Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/28/1995 03:05 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 28, 1995
1:30 P.M.
TAPE HFC 95-33, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 95-33, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 95-34, Side 1, #000 - 302.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Martin
Co-Chair Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Brown Representative Navarre
Representative Grussendorf Representative Parnell
Representative Kelly Representative Therriault
Representative Kohring
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Ramona Barnes; Marveen Coggins, Staff,
Representative Toohey; Sharon Barton, Director, Division of
Administrative Services, Department of Administration;
Victoria Lord, Ketchikan Arts Council; Molly Jones; Mary
Ostrowski, Fairbanks; Kathleen Wedemeyer, Fairbanks; Andrew
Grose, President, Council of State Governments; Tim Wilson,
Director, Alaska State Council on the Arts; Wanda Chin,
Fairbanks; Pete Bitsiot; Charlotte Van Zant King; Mike
Anderson, Cordova; Joan Jackson, Member, Alaska State
Council on the Arts; Patricia Wolf, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 92 An Act extending the termination date of the
Citizens' Review Panel for Permanency Planning;
and providing for an effective date.
HB 92 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note
by the House Finance Committee for the Department
of Administration.
HB 106 An Act relating to art in public places
requirements and the art in public places fund.
HB 106 was HELD in Committee for further
1
discussion.
HJR 20 Relating to unfunded federal mandates and the
Conference of the States.
CSHJR 20 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note
by the Legislative Affairs Agency, 2/1/95; and
with a zero fiscal note by the Office of the
Governor, dated 2/1/95.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20
Relating to unfunded federal mandates and the
Conference of the States.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES, sponsor of HJR 20, spoke in
support of the legislation. She observed that HJR 20
authorizes the State of Alaska to send an official
delegation to a Conference of the States to be held during
1996. The Conference will be the first formal meeting of
the fifty states since 1786. Delegates from all fifty
states will debate and vote on an action plan designed to
restore checks and balances between the states and the
federal government. The action plan will be forwarded to
individual states for approval. The plan will not be
binding.
Representative Barnes maintained that the Conference will
receive national and international media attention. The
Conference will take place no longer than nine months after
resolutions are passed by 26 states. She noted that a dozen
states have already approved resolutions. She stated that
similar resolutions are under consideration in most state
legislatures.
Representative Barnes explained that under the terms of the
Resolution the Governor and four legislators, two from each
House, would be voting delegates at the Conference. She
observed that the Council of State Governments, the National
Council of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the National
Governor's Association are coordinating the Conference. She
asserted that the Conference is supported by all political
parties and the Knowles Administration.
Representative Barnes referred to a legal opinion by Tamara
Cook, Director, Division of Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, dated February 28, 1995. Ms. Cook stated
that "HJR 20 itself does not call for a constitutional
convention... the Conference itself does not amount to a
constitutional convention because it was not called by
Congress and the required number of states have not applied
2
to Congress for a convention."
Representative Barnes asserted that an amendment made by the
House State Affairs Committee, on page 3, lines 18 - 24,
needs to be removed in order to allow the Resolution to
conform to resolutions passed by other states. The language
was added to clarify that Alaska's participation in the
Conference of the States is not interpreted or construed to
be consent by the State as an application for a
constitutional convention or for the purpose of amending the
Constitution of the United States.
Representative Mulder observed that the Committee could
adopt the original version of HJR 20.
Representative Navarre asked if the addition of the American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) would substantially
change the bill. Representative Barnes assured him that the
addition of ALEC would not substantially change the bill in
the same way as language added by the House State Affairs
Committee.
Representative Barnes noted that she is on the NCSL
Executive Committee. She observed that ALEC is considered
the conservative arm of national legislators. She stressed
that inclusion of ALEC would allay fears by some
conservative elements that participation in the Conference
would initiate a Constitutional Convention.
Representative Parnell stated that he had worked with the
sponsor on an amendment to add the American Legislative
Exchange Council to HJR 20. He noted that ALEC was founded
in 1973 by a small group of Democratic and Republican state
legislators who shared a common commitment to the
Jeffersonian principles of free enterprise, limited
government and individual liberty. It is the nation's
largest bipartisan association of state legislators. He
noted that ALEC has had a State's Sovereignty Committee and
has dealt specifically with unfunded federal mandates and
restoration of state authority.
Representative Brown referred to back-up material, "Unfunded
Mandates" (copy on file). Representative Barnes noted that
the material was produced by the Republican National
Committee.
ANDREW GROSE, PRESIDENT, WESTERN OFFICE, COUNCIL OF STATE
GOVERNMENTS testified in support of HJR 20. He observed
that the Council of State Governments will be the convening
authority if resolutions are passed by 26 state legislatures
in substantially similar form. He discussed the purposes of
the Conference. He suggested that the Conference is
3
designed to be a formal but nonlegal process. He maintained
that there is no legal opinion that suggests that the
Conference of the States has any authority to turn itself
into a constitutional convention. He pointed out that even
if the Conference were a constitutional convention that
three-fours of the states would have to ratify any
constitutional changes adopted.
Representative Grussendorf questioned if language stating
that the Conference is not a call for a constitutional
convention would prevent the Resolution from conforming to
resolutions from other states. Mr. Grose did not think that
the inclusion of language stating that the Conference is not
a call for a constitutional convention would prevent the
Resolution from sufficiently conforming to resolutions
adopted by other states.
Representative Brown asked if other groups, such as the
Women Legislator's Lobby or the National Order of Women
Legislators have been invited to participate. Mr. Grose
stated that ALEC is the only group, outside of those
included in the Resolution, that has come forward to ask for
a formal role in the Conference. He noted that the Steering
Committee decided not to formally invite member
organizations. Membership in the three organizations that
are formally invited are paid by state dues.
Mr. Grose emphasized that the decision of which
organizations will be invited to provide input will be made
during the first organizational meeting.
In response to a question by Representative Kohring, Mr.
Grose explained that the registration fee will be adequate
to cover the cost of the Conference. Legislators will be
expected to pay for their travel and accommodations.
Representative Kohring spoke in support of HJR 20.
KATHLEEN WEDEMEYER, FAIRBANKS testified via the
teleconference network. She expressed concern that the
Conference could become a run-away convention. She stressed
that there is no formal structure, rules or process in place
for the Conference. She maintained that the Conference is a
violation of the legislative process. She asserted that the
process will be expensive.
MARY OSTRAWSKI, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference
network. She claimed that there is a risk that the
Conference of the States could become a constitutional
convention.
Representative Barnes reiterated that there is no way that
4
the Conference can become a constitutional convention.
Representative Mulder stressed the importance of state's
rights. He suggested that the Conference can press the
state's rights issue. He asserted that the State of Alaska
has more to gain from the Conference than other states.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report HJR 20 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Grussendorf OBJECTED.
Representative Brown pointed out that information contained
in the back-up material "Unfunded Mandates", in regards to
Anchorage's sewer system, is not accurate. Representative
Barnes discussed the material. She emphasized that the
material was included as examples of unfunded mandates.
Representative Barnes stressed that there is no intent by
Congress to act on unfunded mandates that are already in
place. She maintained that unfunded federal mandates have
tremendous effects on the State of Alaska.
Representative Brown stated that she was unable to identify
any federal mandates that are unfunded. She noted that the
State of Alaska has placed an unfunded mandate on
municipalities in the form of the Senior Citizens Property
Tax Rebate Program.
LEONARD EFTA, KENAI testified via the teleconference
network. He spoke in opposition to HJR 20. He stated that
there should be no federal mandates.
SEYMOUR MILLS, KENAI testified via the teleconference
network. He spoke against federal mandates. He testified
in opposition to HJR 20.
Representative Grussendorf noted that members of the public
are concerned that the Conference may lead to a
constitutional convention. He spoke in support of adopting
the House State Affairs version of HJR 20. Representative
Barnes noted that the amendment adopted by the House State
Affairs Committee was based on a resolution passed by the
State of Colorado. Representative Kelly spoke in support of
the House State Affairs version.
Representative Barnes stressed that she has been lead to
believe that the Resolution must conform to language adopted
by twenty six states.
(Tape Change, HFC 95-33, Side 2)
5
Representative Mulder expressed concern that subjects for
conversation at the conference not be limited. He stressed
that the Resolution conform to those passed by other states.
He spoke in support of the original Resolution.
Representative Grussendorf emphasized that CSHJR 20 (STA)
clarifies that the Resolution is not an application for a
constitutional convention. He maintained that dialogue
would not be limited by the Resolution. Representative
Barnes stressed that she did not object to the amendment
added by the House State Affairs Committee. She stated that
her concern is that the Resolution conform sufficiently with
resolutions from other states. A roll call vote was taken
on the MOTION to adopt HJR 20.
IN FAVOR: Mulder, Parnell, Kohring, Foster, Hanley
OPPOSED: Navarre, Therriault, Brown, Grussendorf, Kelly
Representative Martin was absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (5-5).
Representative Parnell stated that he would not move to
adopt an amendment to include ALEC.
Representative Brown suggested that language be added to the
analysis section of the accompanying fiscal note to indicate
that participating state legislatures will be asked to
appropriate a small amount of money to pay the actual cost
of the Conference.
Representative Barnes observed that registration fees are
paid through the Legislative Council. She asserted that the
fiscal note, by the Legislative Affairs Agency, of $11.0
thousand dollars is adequate.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHJR (STA) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHJR 20 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the
Legislative Affairs Agency, 2/1/95; and with a zero fiscal
note by the Office of the Governor, dated 2/1/95.
HOUSE BILL NO. 92
"An Act extending the termination date of the Citizens'
Review Panel for Permanency Planning; and providing for
an effective date."
6
MARVEEN COGGINS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY testified in
support of HB 92. She noted that legislation creating a
system for external citizen review of child welfare case
plans was passed by the State of Alaska in 1990. She
observed that the 1980 Federal Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act requires that a case plan be developed for
children in foster care and that the plan be reviewed
periodically. She maintained that foster care placement is
intended as a short term solution to an emergency situation
of abuse or neglect. She stressed that children have become
lost in the foster care, welfare system. She stated that
approximately half a million children pass through state
foster care per month in the United States. She maintained
that citizen review panels help assure that children do not
linger unnecessarily in out-of-home care. There are citizen
review panels in twenty five states. She pointed out that
prior to the creation of citizen review panels only 4.8
percent of children entering foster care left in the first
year. Since citizen review panels became active up to 33
percent of children entering foster care leave within the
first 6 months.
Ms. Coggins noted that the Department of Administration
began implementation of a citizen review panel in 1993 with
a pilot project in Anchorage. An audit by the Division of
Legislative Audit recommended that the sunset date of the
Citizens' Review Panel for Permanency Planning be extended
to 1997. She noted that the legislation is supported by a
variety of groups working with foster children.
SHERRIE GOLL, ALASKA'S WOMEN LOBBY testified in strong
support of HB 92. She noted that there is widespread
support for the Citizens' Review Panel. She pointed to the
success rate of foster care review boards in other states.
In Kentucky a child's average stay in foster care has
dropped from 4.2 to 1.8 years with the institution of review
boards. She noted that in South Carolina the number of
children leaving foster care within the first year rose from
4.8% to 33%. In New Jersey caseloads were reduced from
13,000 to 6,800 children.
Ms. Goll asserted that the Citizens' Review Panel's
effectiveness can be measured by the length of time children
remain in the foster care system. She noted that foster
care payments for each child are $6.9 thousand dollars. She
maintained that the Citizens' Review Panel can assist the
Division of Family and Youth Services with required
administrative review.
Ms. Goll emphasized that the greatest savings is for the
children in foster care. She noted that in Anchorage 86
percent of children who have been in foster care six months
7
will still be in foster care a year after placement. She
stressed that many children in state custody six months have
experienced two or more removals from home. One eleven year
old had twenty documented placements.
Ms. Goll observed that a number of "missing" parents have
been located and re-involved in planning for the child
through the intervention of the Citizens' Review Panel. She
emphasized that Alaska Native heritage is taken into account
by the Panel. Village elders are invited to participate.
Ms. Goll urged the support of continuation and expansion of
the Citizen Review Panel for Permanency Planning. She
maintained that the Panel will result in state savings and
promote a better outcome for children in state custody.
In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Ms. Goll
stressed that effort is made to return children to their
homes. She asserted that the Panel can shed light on a
child's case.
Representative Kelly asked if the system is working. Ms.
Goll observed that the system is overworked, under-funded
and under staffed. She observed that DFYS staff do not have
sufficient computer support.
Representative Brown referred to the January 1995 report
from the Anchorage Citizens' Review Panel. She noted that
they recommend that the total number of cases a DFYS worker
can carry be limited and funding be authorized to reflect
the limits. She spoke in support for continuing the
Citizens' Review Panel for Permanency Planning. She
suggested that panels can help provide oversight and find
real solutions.
SHARON BARTON, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION stated that the Department has requested a
supplemental for FY 95 to continue the program through to
July 1, 1995 or longer if the Legislature decides to extend
the sunset date. She observed that the program was a
legislative initiative in response to the perception that
the system could benefit from public participation. The
Department supports the objectives of the program. She
stated that as the program is currently designed it would
remain based in Anchorage.
Ms. Barton stated that the Department's fiscal note could be
withdrawn. She noted that funding is included in the
Governor's amended budget. Co-Chair Hanley noted that the
program can be extended and funding debated as part of the
budget process.
8
Representative Mulder MOVED to report HB 92 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and with the revised zero
fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 92 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the House
Finance Committee for the Department of Administration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act relating to art in public places requirements
and the art in public places fund."
TIM WILSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA STATE COUNCIL ON THE
ARTS testified in opposition to HB 106. He maintained that
the Percent for Art program is a fiscally conservative. He
noted that funding is tied directly to eligible projects in
the capital budget. He observed that seven programs are
currently active in the Percent for Art program, totaling
$948,862 thousand dollars. He maintained that the program
does not add to the cost of capital projects. Repeal of the
program is not anticipated to result in a decrease in
capital budget costs. There are no administrative costs
associated with the program. He observed that projects are
controlled by the department constructing the facility or
building.
Mr. Wilson discussed the Percent for Art program process.
He emphasized the community nature of Percent for Art
projects. He observed that 90 percent of the projects
funded are in schools. Projects average $80.0 thousand
dollars with 4 - 6 separate commissions. A committee is
convened to select projects. Committees can consist of
representatives of the building department, users of the
building, architects, artists and members of the public. He
stressed that children are often involved in the selection
and execution of art in schools.
Mr. Wilson noted that the Governor opposes HB 106. He noted
that the Program creates jobs for artists and others
associated with the installation of the work. He maintained
that projects enrich the public environment. He emphasized
that projects reflect the culture, spirit and dreams of
people of the State of Alaska.
MIKE ANDERSON, CORDOVA testified via the teleconference
network. He testified in opposition to HB 106. He stated
that he has been involved in Percent for Art projects
through construction, teaching and as an artist. He
emphasized that art is useful in education and represents
our cultural heritage.
9
JOAN JACKSON, MEMBER, ALASKA STATE COUNCIL OF THE ARTS
testified via the teleconference network from Cordova. Ms.
Jackson created murals seen in the lobby of the State
Capital. She stressed that art gives identity to buildings.
She stressed that artists maintained the human scale and
heritage. She observed that tourists enjoy viewing Alaskan
culture through art.
Co-Chair Hanley questioned if Ms. Jackson would support an
amendment to only allow Alaskan artists to participate. Ms.
Jackson and Mr. Anderson stated that they would support a
limitation to allow only Alaskan artists to participate.
WANDA CHIN, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference
network. She spoke in opposition to HB 106. She asked that
the legislation remain in Committee. She denied that there
is an economic advantage to the legislation. She stressed
that respect needs to be shown to the artistic interface.
She observed that users decide which project is most
appropriate.
CHARLOTTE VAN ZANT KING, FAIRBANKS testified via the
teleconference network. She testified in opposition to HB
106. She stated that she has participated in 10 Percent for
Art Commissions since 1979. She did not think that the
legislation would save the state money. She stressed that
most projects are in schools, chosen by Alaskans and
completed by Alaskans. She stated that approximately 900
Alaskan artists are on the Council's Percent for Art mailing
list. She noted that the Percent for Art is calculated
after architecture and design fees have been removed. She
suggested that money not spent on art would be added to the
contractor's fee.
(Tape Change, HFC 95-34, Side 1)
Ms. Van Zant King emphasized that projects provide a boost
to the economy. She noted that children benefit from having
artists in the schools during the installation of projects.
VICTORIA LORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KETCHIKAN ARTS AND
HUMANITIES COUNCIL testified via the teleconference network.
She spoke in opposition to HB 106. She noted that residents
of Ketchikan enjoy public art that are the result of the
Percent for Art program. She gave examples of public art
projects in Ketchikan. She listed artists that have
participated in the program. She noted that the Ketchikan
Arts and Humanities Council is assisting in the selection of
works for the Ketchikan High School. The process is in its
third year. She stressed that art connects buildings to the
community. She emphasized that projects represent the
10
cultural heritage of the community. She noted that one
artist spent a week installing art in the Ketchikan High
School. While installing his commission the artist gave
serveral presentations to science and art classes. She
noted the enthusiasm of children for the artist's
presentation and presence during the installation.
Ms. Lord maintained that some public buildings have escaped
the program through loop holes. She detailed buildings in
Ketchikan that were not subject to the Percent for Art
Program. She urged the Committee to vote against HB 106.
PATRICIA WOLF, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference
network. She testified in opposition to HB 106. She noted
that the Municipality of Anchorage established a Percent for
Art program which is administered at the Anchorage Museum.
She gave examples of projects in Anchorage. She compared
art in public buildings to museums without walls. She
stressed the value of integrating art into people's daily
lives. She suggested that the program can be improved with
more effective administration.
MOLLY JONES, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference
network. She noted that she manages Anchorage's Percent for
Art program. She observed that funding for public art is
tied to construction activity. She noted that the majority
of projects have been in schools. She gave examples of the
variety of projects commissioned in schools. She observed
that over 400 people have volunteered to serve on selection
committees for the municipal program. She observed that
Alaska was one of the first states in the nation to pass
mandatory percent for art legislation.
HB 106 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
11
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|