02/18/2003 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 18, 2003
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act relating to reemployment of and benefits for retired
teachers and principals, including those who participated in
retirement incentive programs, and to the employment as teachers
of members of the public employees' retirement system who
participated in a retirement incentive program; and providing
for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 20(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 14
"An Act relating to an absence from the state while providing
care for a terminally ill grandparent for purposes of
determining eligibility for a permanent fund dividend; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 14 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 15
"An Act relating to establishing the Alaska No-Call List, a data
base of residential telephone customers who do not wish to
receive telephonic solicitations; providing that the data base
be compiled at no cost to the customers; requiring paid
telephonic sellers to purchase the data base; requiring
telephonic sellers to identify themselves; requiring telephonic
solicitors who are otherwise exempt from registration as
telephonic solicitors to file with the Department of Law and
purchase the data base; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 20
SHORT TITLE:REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED TEACHERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STEVENS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0036 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0036 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0036 (H) STA, FIN
02/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
02/18/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 14
SHORT TITLE:PERMANENT FUND ALLOWABLE ABSENCES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0034 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0034 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0034 (H) STA, FIN
02/18/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 15
SHORT TITLE:TELEMARKETERS NO-CALL LISTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0035 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0035 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0035 (H) L&C, STA, FIN
01/29/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
01/29/03 (H) <Bill Postponed>
02/07/03 0153 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CHENAULT
02/07/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/07/03 (H) Moved CSHB 15(L&C) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(L&C)
02/10/03 0166 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 3DP 4AM
02/10/03 0166 (H) DP: CRAWFORD, ROKEBERG,
ANDERSON;
02/10/03 0166 (H) AM: LYNN, GATTO, GUTTENBERG,
DAHLSTROM
02/10/03 0167 (H) FN1: ZERO(CED)
02/10/03 0167 (H) FN2: (LAW)
02/10/03 0167 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/10/03 0172 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CRAWFORD
02/18/03 0231 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
02/18/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
GUY BELL, Director
Health Benefits Section
Division of Retirement & Benefits
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified to answer questions for the
department during the hearing on HB 20.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the AASB in support
of HB 20.
DOUG LETCH, Staff
to Representative Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB
20.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 14.
PAUL DICK, Acting Director
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 14, answered
questions.
MARIE DARLIN
AARP Capital City Task Force
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of AARP in support of
HB 15.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Representatives Seaton,
Dahlstrom, and Weyhrauch were present at the call to order.
Representatives Lynn, Berkowitz, and Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 20-REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED TEACHERS
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 20, "An Act relating to reemployment of and
benefits for retired teachers and principals, including those
who participated in retirement incentive programs, and to the
employment as teachers of members of the public employees'
retirement system who participated in a retirement incentive
program; and providing for an effective date."
[In committee packets was a new proposed committee substitute
(CS), Version 23-LS0130\D, Craver, 2/17/03.]
Number 0095
GUY BELL, Director, Health Benefits Section, Division of
Retirement & Benefits, Department of Revenue, in response to an
introductory question by Chair Weyhrauch, said that [the
department] doesn't have a position on [broadening the language
of the bill to include public employees]. He agreed that the
addition would certainly broaden the bill, but said he did not
know that that was the intention when [HB 20] was [previously]
discussed. He said he thinks that, ultimately, adding the
reference to public employees confused the issue more than
clarified it.
MR. BELL noted that the proposed CS [Version D] adds reference
to employees, rather than public employees, because, for
example, "a principal may not necessarily be a teacher, but an
employee of a school district." He offered the following
parenthetical comment:
The definition of "teacher" under the Teachers'
Retirement System statute is broad, in that ... it's
"anyone requiring certification," and that would
include a principal, a superintendent, or a
schoolteacher. And so, the reference to "teacher"
really would have been sufficient; I think this is
just an effort to make it extra clear, through the
committee substitute.
Number 0235
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the definition would include
anyone in the central office, for example, who was required to
have certification.
MR. BELL said yes, a teaching certificate.
Number 0292
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), in response to a query by Chair Weyhrauch, said
that he had seen the proposed CS. He said he thinks that the
bill is "dealing with something that is symptomatic of a larger
issue." He told the committee that, over the last 15 years,
"we" have been unable to keep pace with the cost of living;
therefore, it is difficult to attract and retain "certificated
staff." People who have retired from a long career in teaching
are coming back to fill the void.
MR. ROSE said that many of his colleagues are "counseling their
youngsters out of the profession" because of the lack of value
that "we" place on it. Salaries have suffered because of "our"
inability to deal with the fixed cost of operating schools. He
stated, "This will give us an opportunity to bring some people
back as a stop-gap measure, but I think in [the long] term, we
have a larger issue to deal with, and that is, how we compensate
people in the profession." He said that [AASB] supports [HB
20], especially the change that would allow people to come back
without penalty.
Number 0546
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the proposed CS. He said
that the specific intent of an amendment [which he had offered
during the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting on
February 6, 2003] was to allow the employment of, for example, a
retired biologist who had gone back to school and earned a
teaching certificate. He added, "It was a very limited type of
amendment." He said that he wants to be sure that "this doesn't
open the door beyond that."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that when the proposed CS is
adopted, he will recommend the following amendment: On page 1,
line 12, add "retired public" before the word "employees".
Number 0673
MR. BELL responded that that issue would be addressed in Section
3, [page 2, lines 23-30, of Version D], which read as follows:
*Sec.3. AS 14.25.043 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) A member of the public employees/
retirement system who participated in a
retirement incentive program under ch. 26, SLA
1986; ch. 89, SLA 1989; ch. 65, SLA 1996; ch. 4,
FSSLA 1996; or ch. 92, SLA 1997, who subsequently
becomes a teacher under a policy adopted in
accordance with AS 14.20.135(a) may become an
active member under AS 14.25.040 without losing
the incentive credit provided under the
subject to any related reemployment indebtedness.
MR. BELL explained that [14.20.135(a)] permits the employment of
retired teachers, or employees who are qualified - he emphasized
"qualified" - to teach or work in an educational discipline. He
said that's the suggestion of Barbara Craver [of Legislative
Legal and Research Services, who drafted the proposed CS], and
he said he agrees that that addresses any concern that "that
retired fisheries biologist from PERS would be able to obtain a
certificate [indisc.]."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out "that provision addresses
14.25, which is the retirement chapter." "Section 1," he said,
"addresses 14.20, which is school boards." He stated his
assumption that the purpose of putting Section 1 in the bill to
begin with, was "to conform 14.20 with 14.25." He pondered
whether it would be necessary to have a conforming amendment to
14.20, "to allow school boards to adopt resolutions to allow
these teachers to come back."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his understanding that "14.25"
deals with the teachers themselves, but the hiring procedure is
addressed in "14.20," which is the language to the school board.
Number 0866
MR. BELL told Representative Gruenberg that he believes that
"14.20" makes no reference to public employees, it only makes
reference to a restriction to retired teachers; therefore, he
stated that he does not think it presents a problem in
conforming.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his concern is that he does not
want a future generation of legislators to [be left with] "any
kind of legal question." He asked Mr. Bell, "Do you feel, on
behalf of the Division of Retirement & Benefits, that that's
clear enough on the record that there'd never be any question at
that point?"
MR. BELL answered, "Yes, I believe it's very clear - especially
with the record as it is - that that's the intent." In response
to a remark by Representative Gruenberg, Mr. Bell concurred that
the amendment on [page 1], line 12, to add the words ["retired
public"] before "employee", is not necessary, and he said he
would leave the decision to the committee. He noted that the
title has been changed in the proposed CS, "and the reference to
employees." He stated that he thinks the [proposed] CS, as it
stands, is clear.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "Well then, we'll just leave it
the way it is."
Number 0996
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 20, Version 23-LS0131\D, Craver, 2/17/03,
as a work draft. There being no objection, Version D was before
the committee.
Number 1054
MR. BELL, in response to a question by Representative Seaton,
said that [Section 3, page 2, line 23] was included in the
original bill, whereas Section 2 has been amended in the CS,
lines 19-22, clarifying that "the reemployment indebtedness does
not apply." He said that that was an amendment requested by the
Division of Retirement and Benefits. He noted that the CS also
adds "or employees" on line 1 of the title [replacing the words
"and principals"], and the phrases "or employees" and "or work"
on page 1, [lines 11-12].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the CS was even necessary to
accomplish the purposes that [the committee] has stated.
MR. BELL responded that he does not think it necessary to
include the language, but it does no harm and could be left in
for clarification.
MR. BELL responded to questions from Chair Weyhrauch as follows:
He said he has worked with the Division of Retirement & Benefits
for over five years; he concurred that he has had substantial
experience in dealing "with these kinds of measures"; and he
responded that he does not think that the language [being
considered] would, as Chair Weyhrauch phrased it, "help clarify
it for you in terms of administering this."
Number 1245
DOUG LETCH, Staff to Representative Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, referred to the previous discussion of the added
phrase, "or work" and stated that that was a proposed amendment
from the Department of Education, because it hires some
certified teachers to work in its departmental programs.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 3, [lines 2-4], of the
[proposed CS], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 12. AS 14.20.135, as amended by sec. 1 of
this 2003 Act; AS 14.25.043(b), as amended by sec. 2
of this 2003 Act; AS 14.25.043(d), added by sec. 3 of
this 2003 Act; AS 39.35.120(b)(2), 39.35.150(b), and
39.35.150(c) are repealed July 1, 2005.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why it is necessary to say "as
amended" or "as added", because he said he thought that language
would not normally be added. He clarified, "If you're repealing
a statute, you repeal a statute, ... including its amendments."
Number 1350
MR. LETCH stated his belief that when this legislation came
before the legislature [during the second session of the Twenty
Second Legislative Session, 2002] as HB 416, the members of the
Special Committee on Education, who drafted the bill, wanted a
sunset date. When the bill was reintroduced [as HB 20], he
explained, the bulk of the language was kept and the date was
extended.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that he was not concerned
about the date, but by the phrase, "as amended by". He
reiterated, "Normally, if you repeal a statute, you repeal the
current form of the statute."
MR. LETCH suggested deferring that question to Legislative Legal
And Research Services.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that "it would certainly be
necessary to add the bold language: 'AS 14.25.043(d)', because
that is a new statute that's enacted in Section 3 of the Act."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why there is a law against hiring
teachers [who have previously retired in RIP].
MR. LETCH replied that he does not know why. He said that,
currently, a person who participated in RIP who comes back [to
teach] must pay back 105 percent of the benefits he/she
received. He stated that Representative Stevens and,
previously, [the members of] the Special Committee on Education
felt that that would keep people from coming back to fill some
of the shortages present in the state.
Number 1504
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that that particular Section -
[AS]14.20.135(c) - was a mistake and never should have been
enacted.
Number 1430
MR. BELL offered the following explanation:
I think that the reference in [subsection](c) [of AS
14.20.135] is under this Section, so it only applies
to the hiring of teachers because of a shortage. So,
the declaration prospect does not apply to hiring
"RIPed" teachers. I think [AS 14.20.135](c) was just
added to make it clear that, even if you do declare a
shortage, you can't hire RIPed teachers back, and this
would repeal that provision, because that's consistent
with the rest of this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concluded as follows:
The language in subsection (c) says, "under this
Section", and I couldn't, as a layperson - a person
not familiar with this area of the law - understand
what that meant. But, the way it's interpreted
doesn't prohibit the hiring of the teachers, but just
requires them to pay 105 percent back.
MR. BELL said, "Exactly, yes."
Number 1590
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report CSHB 20, Version 23-
LS0130\D, Craver, 2/17/03, out of committee [with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes]. There being
no objection, CSHB 20(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 14-PERMANENT FUND ALLOWABLE ABSENCES
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 14, "An Act relating to an absence from the state
while providing care for a terminally ill grandparent for
purposes of determining eligibility for a permanent fund
dividend; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1708
REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE, Alaska State Legislature, as the
sponsor of HB 14, explained that for years permanent fund
dividend (PFD) exemptions have been granted for those who attend
to terminally ill members of the family. However, that language
failed to include grandparents. Therefore, the definition [for
eligibility] should be amended such that it includes
grandparents.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to the number of
individuals that would be impacted by this.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered that he had no idea. In further
response to Representative Berkowitz, Representative Fate
clarified that he didn't believe this legislation would include
step grandparents, although that could be [changed].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed concern with not specifying
retroactivity. In response to Chair Weyhrauch, Representative
Berkowitz explained that he is addressing a procedural question
because the preferred course is for legislation to move through
the other body unchanged so that the legislation won't have to
return to the House for adoption of changes from the other body.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ returned to the issue of step
grandparents and suggested moving to a broader definition of
family rather than specifying [to which family members this
would apply].
Number 1972
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that an individual could have a
terminal illness and years could pass before the individual dies
from that illness. He posed a situation in which an individual
who leaves the state to care for a grandparent with a terminal
illness ends up being gone for five years. He asked if the
relative would need to obtain a note from the grandparent's
physician substantiating that the relative is caring for the
terminally ill grandparent. He asked how extended illnesses
would be dealt with.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said it would be up to the physician because
terminal illness and terminal disease are juxtaposed. He
explained that there are chronic diseases that are terminal and
may last over a 10-year period. The physician treats such a
chronic disease and thus it isn't immediately terminal because
there is a time line.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked whether the Department of Revenue has
adopted any regulations for paragraph (7).
REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered that he did not know.
Number 2148
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if Representative Fate intends for
"terminally ill" to be considered a few months or less than a
year.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE clarified that a terminal illness of a
grandparent is no different than that of any other member of the
family. With regard to the step grandparents, Representative
Fate said that perhaps the language should be broadened [to
include step grandparents].
Number 2261
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if an entire family would remain
eligible for the PFD in the situation in which an entire family
moves out of state to care for a terminally ill grandparent.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE emphasized that including grandparents
wouldn't change the regulations, which cover who can care for
the terminally ill individual. This legislation merely expands
that list to allow an individual to care for a terminally ill
grandparent.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to the current coverage under
the regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he wants a broader
definition, because under Representative Seaton's hypothetical
situation children would be taking care of great grandparents
and those [children] wouldn't be covered [eligible for the PFD].
This addition still wouldn't cover situations in which children
take care of terminally ill great aunts or foster parents.
Therefore, Representative Berkowitz expressed the need to take
care when defining "family." If direct sanguinity is used in
defining "family," then lots of people could be left out who
should be included.
Number 1460
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that, often, grandparents
end up becoming the primary custodian of grandchildren. He
posed a situation in which a grandchild with a terminal illness
may result in a grandparent moving out of state long term to
care for the terminally ill grandchild.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE informed the committee that AS 43.23.008 in
part specifies that "an otherwise eligible individual" [would
remain qualified if the individual was absent]. He pointed out
that the Act already specifies a time limitation of 220 days
[for an absence].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2 [line 14] and asked if
the 220-day limitation only applied to settling the estate.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that the 220-day limitation only refers
to the settling of the estate.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if stepparents are included in
the legislation as it stands.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied no.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH specified that HB 14 would only add
grandparents.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to why paragraph (14)
wouldn't apply. He related that some of his constituents
regularly complain that they aren't given exemptions for being
stationed in the Antarctic.
Number 2689
PAUL DICK, Acting Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
Department of Revenue, explained that before 1988, the
department defined absences by regulation. In 1988 the
legislature defined what absences were allowable under statute
for purposes of maintaining the PFD. Therefore, Mr. Dick
characterized this as a legislative prerogative. He noted that
this statute was amended a few years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised that there is no discretion
under paragraph (14), because the legislature circumscribed that
discretion elsewhere.
MR. DICK clarified that it has been left to the legislature to
define the terms of the absences and the terms the additional
[reasons] for which individuals can be absent. In further
response, Mr. Dick specified that those terms are under AS
43.23.008.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that paragraph (14) is a
catchall because it says, "(14) for any reason consistent with
the individual's intent to remain a state resident ...." The
aforementioned language seems to provide the division some
discretion in considering someone who might not fit under the
tight [provisions in statute]. He said that the legislature
can't be expected to enumerate every possible exception, and
therefore those enforcing the rules should have the discretion
necessary in this area. "If [paragraph] (14) is being ignored,
that's a problem," he said.
MR. DICK pointed out that paragraph (14) concludes, "provided
that the absence or cumulative absences do not exceed" 180 days.
Those that are absent for [no more than] 180 days and maintain
residency and intend to [continue to] do so receive a dividend.
Mr. Dick explained that the allowable absences are for absences
over 180 days, and those provisions are defined by the
legislature. Mr. Dick informed the committee that last year the
division had 140 people fall under this terminally ill category.
Under the assumption of 200 [people falling under that
category], the cost would be a $.52 differential.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if some people have applied for a
PFD while caring for a grandparent [and absent for more than 180
days] and were turned down.
MR. DICK said that he didn't have that information in front of
him.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to the definition of "care".
He also inquired as to whether an entire family could [be absent
from the state] to care for a grandparent or parent [and still
receive a PFD].
MR. DICK said that it couldn't be an entire family under the
current statutes because the child would [be] caring for a
grandparent, which isn't covered currently.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised then that the effect of this
legislation is to allow the entire family to [be absent from the
state to care for someone] and qualify for the PFD, because
passage of this legislation would allow individuals to care for
parents and grandparents.
MR. DICK said he believes that the aforementioned would be
addressed in regulation. However, he related his belief that an
individual would take care of a grandparent rather than an
entire family. Therefore, he indicated that the committee may
want to specify that in the statute.
MR. DICK, in response to the definition of "care", explained
that when a person claims this absence on the PFD application,
the person is required to submit a form ...[tape change].
TAPE 03-10, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that Section 1(a) of this
legislation refers to "an otherwise eligible individual who is
absent from the state during the qualifying year". He
emphasized that the language refers to an "individual" not
"individuals", which he thought would be defined by the
grandparent. Therefore, Representative Fate wasn't concerned
with a family [being absent from the state to care for someone].
Number 2961
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to the second paragraph of the
fiscal analysis, which says, "The Permanent Fund Dividend
Division generally accepts a doctor's statement in determining
if the relative is terminally ill ...." He indicated he thought
that answers Chair Weyhrauch's earlier question with regard to
how to determine an individual is terminally ill. The amendment
to this statute focuses on the terminally ill individual, not
the individual going out-of-state to provide care, he pointed
out. He surmised that this legislation would include
grandchildren as other eligible individuals. To that end,
Representative Gruenberg noted that in many cases, adults who go
out of state to provide care to a terminally ill [relative] take
their minor children with them. Therefore, the problem would be
that the caregiver would be covered, but the children would not,
and thus the adult caregiver would receive his/her PFD but the
children would not. He asked if the aforementioned would be
correct.
MR. DICK replied yes and confirmed that the statute speaks only
to the caregiver. Mr. Dick clarified that the only people
covered under the current statute and who would continue to be
covered would be the caregiver not the caregiver's dependents.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE interjected that he didn't intend to change
the law but only to expand the statute to include the individual
who provides care for their terminally ill grandparent.
Number 2764
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the statute says
"providing care" and sometimes the best care comes from
children. Representative Berkowitz related his belief that the
statute is sufficiently vague so as to incorporate the notion
that care can come in many different forms.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE remarked, "I think in this instance you may
be right, but I think we're talking about medical care."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ interjected that the statute doesn't
refer to medical care.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE acknowledged that the presence of child may
boost moral, however that's not usually considered care.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there is a definition of care
that he could review.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE indicated that if one were to approach the
physician, the physician would provide a definition of care.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that unless that definition
of care is included in the statutes, it is immaterial.
Number 2648
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH related his understanding that Representative
Fate's intent is simply to add the words "or grandparent".
REPRESENTATIVE FATE agreed and specified that he didn't become
involved in this to modify the entire Act.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that, to him, it seems that any person
related in any way would be eligible for a PFD if that
individual can provide any reason consistent with their intent
to remain a state resident. He noted that the legislature could
take the aforementioned discretion away and make it clear and
certain, which he related is always a good thing to do.
However, he said he isn't sure whether HB 14 is the vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the individual is
limited to 180 days within a calendar year and thus the [time
absent from the state for an allowable absence] could sum 360
days if the time was from June to January and January to June.
He characterized that as somewhat problematic because people
can't schedule their illnesses to comport with PFD eligibility.
Representative Berkowitz expressed his desire to expand this
[Act] to include people providing care to family members, [while
recognizing] that there are all types of families of which one
is direct blood lineage.
Number 2571
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern with Mr. Dick's
earlier answer to Representative Berkowitz regarding [paragraph]
(14). He interpreted Mr. Dick's earlier answer to be that the
division isn't exercising any discretion at all and not applying
[paragraph (14)] at all. He asked if that is correct.
MR. DICK answered that he isn't sure.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to the number of people
receiving dividends under [paragraph] (14) who would've been
eligible under any other [paragraph].
MR. DICK again answered that he isn't sure. He offered the
following example: There are 8,200 felons and misdemeanants who
aren't eligible for the PFD in another [paragraph] of the
statute, although those individuals were probably out-of-state
for less than 180 days. Mr. Dick specified that the intent to
remain and residency are always reviewed. Therefore, those who
are out-of-state for less than 180 days but move out-of-state
toward the end of the year aren't eligible for a PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if felons and misdemeanants have
been awarded a PFD under [paragraph] (14).
MR. DICK reiterated that felons and misdemeanants aren't
eligible for a PFD under another statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Have you awarded them dividends
under [paragraph] (14)?"
MR. DICK replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the division has awarded
anyone a dividend under [paragraph] (14).
MR. DICK answered yes and informed the committee that the
division has given dividends to persons outside the state for
less than 180 days, so long as those individuals are residents.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Have you given anybody a
dividend under [paragraph] (14) who would not have been eligible
under any other [paragraph], that you can recall?"
MR. DICK explained that if an individual wasn't eligible under
another [paragraph], then the division would not have given the
individual the dividend.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected, "Then the answer to my
question is no."
MR. DICK answered that would be correct.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if military personnel would be eligible
under [paragraph (14)].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the eligibility of
military personnel is addressed under another [paragraph].
Number 2405
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding that individuals
who leave the state for less than 180 days would be eligible for
the PFD under [paragraph] (14).
MR. DICK answered that is correct so long as the individual
maintains residency and doesn't take steps while out-of-state to
break residency. Mr. Dick informed the committee that there
have been individuals who have traveled out-of-state and taken a
job out-of-state. However, the individual ultimately decided
that he/she didn't want to stay and thus he/she returned to
Alaska. Those individuals broke residency, weren't residents
for the entire qualifying year, and thus were denied the PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to the number of
individuals who have been denied a dividend and applied under
[paragraph] (14).
MR. DICK related his understanding that the question is
attempting to address those persons who aren't eligible under
another section of the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that he wants to understand
if there is a catchall provision allowing the department
discretion to award dividends when situations don't specifically
fit into one of the specified exceptions under AS 43.23.008.
MR. DICK replied no, the division follows the statutes very
strictly.
Number 2354
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that there is a group of people
who do not receive their dividend; many of those people initiate
an appeal. Those appeals have to be done under the subsection
of the law, he said. He requested information as to the number
of those appeals that were launched under [paragraph] (14). Of
those appeals launched under [paragraph] (14), how many were
granted, he asked.
MR. DICK corrected his earlier statement regarding the children
of those who travel out-of-state to provide care to the sick
relative. He stated that under [paragraph] (13) those children
would be covered.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH commented that this legislation is interesting
because it raises tangential issues which may give rise to
larger omnibus legislation addressing many of the aforementioned
concerns. However, he related that he isn't sure whether HB 14
is the vehicle for those. He said he believes the immediate
need is to address [the inclusion] of grandparents and thus he
noted his desire to take action on this [legislation]. He
offered to work with the members of the committee and the
division to address the concerns in a larger context in another
piece of legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the proposed amendment
would also fit well in [paragraph] (8) of [AS 43.23.008].
Furthermore, if those issues can be addressed by a definition of
"family" [and] "guardian", then [the committee] could ensure
that the intent of Representative Fate's legislation is
realized.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:08 a.m. to 9:17 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to report HB 14 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ announced that his recommendation will
be to amend the legislation. He expressed the need to correct
the definition of "family" in [paragraph] (7) as well as
[paragraphs] (6) and (8), which seem to include parallel lists
of individuals.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to the motion.
There being no objection, HB 14 was reported from the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 15-TELEMARKETERS NO-CALL LISTS
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the final order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 15, "An Act relating to establishing the Alaska
No-Call List, a data base of residential telephone customers who
do not wish to receive telephonic solicitations; providing that
the data base be compiled at no cost to the customers; requiring
paid telephonic sellers to purchase the data base; requiring
telephonic sellers to identify themselves; requiring telephonic
solicitors who are otherwise exempt from registration as
telephonic solicitors to file with the Department of Law and
purchase the data base; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the committee is not going to
take action on HB 15, but he offered to allow testimony from
Marie Darlin.
Number 1989
MARIE DARLIN, AARP Capital City Task Force, informed the
committee that she has testified on this matter before and the
committee should have AARP's written support of HB 15. She
noted that [AARP representatives] spent considerable time
working with the sponsor of last year's legislation. Ms. Darlin
recalled that last year's legislation went through both
sessions, and she expressed the hope that it wouldn't take that
long again.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that although it's unclear when this
legislation will be heard again, the committee will hear it
again because it is an important issue.
[HB 15 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:20
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|