Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/02/1998 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 2, 1998
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ivan Ivan, Vice Chairman
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL 464
"An Act relating to state veterans' home facilities."
- TECHNICAL CHANGE IN TITLE FOR CSHB 464(STA)
SENATE BILL 309
"An Act relating to the use of force by peace officers and
correctional officers."
- MOVED HCSSB 309(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 22(STA)
Relating to promotion of Kids Voting Alaska programs.
- MOVED CSSCR 22(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 44
"An Act relating to admission to an Alaska Pioneers' Home."
- MOVED CSHB 44(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 464
SHORT TITLE: NURSING CARE AT STATE VETERANS' HOME
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/04/98 2499 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/04/98 2499 (H) MLV, STATE AFFAIRS
3/19/98 (H) MLV AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 124
3/19/98 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
3/20/98 2680 (H) MLV RPT 1DP 5NR
3/20/98 2680 (H) DP: FOSTER; NR: RYAN, MULDER, KOTT,
3/20/98 2680 (H) MASEK, JOULE
3/20/98 2680 (H) FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
3/20/98 2680 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DHSS)
3/31/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/31/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/02/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 309
SHORT TITLE: USE OF NONLETHAL AND DEFENSIVE WEAPONS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WARD, Donley, Halford, Green, Mackie, Leman,
Pearce, Taylor
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/16/98 2525 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/16/98 2526 (S) STA, JUD
2/26/98 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
2/26/98 (S) MINUTE(STA)
3/03/98 (S) MINUTE(STA)
3/04/98 2734 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1NR
3/03/98 2734 (S) DP: GREEN, MACKIE, WARD NR: DUNCAN
3/03/98 2734 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COR)
3/13/98 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
3/13/98 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/18/98 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
3/18/98 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/19/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/19/98 2894 (S) JUD RPT 1DP 1NR 1AM
3/18/98 2894 (S) DP: TAYLOR NR: PARNELL AM: ELLIS
3/18/98 2894 (S) ZERO FN ADM)
3/19/98 2894 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (COR)
3/20/98 2918 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/20/98
3/20/98 2920 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/20/98 2920 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
3/20/98 2920 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 309
3/20/98 2920 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DONLEY, HALFORD, GREEN
3/20/98 2920 (S) MACKIE, LEMAN, PEARCE, TAYLOR
3/20/98 2921 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
3/20/98 2921 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
3/23/98 2957 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
3/23/98 2958 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/24/98 2722 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/24/98 2722 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
3/31/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/31/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/02/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SCR 22
SHORT TITLE: KIDS VOTING ALASKA PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER, Pearce, Ellis, Phillips, Mackie,
Taylor, Leman, Lincoln, Kelly, Sharp, Duncan, Hoffman, Green
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/06/98 2422 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/06/98 2422 (S) STATE AFFAIRS
2/26/98 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
2/26/98 (S) MINUTE(STA)
3/02/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/02/98 2700 (S) STA RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
3/02/98 2700 (S) DP: GREEN, DUNCAN, MILLER, MACKIE,
WARD
3/02/98 2700 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (S.STA)
3/04/98 2735 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/4/98
3/04/98 2738 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/04/98 2738 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/04/98 2738 (S) COSPONSOR(S): MACKIE, TAYLOR, LEMAN,
3/04/98 2738 (S) LINCOLN, KELLY, SHARP, DUNCAN,
3/04/98 2738 (S) HOFFMAN, GREEN
3/04/98 2738 (S) PASSED Y20 N- CSSCR 22(STA)
3/04/98 2740 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/06/98 2532 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/06/98 2532 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
3/31/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/31/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/02/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 44
SHORT TITLE: ADMISSION TO PIONEERS' HOMES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) BRICE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/13/97 39 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
1/13/97 39 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/13/97 39 (H) STA, HES, FINANCE
3/31/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/31/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/02/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
CRAIG JOHNSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Senator Jerry Ward
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 423
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4921
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator Ward,
sponsor of SB 309.
MARY GORE, Legislative Assistant to
Senator Mike Miller
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 107
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator Miller,
sponsor of SCR 22.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 426
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3466
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 44.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-45, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Berkowitz, Ryan, Elton,
and Hodgins. Representative Ivan arrived at 8:20 a.m.
HB 464 - NURSING CARE AT STATE VETERANS' HOME
CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is HB 464, "An
Act relating to state veterans' home facilities."
CHAIR JAMES noted the committee amended the title of HB 464 and
passed CSHB 464(STA) out on March 31, 1998. She reported the
drafter suggested a new title change.
"An Act authorizing state veterans' home facilities to provide
nursing home care with related medical services."
Number 0009
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were objections to the title change.
There being none, CSHB 464(STA) moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
SB 309 - USE OF NONLETHAL AND DEFENSIVE WEAPONS
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business would be SB 309,
"An Act relating to the use of force by peace officers and
correctional officers," sponsored by Senator Jerry Ward.
Number 0017
CRAIG JOHNSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator
Jerry Ward, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to
present the sponsor statement. He indicated this is a very simple
bill. He stated that technology has somewhat caught up with some
of our laws and said the way the law currently reads is that any
projectile fired from a weapon capable of firing a lethal
projectile is considered a lethal weapon. He explained that SB 309
removes the incapacitating rounds that the police officers use in
situations that are not intended to permanently injure or kill
someone. It takes them off the list of nonlethal weapons. He
referred to an article from the Anchorage Daily News entitled,
"Bullet stops suicide", which is in the committee members' packets.
He said the incident described in the newspaper happened after
Senator Ward filed SB 309. He indicated they didn't plan it, but
it couldn't have happened at a better time. Mr. Johnson explained
that it was a situation where a woman was holding herself hostage
with a knife, threatening to commit suicide. The police department
determined that the best way to stop this attempt was to use a
beanbag round. He noted that it prevented an officer from having
to go in and disarm the individual; it protected her life and it
protected his life.
MR. JOHNSON noted that this bill was generated as a request from
the Anchorage Police Department SWAT Team. He pointed out that
Senator Ward's son-in-law is a member of the Anchorage SWAT Team.
He indicated that the SWAT team doesn't feel like they're
protected. He said if they use one of these rounds under specific
orders from their supervisors with proper training, there is still
the opportunity that they could face liability based upon using a
lethal firearm in a nonlethal situation.
Number 0045
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN stated that on the surface, SB 309 doesn't
appear to have any problems. He then asked what if a peace
officer/guard used a nonlethal firearm and he's a little close and
causes grievous bodily harm or death. He said a person can be
killed if they're close enough from the (indisc.) on a blank round.
He said he is concerned about taking the liability away from police
officers, especially prison guards, and he is concerned that
someone will get hurt and the peace officer/guard will walk free.
He asked how the legislature can make sure that the officers are
responsible for their actions.
MR. JOHNSON said, "The bill clearly states that operating within
the guidelines and by a fully-trained officer." He said the bill
would not cover an officer who has not been properly trained or is
not operating within the specified guidelines set forth by the
Department of Corrections. The bill would not cover someone who
blatantly did it. This bill would cover the rare accident. SB 309
does not indemnify someone from being sued. He said if an officer
acts negligent, they should be held responsible for their actions.
Number 0067
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said if he inadvertently kills someone, it's
manslaughter. If a public employee inadvertently kills someone,
it's a civil law suit and he indicated that that bothers him that
public employees are not tried under the same criminal statutes
that any other citizen would be. He said he does not trust any
officers or guards because if you don't watch them, they will do
some of the worst things that have ever been done.
CHAIR JAMES said she would like to respond to Representative Ryan's
last statement from her position on that issue. Speaking only for
herself, she said there is a world of people who make mistakes; and
there is a world of people who have the wrong attitude and are not
trustworthy. She said she is not willing to take the position that
no one is trustworthy. She likes to believe that everyone is
trustworthy and when she finds they are not, then she will know
that. She can't live in fear of every single person.
Number 0080
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON stated that he does not see a distinction
between correctional officers who are employed by the state or
correctional officers who are employed by a private firm. He asked
what the definition of a peace officer is.
MR. JOHNSON advised that there is a statutory definition of peace
officer and correctional officer. He noted that one of the
amendments proposed in a previous committee mentioned "guard"
throughout the legislation and the Department of Corrections
testified on behalf of that bill in support of it and asked to have
the term "guard" changed to "correctional officers." They found
that correctional officers have no status in statute, where guard
did, and it would have required a substantial rewrite to make that
change. He then referred to Representative Elton's question
regarding the definition of peace officer. He indicated that
private correctional officers are very new to Alaska and he does
not know if they have defined that yet. He commented that the
operative term in the bill is "properly trained." If a
correctional officer has been through the SWAT team training and
has been trained to use the nonlethal firearm and beanbags, he
thinks they would fall under this legislation. He reiterated that
"proper training" and "under orders" covers that area.
Number 0095
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if "proper training" would be defined by
the court.
MR. JOHNSON replied he believes it's a police standard that they
would have to meet. Currently, there are only about half a dozen
police officers in Anchorage that are trained to use the nonlethal
firearms, which is the SERT (Special Emergency Reaction Team) team
and the SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) team. He indicated that
they are highly trained and go through regular psychological
testing, which is the type of training that would have to be met
prior to anyone being allowed to use the nonlethal weapons and be
covered by this legislation. If a police officer used the
nonlethal weapon and was not properly trained they would be liable
and this legislation would not be in effect.
Number 0104
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ commented that he has worked with a
number of police officers and correctional officers and in response
to Representative Ryan's comments, he would venture to say that
their degree of trustworthiness is "higher than in this body." He
said in his way of thinking, this bill is simple; it just defines
nonlethal firearms. He said, "These ballistics that you show in
here clearly are not designed for lethal purposes. But like
anything they can be used in a lethal fashion and there's no
exemption under this statute when these are used in a lethal
fashion. And there's no immunization. Part of this, it seems to
me this is a straight-forward definitional bill."
CHAIR JAMES noted for the record that Representatives Ivan is
present.
Number 0113
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS agreed with Representative Berkowitz on
the nonlethal firearm definition, however, he would like a
definition of "defensive weapon." He indicated he would like to
know if a "357" is a defensive weapon, as well as stun guns and
pepper sprays. He said there are numerous weapons that might be
used that would fit under the definition of defensive weapon.
MR. JOHNSON responded that this was designed primarily for prison
guards who may be in a riot situation. Regarding the different
types of weapons that fall under the definition of defensive
weapon, he indicated that the way that the statute reads currently
is "any projectile fired from a weapon capable of firing a lethal
projectile is considered a lethal projectile" even though they were
not designed to do so. He is not certain that there is a
projectile designed for a 357 that's designed not to be lethal.
The statutes cover pepper spray and the other types of net guns
that are fired out of a special weapon. This bill is designed to
address that very narrow definition of what a lethal projectile is.
If a person fired a 357 in a defense mode, that's not what this
bill is designed to do.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it seems the concerns that Mr.
Johnson raised are addressed in a nonlethal definition. He
indicated the definition of nonlethal as it is used in the statute
is the projectile and that defines what type of firearm is being
used. He said "defensive weapon" has no meaning and it's vague and
he thinks the intent of this bill is covered by using the nonlethal
firearm definition.
Number 0138
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he has a question about the physical
properties. He gave an example using a 12-gauge shotgun and asked
what is the range on the shotgun before a shot delivers "X" amount
of force and a shot that could concentrate that force and cause
some serious harm and/or penetration.
MR. JOHNSON explained that the design of bag is such that when it
hits on a corner, the lead shot expands. It is designed to
distribute the weight evenly, less so if it hits flat. He
indicated that's where the "proper training" and "under direction"
comes in. He said he would be remiss to say that people have not
been injured by this. When a police officer has to make a decision
whether or not to fire a projectile, it is a very unique situation
similar to the suicide situation addressed earlier, but not to the
level of a police officer taking their revolver out and firing it,
but at a level below that. He said the police view it as a long
baton. If you hit someone in the head with a baton, you can do
serious damage, but if a person is properly trained and needs to
subdue a suspect and if it's used properly, it's a very effective
tool. Mr. Johnson referred to the suicide case and said the way
the law is currently written, the officer that fired the projectile
was equivalent to an officer pulling out his 38 mm and shooting the
woman in the arm. He said that situation would be totally frowned
upon and the officer would be in a lot of trouble, but by statute
it's the same because he fired a lethal projectile. He noted that
it is the belief of the sponsor that a person acting under
training, under the rules of engagement of the Department of
Corrections, should not be held accountable as if they pulled out
their 38 revolver out and shot someone. He indicated that the
purpose of the statute is only for projectiles fired from weapons
capable of firing a lethal projectile. It's a fairly narrow
definition of what this does. It doesn't take in the new
technologies of the nets and the phone and the pepper sprays, but
those are not designed to be fired from weapons capable of firing
lethal projectiles.
CHAIR JAMES said, "The feelings I have on this bill is that I think
that it has gone through other committees and come out this way.
I'm a little uncomfortable with the defensive weapons that you say
that it's the load that makes the determination, not the physical-
ness of the weapon. This does have a Judiciary referral, which I
feel real comfortable with [Representative] Brian Porter on that
and his police experience. I guess without anyone giving me any
real ways that we need to amend this bill, I would be comfortable
sending it on to Judiciary where it will get another review."
Number 0180
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to delete "(1)" and ", or
(2) defensive weapon" on page 1, line 8, to so it would read:
"...use includes the use of a nonlethal firearm." Also, on page 1,
line 9, to delete "or a defensive weapon" so it would read "...a
nonlethal firearm does not amount to the use of deadly force...."
CHAIR JAMES asked whether there was any objection.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked Mr. Johnson if the sponsor would be
comfortable with the amendments made by Representative Berkowitz.
MR. JOHNSON said any time there's a change to someone's bill,
there's a certain level of uncomfortableness. He indicated that
the bill was drafted with the assistance of the Anchorage Police
Officers Association and their attorneys, and it is based on a bill
that was drafted out of Iowa and they basically had the same
problem. He said, "This bill has been thought out by people who
know more about this than I and probably more than the sponsor
does." He noted that it was done at the request of the Anchorage
Police Department with a lot of input. He said until he can
communicate with the sponsor, attorneys, and other people that had
input, the sponsor might want to have the opportunity to review the
amendment by Representative Berkowitz before it is enacted.
Number 0205
CHAIR JAMES said the definition of "defensive weapons" is broad.
She indicated that she doesn't expect legislators/staffers to
submit legislation to the committee without the possibility of it
being amended, and she feels a little uncomfortable that Mr.
Johnson is not able to respond to the amendment. However, if the
committee passes the amendment and the bill moves to the Judiciary
Committee, she would suggest - if the amendment is not a good
amendment and if Mr. Johnson has a good argument that it should not
be changed - that the sponsor has a right to bring that up when
they present the bill to the Judiciary Committee. She indicated if
this was the last committee of referral she would like to hold the
bill and check with the sponsor, but since it is not, she would
rather not hold the bill.
MR. JOHNSON reiterated that he still has a certain level of
uncomfortableness.
CHAIR JAMES said she understands that Mr. Johnson can't tell about
another person's comfort level.
Number 0216
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said he wanted more information on the
mechanics of the bill. He said if the committee changes the bill
and then it's changed back to it's present form in the next
committee because of an argument, he asked, "Does that mean that
that is a [committee substitute] CS and it has to go back through
the Senate side?"
CHAIR JAMES advised that two things can happen: they could amend
the bill in committee today and it can go to the Judiciary
Committee and Judiciary can take the original bill and not the
amended one. She explained that Judiciary cannot take their CS,
but they can take the one that State Affairs passes out, and/or if
they wanted to, they can do a different CS. She indicated that
anytime there is a change to a bill on one side or the other, the
bill has to go back for concurrence. She remarked that intense
scrutiny of a legislation is certainly warranted.
Number 0227
CHAIR JAMES again asked if there was an objection to the motion
made by Representative Berkowitz. There being no objection, it was
so ordered.
Number 0229
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to move HCSSB 309 as amended
out of committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCSSB 309(STA) moved out
of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
CSSCR 22(STA) - KIDS VOTING ALASKA PROGRAMS
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is CSSCR 22(STA),
Relating to promotion of Kids Voting Alaska programs, sponsored by
Senator Miller.
Number 0236
MARY GORE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Mike Miller, Alaska
State Legislature, indicated there isn't a sponsor statement
because it is self-explanatory. Basically the resolution supports
Kids Voting Alaska program which began in Fairbanks in 1992. She
stated Kids Voting is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization funded
by businesses, (primarily Alyeska, National Bank of Alaska and
Carrs Quality Center) and is operated by hundreds of volunteers
across the state.
MS. GORE said the goal is to teach Alaska youth about the
fundamental democratic principals of voting and promote good
lifelong voting habits. The curriculum will be taught in at least
35 school districts during the school year and during the next
general election. About 90 percent of kids eligible around the
state (120,000) will have the opportunity to vote in the general
election.
MS. GORE indicated she heard about the program through Senator
Duncan's staff who actually worked the polls in Juneau, and her
kids started talking at the dinner table about the different issues
that were going to be on the ballot and about the different people
that were up for election. They started encouraging their parents.
The children said, "We need to vote mom, we have to go to the poll
on the day that they're going to have the election." Ms. Gore said
she couldn't say if there was a larger turn out at the polls in
Juneau, but she does know that one family felt it was unqualified
success just based on the discussion that it led to at their own
dinner table.
Number 0251
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS noted this is a good idea. He asked if it's
self-explanatory and there's no reason for a sponsor statement why
is there a committee substitute.
MS. GORE replied in a committee on the Senate side they added two
more people that they wanted the resolution sent to.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he tracked the kids' voting candidates,
their votes versus the general election, and there was a wide
disparity between how the kids voted from what they heard in school
and how the general population voted. He indicated it favored
people not particularly in his party.
CHAIR JAMES stated, in that respect, there is that concern and
especially in the conservative ranks. She said she shares the
concern for the education that we're giving our children not being
balanced in many cases. A balanced education is very important and
we shouldn't be on one side or the other of the issue. Chair James
mentioned the teachers in the North Pole school have done a very
good job of making it balanced.
MS. GORE noted that the program itself, the curriculum, is designed
to be nonpartisan.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ observed the students are voting the right
way because they're studying the issues.
Number 0271
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN made a motion to move CSSCR 22(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, CSSCR 22(STA) moved out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 44 - ADMISSION TO PIONEERS' HOMES
CHAIR JAMES announced the last order of business would be HB 44,
"An Act relating to admission to an Alaska Pioneers' Home,"
sponsored by Representative Tom Brice.
Number 0282
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE said the idea of HB 44 came to him during
some discussion he was having with some people who were trying to
gain admission to the Alaska Pioneers' Home. He informed the
committee that the people he spoke with were concerned that the
rates were going to grow so fast that they were going to be unable
to afford them. He told the committee if a person got on the
waiting list for the Pioneers' Home in January under a fixed income
which they could afford at that time, and perhaps in a year when
they finally gain admittance, that that amount of income would not
be sufficient to cover the costs associated with getting in. He
said it was suggested that it be put in statute that at the time a
person gets on the waiting list, that they be locked in at that
rate. He said locking a person in at that rate causes some major
constitutional issues about equal protection and equal access, but
what can be done is ensuring that a person would not be
disqualified from entering the Pioneers' Home based upon their
ability to pay.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that the Department of Administration
made a suggestion to Section 1 on page 1 beginning on line 9 which
reads:
An applicant who is otherwise qualified for admission to the
home may not be disqualified for admission based on failure to
make an initial payment or provide security for the monthly
payments provided for in the agreement entered into AS
47.55.030(a) if the commissioner of administration determines
that the applicant is financially unable to make the payment
or provide the security.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said instead of using the wording "based on
failure to make an initial payment" it could be based on some type
of statement that the applicant is financially unable to make the
initial payment. He said "failure" means a person doesn't pay,
even though they might be financially able to, but they don't.
CHAIR JAMES suggested using the term "inability" instead of
"failure."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that would be fine.
Number 0303
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked, "Isn't this the way the Pioneers' Home
was originally set up? That the old people when they reach a
certain age they have a place to go."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that we all know what the original
purpose of the Pioneers' Home was for. He said he is not quite
sure it's necessarily there anymore, but he does know that in the
scheme of things, it's very important that the state work with the
community in providing long-term care. He said the bill would
definitely add a certain amount of comfort in those making
application that they know they would not be denied access to the
Pioneers' Home based upon ability.
CHAIR JAMES said the Pioneers' Home was originally intended for
pioneers who had lived in Alaska for 25 years and for those people
who were here at statehood. She pointed out that the law cannot
require a person to be a pioneer, therefore, the Pioneers' Home has
to be open to anyone who has lived in Alaska for one year. Now the
Pioneers' Home is a state-paid nursing facility. She said over the
last few years the rates have been greatly increased because it is
such an expensive operation. Even at the rates people are being
charged, it still does not cover the costs. She indicated that all
of the people in the Pioneers' Homes are not paying what it costs,
but those who can are paying a much higher fee. She noted that
there's been a lot of distress from the pioneers on that issue
because even though they have the money to pay, they have other
things they like to do with their money besides pay for their board
and room. When the rates kept rising, they began to worry that
they wouldn't be able to stay there anymore.
Number 0322
CHAIR JAMES noted that the legislature passed legislation a couple
of years ago that said if a person is already in a pioneer home and
if the rates increased so that person would not be able to pay
anymore, that they can't be kicked out. She said when she
evaluates the legality of it with equal protection, if there are
some people who are in the pioneer homes who don't have to pay,
then the people who are qualified to be in there should be owed the
same benefit. If we don't do that, that there might be an
opportunity to challenge that. Chair James commented that pioneer
homes are an extremely expensive way to provide a home for these
people and pointed out that there are other assisted-living homes
available, which are much less expensive and more efficient so that
people can live more of a normal life instead of an institutional
life. In conclusion she said, "We don't have enough places that's
why there's a waiting list and I think this is a good way to go on
this issue, but it doesn't cover the whole concern that we have,
and it's a big one. And I've been very frustrated with this whole
issue for the six years I've been here, as to how to manage the
growing cost of the pioneers homes. Not necessarily because it
doesn't provide a good home for some people, but that it is so
extremely costly more than other systems."
Number 0337
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS noted that there is a zero fiscal note and
said if people are going to be allowed not to pay, it seems there
would be some sort of fiscal note generated.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, "It's current policy, it's not statute,
but it is policy, and as we know, policies can change with the
winds of the wind that someone will not be denied admittance. So
they are currently doing this." He said his concern is that under
the constant pressures that Chair James has brought forth that that
policy will change. And that some time in the future it could be
reasonably assumed that the administration of the Pioneers' Home
would definitely base one's acceptance upon ability to pay.
Number 0348
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to replace the word "failure"
with the word "inability" on page 1, line 10. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
Number 0350
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HB 44 out of committee
as amended with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, CSHB 44(STA) moved out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS noted that Representative Vezey has not been
in committee and he has not seen committee packets for him and
asked if he is still on the committee.
CHAIR JAMES informed the committee that she requested from the
leadership to have Representative Vezey replaced. She indicated
that the leadership asked her for a list of five names whom she
would like on the committee and she gave them a list of four people
and she is waiting for a replacement. She pointed out that the
replacement has to have certain qualifications and they must be a
majority member.
CHAIR JAMES announced that the committee would hear SB 105 on
Saturday, April 4, regarding ethics and said it is the only item on
the agenda. She noted that there is a majority caucus on Saturday
as well and asked if any of the members would not be at the
meeting. She noted that there wouldn't be enough majority members
in attendance for Saturday's committee meeting, therefore, they
would not be able to move SB 105 out of committee that day.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0377
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 8:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|