Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/05/1998 09:23 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
5 May 1998
9:23 A.M.
TAPES
SFC-98, Tapes 157 & 158, Sides A and B
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Bert Sharp, Co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:23 a.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chair Sharp, Senators Pearce, Phillips,
Donley, Torgerson, Parnell, and Adams were present at the
meeting.
Also present: Representative Jeannette James; Angela
Salerno, Executive Director, National Association Of Social
Workers, Alaska Chapter; Catherine Reardon, Director,
Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce
and Economic Development; Representative Mark Hodgins,
Sponsor; Joel Lounsbury, Staff, Representative Brian Porter,
Sponsor; Senator Gary Wilken; Danny Dewitt, Director,
National Federation of Independent Businesses, Alaska
Chapter; Ralph Bennett, Staff, Senator Robin Taylor; Wendy
Redmond, Executive Vice-President, University Relations,
University of Alaska; Carol Carroll, Director, Division of
Support Services, Department of Natural Resources; aides to
committee members and other members of the Legislature.
Via teleconference: Jane Angvik, Director, Division of
Land, Department of Natural Resources; Jules Charleston,
Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of
Natural Resources.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 340 INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
CSSB 340(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
"no recommendation" and attached fiscal notes by
the Department of Natural Resources and the
University of Alaska.
CSHB 206(FIN)am
PERS FOR VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS
CSHB 206(FIN)am was REPORTED out of committee
with no recommendation and attached indeterminate
fiscal note by the Department of Administration.
CSHB 313(FIN)
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT
CSHB 313(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and attached fiscal
note and zero fiscal note by the Department of
Education.
CSHB 315(FIN)
OPERATING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE
CSHB 315(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and two new zero notes
by the Department of Education and the Office of
the Governor.
CSSSHB 349(FIN)
REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
SCS CSSSHB 349(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with no recommendation and fiscal note by the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
CSHB 473(FIN)
FIRE TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION
CSHB 473(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no
recommendation and attached fiscal note by the
Department of Public Safety.
SENATE BILL 340
"An Act relating to the University of Alaska and
university land, and authorizing the University of
Alaska to select additional state land."
RALPH BENNETT, STAFF, SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, stated that the
provisions of SB 340 would allow the University of Alaska
to select 250,000 acres of state land, subject to approval
by the legislature. Land approved for transfer would
include interest in minerals and oil and gas (subject to
certain limitations). He noted that land subject to a coal
lease or with a pending lease application would not
available for selection. The university would bear the cost
of selection, platting, surveying, and conveyance. All land
selections had to be made by December 31, 2012, and 20
percent of income derived from selected land had to be used
at the campus closest to the income-generating parcel or
parcels. All lands conveyed under the program would be
exempt from municipal taxation.
Mr. Bennett reported that SB 340 was compatible with
Senator Murkowski's SB 660, legislation pending in Congress
that would convey additional public lands to the University
of Alaska. The Alaska system was created under federal
authority as a land-grant institution to provide for the
higher-education requirements of Alaska's people in
perpetuity. Most colleges established under the land-grant
program were endowed with sizeable land bases from which to
generate income to be used for operating purposes. Unlike
most institutions in the Lower 48, the University of Alaska
did not have a large population base and proximity to other
beneficial support services. The University of Alaska also
suffered from a smaller pool of alumni and other normal
sources of endowment income, which many institutions relied
on to help support operations, especially subsidies for
teaching positions. In the past decade, several legislators
had introduced legislation allowing the university to
select additional lands from the state. The purpose of all
such legislation had been to provide more lands for the
university's state-wide system and to provide more income-
producing assets where monetary resources were more scarce
and unpredictable.
Mr. Bennett maintained that SB 340 would continue the
effort to give the university a larger and more productive
land-base. The bill would also provide clear expectations
that land conveyed be used for the development of value-
added industries where appropriate.
Mr. Bennett provided a sectional analysis of SB 340:
· Section 1: Findings and purposes section, including
that the University of Alaska should own income-
producing land to provide income for the support of
higher education.
· Section 2: Legislative intent language for the
university to encourage the development of in-state,
value-added industries in developing the land conveyed
to it.
· Section 3: Technical amendment, adding that the
provisions grant the Board of Regents the care,
control, and management of other university lands.
· Section 4: Technical amendment to account for the land
conveyed under the bill.
· Section 5: A major section adding new subsections
dealing with new land selections:
· Subsection 14.43.65: Would allow the university to
select 250,000 acres of state land. The list of land
proposed to be conveyed by the state would be
periodically submitted to the legislature; the
legislature could approve or disapprove the list.
The section would also set requirements for the land
that could be selected. Transfer of ownership of the
land to the university would include the interest of
the state in minerals and to oil and gas, but only
related to land selected at least five years after
the effective date of the bill. The subsection
describes the power of the state to manage the land
selected but not yet conveyed, and lists types of
land that could not be conveyed, including land the
conveyance of which was determined by the
Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources
not to be in the best interests of the state. The
university would bear the cost of selecting,
platting, surveying, and conveying the land; the
state would pay costs of recording patents and
documents of interim conveyance. The university must
make all selections by December 31, 2012. Land would
revert to the state if the commissioner found the
university was not actively managing the land to
provide income on the tenth anniversary of the
conveyance.
· Subsection 14.43.66: Provides that the Board of
Regents must establish procedures substantially
similar to state procedures for mineral leasing on
the conveyed lands. The board must prepare an annual
plan for the management of the land and seek public
comment on the plan. At least 20 percent of the
income derived from the management of selected land
must be used at the campus closest to the land from
which the income was derived.
· Subsection 14.43.67: A new section in Section 5 that
would deal with confidential records; Mr. Bennett
noted that the section did not appear in the
committee's copy of the sectional.
· Subsection 14.43.67: Provides for land conveyed that
would be subject to certain types of agreements
(leases, claims, permits, and so on); the state
would be entitled to receive the income and the
management would be turned over to the university
only after the terms of the agreement expired.
· Subsection 14.43.69: Provides that before conveying
or disposing of interest in selected lands, the
university would be required to manage the land in a
manner that would permit customary and traditional
uses of resources to the maximum extent practical.
· Sections 6 and 7: A new section related to torte
immunity on unimproved land. He noted that the section
did not appear in the committee's sectional. Section 6
was a renumbered Section 7 and would provide an income
derived from the management of selected land in the
endowment trust fund.
· Section 8: Previously Section 7; exempts the
university lands from municipal taxation.
Senator Parnell referred to Section 6 related to torte
immunity for personal injury. He noted that the state
already had some immunity from certain actions on state
property. He asked whether the doctrine applied to the
university and university actions; if so, he questioned
making torte immunity for the university higher than the
immunity of state property in general.
WENDY REDMOND, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY
RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, answered that the language
in the bill was exactly the language used for state
immunity. She emphasized that the language was not the
university's preference, and was not the torte immunity
language that had been in the bill previously. She wanted
the previous language, which took the immunity to a
slightly higher level. The higher level was the result of a
previous section (14.43.69) requiring the continued
provision of customary and traditional use on all
university land until transferred to a third party; the
university felt it was important to have the higher level
of torte immunity.
Senator Parnell asked whether the level requested was the
same level as granted the state of Alaska on other
unimproved land. Ms. Redmond replied yes; she noted that
the Resources Committee had lifted the language directly
out of statute.
Co-chair Sharp asked whether there was a section dealing
with returning the land if it was not used appropriately.
Ms. Redmond replied that there were still a few sections of
the bill that were troubling to the university. One of the
sections had been referred to as the "use it or lose it"
clause, and was found on page 9, beginning on line 17 and
extending to page 10, line 9. The clause stipulated that
the university would have ten years to actively manage the
property for income or the land would revert to the state
of Alaska.
Co-chair Sharp stated concerns about another item (page 10,
lines 30 to 31 to page 11, lines 1 and 2). Ms. Redmond
agreed that the clause was even more troubling. The section
was new and stipulated that 20 percent of the income from
the management of the land had to go to the closest campus.
She detailed that currently, all of the income from the
land-grant trust went into the Natural Resources fund,
established in statute to generate income to support
resource development in Alaska. The fund was inflation-
proofed and the university spent the earnings through
grants; approximately $3.7 million had been given out in
the current year.
Ms. Redmond continued that the language would target money
to the campus closest to where the money was generated
regardless of need, in addition to diverting the money
before it got to the endowment. She did not think the
clause was in the best interest of the university and did
not accomplish what the trust fund was set up to do, which
was to support resource development in the state.
Senator Torgerson queried language that had previously been
suggested to address the issue. Ms. Redmond replied that
she had suggested broadening the language to use the money
within the region and linking it to the purpose of the
fund.
Senator Torgerson asked how she would define "region." Ms.
Redmond did not have the answer. She conjectured that it
would be broader than an election district.
Senator Torgerson believed Senator Taylor had intended to
work on the language. Mr. Bennett replied that a work draft
had been prepared dealing only with the 20-percent issue;
it did not address the problem of broadening the regions.
He had not been instructed to bring the changes before the
committee and did not have suggested changes.
CAROL CARROLL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, wanted the committee to
have the department's opinion of the bill.
JANE ANGVIK, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LAND, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference), testified that the
department opposed the bill for seven reasons:
1. While the state owned a great deal of acreage, only a
very small amount of the land produced revenue. The
university would most likely select the most
productive land, which would remove it from state
management and decrease revenue to the general fund;
currently, 85 percent of all general-fund revenues
came from state-owned land.
2. It would be difficult to find 250,000 acres of
suitable state lands for the university to select. In
addition, there would be a large public outcry
resulting from the transfer of specific parcels. She
noted that the department had witnessed such a
response when it had tried to reconstruct the Mental
Health Trust.
3. It would be costly to transfer titles for the amount
of land; it could cost over $800,000 per year for ten
years to convey the amount of land to the university.
4. The municipalities would be in competition with the
university for the same land. The state currently owed
the municipalities over 600,000 acres under the
municipal-entitlement program. There were a limited
amount of revenue-generating lands that both the
municipalities and the university wanted. While the
legislation would protect existing selections, most
municipalities found it necessary to modify their
collections over time as their priorities changed and
land-ownership patterns evolved due to federal
conveyances to the state and to Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations. Furthermore,
about one-half of Alaska was in unorganized boroughs.
When those areas organized, the state would have an
obligation to convey 10 percent of certain state lands
within the municipal boundaries, but much of the best
land might have already gone to the university.
5. Timber harvesting could be negatively impacted by the
bill. The university would most likely select the most
productive timber lands, reducing the state's timber
base used to calculate the sustained yield and
limiting the state's current efforts to establish
timber sales that supported local value-added
processing. As a trust, the university would manage
its lands for maximizing revenue, and therefore would
sell timber for export. She argued that the Department
of Natural Resource's ability to offer sales for local
value-added processing would be decreased if the
university selected timber lands.
6. The university would be exempt from most state land
laws adopted by the legislature to protect the public
interest. For example, Title 38 requirements for
public notice and the state's best-interest findings
process would not apply to the university lands. The
university forest operations were not subject to
public review for the forest land-use plan and five-
year schedule. Also, university land was not subject
multiple-use management requirements and the lands
would be exempt from conformance in CNR area plans.
7. The bill lacked a method by which to resolve
disagreements between DNR and the university regarding
what lands should be submitted to the legislature.
Without supervision, disagreements could result in no
land list being submitted or the state and university
could end up in costly litigation. She thought the
bill needed a provision to allow the governor to make
the final decision and submit the land list to the
legislature if there was disagreement between DNR and
the university. Senate Bill 340 would require DNR to
re-enter and re-convey title back to CNR if the
university was not managing lands to generate revenue.
She argued that the provision was unreasonable, since
most state land did not generate revenue. Furthermore,
enforcement would be costly and was likely to result
in litigation. The department recommended that the
provision be deleted.
Ms. Angvik referred to amendments that had been recommended
and conveyed to the committee through a May 1 letter. She
noted that the director of the Division of Mining, Land and
Water was available to answer questions about the effect of
the bill on mining in Alaska.
Senator Phillips reported that the members did not have the
letter with the proposed amendments. Ms. Angvik offered to
get a copy to the committee.
JULES CHARLESTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING, LAND AND
WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (testified via
teleconference), stated that SB 340 (Version F) had
significant potential to damage the enthusiasm of mining
companies to invest in the mineral wealth of Alaska. He
reported that for the past two years, the mining industry
had created value totaling over $1 billion. He referred to
the "we are open for business" message from both the
governor and the legislature. He noted that DNR anticipated
about $1.7 million in direct revenue to the state treasury
during FY 99 from mineral rents, royalties, and application
and administrative fees from state-owned, locatable
minerals. The department projected a total of about 50,000
mineral properties and about 1,000 ownerships (mining
claims, mining leases, mill-site leases, prospecting sites,
and prospecting permits); about 1 million acres of state-
owned or state-collected land would be encumbered.
Mr. Charleston emphasized that the version as drafted would
create financial and legal uncertainties for the mining
industry similar to those experienced during the Mental
Health Trust lands litigation, which would not be resolved
until after 2012. He pointed out that the language in
Section 5 of the bill (dealing with minerals on state
properties) was difficult to understand; Sections
14.40.365(a)(3) and (4) appeared to exempt only certain
state lands associated with state oil, gas, and coal
leases. The language of Section (a)(4), line 5 on page 5
and lines 3 through 7 stipulated that the university could
select any of approximately 40,000 mining claims, as well
as any of about 5,000 prospecting sites (covering about
650,000 acres). He referred to another kind of prospecting
site that the state did not have at the present time, but
could in the future. The university could also select any
of approximately 100 mineral leases covering abut 100,000
acres, or any of five existing or pending mill-site leases.
In addition, the university could select any land that was
slated for both intensive and extensive mineral inventory
for the Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys,
thereby excluding the public and the industry from a fair
chance to locate mining claims and prospecting sites under
existing Alaska laws covering mines and mining.
Mr. Charleston continued that Section 14.40.365(b)(1) on
page 5, lines 19 to 20 reaffirmed that state-owned coal,
ores, minerals, geothermal resources, and fossils would be
under the exclusive ownership and management of the
university for the sole benefit of the university. He
believed there would be substantive questions about who
must deal with whom for continued operation of new
development of mineral property (not in the Mental Health
Trust) to the extent that SB 340 authorized university
selection of mineral properties other than certain oil,
gas, and coal leases. He listed properties the version
would permit the university to select, including parts of
Fort Knox Mine, Golden Zone Mine, Red Dog Mine, True North
Mine at Fairbanks, and any of more than 200 small- or
medium-sized placer mines and claims.
Mr. Charleston argued that if SB 340 authorized the
selection of mineral properties including oil, gas, and
coal (which were not expressly excluded), the requirements
of Section 6(i) of the Alaska Statehood Act in its
reversionary provisions as well as revenues to the
permanent fund would raise substantial legal issues that
could further delay any mineral development on state land
that the university selected. He claimed the stigma that
influenced adverse investment by the mineral industry
during the Mental Health Trust litigation would be
reinstituted. In addition, there could be a handle for
litigation that was otherwise prudently and environmentally
responsible when there was opposition to some oil, gas, and
coal projects.
Mr. Charleston maintained that questions could be raised
about severing the surface from the sub-surface mineral
estate. In addition, there would be adverse impacts from
added costs resulting from fees the university would have
to charge in order to avoid relinquishment of the property,
even if minerals were not selectable by the university. The
fees could stop marginally economical projects and cause
delay for others waiting for better world-market
conditions; the end result could be the loss of local jobs
and otherwise prudent and timely economic development.
Mr. Charleston questioned whether meeting the proposed
requirements for timely economic development of university
lands could cause other economic uses such as the
subdivision for homes, commercial lodges, business sites,
or recreational cabins, which could then become non-
conforming land use that the mineral property development
had to buy. He feared there could be other additional costs
to an otherwise prudent development. The mineral lease
could last as long as 55 years; the average lease was
currently about 20 years. Mineral leases had a right for
renewal when other conditions were met. He asked what the
university would gain from selecting mineral properties if
the existing lease income continued to go to the general
treasury and permanent fund for the life of the mine.
Mr. Charleston noted that under Alaska mining law, mineral
property owners had the exclusive right for regular renewal
of property rights as long as they otherwise complied with
the law; under SB 340, he questioned the period the annual
rental fees would come to the general treasury. He
questioned whether the university could select the Red Dog
mine loading facilities on a DNR lease or select a small
tract across the new road to Fort Knox mine and then charge
a trespass fee and reduce income. He worried that there
could be charges against Fort Knox mine vehicles and reduce
income to the Mental Health Trust or to the Fairbanks North
Star Borough. He did not think the bill answered any of his
questions. He pointed out that unanswered questions in the
mineral industry automatically meant a delay.
Mr. Charleston concluded that SB 340 would send a strong
message to the mineral industry that until sometime after
the year 2012, state mineral property should be considered
as having significant investment risk because of
uncertainty about who the landlord would be, prospective
litigation over deposits to the general treasury and
permanent fund, and adverse impact similar to the Mental
Health Trust litigation. He strongly recommended that SB
340 be amended by the Senate Finance Committee to expressly
exclude selection of any state minerals: coals, ore,
minerals, and other materials, as well as oil and gas that
were presently in mining claims, mineral leases, mill-site
leases, or other mineral property rights under Alaska law,
the Alaska Statehood Act, and the Alaska Constitution. He
also recommended that land selected by the state for its
mineral value be excluded, whether encumbered or not, as
well as land that the legislature had authorized to the
Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey to conduct
mineral-related studies as a result of suspected mineral
potential.
SB 340 was SET ASIDE until later in the meeting.
HOUSE BILL 349
"An Act prohibiting the use of the title 'social
worker' without a license; relating to social workers,
licensure of social workers, and the Board of Clinical
Social Work Examiners; and providing for an effective
date."
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, SPONSOR, presented the bill
to the committee, explaining that the legislation would
provide two additional levels of licensing for social
workers in the state. Currently, the law required the level
of Board of Clinical Social Work Examiners, which required
a doctorate degree in clinical social work. The two levels
added by HB 349 would be a bachelor's degree level and a
master's degree level of social work.
Representative James maintained that she had filed the
legislation because she believed some of the social workers
working for the state lacked credibility. She believed that
licensing would help avoid the lack. She thought social
workers made important decisions related to vulnerable
children and adults that could affect the individuals for
the rest of their lives and she wanted social workers to
have the qualifications to make those decisions.
Representative James referred to a handout indicating that
the state had 179 social-work positions; 70 of the
positions were filled by individuals with degrees in social
work. Some of the individuals in the positions had other
bachelor and graduate degrees and 18 had no degrees at all.
She noted that HB 349 would not become effective until July
1, 2000 because it was necessary to negotiate with all of
the affected parties in order to get a piece of legislation
without a huge fiscal note and that would cooperate with
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), which
housed most of the social-work positions. After the
effective date, all people currently working as social
workers in their original position would be exempted. The
person would not have to have a license until they changed
positions or employers. The bill also had a provision for
those with other bachelor's or graduate degrees; it would
allow two years for those people to prepare for and pass
the examination to get a license for social work.
Representative James concluded that the legislation was
important to protect the public and to make sure people
making decisions for vulnerable Alaskans were fully
qualified. In addition, consumers would have recourse in
case a mistake was made by a social worker who was either
not qualified or who behaved unethically. The license could
be challenged; without a license, the individual could no
longer do social work.
Senator Adams asked how the provision would apply in rural
Alaska, where there were people who qualified as social
workers, even though they had not received a degree in
social work. He believed such a person could be more
qualified than a person who had gone to college.
Representative James replied that there had been discussion
about the issue related to rural areas. She explained that
people currently doing social work would be exempted from
the law. However, the social worker's association was
planning to provide education in rural areas so that people
could be brought up to speed. She stressed that the bill
would only affect people who came into the field after July
2000. She added that DHSS had been setting up an academy
through the University of Alaska so that there would be
more training available. She agreed that workers could have
much insight and cultural knowledge, but she believed they
would welcome the opportunity for additional education and
licensing, which could provide pride in the job done as
well as additional credibility.
Senator Torgerson asked whether board meetings would
increase from one to two per year. Representative James
replied that the licensing board would extend the current
process for clinical social workers into the bachelor's and
master's degrees. The activity the board would cover would
be enlarged. She referred to changed licensing rates and
the fact that there would be less administration and the
need for one board.
Senator Torgerson pointed to page 3, lines 14 through 17.
He asked where in the state a person could get training for
professional ethics and cross-cultural education.
