HB 162-DHSS CENT. REGISTRY;LICENSE;BCKGROUND CHK  3:30:03 PM CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 162, "An Act relating to criminal and civil history requirements and a registry regarding certain licenses, certifications, appeals, and authorizations by the Department of Health and Social Services; and providing for an effective date." 3:30:15 PM STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Statewide Section Supervisor, Human Services Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, characterized the proposed bill as a legislative fix to existing statutes found in AS 47, specifically the background check found in AS 47.05.300 and the licensing statutes found in AS 47.32. She declared that HB 162 was a technical fix which arose out of a number of issues over the past 15 years to identify a number of gaps, overlaps, redundancies, and "squishy language." 3:31:27 PM CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ opened public testimony. 3:31:52 PM KATE BURKHART, Ombudsman, Juneau Office, Office of the Ombudsman, reported that her office was an independent, non- partisan, and objective organization which investigated complaints about state government. When those complaints were found to be justified, the office would make recommendations for the improvement of government policies and programs. She emphasized that this was not an advocacy role and would only include comment on issues that directly affected work or where work might provide information that would inform deliberations with some context. She reported that the Office of the Ombudsman had developed an understanding of the background check program based on an extensive investigation which had been concluded and then reported in 2016. She declared that this information was relevant to some of the provisions in proposed HB 162. She offered her comments for use as the bill moved forward, pointing out that she was not advocating that the previous recommendations should be taken in lieu of those in the proposed bill. She pointed out that, as there was not a unique registry associated with the background check program, the proposed bill offered an opportunity for clarification in statute. The bill, as written, referred to a civil registry which was in fact a program that checked pre-existing registries held in other places. Prior to 2012, the background check program used the standard for civil barriers, which included substantiated reports of child maltreatment and harm to the Office of Children's Services (OCS). In 2012, the Office of Children's Services began use of a "more robust standard" which looked to findings from the court in a "child in need of aid" proceeding. The recommendations from the Ombudsman's office had been to use the more robust standard of adjudicated findings which also provided an opportunity for due process in the court; whereas the substantiated report of harm did not always offer this opportunity. She stated that the background check program was an essential component to the systems which served vulnerable Alaskans and that proposed HB 162 offered an opportunity to strengthen the program. She relayed that if there was a decision to use a substantiated report of harm as a basis for a civil barrier under the background check program, which was a policy decision, then the notice to the people about whom a report had been substantiated needed to be very clear because this could affect them for up to 10 years. She pointed out that, currently, this notice was not clear. She stated that an express provision in the proposed bill, which required that a person be put on notice for inclusion in the child protection registry, could have effects on their ability to take a care giving job, or to become a relative placement for a child in OCS custody. She opined that this was an important program and that the proposed bill provided the opportunity to strengthen the program. She reiterated that these comments were offered to inform the process moving forward. 3:37:20 PM CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that the bill would be held. 3:37:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD directed attention to the 12 recommendations addressing allegations with the Department of Health and Social Services listed on page 2 of the letter from the Office of the Ombudsman, and that there had been agreement for implementation to 3 of those recommendations. She asked for a general outline of the 12 recommendations, with more specific details to those 3 agreed upon recommendations. MS. BURKHART directed attention to page 35 of the report, which presented the response by the Department of Health and Social Services. She explained the Ombudsman process, which began with a confidential preliminary report to a state agency. The agency then had a chance to respond before a final report was issued and an executive summary was published if the issue was of public interest. She pointed to the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) response on page 35. She explained that DHSS was in the midst of a regulatory process as well as the proposal of a bill similar to HB 162. She opined that part of the intention was to implement recommendations 9 & 10 through the regulatory process, as noted on page 42. CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that the committee members did not have this report. MS. BURKHART explained recommendations 4 & 5 although, she reported, these were not relevant to HB 162. 3:41:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked about recommendations 9 & 10. MS. BURKHART explained that recommendation 9 reviewed the need for another look at whether really old findings in child in need of aid cases should be a permanent bar to an appointment. She reported that proposed HB 162 maintained for the current method, that the only permanent bar related to child protection was termination of parental rights. She reiterated that this recommendation was "not necessarily super relevant to [HB] 162." She directed attention to recommendation 10 which suggested implementation of a tiered response system, and that regulations adopted last year included a tiered response system, particularly with criminal barriers. 3:43:22 PM MS. KRALY stated that there had been significant and substantial communication with the Office of the Ombudsman about moving forward with the proposed bill and improving the process. CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that there would be additional meetings between Ms. Kraly and Ms. Burkhart to offer recommendations for possible inclusion in the proposed bill. 3:44:33 PM CHARLES McKEE shared some personal experiences. 3:47:26 PM CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ left public testimony open. [HB 162 was held over.]