03/26/2002 03:03 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 26, 2002
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 464
"An Act relating to statewide school district correspondence
study programs."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 407
"An Act relating to the certificate of need program."
- HEARD AND HELD
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
University of Alaska Board of Regents
Mark Begich - Anchorage
Marlene Johnson - Juneau
Joseph Hardenbrook - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 408
"An Act relating to questionnaires and surveys administered in
the public schools."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 338
"An Act making a special appropriation for a grant to Boys and
Girls Clubs of Southcentral Alaska for a youth suicide
prevention program; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 464
SHORT TITLE:CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)JAMES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2313 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2313 (H) EDU, HES
02/22/02 2370 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
02/27/02 2416 (H) REFERRALS CHANGED TO HES, EDU
03/07/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/07/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/02 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/13/02 2530 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COGHILL,
KOHRING, GREEN,
03/13/02 2530 (H) FOSTER
03/14/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/14/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/02 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/19/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/19/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/21/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/21/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/22/02 2655 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FATE
03/26/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 407
SHORT TITLE:CERTIFICATE OF NEED PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/13/02 2232 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/02 2232 (H) CRA, HES
03/04/02 2469 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
03/13/02 2530 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SCALZI
03/14/02 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/14/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/18/02 2593 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
03/19/02 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/19/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/19/02 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/21/02 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/21/02 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/21/02 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/22/02 2638 (H) CRA RPT 2DP 2NR 3AM
03/22/02 2638 (H) DP: SCALZI, MEYER; NR: GUESS,
HALCRO;
03/22/02 2638 (H) AM: KERTTULA, MURKOWSKI,
MORGAN
03/22/02 2638 (H) FN1: (HSS)
03/26/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 408
SHORT TITLE:STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS
SPONSOR(S): EDUCATION
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/13/02 2233 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/02 2233 (H) EDU, HES
02/20/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
02/20/02 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/20/02 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
02/20/02 2338 (H) EDU RPT 6DP
02/20/02 2338 (H) DP: PORTER, WILSON, GUESS,
STEVENS,
02/20/02 2338 (H) GREEN, BUNDE
02/20/02 2338 (H) FN1: ZERO(EED)
03/26/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 338
SHORT TITLE:APPROP: GRANTS TO PREVENT YOUTH SUICIDE
SPONSOR(S): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/02 1982 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/02 1982 (H) HES, FIN
01/16/02 1982 (H) REFERRED TO HES
01/24/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/24/02 (H) Heard & Held
01/24/02 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/26/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 214
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 464.
WHITNEY HIGHLAND, Staff
to Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 516
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 464, presented changes
in the Senate companion bill [SB 346] included in Version P of
HB 464.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained HB 407, Version F.
ELMER LINDSTROM, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the department's perspective on
HB 407; suggested changes.
JEROME SELBY, Regional Director
Planning, Development, and Advocacy
Providence Health System in Alaska
P.O. Box 1962
Kodiak, Alaska 99615-1962
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 407.
MARK BEGICH, Appointee
to the University of Alaska Board of Regents
P.O. Box 201627
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the University of
Alaska Board of Regents.
MARLENE JOHNSON, Appointee
to the University of Alaska Board of Regents
c/o Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the University of
Alaska Board of Regents.
JOSEPH HARDENBROOK, Appointee
to the University of Alaska Board of Regents
P.O. Box 750362
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-0362
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the University of
Alaska Board of Regents.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 408 as chair of the House
Special Committee on Education, sponsor.
LISA TORKELSON
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 408,
expressing concern that it doesn't include parents.
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent
Anchorage School District
P.O. Box 196614
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6614
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 408 [Version C];
offered suggestions.
TERRY SOLOMON
520 5th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 408 [Version C].
RICHARD BLOCK
Christian Science Committee on Publication
for the State of Alaska
360 West Benson Boulevard, Suite 301
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 408, cautioned about
changing the well-balanced approach of 1999.
JAKE METCALFE, Member
Anchorage School Board
Anchorage School District
P.O. Box 196614
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6614
POSITION STATEMENT: Announced that the Anchorage School Board
supports HB 408, Version C.
RUTHAMAE KARR
Interior Neighborhood Health Corporation
1949 Gillam Way, Suite D
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 408, both on her
own behalf and on behalf of her children, who are parents.
DEE HUBBARD
P.O. Box 88
Sterling, Alaska 99672
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 408.
ANDREE McLEOD
3721 Young Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 408; said
parents don't want these questions asked, and conveyed support
for the current law.
EMILY NENON, Alaska Advocacy Manager
American Cancer Society
1057 West Fireweed Lane, Number 204
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 408 on behalf of
the American Cancer Society and Alaskans for Tobacco-Free Kids,
calling Version C the best kind of public policy.
RIC IANNOLINO, Chair
Youth on the Street
P.O. Box 21892
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 408; asked that the
legislature allow for local control on an individualized basis
for school surveys.
JOHN OATES, Chief Executive Officer
Boys & Girls Clubs of Southcentral Alaska
2300 West 36th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented provisions of HB 338 to the
committee.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-24, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Present at the call to order were Representatives Dyson,
Coghill, Stevens, and Cissna. Representatives Wilson, Kohring,
and Joule joined the meeting as it was in progress.
HB 464-SCHOOL DISTRICT CORRESPONDENCE STUDY
CHAIR DYSON announced the first order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 464, "An Act relating to statewide school district
correspondence study programs." [Before the committee was
Version O, as amended on March 14.] He sought confirmation from
Representative Jeannette James that her intention was for the
committee to adopt Version P [as a work draft].
Number 0260
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor of HB 464, offered her intention that the committee
adopt the amendments made by the Senate [to the companion bill,
SB 346; those changes are embodied in Version P]. She expressed
her preference that the committee hold the bill pending the
forthcoming [Department of Education and Early Development
(EED)] regulations.
Number 0325
WHITNEY HIGHLAND, Staff to Senator Loren Leman, Alaska State
Legislature, came forward at the invitation of Chair Dyson to
present the changes in Version P [on behalf of the Senate
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee,
sponsor of SB 346, the companion bill; Senator Leman is vice
chair of that committee].
MS. HIGHLAND brought attention to title changes. First, "home
schooling" has been omitted. Home school programs are currently
classified by [EED] as correspondence study programs, she
explained; to avoid confusion, "the sponsor" chose to use
language parallel to the department's - "home schooling" is not
recognized in statute. The new title also includes "centralized
correspondence study"; that allows the inclusion of Alyeska
Central School, which is not run by school district, but by EED.
Statewide school district correspondence study programs are run
by school districts, she noted.
MS. HIGHLAND turned attention to page 1, lines 4-5, and noted
the omission of "school district". This allows for inclusion of
the Alyeska Central School (ACS). She pointed out that page 1,
lines 7-8, includes all entities that conduct statewide
correspondence study programs: ACS, charter schools, and school
districts.
Number 0480
MS. HIGHLAND pointed out that page 2, line 2, replaces "school
district" with "governing body". This change was recommended by
Legislative Legal and Research Services to align with statutory
language, since "governing body" is defined in statute as being
the school board of a borough school district, a city school
district, or a regional education attendance area [school
district]. On page 2, lines 3-8, ["establish procedures"] is
added to better align with the statutory authority of school
boards found in AS 14.14.090.
MS. HIGHLAND explained that Version P also specifies that school
districts have the ability to establish these procedures only in
regard to curriculum materials purchased by school districts or
governing boards, and not those purchased [with private funds].
Version P also provides that a procedure be in place for school
boards to approve or disapprove home-designed courses and [to
establish procedures] for the evaluation of student work. She
concluded that these changes ultimately give the authority to
establish procedures to local school boards, not to the
department. She added that on page 2, line 9, "district" is
defined. In statute, "district" means a city or borough school
district or regional educational attendance area.
Number 0610
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS moved to adopt Version P, 22-LS1494\P,
Ford, 3/18/02, as a work draft. There being no objection,
Version P was before the committee.
CHAIR DYSON announced the intention of addressing the fiscal
note and holding the bill pending the actions [of EED] and
review of the EED regulations. He stated that [Version P]
brings the bill into conformity with the Senate version [SB
346]. [He asked if someone from EED was present to speak to the
changes, but was informed that no one was.]
Number 0710
CHAIR DYSON related his belief that because the bill has been
significantly altered, the committee is justified in zeroing out
the fiscal note. He offered assurance that plenty of time would
be granted for the department to draft a new fiscal note, should
the committee revisit HB 464.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to zero out the fiscal note for HB
464.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE objected for purposes of discussion. He
asked about the difference between the zero fiscal note and the
fiscal note prepared by EED.
CHAIR DYSON offered his understanding that when the [EED] fiscal
note was prepared, the bill made it the responsibility of the
department to conduct all the review required therein; this was
before the bill was modified to give review responsibilities to
the [program's governing body]. He suggested that is a fair
justification for modifying the fiscal note, but asked Ms.
Highland whether his statement was correct; he then observed
that Ms. Highland had gestured her concurrence. Chair Dyson
asked Representative Joule if he maintained his objection.
Number 0820
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE replied no, but requested to see the
[earlier EED] fiscal note.
CHAIR DYSON suggested that Representative Joule wait to see [a
forthcoming fiscal note from EED for Version P], and whether the
committee chose to take action on the bill.
CHAIR DYSON announced that there being no objection, the fiscal
note was zeroed out. He also announced that HB 464 would be
held pending review of the EED regulations, which EED personnel
had indicated would be available online April 8.
Number 0896
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE suggested that since the cost of
[oversight] is being shifted to the school districts, he would
like to hear from Carl Rose [of the Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB)] when the committee revisits HB 464.
CHAIR DYSON conveyed uncertainty that AASB was the correct
entity to respond to this, but suggested that the committee
would hear from the districts. He continued:
To the department I want to say that, in colloquial
terms, what I understand this bill was about: it
reflects the legislature's significant concern about
what was happening, apparently, with the regulations
in the first draft. And Representative James - in my
words, not hers - has loaded a cannon and ... fired it
across the bow of the department, saying, "Go slow
here; we are very concerned about what ... the
legislature, by and large, considers to be an
overregulation of correspondence schools." The
department has responded to those concerns.
CHAIR DYSON mentioned review that happened in the [Joint
Committee on Administrative Regulation Review], in the current
committee, and before the Senate. He offered his understanding
that essentially all the parties who would be affected by the
regulations are now comfortable with the department's commitment
to revise the regulations. He added, "The proverbial cannon is
still loaded and aimed."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES added, "We have the safety on."
Number 0995
CHAIR DYSON suggested that this matter shows the care with which
all regulations and [legislation] ought to be considered. [HB
464 was held over.]
HB 407-CERTIFICATE OF NEED PROGRAM
CHAIR DYSON announced the next order of business, HOUSE BILL NO.
407, "An Act relating to the certificate of need program."
Number 1010
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, sponsor of HB 407, noted that the
proposed committee substitute (CS), Version F, is significantly
different from the first draft; it is a continuation of efforts
to which he'd committed himself in the [House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee]; he said he has given a
copy [of Version F] to some members of that committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Version F [22-LS1389\F,
Lauterbach, 3/21/02], as the work draft. There being no
objection, Version F was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked:
This has been likened to a youngster coming out of
college [with] a counseling degree and getting hooked
up with a ... 40-year dysfunctional marriage ... and
wading in with that kind of trepidation. There still
are some basic principles of operation that even a
young counselor can bring to a situation.
Number 1121
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL told members that one reason he came to
the legislature was to preserve and protect a free-market
economy. He objects to having health care nationalized, more
socialized, and driven by the government, he said; based on that
objection, he became involved in the certificate of need (CON)
debate. The CON in Alaska requires that if someone wishes to
increase services or facilities that cost in excess of one
million dollars, permission must be sought from the government.
He explained that the [state] has rules, based primarily on
[federal law], that determine whether this new facility or
service will be allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said although the federal government
abandoned this system some years ago because it wasn't cost-
effective and was creating problems, Alaska continues to use it.
He acknowledged that the [CON is warranted] in certain
circumstances, but expressed his intention to repeal it
completely from [state law], which [Version F] accomplishes,
with some safeguards: a time limit and greater accountability
for a government-controlled process. He said it allows for the
best free-market circumstances when possible. Speaking strongly
against government-protected monopolies, he said Alaska has many
examples, especially with regard to the CON. Although a lot of
public money goes into health care, he suggested this [bill] is
a good solution.
Number 1270
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, explained that Section 1 is the crux of
Representative Coghill's initial intent. It would require, with
the exception of skilled nursing facilities and psychiatric
hospitals, a CON for expenditures of one million dollars or more
in communities with a population of less than 55,000.
Therefore, a [proposed facility] in a community larger than this
wouldn't require a CON unless it was a [skilled] nursing
facility or a psychiatric hospital.
MS. MOSS turned attention to Section 2 and reported that during
discussion with the department and Senator Green, some flaws
[were observed] in the system, one of which Section 2 seeks to
address. Currently, if a facility is destroyed, it cannot be
replaced without a new CON; Section 2 therefore eliminates the
need for a new CON. It also eliminates an existing requirement
for a new CON if a facility moves services from one building to
another, provided the capacity and categories of service have
not changed.
Number 1358
MS. MOSS noted that Section 3 requires the department to adopt
regulations to set a time limit for the department to determine
whether an application is complete. Section 4 requires the
department to set a time limit by which public hearings must be
held; it also requires the department to make a determination on
an application within 120 days following the determination that
an application is complete.
MS. MOSS turned to Section 5 and said CONs were originally put
in statute to apply only to nursing facilities. A seven-step
review process is in place for the review of nursing homes'
CONs. As additional [facilities] were added under the CON
requirement, a new, broad statute was added. She noted that the
sectional [analysis] provides the repealed language; she pointed
out that the only standard for review was "that if the
availability and quality of existing health care resources, or
the accessibility to those resources, is less than the current
or projected requirement for health services required to
maintain good health of the citizens in this state." Based on
this standard, a CON could be issued. This is found in AS
18.07.041.
MS. MOSS indicated Version F rolls all other types of facilities
into the more defined standard of review found in AS 18.07.043.
She said Sections 6 through 10 are simply technical changes that
remove AS 18.07.041 from existing statutes. Section 11 repeals
AS 18.07.041; Section 12 gives applicability of the new statute
only to those CON applications filed on or after the effective
date; and Section 13 is an immediate-effective-date clause.
Number 1477
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL requested that testimony on HB 407 be
permitted for the next two committee meetings. He noted that
some witnesses were unable to attend the March 28 meeting.
Number 1515
CHAIR DYSON asked which communities HB 407 would apply to.
MS. MOSS responded that criteria were created to arrive at the
[55,000] number; according to the U.S. Census Bureau, a
community must have a population of 25,000 for data from that
community to supply [reliable] demographic data. The national
poverty rate was applied to this number; Alaska is automatically
25 percent above that federal poverty rate. This adjustment
resulted in [a figure of 31,250]. She explained that three
different levels of poverty are applied to medical services:
150, 175, and 200 percent. The middle percent, 175, was applied
to the 31,250 to result in 54,688; this was rounded off to
[55,000].
CHAIR DYSON asked what poverty has to do with this.
MS. MOSS replied:
Just the level of need for medical assistance - how
the federal government has defined it. You've heard
in debates about Denali KidCare, for instance, that
money may go further if we reduce those poverty
levels. But the truth of the fact is, that's what's
the feds use. We're dealing with Medicaid money here,
so we're applying those percentage because of the
Medicaid involvement.
Number 1600
CHAIR DYSON offered:
I'm very sure I don't understand the logic trail. But
it may be that the government doesn't have a firm
logic trail. I thought the argument about certificate
of [need] had to do with the significant capital
investment it takes to build a major facility. And
the argument is that in smaller communities, if
indeed, there's too much competition, then there won't
be the economic incentive and the return on investment
for folks to invest in building one. So, I thought
that ... the rationale was to protect smaller
communities from having ... fractured providers, all
of whom were below some economic threshold. What's
that got to do with Medicare or poverty?
MS. MOSS reiterated that this issue involves Medicaid; the
decision was that this should involve the "federal logic" -
which was all that was available - rather than arbitrarily
selecting a [population] figure. She said three [local
governments] in Alaska would qualify under [the 55,000
population] number: Anchorage, the Fairbanks North Star
Borough, and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Number 1663
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged getting creative in arriving
at the figure, but indicated the basic question remains of the
significant investment in the smaller communities. He asked at
what point there should be some scrutiny in a limited market,
and at what point it would be considered a growing market and
therefore not require proof of [market] limitation. He offered
his belief that a handful of communities fall into [this latter
description].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he was willing to discuss the
[population] number, since it is a bit arbitrary; part of the
discussion pertains to the size of a community resulting in a
finite market wherein competition could not happen. He offered
his perspective that the market could handle this, and indicated
astonishment that someone [might build an unnecessary facility];
he allowed, however, that this does happen as a result of poor
judgment calls. "I'm not always sure that the government is the
best answer," he said. He reiterated that he was open to
discussion. He concluded by saying the Medicaid and Medicare
expenditures were significant throughout the state.
Number 1733
CHAIR DYSON, in response to Representative Cissna, expressed his
wish to hear from the administration and some witnesses in
opposition to HB 407, to allow members to get a sense of the
arguments and to evaluate relevant correspondence.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred.
Number 1799
ELMER LINDSTROM, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS), came forward and told members, "I'll be
more than happy to muddy the waters for you on this one." He
explained that the CON program impacts the department in several
ways on different levels, which is confusing. He said DHSS
operates the CON program, which consists of one employee in the
facility section of the Division of Administrative Services.
MR. LINDSTROM referred to the sponsor's mention of the federal
government's creation of, and subsequent backing away from, the
CON program. This is not all the federal government backed away
from, Mr. Lindstrom pointed out. When the CON program was
created in Alaska and many other states as a result of federal
law, a range of health-planning activities went along with it.
States were expected to have a state health program; funding
went into regional health planning. He said, "All of that
superstructure has disappeared over time. In fact, we have not
had a state health plan written ... since, I think, 1983." The
resulting lack of current health data precludes a thorough
evaluation and well-reasoned findings with regard to the review
of CONs, he indicated - a job that is difficult without this
information.
Number 1902
MR. LINDSTROM offered another department perspective: the
department pays substantial health care costs, primarily through
the Medicaid program, which insures about one of every six
Alaskans. For certain types of facility-based services
including long-term care or nursing home beds, DHSS is, for all
practical purposes, the payor. A non-Medicaid-eligible person
upon entering a nursing facility will likely become Medicaid-
eligible within several months because assets will be spent
down; in all likelihood, this person will end up on Medicaid.
MR. LINDSTROM reported that DHSS pays 85 percent of the costs
for nursing home beds in Alaska. It is also a primary payor for
acute-care psychiatric beds; generally, more is spent for
children's services than for adults, but for all psychiatric
care the state is the major payor. On the other hand, DHSS is
not the major payor for other kinds of acute-care costs; it
covers 20 percent of the market. Consequently, DHSS is
concerned about the CON programs' maintaining integrity for
cost-containment purposes proportionate to the amount the
department pays. He said, "We're very concerned about long-term
care costs and controlling ... the number of nursing home beds
and the number of psychiatric beds. We are, as a payor, less
concerned about certain other types of care."
Number 1980
CHAIR DYSON asked, "Your worry is that with competition ...
those providers might not ... have a large enough share of the
market that they can make a living, so they jack their rates up,
and your costs will go up?"
MR. LINDSTROM replied, "That's true." He indicated Chair Dyson
had broached another complex issue, the Medicaid rate-setting
system for facilities; he acknowledged he was not an expert in
that field. Capital costs become part of a facility's rate, he
explained; to the extent a community overcapitalizes the system,
inefficiencies are brought into the system and are reflected in
the rate paid to the facilities through Medicaid.
MR. LINDSTROM returned to the subject of the CON from the
department's perspective - specifically, the public health
perspective. He said DHSS is concerned about access to health
care throughout the state. The CON provides a process for
communities to rationally plan and understand what type of
health care is needed in that community; the department thinks
this is a good process.
Number 2053
CHAIR DYSON asked whether Alaska has examples where the presence
of too many providers is driving up costs.
MR. LINDSTROM offered to find out.
Number 2075
MR. LINDSTROM noted that Section 1 of the bill differentiates
between larger and smaller communities in determining whether a
CON is required. He offered the department's concurrence that
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Matanuska-Susitna ("Mat-Su") area
would be exempt from the requirement for CONs, except for
nursing home facilities and some construction of psychiatric
beds; he noted the department's support for that change.
Intuitively, he offered, one would acknowledge that the market
in Anchorage is very different from the market in a small, rural
community. He said, however, that the department also believes
the Anchorage market significantly differs from the Fairbanks
market; likewise, both differ from the market in the Mat-Su
area.
Number 2128
MR. LINDSTROM said the department doesn't have the data,
understanding, or capacity to finely understand those
distinctions. "We can't tell you whether or not it makes sense
to make this distinction," he said. He reiterated that lumping
the larger markets together makes sense intuitively. Would it
hurt the local hospital in Fairbanks or Mat-Su if there were a
[large] freestanding ambulatory surgical center? He said he
couldn't answer that question; as a result, the department has
some reservations.
Number 2162
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA offered her belief that the health care
industry is the fastest-growing sector of the private economy.
MR. LINDSTROM replied, "I believe that's true." In further
response, he said this lack of data is, sadly, not unique; the
capacity DHSS once had for planning and the ability to
understand these issues no longer exists. The department no
longer has the ability to gather, sort, and understand that
information. He reiterated that the state has not written a
health plan since 1983.
CHAIR DYSON noted that he wished to hear from other witnesses as
well. He asked Mr. Lindstrom, following Representative Wilson's
next question, to summarize the department's concerns; he said
Mr. Lindstrom would have other opportunities to present input.
Number 2230
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said 14 states have repealed the CON
program. She asked if Mr. Lindstrom had been in contact with
any of these states to find out the consequences of the change.
MR. LINDSTROM replied that on a number of occasions this issue
has been raised; the department has looked into it to summarize
what other states are doing. He expressed uncertainty about the
number of states that have repealed the CON program, but
reported that the data indicate "the significant majority" of
states have retained the CON program. The [CON] criteria widely
vary in different states for facility types and [need]
thresholds, among others, but most states still have a
certificate of need program.
Number 2274
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised that one reason is that these
states haven't gotten around to repealing the CON programs. She
expressed interest in discovering the results in states that
[have repealed the CON]; have Medicaid costs increased, for
example?
MR. LINDSTROM replied that the department would give it another
look. He referenced several studies with conflicting
conclusions on effects [of discontinuing the CON program].
MR. LINDSTROM returned to his analysis of the bill. He said
Section 1 is missing an amendment to [AS] 18.07.031(b), which
speaks only to nursing home beds; it prohibits the conversion of
any type of bed - assisted living, acute care, or other - to a
nursing home bed without a CON, regardless of the cost. Perhaps
this could be a new Section 2, he suggested. He said this
concern was based on the department's role as the primary payor
for nursing home beds. He suggested that similar language
related to acute psychiatric care might also be appropriate. He
referenced a suggestion from an unspecified Senate staff person
that this might need to be more finely tuned than that; it might
need to preclude conversions from adult psychiatric care to
psychiatric care for minors. He noted that the department would
be glad to address this with the committee.
Number 2340
MR. LINDSTROM noted that Section 2 relates to facility
replacement; this would most likely come into play should a
facility be destroyed. He said the department's reading of
[Section 2] includes facilities that have reached the end of
their useful life; this would be a more common occurrence than
destruction by fire or earthquake, for example. He said:
Intuitively, it makes sense, I guess, that if we've
been going along with a facility in a community at "X"
number of beds and offering this array of services,
that if they want to continue to do that, ... why
should they go through a certificate of need? But, on
the other hand - wearing the public health hat, and
the notion of having some sense of what is really
appropriate for a community - saying that it should
just be replaced assumes that what's there now makes
some sense.
TAPE 02-24, SIDE B
MR. LINDSTROM noted that Alaska has a number of very small
hospitals; unlike in most states, these have not been closed,
but many are "hanging on by a thread." He asked whether it
makes sense for the state to tell these hospitals to go ahead
and replicate the current model that is not working very well.
He suggested it might make more sense for a community to go
through some sort of intelligent process to ask what sort of
facility the community really needs, and can afford. He said
Section 2 would allow communities to beg that question, and that
DHSS isn't certain it is a good idea.
MR. LINDSTROM told members that DHSS needs to review the
timeframes in Section 3. He said he was uncertain whether the
department would have objection to Sections 3 and 4. He
expressed his opinion that Section 5 is "quite good." He
referenced the proposed repealed language [in AS 18.07.041];
that standard existed for everything until several years ago,
when the legislature created new, more rigorous, standards for
nursing homes; the department wanted to see this happen because
it is the [primary payor] for nursing homes. He offered that
the department believes these standards are applicable to other
types of facilities, and that it would support having these be
put into statute. He added that the standards may need "a tweak
or two" from the department's perspective.
Number 2305
CHAIR DYSON asked whether the department would have brought this
forward if the sponsor hadn't done so.
MR. LINDSTROM said he didn't believe so. The department has
many other priorities, and this wouldn't have risen to a level
requiring pursuit.
CHAIR DYSON asked Representative Coghill whether he had
discussed the aforementioned items with the department.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said no; he expressed reluctance to
include some of the items in [Version F], but agreed that the
discussion would take place now that the department is present.
He expressed his appreciation for Mr. Lindstrom's stated
concerns, which give him a better understanding of [the issues
from the department's perspective].
Number 2240
JEROME SELBY, Regional Director; Planning, Development, and
Advocacy; Providence Health System in Alaska ("Providence"),
explained that he was currently working in Kodiak. In response
to Chair Dyson, he affirmed that he had reservations about the
bill, but said there are some good provisions. He indicated
that the Hospital Association provided some of the suggested
[language in Version F]; he expressed appreciation for the
sponsor's incorporating these suggestions. He said he wished to
offer a technical change to Section 2 and then focus on the
major concern that [Providence] has with the bill.
CHAIR DYSON suggested that Mr. Selby address the technical
change with Representative Coghill [later] because the committee
would not [move] the bill at this hearing. He noted his
interest in hearing Mr. Selby's major concerns about the concept
of modifying the certificate of need.
Number 2200
MR. SELBY reported that the major concern he referenced is the
issue of the 55,000-population criterion. He noted
[Providence's] inability to find how that figure relates to "the
real world." He suggested that allowing a "feeding frenzy" of
spending money for unnecessary medical facilities in Alaska's
three largest communities will reap a cost to the state that far
exceeds any fiscal note the committee has yet seen. He
expressed concern that [HB 407] is not about competition in the
medical industry; there is currently a great deal of competition
in the Anchorage medical community, for example. The CON
maintains the competition on a level playing field and controls
costs to the state, he explained. A CON means that health care
will be developed in the state based on needed services, rather
than a "whatever the market will bear" basis; he suggested the
latter would happen if the CON were removed. He added his
belief that the state will bearing [the costs] of most of the
market in this situation.
MR. SELBY noted that competition is perceived as a good thing in
the U.S. Although it is great when it relates to used cars,
however, he said it isn't "the main thing that you want to be
looking at in a health care delivery system." For example, a
person scheduled for heart surgery won't be seeking the cheapest
price. He told members, "That's the problem when you start
trying to move a pure competition model into a health care
delivery system where one of the big issues is quality of care."
MR. SELBY noted that a report released in January indicates a
21-percent increase in mortality in states that have no CON;
this is a nationwide study; the second sobering conclusion of
the study is that states with a CON have 84 percent greater use
of existing facilities. He explained that [high use] means the
volume is large enough that health care personnel stay competent
and maintain high skills. When too many facilities are built
and each facility has little volume, quality "goes right down
the drain" because staff aren't practicing enough of any one
[procedure] to maintain a high level of skill. He cautioned
that quality is a huge concern.
MR. SELBY noted the fourth concern from Providence's
perspective: if the 55,000-population limit is used to include
Anchorage and Fairbanks, "tertiary care" will be destroyed in
the state. He said, "The only way that we can pay for taking
care of tertiary-care patients in Alaska is to take the profits
that we do make from things like surgery and ... plow them back
into the system in order to develop tertiary care."
Number 2032
CHAIR DYSON asked for a definition of "tertiary care."
MR. SELBY said it is care such as advanced cancer care or
advanced heart care; it requires specialists and technical
medical equipment for delivery, and has huge overhead costs. He
remarked, "You'll end up sending tertiary care back to Seattle
and points south." He noted that Providence has, in the past 20
years of the CON law, been returning any net gains to tertiary
care systems in Alaska. This allows residents to remain in
Alaska for high-level cancer and heart treatments, whereas
previously residents were required to go to Seattle. [Removal
of the CON] would preclude further development of this type of
care. He offered to provide further details to interested
members.
Number 1978
CHAIR DYSON informed Mr. Selby that he would have another
opportunity to testify and answer questions. [HB 407 was held
over.]
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
University of Alaska Board of Regents
CHAIR DYSON announced the next order of business, the
confirmation hearings for appointees to the University of Alaska
Board of Regents.
Number 1921
MARK BEGICH, Appointee to the University of Alaska Board of
Regents, testified via teleconference. He told members he was
interested in serving on the board for a variety of reasons.
First, the university system throughout the state is a huge
opportunity for economic development as the state continues to
move in new directions; the university will not only serve as a
potential catalyst, but can serve as a training ground for many
of those related jobs. He explained that his last five years he
has served as the chair of the student loan corporation. He has
worked with the administration and the legislature through this
position in a bipartisan approach to improve the performance of
the student loan corporation, from its dismal situation five or
six years ago, to today's position as a successful corporation
producing a revenue stream back to the state; it offers lower
interest rates and more opportunities for students to further
their education. He offered that the skills he was able to use
in that role could be brought to the Board of Regents to work
with higher education.
Number 1848
MR. BEGICH noted that he has worked the past eight months on a
temporary basis with the board. One area of strong interest to
him is the development of a strategic plan for the university as
a statewide system. He said the board embarked on a program two
months ago, at a retreat where he chaired the planning and
development committee to begin the strategic planning process;
this process will engage the community around the state, as well
as the university campuses, in determining what is the best
focus of energies to ensure the system is the best possible for
Alaskan students.
MR. BEGICH concluded by saying he is a big supporter of
education, which he believes is an important component for
economic growth in the state. He has spent many years focusing
on issues surrounding youth and working in the field of
education, he said, noting his desire to dedicate his skills and
time toward helping the university and the state with higher
education. He related his excitement at the incredible
opportunity for the education system, and said he wants to
contribute in some way.
Number 1799
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Mr. Begich to discuss his
commitment to the mission of the community college concept.
MR. BEGICH noted that this issue was addressed at the retreat.
He indicated he likes to talk about the university as an
evolution. He offered his view that there is a desperate need
to deal with needs in local communities. For example, two-
thirds of the students attending the University of Alaska
Anchorage (UAA) are not necessarily full-time, four-year-degree
students; rather, they are seeking additional education to
improve current job situations, change jobs, or acquire new
skills to reenter the job market.
MR. BEGICH suggested this is more than a [community college
concept], and is an important part of the university system.
For students who want to change or advance their careers, this
means [addressing] some sense of the corporate college or
corporate component that UAA and other campuses have. He
offered his belief that these are important components, and said
the satellite campuses are very important to the system.
Number 1716
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS commented that Alaska is facing an
enormous teacher and nursing shortage. He asked Mr. Begich
about his intentions to resolve those shortage issues.
MR. BEGICH replied that before coming online he'd listed four
job classes that are currently recruiting outside of Alaska:
police/public safety officers, fire and paramedic personnel,
nurses and other health care professionals, and teachers. These
are fairly well-paying jobs, but out-of-state recruitment levels
[are high], which isn't a good thing. The university has an
incredible role beyond its current role of recruiting students
from high school to the system, he added.
MR. BEGICH mentioned working hand-in-hand with K-12 education to
help to focus young people on career paths that are available in
Alaska, well paid, and abundant. He said it is not just a
matter of the university working in isolation to create
appropriate programs; rather, it is critical to work with K-12
education so students are, early in high school, thinking about
the university system to get a teaching certificate or a
juvenile justice degree to become a police officer or
specialist. This is his approach, he noted; it is a system
connected with the rest of the education community.
Number 1627
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked him to expound on the role of the
satellite [programs] around the state and how to capitalize on
these.
MR. BEGICH replied that, frankly, he is still learning about the
system; he is attempting to visit some of the rural locations
for graduation ceremonies and to learn more about the needs of
the satellite programs. He indicated there are opportunities
that might be more cost-effective; for example, rather than
creating a new program in the urban areas, [the system could]
enhance what exists in some of the satellite locations and train
people for job opportunities that exist there, or increase
students' education attainment level. He said he doesn't have
specific plans, but is in a "learning curve"; he offered his
belief that there is value in these programs and that they are
an integral part of their communities. He suggested that they
can become more connected by creating job opportunities, and
that urban students might want to go to the satellite [programs]
for specialized training.
Number 1551
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted that [Mr. Begich] is in her
district, and that she has known his family most of her 35 years
in the state; she has attended a number of the same community
councils for the past ten years with him. She referenced his
resume and pointed out that items relate to at-risk children and
include his participation in the programs; for example, he plays
basketball with kids at the McLaughlin [Youth Center]. She
suggested he is committed to making sure youths in the state
have a decent chance [at success].
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that the core classes, from one
university campus to the next, are different. This makes it
difficult for students wishing to transfer from one campus to
another. She asked Mr. Begich for his thoughts on making core
classes such as English more standard across the state to
facilitate smooth transfers.
MR. BEGICH replied that this matter was recently addressed. He
said this seems like a simple question, but has an answer that
is more complicated than he believes it should be. He said the
board has asked him to serve on the academic affairs committee,
which likely will address this issue. It is not only difficult
to transfer credits from one campus to another, it will be a
critical as the university moves into web-based education
programs.
MR. BEGICH said, "You don't want to be in a situation where,
when someone is applying to get a degree from the University of
Alaska, ... they have to now be concerned about is that ...
class that I'm taking online, is it UAA or is it UAF [University
of Alaska Fairbanks]?" This creates a problem and isn't
seamless to the student. He explained that the primary consumer
is the student. Some of these processes are not very student-
oriented in the sense of making it easy to move within the
system. He indicated this would be a priority for him. This is
especially important for our mobile population; the credits need
to be transferable, especially in the core classes. "English
101 in Anchorage or 101 in Fairbanks shouldn't be much
different," he concluded.
Number 1314
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING expressed appreciation to [Mr. Begich]
for his commitment to the community and the state, noting that
he has followed Mr. Begich's public service career over the
years. He thanked Mr. Begich and conveyed his certainty that he
would serve as a regent in an exemplary manner.
Number 1251
MARLENE JOHNSON, Appointee to the University of Alaska Board of
Regents, testified via teleconference. She noted her interest
and involvement in education in Alaska, particularly rural
Alaska. Originally from Hoonah, where she was on the school
board for 26 years, she has served in different capacities for
the university system, including being a regent for the
university foundation and serving on the School of Fisheries and
Ocean Sciences advisory committee for eight years, until she was
appointed to the Board of Regents. She explained that she has
been involved in youth and education program: she served on
Governor Hammond's early childhood committee, Governor Cowper's
commission on children and youth, and the statewide Head Start
board. She explained that the Board of Regents is an
opportunity to help with the recruitment and retention of rural
Alaskan students in higher education.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that he appreciates Ms.
Johnson's service. He asked for her intentions in the area of
fisheries and ocean sciences if she is appointed to serve on the
Board of [Regents].
MS. JOHNSON replied that the School of Fisheries and Ocean
Sciences has an opportunity to become one of the most important
economic development functions for Alaska. She offered that
fisheries has an important role in employing so many people in
the state; the school is needed at this critical time for the
salmon industry. She noted that she would be the liaison from
the board to the school.
CHAIR DYSON thanked Ms. Johnson for her service.
Number 1080
JOSEPH HARDENBROOK, Appointee to the University of Alaska Board
of Regents, testified via teleconference, noting that he is a
student at UAF who came to Alaska in 1996 as a National Merit
Scholar. He reported that since he has been a student at UAF,
he has been active in local and statewide student government,
developing student campaigns for full funding for the university
system.
MR. HARDENBROOK said he has sought to focus on partnering his
learning with service at the university; he has served in
several student government roles, the UAF honors program, the UA
Foundation, the Alaska 20/20 conference, and several committees
and working groups at the university. He said, "I've really
tried to make service an integral part of my education, but at
the same time trying to focus on my academic achievement as
well." He explained that he has maintained a 3.6 grade-point
average and has made the dean's or chancellor's lists all but
one semester.
MR. HARDENBROOK offered that the reason he seeks to serve on the
board is to focus on the quality and accessibility of higher
education in Alaska. He expressed his belief that the role of
the student regent is to bring a student perspective to the
board and to work with students as the university develops.
This "changing face of higher education" includes a focus not
only on bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D. degrees, but also on
continuing education that is so important for a developing state
like Alaska, he explained. He concluded, "I'm really excited
about the University of Alaska and what it offers to the state.
That's the reason why ... I'm always eager to come down to
Juneau and talk to you folks about how important the university
is to me and to the other students that I interact with on a
daily basis."
Number 0970
CHAIR DYSON asked [Mr. Hardenbrook] where he was from
originally.
MR. HARDENBROOK answered that he graduated from high school in
Idaho. In further response, he said he plans to receive a
bachelor's degree in May in political science, and an
associate's degree next year in culinary arts.
Number 0932
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted his appreciation for the time [Mr.
Hardenbrook] has spent and will spend in service. He asked
about any areas that Mr. Hardenbrook perceives the university
should be moving, but is not.
MR. HARDENBROOK offered his impression that the university needs
to focus on accessibility of higher education. In many other
states, when one talks about a college degree, one focuses on
the costs. In Alaska, however, the typical student is not a 19-
year-old fresh out of high school, living in the dorm, and
eating in the cafeteria; rather, he/she is a single parent or
someone working full-time taking courses on the side.
Accessibility in Alaska means having the courses available when
the students need them, he pointed out. This is a matter that
the university has begun to address, but it needs to continue.
It is a matter of looking at when courses are offered and using
distance-delivery options.
CHAIR DYSON remarked, "We hope you stay in the state."
[Although there was no formal motion, the confirmations of the
three appointees were treated as advanced from committee.]
HB 408-STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS
CHAIR DYSON announced the next order of business, HOUSE BILL NO.
408, "An Act relating to questionnaires and surveys administered
in the public schools."
Number 0799
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB
408 on behalf of the House Special Committee on Education,
sponsor, which he chairs. He informed members that a couple of
years ago the legislature changed how surveys - particularly
those about youth risk behavior - require permission from
parents. In the past there was a "passive permission" process,
but now a statement must be sent to the student's home, signed
by the parents, and returned. However, school districts have
found the current requirement expensive and time-consuming but
not very productive because so few permission slips are
returned. Therefore, HB 408 changes the requirement to allow
school districts to administer anonymous questionnaires and
surveys, like the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), based on
"passive consent" by parents.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that to be statistically sound,
surveys require about a 60-percent return rate. In 1995 and
1999, when passive consent was required, the percentage of
return was "in the mid-60s." In response to questions from
members, he clarified that by "return rates" he meant the
response rate; that he was speaking about the number of students
taking the survey, "allowing for those that actively opted out";
and that a mid-60s percentage of return is good.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE reported that when active permission became
required, by contrast, the return rate dropped to less than 30
percent, not enough of a return to be statistically significant.
Consequently, schools districts and social services programs
that focus on preventing youth risk behaviors have been unable
to justify their federal grants or effectively evaluate programs
in place; the latter is his greater area of concern, he noted.
Chair Bunde pointed out that this situation puts youths, "at
least those that would listen to counseling and advice from
schools," at risk, and puts the availability of grants at risk
as well.
Number 0590
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), version 22-LS1458\C, Ford, 3/21/02, as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version C was before the
committee.
Number 0560
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that Version C is a technical
change. The original version neglected to include a phrase in
the current statute: "that inquires into personal or private
family affairs of the student not a matter of public record or
subject to public observation".
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out that these surveys are
voluntary. The bill still protects the rights of parents and
students to refuse to participate in surveys they find
troublesome. Districts still would be required to give parents
two weeks' notice of the survey; provide a copy of the survey;
and tell them how it would be administered, how the results
would be used, who would have access to the information, and how
to refuse permission for their children to take part.
Number 0499
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that this bill, which was requested
by the administration, was generated by the House Special
Committee on Education after discussion with various entities.
Those in support include the Association of [Alaska] School
Boards, the Anchorage School District and Anchorage School
Board, the Safe and Drug Free Schools organization, the
Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, Alaskans for
Tobacco-Free Kids, the [Alaska] Heart Association, the National
Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, the Southeast
Regional Resource Center, and "many social services providers
who would be impacted by the ability to work with these students
and provide their services." He said people from both the
"educational arena" and the administration were available to
testify and answer questions.
Number 0382
LISA TORKELSON testified via teleconference, noting that she is
a parent of two children and a "contributor to the big money pot
in the sky." She recalled that three years ago, HB 70 passed
with only three "nay" votes between the House and Senate and was
signed into law by the governor. Now, she said, HB 408 "rips
the heart out of HB 70 under the guise of minor cosmetic
surgery." Whereas parents were specifically added to the
process previously - upon the request of parents - HB 408
"carves them out." While it appears to change little from the
original legislation, she asserted, what remains doesn't include
parents.
MS. TORKELSON referred to the schools' position that this
legislation is needed to do the Youth Risk Behavior Survey and
obtain federal grant money. She said HB 70 didn't end survey
collection and that nothing in current law prohibits school
districts from getting information they want. Ms. Torkelson
told members:
All we ask is that they notify parents of their
intentions. Permission is only required for inquiries
into personal and family affairs, and to promote
efficiency. Blanket permission was allowed at the
beginning of each school year, as was suggested during
the registration process, when parents and students
are already signing other paperwork.
MS. TORKELSON recalled that the Department of Education put in a
zero fiscal note to HB 70 in 1999. She suggested if school
districts believe there is a huge cost burden, they should
discuss it with the department [now the Department of Education
and Early Development]. She said the goal was to include
parents in the loop, but not make the process onerous and
cumbersome for schools. Under HB 408, she said, there no longer
would be a checks-and-balances system. She pointed out that it
isn't limited to the YRBS, but can include a survey or
questionnaire on any subject.
Number 0150
MS. TORKELSON referred to page 1, lines 6-7 and line 11 [of HB
408, Version C]. She said as long as anonymity is maintained,
the district's inquiring about students, their families, or any
other subject would be totally permissible; current law at least
requires notification for every other type of nonpersonal
survey. "This keeps parents in the loop, but provides more of a
'heads up' and requires an active role," she said. Despite
having read HB 408 numerous times, she said it isn't clear to
her whether notification is required for anonymous surveys, but
added, "If Representative Bunde says that they are, perhaps
it is."
MS. TORKELSON told members that HB 70 had narrowly defined
"questionnaire or survey", but that the definition no longer
exists in HB 408. She referred to Representative Bunde's
comment that because schools are finding it difficult to get
parents' permission, the onus should be removed from parents.
She pointed out that perhaps parents don't want their kids
surveyed.
MS. TORKELSON said parents are the best judges of what their
children should be exposed to, and when. "Long ago, it was
decided that children below the age of majority were going to be
under their parents' jurisdiction," she noted. "This is still
true today, no matter how noble the cause, when ... schools want
to ask personal and probing questions. Parents still have a
right to respond with their child's best interest in mind."
MS. TORKELSON concluded by saying HB 70 was all about protecting
parents, whereas HB 408 is all about protecting funding for
bureaucracies. She requested that members support parents'
rights and vote "do not pass" on HB 408. She asked Chair Dyson
how he planned to respond to HB 408.
TAPE 02-25, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR DYSON answered that he would be voting "no."
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the anonymity of these surveys
factors into Ms. Torkelson's concern.
MS. TORKELSON replied, "Not really." She indicated the
committee packet should include an article relating to teachers
in Oregon who were "snooping" - the teachers were premarking
anonymous surveys and thus the opportunity to find out about [a
student's activities] was great. Ms. Torkelson pointed out that
teachers aren't trained to ensure anonymity when conducting
surveys. She said as a parent, she feels leery about having
surveys administered without her knowledge, just because
[anonymity can't be ensured].
Number 0172
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her belief that state government
in Alaska is increasingly concerned with the quality of what the
public sector does for the private sector; accountability
regarding services means that questions have to be asked. As a
parent, Representative Cissna acknowledged Ms. Torkelson's
concern, but asked regarding services, "How do we get there?"
MS. TORKELSON answered, "Just include parents in the process;
that's all we're asking." She emphasized that [if legislators]
are interested in what parents want schools to provide, they
should ask the parents. These surveys ask fairly personal
questions; furthermore, there is no guarantee that survey
results are accurate. She concluded by saying more accurate
information would be obtained if parents were included.
Number 0425
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent, Anchorage School District,
testified via teleconference in support of [Version C], saying
it allows for surveys [the district] feels are necessary. She
pointed out that [the district] has used the previously passed
legislation in contacting parents for consent for surveys;
thousands of dollars have been spent in postage and hiring extra
people to phone parents and ask them to return the permission
slips, even though the information is included in the
registration packets at the beginning of the school year.
However, many high school students don't bring their parents to
school with them for registration, especially juniors and
seniors who are able to drive.
MS. COMEAU reported no success in receiving [parental consent]
via mail, either. She conveyed belief that giving two weeks'
notice to parents of the intention to conduct a survey, and
following the criteria in Version C, would allow the district to
provide for adequate parental permission. Thus those who want
to opt out could do so, and arrangements could be made for those
students during the survey. Ms. Comeau further said:
We believe this would address a major concern for
Anchorage. We have lost ... a substantial number of
grants that we believe are very critical to providing
some of the educational programs that our students
need. And we do want to be able to do pre- and post-
assessments to see what the impact of some of our
instructional programs are in the Safe and Drug Free
Schools area, particularly in the anti-bullying things
we're trying to work through with the police
department and other agencies. So, we would very much
support this change in this proposed legislation.
CHAIR DYSON asked if a parent's signature is required on some
document when a child enrolls.
MS. COMEAU replied yes. For newly enrolled students, a packet
includes permission slips; however, those aren't the students
from whom the [district] has trouble obtaining permission slips.
A [permission slip] must be obtained annually; thus the problem
lies with continuing students who merely pick up registration
materials and pay fees without the presence of a parent.
Number 0641
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked what specific grants [the Anchorage
School District] has lost or may lose as a result of inadequate
information.
MS. COMEAU specified that [the district] didn't gain the Highway
Safety Grant this year, nor some conflict-resolution grants it
had successfully obtained in the past. She informed the
committee that [the district] is currently in the process of
requesting a grant for an anti-bullying program and substance
abuse program from the state. The hope is, for the anti-
bullying grant, that the district's data [from 1995] will
"pass," although it isn't current. Ms. Comeau indicated the
district has, under the latest estimate, lost $3,000 in grants
for which it had been successful in the past.
Number 0708
TERRY SOLOMON, Fairbanks North Star School District, testified
via teleconference in support of [Version C]. She pointed out
that [the district] has problems similar to those in the
Anchorage School District regarding the percentage of permission
slips returned. As a parent, Ms. Solomon said she believes it
is all right for students to answer these surveys; nothing is
being hidden from any parent.
MS. SOLOMON referred to when there was passive parent
permission; she said she didn't remember many parents calling to
request that their children not participate in a survey. She
echoed earlier testimony regarding the use of these statistics,
recalling her use of such statistics when applying for grants as
a member of the board of directors of the Boys & Girls Club; she
indicated several United Way agencies do the same.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS inquired as to the specific grants [the
Fairbanks North Star School District] has lost or may lose as a
result of inadequate information.
MS. SOLOMON said she couldn't specifically answer the question.
However, she mentioned that student surveys are often reviewed
in relation to how programs are evaluated. Therefore, it's
difficult not to have that information.
Number 0866
RICHARD BLOCK, Christian Science Committee on Publication for
the State of Alaska, testified via teleconference. He expressed
hope that the committee had received his written testimony. Mr.
Block said:
We think that the work done in 1999 to provide a
balance between providing what the school district or
others may regard as needed information, on the one
hand, and the parents' right to know what kind of data
are being collected and have the ability to weigh in
on whether their child should be included in such a
survey was a proper way to balance the interests. And
... HB 408 tends to move away from that balance.
MR. BLOCK related his belief that moving away from the balance
seems to be based on the assumption that the protections in HB
408 will work. For example, subsection (b) in Section 2 says
parents shall be notified, even for an anonymous questionnaire;
however, there are no specifics as to how the parent is to be
notified. Mr. Block surmised that if the school board argues
that mailing is too expensive, then it wouldn't intend to mail
the notice home. Therefore, [the school board] may rely on the
student's taking the notice home.
MR. BLOCK said from discussions with his son, a high school
teacher, he understands that even important documents such as
pink slips, grade slips, [notices involving] disciplinary
matters, and notices of parent-teacher nights somehow don't make
it home [to the parents]; therefore, it is fair to assume a
large percentage of survey permission slips won't make it home,
either. With regard to saying the school district will provide
parental notice, he characterized it as a hollow protection
unless the statute specifies an effective means of notification.
In conclusion, Mr. Block urged caution before changing the well-
balanced approach of 1999.
Number 1038
JAKE METCALFE, Member, Anchorage School Board, Anchorage School
District, testified via teleconference, noting that he is also a
parent of a child in the district. Mr. Metcalf announced that
the board unanimously supports Version C.
Number 1074
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked what the Anchorage School District
has done in an attempt to obtain responses from parents [who
haven't returned permission slips for these surveys].
MS. COMEAU explained that [the district] has hired extra help in
the past two years; run "telephone banks"; and done mailings to
parents, via the U.S. mail, the first time around. It is the
follow-up that's been difficult. For example, teachers have
talked with students in class to persuade them to talk to their
parents about the importance of returning [surveys]; however, it
appears to be difficult for students to either remember or
communicate that need to their parents. Furthermore, teachers
have been requested to ask parents about these forms at parent-
teacher conferences; in a limited 15- or 20-minute conference,
however, it takes time away from discussion of other substantive
issues. She concluded, "We've done everything we could think
of, in a district the size of ours, to get these returned. And
we just simply haven't received any kind of substantial return."
Number 1160
RUTHAMAE KARR, Interior Neighborhood Health Corporation (INHC),
testified via teleconference in support of HB 408. A
grandmother of six who lives in the Fairbanks North Star
Borough, she informed members that her children [names
unspecified] couldn't attend and had asked her to speak on their
behalf in support of the bill. On her own behalf, she stated
support for HB 408 as well. She mentioned working on a tobacco-
related grant; she indicated it is hard to evaluate tobacco-
related behavior, write grants, and determine effectiveness
[without surveys].
Number 1211
DEE HUBBARD testified via teleconference in opposition to HB
408, noting that she lives in Sterling. She recalled that the
survey mentioned was her main reason for supporting introduction
of HB 70 a few years back; she believed the survey to be
extremely intrusive and didn't want her children taking it, nor
did she recall that much information was given about it.
Although she'd talked to the principal and discovered her child
wasn't involved, it was up to her to do the legwork, she told
members. She'd felt then that parents needed more information,
she said, and still believes they should have another way to
participate in school districts' decision making. She related
her understanding that the survey continues to be given in
middle school, which includes sixth graders.
MS. HUBBARD told members she also sees HB 408 as an attempt by
the Anchorage School District, through the Anchorage
[legislative] caucus, to negate a law it doesn't like.
Referring to Ms. Comeau's testimony about attempts to contact
parents, she suggested additional measures could have been taken
and that the district hadn't liked the requirement and therefore
hadn't tried very hard to make it work. Ms. Hubbard conveyed
her belief that an active-permission process should be used as a
tool to foster more parent participation at various levels,
including schools and districts. She said:
I'm sorry that Anchorage is having a problem, and it
sounds like Fairbanks is having a bit of a problem.
But why should the parents and the students be
penalized because ... they're either doing a lousy job
at trying to get active parent permission or they're
just not working up to a level of being able to attain
that active parent permission?
MS. HUBBARD remarked that she is sure the Anchorage School
District is happy she lives in Sterling now. She asked the
committee to vote against HB 408, which she said she doesn't
agree with, doesn't support, and believes to be bad legislation.
Number 1410
CHAIR DYSON called upon Andree McLeod, informing the committee
that it was Ms. McLeod who got him interested in HB 70 several
years ago. He asked whether she had changed her convictions
since then.
Number 1440
ANDREE McLEOD testified via teleconference, answering no, she
hadn't changed her convictions. Noting that she still lives in
Anchorage, Ms. McLeod expressed amazement that the message that
parents don't want these questions being asked "isn't getting to
the public health professionals." She suggested that in
addition to the Anchorage School District, public health
officials are a strong lobbying group whose funding supposedly
depends on this [survey] information. She recited several
survey questions about sexual intercourse and pregnancy, dietary
matters, and so on. She conveyed gratefulness that her son is
out of the district, noting that she'd been adamant that he not
take part in these surveys.
MS. McLEOD brought attention to 20 U.S.C. § 1232h, saying it
mandates that these questions not be asked without the prior
written consent of the parent. She recalled the hard work
required to get [HB 70 passed] in 1999, and said she is livid
about the effort to repeal it. She told members that "New
Jersey is now in court" over this issue. She asked, "Do we have
the funding to go to court? Do we want to spend the ... $500
million of the school district ... on litigation? Do you want
your health and education funds to be spent on litigation?"
Number 1563
MS. McLEOD referred to Representative Cissna's inquiry about
what criteria can be used to assess the accountability of public
service besides survey results. Ms. McLeod suggested that it
should be demanded that state public health officials become
savvy in new computer technology in order to get this data
without going to every student.
MS. McLEOD turned attention to grant requests. She reported
that people in New Jersey had already gone to federal agencies
that said, "No, we're not going to give you money"; when
requested to put it in writing, however, no federal agency put
in writing that it [must use those numbers as a basis]. She
suggested, therefore, that anyone denied funding should ask why;
if the reason cited is that data wasn't provided, she proposed
asking that it be put in writing.
MS. McLEOD told members she'd always opposed this bill
intellectually, but had an experience with the Anchorage School
District in which teachers and counselors, especially, at East
High School had "crossed the line regarding privacy." Ms.
McLeod said teachers can do whatever they want with survey
information. She implored the committee to protect children
from teachers and counselors who would like to know this kind of
information, and to protect the parents. She concluded, "Leave
the parenting of values up to us."
Number 1715
EMILY NENON, Alaska Advocacy Manager, American Cancer Society,
testified via teleconference in support of HB 408 on behalf of
both the American Cancer Society and Alaskans for Tobacco-Free
Kids. She told members her career and personal interests lie in
examining the ways public policy affects people's everyday
lives. Ms. Nenon said, "From this perspective, the committee
substitute we're looking at is one of the very best kinds of
public policy." She stated:
As legislators, you all have committed to a
multimillion-dollar annual investment in tobacco
prevention-and-control programs. Your constituents,
the soon-to-be-taxpayers of Alaska, will want to know
if these programs are working.
This bill will make it feasible to reinstate the Youth
Risk Behavior Survey. The YRBS is the gold standard
in youth-behavior data collection across the country.
Without surveys such as this, we have no way of
knowing whether Alaska's investment in youth tobacco
prevention-and-control programs is paying off. With
surveys such as this, we can not only gauge our own
success, but also compare our progress with that of
other states, and adapt our programs for maximum
efficiency and impact. This data is the critical,
final component to measuring our success and living up
to the missions and measures of the tobacco
prevention-and-control programs.
Tobacco is the number-one cause of preventable death
in Alaska. The average age that people start smoking
is 14. You have made an investment in changing these
facts. By providing for scientific data collection,
HB 408 provides accountability to the state's tobacco-
control efforts. You are dedicating tremendous
resources to the deadly problem of tobacco use in
Alaska. Don't you want to know if ... you're doing
any good?
Number 1804
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Ms. Nenon what kinds of questions
are asked about tobacco and what her organizations do with that
information.
MS. NENON replied that as an advocate for the American Cancer
Society, she has heard from state tobacco prevention-and-control
programs some discussion about questions asked regarding the age
at which people start using tobacco and the frequency of use,
for example. [A survey] also can be used to gauge the effects
on people's attitudes from a specific program, from education in
schools, or from "counter-marketing."
Number 1883
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE wrapped up by addressing the possible
inference that his involvement with the legislation is "anti-
parent." He told listeners:
I just want to assure people that that's far from the
case. I wish we didn't live in a society where there
are sixth [graders] and seventh graders that are
having sex or doing drugs or smoking or drinking, or
whatever they're doing. But I don't think pulling ...
a blanket over our head and pretending that that stuff
doesn't exist is ... good parenting, either. ...
I think good parents have active refusal. Good
parents are involved enough that they know what's
going on with these surveys, and they will say no.
The problem isn't that too many parents are saying no.
The problem is, just not enough parents are even being
asked the question; the information doesn't get ...
home to them for them to make a decision.
A good parent would review the survey [and] make the
decision they want their child involved or not. I ...
haven't had the experience of everyone, but I don't
have the paranoia that the school districts are out to
destroy parents.
Number 1950
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA, speaking as a parent of her own daughter
as well as adopted and foster children, recounted that she'd
worked in the school an hour each week; therefore, she'd found
out what was going on in class. She said it would seem to be a
good exercise for parents, and a good way "to make sure things
don't happen."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed, time permitting [for the parent].
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER mentioned working full-time.
Number 2004
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS referred to testimony via teleconference
that districts haven't done enough to get the message out. He
said it appears that at least the Anchorage School District has
spent considerable money and time trying to get these messages
out. He asked Representative Bunde whether he was concerned
about that cost, whether there are solutions to getting more
responses to the surveys, and whether the money would be better
spent elsewhere.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied, "You bet; just put me in charge of
it." He then said, as a husband of an elementary school
teacher, he knows how difficult it is to "get stuff to go home"
and get it back.
Number 2030
RIC IANNOLINO, Chair, Youth on the Street, came forward to
testify, noting that his organization is a citizens' group in
Juneau that deals with homeless teens. He referred to Dr. David
Moore, Associate Director, Safe and Drug Free Schools, who he
said also works at the University of Washington, College of
Education, Center for the Study and Teaching of [At-Risk]
Students; Mr. Iannolino said his own organization deals with
high-risk students as well. "We don't work for the schools," he
explained. "We don't work for anybody. They're a group of
citizens, many of them parents, some homeless students."
MR. IANNOLINO pointed out that homeless teens actually have
homes, but many times the living situations are so difficult
that nobody would want to live there with the parents or
families. Furthermore, they are homeless because nobody has
called the police to report them missing. Nobody has called the
school, let alone sent a permission slip. "We can't find
information," he told members. "We can't get grants."
MR. IANNOLINO reported that the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has determined that surveys which
require active parental consent, as the current statutes
require, are invalid; they underreport various "problem" health
behaviors including those involving marijuana, homelessness, and
a range of other problems. He said the legislature, as
testimony has indicated, currently cannot audit the
effectiveness of youth health programs in Alaska because of the
lack of data.
MR. IANNOLINO pointed out that loss of federal funds and
competition for national foundation monies are two issues;
Alaskan programs are at a disadvantage when competing with
states that can offer program evaluation using valid student
surveys that don't require active parental consent. He
emphasized that this is a barrier to receiving a fair share of
grants relating to substance abuse, violence, or homelessness.
MR. IANNOLINO referred to Representative Stevens' questions.
Noting that the methods are 15 percent to 30 percent of the
scoring, he said, "On the big, national, competitive grants, you
lose automatically; you don't get them. And we're not." He
told members that recent passage [by Congress] of President
Bush's "leave no child behind" education bill had removed
mandatory active parental consent and replaced it with "guidance
for local decision making, local control." He offered the
following quotation:
A local educational agency that receives funds under
the applicable program shall develop and adopt
policies in consultation with parents regarding the
following: the right of a parent of a student to
expect, upon request of the parent, a survey created
by a third party before the survey is administered or
distributed by a school to a student and, if
applicable, procedures for granting a request by a
parent for reasonable access to such survey with a
reasonable period of time after the request is
received.
MR. IANNOLINO said this provision allows for fully informing the
parents and allowing them to opt out of the survey. Districts
can make decisions on an individual basis. In particular, they
can allow passive consent for critical health surveys such as
the youth health behavior survey and surveys by his own
organization such as the one conducted in 1998 "on the streets."
He told members:
We can't go into the schools; the schools here are
begging us because we have sixth graders who are
homeless; we have middle school; we have high school.
So ... we want to go into the sixth grade, do a
survey, all the way through twelfth [grade], so that
we can get some funding. You can't give us the money.
You don't have the money. If you shoot our feet off,
we can't get grants, either. We're not serving
children. This is a dire situation.
MR. IANNOLINO concluded by saying the legislature should allow
for local control on an individualized basis for school surveys.
Number 2200
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked how many homeless youths Mr.
Iannolino's organization deals with in a year.
MR. IANNOLINO offered results from a 1998 survey designed by the
McDowell Group and conducted by his organization. He said, "The
estimate, sadly enough, was between 150 at one time, and during
the summer, up to 200 homeless youth in Juneau on any one
night."
Number 2221
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that as a school nurse for more
than nine years, she taught drug and alcohol prevention programs
in the school system, which served 4,000 students -
approximately 325 per grade. She said it isn't always that
children don't get the notes home; rather, many parents either
don't care or don't know what happens to these notes after the
children give them to the parents. She agreed it is difficult
to get them returned.
CHAIR DYSON thanked participants and announced that HB 408 would
be held over.
HB 338-APPROP: GRANTS TO PREVENT YOUTH SUICIDE
CHAIR DYSON announced the final order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 338, "An Act making a special appropriation for a grant to
Boys and Girls Clubs of Southcentral Alaska for a youth suicide
prevention program; and providing for an effective date." [HB
338 was sponsored by the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee.]
TAPE 02-25, SIDE B
Number 2272
JOHN OATES, Chief Executive Officer, Boys & Girls Clubs of
Southcentral Alaska, explained that HB 338 would fund a position
in each of the 32 clubhouses throughout the state. The position
would be proactive in coordinating with schools and other
entities in the community to look for children who are at risk
and get them involved in clubhouse activities in an effort to
reduce suicides. He pointed out that the suicide rate in Alaska
is high, particularly in rural areas.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that this bill was heard by the
current committee several weeks ago. He said he would put a "do
not pass" on the report and would object to moving it out. The
issue [of suicide] needs to be discussed; it is a heartbreaking
matter, he said, but he would object to a million-dollar [fiscal
note], which the House Finance Committee should have an
opportunity to [debate]. He offered that he was in a
subcommittee hearing, and that it was very painful to cut a
million dollars from the developmental disability grants.
Number 2190
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE explained that he is painfully aware of how
suicides impact families. He remarked, "Those of us who are
survivors are victims, I think, of a different kind." He said
he has the utmost respect for the Boys & Girls Clubs and the
good they are doing in the state; he has helped with Boys &
Girls Clubs as an advisory member. However, for prevention [of
suicide], Boys & Girls Clubs must be part of other things in the
communities. As he reviewed a map showing clubhouses around the
state, he observed that not nearly enough of the state is
covered. He has grappled with this issue, he said, and supports
such programs but questions whether this will "get us there."
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that this is one-time funding, and
said he is painfully aware of the expectation this creates; he
emphasized the need to have a greater effort. He explained,
"We're talking about a level of training, or a level of
commitment that cannot be a one-time commitment. It has to be a
level of actions that are going to be so penetrating in our
communities." He suggested this is related to HB 408, and to
why people fail to feel good about life and who they are.
Number 2063
MR. OATES, in response to Chair Dyson, said he could be in
Juneau the next day, and had visited with almost all the members
or their staffs.
CHAIR DYSON remarked that he shares the opinion that this is a
somewhat regional program. This fact is coupled with the charge
of this committee and the responsibility of finding the funding
for the program. He noted that the committee has a decision to
make whether to pass this out. He asked what additional
information members need in order to make a reasonable vote. "I
want you to feel no pressure from me," he added.
Number 2013
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA replied that she would be willing to pass
this bill out only after two amendments were made.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said, "I'm ready now."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS expressed concern. He said he had the
greatest respect for what Mr. Oates and the Boys & Girls Clubs
do, but wasn't certain this was the correct vehicle for such a
massive problem. He suggested that other groups such as
religious and Native organizations, "spirit" camps, church
groups, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and others might be interested
in being a part of looking for this solution. He suggested that
someone from the administration might have a suggestion on how
this might be done across the state. This [effort] does not go
across the state, he said, which concerns him as well.
Number 1959
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE reported that he was part of the suicide
task force put together last year; he said there is no telling
what will happen with that, because he believes it was cut from
budget. He said that if [the legislature] is going to get at
the root of this problem, and if the state is going to make the
kind of investment in that, it has to be accomplished in a long-
term and "horizontal" manner, not a vertical manner, to be the
most successful.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE emphasized that he wants to see these
people helped; he noted that [suicide] affects a lot of young
men as well as youths. Too many people that he knows, and
unfortunately some of his relatives, have [committed suicide],
he said, indicating the need for the suicide task force, which
includes members of the House and Senate. Referring to remarks
by Representative Stevens, Representative Joule said he'd
explained to Mr. Oates that one of his first thoughts was to
coordinate the suicide prevention effort with the organizations
most familiar with the villages they serve - the regional
nonprofits. He concluded by expressing frustration that
although he'd like to see the committee do something, he wasn't
certain that [HB 338] would accomplish what is needed.
Number 1846
CHAIR DYSON informed Mr. Oates that he would be afforded plenty
of notice of another hearing, and suggested that he find four
committee members and work with them until they are comfortable
about passing [the bill from committee]. He added that the
committee needs to inquire of the Suicide Prevention Council.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON concurred with Representative Joule. [HB
338 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 5:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|