Representative James replied that the training was
currently being provided by the National Association of
Social Workers for licensed clinical social workers. The
training was available nationally as well as adapted for
local education. She stressed that the requirement for 45
hours of continuing education every two years to renew the
license was an important part of the licensing process. The
training was being organized and would be available through
long-distance learning as well as in classrooms.
Senator Torgerson referred to the top of page 3, related to
the board having the right to examine a person with
physical or mental problems to obtain credible evidence. He
questioned whether the provision would overstep the power
of a board. He wondered who would make the determination
regarding credible evidence. Representative James replied
that the professionals in the field could recognize whether
the evidence was credible. She reported that she had not
heard fears about the subject from anyone working in the
field, including those who were not licensed.
Senator Torgerson did not recall any other board having the
described powers. He believed the Department of Law (DOL)
would end up defending board actions against some claim
about a mental problem. He stated concerns about opening
the state to lawsuits through board actions. Representative
James replied that the issue had not brought up concerns
throughout all the negotiations conducted about the
subject. She referred to a representative from the
association of social workers who possibly had more
information.
Senator Adams stated concerns about the legislation, which
reminded him of a limited-entry permit system. He referred
to items related to social workers that were in the
operating budget in conference committee. He referred to
Section 33 of the bill and the 2000 effective date. He
asked whether people without licenses could be hired up
until the effective date. Representative James responded in
the affirmative. She detailed that the provision was in the
bill because DHSS was in the process of filling social-work
positions and did not have time to change the system and
job description until the proposed effective date. She
emphasized that the department would be working toward the
goal and she did not think there would be a problem.
Senator Adams asked whether a person without a degree and
without a license who was hired as a social worker would be
laid off on July 1, 2000. Representative James replied that
the person would not be laid off. She noted that she
supported limited entry when it came to the psyches of
vulnerable children and adults.
Senator Phillips pointed out that the bill had been around
since 1975 and that the issues had been raised before.
Representative James acknowledged that there had been
difficulties and that there had been times when she felt
the goal could not be reached. She stated that the bill was
crafted carefully to get all the interested parties to
agree and to keep the fiscal note low.
ANGELA SALERNO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS, ALASKA CHAPTER, testified that HB 349 was
about consumer protection, accountability, and public and
private social services. She explained that the people who
come into contact with social workers in the state
(primarily the clients of the Division of Family and Youth
Services [DFYS] in DHSS) did not have a choice about who
provided child protective services. She believed the bill
would ensure that social workers were well qualified to do
their job.
Ms. Salerno addressed confusions about provisions of HB
349, beginning with Senator Adams's concern about social
work in the rural areas, especially within tribal entities.
She maintained that the bill was a title-protection act,
not a practice-protection act; the bill would not define
what social work was and prevent a person from doing the
work without a license. The bill would stipulate that a
person could not call themselves a social worker unless
they had a license. In other words, those individuals
currently doing social work or social services without a
degree would not be impacted by the bill at all. Those
individuals could continue to doing their work if they
chose to practice under the title "social work." She
referred to Tlingit and Haida in Juneau as the sole example
of a tribal entity that used the title "social worker" as a
job title. Tlingit and Haida felt confident that it would
either hire professional social workers or change the job
title if necessary.
Ms. Salerno noted past confusions about exemption versus
"grandparenting" a measure in. She explained that no one
would automatically get a license. Individuals currently
working under the title who did not hold the degree would
be exempt and would never need to get the license, as long
as they remained at the job they were in. The individuals
would have the option to get the license if they had the
background, education, and experience to take the test.
Ms. Salerno referred to concerns about where the state
would get all the social workers it needed. She noted that
Representative James had mentioned the Child Welfare
Academy, a new partnership being developed between the
University of Alaska and DFYS. The program would create a
"career ladder" into social work with the assistance of
federal dollars that would allow the university to hire
faculty and develop curriculum to bring Child Protective
Services into the classroom and create the career ladder to
social work.
Ms. Salerno addressed questions asked by Senator Torgerson
related to increasing the number of board meetings. She
explained that part of the work that formed HB 349 was done
by a task force developed in response to an audit of
statutes related to social work, psychology, and marriage
and family therapy. One of the areas the auditors cited was
the need for additional board meetings. She noted that one
of the board meetings was often teleconferenced.
Ms. Salerno responded to concerns about where workers would
obtain continuing education in social work. She believed
that staying current through continuing education was a
very important part of being a professional. She stated
that there were many ways to have access to continuing
education in Alaska; opportunities were fewer in rural
areas, but still existed. The National Association of
Social Workers had begun to provide training statewide. She
highlighted distance education, including the use of video
and audio tapes. She did not think anyone in the state
would be barred from getting continuing education.
Ms. Salerno addressed concerns about the physical and
mental exam described at the top of page 3. She asserted
that two forces had brought the issue to the attention of
the task force working on the bill.
[SFC-98, Tape 157, Side B]
Senator Torgerson noted concerns that DOL would have to
become involved, resulting in a potentially high fiscal
impact. The individuals would be asked to pay $319 in fees,
which they were not currently paying, and to pay to have
tests done. Ms. Salerno responded that the Social Work
Board was charged to act in an ethical manner.
Senator Torgerson stated that he had not seen other boards
being subjected to the issue.
Senator Adams queried Sections 26 and 27 (related to
repealers). Ms. Salerno replied that Section 26 would
repeal permission to use the title "social worker" if an
individual was not licensed. When the current statute was
passed ten years prior to license clinical social workers,
nearly everyone was exempt; the section would repeal that
global exemption. Section 27 was a repealer related to
qualifications.
CATHERINE REARDON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL
LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(DCED), addressed concerns by Senator Torgerson related to
the involvement of the DOL because of an order to submit to
examination. She explained that DCED would be involved; the
Division of Occupational Licensing staff would initiate the
order, rather than the board. The division would go to DOL
and show credible evidence why the examination was
warranted. The procedure would be similar to filing an
accusation that someone had violated any licensing law; DOL
would review the evidence, and agree or disagree with going
forward with charging an individual. The Department of Law
would act as the check on the division's order for the
examination. She explained that the reason was partly
because DOL would have to defend the state if there was not
credible evidence. She stated that a person could possibly
refuse to submit to testing, and there could be legal
action on both sides.
Ms. Reardon detailed that the item was not reflected in the
fiscal note because the division had a reimbursable
services agreement (RSA) with DOL to provide a given amount
of legal services to the division; the fiscal note
anticipated that the necessary legal services would come
out of that.
Senator Torgerson was concerned that someone would claim
that an individual had a mental problem and then the
individual would have to have an examination. He had a
problem with the way the measure was worded. He asked
whether any other board had the authority to require a
mental examination for occupational licensing. Ms. Reardon
responded that there was at least one other board, a
medical board and perhaps another board. She stated that HB
349 would not be the first granting the described
authority.
Senator Torgerson asked whether she had a problem with the
provision in the bill. Ms. Reardon responded that she did
not have a problem with the provision, because it was
difficult to charge a person with incompetence and take
away their license if there was not a professional
assessment of the person. The section related to the
process of evidence-gathering necessary before taking away
a license. An incapacitated person might not submit to the
examination and the state could not prove its claim. She
acknowledged fear that the state could abuse the power, but
she felt that credible evidence would be gathered through
witnesses and other means before a person would be accused
of having a problem.
Senator Torgerson noted that the board made the decision.
He asked whether the board reported to the division. Ms.
Reardon replied that the function was listed as a duty of
the board. Her understanding was that generally it was the
duty of boards to investigate and take action. The board
delegated the investigation to the division staff because
the board had to ultimately sit in judgment in the cases.
The division rather than the board received and
investigated complaints against people. She anticipated
that the division would have to gather the credible
evidence, get it through the attorney general's office, and
bring it to the board. The division would only bring cases
before the board that met the legal test.
Senator Torgerson stated that he did not like the provision
and proposed an amendment to take it out. The amendment
would be to delete the top of page 3, lines 1 through 3. He
did not want the option to be available based on no
explanation of "credible evidence" or "reasonable physical
or mental examination."
Senator Torgerson MOVED conceptual Amendment 1:
Delete lines 1 through 3 on page 3.
There being no OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Senator Torgerson MOVED to REPORT SCS CSSSHB 349(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SCS CSSSHB 349(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no
recommendation and fiscal note by the Department of Commerce
and Economic Development.
HOUSE BILL 473
"An Act relating to training and certification of fire
services personnel; relating to certification of fire
services training programs; and providing for an
effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS, SPONSOR, reported that HB 473
would set up a fire safety council similar to the police
safety council. There had been communication problems between
the firefighting association and the fire chiefs association.
He noted that there had been dramatic changes, particularly
related to powers. He highlighted page 2, line 27, which read
"the council may" instead of "the council shall." Another
important change was on page 3, line 22, related to
certification being optional. He stated that the most
important change was on page 4, Section 3, stipulating that
the act would take effect July 1, 2000.
Representative Hodgins informed the committee that the Alaska
Fire Chiefs Association brought the proposal to him and he
had explained to them that there could be no fiscal notes in
order for it to work. The association wanted the 2000
effective date as it would give them two years to get all the
rural fire departments together and to develop standards
everyone could agree upon. The main emphasis was that a
Firefighter I designation in Bethel was not necessarily the
same designation in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Kenai, or any of
the other place. There was a desire for standardization.
Representative Hodgins reported that during the course of the
committee process, it was pointed out that duty aides had
standards, but not firefighters. Testimony had revealed that
there was approximately one death every eight days on
average. Most of the rural fire departments had been brought
on board; some saw the bill as more big government. An "opt
out" option had been put in. In addition, the membership was
brought more in line with the firefighters association and
fire chiefs association.
Senator Torgerson pointed to the bottom of page 3, regarding
the fire service personnel fund. He asked what the fund was.
Representative Hodgins replied that there had to be a state
mechanism to funnel the dollars in order to pay for needed
materials such as books and costs such as certification. The
funds would be appropriated through the legislature under the
Department of Public Safety. The department had been adamant
about not taking on an extra spending liability. He stressed
that he had clearly told the firefighters that they would
have to come up with their own funding, which would enter the
general fund to be disbursed as appropriate by the
legislature.
Senator Adams asked whether Legislative Finance agreed that
the operation could be funded through statutory designated
receipts. Representative Hodgins replied that the process was
set up along the lines of the police standards council, which
had been in existence for many years.
Senator Adams asked to have the issue checked out.
Co-chair Sharp listed people who were available by
teleconference and who were in favor of the legislation,
including Fire Chief Jason Elson and Scott Walden from Kenai.
Senator Torgerson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 473(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal note. There being no OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 473(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no
recommendation and attached fiscal note by the Department of
Public Safety.
HOUSE BILL 206
"An Act relating to credit under the Public Employees'
Retirement System for service as a village public
safety officer."
JOEL LOUNSBURY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER,
SPONSOR, informed the committee that HB 206 would allow a
village public safety officer (VPSO) to get credit for
service through the state Public Employee Retirement System
(PERS). He noted that throughout the state, the VPSO
program had provided an important means of maintaining
peace and harmony in the villages. Most of the individuals
serving had not been covered by a retirement program; some
former officers were currently working for other
organizations that were covered by the state PERS program.
The work experience obtained by participating in a VPSO
program had proven to be an invaluable asset. The bill
would allow the individuals to obtain retirement credit for
service rendered under the VPSO program. Eligible
participants would receive credit for up to five years of
service; once the service had been verified, indebtedness
would be determined and the vested employee would have to
arrange to buy the time back in the state PERS system.
Mr. Lounsbury reported that the provisions of the bill
would help in recruitment and retention of participants in
the VPSO program in the villages. He noted that high
turnover and a lack of qualified applicants had
historically been a problem with the program.
Senator Parnell queried how the time served would function
for a person who had worked five years for the program. Mr.
Lounsbury replied that the person would receive up to five
years of credit.
Senator Parnell asked whether the credit was retroactive.
Mr. Lounsbury replied in the affirmative. He added that the
individual would have to buy into the system.
Senator Adams MOVED to REPORT CSHB 206(FIN)am out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note. There being no OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 206(FIN)am was REPORTED out of committee with no
recommendation and attached indeterminate fiscal note by
the Department of Administration.
HOUSE BILL 313
"An Act relating to preventive maintenance programs
required for certain state grants; and providing for
an effective date."
SENATOR GARY WILKEN informed the committee that he had
served on the preventative maintenance task force during
the summer and fall before the legislative session. The
task force had traveled around the state and listened to
people; it became evident that there was an opportunity
provided by technology and collected knowledge that could
allow preventative maintenance to be put in place for a
minimal amount of money. He argued that the preventative
maintenance programs were important and were lacking in
many different areas. He noted that HB 313 would require
that school districts, Regional Education Attendance Areas
(REAAs), and municipalities would have preventative
maintenance programs in place before being given money
through state grants.
Senator Parnell asked why there was a delayed effective
date.
DANNY DEWITT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESSES, ALASKA CHAPTER, replied that there had been
discussions (primarily with the Department of Education);
there was a concern that the short time-frame between the
present time and July 1, 1998 would not be enough time for
a number of entities to get a preventative maintenance
program in place. The House State Affairs Committee had
elected to delay one year so that entities could have
enough time to proceed without too much disruption.
Senator Torgerson summarized that the bill would require
that funds be withheld until a preventative maintenance
plan was in place that included a computerized maintenance
management program. He agreed with the idea. He questioned
the impact to municipalities and REAAs in terms of
financial output. Senator Wilken responded that many had
had the same question until Roger Patch gave a presentation
in Anchorage. Mr. Patch described what he had done in the
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, and had
suggested that a municipality or agency could put a
qualifying preventative maintenance system in place for
$10,000, given current technology. He did not think the
process would be a burden.
Mr. DeWitt directed attention to a written description of a
program to track maintenance. He encouraged the use of a
computerized system with built-in reminders of what needed
to be done and when. He referred to different levels of
systems that could give most agencies an easy opportunity
to comply with the law.
Senator Torgerson was concerned about smaller REAAs, since
the smallest had only 21 people. He noted that the fiscal
note included a request for an assistant architect to
evaluate and conduct the systems. He questioned why the
department did not just track maintenance on a centralized
and consolidated basis for smaller REAAs. Mr. DeWitt
thought the option would be available for smaller
districts, but the district would have to have the plan.
There was not a requirement to create a new department in
any given operation.
Senator Torgerson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 313(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes. There being no OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 313(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and attached fiscal and zero fiscal
notes by the Department of Education.
HOUSE BILL 315
"An Act relating to operating appropriations for
facility operations, maintenance and repair, and
renewal and replacement for components of public
buildings and facilities; and providing for an
effective date."
SENATOR GARY WILKIN informed the committee that the
preventative maintenance task force had issued
recommendations in a report; item 5(a) was addressed in the
presentation on HB 313, the required preventative
maintenance programs. Item 5(b) required separate operating
budget appropriations for routine and preventative
maintenance. House Bill 315 would amend the Executive
Budget Act to require that the proposed budget from the
department have a separate line-item for maintenance so
that the legislature could discuss, argue, and agree upon
what amount would be provided for maintenance in the
upcoming budget and then measure the results of the effort
at the end of the budget cycle. The bill would make the
item a single request for appropriation.
Co-chair Sharp noted that the item would be segregated.
Senator Torgerson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 315(FIN) from
committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ruled.
CSHB 315(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and two new zero notes by the
Department of Education and the Office of the Governor.
AT EASE
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL 340
"An Act relating to the University of Alaska and
university land, and authorizing the University of
Alaska to select additional state land."
Senator Torgerson MOVED Amendment 1:
Page 10, line 30, subsection (c):
Delete line 30 through 31, and lines 1 and 2 on the
top of page 11.
Insert new language:
Subject to appropriation of the income, the Board
of Regents shall have an amount up to 20 percent
of the income derived from the management of
university land selected under AS 14.43.65 for
the campus of the university that is located
closest to the land from which the income is
derived, if the borough or unified municipality
within which the campus is located agrees to
provide a match for the same amount to the
campus.
Senator Torgerson MOVED amendment 1 to Amendment 1:
Page 11, line 2
Delete the word "unified"
Senator Parnell OBJECTED. He asked for clarification
regarding the amendment to the amendment. He queried
whether the intent was to broaden the word municipalities
to include cities as well.
Senator Torgerson responded that the existing language
would not include home-rule, first-class, or second-class
cities. Deleting the word "unified" would open the
provision up to municipalities, including unified
municipalities.
Senator Parnell REMOVED his OBJECTION.
Senator Adams clarified that there was an Alaskan campus in
Barrow (Ilisagvik College) not related to the University of
Alaska. He queried the revenues that would be available to
the Barrow institution.
Senator Torgerson did not think SB 340 would apply to a
campus that was not attached to the University of Alaska.
There being no further objection, the Amendment 1 as
amended was ADOPTED.
Senator Torgerson MOVED Amendment 2:
Page 9, line 17 through page 10, line 9 Subsection
(m):
Delete in its entirety
Senator Adams OBJECTED. He asked whether the work would be
done (by the Department of Natural Resources) to issue the
documents necessary to convey the land.
Senator Torgerson believed the issue was covered. He wanted
to take out the parts related to land not developed in ten
years that would then revert back to the state. He thought
the land-selection process and the duties and
responsibilities of both the Board of Regents of the
University of Alaska and the Division of Land would remain
intact.
Senator Adams MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call was taken on the amendment.
In favor: Parnell, Phillips, Torgerson, Sharp, Pearce
Against: Adams
Senator Donley was absent from the vote.
The motion FAILED (5/1). Amendment 2 was adopted.
Co-chair Sharp informed the committee that the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) had just faxed several pages of
amendments. He believed the DNR amendments would be
addressed on the floor of the Senate.
Co-chair Sharp stated that he did not like the fiscal notes
attached to the bill. He referred to a $1.5 million
request; he did not know how it would be used.
Senator Pearce opined that the bill could not be reported
out with the fiscal notes. She believed the item could be
addressed in Conference Committee. She did not want to give
the university $1.5 million each year. In addition, DNR was
asked for another $800,000 in inter-agency receipts.
WENDY REDMOND, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY
RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, thought there might be an
error. She stated that the university fiscal note should be
university receipts and not general funds.
Co-chair Sharp noted that the fiscal note said general
funds, so there could be an error.
Ms. Redmond agreed that the item should be university
receipts. She added that the land development would be paid
from the proceeds from the fund.
Senator Pearce commented that the item was showing as
interagency receipts; it was expected that the university
would pay those. Ms. Redmond responded that there had been
agreements in past land bills about how interagency
receipts would be handled; the department would pay the
costs for surveying and platting, and would share the
conveyance cost. She offered to get a corrected fiscal note
for at least the university's portion to make sure it was
university receipts.
Senator Torgerson asked whether the department would be in
favor of university receipts to DNR. Ms. Redmond responded
that it would not be university receipts but would
appropriately show as interagency receipts if they received
some university receipts to handle the costs of the
platting.
Senator Torgerson asked whether the impact to the general
fund would be zero. Ms. Redmond answered in the
affirmative.
JANE ANGVIK, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LAND, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference), added that the
department's understanding of the DNR fiscal note was that
it was to be paid by the university for all costs
associated with the conveyance.
Senator Torgerson agreed.
Senator Pearce opined that there was still a problem, as
the budget would increase. The interagency receipt account
was general funds. She thought the issue could be worked on
in Conference Committee.
Co-chair Sharp asked for the fiscal note from the
university to be changed from a fund source of general
funds to university receipts. He wanted it to be clear on
the DNR fiscal note that the interagency receipts would be
from university receipts upon agreement and request from
the university for services desired. He noted that it would
not be dictated by DNR.
Ms. Angvik clarified that the University of Alaska would
pay all costs associated if the bill was adopted.
Co-chair Sharp agreed.
Senator Torgerson MOVED to REPORT CSSB 340(FIN) from
committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal notes.
Senator Adams OBJECTED. He believed the bill was being set
up to be vetoed because it would appropriate resources of
the state that would hurt the economic development of the
state. He also believed the bill would hamper the process
of organizing for unorganized municipalities. He thought
the economic development and selection of non-oil-and-gas
properties would be hampered as well as mining and timber
harvesting. He asserted that the bill would create an
exemption from most state law. He noted past allowance of
Mental Health Trust selection of lands. He did not think
the selection would be known with the University of Alaska.
He argued that the bill would set bad public policy.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
In favor: Torgerson, Parnell, Phillips, Sharp, Pearce
Against: Adams
Senator Donley was absent from the vote.
The motion PASSED (5/1).
CSSB 340(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and attached fiscal notes by the Department
of Natural Resources and the University of Alaska.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-chair Sharp adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|