SB 122-OCS CITIZEN REVIEW PANEL  2:03:19 PM CHAIR WILSON reconvened the meeting and announced the consideration of SB 122. 2:03:43 PM RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB 122 on behalf of the sponsor. It is An Act repealing the authority for a child abuse or neglect review panel in DHSS and establishing the Child Protection Citizen Review Panel in the office of the ombudsman. Section 1:  AS 24.55.400. Establishes the Citizen Review Panel in the legislative branch of state government under the office of the ombudsman and instructs the panel to emphasize public participation in the panel's work and to bring all the stake holders on the panel. The panel will meet at least every three months and it will establish guidelines for its operation. Gives the panel the authority to investigate individual cases if it deems necessary. AS 24.55.405. Requires the panel to reviews policies and procedures of OCS on an annual basis and review reports submitted annually to the federal government. The panel is given statutory authority to recommend and advocate for changes to the department's child protection services. It requires OCS to provide the CRP the following state plans submitted to the federal government annually: State plan for grants for child abuse or neglect prevention and treatment programs. (42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)) State plan for delivery of child welfare services prepared jointly by the state and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. (42 U.S.C. 621 629m) AS 24.55.410. Mandates that OCS SHALL consult with the CRP and assist the panel in carrying out its duties, including providing case-specific information to the panel. AS 24.55.415. Makes information delivered at a CRP meeting confidential and the CRP must follow the Open Meetings Act giving public notice and restricting the CRP members from meeting privately. AS 24.55.420. Provides for public outreach and public comment. AS 24.55.425. Provides for the CRP to prepare an annual report to be available to the governor, legislature and public. Requires OCS to submit a written response to the report within six months of its release. Requires the panel and the department to prepare a joint report to the governor, legislature and public every three years. AS 24.55.430. Sets a penalty of up to $2,500 for each violation of confidentiality a person is convicted of. AS 24.55.435. Provides immunity for panel members from liability in panel actions. AS 24.55.440. Definitions. Department is the DHSS. Panel is the Citizens Review Panel Section 2: Gives the CRP access to confidential documents regarding child protection cases. Section 3: Repeals the Alaska Statutes that put the CRP under the jurisdiction of DHSS. Section 4: Requires DHSS to do a two-year review of existing processes for reviewing and overseeing the work of OCS and outline a plan to reduce duplication and improved coordination amongst agencies involved in child protection. The report will be delivered to the senate secretary, house chief clerk, the governor and the general public. Section 5: Gives the office of the ombudsman regulatory authority. Section 6: Transition language that allows existing panel members to serve out their term on the panel even though it has been moved from the department. The bill does not have an effective date. 2:07:43 PM MS. MOSS said this bill is not pointing fingers at anyone saying they are not doing their job. It is saying that CRP is underutilized and misunderstood and needs to be utilized better. In 2005, when Senator Coghill carried House Bill 53, it was a direct result of working with the Murkowski administration and CRP to take an objective look at OCS to see what was working and what was not working. It is because of CRP they been able to do some reforms with OCS and the child protection system. SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the panel falls under Boards and Commission and if the members are governor appointed. MS. MOSS answered no and yes. SENATOR GIESSEL said the membership of boards and commissions is generally well defined to provide diversity. She suggested it might lend more credibility and force if the membership had more definition.` MS. MOSS said that is a good point. She added that she was not sure whether the governor appoints panel members. 2:10:35 PM KATE BURKHART, State Ombudsman, Alaska Office of the Ombudsman, commented on SB 122. She said she has spoken to Dr. Vadapalli and the leadership at OCS to see how this would work. Prior to her appointment as ombudsman, she was executive director of three autonomous, co-located state planning councils. She is familiar with how co-location can work without jeopardizing the autonomy of the organizations. She has plenty of comments on SB 122. At the start of the conversation, understanding the benefits and pitfalls of co-location is important. MS. BURKHART said co-location requires alignment of missions, which is set by the legislature in this case. The missions of the Ombudsman's Office and CRP are in many ways aligned, but not always. It requires a commitment of the membership and a commitment to shared values. It requires rigorous management and adequate resources. SB 122 hopefully will include clear guidance on how the Ombudsman's Office can provide management assistance and not just be a fiscal agent. She sees this perhaps managed as a separate RDU in the budget so there is a clear accountability on the use of funds with no comingling of funds. That speaks to the accountability and "so what" questions that Dr. Vadapalli talked about. It does require staff and management. While the Ombudsman's Office does not have staff to dedicate, there is a way to manage in partnership with CRP, such as with the state council on behavioral health. She said she does not know that the Ombudsman's Office is the only place to house the CRP, but it is one place. If SB 122 were to pass, her office could promulgate regulation within a fiscal year. The Ombudsman's Office operates with regulations and would want to do that with the CRP also. 2:15:13 PM SENATOR BEGICH asked if OCS does not complete the task of writing regulations, which it has not done since 2015, whether her office would have the ability to rapidly complete the regulatory writing process. MS. BURKHART said it would take a full fiscal year. Her office has multiple people with legal backgrounds and experience with a recent comprehensive regulatory overwrite of their office. CHAIR WILSON asked which areas of DHSS have received an increased number of complaints. MS. BURKHART said within DHSS, the most complaints have been received about OCS and the Division of Public Assistance. She did not have the report with her, but thought there were about 200 some complaints for each of the divisions. CHAIR WILSON said he could see people saying that her office is trying to influence CRP through investigations on that department. MS. BURKHART said the ombudsman has rigorous confidentiality standards and any complaints about OCS remain confidential. If SB 122 were to pass and a CRP staff member is in the office, that person would not have access to that information. That person would have the same access to aggregate data available in reports. She has talked with Information Services at the Legislative Affairs Agency about separate hosting, so CRP staff would not have access to their servers and case management system. She is used to the idea of a strong wall to prevent conflict. They would create infrastructure and processes to make sure CRP staff person was not privy to that information. 2:19:01 PM CHAIR WILSON said the committee looked forward to getting the fiscal note. He held SB 122 in committee.