Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/26/1999 09:06 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
April 26, 1999
9:06 AM
TAPES
SFC-99 # 110, Side A and Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair John Torgerson convened the meeting at
approximately 9:06 AM.
PRESENT
Senator John Torgerson, Senator Sean Parnell, Senator Randy
Phillips, Senator Gary Wilken, Senator Al Adams and Senator
Pete Kelly were present when the meeting convened. Senator
Dave Donley arrived later. Senator Loren Leman was absent.
Also Attending:
ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Administration; JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General,
Governmental Affairs Section, Civil Division, Department of
Law; KAREN PERDUE, Commissioner, Department of Health and
Social Services; ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant, Office
of the Commissioner, Department of Health and Social
Services; BOB BRIGGS, Staff Attorney, Disability Law Center
of Alaska; TIM WEISS, Program Director and Past President,
Parent's Incorporated; MANYA KONGOWYIE (last name spelling
not provided), Developmental Disability Specialist; KEN
DANE (last name spelling not provided), Independent Living
Specialist; BARRY BURNETT; CHERYL HALL, Alaska Independent
Living; WALTER MAJOURIS, Executive Director, Mental Health
Board; JEFF JESSEE, Executive Director, Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority;
Attending via Teleconference: From Anchorage: HEATHER
FLYNN, UAA Adult Learning Center; JAN MCGILLIVARY, Chief
Executive Officer, Alaska Mental Health Association, and
Coordinator, Building Bridges Campaign for Mental Health;
GAIL IGO, President, Anchorage Foster Care Association and
Member, Statewide Foster Care Association; ERNEST DUMMANN;
From Fairbanks: MONTA LANE, Alaska Caregivers; GENE GRASTO;
JEANETTE GRASTO, President, National Alliance for the
Mentally Ill - Alaska; From Kenai: LEIGH HAGSTROM-SANGER,
Frontier Community Services; EDWARD MARTIN, SR.; WINI
CROSBY; HOLLI KRISTIANSEN; From Mat-Su: SANDRA ADAMS; JO
RENK; JOHN CANNON, Member, Key Coalition, and Lifequest;
From Sitka: MOIRA MCBRIDE, Occupational Therapist
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 161-REDUCTIONS IN BENEFIT PROGRAMS
The committee heard from the Department of Health and
Social Services, the Department of Law and the Department
of Administration. Public testimony was taken. The bill was
held in committee.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 161(FIN)(efd fld)
"An Act relating to reduction in payments to
individuals under certain benefit programs."
KAREN PERDUE, Commissioner, Department of Health and Social
Services testified in opposition to the bill. She felt
there were issues that had not been fully explored when it
was heard in the House of Representatives. The bill eroded
decades of statutory protections for thousands of the most
vulnerable Alaskans. It was one of the most far-reaching
bills she believed the Legislature would address this
session.
In her opinion, the biggest problem was that provisions of
the bill were so vague that the implementing agencies were
unsure how to execute them. Therefore, she thought it was
poorly executed and was too broad of an approach. She
recommended the committee should slow down and take a look
at some of the issues raised.
As one who would be expected to execute the bill, she had
two questions. "What programs would this apply to and how
would it work?" When she asked that question of the co-
chair of the House Finance Committee and was told "No
programs come to mind." There was no clear statement on the
record to reflect the Legislature's intent.
She noted the bill had received limited public input in the
House of Representatives. There was only one evening
hearing and the House Finance Committee did not accept
testimony on the committee substitute.
Her interpretation of the bill was that the agency was to
reduce the amount of payments to individuals on a pro-rated
basis if the appropriation for the benefit program was not
fully sufficient to fund all the payments. That was a
simple statement. However, she read the bill to also say
that no supplementals would be allowed for these programs.
She pointed out that supplementals occurred frequently in
formula programs and that the bill would result in benefit
reductions as early as next year. She shared her vision of
formula programs as a special category of programs given
extra care in state and federal statutes to define criteria
of age, income, disabilities, medical conditions and
children in foster care. The intent is that when an
individual meets the criteria, the programs will serve
them.
It was determined that these programs were so important
that waiting lists were inappropriate. They addressed basic
life, health and safety needs of food, shelter or the
safety of children in the case of foster care.
She addressed the requirement for the agencies to prepare
formula estimates nearly eighteen months in advance of the
end of the fiscal year. This was guessing far into the
future about how many people would need assistance with
these services. These projections were always wrought with
uncertainty and there was tremendous discussion in the
budget subcommittees about the accuracy of the predictions.
There was debate on the merits of conservative versus
liberal estimates. The Legislature and the Governor had
more recently determined that it was more advantageous to
underestimate rather than overestimate demand due to
federal funding requirements. Therefore, the supplemental
was consistently used to correct shortages in calculations.
It was impossible to accurately predict the exact need of
funding for each program.
She spoke to some of the programs that would be affected.
This included the Longevity Bonus Program, foster care,
subsidized adoption and adult public assistance, all of
which had been conservatively estimated as to their funding
requirements for FY00.
She compared the funding formulas to building construction,
where allowances were made for changes, cost-overruns, and
unforeseen expenses.
Some of the programs were subject to the state of the
economy. If the state suffered an economic downturn, the
demand for services would go up.
She detailed the adult public assistance programs and the
people it served. It was the state's supplement to social
security. Many participants in this program were not
qualified for social security benefits. The eligibility of
the program was tied to Medicaid and required the recipient
to be very poor with little assets. Therefore, these
participants would not be able to make up for a reduction
in benefits from their personal finances.
She warned that this legislation could result in the loss
of Medicaid coverage for many participants.
Another program was the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program
(ATAP). She told of the recent reductions in the cost of
operating the program due to the rewrite of the Welfare
Bill. Half of the participants in the program were
currently working, which resulted in reductions in the
payments and savings to the state. Wages were replacing the
payments. She stressed that this was the way an entitlement
program should be done.
Further reductions to this program would result in the
state violating its "Maintenance of Efforts" and cause
significant financial penalties. The bill did not make
allowances for federal penalties.
The program also serviced "child-only" situations where
someone was caring for a child other than a legal guardian
or foster parent. These cases were held harmless for work
requirements. She wanted to know if it was the intent of
the bill to reduce payments for these children also.
[RECORDING INTERRUPTION - APPROX. 10 SECONDS]
She spoke of poor elderly participants that the department
paid Medicaid premiums for. She wanted to know if this was
considered an individual benefit, or if it would be exempt.
The Legislative Legal Services Division raised concerns
about other programs, such as state employee health
benefits and worker's compensation payments.
She continued by saying that there was great confusion on
the effective date of the bill. The bill stated that it was
to go into effect July 1999. The effective date did not
pass the House of Representatives so it could go into
effect ninety days after that. However, the House Finance
Committee co-chair was quoted in the media as saying that
this would not affect payments this year. She didn't see
how that was possible when the caseload estimates were so
conservative in many of the formula programs.
[RECORDING DIFFICULTIES]
She surmised that because the bill gave a mandate that the
agencies "shall" reduce benefits. Therefore, it did not
matter what direction the committee gave as to intent; the
letter of the law would have to be followed.
She had been asked her preference of whether to pro-ration
payment amounts or to simply cease payments when the funds
ran out. She had never had a serious public discussion with
any member of the Legislature about completely cutting off
benefits. She hoped this Legislature would not consider it
either. She felt this was the last area the government
should cut because participants were unable to cover the
shortfalls. The department considered it a failure if a
benefit check arrived one or two days late since the
participants relied on the money.
She compared the matter to expenditures for the Y2K issue.
Logistics and timing were a big issue. She wanted to know
if the Legislature intended the department to prorate
several times a year or once a year. One of the impacts
could be caused if the department was over conservative and
pro-rated too much.
Only the Longevity Bonus Program was clear in how this
provision could be applied. That was because the bill
language stated, "programs that have already had a pro-
rationing factor would not be included." She wondered if
that meant the Legislature intended to continue to honor
the formula nature of foster care. There were statutory
protections in many of the programs addressing the basic
income standards so participants could meet their expenses.
She thought it was clear that the Legislature had the
authority and the ability to do statutory reform of
entitlements. It had been done in the Longevity Bonus
Program and the ATAP program thoughtfully and carefully.
