Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/17/2000 03:02 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL
SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 17, 2000
3:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chairman
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Joe Green
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Allen Kemplen
Representative John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 98
"An Act relating to contracts for the provision of state public
assistance to certain recipients in the state; providing for
regional public assistance plans and programs in the state;
relating to grants for Alaska tribal family assistance programs;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 321
"An Act relating to the confidentiality of investigations, court
hearings, and court and public agency information in child in need
of aid matters; relating to immunity regarding disclosure of
information in child in need of aid matters; amending Rules 3 and
22, Alaska Rules of Child in Need of Aid; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 98
SHORT TITLE: PUB.ASSISTANCE:PROGRAMS/GRANTS/CONTRACTS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/19/99 253 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/19/99 253 (H) CRA, HES, FIN
2/19/99 254 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DHSS)
2/19/99 254 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL
LETTER
3/09/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
3/09/99 (H) <BILL POSTPONED TO 3/16>
3/16/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
3/16/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 98(CRA) OUT OF
COMMITTEE
3/16/99 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
3/16/99 469 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 6DP
3/16/99 470 (H) DP: JOULE, HALCRO, HARRIS,
MORGAN,
3/16/99 470 (H) KOOKESH, DYSON
3/16/99 470 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DHSS)
2/19/99
3/16/99 470 (H) REFERRED TO HES
3/27/99 (H) HES AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
3/27/99 (H) <BILL CANCELED>
2/17/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 321
SHORT TITLE: CONFIDENTIALITY OF CINA HEARINGS & RECORD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/26/00 2009 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/26/00 2009 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
1/26/00 2009 (H) 3 FISCAL NOTES (2 DHSS,
LAW)
1/26/00 2009 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (2 ADM,
DPS)
1/26/00 2009 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL
LETTER
1/26/00 2009 (H) REFERRED TO HES
2/17/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JIM NORDLUND, Director
Central Office
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 98.
KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 98.
DON SHIRCEL, Director
Family Services
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc.
122 First Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 98.
SCOTT CALDER
PO Box 75011
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 98 and HB 321.
TERRI LAUTERBACH, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services Legislative Affairs Agency
Terry Miller Legislative Office Building, Room 329
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 98.
BRUCE BOTELHO, Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 321.
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 321.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-16, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Dyson, Whitaker,
Kemplen and Coghill. Representatives Green and Morgan arrived as
the meeting was in progress. Representative Brice was excused due
to illness.
HB 98 - PUB.ASSISTANCE:PROGRAMS/GRANTS/CONTRACTS
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the first order of business as HB 98, "An
Act relating to contracts for the provision of state public
assistance to certain recipients in the state; providing for
regional public assistance plans and programs in the state;
relating to grants for Alaska tribal family assistance programs;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 0082
JIM NORDLUND, Director, Central Office, Division of Public
Assistance, Department of Health & Social Services, came forward to
present the bill. He commented that for the last four to five
years he has been working on reforming the state's welfare system.
He explained one premise of welfare reform - and a main reason for
its success - has been that it affords states a great deal of
flexibility in designing and operating their programs. In exchange
for that flexibility, the federal government capped the amount of
money going back to a state in the form of a fixed-block grant. He
further explained that, when welfare reform was being discussed
from 1994 to 1996, the amount of money that the state and federal
governments were spending, particularly for the AFDC [Aid to
Families with Dependent Children] program, had been skyrocketing.
He clarified that AFDC is a cash-assistance program for needy
families - the program that was reformed. The program's name was
changed in Alaska to ATAP [Alaska Temporary Assistance Program].
The states have been extremely successful in running their programs
without dictates from the federal government. As a result, he
cited that many who were on public assistance are now working, and
that the number of welfare cases has decreased dramatically saving
millions of dollars across the nation.
MR. NORDLUND stated that the federal welfare reform law allowed for
Native organizations and tribes to administer their own welfare
programs in the belief that they could administer them in a more
culturally relevant way. In Alaska, the 13 Native corporations can
run their own programs, which is backed-up in state law in ATAP.
MR. NORDLUND explained that in order for a state to be eligible for
the fixed-block grant he mentioned earlier, it has to match it
through a "maintenance of effort." A maintenance of effort is
determined by matching 80 percent of what a state spent for their
AFDC program in FY 94. That figure equates to $50 million for the
state. However, there is no maintenance of effort requirement for
a Native-run program.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Nordlund whether it's correct to say there
isn't a requirement for the state to maintain its effort, if it's
a Native-run program.
MR. NORDLUND replied that's right. There is no supplemental
funding in federal law that could be used to match a Native-run
program.
MR. NORDLUND explained the purpose of HB 98 is to allow the state
to match funding that would be coming directly from the federal
government and going to the Native organization for their own
program. A Native organization submits their plan to the federal
government, and if approved, the federal money that used to go to
the state would now go directly to the Native organization
bypassing the state. He said that is basically half of the money
that was used to run the program when the state ran the program.
"So what we want to do here through this legislation is to
supplement that federal amount with the money that the state is
already spending on those clients for those services." Without
state funding, Native organizations are left to run their programs
with half the money.
MR. NORDLUND noted that the federal law says a Native-run program
has to be comparable to the state's program, and given the fact
that they are operating with only federal money, there is no way
the Native organization can really meet that requirement. As a
result, the cash-benefit amount would have to be significantly
reduced compared to what the state is paying non-Natives, which
would not be comparable. It is not likely that the federal
government would approve such a plan without state funding. The
bill, therefore, would allow the state to fund a Native family
assistance program. It's important to note that the funding that
would go to a Native-run program is state funding that the state is
currently using to serve those Native clients, which is why the
department submitted a zero fiscal note. He said, "It's like the
same program except it's not run by the state anymore; it's being
run by the Native organization."
MR. NORDLUND further stated that the TCC [Tanana Chiefs Council,
Inc.], which operates in the Interior region, currently runs a
Native program with state funds. However, the TCC had to amend
their plan to the federal government from what they really wanted
in order to be substantially similar to the state's program. The
bill would, therefore, allow a Native-run program to depart from
the state's program and be somewhat different.
MR. NORDLUND concluded that the main reason for the bill is to
provide an additional measure of local control, which can be
tailored to meet local needs, economies, and cultural
circumstances. It would also provide better services for clients
and help move them off public assistance and into jobs.
Number 0800
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Nordlund what a regional,
customized plan would look like.
MR. NORDLUND deferred the question to Don Shircel from the TCC, the
program administrator.
Number 0839
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL asked Mr. Nordlund whether the
supplemental that the state would have to pay to a non-profit
[organization] would be equal to the state's share now.
MR. NORDLUND replied that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Nordlund whether the federal
amount would remain constant.
MR. NORDLUND replied, yes, the federal amount has already been
determined. It was based on the amount of federal money that the
state was spending on those clients in FY 94. The state amount
would make up the difference between what a Native-run organization
gets from the federal government and what the state spends on
serving those same clients.
MR. NORDLUND further stated the language in the bill is broad; it
refers to being "fair and equitable," which leaves room for
negotiation. It is drafted that way because any money that is
provided to the Native organizations is money that the department
loses. He said, "It's not like we're coming back to the
legislature and asking for additional money to make this program
work. So we have to make sure that money that goes to Native
organizations are basically to service Native clients is
essentially being taken away from non-Natives. So we've got to
make sure that this is truly fair."
Number 0976
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN asked Mr. Nordlund whether it's correct to
say that the state would still have to pay its share if it
administered the program. In other words, the Native organizations
aren't taking any money away.
MR. NORDLUND replied that's correct.
Number 1000
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Nordlund whether his division
would lose staff since the money going to a regional arm would come
out of its budget.
MR. NORDLUND replied, yes, the division would probably lose some
staff.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Nordlund whether he can afford to
lose staff. There are still a large amount of clients in the
Anchorage area who would depend upon the division for help.
MR. NORDLUND replied no, he is not entirely comfortable with losing
staff. He explained that there are four components to the cash
that the division would be giving up. They are as follows:
1) Cash-benefits;
2) Child care [services];
3) Welfare-to-work services; and
4) Administration.
MR. NORDLUND further stated the division would have to live with
these losses and how they transfer that into the amount of staff is
a complicated question. In Anchorage the division administers a
temporary assistance program, as well as determines eligibility for
Medicaid, food stamps, and adult public assistance. In many cases,
it's the same worker who determines eligibility for all of these
programs.
Number 1149
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN stated he can see the logic and reason for
rural Alaska because of their unique circumstances; but he is
having difficulty seeing the logic for urban Alaska because of
efforts to bring things together with the one-stop-job-centers to
help reduce administrative costs. He asked Mr. Nordlund whether
the department would be opposed to including language that would
exclude major urban areas.
MR. NORDLUND replied the department would object to that. He
pointed out that the Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC) is not
interested in this program for many of the same reasons that
Representative Kemplen suggested. In the future, however, if the
circumstances change, CITC should have the option to participate.
They should not be excluded.
Number 1271
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Nordlund if the time life for the
granting process is an annual grant.
MR. NORDLUND replied the TCC is under a two-year grant. The
department generally likes a two-year grant cycle, but they can be
flexible.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Nordlund, since a time life is not
specified in the bill, would it be left to the department.
MR. NORDLUND replied right. He stated that even a two-year grant
cycle might need to be amended, if there is a big change in the
department's funding source.
Number 1320
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Nordlund whether the statute would
have to be rewritten, if future legislatures find that it isn't
working in terms of funding.
MR. NORDLUND replied future legislatures would probably look at the
department's Native assistance budget component, which contains the
amount of money the department plans to transfer to the Native-run
organizations.
Number 1374
CHAIRMAN DYSON stated in many cases a family in-need will apply for
temporary assistance, and CSED [Child Support Enforcement Division,
Department of Revenue] may go after money from the noncustodial
parent. He asked Mr. Nordlund what would happen to those monies
recovered from CSED.
MR. NORDLUND replied the bill is deficient in terms of how child
support collections are handled. He explained, in order for a
person to receive temporary assistance, any child support
collections made on behalf of a family need to be collected to help
pay the state back. In other words, if a person receives $500 a
month in welfare and receives $250 a month in child support, that
$250 would go back to the state. If a person receives $500 a month
in welfare and receives more than $500 a month in child support,
that person would retain the amount over $500. It is called "an
assignment." The bill, however, says that an assignment would go
to the state for a Native-run program, when it really is the entity
that should be paid back. There is a proposed amendment that says
an assignment that used to go to the state could go to the Native
organization to help pay back expenses.
Number 1544
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked how is it decided how the money that CSED
collects is prorated among the various organizations that are
funding this.
MR. NORDLUND deferred the question to John Mallonee from the Child
Support Enforcement Division.
The committee took a brief at-ease from 3:30 p.m. to 3:31 p.m.
MR. NORDLUND proposed that for the child support collections that
are made, the state will recapture its share through an equivalent
reduction in the grant amount to the Native organization. The
Native organization could pay the state back by writing a check to
the state for the amount of the child support collections, but in
order to avoid that complicated procedure, it is simply easier for
the state to simply offset the grant amount by the equivalent
amount of the child support collections made on the state's behalf.
Number 1651
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Nordlund what determines the amount of
state money that will go to, in this case, the TCC.
MR. NORDLUND explained the process by which the state estimates how
much a program needs for this particular program is driven by where
the caseload is expected to go. That is not always known either.
CHAIRMAN DYSON confirmed it is based upon the number of families or
individuals that have applied and been certified as qualified
recipients to receive the Native organization's equivalent of the
ATAP.
MR. NORDLUND agreed it is driven by the estimate of the caseload.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Nordlund if the caseload goes up, does the
state contribution go up.
Number 1708
MR. NORDLUND explained that currently in the deal the state has
with TCC now, it would go up. That is still to be examined. It
may be made a block grant instead of making a set amount that would
go up or down based upon the size of the caseload.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if it goes up would the legislature see it in
the supplemental budget.
MR. NORDLUND replied no, the Native organization would be getting
a relatively greater share of the amount of money in the budget
requested from the legislature. The size of the pie would be the
same; the size of TCC's piece of the pie would get larger and the
rest of the state's piece would get smaller. He explained the way
the funding works with both federal and state money being fixed:
the federal amount is predetermined based upon the fixed block
grant amount; the state amount is at 80 percent of the FY 94
maintenance of effort level. That is the pie. Based upon regional
shifts in the caseload, the benefits follow the client around in
that set pie. A piece of that pie is designated for a specific
program. The question gets to a complicated part. If TCC's
program continues to grow, will the funding follow that increasing
pie size or will it be decided to give TCC a set amount of state
money regardless of what happens to TCC's caseload.
Number 1803
MR. NORDLUND mentioned the state has to live with the amount of
money that is provided through the state and federal sources. To
suggest that to TCC isn't unreasonable. As a practical matter,
there could be excess funds from the rest of the state and TCC
could need more money. The best approach for that hasn't been
decided. From the legislature's standpoint, regardless of how much
money is or isn't given to TCC, the department has to live with a
fixed budget. The dilemma is how much money should be provided to
Native clients in the Native programs at the expense of the
non-Natives. That is one of the tough choices.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said he didn't understand about the money being
fixed. The state has to give 80 percent of the 1994 level, but
there is nothing that says the state couldn't give 300 percent of
that.
Number 1858
MR. NORDLUND explained the minimum under federal law is 80 percent
for Alaska. He admitted the department wouldn't mind if the
legislature wanted to give 100 percent.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked why are only the Tanana Chiefs being
mentioned.
MR. NORDLUND replied he has been a bit unfair to other Native
organizations that are interested, but the Tanana Chiefs are
mentioned because they actually have a program that is essentially
the same as ATAP operating right now. The Tanana Chiefs want this
bill to pass so they can depart from ATAP a little bit.
Tlingit-Haida Regional Corporation in Southeast Alaska is very
interested as is The Association of Village Council Presidents
(AVCP) that operates in the Bethel area. The AVCP is not as far
along in planning as Tlingit-Haida. Mr. Nordlund explained those
are the only three organizations out of the 13 Native organizations
that seem intent on doing this. Some minor interest from other
organizations has been heard; Cook Inlet Tribal Council is not
interested.
Number 1930
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what prevents the state from getting
"cross threaded" with what the federal government is supplying and
what the state is supplying.
MR. NORDLUND noted that was a concern when the federal welfare law
was going through. One of the measures put in the federal law to
keep the programs from being "cross threaded" or from being wildly
different, was the comparability language. The federal law is
trying to recognize that the locally run, more culturally relevant
program can be different from the state's program and still be
basically the same welfare design. It can be different, but it
needs to be comparable. For example, TCC wanted to make the
benefit payment to the families 5 percent less than the state's
benefit, but that can't be done now because TCC has to offer the
benefit that is required under state law, which is a specific
amount of money. With that 5 percent, TCC wanted to run drug and
alcohol treatment programs for the clients who need that
assistance. A 50 percent reduction in payment would not be
comparable but a 5 percent reduction with a good reason would be
comparable.
Number 2044
MR. NORDLUND noted the department is privy to the plan that the
Native organization sends to the federal government. With state
money involved, there is more leverage making sure the plan fits
with the comparability requirement in the law.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the concept for moving the program to
the local area is because local is better; it is more responsive if
handled in the various areas. He asked if there would be any loss
of efficiency having another agency. He hoped it won't withdraw
more funds from the eligible clients.
MR. NORDLUND agreed the reason for support of HB 98 is because it
is a more locally controlled program. In answer to the second part
of the question, he would not be entirely truthful if he sat here
and told the committee the effect of this bill will lead to more
administrative efficiency. It doesn't. No promises are being made
about administrative efficiency; what is being said is there is
going to be a better program with local control.
Number 2135
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if that means that no matter that a
little more may be taken off locally, there will be "more bang for
the buck."
MR. NORDLUND said that is what is hoped for. The state doesn't
pretend to know the situation on the rivers in Interior Alaska like
TCC does. The state doesn't know the staff in the villages, or the
circumstances in the village, or the most effective ways of helping
people go to work there. The state believes that TCC can do that
job better than the state.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the native organization is running
the program, will the non-Natives in the village be able to get
some of the temporary assistance through TCC's program or would
they have to go through the state program in a larger town.
Number 2193
MR. NORDLUND answered that this legislation requires if the Native
organization is going to take over the program, it has to take over
the whole region. The state doesn't want to get into a situation
where the state is doing one village and the Native organization is
doing another. That would lead to more administrative
inefficiencies than the state wants to bear.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if TCC would be the primary ATAP
provider in Fairbanks.
MR. NORDLUND answered the situation as it is with TCC right now,
and it would continue that TCC has agreed to take over all the
Native clients in the region, including Fairbanks. So TCC is
running in Fairbanks and the state's program running in Fairbanks.
The fact that two agencies are in that urban setting is one of the
primary reasons for the comparability language. It avoids a
situation of two families living next to each other having wildly
different benefits. One of the other things this bill provides is
for the state to allow the Native organizations to serve
non-Natives as well.
Number 2275
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if a Native family in Fairbanks didn't
like the TCC's comparability part, and they wanted to do the
state's program, would there be a barrier there.
MR. NORDLUND answered there would be. A dual eligibility is not
allowed. Some families may not like that and could contest it.
The way the law is now, TCC is a contractor for the ATAP program
and has to run ATAP. If this bill passes, it can run a different
program. If a client didn't like the program that was run by TCC,
he/she would be told he/she is a Native and under the law has to be
served by TCC's program.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed concern and asked questions about
providing a culturally relevant program and ending up in court on
racial discrimination issues.
MR. NORDLUND said he couldn't answer that question, but there is a
possibility of that. He pointed out that TCC is not an
organization that is immune to political pressure itself. If the
program is getting out of alignment from what its shareholders
want, then TCC would probably need to make some adjustments to it.
TAPE 00-16, SIDE B
Number 2356
KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forward
to answer questions. She explained she has looked into this
question. Yes, on one hand one can look at it as a racial
classification. Federal case law and federal legislation support
a different way of analyzing it as well, which would be to look at
it as a quasi-political affiliation that is designed by federal
law. It would be the federal TANF [Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families] legislation and that describes the rights based on the
federal trust relationship between the federal government and
Alaska Natives. She believes that the legal analysis that would be
undertaken here would make an analysis based on a quasi-political
affiliation distinction and not a racial distinction.
Number 2300
DON SHIRCEL, Director, Family Services, Tanana Chiefs Conference,
Inc., came forward and read the following testimony:
I have been the Director of Tanana Chiefs Conference
Family Services for the past sixteen years. I hold a
master of Science degree in Behavioral Disabilities and
administer about $8.5 million of the annual $60 million
TCC budget of federal health and social services
programs.
As a social service professional and program planner, I
strongly support HB 98. In a state of our unique size,
it makes a lot of sense to regionally design and
administer temporary assistance programming. House Bill
98 is consistent with the same rationale from which state
and federal welfare reform emerged. Programs closest to
the people are more responsive, relevant, effective and
efficient than large centrally administered "one size
fits all" programs planned and administered outside the
community.
Last month we completed our first year of operation of a
regional Native family assistance pilot program that Jim
talked about. While it is still too early to fully
access the overall success of the project, some of the
preliminary statistics indicate that we're headed in the
right direction.
In January of 1999 when the state fully transitioned the
program to TCC there were 440 cases. Last month a year
later, our January caseload was 328. Like the state's
temporary assistance program, our monthly caseload is at
the lowest level its been for the past three years, and
that is under the administration by the regional Native
nonprofit [organization].
Villages in the interior feel we're headed in the right
direction. Our preliminary statistics also indicate that
more families receiving temporary assistance,
particularly those who live in the rural communities of
the Interior, are working for the checks they receive.
Village leaders feel really good about that.
The state's temporary assistance plan finances one-stop
centers with a wide range of services to help people to
get off of welfare. But the state plan finances centers
only in a handful of Alaska's urban centers. Over the
course of the first six months of programming under the
Tanana Chiefs' pilot program we developed a
community-based service delivery infrastructure that
includes 37 existing community-based offices and assigned
staff located in one stop centers in each of the rural
villages in the Interior. We created them through shared
funding with new and prior existing federal funds. These
shared staff and facilities are funded through the
combined resources of multiple federal programs to
minimize administrative cost and maximize the level of
collaboration with other support services needed by
families seeking to enter the job market. The small
community-based service centers serve as a locally
accessible, culturally appropriate, single point of entry
for families needing assistance and also as the single
points of contact for a broad range of regional service
providers and employers seeking to get information about
their services and employment opportunities to potential
clients.
The small size of each of these village one-stop service
centers allows for personal attention, individualized
planning, and services tailored to the needs of each
family as well as the accurate, timely, and ongoing
monitoring of each client's progress. The TCC Regional
Native Family Assistance Program incorporates a service
delivery infrastructure in which people are working with
people, not paper. They know each other, and they
regularly interact as members of the same community and
work together toward a common goal to move people on to
work and to be more self-sufficient in providing for the
needs of their families.
Alaska's rural communities through the regional Native
nonprofit corporations have been designing programs to
better fit the needs of their families. Many have been
developing local and regional infrastructures now that
rival the state's capacity to provide comparable level of
local service delivery, especially in rural remote areas.
Villages in the TCC service area feel good about our
partnership with the state on this pilot project, but
they feel that they could do more and get still a bigger
bang out of the buck, the same buck, if they were able to
incorporate other regional variations with the temporary
assistance programs administered by the regional
nonprofits. House Bill 98 would allow Native family
assistance programs the degree of flexibility needed to
do more with the same program dollar. For instance,
under HB 98, the TCC Native family assistance program
could incorporate the following standards which have
already been planned, developed, discussed and approved
through village consensus, but are not permissible under
the current state statute. Here they are: what the
tribes really wanted to do, what the villages really
wanted to do in their plan before we had to revise it,
under current statute was, they wanted to have all
applicants required ... to undergo alcohol and substance
abuse evaluations and follow the recommendations of the
evaluation or lose a percentage of their benefit. For
those who would comply with the evaluation recommendation
within six months, their benefits would be restored and
the percentage that was withheld would be returned back
to them once they successfully completed treatment.
They also wanted to have all parents that were receiving
benefits would be required to attend their children's
parent/teacher conferences and include their children in
regular health screening and immunization programs made
available in their community. Failure to do so would
result in a small reduction in their benefit for that
month. An incentive to get a bigger bang out of that
dollar aside from just welfare assistance. Maybe we can
do something to help the health and well-being of these
children as well.
Under the original plan not allowed under current state
statute, in two parent households in which domestic
violence is a problem, the perpetrator would be required
to leave the home and receive counseling, by court order
if necessary. He/She could receive a portion of the
household benefit only if [he/she] continued counseling
outside of the home.
Other provisions under the plan that we're not able to
incorporate right now would be basically requiring more
households required to work at an earlier date. Under
the current state statute, households are not required to
work until 24 months after entering the program.
Villages in the Interior continue to support the
recommendations of the Alaska Native Commission
especially those related to local control, decreasing
dependency, encourage self-sufficiency and developing
jobs and local economies. Our experience to date we feel
indicates that we're headed in the right direction. We
hope you do too. We hope you'll support our efforts by
moving this enabling bill out of committee. Thank you.
Number 2018
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN asked if the "one size fits all" wasn't
really working in rural Alaska as far as the state running the
program.
MR. SHIRCEL indicated that was the feel of the village leadership.
He believes in the planning process a lot of the discussion
centered around those services that were only available in urban
areas. Those one-stops, the same dollar the state was using, if
combined with some of the other resources that some of the regional
infrastructures have been able to develop over time, could create
those. The Tanana Chiefs have been able to successfully finance
and come out in the black after the first year of start up
programming. The TCC were able to fill all the needs of families
who needed assistance, get people to start to work for their checks
and put together an infrastructure that is decreasing the caseload.
Number 1967
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN said HB 98 would better suit different tribal
organizations to reprioritize. In his part of the country, it is
not looked on favorably that somebody out of high school, 21 years
old, willing and able to work, is receiving assistance. That is
one of the biggest complaints he hears from the elders; that is not
tribally right, it's a disgrace. That is one of the reason the
Natives are losing some respect.
MR. SHIRCEL said one of the programs he received the most phone
calls from village elders and leaders was the federal low-income,
home-energy assistance program. Nothing galls tribal leadership
in the villages more than to see a federal, "one size fits all"
regulation that says "if you meet a particular income level you are
eligible, and we cannot deny you services." Nothing galls those
village leaders more than to see some guy pulling up with two cords
of wood and delivering them to an 18-year old, low-income
individual who meets those federal standards. It doesn't fit; the
villages should be able to have flexibility that makes sense.
Those community standards are healthy.
Number 1895
CHAIRMAN DYSON referred to page 2, line 21 which talks about
providing for varying economic conditions; to page 3, line 16 which
says nothing about the varying economic conditions; to page 7, line
28 which says nothing about the economic conditions being uniform.
He wondered if that is a problem. He asked if it should be
consistent so the program can be tailored to the varying economic
conditions.
MR. SHIRCEL replied he would yield that question to their legal
counsel to answer.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Shircel if he wanted to be able to vary
the program according to the varying economic conditions.
Number 1837
MR. SHIRCEL answered that economy is only one part of the regional
variations that this bill really addresses. In looking at a state
the size of Alaska and the way things are done in Southeast or the
bootstrap philosophies of Alaska's Interior communities, those
variances include but are not limited to some of the economic
conditions. He is not sure that he is prepared to address
Representative Dyson's specific question.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if there is a non-Native person in a
village, and the tougher measures are in place, and that person
doesn't want to be under tribal assistance laws, he/she wants the
state to do it, but the Native organization has been designated to
work in that area, is it the intention that he/she still has to
apply through this regional organization, or is the state going to
rescue him/her. He wondered if there would be an inequity and has
that possibility been thought through.
Number 1770
MR. SHIRCEL said personally, when he is somewhere, he yields to the
standards in the community, and that is a reasonable expectation of
people in that community to have. In looking at how business is
done today, many of the fee agents who take the applications, are
taking applications for both the state and Native organizations.
Most of the fee agents are Alaska Natives in those villages.
Non-Native people are getting their services through the state
system through the assistance of those individuals. All the
current staff in those one-stop centers in the villages do receive
training through the state's fee agent system. He said when they
look at their caseload, over half of their caseload is in Fairbanks
of those Native families TCC currently serves under the current
agreement with the state. Spread out over 38 of other villages,
there are the majority of those villages have three or less
families receiving public assistance. There is a real attitude in
the communities of doing what it takes to provide for the family.
He is asking the committee to support healthy attitudes of self
sufficiency.
Number 1623
SCOTT CALDER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He
agreed with Mr. Shircel's testimony. He wasn't sure that
Representative Coghill's questions on the barrier issue were
answered, and he shares those same concerns. It is unclear to him
what type of consistent policy would be in place to deal with both
a rural and an urban setting and the possible circumstance of
Native and non-Native people either having to deal with only one
entity or having to deal with two or more entities being served by
this program approach. He thinks the program sounds good.
MR. CALDER expressed his concerned about the state possibly
enforcing some kind of cash economy approach to regional cultures
that could be inappropriate. Perhaps the intent of this
legislation is to prevent that from happening by having a more
relevant program in place. He pointed out some concerns he had on
several points of the legislation and asked the committee for their
consideration.
Number 1202
TERRI LAUTERBACH, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, came forward to answer
questions. She said her concerns were issued in a memo that was
distributed to the committee.
Number 1155
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which
read:
Page 1, line 4, following "programs;":
Insert "relating to assignment of child support by Alaska
Native family assistance recipients;"
Page 2, following line 12:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 25.27.045 is amended to read:
Sec. 25.27.045. Determination of support obligation.
The agency may appear in an action seeking an award of support
on behalf of a child owed a duty of support, or to enforce a
spousal support order if a spousal support obligation has been
established and if a support obligation, established with
respect to a child of that spouse, is also being administered,
and may also appear in an action seeking modification of a
support order, decree, or judgment already entered. Action
under this section may be undertaken upon application of an
obligee, or at the agency's own discretion if the obligor is
liable to the state or an Alaska Native family assistance
program under AS 25.27.120(a) or (b).
* Sec. 3. AS 25.27.062(l) is amended to read:
(l) Unless modified or terminated by the agency or the
court, an order to withhold income under this chapter remains
in effect, except as provided in (k) of this section, until
the support order is satisfied. The agency or court may not
terminate or modify an income withholding order solely on the
ground that the obligor has paid all arrearages. Upon
satisfaction of a support order, if the order is
(1) being enforced by the agency, the agency shall,
within 15 working days, notify all persons served by the
agency with the income withholding order that withholding is
no longer required; if the agency receives money from an
obligor under an income withholding order after the underlying
support order has been satisfied and the agency was enforcing
the support order at the time it became satisfied, the agency
shall immediately return the overpayment to the obligor; if
the agency fails to return an overpayment as required under
this paragraph, the state is liable to the obligor for the
amount of the overpayment, plus interest at the rate imposed
under AS 43.05.225, and a person or an Alaska Native family
assistance program to whom the agency erroneously disbursed
the overpayment is liable to the state for the amount
disbursed, plus interest at the rate imposed under
AS 43.05.225;
(2) not being enforced by the agency, the obligor
shall file a motion in court requesting termination of the
withholding order and serve the motion on the obligee; the
court shall enter an order terminating the withholding order
if the court determines that the support order has been
satisfied; the obligor may deliver a copy of the termination
order to persons who were served with the income withholding
order; when a termination order is entered, the obligee shall,
upon request of the obligor, notify the obligor of all persons
who have been served with the income withholding order by the
obligee.
* Sec. 4. AS 25.27.065(b) is amended to read:
(b) When the right to receive child support has been
assigned to a governmental entity or an Alaska Native family
assistance program, an agreement under (a) of this section
that has not been adopted as an administrative order of the
agency is not effective during a period when the obligee is
receiving assistance under AS 47.27 or from an Alaska Native
family assistance program.
* Sec. 5. AS 25.27.080(b) is amended to read:
(b) The agency on behalf of the custodian, [OR] the
state, or an Alaska Native family assistance program shall
take all necessary action permitted by law to enforce child
support orders so entered, including petitioning the court for
orders to aid in the enforcement of child support.
* Sec. 6. AS 25.27.120(a) is amended to read:
(a) An obligor is liable to the state in the amount of
assistance granted under AS 47.07 and AS 47.27, or to an
Alaska Native family assistance program that receives a state
grant under AS 47.27.071 in the amount of the family
assistance provided by the program, to a child to whom the
obligor owes a duty of support except that, if a support order
has been entered, the liability of the obligor for assistance
granted under AS 47.27 or provided by an Alaska Native family
assistance program that is receiving a state grant under
AS 47.27.071 may not exceed the amount of support provided for
in the support order, and, if a medical order of support has
been entered, the liability of the obligor for assistance
granted under AS 47.07 may not exceed the amount of support
provided for in the medical order of support.
* Sec. 7. AS 25.27.120(c) is amended to read:
(c) Within 30 days after the agency knows the identity
and address of an obligor who resides in the state and who is
liable to the state or an Alaska Native family assistance
program under this section, the agency shall send written
notification by certified mail to the obligor and the obligee
of the obligor's accruing liability and that the obligor shall
make child support payments to the agency. The notice
required under this subsection must be in clear, concise, and
easily readable language. The notice may accompany other
communications by the agency.
* Sec. 8. AS 25.27.120(d) is amended to read:
(d) If the agency fails to comply with (c) of this
section, interest does not accrue on the liability to the
state or an Alaska Native family assistance program unless a
support order or medical support order, as applicable, has
been entered.
* Sec. 9. AS 25.27.130(a) is amended to read:
(a) If the obligor is liable to the state or an Alaska
Native family assistance program under AS 25.27.120(a) or (b),
the state is subrogated to the rights of the obligee to
(1) bring an action in the superior court seeking
an order of support;
(2) proceed under AS 25.27.160 - 25.27.270 to
establish a duty of support; or
(3) enforce by execution, in accordance with
AS 25.27.230 - 25.27.270, or otherwise, a support order
entered in favor of the obligee.
* Sec. 10. AS 25.27.130(c) is amended to read:
(c) The recovery of any amount for which the obligor is
liable that exceeds the total assistance granted under
AS 47.07 and AS 47.27 or under an Alaska Native family
assistance program shall be paid to the obligee.
* Sec. 11. AS 25.27.130(d) is amended to read:
(d) Except as provided in (f) of this section, if the
obligee is not receiving assistance under AS 47.07 or AS 47.27
or under an Alaska Native family assistance program at the
time the state recovers money in an action under this section,
the recovery of any amount for which the obligor is liable
shall be distributed to the obligee for support payments,
including medical support payments, that have become due and
unpaid since the termination of assistance under AS 47.07,
[OR] AS 47.27, or an Alaska Native family assistance program
under a support order in favor of the obligee.
* Sec. 12. AS 25.27.130(e) is amended to read:
(e) After payment to the obligee under (d) of this
section, the state may retain or pay to the Alaska Native
family assistance program to which support has been assigned
an amount not to exceed the total unreimbursed assistance paid
on behalf of the obligee under AS 47.07, [OR] AS 47.27, or an
Alaska Native family assistance program.
* Sec. 13. AS 25.27.140(a) is amended to read:
(a) If a [NO] support order has not been entered, the
agency may establish paternity and a duty of support using
[UTILIZING] the procedures prescribed in AS 25.27.160 -
25.27.220 and may enforce a duty of support using [UTILIZING]
the procedure prescribed in AS 25.27.230 - 25.27.270. Action
under this subsection may be undertaken upon application of an
obligee, or at the agency's own discretion if the obligor is
liable to the state or an Alaska Native family assistance
program under AS 25.27.120(a) or (b).
* Sec. 14. AS 25.27.165(a) is amended to read:
(a) Upon application from a mother, custodian, putative
father, or legal custodian of a child, or from a state or an
Alaska Native family assistance program, the agency may
institute administrative proceedings to determine the
paternity of a child born out of wedlock.
* Sec. 15. AS 25.27.165(i) is amended to read:
(i) The agency may recover any costs it pays for genetic
tests required by this section from the putative father unless
the testing establishes that the individual is not the father,
except that costs may not be recovered from a person who is a
recipient of assistance under AS 47.27 (Alaska temporary
assistance program) or an Alaska Native family assistance
program.
* Sec. 16. AS 25.27.170(e) is amended to read:
(e) The hearing officer shall consider the following in
making a determination under (d) of this section:
(1) the needs of the alleged obligee, disregarding
the income or assets of the custodian of the alleged obligee;
(2) the amount of the alleged obligor's liability
to the state or an Alaska Native family assistance program
under AS 25.27.120 if any;
(3) the intent of the legislature that children be
supported as much as possible by their natural parents;
(4) the ability of the alleged obligor to pay.
* Sec. 17. AS 25.27.180(b) is amended to read:
(b) Liability to the state or an Alaska Native family
assistance program under AS 25.27.120 is limited to the amount
for which the obligor is found to be responsible under (a) of
this section.
* Sec. 18. AS 25.27.255(a) is amended to read:
(a) The agency shall pay to the obligee all money
recovered by the agency from the obligor under an income
withholding order except for court costs and money assigned to
the agency under AS 25.27.120 - 25.27.130 or to an Alaska
Native family assistance program under AS 47.27.040. However,
if there is more than one income withholding order under this
chapter against an obligor, the agency shall allocate amounts
available for withholding in a manner that gives priority to
current support up to the limits imposed under 15 U.S.C.
1673(b) (sec. 303(b), Consumer Credit Protection Act).
Notwithstanding the priority given to current support, the
agency shall establish procedures for allocation of support
among obligees so that in no case will the allocation result
in a withholding order for one obligee not being implemented."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, following line 22:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 22. AS 47.27.040 is amended by adding new
subse
ction
s to read:
(d) A participant in an Alaska Native family assistance
program that is receiving a state grant under AS 47.27.071
shall assign to the Alaska Native family assistance program,
unless the program has elected to require assignment to the
state under AS 47.27.071(f), all rights to ongoing child
support that accrues after the effective date of the
assignment for the support of the individuals in the family
for whom assistance is provided, but not to exceed the total
amount of assistance paid by the Alaska Native family
assistance program to the family. The assignment takes effect
when information required under (f) of this section is
provided to the child support enforcement agency of the
Department of Revenue, following the determination of
eligibility. Except with respect to any unpaid support that
accrued under the assignment, the assignment terminates when
the family ceases to participate in the Alaska Native family
assistance program. All assignments to an Alaska Native
family assistance program of unpaid child support obligations
transfer to the state upon the termination of an Alaska Native
family assistance program.
(e) An Alaska Native family assistance program
participant shall cooperate with the child support enforcement
agency of the Department of Revenue in the manner described in
(b) of this section in establishing paternity or establishing,
modifying, or enforcing a child support order requiring the
payment of support by the noncustodial parent for a dependent
child for whom assistance is received. The child support
enforcement agency shall inform the Alaska Native family
assistance program if it determines that the participant is
not in good faith compliance with the requirements of (b) of
this section. The Alaska Native family assistance program
shall determine whether the participant has good cause for
refusing to cooperate.
(f) An Alaska Native family assistance program that
receives assignments of ongoing child support must provide
public assistance information concerning those assignments to
the child support enforcement agency of the Department of
Revenue in a timely manner in order to establish a valid
assignment. The information must be provided by electronic
means and in a format acceptable to the child support
enforcement agency. For the purposes of this subsection,
"timely manner" means within the time constraints established
for child support agency distributions under federal law."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, line 26, following "interest.":
Insert "The grant agreement must state that
the Alaska Native family assistance program will require all
program participants to assign child support rights to the
Alaska Native family assistance program under AS 47.27.040,
unless the Alaska Native organization elects to require
participants to assign those child support rights to the
state."
Page 9, following line 25:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 26. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
INSTRUCTION TO REVISOR. Notwithstanding sec. 148(c), ch.
87, SLA 1997, and secs. 53 - 54, ch. 132, SLA 1998, the
new language added by the amendments made to
AS 25.27.120(c), and 25.27.165(a) and (i) by secs. 7, 14,
and 15 of this Act shall be retained if sec. 148(c), ch.
87, SLA 1997, and secs. 53 and 54, ch. 132, SLA 1998,
take effect."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 9, line 26:
Delete "immediately under AS 01.10.070(c)"
Insert "January 1, 2001"
Number 1119
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for purposes of discussion.
Number 1099
MR. NORDLUND stated the deficiency in the legislation was noticed
last year and the department couldn't go forward until the issue of
child support was resolved. State law wasn't clear on how child
support distributions would be impacted through a tribal-run
program. This amendment allows for the assignment of child support
collections that would normally go to the state to go to the Native
organization for the clients served by the Native organization.
The amendment is quite long, but the first six pages are conforming
language and technical changes to provisions in the statutes.
MR. NORDLUND explained the heart of the amendment is on pages 6-7.
Page 6, line 3, (d) is the part that says the assignment can go to
the Native-run program if the Native-run program chooses to have
the assignment to their organization. Section (e) makes it clear
that a Native-run program, just as the state is required to, will
cooperate with the child support enforcement division for the
purposes of establishing paternity and for establishing or
enforcing child support orders. This is not different from what
the state is doing, it just says the Native-run program will do the
same. Page 6, line 26, (f) says that the Native-run program needs
to provide adequate information in an appropriate format to the
Department of Revenue so they can make the appropriate adjustments
and distributions.
MR. NORDLUND said in response to Ms. Lauterbach's memo, the
native-run organizations are going to be the beneficiary of child
support collections that used to be collected by the state. The
state proposes to be paid back for those collections by taking an
appropriate reduction in the grant money given to the Native-run
organizations. The language in the bill that talks about funding
being "fair and equitable" should cover all the issues.
Number 0800
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for clarification on the language in
lines 4-7.
Number 0674
MR. NORDLUND pointed out that page 6, line 26 answers
Representative Coghill's question. The CSED will still be
collecting child support from both Native and non-Native families.
What they do with the proceeds is the heart of the question.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if what's been actually collected
won't be known until a "timely manner."
MR. NORDLUND confirmed that the actual amount of the collections
won't be known until after they have been made.
Number 0478
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Bomengen to comment on his question about
varying economic conditions.
Number 0457
MS. BOMENGEN said she did have an opportunity to look at that, but
she didn't have an opportunity to completely examine the entire
thing. Page 2, lines 20-22 of the bill, is addressed towards the
provisions in proposed 47.27.072 on page 7, the requirements that
allow the department to determined that the plan that has been
developed for a particular region can be appropriate for all of
those individuals in the region, not necessarily just the
participants in the Native organization program. So it may be
appropriate to insert language about varying economic conditions in
the first sentence in that one provision, but she hasn't had a
chance to look at it in the context of the entire bill. She noted
there is an inconsistency, and it could be read into the provision
of 47.27.072, but it could also be safer to provide the same words
in that first sentence on page 7, line 28, that addresses the
varying economic conditions as one of two reasons there would be
varying economic conditions and to deliver the state's public
assistance program.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Bomengen if she looked at page 3, line 16.
Number 0329
MS. BOMENGEN said she did look at that but it didn't appear to her
that the terminology was going to be useful there or that there was
a contradiction there. It didn't appear to be inconsistent.
Number 0306
The committee took an at-ease from 4:34 p.m.-4:37 p.m.
CHAIRMAN DYSON closed the public hearing on HB 98.
HB 321 - CONFIDENTIALITY OF CINA HEARINGS & RECORD
Number 0258
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as House Bill
No. 321, "An Act relating to the confidentiality of investigations,
court hearings, and court and public agency information in child in
need of aid matters; relating to immunity regarding disclosure of
information in child in need of aid matters; amending Rules 3 and
22, Alaska Rules of Child in Need of Aid; and providing for an
effective date."
The committee took an at-ease from 4:40-4:41 p.m.
Number 0131
BRUCE BOTELHO, Attorney General, Department of Law, came forward to
present HB 321. He told the committee that approximately two years
ago the Governor appointed a task force of eight public and private
members to examine Alaska's statutes related to confidentiality and
child protection. The mission of that task force was to determine
whether these laws appropriately balance the public's interest and
right to know about how the child protection system was performing
versus the rights of families and children to privacy. A series of
meetings were held during 1998-1999 and concluded with a report to
the Governor in April 1999. The task force discussions were
prompted by a lot of national publicity related to child abuse and
the failure of public agencies to adequately respond.
TAPE 00-17, SIDE A
Number 0011
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO said during the course of review, the task
force looked at the experiences of other states and talked with a
variety of individuals representing different perspectives about
the need for confidentiality in terms of the impacts on children as
opposed to those who would advocate the need to open up the system.
The fundamental tension has been between the confidentiality of
intimate family matters which should not be a matter of public
record and the confidentiality statutes that often times are used
not so much in the interest of protecting children, but in the
interest in protecting either family adults who are wrongdoers or
protecting the very public agencies who have been able to avoid a
degree of public scrutiny because of those confidentiality laws.
That is the tension the task force attempted to address.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO reported that the task force suggested
that the laws need to be adjusted in a way that would provide for
more openness in the system and more accountability to the public.
The bill introduced by the Governor on this issue reflects the
nature of this struggle: it is important to weigh in on the side
of greater openness while respecting the true rights of privacy
reflected in the state constitution.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO explained that the task force divided the
types of openness into three areas: 1) Court Proceedings. With
limited exceptions, all proceedings involving child protection
matters should be open. The exceptions are the initial proceeding
should be closed, the subsequent proceeding would be closed if a
party has not had the opportunity to obtain legal counsel, or a
court could choose to close all or a part of a proceeding so far as
necessary to protect the interest of the child. The court would be
required to make a specific finding before the proceeding would be
closed to avoid the situation of it becoming a blanket order in
certain courts, that regardless of the statute, the matter would be
closed. 2) Court Records. Those records are today closed. For
cases that would be prosecuted or pursued after the enactment of
the statute, certain of those records would be made public, but
others would remain closed. In essence there would be a
confidential record in the court system as well as the public
record. A member of the public or press would be able to see what
the basic procedure is and what the basic controversy is, but such
records as psychological reports would be kept confidential.
Children will be better protected in an open atmosphere rather than
a closed one. 3) Agency Records. These records would continue to
be closed; however, it would not preclude the publication of
summaries of reports of harm. If the public wished to view how the
state is doing its job, it would be pointed to the public court
proceedings and to the records of the court system.
Number 0464
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO concluded there are provisions that would
allow in certain circumstances for fair response by the DHSS when
certain allegations are raised about how the agency has proceeded
in a particular matter. For example, when a parent who has been
accused of child abuse raises allegations against the department or
when there are criminal matters. He emphasized the debate is
simply trying to engage in the question about what the proper
balance is between family rights to privacy and the public's right
to know and hold its public agencies accountable for the tasks
they've been charged with.
CHAIRMAN DYSON noted that half of the reports of harm received by
the Division of Family and Youth Services end up being
unsubstantiated. He expressed his concern of unsubstantiated
records staying in the files and becoming part of the public
record.
Number 0621
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO answered those records are part of the
agency record and would be maintained as confidential.
Number 0653
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section,
Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forward to answer
questions. She agreed that the agency records will remain
confidential, but the three areas that can be opened up are very
narrow: when there is a child fatality or near fatality; for the
fair comment proceedings [when a parent talks publicly about a
case], the agency has a discretion to respond, [or when there is a
companion criminal case.]
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO noted that it is a federal requirement
that the matter of a fatality or near fatality be disclosed.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if parents under counsel on discovery can get
all of the files.
Number 0750
MS. RUTHERDALE answered counsel can have access to the records and
can share them with the parents, but counsel can't make copies and
give them to their clients so they can leave them around. The
parents can look at the records to defend themselves but cannot
disseminate the information everywhere.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked where is this legislation in the process
of allowing more information to be publicly available.
Number 0820
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO described this as a pretty radical
departure in terms of opening up proceedings. Oregon is the only
state that has a process of opening up all of its proceedings, and
that is a requirement in the Oregon constitution. The federal
government has not challenged that up to this point. Alaska would
be on the leading edge in the opening of these proceedings. The
largest county in Minnesota embarked last year on opening
proceedings similar to Alaska's. For the most part, Alaska is in
the forefront. There are other states that are in the same stages
of deliberation as Alaska at looking at opening up either
proceedings or records in the courts as a means of shedding light
on what is happening.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked what does the family, child or society gain
aside from shedding light.
Number 0905
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO answered being able to see the frequency
and nature of tragedies that are involved in child abuse and
neglect and allowing those issues to be seen will heighten the
consciousness of the public about the harms that are being
incurred. It is an opportunity to see if the society and
government have the level of resources to deal with these issues as
well as accountability.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the publishing of reports annually by DFYS
really doesn't get the job done of letting the public know the
tragedies that are going on with the children.
Number 0988
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO replied to the contrary. The progress
that has happened in the state is a result of the disclosures by
the department and by the efforts of the legislature in the last
several years; that is making a difference and turning things
around. More needs to be done, and this is a step in that
direction. It is hard to say whether this will have a dramatic
impact on the public. Certainly the more dramatic incidents that
make their way to the public will be a lot more accessible this
way. He does not suggest that this is some cure-all; it is another
step to advance the cause of protecting children in the society.
Number 1125
SCOTT CALDER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He
informed the committee that he has been advocating for more
openness in the Division of Family & Youth Services and the
Division of Juvenile Justice for many years. He noticed that this
bill does not do anything to level the playing field or create a
proper balance of power between the individuals who are affected by
the department and the important interest of justice that would be
served in child protection or other juvenile proceedings. The
focus of HB 321 seems to be on massaging public opinion to support
the department to the extent that the department would like to do
that and when the department would allow it to occur. Parents need
to be enabled to find out what is going on with their own children.
This is the type of openness that is needed in this system. It is
the agency records more than the court records that are the
problem. Parents need to know what the agency is doing to them and
to their children while it is occurring.
MR. CALDER said he doesn't see allowing the department a fair
response to public criticism a problem. The members of the public
who have been critical of the department over the years are the
ones who have been denied the opportunity of fair response or
participation on activities related to this. He has noticed a
considerable degree of censorship in the media insofar as reporting
in a balanced fashion on these problems. No one disputes that
child abuse exists, and it's terrible; the problem is the
institutions that address child abuse need to be under control so
the institutions are not abusive. There needs to be openness to
solve that problem, not to make the agency more popular.
Number 1364
CHAIRMAN DYSON urged Mr. Calder to fax his additional comments. He
told Mr. Calder he would enjoy further discussions about the issues
he raised.
CHAIRMAN DYSON held open public testimony on HB 321. [HB 321 was
heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1465
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Committee meeting was
adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|