CHAIRMAN RIEGER introduced SB 248 (ASSIST & PROTECT VULNERABLE ADULTS) as the next order of business before the committee. He offered his proposed amendment, Lauterbach 8-GS2001\A.1, as Amendment 1. He explained that his amendment was a type of indemnification so that the state can provide services to vulnerable adults without creating additional liability. Chairman Rieger moved to adopt Amendment 1. AMENDMENT 1 Page 3, line 25, after ".": Insert " A person may not bring an action for damages against a police    officer, village public safety officer, the state, te, a political subdivision of the state based on a decision under this subsection to take or not to take immediate action to protect a vulnerable adult. If a decision is made under this subsection to take immediate action to protect a vulnerable adult, a person may not bring an action for damages based on the protective actions taken unless the protective actions were performed with gross negligence or intentional misconduct; damages awarded in the action may include only direct economic compensatory damages for personal injury."  Page 7, line 22: Insert new subsections to read: "(e) A person may not bring an action for damages based on  a decision under this section to offer or not to offer protective services to a vulnerable adult. (f) A person may not bring an action for damages based on the provision of protective services under this section unless the action is based on gross negligence or intentional      misconduct. The damages awarded in an actio tio under this section may include only direct economic compensatory damages for personal injury." Hearing no objections, Amendment 1 was adopted. CONNIE SIPE, Director of the Division of Senior Services, introduced her February 15 markup of SB 248. She discussed her first amendment, Amendment 2, which would restore the language on lines 1 and 2 of page 2. Number 093 CHAIRMAN RIEGER moved to adopt Amendment 2. AMENDMENT 2  Page 2, lines 1, after "AS 47.30.915(11)": Insert "and including a marital and family therapist licensed under AS 08.63" Hearing no objections, Amendment 2 was adopted. CONNIE SIPE explained that the next amendment, Amendment 3, gives a degree of behavior to judge their harm against not a rectifiable civil cause. SENATOR MILLER stated that the problem was not corrected due to the previous change of "shall" to " may " on line 22 of page 3. He pointed out that Amendment 3 would specify "serious physical harm", but the reporting to the police is still optional due to line 22. CONNIE SIPE said that Kristen Bomengen of the Department of Law felt that " may " should remain because that subsection refers to th th average citizen not a person who is required to report. She proposed changing line 17 to "a person required to report under this section" and the " may " would become "shall." SENATOR MILLER did not have a preference regarding this issue. He asked what the penalties are if those required to report do not. CONNIE SIPE noted that there are no specific penalties, but there is a penalty if a required reporter does not make the initial report. If shall was put back in line 22, civil liability would come into play. She did agree that it would be acceptable to restrict line 17 to required reporters. SENATOR MILLER preferred restricting the section to required reporters. CONNIE SIPE stated that to restrict Subsection (e) to required reporters, the language on line 1 of page 3 would be parallel to line 17. Number 170 SENATOR SALO expressed concern with changing line 17. She explained that the change would speak twice to those required to report and not at all to others who may report. CONNIE SIPE stated that Subsection (d) eliminates some of the elaboration on other people reporting, but lines 6 and 7 are an invitation for others to report. SENATOR SALO questioned the difference in Subsection (c) and (e) if line 17 is changed to speak to those required to report. CONNIE SIPE noted that Subsection (e) with the change of line 17 would speak to those required to report in the event " of  serious physi ysi harm " when the department cannot be accessed. In such a case those se required to report can report to the police who can take immediate action to protect the vulnerable adult from the harm. SENATOR SALO said that this subsection was cumbersome. CONNIE SIPE informed the committee that this subsection was the result of insertions by the Legal Drafting. She suggested breaking the subsection into separate sentences to address the required reporter with shall and the other persons with may. SENATOR MILLER suggested leaving the language as changed in Amendment 3, but that the individual's packet should explain the options and requirements. Number 230 CHAIRMAN RIEGER moved to adopt  Amendment 3. AMENDMENT 3  Page 3, line 19, after " risk ": Insert " of serious physical harm " Hearing no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted. CONNIE SIPE explained that Amendment 4 came about due to concerns with the possibility that the state would have the ability to unduly take over these vulnerable adults based on the surrogate decision maker. She stated that Amendment 4 should explain the limits of the surrogate decision maker. SENATOR SHARP proposed changing the language of Amendment 4 from " is no longer unable to consent " to "regains the ability to consent." CHAIRMAN RIEGER inquired if the phrase " regains decision-making capacity " has some legal appropriateness and would be all that should be used. CONNIE SIPE explained the differences in the legal meaning of decision-making capacity and the inability to consent. She said that both should remain, but that the amendment could be redrafted as Senator Sharp had suggested. SENATOR MILLER suggested changing " no longer unable   to consent   " to "able to consent." CHAIRMAN RIEGER suggested having the legal drafter correct the phrase if Amendment 4 was adopted with the conceptual change. Number 287 SENATOR SHARP moved to adopt Amendment 4 with the conceptual change. AMENDMENT 4  Page 8, after line 27: Insert new subsection: "(d)  When the vulnerable adult regains the ability to consent or decision-making capacity, the department may no longer use the consent given by the surrogate decision maker as a basis for continuation of protective services to the vulnerable adult." CHAIRMAN RIEGER objected and explained that SB 248 should have a judicial referral due to the complexities that may be triggered with the surrogate decision maker issue. CHAIRMAN RIEGER removed his objection.   Hearing no objections Amendment 4 was adopted. SENATOR MILLER moved SB 248 as amended out of committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered.