04/14/2017 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB8 | |
| SB29 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 14, 2017
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Mia Costello
Senator Pete Kelly
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Mike Dunleavy
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 8
"An Act relating to protective orders."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 29
"An Act repealing the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission;
relating to decisions and orders of the Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission; relating to superior court jurisdiction over
appeals from Alaska Workers' Compensation Board decisions;
repealing Rules 201.1, 401.1, and 501.1, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure, and amending Rules 202(a), 204(a) - (c),
210(e), 601(b), and 603(a), Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 8
SHORT TITLE: ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN PROTECTIVE ORDERS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EDGMON
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) CRA, JUD
01/31/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
01/31/17 (H) Moved HB 8 Out of Committee
01/31/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/01/17 (H) CRA RPT 5DP 1NR
02/01/17 (H) DP: TALERICO, WESTLAKE, DRUMMOND,
PARISH, FANSLER
02/01/17 (H) NR: RAUSCHER
02/08/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/08/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/08/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/13/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/13/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/15/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/15/17 (H) Moved HB 8 Out of Committee
02/15/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/17/17 (H) JUD RPT 4DP 2NR
02/17/17 (H) DP: KOPP, KREISS-TOMKINS, FANSLER,
CLAMAN
02/17/17 (H) NR: EASTMAN, REINBOLD
03/06/17 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/06/17 (H) VERSION: HB 8
03/08/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/17 (S) CRA, JUD
03/16/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/16/17 (S) Heard & Held
03/16/17 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/21/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/21/17 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/28/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/28/17 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/17 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
04/04/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/04/17 (S) Moved SCS HB 8(CRA) Out of Committee
04/04/17 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
04/05/17 (S) CRA RPT SCS 1DP 3NR SAME TITLE
04/05/17 (S) DP: BISHOP
04/05/17 (S) NR: MACKINNON, STEDMAN, GARDNER
04/14/17 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 29
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL WORKERS' COMP APPEALS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/20/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/17 (S) L&C, JUD, FIN
02/14/17 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/14/17 (S) Heard & Held
02/14/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/28/17 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/28/17 (S) Heard & Held
02/28/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/02/17 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/02/17 (S) Moved SB 29 Out of Committee
03/02/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/03/17 (S) L&C RPT 1DP 3NR
03/03/17 (S) NR: COSTELLO, HUGHES, MEYER
03/03/17 (S) DP: GARDNER
03/29/17 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/29/17 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/17 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/05/17 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/05/17 (S) Heard & Held
04/05/17 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/17 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM CLARK, Staff
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 8 on behalf of the sponsor.
MARY LUNDQUIST, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Opinions, Appeals & Ethics Section
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Law
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and provided information
related to HB 8.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 8.
STEVEN CONSTANTINO, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 29.
ERIC CROFT, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 29.
COLBY SMITH, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 29
VICKI PADDOCK, Attorney
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 29.
HEIDI DRYGAS, Commissioner
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided supporting testimony on SB 29.
PALOMA HARBOUR, Administrative Services Director
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on SB 29, provided
information related to funding for the Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:22 PM
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Dunleavy, Costello, Kelly, Wielechowski, and
Chair Coghill.
HB 8-ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN PROTECTIVE ORDERS
1:33:56 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of HB 8. [SCS HB
8(CRA) was before the committee.]
1:34:16 PM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HB 8 speaking to the following sponsor
statement:
In 2014, a bill sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski and
former Sen. Mark Begich eliminated the "Alaska
Exemption" from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
This brought attention to the state's obligation to
enforce protection orders issued by other
jurisdictions, including other state, territorial, or
tribal courts.
As current statutes are written, law enforcement is
only compelled to enforce a tribal or another state's
protection order if it has been filed (that is,
registered) in an Alaska court. However, with Alaska
subject to the VAWA, the state is required to enforce
protection orders issued in another jurisdiction even
if the order has not been registered.
SCS HB 8(CRA) follows the recommendation of the
Department of Law to amend conflicting state statutes
in order to bring Alaska into compliance with the
federal law. SCS HB 8(CRA) will not only clarify the
duties of law enforcement but also will eliminate
potential for complications in prosecutions that could
stem from the contradictions currently found in state
statutes.
Additionally, the bill adds a presumption of validity
on the part of state law enforcement, so that they are
required to enforce a protective order issued in
another jurisdiction so long as it appears authentic
on its face. SCS HB 8(CRA) also more clearly specifies
in statute that "other states" and "other
jurisdictions" include courts of another state or
territory, United States military tribunals, and
tribal courts.
It's important to note that the state still encourages
registration of protection orders from other
jurisdictions. As the Department of Law has noted, the
state's central registry "gives officers access to
tribal and foreign protection orders anywhere in
Alaska, even if the victim does not have a copy of the
order at hand."
MR. CLARK advised that the Senate Community and Regional Affairs
Committee amended the bill prohibiting online publishing of a
protective order, restraining order, or injunction in a case
involving domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault if
doing so would likely reveal the identity or location of the
individual protected under the order. According to the Alaska
Court System, this will result in all information relating to
protective orders being removed from CourtView.
1:38:32 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many tribal protection orders are
issued per year.
MR. CLARK deferred the question to Nancy Meade.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the various jurisdictions include foreign
governments.
MR. CLARK clarified that the term "foreign" is legal parlance
that refers to other U.S. states, U.S. territories, and tribal
courts.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Clark to go through a brief sectional
analysis of HB 8.
1:39:49 PM
MR. CLARK stated that the best way to summarized HB 8 is to
first look at Sections 5 and 6. He read the following:
Section 5 adds a new section to statute, AS 18.65.867,
regarding the enforcement and recognition of
protective orders issued in other jurisdictions that
have to do with stalking or sexual assault but not
with domestic violence.
A protective order related to stalking or sexual
assault issued "by a court of the United States, a
court of another state or territory, a United States
military tribunal, or a tribal court" has the same
effect and must be recognized and enforced in the same
manner as a protective order issued by an Alaska state
court.
This section also cites United States Code Title 18,
Chapter 2265, which is the part of the Violence
Against Women Act that addresses protection orders
originating in other jurisdictions. Chapter 2265
expressly states that orders issued in other
jurisdictions do not have to be filed (registered) in
an Alaska state court in order to be enforced here.
Chapter 2265 also describes certain criteria the
issuing jurisdiction needs to meet in order for its
protection order to be given full faith and credit by
another jurisdiction.
Section 5 further instructs law enforcement that a
stalking- or sexual-assault-related protection order
issued in another jurisdiction that appears authentic
on its face should be presumed valid. (This might be
characterized as erring on the side of caution when it
comes to those in need of protection.)
1:41:01 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI offered his understanding that under the
Violence Against Women Act, the state is obligated to enforce a
protective order issued in another state. He asked if the bill
changes or clarifies that.
MR. CLARK replied that law enforcement has been enforcing
protective orders from other states since the Department of Law
issued an opinion in 2015. State statute is in conflict with the
superseding federal law.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there has been a constitutional
challenge to the existing law.
MR. CLARK said his understanding is that the state is able to
prosecute the violation of a protective order issued in another
state because of the superseding federal law. However, the
Department of Law did warn that the conflict in state statute is
a potential liability in the event of litigation.
CHAIR COGHILL suggested Mary Lundquist supplement the
explanation.
1:44:40 PM
MARY LUNDQUIST, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, Opinions, Appeals & Ethics Section, Office of the
Attorney General, Department of Law, Fairbanks, Alaska, said she
is not aware of a constitutional challenge to the existing law.
She agreed with Mr. Clark that the federal law overrides state
law, so there could be a prosecution of a violation of a
protective order. HB 8 will clarify that a foreign order would
not need to be registered with the Court System to be enforced.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if tribal orders were included as an MOU or
as a matter of course.
MS. LUNDQUIST replied tribal orders are recognized under VAWA;
it requires the state to give full faith and credit to tribal
protection orders.
1:46:06 PM
MR. CLARK continued to read Section 6:
Section 6 addresses protective orders relating to
domestic violence. It amends AS
18.66.140 to state that (just as with protective
orders relating to stalking and sexual assault in the
absence of domestic violence, addressed in Section 5)
a protection order related to domestic violence issued
in another jurisdiction must be recognized and
enforced just as if it were issued by an Alaskan
court, regardless of whether the protection order has
been filed (registered) with an Alaskan court.
This section also cites United States Code Title 18,
Chapter 2265, which includes certain criteria the
issuing jurisdiction needs to meet in order for its
protection order to be given full faith and credit.
CHAIR COGHILL referenced Section 7 and asked if the language in
the new subsection, [AS 18.66.140(d)], is unique. It says that a
protection order issued in another jurisdiction that appears
authentic on its face should be presumed valid. He asked, "What
caused this to have to be in here?"
MR. CLARK said that language exists in laws in other states.
Including it here is an effort to err on the side of caution and
protect the person who is holding the order.
1:48:09 PM
MR. CLARK continued reading from the following sectional
analysis for HB 8.
Section 1 addresses statutes defining what constitutes
the crime of violating a protective order. HB 8 amends
AS 11.56.740(a) to add language to include recognition
of protection orders issued by another jurisdiction,
in accordance with the provisions outlined in Sections
5 and 6 of the bill.
Section 2 further amends AS 11.56.740, in paragraph
(c), to conform to Sections 5 and 6 of the bill.
Section 3 relates to release conditions of a person
charged with or convicted of a crime involving
domestic violence.
It amends AS 12.30.027(b) to make sure that protective
orders issued by other jurisdictions are recognized in
cases where a judicial officer may not allow a
released person to return to the residence or place of
employment of someone who has taken out a protective
order against them.
Section 4 addresses statutes related to the
requirement that the Child Fatality Review Team,
housed in the Department of Health and Social
Services, reviews a report of a death of a child if
anyone in the child's immediate household was a
petitioner or respondent of a protection order within
the previous year. Specifically, it amends AS
12.65.130(c) to conform to Section 6 of the bill.
MR. CLARK noted that Section 7 was discussed previously.
Section 8 amends AS 22.35.030, statutes detailing what
the Court System is prohibited from publishing on a
publically available website. At AS 22.35.030(2),
section 8 adds a prohibition against publishing "…a
protection order under AS 18.65.850 - AS 18.65.870 or
AS 18.66.100 - AS 18.66.180, restraining order, or
injunction in a case involving domestic violence,
stalking, or sexual assault if the publication would
likely reveal the identity or location of the party
protected under the order."
According to the Alaska Court System, this will result
in all information relating to protection orders being
removed from CourtView, the system's online index of
trial court cases. This includes both the name of the
person being protected as well as the name of the
person from whom protection is sought.
MR. CLARK reiterated that the prohibition against online
publishing was added in the Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Committee. It conforms to a section of VAWA.
Sections 9 and 10 add recognition of domestic-
violence-related protection orders issued by another
jurisdiction in statutes concerned with divorce and
dissolution of marriage.
In Section 8, under AS 25.24.210(e)(7)(D), a petition
for dissolution of a marriage must state whether
during the marriage either spouse was either the
petitioner or respondent of a domestic-violence-
related protection order issued in another
jurisdiction. The change in Section 8 specifies that
the protection order in question need not have been
filed with a state court.
In Section 9, a court is instructed to use a
heightened level of scrutiny of agreements relating to
a dissolution of marriage if during the marriage one
or the other spouse was either the petitioner or
respondent for a domestic-violence-related protection
order issued in another jurisdiction. Similar to
Section 8, Section 9 specifies that the protection
order issued in another jurisdiction need not have
been filed with a state court.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Meade if Section 7 is a new methodology.
It says that a protection order issued in another jurisdiction
that appears authentic on its face should be presumed valid.
1:53:27 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, advised that
Section 7 uses language in existing statute for stalking and
sexual assault protective orders. Law enforcement will enforce a
protective order somebody presents, as long as there is nothing
obviously wrong with it.
1:54:56 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked how law enforcement handles it when
someone says they have a protective order but it's not on their
person.
MS. MEADE deferred to the Department of Law.
1:55:26 PM
MS. LUNDQUIST said that emphasizes why a protective order should
be registered. "Without a written protective order, there would
be no full faith and credit to that protection order."
CHAIR COGHILL offered his understanding that while it is good
practice to register protective orders, it is not required.
MS. LUNDQUIST said that's correct.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Meade to discuss the different kinds of
protective orders.
MS. MEADE explained that Title 18 allows for three kinds of
protective orders: stalking, sexual assault, and domestic
violence. Domestic violence protective orders are the most
common. The first step to get the order is for the petitioner to
file an ex parte (one-sided) order either in person or at home
using the court's petition wizard. The petitioner would need to
show that they currently have or did have a domestic
relationship, allege that that a crime of domestic violence
occurred, and that protection is necessary. If the judge finds
probable cause to believe that domestic violence has occurred,
the ex parte order would be issued. That order can last a
maximum of 20 days.
The petitioner can also ask for a long-term order, which can
last up to a year. In that circumstance, there is a hearing and
the respondent is given a 10-day notice to appear, with or
without an attorney. If the judicial officer finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that a crime of domestic violence
has occurred and a protection order is necessary, then a long-
term protective violence order can be granted.
2:00:30 PM
CHAIR COGHILL stated he would hold HB 8 in committee for further
review.
SB 29-REPEAL WORKERS' COMP APPEALS COMMISSION
2:01:19 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 29 and stated
his intention to continue public testimony.
2:02:53 PM
STEVEN CONSTANTINO, representing himself, stated that he has
been a member of the Alaska bar for 36 years. He was a workers'
compensation hearing officer in the 1990s and for the past 18
years he has been in private practice representing injured
workers and litigating workers' compensation claims. He is also
the claimants' representative for the Alaska Bar Association
annual review of workers' compensation cases.
He said the legislature entered into two legal experiments in
2005. First, it changed the standard for causation in workers'
compensation from "a substantial factor" to "the substantial
cause." Second, it enacted the appeals commission to attain
speedier appellate decisions and to achieve consistency by
making board decisions binding legal precedent. He said
consistency has been achieved because of the precedent
provision, but half the substantive decisions that are appealed
and decided by the Alaska Supreme Court are overturned.
Regarding speeding up workers' compensation appeals, he said his
experience is that the timelines are about the same. When the
superior court had jurisdiction, it took about 6-9 months and it
takes about 6-9 months with the appeals commission. The superior
court has not had the opportunity to address the new substantial
cause standard, but in 2016 it did reverse the interpretation
that the appeals commission made about four years earlier
regarding the evidence necessary to rebut the presumption of
compensability. He also pointed out that the appeals
commission's published final decisions each cost between $30,000
and $40,000.
MR. CONSTANTINO recalled that the Court System indicated the
superior court could handle these appeals at no additional
fiscal impact to the state and that the cases would be assigned
such that the judges would develop expertise. He noted that that
was one of the rationales for creating the appeals commission.
He opined that the appeals commission has not achieved the goals
set out for it and his anecdotal observation is that it tends to
favor the interests of insurers over injured workers. [Audio
difficulties.]
2:09:57 PM
ERIC CROFT, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, noted that
he sent backup material to support his testimony. He made three
points regarding the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission:
it is not a fair tribunal; it does very little work for the
$440,000 it costs each year; and the decisions are all too often
inconsistent or so unclear that the Alaska Supreme Court has to
step in and provide clarity.
He said the commission rules overwhelmingly in favor of
insurance companies, regardless of the facts. He agreed with
former Commissioner Andy Hemenway's analysis that the 39 cases
that had gone to the Alaska Supreme Court and resulted in a
decision were reversed 50 percent of the time.
Mr. Croft said he looked at which side the commission ruled in
favor of and which side was ultimately found correct by the
Alaska Supreme Court. He found that when the insurance company
should have won, the commission got it right 100 percent of the
time. But in the cases where the employee had the right legal
position and correct facts, the commission still ruled in the
insurance companies' favor 80 percent of the time. "Overall
those numbers are about 85 percent of the time the commission
rules in favor of the insurance company."
He compared the $440,000 annual cost of the commission to the
three-member court of appeals. He said that over its life, the
court of appeals has issued about two decisions per month,
whereas the appeals commission has issued less than one decision
per month since July 2016. "The three-member criminal court of
appeals in that time has issued 140 decisions or 15 a month."
MR. CROFT discussed the third point that the commission has
issued contradictory or unclear rulings. He noted that in the
backup material he submitted he cited a situation where in a
three-month span the commission issued contradictory rules
regarding the standard on stays.
He summarized, "It doesn't provide the clarity, it costs a lot
of money and doesn't do much work, and introduces a bias that
shouldn't be in our judiciary."
2:15:47 PM
COLBY SMITH, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, stated
that he is an attorney who primarily does workers' compensation
defense work. He also presents on the panel on behalf of the
Alaska Bar Association, representing the defense side and
employers presenting cases that have been in front of the
appeals commission and the Alaska Supreme Court. He mentioned
previous testimony about bias and opined that the conversation
should not be about changing because one side isn't winning
often enough. It should be about whether the current structure
is right.
Under the process prior to 2005, the cases went to different
superior courts depending on the jurisdiction. Those decisions
were unpredictable depending on the judge's experience with
workers' compensation. Also, the decisions did not have binding
precedent so the cases often went to the Alaska Supreme Court.
In an effort to address those perceived shortcomings, the
process was changed in 2005 and one entity was created. That is
the appeals commission that issues consistent, predictable
opinions that are binding. Everyone agrees, he said, that the
commission has greatly reduced the number of appeals.
MR. SMITH said he wasn't asked his opinion in 2005 but he has
always thought that designating one superior court judge to
handle workers' compensation issues would have been and still
could be a possible solution if those decisions were given
binding precedence.
