                                                             
to one hearing officer was based on budget cuts, she explained, and                                                             
that outgoing hearing officer's suggestions should not be taken to                                                              
mean that any of her concerns were actually going on.  Ms. Reardon                                                              
testified that she worked in the division at the time the letter                                                                
was written, and that hearing officer was not housed in the                                                                     
Division of Occupational Licensing; rather, she is reinforcing that                                                             
it should never happen in the future.  The letter was not a request                                                             
for change, but a request that it does not change.  The fact that                                                               
they feel "orphan-like," she emphasized, is a good sign and means                                                               
that the system is clean, because they are being left alone without                                                             
socialization so that they can act impartially.  The letter said                                                                
that they worked for everyone, but were not a specific part of                                                                  
anyone, and Ms. Reardon indicated that is exactly what the goal                                                                 
should be for an impartial hearing officer.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. REARDON summarized by stating that she did not recall that                                                                  
hearing officer stating, at any time during that letter, that she                                                               
felt her decisions were influenced, or that there was an attempt to                                                             
influence any of her decisions, by the commissioner's office or any                                                             
of the divisions.  A new hearing officer has been hired since that                                                              
time, she explained, and he had to declare a conflict of interest                                                               
in a couple of cases; however, he simply did not take them and they                                                             
were assigned to contract hearing officers.  There is currently a                                                               
central hearing officer with a secretary that keeps all of the                                                                  
records of what the contract hearing officers are doing at all                                                                  
times.  Ms. Reardon argued that the concern expressed in the                                                                    
letter, regarding having different hearing officers who might not                                                               
be knowledgeable about the process, is exactly what might happen                                                                
with a hearing officer office or agency.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2011                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Reardon how many boards and commissions                                                                 
would fall under this provision, if the legislature had the option                                                              
of determining whether or not an entity could be replaced.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. REARDON said there would be 21 statutorily-created licensing                                                                
boards, or all of them, that would fall under this provision,                                                                   
unless a statute was created to exempt specific agencies.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2068                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "That is exactly the point of this bill."                                                             
He emphasized that the boards would become regulatory rather than                                                               
adjudicatory.  He quoted Winston Churchill as stating "when you                                                                 
have a lack of separation of powers between the judiciary and                                                                   
executive, you have a tyranny."  While he was not implying that the                                                             
boards are tyrannical, he did liken the present situation to "the                                                               
fox watching the henhouse."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2152                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT expressed that the bill will be held over at which                                                                
time the committee will take up public testimony again.                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects