SB 250-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/SEXUAL ASSAULT COUNCIL CHAIR DYSON announced SB 250 to be up for discussion. He opened public testimony. 1:56:11 PM CHAIR DYSON interpreted Commissioner Tandeske's written comments to be saying he agrees with the auditor's conclusions about the composition of the board, but not with the proposed Amendments 1 and 2, offered and discussed at the 2/17/06 hearing. Chair Dyson asked whether that is a fair summary. BILL TANDESKE, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety (DPS), replied, "Almost." He clarified that he doesn't take issue with the finding of an appearance of a possible conflict in requiring that the governor consult the Network for Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (Network). However, as a practical matter, he'd be inclined to consult it anyway. He also doesn't oppose the designation of a rural position, which he has advocated for. However, excluding some small communities such as Pelican or Angoon - connected only by the Alaska Marine Highway - perhaps was overly restrictive. He emphasized having true public members that bring a wide variety of life experiences to the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (Council) - or to any board or commissioner, for that matter. 1:58:48 PM BILL HOGAN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), referenced his letter regarding Senator Therriault's position on the auditor's comments and the proposed amendments. Noting his own comments would be similar to Commissioner Tandeske's, Mr. Hogan said DHSS doesn't believe the Network should have exclusive consultative authority - the system has many other stakeholders including police, hospitals and other providers from whom input is important. He concurred with having a designated rural member, but suggested the language in the proposed amendment is restrictive. He also suggested, in general, that the pool of potentially qualified or competent candidates for the Council shouldn't be limited; he noted that his written comments reflect that. CHAIR DYSON asked whether Mr. Hogan agreed with the recommendations of the auditor, put forth in SB 250, and disagreed with the proposed amendments. MR. HOGAN affirmed that. CHAIR DYSON called a brief at-ease. 2:01:25 PM SUSAN A. PARKES, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), noting that she is the DOL representative on the Council, expressed support for extending the Council and offered to answer questions. CHAIR DYSON referenced an e-mail from Ms. Parkes that stated, among other things, opposition to the amendment to SB 250 that would exclude state employees from serving as public members. 2:03:42 PM PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Division of Legislative Audit (DLA), informed the committee that after the last hearing and review of amendments, she'd gone back to look at the sunset reviews conducted by DLA in the past. She'd been looking for any findings and recommendations in those reports that had, at their core, a concern about the composition of the Council. She reported that none of them identified the actual composition of the Council as a core problem. SENATOR ELTON arrived at 2:04:22 PM. MS. DAVIDSON, in response to Chair Dyson, explained that the amendments discussed at the previous [2/17/06] hearing seemed to address who was on the Council. Therefore, she'd wanted to determine if there had been problems with the Council's composition or the qualifications of appointees in the past, given the old rules. She'd found no problems relating to the composition of the Council as it currently exists. 2:05:49 PM TOM MAHER, Staff to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LB&A), reported that he'd checked with Senator Therriault on the amendment and that Senator Therriault had also reviewed the departmental responses. Mr. Maher noted that LB&A had eliminated the reference to the Network. Although Senator Therriault was quite supportive of putting back a Network member on the Council as an ex-officio, nonvoting member, after reviewing the departmental responses he feels much less strongly about it because the departments were opposed to that and indicated it would be a conflict. He added that, in general, Senator Therriault doesn't support a complete rewriting of the Council's composition. PEGGY BROWN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, supported the extension of the Council. She said the suggested language that was submitted by the Network regarding its elimination from statute was merely a response to a request, and the Network would be happy to place the matter entirely in the hands of the Council. She referred to a letter to Ms. Davidson from the chair of the Council. Ms. Brown reported that it basically says the following: the Council recognizes and understands the merit of this issue; it's important to note that the governor is not bound by any recommendation by the Network; and because of this safeguard, the Council believes obtaining input from the Network, which has significant knowledge and expertise, outweighs any limitations or theoretical conflicts. 2:08:25 PM MS. BROWN reminded members that in late 1978 the Network formed, and in late 1981 the Council was formed at its behest, because of a perceived need for a state agency with pass-through capabilities for funding. She said the Network put forth the items in the amendments to formalize existing beneficial interactions between the Network and the Council. For instance, the Council currently invites the director of the Network to participate in its meetings. She explained that the idea behind establishment of an ex- officio position for a Network member is to provide institutional knowledge. This applies not only to programs statewide, but also to work with the governor's Council on Disability and Special Education, Office of Children's Services (OCS), and the Division of Public Assistance. "We're very tied in to other state systems," Ms. Brown pointed out. She disagreed that being an ex-officio member would be a conflict, and offered that it would be an asset instead, providing stability and knowledge of domestic violence and sexual assault issues across the state. It just formalizes what already happens and ensures continuity, she concluded. 2:10:26 PM MS. BROWN emphasized the Network's expertise, citing her own background in both law enforcement and medicine as an example and mentioning the varying backgrounds of other staff; she highlighted their desire to be at the governor's service and to provide a screening process for potential candidates for membership. 2:12:39 PM MS. BROWN remarked that the criteria for public members in the amendments were put forth to ensure a broad perspective within the Council. Expressing reservations about the exclusion of state workers from serving as public members on the Council, she offered to work with anyone on that part of the amendment. SENATOR OLSON arrived at 2:14:53 PM. SENATOR OLSON asked Ms. Brown to relate her position on the proposed amendments. MS. BROWN replied that the Network should remain at the service of the governor in making recommendations of potential appointees, and that the director of the Network should be an ex-officio member of the Council. She supported the designation of a rural public-member seat on the Council, as well as a seat for a survivor of domestic violence or sexual assault, or the advocate of such a survivor. SENATOR OLSON asked her position on the amendment that has two public members, one a survivor and one an expert in the field. MS. BROWN replied that she supports the amendment. 2:18:26 PM BARBARA MASON, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, reported that she'd contacted all Council members and that much of her testimony would be a synopsis of their comments. The first question almost every member had asked was the purpose of the amendment and the situation it was trying to fix. Most were also concerned about whether the bill would create problems. For example, it would remove from consideration over 14,000 public employees that are Alaskan residents with expertise in the field of sexual assault and domestic violence. There are some inconsistencies with the public-employment pieces in differentiating between government employees among the municipalities, boroughs, cities, tribal entities and so forth, Ms. Mason said, which asks the question of defining "state employee." She said the Council supports extending the sunset audit to 2014 and doesn't oppose having one public member from rural Alaska. However, the Council is concerned about the exclusion of members from communities on the Alaska Marine Highway and asks to keep that option open. The Council opposes restricting the election of the other two public members for several reasons, such as how to define an expert in this field - there are no university or college degrees in domestic violence or sexual assault, and no standard qualifications to identify such a person. Many of the current committee members have achieved expertise through informal means, Ms. Mason noted. She reported that the Council is concerned about subsection (c) of the amendment due to its limitation; the Council would prefer to keep the pool as large as it can. The Council does not support having the executive director of the Network as an ex- officio member - the Network is composed of the programs that are funded, and it receives grants issued by the Council, so a conflict-of-interest issue is the cause for concern. The Council is pleased with its current relationship with the Network, Ms. Mason said, and works to include their opinions. 2:23:55 PM MS. MASON emphasized that all the meetings are public and everyone is more than welcome to participate. The Council opposes excluding state employees as public members, since they often have a great deal of experience and expertise in the field. Domestic violence victims receive services from law enforcement officers, emergency medical people, OCS, prosecutors, legal advocates, courts, tribal courts, judges, housing authorities, batterers' programs, treatment programs, and so forth. A number of people working for these agencies are government employees. 2:25:55 PM SENATOR ELTON asked why the Council prefers to have a majority of state employees, rather than looking for additional outside perspective from the municipalities, nonprofits organizations and so forth. MS. MASON claimed state workers have a unique expertise, given their positions within the state, and said the Council hesitates to limit the positions to advocates for the victims. She asked where the expertise would come from when dealing with offenders. 2:28:14 PM SENATOR ELTON explained that his proposed amendment doesn't limit the public seats to nonprofit employees or the medical profession. Instead, it merely prevents the possibility of overrepresentation by one common category of people. MS. MASON remarked that in some ways the Council's purpose is to address some state government entities that deal with domestic violence issues. He suggested state workers have valuable insight into the operation of the aforementioned entities. SENATOR ELTON responded that it seems stacked in favor of the state, however. CHAIR DYSON advised Senator Elton that if he wished to modify any of his amendments, the committee would hear them at the next bill hearing. [SB 250 was held over.]