Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/25/2002 08:08 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 323 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT Number 0245 CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 323, "An Act relating to emergency and disaster relief forces as state employees for purposes of workers' compensation benefits; relating to the Emergency Management Assistance Compact and the implementation of the compact; and providing for an effective date." Number 0295 DAVE LIEBERSBACH, Director, Division of Emergency Services (DES), Department of Military & Veterans Affairs, testified via teleconference. He told the members that HB 323 joins Alaska in the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), which allows for the rapid exchange of emergency resources between states. Alaska is one of about five states that are not in the compact. This compact has been sanctioned by the U.S. Congress and started in 1992 in the southern states. It has been expanded slowly and now allows all of the states to join. The one requirement of the compact is that it must be approved by each state's legislature. However, the state is not obligated to provide these resources. If the state is asked for the resources and it wants to make them available to a requesting state, then the compact can be used to do that rapidly. The compact lays out the framework for the exchange of resources in terms of payment, timeliness of the payment, the coverage of workers' compensation for the personnel, and those sorts of things. Number 0545 MR. LIEBERSBACH indicated that Alaska has used the framework and the tenets of the compact to provide resources to other states. Alaska provided personnel and equipment to the state and city of New York in September and October 2001, even though it wasn't a member of the compact. Prior to providing those resources, because Alaska wasn't a member, it had to put agreements in place before the resources could go, and that delayed the response time. MR. LIEBERSBACH noted that in the past, he requested personnel from Missouri and Iowa to help with working with the FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] requirements and regulations on the avalanches. He used the tenets of the compact then, but Alaska wasn't a member. He noted that it would be a good thing for Alaska to be a member of this compact. MR. LIEBERSBACH said that if there were a federally declared disaster and Alaska requested resources from another state, Alaska would pay the state for the resources but could recover those costs from FEMA. Number 0777 REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked which states nearest to Alaska belong to this compact. MR. LIEBERSBACH replied that Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, and Utah are all a part of the compact. California and Hawaii are not in it, but Hawaii has legislation moving through its legislature now. REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if there were any international agreements similar to the compact between Canada and Alaska. MR. LIEBERSBACH answered that Alaska belongs to the Northwest Compact that is sanctioned by Congress to exchange resources and that includes Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia, and the Yukon Territory. Number 0886 CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Liebersbach who would manage or facilitate the compact. MR. LIEBERSBACH answered that the compact falls under the National Emergency Management Association, which is the association of the 50 state directors and the 7 U.S. territories' directors. The EMAC is in that association, so the management of EMAC falls to that working group. CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Liebersbach if he'd talked to any of the other compact members to find out if there had been any glitches in the way it is written now. MR. LIEBERSBACH answered that he has seen the compact in use for five years. In the early days, there were a number of things that had to be worked out, and the language now is a result of quite a bit of experience in using the compact. Since September 11, 2001, and the 2000-to-2001 wildfire season in Montana, it has worked very well as written. It has been reviewed by Alaska's Department of Law, and his department feels pretty comfortable with it. CHAIR COGHILL asked if Alaska is still responsible for pay, workers' compensation, and insurance on its people who go to other states. MR. LIEBERSBACH agreed that was correct. The receiving state will reimburse the State of Alaska for those costs, but Alaska's people stay under their current employment conditions when they go to another state. Number 1111 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked about the funding for events that are not declared disasters by the President. MR. LIEBERSBACH answered that Alaska would fund it if it chose to ask another state for the resources. Generally, when it's a state-only type of disaster, those are relatively small, and unless there is some special expertise or equipment needed up here, Alaska might go for it, but he advised caution in that event due to the possible expense. There could be a situation in which it may be more convenient to go to another state. For example, Washington search and rescue might get to Southeast Alaska quicker than search and rescue from somewhere in Alaska, depending on weather and other conditions. Number 1203 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if this compact would be used only if there were a disaster declaration by the President. MR. LIEBERSBACH answered that was correct. The most likely use would be Alaska's providing resources to other states. Alaska's disasters aren't usually in heavily populated areas, as in the Lower 48. Providing Alaska's resources to others would help the nation, but it also would provide good experience for emergency management people to keep current their emergency management practices in light of the changing federal regulations. Number 1298 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the emergency management team includes volunteers as well as people on the payroll. MR. LIEBERSBACH answered that this compact could include anybody in Alaska, not just DES personnel. It could be personnel from any state agency, any local agency, or anywhere else there was the capability to help. For example, a DMAT, Disaster Medical Assistance Team, was sent to New York. He explained that that team was made up of medical personnel primarily from Anchorage, and most of them were not state employees. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if volunteers in emergency services and fire departments are asked to participate. MR. LIEBERSBACH replied that the volunteer people are offered the opportunities to assist people if the requesting state wants them. It is up to the requesting state to decide whether it wants the resources. Many of the volunteers work through the Red Cross or Salvation Army, which have channels outside of this compact for providing people to disasters and emergencies outside of Alaska. Even FEMA has people that are hired out of Alaska that may go to Puerto Rico or elsewhere as disaster assistance folks. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how the payment of the cost of the services gets handled. MR. LIEBERSBACH replied that the payment for those services would go back to the entity of the resources being used. The agreement calls for the state to bill the other states. If Anchorage agreed to let someone go, it would fall to the requesting state to ensure that Anchorage got reimbursed for that individual. The money would come through the state, and the state would pay back Anchorage for that money. Generally, FEMA pays the state having the disaster. For example, if people go to Georgia, FEMA will pay Georgia. Regardless of whether FEMA pays Georgia or not, Georgia is obligated to pay Alaska for any resources sent to Georgia. It is up to Georgia to worry about getting reimbursement from FEMA. The State of Alaska will get reimbursed for all the resources, and then it would be the state's responsibility to ensure that local municipalities or governments that sent personnel were reimbursed for these costs. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked about insurance and benefits in the event of injury to personnel. MR. LIEBERSBACH noted that injury insurance and compensation will remain the same as they have on the job. If an individual is permanently disabled on an assignment, that disability payment is reimbursed to the state and back to whatever agency the person was with; the requesting state is liable for those costs. Number 1674 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how an injury would affect a volunteer not actually paid by a municipality or the state. She wondered how these people are covered under insurance and disability. MR. LIEBERSBACH answered that he wasn't clear on that right now. There is some legislation that would provide for disability compensation and health compensation for volunteers that were working on emergencies and disasters. If that passes, these people would be covered under that. If the legislation is not passed, then he doesn't know of any current insurance and disability for volunteer emergency workers. He said he thinks some agencies like the Red Cross and Salvation Army have it, but as a general rule, it's not the case. CHAIR COGHILL asked if the section on liability immunity has been tested in the courts. MR. LIEBERSBACH answered that he doesn't believe it has been tested in courts. Number 1830 MICHAEL MITCHELL, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, testified via teleconference. He stated that he also didn't know of any cases where any of the provisions of the compact have been challenged or tested in court. MR. MITCHELL referred to the question about benefits for volunteers engaged in response under the compact. He noted that Section 1 would tighten up the existing workers' compensation provisions for such volunteers. Currently, they are covered as if they were state employees. This provision would tighten it to require that those volunteers be listed on a roster maintained by the Division of Emergency Services to qualify for the workers' compensation benefits. Number 1955 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report HB 323 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 323 was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|