2:20:54 PM
VICKI PADDOCK, Attorney, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that her firm
represents employers in workers' compensation matters and her
partner, David Floerchinger, submitted a letter summarizing
their opposition to SB 29. She pointed out that in 2005 the
legislature codified its specific intent regarding the Workers'
Compensation Act. It was to ensure quick, efficient, fair, and
predictable delivery of benefits to workers at a reasonable cost
to employers. Returning appeals to the superior court does not
achieve the legislature's codified intent and she has not heard
testimony that the legislature changed that intent.
Drawing on her experience as an attorney and a law clerk, she
offered her perspective of why returning to the superior court
will not be efficient or predictable in workers' compensation
cases. She said this is a unique body of law and superior court
judges do not have a day-in-and-out working knowledge of its
nuances and specific characteristics. As such, those judges will
rely on their law clerks to do the research in preparation of
hearing the appeals. Oftentimes law clerks are just out of
school and may only serve as a clerk for a year so it is likely
that the decisions will be neither efficient nor predictable.
And they will not have precedential value.
MS. PADDOCK offered her belief that the appeals commission
should remain in place in order for the legislature's intent to
be maintained. But if the legislature believes the commission is
not as effective as intended, it should consider alternatives
such as utilizing the Office of Administrative Hearings.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Commissioner Drygas to respond to the
testimony.
2:26:05 PM
HEIDI DRYGAS, Commissioner, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development (DOLWD) described SB 29 as a cost-cutting measure
and highlighted the conflicting testimony about whether the
commission serves its intended purpose. She said the commission
is a specialty tribunal that the state cannot afford, especially
given its poor track record at the Supreme Court. She reminded
members that the number of appeals that have made it to the
commission over the last 10 years has declined precipitously.
The anecdotal evidence indicates that workers do not believe
they are getting a fair shake at the commission so they are not
appealing board decisions.
She pointed out that the commission costs nearly $0.5 million
per year and the alternatives that have been proposed also
require funds that the state does not have. When the department
reviewed its statutes trying to find ones that hamper the work
of the department or are ineffective, the workers' compensation
statute stood out. "That is why the department and the
administration put forward this bill. ¼ We simply do not believe
the workers' comp appeals commission is living up to its
intended purpose." The state can no longer afford this specialty
tribunal.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked what will happen to the money that funds
the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission.
2:29:56 PM
PALOMA HARBOUR, Administrative Services Director, Department of
Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD), explained that the
Workers' Safety and Compensation Administration Account (WSCAA)
supports the workers' compensation program, the appeals
commission, and the workers' safety programs. Right now about
$7.2 million in revenue is generated into that account each year
and the governor's budgeted expenditures against that fund is
$9.1 million. The department is trying to address that
significant gap measure by measure and SB 29 is one of those.
Others include cuts to the workers' safety programs, $191,000
has been eliminated from the workers' compensation program this
fiscal year, and separate legislation has been introduced for
further workers' compensation efficiencies.
CHAIR COSTELLO observed that this is not a reduction.
CHAIR COGHILL summarized that the money will still be there but
the department cannot afford everything it is doing because of
the $2 million shortfall.
MS. HARBOUR agreed; eliminating the commission will not reduce
the revenue brought into the fund but it will reduce
expenditures by about $0.5 million.
2:32:02 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if using those funds for something other
than the appeals commission will create a statutory problem.
MS. HARBOUR said there is no conflict with the statute, but it
would create a problem if the commission isn't repealed and
legislation passes to "unfund" the commission. The department
would then have cases it is statutorily required to handle, but
with no funding.
2:33:00 PM
CHAIR COGHILL stated that he would hold SB 29 in committee for
further review.
2:33:20 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Coghill adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:33 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 8 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/14/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB 8 - Supporting Document - 18 USCA Section 2265 Full Faith and Credit Given to Protection Orders.pdf |
SJUD 4/14/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB 8 - Supporting Document - 2014 Repeal of Alaska Exemption to VAWA.pdf |
SJUD 4/14/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB 8 - Supporting Document - Response to Tribal Court Funding Question.pdf |
SJUD 4/14/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB 8 - Supporting Document - VAWA Enforcement Dept. of Law Opinion.pdf |
SJUD 4/14/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB 8 - Explanation of Changes ver. J.pdf |
SJUD 4/14/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB 8 - Sectional Analysis ver. J.pdf |
SJUD 4/14/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| ANDVSA Feedback on Use of CourtView.pdf |
SJUD 4/14/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| SB 29 - Letter of Support #2 - Croft Attachment.pdf |
SJUD 4/14/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 - Letter of Support - Croft.pdf |
SJUD 4/14/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 - Supporting Document - Savings Backup.PDF |
SJUD 4/14/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |