SB 122-OCS CITIZEN REVIEW PANEL  1:32:32 PM CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 122 and noted the proposed committee substitute (CS). 1:32:49 PM SENATOR COSTELLO moved to adopt the work draft committee substitute (CS) for SB 122, version 30-LS0047\O, as the working document. 1:33:07 PM CHAIR COGHILL objected for an explanation of the changes. 1:33:23 PM RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, reviewed the following changes made to version O of SB 122: · Page 1, line 8, after the word "ombudsman": Deleted: ". For budgetary purposes, the panel is located in the office of the ombudsman." · Page 2, line 4: Deleted language describing qualifications of panel members. Subsection [(e)] has been amended to direct the Ombudsman's Office to by regulation establish guidelines for the operation of the panel, including: [(1)] qualification of members [(2)] policies for recruitment and appointment of members [(3)] tenure of members; and [(4)] policy for selection of leadership · Page 5, line 27: Delete: and · Page 6, line 3: Insert after "best interest": [.] ; and (16) the office of the ombudsman.  · Page 7, line 3: Adds an immediate effective date for the Citizens Review Panel. 1:36:04 PM KATE BURKHART, Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said she appreciates that the committee is considering the changes that appear in version O of SB 122. She provided the following comments on the proposed changes: · Her office requested removing the language about placing the panel in the Office of the Ombudsman for budgetary purposes because that would limit the ability of the ombudsman to supervise the staff. · Her office can handle recruitment, appointment, and qualifications through regulation in partnership with the members of the Citizens Review Panel. However, it's more detailed than initially anticipated and the timeline for the regulatory package would need to be extended from a year to a year and a half or so. · The Office of the Ombudsman is added to AS 47.10.093(b) because that statute is interpreted to preclude speaking with ombudsman investigators. The Office of Children's Services readily shares information when the ombudsman needs to investigate a complaint, but they have run into an issue with the guardians ad litem that work for the Office of Public Advocacy. Adding the Office of the Ombudsman to the statute makes sense, especially if the Citizens Review Panel would have access to the data through its co- location with the ombudsman. MS. BURKHART stated that the changes proposed in version O address the concerns her office had regarding their ability to implement the intent of SB 122 and allows them to support the co-location of the Citizens Review Panel. CHAIR COGHILL asked if the ombudsman receives confidential information in other areas where it does investigations. MS. BURKHART said yes; the ombudsman statute says, "notwithstanding any other provision of law." AS 47.10.093(b) was adopted after the legislation that created the Office of the Ombudsman and it's interpreted to mean that the ombudsman is intentionally not on the list. That created the hiccup. CHAIR COGHILL said he wanted the members to understand that the ombudsman has had access to confidential information in all other areas of law. It's necessary to do the job. He noted who was available to answer questions. 1:39:22 PM SENATOR SHOWER referenced the deleted language in subsection (c) on page 2, lines 1-4. He asked how they would focus the criteria for who would serve on the board to ensure that the panel members have the specialty or expertise needed. MS. BURKHART clarified that the regulations would be adopted in partnership with the Citizens Review Panel. She offered her perspective of the board, which would have 15 or 16 members with designated constituencies and areas of expertise as well as public members. · A seat that was designated specifically to someone living off the road system; potentially someone who was nominated by the Alaska Federation of Natives or First Alaskans. · Someone with the specific clinical area of behavioral health of child abuse and prevention and treatment. · Someone with experience with the child in need of aid (CINA) process through the courts. This could be someone from the Office of Public Advocacy or the Public Defender's Office or a guardian ad litem, not the attorney general's office because they represent the agency. · Someone with a background with the Indian Child Welfare system (ICWA) is an important constituency given the overrepresentation of Alaska Native children in the foster care system. · Consumer representation such as a foster parent or young adult who has been in foster care. · A parent who has been engaged with the Office of Children's Services. This is a constituency that seldom has a voice at the policy-making level. · Representation from the school is something to consider since schools are often ground zero for the effects of child abuse and child maltreatment. Teachers are mandatory reporters, but they don't often have a voice in policy- making regarding child protection issues. · A medical practitioner such as a pediatric nurse practitioner or a pediatrician would be beneficial. · Seats designated for interested members of the public who may not fit into one of these specialized seats. Sometimes these folks are your best members. SENATOR SHOWER asked if discretion is left to the board to determine which citizens will be on the panel. MS. BURKHART said she believes that those criteria that appeared in the original draft would appear in regulation. MS. MOSS clarified that the intent is for the criteria for the panel to be set in regulation. Federal law is vague regarding how states are to select panel members, but public members who are not connected to the system are required. She noted that she recently found a document that was written in 1998 that talks about panel selection. SENATOR SHOWER said thanks; he didn't understand it would come through regulation. SENATOR COSTELLO commented that someone from Facing Foster Care in Alaska would be a good candidate for the panel. CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Burkhart to comment on the fiscal note. MS. BURKHART said the fiscal note contemplates staffing for the panel. It was drafted when the ombudsman had no supervisory authority and it contemplated a high level of professional staff. If the bill moves forward as currently drafted, less expensive staffing is possible. MS. MOSS advised that the bill has two fiscal notes. [The DHSS fiscal note is zero.] 1:47:02 PM CHAIR COGHILL removed his objection and version O was adopted. 1:47:20 PM SENATOR COSTELLO moved to report the CS for SB 122, work draft 30-LS0047\O, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). 1:47:36 PM CHAIR COGHILL announced that without objection, CSSB 122(JUD) moved from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.