Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/20/1999 05:10 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
MILITARY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS
April 20, 1999
5:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative John Coghill, Vice Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 165
"An Act relating to school crisis response planning."
- MOVED HB 165 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 101(FIN) am
"An Act relating to disasters and to the disaster relief fund."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 165
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL SAFETY PLAN
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KAPSNER, Cissna, Davies, Dyson,
Joule,
Kerttula, Morgan, Phillips, Smalley, Croft
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/29/99 602 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/29/99 602 (H) MLV, HES, FIN
4/13/99 (H) MLV AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/13/99 (H) <BILL RESCHEDULED TO 4/20>
4/20/99 (H) MLV AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 101
SHORT TITLE: DEFINITION OF DISASTER
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/11/99 476 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/11/99 476 (S) FIN
3/15/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/15/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/15/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/18/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/18/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/22/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/22/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/22/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/24/99 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/24/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/29/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/29/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
3/31/99 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/31/99 (S) MOVED CS(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/01/99 768 (S) FIN RPT CS 7DP NEW TITLE
4/01/99 768 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, GREEN,
4/01/99 768 (S) PETE KELLY, LEMAN, WILKEN, DONLEY
4/06/99 (S) RLS AT 3:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/06/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/07/99 804 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DEC, DMVA)
4/08/99 821 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 4/8/99
4/08/99 825 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/08/99 825 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/08/99 825 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/08/99 825 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
4/08/99 826 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 101(FIN) AM
4/08/99 826 (S) FAILED PASSAGE Y10 N9 A1
4/08/99 826 (S) MACKIE NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/09/99 853 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
4/09/99 853 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2
UNAN CONSENT
4/09/99 853 (S) AM NO 2 ADOPTED Y13 N6 E1
4/09/99 855 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
4/09/99 856 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N4 E1
4/09/99 856 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/12/99 723 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/12/99 723 (H) MLV, FIN
4/20/99 (H) MLV AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MARY SATTLER KAPSNER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 165.
PAT JACKSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Mary Sattler Kapsner
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question regarding SB 125, companion
bill to HB 165.
DAVID LIEBERSBACH, Director
Division of Emergency Services
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs
P.O. Box 5750
Fort Richardson, Alaska 99505-5750
Telephone: (907) 428-7000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 165.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Director
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-8689
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 165 and SB 101.
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer
Youth Corrections
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Telephone: (907) 465-2212
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 165.
DARRELL HARGRAVES
Alaska Council of School Administrators
326 Fourth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9702
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 165.
DARWIN PETERSON, Legislative Assistant
to Senator John Torgerson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 516
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2828
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator Torgerson, Co-
Chair of Senate Finance Committee, sponsor of SB 101.
BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Randy Phillips
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 103
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4949
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 101 and answered
questions.
JOHN ALCANTRA, Emergency Management Coordinator
Kenai Peninsula Borough;
Chair,
Statewide Local Emergency Planning Commission Association
Address: 144 North Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-8619
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 101.
JAMES STUDLEY, Coordinator
Northern Southeast Local Emergency Planning Committee
P.O. Box 946
Haines, Alaska 99827
Telephone: (907) 766-3377
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 101.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-6, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Special Committee on Military
and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Murkowski,
Coghill and Kott. Representatives Cissna, James and Phillips
arrived at 5:11 p.m., 5:12 p.m. and 5:21 p.m., respectively, and
Representatives Croft and Foster arrived at 5:23 p.m.
HB 165 - SCHOOL SAFETY PLAN
Number 0058
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first item of business would be
House Bill No. 165, "An Act relating to school crisis response
planning." She pointed out that the committee would consider not
school issues, specifically, but how the Division of Emergency
Services fits into a school crisis response planning effort.
Number 0128
REPRESENTATIVE MARY SATTLER KAPSNER, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor, noted that HB 165 is timely, as there was just a crisis at
the Columbine High School near Denver, Colorado, which highlights
the importance of creating a crisis plan in Alaska's schools. She
read from the sponsor statement, as follows:
In February of 1997, gunfire exploded in the hallways of the
Bethel Regional High School, ending the lives of the
principal, Ron Edwards, and a promising young athlete, Josh
Palacios. The actions that took place immediately following
this tragedy still haunt the residents of Bethel with
questions such as, "Should we have ...?" and "Why didn't we
...?"
I sincerely hope that no other school or community will
experience this type of trauma and the pain that accompanies
it. If, however, a crisis which affects the life, health and
emotional well-being of students does happen, schools must be
prepared to respond. Some schools in Alaska have planned for
such crises. Others have not. House Bill 165 would make sure
that every school does so.
House Bill 165 adds a new section to the education statutes
requiring each school to develop a site-specific crisis
response plan. The Department of Education [DOE]... would
provide the standards. Each school district would develop a
template for use by their schools. But the real work would be
done at each school, with the involvement of those individuals
at the school who will respond to the tragedy.
House Bill 165 ... has had valuable input from numerous
individuals and organizations involved in school safety
issues. In fact, it became obvious, early in my work on this
bill, that school safety is a multifaceted issue. ... As
communities and schools work on a wide range of safety issues
on an ongoing basis, HB 165 targets one critical component:
... It asks each school to engage in the forethought and
planning, to be prepared to meet the needs of students in
times of tragedy and crisis.
Number 0291
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to Section 1, which lists the members of
the crisis response team as follows: "the principal or the
principal's designee, one member of the governing board or advisory
school board, a school counselor, one certified and one classified
member of the school staff, one parent whose child attends the
school, one student in grade 10 or higher if the school has those
grades, and other members at the discretion of the advisory school
board or the advisory school board's equivalent." Chair Murkowski
expressed concern that there may be areas where some of these
individuals aren't available. If, for example, a counselor is not
available, she wants to ensure that it doesn't defeat the
composition of the planning team.
Number 0364
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER responded that the intention, for a future
committee substitute (CS), is that only four members must be
included on the crisis response team: a principal or a principal's
designee; one certified teacher; one classified staff member, such
as a janitor, teacher's aide or cook; and one parent. It will be
left open, so that the team may include a board member or advisory
board member, or a member of a parent-teacher organization; a
counselor, if the community has one; local law enforcement; and a
student in grade 10, 11 or 12, if the school has those grades. It
is left open to whomever the community wants to include, such as a
minister or anyone else from the community. Representative Kapsner
told members that HB 165 is a companion bill to SB 125, sponsored
by Senator Hoffman and discussed in the Senate Health, Education
and Social Services Committee. She said she is receptive to
amending this.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said it sounds as if the Senate version addresses
her own concerns, making the composition more broad.
Number 0520
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER specified that the intent is for a CS for
the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee. She
deferred to Pat Jackson for clarification about whether there was
actually a CS from the Senate committee.
Number 0560
PAT JACKSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative
Mary Sattler Kapsner, Alaska State Legislature, told members that
in the Senate version of the bill, that CS work had been held for
the next committee of referral, the Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Committee, of which Senator Hoffman is a member.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said she would prefer to hold discussion of
a CS for the current bill until the House Health, Education and
Social Services Committee.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI indicated that would be all right.
Number 0641
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what connection there would be to the
Division of Emergency Services.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER responded that this broad bill, under the
title of "crisis response," could include not only violent crises
but also events such as earthquakes or fire, in which case they
would rely heavily on emergency services. She hadn't talked to the
division directly and was interested in hearing the testimony that
day, she added.
Number 0710
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked what the smallest number of students is
that attend any one school.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said she doesn't have specific numbers, but
the smallest she attended had four students in high school and
eleven students in elementary school; the latter now has about
eight students. She stated her belief that most schools must now
have ten students in order to stay open.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT concurred with that number. He asked if the
intent is for the district to develop a template for the schools,
which would then fill in the names and specific information
relevant to that school.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER explained that the template is so that
everyone won't have to reinvent the wheel. However, each facility
and community is different. For example, the emergency exit might
be a door or a window, depending on the building. Or if a school
has a high turnover, perhaps not the principal but the president of
the school board would be in charge, or the minister. Although a
crisis may occur in 15 minutes, there are years of dealing with
that trauma. To make situations less traumatic, each community
needs to have specific people. They want each school to address
what would happen and who would be in charge, who would contact the
press, who would contact the parents, and who would counsel the
students. "Our intent was to have a template, or a model, so that
everyone wouldn't have to struggle through every detail, but we
wanted it to be broad enough so that every community could make it
tailor-made to their needs," Representative Kapsner concluded.
Number 0943
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether they could work with and through
the DOE, in consultation with the Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs' emergency response team, for example, to develop
that initial template for all the schools, rather than having the
54 individual districts do that. The schools then could utilize
whatever is relevant within the school-specific response plan.
Representative Kott further asked whether any provision in here
addresses charter schools.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER responded to the first point by referring to
page 2, beginning at line 1, where it read, "meet standards as
determined by the department by regulation." She said there would
be a lot of sharing and help by the DOE. As to the second point,
she said there is nothing specific for non-public schools. She
asked Bruce Johnson of the DOE to address that.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI suggested that Mr. Johnson address it during his
testimony. She noted that all members were present.
Number 1103
DAVID LIEBERSBACH, Director, Division of Emergency Services,
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, came forward. He
stated:
With reference to House Bill 165, we essentially have no
problems with it. To the degree that we have the expertise,
we will be able to provide that, mostly in the arenas of the
disaster preparedness planning, if you will: earthquakes; to
some degree, fire, although that usually falls under the
purview of the Department of Public Safety and the fire
marshall's office - but any of the floods, fires, those sorts
of things.
Crisis counseling is not the work that the Division of
Emergency Services at this time has the expertise in. So, to
the degree we have it, we can provide that, but we don't have
a lot of experts in that.
MR. LIEBERSBACH advised members that the division can provide
support, as necessary, out of the current staffing. Where they
have staff there already, they have been involved in getting crisis
counseling help, for example, although they don't do it themselves.
They encourage this kind of planning at local levels, for schools,
businesses and all other entities. The division works with the
schools on planning for events such as earthquakes and flooding,
not from a crisis standpoint but as "consequent management."
Although his division would assist to the degree it can, much of
the crisis team, counseling and possible law enforcement
involvement would come under different departments.
MR. LIEBERSBACH referred to the crisis at that very moment in
Littleton, Colorado, with over 20 dead students still lying on the
floors of the school. [Later news reports clarified that 15 people
were dead.] He concluded that it is an opportune time to be
looking at this kind of thing for Alaska.
Number 1301
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated his understanding that the division
would be more concerned with natural disasters, rather than the
shootings that day, for instance.
MR. LIEBERSBACH affirmed that, pointing out that in the Bethel
incident, his division had no involvement; that involvement was
primarily by law enforcement and the local school, and so forth.
To the degree necessary, the division does provide support, but in
a different vein, he explained. For example, when the recent
avalanches occurred, his division provided support to the state
troopers and search-and-rescue teams; however, it was the
responsibility of the Department of Public Safety, not his
division. That is the current situation, pending possible passage
of SB 101.
Number 1380
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether, as a matter of logistics, a
school plan would go through another agency, rather than directly
to the Division of Emergency Services.
MR. LIEBERSBACH replied that it doesn't have to go either way. If
a request for assistance came to his division, they would look to
see, under the statutes, what agencies are supposed to assist, then
route it appropriately. They would not just refuse to help or tell
the caller to try another number. In this case, it would probably
be the Department of Public Safety for law enforcement, and the
Department of Health and Social Services for the counseling
aspects; if either agency needed assistance in getting there, his
division would help with that, however.
Number 1464
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested this highlights the need for a
plan regarding where calls should go.
MR. LIEBERSBACH agreed. In a human-caused crisis, he said, with
possible law enforcement aspects, it should go directly to the
state troopers, for example, who will get his division involved to
the degree necessary.
Number 1494
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that in Anchorage, all schools must have an
earthquake-preparedness plan. She asked whether the division
participates with helping the schools statewide set up such plans.
MR. LIEBERSBACH said yes, but generally not directly. For example,
they work with the Municipality of Anchorage's division of
emergency services, which has that responsibility. In an area with
no interfaced local government, however, his division would work
directly with the borough, local government or school. In
addition, his division's "earthquake people" have been into the
schools all over the state, both in Anchorage and in rural areas,
to talk about earthquake-preparedness plans.
Number 1558
BRUCE JOHNSON, Director, Teaching and Learning Support, Department
of Education (DOE), answered Representative Kott's question by
specifying that charter schools are separate schools within a
school district. If this bill passed, they would also be required
to have a crisis plan in place.
Number 1590
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether it is the intent of the
legislation that a charter school within a particular district "be
responsible to the district's template."
MR. JOHNSON said yes, he believes that is how it would work best,
although obviously there may be unique facilities occupied by
charter schools. He then addressed the bill in general, stating:
We believe, as a department, that children deserve the
proactive planning that could come through the passage of this
bill. We believe it should occur at a community level, and we
certainly appreciate the sponsor's willingness to work with
people who have some expertise in this area, to ensure that
schools and school districts are given the latitude necessary
to afford each school community the opportunity to identify
those individuals that can best serve on that team, and are
available in that particular community.
We also, as a department, encourage that the content sections
of the main plan sufficiently broad to allow communities, and
the schools, the flexibility that is necessary to address
their particular unique needs.
So, with that, we agree schools could benefit from this,
Alaskans' children could benefit from this. You never know
when the next crisis is going to occur, and we have the
resources within the Department of Education, in the form of
one of our units, ... that has lots of expertise and could
provide the template that is being talked about, one that
would be suitable for urban Alaska, one that would be suitable
for rural Alaska, and then work with individual schools and
school districts to provide the technical assistance that they
may request from us. So, I think we're well-prepared to
assist in that endeavor.
Number 1691
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether there will be a problem in the
event that some small schools don't have a counselor.
MR. JOHNSON replied that clearly not every school in Alaska has a
counselor available. He referred to the CS that had been
discussed, then told members he has been involved in a series of
conversations regarding how this might evolve to cover Alaska's
diversity. The department believes that the school leader -
whether a full-time principal, a principal's designee when the
principal is not there, a head teacher or a teaching principal -
needs to be involved. Beyond that, it will be site-specific. For
example, a community Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) or a
state trooper, if located there, should be involved. Mr. Johnson
said he believes that the sponsor intends to take that into
account.
Number 1782
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that the fiscal note shows no cost
to the DOE, and Mr. Johnson had indicated the costs will be borne
by the school districts. He asked whether Mr. Johnson has
discussed with individual school districts this particular plan, as
it is relates to their unfunded mandate.
MR. JOHNSON replied, "I'm sure that we're going to hear from school
districts about unfunded mandates." He said as superintendent of
Mount Edgecumbe High School, part of his assignment, it would be
very hard to come forward, especially given the events in Bethel
and Littleton, Colorado, and suggest that this is not a good idea.
He concluded, "This is just something that we need to do, in the
best interests of young people. And I believe that there are
resources that are available to make the job of communities and
school districts easier, and manageable, without a fiscal note."
Number 1839
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said this seems to be a "no-brainer." She
asked whether Mr. Johnson sees a problem with leaving it flexible,
just saying that there will be somebody in charge, to be appointed
or identified, as well as identifying whatever assistance would be
needed in that school.
MR. JOHNSON replied, "I think that could work. Again, our template
would suggest appropriate individuals, beyond the individual in
charge, that should be considered, if available in the community."
He said the plan's strength will partly be the product of how it is
conceived by community members. Getting communities to talk about
this issue, and about the potential of a crisis, is more important
than who actually sits at the table, as long as the decision makers
in the community are involved, he added.
Number 1917
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recounted her own experience, where schools
during World War II had plans because of the need. She said it is
embarrassing that it requires legislation to make this happen, but
she would support such legislation if it does make it happen.
MR. JOHNSON emphasized that many districts and schools already have
plans in place. This would just ensure that everyone has that
responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked whether Mount Edgecumbe has a plan.
MR. JOHNSON said yes. For example, the students would go to the
SEARHC [Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium] hospital in
the event of a tsunami.
Number 1989
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that what seems to be useful is
that professionals, as well as a student and a parent, are
involved, which allows for problem-solving skills. That kind of
modeling could be carried further in a crisis itself. She pointed
out that no one can prepare totally for a crisis.
MR. JOHNSON agreed that the problem solving at the community level
will bring about a real strength and preparedness.
Number 2064
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer, Youth Corrections
Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS), specified that he was speaking on behalf of
the DHSS in support of HB 165. He indicated that the DHSS and its
divisions look forward to continuing to work with the DOE, school
districts, and local schools to develop these plans. He said HB
165 is based on a "best practices" approach to a problem that
plagues us in this day and age, and it is appropriate to have such
plans in our local schools, to try to minimize or prevent any
tragedy.
Number 2105
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said he doesn't understand why a bill is
needed to do this. He asked why the DOE's board of education can't
issue a regulation to do this. He pointed out the lengthy process
required to get a bill through the legislature, and that there is
no fiscal note.
MR. BUTTCANE said he would defer to the DOE.
Number 2132
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that he assumes there will be a small
impact on the DHSS, but probably not enough to justify a fiscal
note.
MR. BUTTCANE replied that they had looked at that question. They
endeavor to coordinate and cooperate with schools on a variety of
issues; this would be another one, in the normal course of their
duties. In a number of school districts, the DHSS is already
involved in discussions regarding development and implementation of
crisis response plans. Some schools have plans in place, which the
DHSS has helped to develop and support. "So, there will be no
significant fiscal impact to the department through this bill," he
concluded.
Number 2176
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested that this is enough different from
the education mission that only a "very brave regulatory authority"
would step into it without legislative approval.
Number 2215
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER disagreed, as the DOE comes up with fire
codes, for instance, regarding life safety issues of running a
school. He said he believes this is one of those issues.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI invited Mr. Johnson to respond to Representative
Foster's question. She further asked whether, in light of the
Colorado tragedy, the department is looking at this differently,
in terms of crisis planning within the schools, totally apart from
this bill.
Number 2255
MR. JOHNSON replied that obviously what occurred in Bethel a couple
of years ago had highlighted the need for safety of children.
Before that, many Alaskans had felt somewhat immune from what was
occurring elsewhere. As to why the state board of education
doesn't just take out a regulation for public comment and then -
hopefully - implement it, he told members, "I don't know that we
seriously considered doing that. In my tenure, in attending state
board meetings, we haven't had that level of discussions. Maybe we
should, and maybe it's overdue."
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER emphasized the importance of this issue,
restating that this should be implemented now, without a bill. He
added that nothing keeps a school from coming up with this plan,
and they should all be doing it. He concluded, "And there's no
fiscal note, so it doesn't cost them anything, right? I don't know
why the board of education doesn't address this issue. It's a one
of life and safety."
Number 2334
MR. JOHNSON agreed that is a valid point, "one that we will take to
the state board of education in June, in the event that this bill
does not wind its way through and end up on the Governor's desk
with a positive signature." He suggested that there may be things
that the DOE, through its regulatory power and the state board, can
do to ensure that something doesn't happen in the meantime, while
waiting for a bill to pass.
Number 2359
DARRELL HARGRAVES, Alaska Council of School Administrators (ACSA),
came forward, telling members he could fairly much echo Mr.
Johnson's comments. Mr. Hargraves reported that the
superintendents looked at this and saw no reason to oppose it; they
gave tacit approval of the bill itself. However, the council of
school administrators, which includes the principals, hasn't
weighed in on this.
MR. HARGRAVES agreed that many schools have such plans right now,
and many have parts and pieces. For example, there are fire drill
plans and requirements to put escape route maps on the walls of
each classroom. Some is a result of local school board policies,
and some because of having a good principal. He cited as an
example a school in North Pole that has a plan and a committee,
much like what is recommended here.
MR. HARGRAVES pointed out that while it is easy to think of a
crisis in terms of the killings in Bethel or Colorado, the vast
majority would be events such as a suicide by a student, and the
aftermath of that. "Many times, even with the plans we have, we
don't have in place how to handle that," he told members. "The
school district needs a plan that says what's to do, and who's to
do it." He has discovered that the students can be torn apart
emotionally after a suicide, and there may even be students passing
out in the hallways. Someone strong must step in and take charge,
such as a school psychologist, he suggested, or, lacking that, a
counselor, the principal, the superintendent, and people out of the
district office can make up the team to guide that. Mr. Hargraves
explained:
And I know that in the rural areas it takes a while for people
to get to a site, but I still want to know that the district
office is in charge of what goes on out at that site, because
in case of a suicide, you'd be surprised how many people
suddenly become proficient and expert in counseling - I mean,
everybody you can imagine from the community. Different
groups will call up and say, "I counseled somebody one time"
and "My brother-in-law passed away, and I counseled my
sister-in-law; so, I can be a counselor." So, what you need
is a plan in place, ... again, what's going to be done and
who's going to do it.
TAPE 99-6, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether anyone else wished to testify. She
then asked whether Representative Kapsner wished to wrap up.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER referred to Representative Kott's comment
about unfunded mandates. She reported that while talking to
superintendents and administrators from around the state, she has
received the impression that this is so important that they will
find money to ensure that a plan is put in place.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER next responded to Representative James'
remark that this is a "no-brainer," and her question about what
precludes schools from doing their own plans. She said it is a lot
like the question of why it must be mandated that people buy car
insurance: Although everyone knows the necessity, a law is needed
to ensure that it is done. She suggested that 90 percent of the
laws are written for 10 percent of the public. She believes that
this is for the schools where people don't believe anything will
happen. She herself never thought such a thing could happen in
Bethel, her own town, yet there are even smaller communities where
crises have happened, unforeseen. She said she believes there must
be a law.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER explained that one reason she'd wanted to
see so many people involved is that while some communities have
good working relationships with their schools, some small villages
don't. She explained, "They don't feel like they're a part of the
curriculum. They feel that ... their school is an embodiment of
another culture. And to include people from the community, I
think, will make the plan a lot stronger ... and provide community
ownership." She concluded by emphasizing the urgency of passing HB
165 out this session.
Number 0125
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER made a motion to move HB 165 from committee
with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, HB 165 moved from the House Special
Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI called an at-ease at 5:59 p.m. She called the
meeting back to order at 6:00 p.m.
SB 101 - DEFINITION OF DISASTER
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the final item of business would be
CS for Senate Bill No. 101(FIN) am, "An Act relating to disasters
and to the disaster relief fund."
Number 0160
DARWIN PETERSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator John Torgerson,
Alaska State Legislature, spoke on behalf of Senator Torgerson,
Co-Chair of Senate Finance Committee, sponsor of SB 101. Mr.
Peterson read the following sponsor statement:
The Finance Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 101
amended clarifies the definition of a disaster. A
disaster is an impending threat or actual damage, injury,
loss of life or property, or shortage of food, water or
fuel resulting from specified environmental catastrophes.
CSSB 101 (FIN) am limits the scope of a disaster by
replacing vague terminology in statute with more specific
language. This will direct the executive branch of
government in identifying what constitutes a disaster
prior to making a gubernatorial disaster declaration.
In addition to enumerating the definition of disaster,
CSSB 101 (FIN) am makes significant changes to funding
limits within the executive branch in reference to
disaster emergencies. The governor is authorized to
expend up to $500,000 to prevent or minimize the effects
of an event that could become a disaster. If a
statutorily specified disaster occurs, the governor is
subject to two spending caps - $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.
The $1,000,000 spending cap requires legislative
authorization and a presidential declaration of disaster
before further expenditures from state funds are allowed.
The $5,000,000 spending cap only applies to wildland fire
disasters.
Number 0225
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered if the spending limits are per
disaster.
MR. PETERSON replied that SB 101 was amended on the Senate floor.
He stated that there have been discussions with the department
indicating that the amendment made on the Senate floor did not
specify whether or not the funding limits are per event or per
fiscal year.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that it was difficult to tell.
MR. PETERSON agreed. He said that the sponsor has discussed it
with the department and is also open to amendments to that affect.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion for the following amendment
[Amendment #1] to CSSB 101 (FIN): page 2, line 18, insert "per
event" after "state funds"; and page 3, line 1, insert "per event"
after "state funds".
Number 0285
CHAIR MURKOWSKI stated that Amendment #1 had been moved and asked
if there was any discussion or opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that he did not want to stand in the
way of the amendment, but wondered why the $5,000,000 was not
included in the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he was not sure.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said that she could address the $5,000,000 issue
and whether or not it was subject to "per event". She stated that
in the conversations she had with individuals from the division it
was indicated that the $5,000,000 for the wildland fire is the
annual budget, and is not for individual fires. She said it is her
understanding when the $1,000,000 and $500,000 caps were discussed
they were caps "per event".
Number 0350
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that it was her understanding that the
amount on wildland fires is not capped. She indicated that the
budgeting process involves putting in a certain amount of money for
emergencies; and anything beyond that is a supplemental because
wildland fires cannot be controlled. She does not believe this is
an appropriation. Instead, she stated that it is a limitation.
She said that the governor would need to have it in the budget or
have a special appropriation. She does not see any reason for
there to be a limit on the wildland fires unless "it's intended to
say, 'Well, if it's going to cost too much, we just won't put the
fire out'." She further added, "I don't think that's what we do.
It seems to me like we put the fire out because we need to put the
fire out and not because it's going to cost too much money."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI agreed with Representative James and stated that
she stands corrected. She clarified that it is not the annual
appropriation for wildland fires. She stated David Liebersbach
from the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) might
be able to provide additional information on the issue before a
decision is made.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated, "If this is what we're going to do,
that is an extreme change in our policy."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT clarified that he does not have any objections
to Amendment #1.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Representative Coghill if he would be willing
to hold Amendment #1 until the committee receives further testimony
from the division.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed to hold the amendment, but indicated
that it does not really change what has been discussed regarding
the $5,000,000.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI stated Amendment #1 would be held until further
notice.
Number 0470
MR. PETERSON said that the committee is welcome to amend the
wildland fire disaster section as they see fit. He informed the
committee he would provide them with a copy of the Disaster Cost
Index which outlines disasters declared in the state per (indisc).
He believes there have not been incidents where the state has
expended more than $5,000,000 per year on wildland fires without
federal assistance.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that the nature of disaster is
that it is not a planned expenditure. She wondered, referring to
page 4, lines 20 through 28, of CSSB 101 (FIN) am, why there was a
listing of events when, in fact, they are unthinkable, and we live
in a world of such expanding possibilities that it is hard to
imagine the kinds of things that could happen.
Number 0570
MR. PETERSON replied that Representative Cissna's line of thinking
is understandable. He stated that the Senate Finance Committee
decided they wanted to define disaster so the definitions that the
governor could expend state funds for were specified. This was
done in order to eliminate the scenario where state funds are spent
for certain situations the legislature deems are not disasters. He
said the Senate Finance Committee feels this definition is very
complete, but there is room for amendment if there are other
disasters the legislature feels could become major.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she thinks that it might be easier to
list what constitutes a disaster since there are certain things
that you do not want the governor to spend money on. She believes
it would be inconceivable to think of all the different kinds of
disasters that could occur. She asked if a list had been made by
the Senate Finance Committee of the types of disasters they did not
want the governor to spend money on.
MR. PETERSON answered that it would be a more ambiguous list. He
indicated that the disasters included in CSSB 101 (FIN) am are
those which the state may have experienced in the past and may
indeed experience in the future.
Number 0660
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said,
The many times here in these committees, and we all sit
on a lot of committees, where you might read something
(indisc.), but you don't spot something or something, or
somebody brings something up. I know, like John Davies,
up in Finance, everyday doing his homework. He always
thinks of some points or some angle that you never
thought of, and that I would never think of, sitting up
in my house in Nome. ... I guess what I'm trying to say
is, I don't think I'd be as well educated or informed
about a disaster or whether it should be a disaster or if
it was over five million dollars. If I wasn't actually
down there to talk to the commissioners and the people
that are actually there looking at that earthquake or
that volcano, ... Up in Nome, I'm just out in the middle
of nowhere. I could never agree to a bill where it says
I could attend a special session like that.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT expressed that he has some of the same concerns
as Representative Cissna. He wondered if there was any rationale
that would support inclusion of a hurricane or tornado.
MR. PETERSON replied that the Senate Finance Committee tried to
make the list as complete as possible to include disasters that may
occur that have not already occurred.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT referred to page 4, lines 17 through 28, of
CSSB 101 (FIN) am. He stated he has a problem with a list, and,
generally, does not like inclusions of things. He believes that
there may be some disasters which may not have been addressed in
the list; and he would prefer to exclude it from the bill. He
illustrated his point using a hypothetical situation in which a
cloud, containing some chemical, rains down on a small village in
rural Alaska, contaminating everyone. Representative Kott
perceives this as a disaster, but points out that it is not
included in the bill. He provided another example of a disaster in
which a tour bus or train crosses a bridge and the bridge
collapses. He stated that it would not be possible to respond to
this type of disaster from a statutory perspective. He is puzzled
as to why a list was included in the bill at all. He feels that if
economic disasters are not wanted to be included in the list, then
the bill should state this.
Number 0907
MR. PETERSON responded that the bill previously was amending
language out of the statutes that did specify disaster, but said
"including" and was not limited to those disasters. The intent of
the legislation was to specify which disasters the state could
fund, and which disasters the governor could declare as disasters.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the governor has the power to declare
a place a disaster area if there is an epidemic of diphtheria.
MR. PETERSON stated he would rather let Carol Carrol from the DMVA
answer that question.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it appears to him that "epidemic" was
taken out of the bill and not put back in. He referred to the
Disaster Cost Index, and stated that it does not include a
designation of the type of disaster for each disaster listed. He
wondered if Mr. Peterson is familiar with some of the items on the
list.
MR. PETERSON stated that towards the end of the Disaster Cost Index
it is indicated what type of disaster was involved. Mr. Peterson
said he was not familiar with each one of the disasters on the
list.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered if there was anyone who could tell
him what type of disaster was involved in each item listed on the
Disaster Cost Index and whether or not there was a presidential
declaration for each one. He noted that a few specific disasters
in Alaska, such as the Chukchi storm in 1987, cost over one million
dollars. He asked if Mr. Peterson could provide him with the
information.
Number 1029
MR. PETERSON said he understands that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency [FEMA] does not have the authority to spend any
federal money on a disaster, except for wildland fires, without a
presidential disaster declaration.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he is worried by the provision
that Representative Foster referred to. With respect to page 4,
section B, of CSSB 101 (FIN) am, he inquired, "Do you have a legal
opinion that we can do this, or that it doesn't create a separation
of powers ideal or problem?"
MR. PETERSON replied that he did not have a legal opinion on that.
Number 1085
BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Assistant to Senator Randy Phillips,
Alaska State Legislature, noted that the concurrent resolution
referred to on page 1, line 13, of SB 101 was determined to be
unconstitutional by George Utermohle, Attorney, Legislative Legal
and Research Services. The entire mechanism by which these funds
were going to be unleashed was unconstitutional. He said, "We
were really tied into just going into special session. We had no
choice but to go into special session if there was a disaster, but
that costs a million bucks or a substantial amount of money just to
get around to dealing with the disaster."
MR. CAMPBELL stated that Senator Donley came up with Section B,
page 4, lines 4 through 11, which is a way of not going into
special session. He noted that it is not a polling just to
determine whether or not the legislature spends money, it is a
polling to determine whether or not the legislature goes into
special session. He said the presiding officers of both the house
of representatives and the senate currently make a decision
themselves. They notify the governor whether there is a disaster
and decide whether it is worth going into a special session.
MR. CAMPBELL stated that this places the burden on the president of
the senate and the speaker of the house which is unconstitutional.
With respect to Section B, he said,
This mechanism allows the entire body to be polled by
electronic means to determine whether or not they want to
go into special session. It is not determining whether
or not they want to spend the money, but it's ... a
fairly subtle, small point to determine whether or not
they should go into special session to appropriate the
funds, or whether the legislature will waive that and let
the governor move forward.
MR. PETERSON (indisc.)
Number 1201
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered if there was a legal opinion on
whether or not that is constitutional.
MR. CAMPBELL indicated that he did not have anything in writing on
that, but it is his understanding that there was a "nod and a yes".
He said Mr. Utermohle would be available to answer that question.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT believes that Section B seems to do more than
just decide whether or not to go into special session. He said,
It's the great "or" that allows the spending; either the
legislature convenes in special session or the presiding
officers, after polling and all that, 'inform the
governor in writing that the majority of the members do
not object to the financing plan'. ... That's an approval
of a financing plan and, all respect to Senator Donley's
legal abilities, I'm not yet convinced that that is
constitutional.
MR. CAMPBELL said he would defer to the attorney in the room from
the Department of Law.
Number 1247
MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that the DMVA has concerns with the current
version of the bill [CSSB 101 (FIN) am]. He commented that the
attempt to define every event that might cause a disaster is beyond
his expertise and that of the department. He indicated that the
bill eliminates all human-caused events such as shootings. He
believes that most of the events that have occurred in the past are
covered, but he is not sure that takes care of everything that may
occur in the future.
MR. LIEBERSBACH said there was a question whether something such as
purposeful weapons of mass destruction or a terrorism event, other
than an explosion, would be covered. He stated that the
environment is referred to, but wondered how far the definition
could be stretched. He also wondered if he should work at
stretching a definition in the bill to protect lives. He thinks a
definition of environment could be stretched, but he is not sure
that is something that needs to be done.
Number 1456
MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that another concern of the department is
the aspect of polling the legislative body to decide to exceed the
limits set forth in the disaster relief fund - $500,000 without a
federal declaration and $1,000,000 with a declaration. He
commented that there would be very few federal declarations on
$500,000 of state money put up at this point. He feels that in
most events, we can take care of that. A really big event, in
which there is a substantial loss of life and property or a
potential loss of life and property, he said, "I could easily lift
the phone and spend two million dollars, three million dollars, in
ten minutes in activating resources or commit state monies. That
may, down the road, get replaced by federal, but, nonetheless, to
do that, would be beyond the caps of this bill." He stated that it
would not be the norm, but there is a history of a major disaster
event occurring in Alaska which has been used as a benchmark of
other things.
Number 1548
MR. LIEBERSBACH said it makes him hesitate to want to move forward
in a response. He feels that the reality of polling the entire
legislature in a timely manner to go ahead and expend over
$500,000 without a federal declaration, or $1,000,000 with a
federal declaration, may cost some response capability without
exceeding the limits. During the Miller's Reach fire, he worked as
a representative of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and
he stated that he was committing $1,000,000 per day of state monies
on the fire even before getting help from the federal government.
Eventually, a federal declaration was obtained and much of the
money was reimbursed to the state. He noted that Carol Carrol
would address the $5,000,000 issue. He said there are other types
of things that could cause disasters that would cost a lot of money
and exceed these caps, even per event.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the mechanism the federal
government uses for declaring a disaster is similar, or do they
have things listed or use dollar figures.
Number 1688
MR. LIEBERSBACH cited the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act and provided the following federal
definition of major disasters:
Major disaster means any natural catastrophe including
any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind driven
water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic
eruption, landslide, mudslide, snow storm or drought, or,
regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion in any
part of the United States which, in the determination of
the President, causes damage of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this
act to supplement the efforts and available resources of
state, local government and disaster relief organizations
in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship or suffering
caused thereby.
He stated that the definition lists those items, but lists them as
"including" them, not excluding anything else. He indicated that
this is the way the current Title 26 definition of disaster, more
or less, reads.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if there is an appropriation limit.
MR. LIEBERSBACH stated there is no federal appropriation limit.
Number 1801
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said he appreciated Representative Kott's
ideas with respect to lists. He noted that an airplane collision
which causes loss of life and severe damage, and does not result in
a fire, is not caused by anything included in the list.
MR. LIEBERSBACH replied that is true unless "we can get a fire
started."
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER feels CSSB 101 (FIN) am is basically aimed at
rural Alaska. He said,
Things like this don't happen in downtown Anchorage. ...
So now we're getting this definition of a disaster, but,
you know, I can't help but think in my mind if rural
Alaska had 90 percent of the population scattered in the
thousand towns and Anchorage just had five
representatives like we do now in Western and Arctic
Alaska here, and bush Alaska had 35, and we had a bill
winding our way through here defining a disaster as any
kind of a disaster except the one caused by an
earthquake, your department would probably recommend to
the governor that he veto it, wouldn't he? ... That
wouldn't be fair, would it?
Number 1909
MR. LIEBERSBACH said it would probably be recommended to the
governor that it is not supported.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked, "I think that's fair too, isn't it?"
MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that he believes so.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired when the last time there was a
hurricane or tornado in Alaska, and whether or not the division has
ever responded to one.
MR. LIEBERSBACH answered that Alaska has hurricane-force winds, but
there has never been a hurricane in Alaska. He noted that the only
time an attempt was made to obtain a federal declaration, it was
turned down because a hurricane is more than just high winds. To
his knowledge, there has never been a tornado in Alaska. He
commented that high winds had been left out in the original version
of SB 101.
Number 2016
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that high winds are not included in
the list.
MR. LIEBERSBACH believes high winds would fall under the
interpretation of a storm.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if it would be under wind storms.
MR. LIEBERSBACH believes so.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked, with respect to the deletion of
epidemics, if there is a provision of federal or state law which
covers them that would provide the ability to respond to a
situation.
MR. LIEBERSBACH replied that he does not know, but he mentioned
there might be two places to look. He said, "Probably there is
within law enforcement some reference to, if it's a purposeful
release, if you will, some law enforcement terminology in terms of
arresting, preventing, et cetera, but I doubt that it talks to the
consequence management. For example, the disaster part of it." He
noted that another possible place to look would be in the
responsibilities of the Department of Health and Social Services
(HESS), although he is not familiar enough with HESS to know that
there is. He said from his experience in dealing with HESS most of
their response is at the request of the DMVA based on their
declaration of a disaster. He believes HESS has the ability to
take care of people who need medical aid. Mr. Liebersbach, stated,
in terms of the catastrophic aspect, it becomes questionable. He
feels, as an emergency management professional, he should not have
to worry about interpreting who should respond to a disaster when
trying to save lives.
Number 2272
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to a resolution from the State Emergency
Response Commission (SERC) written by Phillip E. Oates,
Commissioner of DMVA and Co-Chair of SERC. She asked if Mr.
Liebersbach could provide the committee with some input either from
the individuals who serve on the SERC or those who serve on the
Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC).
MR. LIEBERSBACH said the SERC is composed of representatives from
several state agencies, local emergency agencies and the private
sector. The commission is part of Title 26 and the federal, in
terms of hazardous substance. Into Title 26, the SERC in Alaska
was formed. The SERC is required under federal law to deal with
hazardous materials. The SERC was made an all-risk commission so
the commission deals with more than just the hazardous substances.
The SERC is also made up of representatives from Local Emergency
Planning Committees (LEPCs). He stated that there are between 20
and 25 LEPCs throughout Alaska, and the chairman of each of those
committees are formed together in a Local Emergency Planning
Committee Associations (LEPCAs).
CHAIR MURKOWSKI stated that she is not concerned with the make-up
of those committees and where they are from, but she wondered what
specific concerns the committees have on CSSB 101 (FIN) am.
MR. LIEBERSBACH said the concerns are basically those that have
already been heard.
TAPE 99-7, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. LIEBERSBACH said the committees are the "front-line people"
dealing with the victims. He continued to say,
They are dealing with it and they are asking us to help.
... They recognize that we will be potentially caught
trying to poll ... the leadership of the legislature will
be trying to get the polling completed while we're making
a decision on whether we have the money to go forward to
deal with that." He stressed that this would not be the
day-to-day situation, but "as long as I can look out
there and say, it's possible, even probable, given our
history in Alaska, then I can't very well say it's
something I can overlook.
He said the committees share that same concern.
Number 0123
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if a diphtheria epidemic in Nome would
fit in the disaster and under what provisions.
MR. LIEBERSBACH replied that it would not fit under CSSB 101 (FIN)
am.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered if it mattered if it was a disease
epidemic or where it was located.
MR. LIEBERSBACH answered, "It's flat not in there."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT (indisc.)
MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that there is some potential interpretation
of Section C, page 4, of CSSB 101 (FIN) am which states:
The release of oil or a hazardous substance if the
release requires prompt action to avert environmental
danger or mitigate environmental damage.
He said, "Now you'd begin to say, 'Which environment? What kind of
danger?'. And I'd say, 'Well, the human environment is part of the
environment so it's covered.' But I really question that I have to
get down to trying to interpret that."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT interjected, "You might be in a situation and
I could say, 'People are dying', and you'd have to know whether
it's hurting the trees or not?"
MR. LIEBERSBACH said what is considered environmental danger or
environmental damage would have to be determined.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if this included a riot.
MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that a riot would not be covered unless
there was an explosion and fire, or if it caused environmental
damage. He explained,
If it's just people going with baseball bats and beating
one another over the head and breaking in plate glass
windows, although, hopefully, most of those would be
insured, but, nonetheless, ... I'm sure under law
enforcement authorities, there would be the ability for
the troopers to go out and stop that kind of thing, but,
in terms of dealing with the damages and the
consequences, ... We wouldn't be involved.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "Troopers could do it, but it couldn't
be a disaster?"
MR. LIEBERSBACH replied that it would not be a disaster.
Number 0313
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he is trying to understand how the
"fire part works." He asked Mr. Liebersbach to run him through the
Miller's Reach fire as it pertains CSSB 101 (FIN) am.
MR. LIEBERSBACH said he would have immediately notified the
officials involved if he had known the $5,000,000 limit existed and
told them, "You need to start polling the legislature [be]cause
we're about to go over $5,000,000." He stated that he has not been
on many wildland fires where $5,000,000 has been exceeded in a day
or two days. He said another problem with the Miller's Reach fire
is that it burned through one of the fiber cables and took out
communications and the phone system in Wasilla. There would have
been a number of legislators that could not have been reached, and
it would have been difficult to poll all of the legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the Disaster Cost Index which
lists the Miller's Reach fire as costing $3,868,000. He asked if
this was because the federal government made a reimbursement.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS recalled, when she was speaker of the house
during this time, that a $14,000,000 appropriation was approved.
She said the fire at Miller's Reach cost far greater than
$5,000,000.
Number 0489
CAROL CARROL, Director, Administrative Services, Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs; Director, Division of Support
Service, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), came forward to
testify. She stated that there were two aspects of the Miller's
Reach fire: fighting a fire, which was under DNR; and the disaster
declaration, which was a FEMA declaration. She indicated that the
FEMA declaration was not used to fight the fire, but was used to
help support DNR by doing such things as cleaning up debris and
guard patrolling [National Guard]. She said it is very unusual
when FEMA comes in and declares on a fire; it's only when it's an
urban interface fire.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that the $5,000,000 limit is a
short-sighted concept the way the bill is drafted and that it will
not "ever get us anywhere on a major fire." She said there are a
lot of things not included in the definition of disaster. She is
concerned with several parts of the bill. She stated that Section
26.23.025, page 2, of CSSB 101 (FIN) am, does not have any
reference, at that point in time, to the legislature not being in
session. She also referred to the section on polling. She said
the bill does not reference Legislative Budget and Audit, a
committee which was established in statute and is responsible for
legislative spending when the legislature is not in session.
Number 0652
CHAIR MURKOWSKI stated that it is a disastrous situation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented regarding the National Guard
being called out on a disaster and asked, "Is there anything in
this that would say, 'We can't do that because it's a riot. It
doesn't fall into that.', or would you just keep the government
from calling out the troops on a situation where there was a ruckus
that is caused by people?"
MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that the problem is determining how the
National Guard is paid for. He said that once the governor calls
the National Guard up, unless it is federalized, then the National
Guard is covered under state funds. An example of that was when
the National Guard was called for an avalanche search at Turnagain
Pass. State funds were used pay for the search. Mr. Liebersbach
indicated the governor can activate the National Guard, but he has
to pay for it and reimburse the federal government unless there is
a federal declaration.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said,
I am just curious on some of the scenarios that my
colleagues here presented, may be that a federal disaster
would be called. I don't know. You know, an epidemic in
a remote village, may be something that they may call the
guard out to fly a helicopter on, and make a FEMA
determination on that. And I'm just bringing these up
because I don't know if we're addressing it here or if
we're side-stepping it here.
MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that almost every federal disaster requires
a 25 percent state match of federal funds expended. He indicated
that there is some discussion at the federal level and even some
attempts at legislation to provide a floor for federal declaration
on which there would be a cap without a polling of the legislature.
Number 0881
JOHN ALCANTRA, Emergency Management Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula
Borough; Chair, Statewide Local Emergency Planning Commission
Association, testified via teleconference from Kenai. He commented
that SB 101 gets a little better with every version. He
appreciates Representative Coghill's amendment to insert "per
event" on pages 2 and 3 of CSSB 101 (FIN) am. He stated that the
members of the State Emergency Response Commission and the Local
Emergency Planning Committee came out unanimously against SB 101
even in its most recent version. He feels that every time a list
is enumerated someone always gets left out.
MR. ALCANTRA stated that changes are trying to be made in the
middle of a process and the state disaster declaration is really in
the middle of a disaster process. He explained,
You have a local event and if you visit an organized
borough, the local city declares to the borough, the
borough decides, 'We're going to take our (indisc.)
beyond the scope of the authority of the committee.
We're going to take this on.' And I know Representative
Phillips can relate to this, the Homer cannery fire last
July was an example of the local (indisc.) Homer, Alaska
borough declaration, but we didn't even ask the state for
assistance. We took care of that out of borough funds.
And you guys are making changes in the middle of a
process. ... I spent three and half years working for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency as chief-of-staff for
the Miller's Reach fire and the Southcentral floods. ...
I, as chief-of-staff, had more ability to spend money
than you're allowing the governor to have.
MR. ALCANTRA feels the Division of Emergency Services and the
governor are being hamstringed into specific dollar amounts. He
said he takes exception to it and he believes the emergency
management community takes exception to it. He spoke with Senator
Torgerson and stated that SB 101 is a bill that needs to go to the
State Emergency Response Commission and to the Local Emergency
Planning Committee Association during the interim to help put out
a better piece of legislation. He indicated that he agrees with
the comments made by Representative Foster. He feels that this is
what needs to be done if we want to eliminate economic disaster or
other disasters from occurring instead of enumerating a list.
Number 1104
JAMES STUDLEY, Coordinator, Northern Southeast Local Emergency
Planning Committee, testified via teleconference from Haines in
opposition to CSSB 101 (FIN) am. He stated that he had made a
brief speech to SERC. He advises keeping CSSB 101 (FIN) am in
committee forever. Mr. Studley does not believe CSSB 101 (FIN) am
helps rural Alaska and indicated that very rarely would we get a
presidential declaration. He feels that it is inconceivable for
200 legislators to get together to work all of these definitions
out, and believes that CSSB 101 (FIN) am severely ties the hands of
the executive branch. Mr. Studley agrees that there is not a
separation of powers by doing this and does not believe it is in
the best interest of Alaska.
MR. STUDLEY feels it would be a terrible waste of tax dollars to
spend $1,000,000 for a $1.2 million disaster by calling the
legislature into special session. He concluded,
I am appalled to think that we're discussing a $5,000,000
limit on forest fires when we could conceivably have
thousands of people dead in some city, and cost more than
$500,000 (indisc.) that we have to call some kind of
polling body together. What if it was ten people or even
a hundred people in rural Alaska? I can assure you that
those ten people or those one hundred people would
consider that great of an effect on their community a
disaster, but maybe those folks somewhere else in a
larger rural areas might not. And that's embarrassing to
think that we even have included language like that at
all. To think we would say it's okay to spend $5,000,000
on burning down forests, but we have to have approval for
$500,000 for anything else. I'm embarrassed to think
that we would ever pass this bill, and I hope that you do
not.
Number 1336
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that Mary Gillson had been on-line to answer
any questions, but was no longer available. Chair Murkowski
appointed the following people to a subcommittee on CSSB 101 (FIN)
am: Representatives Croft, Chair; Phillips and Murkowski.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1373
CHAIR MURKOWSKI adjourned the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting at 7:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|