Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/03/1999 01:55 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
March 3, 1999
1:55 P.M.
TAPE HFC 99 - 32, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 99 - 32, Side 2.
TAPE HFC 99 - 33, Side 1.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mulder called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:55 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Mulder Representative G. Davis
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Grussendorf
Vice-Chair Bunde Representative Foster
Representative Austerman Representative Kohring
Representative J. Davies Representative Williams
Representative Moses was absent from the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Barbara Ritchie, Deputy Director, Department of Law; Dean
Guaneli, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law; Kathryn Daughtee, Director,
Division of Administrative Services, Department of Law;
Alison Elgee, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Administration; Sharon Barton, Director, Division of
Administrative Services, Department of Administration.
TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE
Barbara Brink, Director, Public Defender Agency; Brant
McGee, Public Advocate, Office of Public Advocacy.
SUMMARY
HB 100 "An Act making and amending capital, supplemental,
and other appropriations, and appropriations to
capitalize funds; ratifying certain expenditures;
and providing for an effective date."
HB 100 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 100
"An Act making and amending capital, supplemental, and
other appropriations, and appropriations to capitalize
funds; ratifying certain expenditures; and providing
for an effective date."
Members were provided with a memorandum dated March 3, 1999,
from the Office of Management and Budget, requesting three
amendments to HB 100 (copy on file).
Amend Section 4 as follows to reflect two cases removed
because of appeals and three cases added:
*Sec. 4. JUDGMENTS AND CLAIMS. The sum of $1,883,30
[$2,110,200] is appropriated to the
Department of Law to pay judgments and claims against
the state for the fiscal year ending June 3 0, 1999,
from the following sources:
General fund 1,868,00
[2,094,900]
Public employees retirement fund 15,300
Amend Section 7 to read
.
*Sec. 7. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS.
The sum of $1,400,000
[$1,700,000] is appropriated from the power cost
equalization and rural electric capitalization fund (AS
42.45. 100) to the Department of Community and Regional
Affairs for the power cost equalization program for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999.
Amend Section 20, page 22, and line 17 as follows:
MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS.
DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION
Fish and Game $1,600.40
[$1,120.40]
Section 4. JUDGMENTS AND CLAIMS.
BARABARA RITCHIE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
discussed judgments and claims. Ms. Ritchie provided members
with a list of the judgements and claims against the state
of Alaska, as of 3/2/99 (copy on file). She noted that most
of the judgments are out of the Civil Division. A few items
are from the Criminal Division. A memorandum from Annalee
McConnell, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Office
of the Governor, dated 3/3/99 clarified that two cases are
being removed because they are under appeal and three small
child support cases were added (copy on file). She noted
that the amended number is $1,868,000 million dollars.
Ms. Ritchie noted that the Committee also received a letter
from Senator Parnell, dated 2/26/99 in response to questions
asked in the Senate Finance Committee (copy on file).
Co-Chair Mulder asked Ms. Ritchie to discuss claims or
judgements over $10 thousand dollars.
Ms. Ritchie discussed item 6, Robert Boyd v. State,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities - $175
thousand dollars. She explained that the complaint occurred
as the result of a dismissal. She explained that the issue
was not the actual discharge of the employee, but the manner
in which it was handled. He was removed from two different
jobs. The performance evaluation process was a problem with
how the employee was treated. He was a senior level
employee. One of the significant legal issues was the
evaluation process. She discussed the employees' evaluation
process. Mr. Boyd was unemployed for 90 weeks. His total
claim was $1.8 million dollars. The case was settled at $175
thousand dollars. Interest was added to this amount.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if steps have been taken to make
commissioners aware of how employees should be terminated.
Ms. Ritchie noted that training is being provided to
eliminate similar problems in the future. She noted that
employment law is an area of growth. There is an array of
laws that cover employee issues.
Representative Bunde questioned what the state policy is for
a manager that does not follow state policy. Ms. Ritchie
explained that individuals are sometimes sued, along with
the state, in their official capacity or individual
capacity. Punitive damages cannot be granted against the
state of Alaska. The state, as a rule, does not compensate
someone if they are awarded punitive damages against them.
The facts are reviewed. If the defendant took action toward
someone that was not within the scope of their employment
the state would not defend them or compensate them for any
action taken against them.
Co-Chair Mulder asked for information on claim number 4,
Trustees for Alaska Kachemak Bay Conservation Society v.
state of Alaska. Ms. Ritchie noted that this was a challenge
to oil and gas lease sale 85(a). She explained that the
Superior Court issued a decision on lease sale 78, while
this case was pending. This decision concluded that the
Department of Natural Resources needed to take a closer look
at accumulative effects of oil and gas leases. The
Department of Natural Resources did not take an accumulative
look at the effect of lease sale 85(a). The local coastal
policy council had looked at accumulative effects. The
Department of Natural Resources took the determination from
the local coastal body and applied it in making a
consistency determination and a best interest finding. The
plaintiffs were found to be public interest litigants. They
were awarded 100 percent of their legal fees. They sought
$60 thousand dollars in attorney fees. The Department of Law
negotiated this amount down to $39 thousand dollars by
agreeing outside of court to an apportionment of the fees to
the different issues.
Co-Chair Mulder asked how the statutes could clarified the
state's intent in regards to public interest litigants and
the overall impact to the state of Alaska. He pointed out
that future lease sales could be endangered. Ms. Ritchie
noted that the Department of Natural Resources would make
their own independent consistency determination to make sure
they comply with the court ruling.
Representative Williams asked how the interest is paid. Ms.
Ritchie clarified that it would be from the general fund.
Co-Chair Therriault explained that if money was taken out of
the general fund and put into a note for interest it would
still be a general fund appropriation. The general fund does
incur interest.
Co-Chair Mulder asked what would happen if the state did not
pay one of the claims. Ms. Ritchie explained that the
settlement would fall apart and the case would be re-
litigated. She observed that someone holding a judgement
cannot execute against state property. She noted that
departments do not have funding set aside to pay judgements.
Ms. Ritchie discussed Muhammed Khan v. State - $500 thousand
dollars. She noted that this is a judgement that was entered
by federal court. Mr. Khan claimed that his layoff was not
legitimate and that he had been discriminated against while
employed by the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.
There were a number of workers that submitted depositions
which detail instances of discrimination. He was laid off
during reductions. She observed that layoffs due to budget
cuts need to be documented in regards to why the position
was reduced. Mr. Khan had also entered a grievance. The
arbitrator found that the department had failed to
demonstrate that it had a legitimate financial reason for
laying off Mr. Khan. He also had a proceeding pending before
the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission
substantiated his complaints. The case was brought to
federal court since it was a discrimination case. The trial
had begun when a settlement was reached. He received full
attorney fees since it was a discrimination case. The
judgement is not contingent on other funding.
Representative Bunde asked if the defendant is still
employed by the state. Ms. Ritchie stated that none of the
defendants in the case are employed by the state.
Representative Bunde referred to the letter by Attorney
General Bruce Botelho, dated 2/26/99. He observed that the
letter states that it might be helpful for managers to
receive more training. Ms. Ritchie explained that the letter
reflects that there is no way to ensure against employment
cases.
Ms. Ritchie discussed item 8, Earthjustice Legal Defense
Fund Inc., Weiss v. State - $456,225.08 thousand dollars and
item 9, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Inc., Alaska
Environmental Center v. Weiss - $1,299.61 thousand dollars.
She observed that Weiss v. State was the Alaska Mental
Health Trust lands case. The settlement is payable to a
group of environmental organizations that filed in the Weiss
case as intervenors. She discussed the history of the case.
She observed that the intervenors opposed the first
settlement. The judge denied approval of the settlement and
did not award attorney fees to the environmental groups
because they were not the prevailing party. She explained
that the new settlement was approved in 1994 and the Weiss
case was dismissed. The Superior Court denied attorney fees.
There was an appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court reversed the Superior Court's ruling. It found that
since the settlement was denied the environmental groups
were the prevailing party. The case was remanded to
determine the amount of attorney fees. They were viewed as
public interest litigants. The state argued that it would be
improper to award fees on time spent lobbying the
legislation. The Superior Court did not apportion fees. The
total attorney fees were reduced by almost $35 thousand
dollars. Attorney fees were awarded at $456,225.08 thousand
dollars.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if the Alaska Mental Health Trust Fund
should pay for the attorney fees. Ms. Ritchie observed that
it would be problematic to use that funding source.
Co-Chair Mulder expressed concern that the public interest
status attorney fees were awarded to a public interest group
that he felt had to stretch to make a public interest.
Representative J. Davies maintained that it is not a big
stretch for people concerned about the disposal of large
acres of public land to have an interest in the disposal.
Co-Chair Mulder pointed out that they were not the affected
party. Representative J. Davies disagreed. Co-Chair
Therriault noted they were not the main party. Ms. Ritchie
stressed that the state argued that they were not the
essential party to the case.
Co-Chair Mulder stressed that the environmental groups did
not win the court case. They were not the affected party.
Ms. Ritchie noted that the state also made the argument that
the environmental groups were not the prevailing party. Co-
Chair Therriault expressed concern that the case invites
intervenors. He asked if the environmental groups had to be
approved as a class. Ms. Ritchie did not think that they had
to be a class.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if "public interest litigants" is
defined in state or federal law. Ms. Ritchie explained that
Court Rule 82 addresses attorney fees. The Alaska Supreme
Court developed a doctrine regarding public interest
litigants in 1974. Fees are not awarded against a public
interest litigant. However, if a public interest litigant
wins a case they are awarded attorney fees. The intent of
the court was to encourage lawyers to initiate cases without
a strong economic interest that would effectuate strong
public policies and benefit numerous people. She discussed
the determination of public interest litigants.
Representative J. Davies pointed out that the attorney fees
do not go to the group.
Ms. Ritchie discussed item 10, Newton v. State - $100
thousand dollars. She noted that the case was based on a
federal whistle blower complaint brought against the state
Department of Labor. Mr. Newton was an electrical inspector
assigned to the joint pipeline office. He was laid off in
1996 due to budget reasons. He alleged that his layoff was
the result of his raising concerns regarding electrical
hazards on the pipeline. The case was filed as a federal
complaint with the US Department of Labor. There were 17
witnesses disposed in the case. The testimony demonstrated
that there were reasons that his termination would
problematic. She noted that the attorney fees alone would
have been greater than $100 thousand dollars.
(Tape Change, HFC 99 - 32, Side 2)
Ms. Ritchie explained that the treatment of whistle blowers
by the Alaska pipeline was problematic.
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW discussed item 15, Perkins Cole,
Cleary v. Smith - $17,751.75 thousand dollars and item 16,
Rice, Volland, Taylor, Cleary v. Smith - $37,034.16 thousand
dollars. He noted that litigation relating to the Cleary
case is being reduced as overcrowding is reduced. He
observed that the amount was less than previous years. The
fact that many of the issues have been resolved, especially
in regards to overcrowding, are reflected in lower attorney
fees.
Co-Chair Mulder asked how much has been paid to Mr. Volland
and if litigation would continue. Mr. Guaneli responded that
Mr. Volland has only been paid a few hundred thousand
dollars.
Mr. Guaneli discussed item 17, Verne Explained Rupright v.
Burton - $9,497.51 thousand dollars. He explained that item
17 was a challenge to the Sex Offender Registration Act. He
explained that the case was remanded to the Superior Court
from the Court of Appeals.
Co-Chair Mulder asked what happened to the case after it was
remanded.
Mr. Guaneli explained that it was refilled in Superior
Court. He noted that there is a lot of sex offender
litigation awaiting in the Superior Court and the Alaska
Supreme Court. Co-Chair Mulder observed that the state did
not lose the underlying case. The state lost the case based
on the right of the individual to file anonymously.
Ms. Ritchie discussed item 18, Robert H. Wagstaff, Howard
Bess v. Fran Ulmer - $11,623.27 thousand dollars. She
explained that the case occurred as a result of the same sex
marriage amendment. The court awarded $11,623,.27 thousand
dollars in attorney fees. Co-Chair Mulder asked the basis of
the court's decision. Ms. Ritchie explained that the court
found that there were prevailing parties. The court did not
breakout the parties. The court was urged not to expedite
the case. There was a simultaneous briefing schedule. The
Alaska Supreme Court has not issued their final decision.
The same sex marriage amendment was modified and the
prisoner's rights amendment was stricken.
Ms. Ritchie discussed item 22, Lee Holen Law Office, Minder
v. State - $94,533.66 thousand dollars. She explained that
it is another employment case. The issue involved a layoff.
Mr. Minder alleged that he was discriminated against as a
whistle blower and that he was wrongfully discharged. She
observed that it could be difficult to prove that a
discharge was not the result of whistle blower actions. She
emphasized the need to carefully document that the layoff
was the result of a specific budget reduction.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the legislature needs to
identify positions that would be reduced. Ms. Ritchie
stressed that there are only 5 cases among the thousands of
employees that are eliminated. She did not think that there
is a huge pervasive problem. Co-Chair Therriault expressed
concern that the five cases resulted in a cost to the state.
Ms. Ritchie stated that training relating to how layoffs
should be documented is the best insurance that layoffs
would not result in liability.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that any employee that has run
afoul of budget reductions could save himself or herself by
becoming whistle blowers and claiming that they were laid
off as the result. He questioned if agencies would be
removed from retaliation if the legislature identified which
positions should be eliminated. Ms. Ritchie stated that
legislative identification would not solve the problem.
Representative Austerman did not think the state could get
around the problem. Representative J. Davies noted that the
legislature is not immune from a lawsuit.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if employees are being encouraged
to initiate whistle-blowing actions if they think their
position is about to be eliminated. Representative J. Davies
emphasized that the facts have to substantiate the claim.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned how determinations are made.
He asked if they are based on economics or the ability to
win the case. Ms. Ritchie stated that all factors are used
in making a determination of which cases should go to trial.
There is a settlement committee that evaluates cases. If a
lawyer has a case they must go to the settlement committee
to have the case reviewed. She referred to the Brockman
case, item 23.
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
discussed item 25, Claim of Gaylene's Word Services against
the Alaska Court System. He explained that the Alaska Court
System must transcribe a large number of proceedings. The
transcription function was privatized. A contractor filed a
contractor claim that they were not paid as much as they
felt that they should be paid.
Representative Bunde questioned why they felt that they were
not paid enough. Mr. Christensen explained that there were
several contractors and items were moved around between
contractors. The contractor felt that she did not receive
the amount of work that she should have. There was also a
dispute over accuracy.
Mr. Christensen noted that the claim was settled at .10
cents on the dollar.
Representative J. Davies observed that there was a number of
Child Support Enforcement Division cases and asked if there
were any recommendations regarding these cases. Ms. Ritchie
did not have any recommendations.
Representative Austerman observed that the judgements are
from 1998. He asked if there is an average annual amount of
claims and judgements against the state. Ms. Ritchie stated
that she would compared other years. She stated that lawyers
are instructed to keep them informed about cases that could
result in large claims or judgements against the state.
KATHRYN DAUGHTEE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF LAW observed that the FY99 amount is
lower than other years. In response to a question by
Representative Austerman, Ms. Ritchie clarified that the
appropriation amount is up to date. There are about 80,000
open cases. She felt that the department's success rate is
good.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 6(a)
The sum of $35,000 is appropriated from statutory
designated program receipts to the Department of
Administration, division of finance, for additional
operating costs for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1999.
SHARON BARTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION discussed section
6(a). The appropriation is for travel savings analysis. She
stressed that travel has been kept to a minimum.
Representative Bunde questioned if the state could use a
credit card that accrues mileage to pay for travel.
ALISON ELGEE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION explained that the state of Alaska
competitively bid credit card services in the same manner as
other state procurement services. The state of Alaska has a
procurement card with the 1st Bank of Chicago that was bid
in conjunction with the University of Alaska. It is
currently being used in a limited way, the Department of
Administration hopes to roll out a procure card program
later in the spring.
SECTION 6(b)
The sum of $100,000 is appropriated from the surplus
property revolving fund (AS 44.68.130)(c) to the
Department of Administration, property management
program, for additional operating costs for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1999.
Ms. Elgee explained that $100 thousand dollars would be
appropriated for environmental assessment of a ground oil
spill in the Bethel region. The spill occurred on property
that belonged to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The state of
Alaska is involved as an intermediary for the federal
government in the transfer of the surplus fuel oil. The
surplus oil was sold to Bethel for .10 cents a gallon.
During the transfer a valve was left open and oil spilled
into the ground. The case is currently under litigation and
the assessment is necessary to determine the extent of
liability
Co-Chair Therriault asked how much oil was sold. Ms. Elgee
noted that the state sold 375 thousand gallons.
In response to a question by Representative G. Davis, Ms.
Elgee explained that surplus federal property was offered
to the state. The state declined the property, but acted as
an intermediary to the city of Bethel. The liability cannot
be apportioned until the damage is assessed.
(Tape Change, HFC 99 - 33, Side 1)
In response to a question by Representative Austerman, Ms.
Elgee stated that the state could look at the available
contractual documentation. She reiterated that there is
active litigation.
Representative Austerman asked if the there is a policy
statement covering the liability aspect. Ms. Elgee assured
him that they would make available additional information.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if the money could be used for other
obligations in terms of administration if the state denied
the appropriation. Ms. Elgee replied that it could.
Representative G. Davis questioned if authorization of the
appropriation would be viewed as an indication of
responsibility.
Representative J. Davies questioned if any other parties
are contributing to the assessment.
Ms. Elgee did not think that the other parties had been
asked to contribute to the assessment. The federal
government was involved in some of the initial cleanup work
to curtail damage. The requested funds would allow the
state to assess the extent of the damage. Representative J.
Davies asked if it would be appropriate to ask the federal
government for assistance. Ms. Elgee stressed that it would
be appropriate to assess the degree of federal
participation to date. She estimated that the participation
of the federal government in the cleanup has been
significant.
Representative Austerman questioned why the department is
undertaking the assessment. Ms. Elgee explained that the
assessment is at the direction of the attorneys undertaking
the lawsuit. She reiterated that liability cannot be
apportioned until the extent of the liability is
understood.
Representative G. Davis observed that the assessment will
provide that number. He asked if there was a containment
dike. Ms. Elgee did not know. Co-Chair Mulder asked for
additional back up on section 6(b).
SECTION 6(a)
Co-Chair Mulder asked what additional operating costs are
being requested in subsection (a). Ms. Barton explained
that the funding would go to startup costs for implementing
the new travel card procedure. Co-Chair Mulder asked if
these costs were unanticipated. Ms. Barton stated that
they knew that the contracts were starting. The additional
startup costs were not factored into the FY99 budget. The
appropriation would be from statutory program receipts.
Co-Chair Mulder observed that the statutory program
receipts would be available as additional general fund
revenue if they are not authorized for this appropriation.
Ms. Barton agreed that they would fall into the general
fund.
Co-Chair Mulder asked how the funding would be spent.
Ms. Elgee explained that it has been difficult to assess
cost savings in the travel arena due to a lack of
information regarding state employees' travel patterns.
The intent of the travel card is to obtain information
regarding state employee travel volume in order to
establish discounts with vendors.
SECTION 6(d)
The sum of $563,000 is appropriated from the general
fund to the Department of Administration, office of
public advocacy, for operating costs for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1999.
BRANT MCGEE, PUBLIC ADVOCATE, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY
discussed section 6(d). He noted that this is the agency's
14th request for a supplemental in the last 15 years. He
noted the inability to predict caseload. The caseload for
children's cases increased by 42 percent from FY97 to FY98.
The agency spent $429 thousand dollars more in FY99 than
was spent in the comparable period of FY98. Caseload data
indicates that FY00 will be 10 percent more than FY98. The
request is twice as much as last year. The funding would be
used to pay for services from the private sector.
Co-Chair Mulder asked for further substantiation in
relation to their budgeted number, actual caseload, and
remaining balance in order to justify the additional
request.
Representative J. Davies asked Mr. McGee to provide the
amount of their original FY99 budget request.
SECTION 6(e)
The sum of $297,000 is appropriated from the general
fund to the Department of Administration, public
defender agency, for operating costs for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1999.
BARBARA BRINK, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY discussed
the agency's request. She observed that their request
breaks down into three parts. The first part is a $200
thousand dollar personal services line request. She
explained that an increment was requested in FY99 to fill
vacant positions in remote bush locations. They received
$200 thousand dollars less then the requested amount in the
FY99 operating budget. This is the amount that is currently
being requested in the supplemental. She stressed that
positions could not remain vacant due to a 5 percent
overall increase in caseload. There were almost 900
additional new cases over the previous year. She stated
that additional attorneys were added in Nome, Bethel and
Kotzebue due to increased caseloads. She stressed that
staff positions must be sufficient to cover the court
ordered proceedings. The average cost per case has been cut
despite increasing caseload. They are below $500 dollars
per case.
Ms. Brink explained that the second part of their request
is for a one-time remodel and expansion project. The cost
would be $70 thousand dollars. She explained that staff has
increased.
Co-Chair Mulder requested backup on section 6(e).
Representative Grussendorf noted that the Office of Public
Advocacy and the Alaska Public Defenders Agency have been
under-funded. He added that these agencies have not always
received funding identified in new legislation. Co-Chair
Mulder asked for backup regarding unfunded fiscal notes
that affect their budgets.
Representative G. Davis observed that the legislature was
aware that additional funding would be needed. He suggested
that positions in rural areas would be more cost effective.
He questioned how many felony cases have been related to
felony cases resulting from a failure to stop.
Ms. Brink stated that there have been a large number of
cases regarding the failure to stop. These cases are being
prosecuted as felonies.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if the cases stand-alone or are
involved with additional charges.
Ms. Brink stated that the cases run the gamut. Some cases
would have been defended anyway.
Representative J. Davies stressed that the law was
promulgated to give enforcement an extra hammer and to
recognize community concern.
SECTION 6(c)
The sum of $678,400 is appropriated from the general
fund to the Department of Administration for the
leasing program for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1999.
Ms. Barton discussed section 6(c). She observed that the
leasing budget is based on a projection of upcoming year
costs. The leasing budget has been traditionally
underfunded. It was short-funded by $996 thousand dollars
in FY99, relative to projections at the time the budget was
written. She explained that the Division of General
Services was successful in managing down the supplemental
need through negotiations of lease costs and space
consolidations. The supplemental need for this component is
$678,400 thousand dollars, which includes $40 thousand
dollars for a final hearing officer associated with the
Department of Environmental Conservation laboratory
dispute.
SECTION 6(f)
The sum of $500,000 is appropriated from Pioneers' Home
receipts to the Department of Administration, Pioneers'
Homes, for increased operating costs for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1999.
Ms. Elgee discussed section 6(f). She explained that this
section would appropriate $500,000 thousand dollars in
pioneers' home receipts. This funding is in excess of what
the department projected would be available for FY99. The
operating shortfall is primarily due to increased staffing
needs. She explained that they were not able to leave
positions vacant. She observed that one-on-one staffing has
been needed during periods of aggressive behavior. She
referred to an instance in Anchorage that resulted in the
patient's discharge to the Alaska Psychiatric Institute. She
noted that there is a similar situation in Sitka that is
being handled successfully.
Representative Grussendorf noted that he has heard concerns
regarding the resident located in Sitka. Ms. Elgee explained
that when the Sitka incident occurred they asked the Alaska
Psychiatric Institute to assess the gentlemen's behavior.
Most of the resident's problems were handled with medicine
adjustments and one-on-one staffing. The staff feels that
they are able to manage the client without danger to the
residents. The man also has cultural issues. They are
looking at transferring the client to the pioneer home in
Fairbanks.
Representative G. Davis observed that there are problems
associated with dementia. He stressed that dementia issues
will be looked at in the subcommittee.
HB 100 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
HFC 14 3/03/99
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|