Legislature(2001 - 2002)
01/24/2002 03:34 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 235-EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT
WAYNE RUSH from the division of emergency services in the
Department of Military Affairs informed the committee he is the
homeland security coordinator for the department.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked Mr. Rush if he was going to address the
bill in general and highlight the amendments afterwards.
MR. RUSH replied he would prefer to address the bill in general
then allow Mr. Mike Mitchell with the Department of Law to
address the specifics.
He explained SB 235 appeals the outdated interstate civil defense
and disaster compact, which is currently contained in AS
26.23.120 and replaces it with the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact (EMAC). This is a more current and universally
accepted agreement that facilitates disaster assistance among
member states.
Additionally, SB 235 updates AS 23.30.244 to provide worker
compensation to disaster volunteers who perform duties in another
state under EMAC and those who perform duties in Alaska under the
division of emergency services.
EMAC allows states to assist one another during times of
emergency by sending personnel and equipment for disaster relief.
It establishes a legal foundation for EMAC requests to be legally
binding so that a state that asks for help is responsible for
reimbursing all out of state costs and is liable for out of state
personnel. Those states that send aid are protected against
incurring any associated financial burden or obligation. It is
also made clear that EMAC member states are not required to send
assistance if their resources and circumstances don't allow them
to do so.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National
Governor's Association, Western Governor's Association, the
National Guard and a number of other organizations endorse the
Congressionally approved EMAC and 41 states are members.
Although Alaska is capable of handling many emergencies, there
are times when disasters exceed local and state resources and
outside assistance is required. Typically this assistance comes
from federal agencies through FEMA but disasters that don't
qualify for a presidential disaster declaration are not eligible.
In those instances, EMAC would step in and provide a means to
receive interstate assistance. Even when federal assistance is
merited, EMAC assistance may be more readily available and cost
effective or it may be supplemental to federal assistance.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked for the history of EMAC.
MR. RUSH replied it began as an association of southern states in
1996.
SENATOR PHILLIPS then asked why Alaska hasn't already joined
EMAC.
MR. RUSH said the process was begun some time ago but wasn't high
priority until after the September 11 attack occurred. Also,
Alaska has been a member to the mutual aid agreement called the
Pacific Northwest Emergency Management Arrangement since 1994 and
that has provided some measure of security. In addition to
Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, British Columbia and the Yukon
are members. However, in light of the terrorist attack on
September 11, the scope of protection should be expanded.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT observed the majority of the text in the bill
deals with EMAC while section 5 deals with repeal of existing
sections of AS 26. He then asked if there were any other
questions.
SENATOR STEVENS asked for an explanation of the reimbursement
mechanism between states specifically when federal disaster aid
is not merited.
MR. RUSH responded that the state that requests assistance would
reimburse the state that provides assistance, "so by signing the
agreement ahead of time, this then becomes a legal document and
the mechanisms for that don't have to be worked out during the
throes of a disaster."
SENATOR STEVENS asked if payment comes after the assistance is
provided.
MR. RUSH said that is correct.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT clarified that a member state governor who
requests assistance would know that payment is obligatory and
that negations would not be necessary.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the agreement is open ended.
MR. RUSH responded there would be no cost incurred unless a
disaster occurs and assistance is requested from another state or
if another state requests assistance from Alaska.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if it is entirely at the discretion of the
governor to provide the requested assistance.
MR. RUSH said, "If available, the governor could agree to provide
the assistance that's requested."
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT then asked for an explanation of the worker
compensation section.
MR. RUSH explained that AS 23.30.244 currently says an Alaskan
resident that is temporarily engaged in a civil defense or
disaster relief function in another state or country is
considered an employee of the State of Alaska under the current
interstate civil defense compact, 26.23.130. This is both vague
and general and the change makes the law more explicit. It says
that residents of Alaska who are volunteers serving in another
state or country and suffer injury or death may receive
compensation if they are members of a state certified defense
force that is registered with the division of emergency services.
In addition, they must be providing services under the provisions
of EMAC and not otherwise covered. Those volunteers that are
residents of Alaska and serving in the state who suffer death or
injury must be registered, not otherwise covered, serving under a
state disaster declaration and not be an employee of state
federal or local government.
The proposed legislation better protects both the individual and
the state by clearly defining the conditions of eligibility for
injury and death benefits for disaster volunteers that are
serving either in or out of state.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT commented the control mechanism comes from
linking a state resident that is serving out of state to the
EMAC. Also, anyone volunteering to help on a disaster must be
part of a state-certified emergency force whose services were
requested.
He asked whether the wording on page 2, line 9 that says, "(1)
the volunteer is an active roster civilian volunteer member of an
emergency service organization…" is tight enough so all will know
they must be performing duties under the auspice of that
organization. He gave an example of a registered Red Cross
volunteer moving on to lend aid in an area for which they aren't
specifically assigned or authorized. If injured, would this
person be covered because they are on the active duty membership
list?
MR. MITCHELL, Department of Law, responded via teleconference and
said the question is valid; it is unclear whether it is services
at the direction of the division of emergency services or simply
services in the course of the disaster emergency.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT thought it should be clear that individuals
would be covered when they are working under the auspices of a
bona fide emergency services organization and they are performing
duties they have been tasked to do. Duties an individual may
decide to do on their own are not covered. He thought (1) and (2)
could be reworded to make that more clear.
MR. MITCHELL agreed they could work together to modify the
language.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether the Pacific Northwest Management
Arrangement member states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho are
members of EMAC.
MR. RUSH said Washington and Idaho are members and Oregon is not.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked how that fit with EMAC plans.
MR. RUSH replied one of the provisions of EMAC is there may be
supplementary agreements that EMAC neither negates nor prohibits.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether Oregon is in the process of
joining.
MR. RUSH didn't have an answer.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked how membership with British Columbia and
Yukon would affect EMAC.
MR. RUSH said the relationship would not be affected. Under the
existing agreement, Alaska would be able to provide assistance to
British Columbia and the Yukon.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT observed the fiscal note indicates no new
expense associated with the new compact and, due to
clarification, he thought there might be the potential for fewer
worker compensation claims. He asked whether the state is self
insured for such claims under the current system or does it pay
into the current worker compensation system.
MR. RUSH said he wasn't qualified to answer that question.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he could get clarification on that
before the next hearing.
He asked Mr. Mitchell to address the technical amendments.
MR. MITCHELL said the first technical amendment refers to page 2,
line 13. Following "under" insert "AS 26.20.040 or." There are
two separate emergency response chapters in the statutes. AS
26.20 provides for civil defense response and AS 26.23 provides
for disaster response.
The second amendment refers to page 9, line 30. Following
"chapter" delete ", other than AS 26.23.136 [AS 26.23.130]," and
insert "[, OTHER THAN AS 26.23.130]," The old compact would be
repealed by this bill but the new EMAC would apply in case of
civil defense emergencies.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for clarification on the second
amendment. He thought the current wording put in the new section
AS 26.23.136, which is the new language referring to the compact
and drops the old statutory reference, which is the section that
is deleted by Section 5.
MR. MITCHELL said that is how the bill is written and the result
of that would be that EMAC would not apply in disasters under AS
26.23 and this is directly contrary to what they are trying to
accomplish. They want it to apply in disasters, which is why they
need the technical amendment.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT announced they would be working with the
department to incorporate the amendments into a proposed CS on
the bill.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked if the other 41 states are using this same
model for their agreement.
MR. RUSH said other states have adopted the model but he would
need to find out what small changes they have made.
SENATOR PHILLIPS wanted to make sure that Alaska's unique
geographic needs and conditions are met.
MR. RUSH said he would address the question.
SENATOR STEVENS asked how many states have signed since September
11.
MR. RUSH didn't know the exact number, but New York State has
since signed.
MR. MITCHELL added that according to the web site, there are 44
states that have signed with New Jersey, New York and Michigan
signing after September 11. He also pointed out that the site
www.nemaweb.org offers some background information on the EMAC.
There were no further questions or individuals to testify.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT held SB 235 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|