This bill lacked a couple features present in the past
reform bills. First, it gave sufficient notice of two
years. It also tended to not cut off participants who
currently depended upon payments.
There would be substantial cumulative effects for
participants who had limited alternatives. If the Longevity
Bonus Program and the ATAP were both prorated and the
senior property tax exemption bill was adopted and
municipalities took advantage of that. The impact on an
elderly person would be tremendous. That was why it was
important to do changes in a statutory manner looking at
all the options.
She recommended that this bill needed review. She did not
feel individuals were overpaid.
Senator Pete Kelly said one of the things he felt motivated
the bill were reports that showed Alaskan's benefits were
so far ahead of other states. He didn't know if this bill
was the answer, but he also felt that too many people were
pulled into the system. When he saw outreach programs and
inter-agency cooperation that brought in people to many
different programs. He described someone he knew who did
fair with family support, and then received one benefit
that was needed. But then she kept getting more information
from the state about other programs she could participate
in.
He believed that the amounts paid in Alaska might be too
high and that there was too much outreach. He wanted to see
less pro-ration of medical benefits and more on the ATAP
portion. He felt that the state should determine the amount
it would spend on the program and begin to bring down the
discrepancy with other states.
Karen Perdue suggested dividing the programs into those for
people who were able-bodied and able to work currently or
at some point in the future, and those who did not have the
ability to support themselves. She gave children in foster
homes as an example of those who would not be expected to
support themselves.
The ATAP program had made substantial changes and gave time
limits for benefits. She did not feel it was safe to say
that the paridine of the past was the paridine of the
future. She felt that to allow those who could work part
time and still be eligible for medical benefits the program
was more successful. Some of the programs allowed people
to be very productive, but they needed to continue to
qualify for medical coverage in order to do so.
Senator Al Adams stated that the language of the bill was
very broad. He wanted to determine which programs would be
affected and listed ATAP, Adult Public Assistance, General
Relief Assistance, Medicaid, chronic acute medical
assistance, foster care, subsidized adoption and
guardianship, the Longevity Bonus Program, K-12 education
entitlement programs. Were there any other programs, he
asked. Karen Perdue said the listed programs were what came
to mind. However, there had not been enough dialog with the
Legislature to determine if there were other programs.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked the effect on Medicare.
Karen Perdue stated Medicaid was an entitlement program
that was tied to the individual eligibility. Health care
was not provided to anyone just because they are poor. The
individual had to be disabled, elderly or a child. The
payments were made to the providers so the interpretation
made on the record in the House was that this legislation
would not apply to Medicaid. However, there were many
questions within that assumption. One was the payment of
Medicare premiums to the federal government for 8000
elderly and poor Alaskans. That was cheaper than paying for
the health care directly. Therefore, that was actually an
individual benefit and subject to the provisions of the
bill.
Co-Chair John Torgerson said the bill stated "payments to
individuals" and the witness kept referring to payments to
programs. He wondered if the different intents were not
distinct to her. Karen Perdue said it was not and
explained that was because there were parts of the Medicaid
program that paid premiums. She noted that the Legislative
Legal Services Division had raised the questions about
state employee health benefits. The bill specifically
exempted state employee retirement benefits but not active
employee health benefits. She was unclear if that would be
considered an individual benefit.
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Government Affairs
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law testified to the
memorandum he had sent the committee. He had two major
areas of legal concern with the bill.
He touched on the legal framework involving formula or
entitlement programs. The entitlement program was one where
the beneficiaries were identified in law as having a
mandatory right to receive the benefits. This right became
complete where there were sufficient funds available to pay
the benefit. When all the elements were present, the
individual involved had a "property interest" or vested
right that could only be deprived by due process of law.
The purpose of the bill, in an expansive way, was to remove
one of the three elements; the sufficient funding.
Past practice created the assumption that the Legislature
would appropriate what was necessary to pay the benefits as
stated in the law. If a specific dollar amount or a
specific formula was stated, the legal assumption had been
that Legislature would provide sufficient funds. A property
right was created under that statute and an individual had
vested rights, which were protected under the due process
clause, the state constitution or the fourteenth amendment
as applicable to the states under the US Constitution.
The other element of legal concern with the bill dealt with
the blanket, single concept approach applied to several
different benefit programs. It was done in a skeletal
manner as a broad delegation of legislative power to the
Executive Branch. He compared it to a former law in the
Executive Budget Act where the Legislature gave the
Executive Branch the power to reduce amounts to all
appropriations if there was insufficient revenues. The
Fairbanks Northstar Borough during the Sheffield
Administration successfully challenged that law in court.
He felt this legislation would be vulnerable to attack
based on the findings in the previous suit because of its
similarity. It would be a delegation of power to the
administrator of a program to decide when funds were
insufficient and amend the entitlement established in law.
Another problem was that the approach could imply the
repeal of other statutes. Such implied repeals were not
favored in Alaska law. He was concerned that this
legislation, as a command to a state agency not to pay the
benefit, may be interpreted as not interfering with an
individual's right to receive the benefit. However, it
would impede the recipient's right to recover in the form
of judgements or claims against the state. He suggested the
solution was to address specific programs individually and
place the limitations in the enabling act for the grant
program.
Senator Randy Phillips wanted to know if the Legislature
had ever implemented a pro-ration to the Executive Branch
for various programs in the past. Jim Baldwin said there
had been specific statutory programs where pro-ration had
been expressly provided for. Senator Randy Phillips asked
for examples. He remembered the Longevity Bonus Program was
pro-rationed at one time. Jim Baldwin responded there was
a provision in the General Relief Medical program to pro-
rate, but none for the General Relief Assistance program.
He reviewed the Adult Public Assistance and found mention
of sufficiency of appropriations, but it was imprecise and
would be inadequate to sustain a claim against pro-ration.
The revenue sharing program, Power Cost Equalization and
several other programs had pro-ration language.
He warned that on the federal level, the argument relating
to directing the provisions toward benefit programs for
individuals was tried and failed. The court found that if
the grantee worked on behalf of individuals, the property
right claim was not defeated. To say that this legislation
applied to individuals would not necessarily protect non-
governmental service providers. He gave an example of
schools providing services and felt they would not be
insulated from rights of service claims.
He was hesitant to give excessive detail on the record in
case it was held against the state during a later
discovery. He did say the imprecision and vagueness of the
bill was an area that concerned him a great deal as it
would damage the ability to defend.
He felt the ultimate approach would be to do this on a
program by program basis.
Senator Randy Phillips interjected and again asked if pro-
rationing had been done in the past. Jim Baldwin confirmed
that it had been done for specific programs. Senator Randy
Phillips noted this was therefore not breaking new ground.
Jim Baldwin said when it was done, it removed one of the
three elements that created the vested right and could be
legally defended. However, there still could be federal
requirements that could place the state in the difficult
position of deciding to either cease operation of the
program or to fully fund it, he qualified.
Senator Al Adams again referenced the broad language of the
bill and asked if the state had liability exposure under
class actions lawsuits on behalf of beneficiaries. Jim
Baldwin agreed with Karen Perdue's understanding of the
testimony heard in the House Finance Committee regarding
past instances of short-funded programs. The committee told
the departments that certain programs would not be required
to immediately pro-rationing benefits. One of his legal
concerns was the arbitration of that approach. "What are
the limits on reasonable agency activities, then? What are
we to do in making those decisions when we have an absolute
command like this, which tells us we have to pro-ration?
But yet we have a wink and a nod from finance committee
members. Can we act on those kinds of assurances legally
and validly and withhold benefits or are we required under
the law to go forward and pay full benefits?"
He warned of class action litigation brought on behalf of
the beneficiaries testing the legality of the broad
application.
Other unanswered questions were "what was a benefit
program?" When referring to an individual, did that mean
organizations that represented individuals or only benefit
programs to individuals? Also, what was an insignificant
appropriation? Expensive class action litigation was in
store for the state if more definitive terms were not
adopted.
Senator Al Adams wanted to know if state statute had a
definition of "benefit". Jim Baldwin said there was one in
the PDS program but was unaware on any that could be
applied to Title 1. Senator Al Adams asked the witness to
state for the record the benefit program was for an
individual or an organization. Jim Baldwin only knew how
the bill was explained in the House Finance Committee. He
thought those terms could be read to include organizations
based on the federal precedent.
As Senator Sean Parnell read the benefit programs
provision, it was clearly defined. He didn't think it was
vague.
Jim Baldwin responded that he didn't think that this area
was the only area of statutory construction that would be
applied to this. When the intent was to impliably amend
many statutory programs the courts would try to construe
the two statutory schemes together and harmonize them if
possible. If not, the area with necessary aide going to
individuals for necessities, strict construction may not be
applied by a court. He didn't believe it was clear.
ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Administration testified against the bill and the
implications it would have to the Longevity Bonus Program.
She stated there were a number of seniors who were
dependent on the payments. She told of the methods that the
department applied to determine funding needs using a
computer model. However, there was no way to ensure the
exact amount needed. If the department had begun to pro-
rate payments based on the first model generated in
September, benefits would have been withheld unnecessarily.
There was nothing in the legislation to give the department
direction on how to deal with a circumstance like that.
In projecting the program for the fiscal year 2000, a low-
case scenario anticipated the amount appropriated by the
Legislature would be short by approximately $2.4 million.
Under those circumstances, the department saw no other
option but to prorate the payments beginning on the
effective date of this legislation if it passed. Based on
committee testimony from the House Finance Committee, that
was not their desire.
The department supported the income cap legislation and
felt that was a better way to reduce the program.
BOB BRIGGS, Staff Attorney, Disability Law Center of
Alaska, testified. He asked the committee to not pass the
legislation.
Tape: SFC - 99 #110, Side B 9:53 AM
He spoke of the current funding options. This legislation
would eliminate one of them. He felt that was bad policy.
He quoted Harry S. Truman. The federal government provided
support that was inadequate to meet the needs of those
living in Alaska. The Legislature had decided to provide
the remaining funds to supplement the federal poverty
level.
He suggested changing the formula or the level of support.
He had concerns with the legal problems in the bill. He
disagreed with Senator Sean Parnell's assessment on the
clarity of the language. He detailed his interpretation.
Alaskan's with disabilities were not faceless. He told of
a logger in Coffman Cove who had been denied social
security benefits. His injuries were work related.
He wanted the Legislature to balance the budget but felt
this bill was the wrong approach.
TIM WEISS, Program Director and Past President, Parent's
Incorporated, the statewide organization of parents of
children with disabilities, testified in opposition to the
bill. He told of his son's multiple disabilities.
BARRY BURNETT testified on behalf of his family in
opposition to cuts to disability payments. In his opinion,
there should be not cuts whatsoever to these benefits. He
spoke about the difficulties of families where a spouse
receives a paycheck and the benefits are eliminated. He
didn't want to ask for a handout, but felt that the state
should provide job training instead of cutting benefits.
Senator Sean Parnell asked if the witness was under the
impression that this bill or the current budget reduced
benefits to the disabled. Barry Burnett responded that any
legislation passed that cut any funding from the Department
of Health and Social Services resulted in cuts to the
disabled. Senator Sean Parnell made further comments about
the budget this year that increased funding for the
disabled.
[Audio Interruption]
MANYA KONGOWYIE (last name spelling not provided),
Developmental Disability Specialist since 1987, testified.
She told the committee of her past work history in the
social services field. She was the mother of a child who
had multiple disabilities and had multiple disabilities
herself. She spoke of her reliance on the programs at
different times in her life. She was afraid this bill
skewed the priorities. She said the recent Legislators' per
diem increase equaled the amount of monthly payments to
many program participants.
KEN DANE (last name spelling not provided), Independent
Living Specialist, testified. He felt this created a type
of cast system. He said this bill would not provide any
happiness for those living on less than $1100 a month. He
thought this bill could affect the veteran's preference
programs. He had problems with denial of benefits to
disabled veterans who were injured in service to their
country.
HEATHER FLYNN, UAA Adult Learning Center, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She had concerns with the
welfare reform efforts. She congratulated the Legislature
for the success of the programs. However, the child care
programs were essential for the continued success of
maintaining welfare recipients in the workforce.
JAN MCGILLIVARY, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Mental
Health Association, and Coordinator, Building Bridges
Campaign for Mental Health, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage in opposition to the bill.
Co-Chair John Torgerson announced that written testimony
was welcome and would be distributed to members.
GENE GRASTO, representing himself, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks. He felt it was demeaning for
disabled Alaskans to have to plead and beg for no benefit
reductions. He noted these people were not corporate
executives.
JEANETTE GRASTO, President, National Alliance for the
Mentally Ill - Alaska, testified via teleconference from
Fairbanks in opposition to the bill. She was ashamed the
bill was even before the Legislature. She spoke to the
need of many individuals. She noted that many mentally ill
could participate in the work force if they were given
opportunities. She compared this to a family in need
deciding to feed the baby and the grandmother less to make
up the shortfall.
EDWARD MARTIN, SR., testified via teleconference from
Kenai. He was against the bill. He spoke about collecting
signatures for the dividend program, which gave him an
opportunity to speak to many about this bill. Most of the
feedback he received told him Alaskan's did not want the
budget balanced in this manner.
WINI CROSBY testified via teleconference from Kenai about
her concerns with the bill. The bill was too vague. She
talked about the need to move children from foster homes
into adopted families. She recommended the bill be returned
to the Senate Health and Social Services Committee for
further review.
JO RENK, Foster Mother and Adoptive Mother, testified via
teleconference from Mat-Su. She opposed the bill, as it
would adversely impact foster children.
JOHN CANNON, Member, Key Coalition, and Lifequest,
testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. He felt the bill
was unfair and threatened the lives of Alaskan's with
disabilities.
MOIRA MCBRIDE, Occupational Therapist, testified via
teleconference from Sitka. She said the bill was not well
conceived.
CHERYL HALL, Alaska Independent Living, testified in person
to the need of the Longevity Bonus Program. She asked that
the committee not pass this bill.
WALTER MAJOURIS, Executive Director, Mental Health Board
testified in person. He told about his organization. He
was concerned that this bill would threaten the basic life
needs of many mentally ill. He spoke of programs that
would be affected. He appreciated past efforts by the
Legislature to support programs for disabled and mentally
ill. However, he felt this legislation would be a setback
to the many advances.
JEFF JESSEE, Executive Director, Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority testified against the bill. He referred to
comments made by the House Finance Committee that this was
only one of many attempts to reduce the budget. He spoke of
the difficulties in determining the funding levels needed
each year and compared it to predictions of annual snowfall
amounts. He detailed the methods used to predict the needs
of these programs. He suggested the committee look at each
program individually and to address cost-overruns
specifically. The alliance would assist in that process.
Fundamentally the point was who would face the risk. It
would not be the Legislature; it would be the
beneficiaries.
GAIL IGO, President, Anchorage Foster Care Association and
Member, Statewide Foster Care Association, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She spoke against the bill.
She had spoken to many foster families and learned that
many would be unable to continue to provide foster care if
the benefit amounts were cut.
ERNEST DUMMANN, Parent of a child with a disability,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said it was
a misperception that this bill would not affect programs.
Tape: SFC - 99 #111, Side A 10:40 AM
He also commented on behalf on the Key Coalition.
MONTA LANE, Alaska Caregivers, testified via teleconference
from Fairbanks. He disagreed with the statement that too
many people were pulled into the system. He also disagreed
that the benefit levels were too high. The Legislature had
already imposed a cap.
He warned that the programs needed to be addressed
individually and not left to future legislatures and
commissioners to repair.
HOLLI KRISTIANSEN testified via teleconference from Kenai
in opposition to the bill. She felt this was a dangerous
bill that worked against everything the state had done to
help children. She believed this would only broaden the
gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots".
LEIGH HAGSTROM-SANGER, Frontier Community Services,
testified via teleconference from Kenai. She told of a
demonstration planned at the Kenai LIO to show opposition
to the bill.
SANDRA ADAMS, Representing her children and all of
Alaskan's needy, testified via teleconference from Mat-Su.
She spoke of the disabilities of her children and wondered
about the level of support if this bill passed. She asked
the members' to search their souls to find a solution.
Co-Chair John Torgerson announced that time did not allow
for further public testimony. He ordered the bill held in
committee.
SB 4 was added to the next meeting's agenda.
ADJOURNED
Senator Torgerson adjourned the meeting at 10:49AM.
SFC-99 (3) 4/26/99
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|