HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE February 28, 1995 1:30 P.M. TAPE HFC 95-33, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 95-33, Side 2, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 95-34, Side 1, #000 - 302. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. PRESENT Co-Chair Hanley Representative Martin Co-Chair Foster Representative Mulder Representative Brown Representative Navarre Representative Grussendorf Representative Parnell Representative Kelly Representative Therriault Representative Kohring ALSO PRESENT Representative Ramona Barnes; Marveen Coggins, Staff, Representative Toohey; Sharon Barton, Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Administration; Victoria Lord, Ketchikan Arts Council; Molly Jones; Mary Ostrowski, Fairbanks; Kathleen Wedemeyer, Fairbanks; Andrew Grose, President, Council of State Governments; Tim Wilson, Director, Alaska State Council on the Arts; Wanda Chin, Fairbanks; Pete Bitsiot; Charlotte Van Zant King; Mike Anderson, Cordova; Joan Jackson, Member, Alaska State Council on the Arts; Patricia Wolf, Anchorage. SUMMARY HB 92 An Act extending the termination date of the Citizens' Review Panel for Permanency Planning; and providing for an effective date. HB 92 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the House Finance Committee for the Department of Administration. HB 106 An Act relating to art in public places requirements and the art in public places fund. HB 106 was HELD in Committee for further 1 discussion. HJR 20 Relating to unfunded federal mandates and the Conference of the States. CSHJR 20 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Legislative Affairs Agency, 2/1/95; and with a zero fiscal note by the Office of the Governor, dated 2/1/95. HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20 Relating to unfunded federal mandates and the Conference of the States. REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES, sponsor of HJR 20, spoke in support of the legislation. She observed that HJR 20 authorizes the State of Alaska to send an official delegation to a Conference of the States to be held during 1996. The Conference will be the first formal meeting of the fifty states since 1786. Delegates from all fifty states will debate and vote on an action plan designed to restore checks and balances between the states and the federal government. The action plan will be forwarded to individual states for approval. The plan will not be binding. Representative Barnes maintained that the Conference will receive national and international media attention. The Conference will take place no longer than nine months after resolutions are passed by 26 states. She noted that a dozen states have already approved resolutions. She stated that similar resolutions are under consideration in most state legislatures. Representative Barnes explained that under the terms of the Resolution the Governor and four legislators, two from each House, would be voting delegates at the Conference. She observed that the Council of State Governments, the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the National Governor's Association are coordinating the Conference. She asserted that the Conference is supported by all political parties and the Knowles Administration. Representative Barnes referred to a legal opinion by Tamara Cook, Director, Division of Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, dated February 28, 1995. Ms. Cook stated that "HJR 20 itself does not call for a constitutional convention... the Conference itself does not amount to a constitutional convention because it was not called by Congress and the required number of states have not applied 2 to Congress for a convention." Representative Barnes asserted that an amendment made by the House State Affairs Committee, on page 3, lines 18 - 24, needs to be removed in order to allow the Resolution to conform to resolutions passed by other states. The language was added to clarify that Alaska's participation in the Conference of the States is not interpreted or construed to be consent by the State as an application for a constitutional convention or for the purpose of amending the Constitution of the United States. Representative Mulder observed that the Committee could adopt the original version of HJR 20. Representative Navarre asked if the addition of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) would substantially change the bill. Representative Barnes assured him that the addition of ALEC would not substantially change the bill in the same way as language added by the House State Affairs Committee. Representative Barnes noted that she is on the NCSL Executive Committee. She observed that ALEC is considered the conservative arm of national legislators. She stressed that inclusion of ALEC would allay fears by some conservative elements that participation in the Conference would initiate a Constitutional Convention. Representative Parnell stated that he had worked with the sponsor on an amendment to add the American Legislative Exchange Council to HJR 20. He noted that ALEC was founded in 1973 by a small group of Democratic and Republican state legislators who shared a common commitment to the Jeffersonian principles of free enterprise, limited government and individual liberty. It is the nation's largest bipartisan association of state legislators. He noted that ALEC has had a State's Sovereignty Committee and has dealt specifically with unfunded federal mandates and restoration of state authority. Representative Brown referred to back-up material, "Unfunded Mandates" (copy on file). Representative Barnes noted that the material was produced by the Republican National Committee. ANDREW GROSE, PRESIDENT, WESTERN OFFICE, COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS testified in support of HJR 20. He observed that the Council of State Governments will be the convening authority if resolutions are passed by 26 state legislatures in substantially similar form. He discussed the purposes of the Conference. He suggested that the Conference is 3 designed to be a formal but nonlegal process. He maintained that there is no legal opinion that suggests that the Conference of the States has any authority to turn itself into a constitutional convention. He pointed out that even if the Conference were a constitutional convention that three-fours of the states would have to ratify any constitutional changes adopted. Representative Grussendorf questioned if language stating that the Conference is not a call for a constitutional convention would prevent the Resolution from conforming to resolutions from other states. Mr. Grose did not think that the inclusion of language stating that the Conference is not a call for a constitutional convention would prevent the Resolution from sufficiently conforming to resolutions adopted by other states. Representative Brown asked if other groups, such as the Women Legislator's Lobby or the National Order of Women Legislators have been invited to participate. Mr. Grose stated that ALEC is the only group, outside of those included in the Resolution, that has come forward to ask for a formal role in the Conference. He noted that the Steering Committee decided not to formally invite member organizations. Membership in the three organizations that are formally invited are paid by state dues. Mr. Grose emphasized that the decision of which organizations will be invited to provide input will be made during the first organizational meeting. In response to a question by Representative Kohring, Mr. Grose explained that the registration fee will be adequate to cover the cost of the Conference. Legislators will be expected to pay for their travel and accommodations. Representative Kohring spoke in support of HJR 20. KATHLEEN WEDEMEYER, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference network. She expressed concern that the Conference could become a run-away convention. She stressed that there is no formal structure, rules or process in place for the Conference. She maintained that the Conference is a violation of the legislative process. She asserted that the process will be expensive. MARY OSTRAWSKI, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference network. She claimed that there is a risk that the Conference of the States could become a constitutional convention. Representative Barnes reiterated that there is no way that 4 the Conference can become a constitutional convention. Representative Mulder stressed the importance of state's rights. He suggested that the Conference can press the state's rights issue. He asserted that the State of Alaska has more to gain from the Conference than other states. Representative Mulder MOVED to report HJR 20 out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Grussendorf OBJECTED. Representative Brown pointed out that information contained in the back-up material "Unfunded Mandates", in regards to Anchorage's sewer system, is not accurate. Representative Barnes discussed the material. She emphasized that the material was included as examples of unfunded mandates. Representative Barnes stressed that there is no intent by Congress to act on unfunded mandates that are already in place. She maintained that unfunded federal mandates have tremendous effects on the State of Alaska. Representative Brown stated that she was unable to identify any federal mandates that are unfunded. She noted that the State of Alaska has placed an unfunded mandate on municipalities in the form of the Senior Citizens Property Tax Rebate Program. LEONARD EFTA, KENAI testified via the teleconference network. He spoke in opposition to HJR 20. He stated that there should be no federal mandates. SEYMOUR MILLS, KENAI testified via the teleconference network. He spoke against federal mandates. He testified in opposition to HJR 20. Representative Grussendorf noted that members of the public are concerned that the Conference may lead to a constitutional convention. He spoke in support of adopting the House State Affairs version of HJR 20. Representative Barnes noted that the amendment adopted by the House State Affairs Committee was based on a resolution passed by the State of Colorado. Representative Kelly spoke in support of the House State Affairs version. Representative Barnes stressed that she has been lead to believe that the Resolution must conform to language adopted by twenty six states. (Tape Change, HFC 95-33, Side 2) 5 Representative Mulder expressed concern that subjects for conversation at the conference not be limited. He stressed that the Resolution conform to those passed by other states. He spoke in support of the original Resolution. Representative Grussendorf emphasized that CSHJR 20 (STA) clarifies that the Resolution is not an application for a constitutional convention. He maintained that dialogue would not be limited by the Resolution. Representative Barnes stressed that she did not object to the amendment added by the House State Affairs Committee. She stated that her concern is that the Resolution conform sufficiently with resolutions from other states. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt HJR 20. IN FAVOR: Mulder, Parnell, Kohring, Foster, Hanley OPPOSED: Navarre, Therriault, Brown, Grussendorf, Kelly Representative Martin was absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (5-5). Representative Parnell stated that he would not move to adopt an amendment to include ALEC. Representative Brown suggested that language be added to the analysis section of the accompanying fiscal note to indicate that participating state legislatures will be asked to appropriate a small amount of money to pay the actual cost of the Conference. Representative Barnes observed that registration fees are paid through the Legislative Council. She asserted that the fiscal note, by the Legislative Affairs Agency, of $11.0 thousand dollars is adequate. Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHJR (STA) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHJR 20 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Legislative Affairs Agency, 2/1/95; and with a zero fiscal note by the Office of the Governor, dated 2/1/95. HOUSE BILL NO. 92 "An Act extending the termination date of the Citizens' Review Panel for Permanency Planning; and providing for an effective date." 6 MARVEEN COGGINS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY testified in support of HB 92. She noted that legislation creating a system for external citizen review of child welfare case plans was passed by the State of Alaska in 1990. She observed that the 1980 Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act requires that a case plan be developed for children in foster care and that the plan be reviewed periodically. She maintained that foster care placement is intended as a short term solution to an emergency situation of abuse or neglect. She stressed that children have become lost in the foster care, welfare system. She stated that approximately half a million children pass through state foster care per month in the United States. She maintained that citizen review panels help assure that children do not linger unnecessarily in out-of-home care. There are citizen review panels in twenty five states. She pointed out that prior to the creation of citizen review panels only 4.8 percent of children entering foster care left in the first year. Since citizen review panels became active up to 33 percent of children entering foster care leave within the first 6 months. Ms. Coggins noted that the Department of Administration began implementation of a citizen review panel in 1993 with a pilot project in Anchorage. An audit by the Division of Legislative Audit recommended that the sunset date of the Citizens' Review Panel for Permanency Planning be extended to 1997. She noted that the legislation is supported by a variety of groups working with foster children. SHERRIE GOLL, ALASKA'S WOMEN LOBBY testified in strong support of HB 92. She noted that there is widespread support for the Citizens' Review Panel. She pointed to the success rate of foster care review boards in other states. In Kentucky a child's average stay in foster care has dropped from 4.2 to 1.8 years with the institution of review boards. She noted that in South Carolina the number of children leaving foster care within the first year rose from 4.8% to 33%. In New Jersey caseloads were reduced from 13,000 to 6,800 children. Ms. Goll asserted that the Citizens' Review Panel's effectiveness can be measured by the length of time children remain in the foster care system. She noted that foster care payments for each child are $6.9 thousand dollars. She maintained that the Citizens' Review Panel can assist the Division of Family and Youth Services with required administrative review. Ms. Goll emphasized that the greatest savings is for the children in foster care. She noted that in Anchorage 86 percent of children who have been in foster care six months 7 will still be in foster care a year after placement. She stressed that many children in state custody six months have experienced two or more removals from home. One eleven year old had twenty documented placements. Ms. Goll observed that a number of "missing" parents have been located and re-involved in planning for the child through the intervention of the Citizens' Review Panel. She emphasized that Alaska Native heritage is taken into account by the Panel. Village elders are invited to participate. Ms. Goll urged the support of continuation and expansion of the Citizen Review Panel for Permanency Planning. She maintained that the Panel will result in state savings and promote a better outcome for children in state custody. In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Ms. Goll stressed that effort is made to return children to their homes. She asserted that the Panel can shed light on a child's case. Representative Kelly asked if the system is working. Ms. Goll observed that the system is overworked, under-funded and under staffed. She observed that DFYS staff do not have sufficient computer support. Representative Brown referred to the January 1995 report from the Anchorage Citizens' Review Panel. She noted that they recommend that the total number of cases a DFYS worker can carry be limited and funding be authorized to reflect the limits. She spoke in support for continuing the Citizens' Review Panel for Permanency Planning. She suggested that panels can help provide oversight and find real solutions. SHARON BARTON, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION stated that the Department has requested a supplemental for FY 95 to continue the program through to July 1, 1995 or longer if the Legislature decides to extend the sunset date. She observed that the program was a legislative initiative in response to the perception that the system could benefit from public participation. The Department supports the objectives of the program. She stated that as the program is currently designed it would remain based in Anchorage. Ms. Barton stated that the Department's fiscal note could be withdrawn. She noted that funding is included in the Governor's amended budget. Co-Chair Hanley noted that the program can be extended and funding debated as part of the budget process. 8 Representative Mulder MOVED to report HB 92 out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the revised zero fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HB 92 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the House Finance Committee for the Department of Administration. HOUSE BILL NO. 106 "An Act relating to art in public places requirements and the art in public places fund." TIM WILSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA STATE COUNCIL ON THE ARTS testified in opposition to HB 106. He maintained that the Percent for Art program is a fiscally conservative. He noted that funding is tied directly to eligible projects in the capital budget. He observed that seven programs are currently active in the Percent for Art program, totaling $948,862 thousand dollars. He maintained that the program does not add to the cost of capital projects. Repeal of the program is not anticipated to result in a decrease in capital budget costs. There are no administrative costs associated with the program. He observed that projects are controlled by the department constructing the facility or building. Mr. Wilson discussed the Percent for Art program process. He emphasized the community nature of Percent for Art projects. He observed that 90 percent of the projects funded are in schools. Projects average $80.0 thousand dollars with 4 - 6 separate commissions. A committee is convened to select projects. Committees can consist of representatives of the building department, users of the building, architects, artists and members of the public. He stressed that children are often involved in the selection and execution of art in schools. Mr. Wilson noted that the Governor opposes HB 106. He noted that the Program creates jobs for artists and others associated with the installation of the work. He maintained that projects enrich the public environment. He emphasized that projects reflect the culture, spirit and dreams of people of the State of Alaska. MIKE ANDERSON, CORDOVA testified via the teleconference network. He testified in opposition to HB 106. He stated that he has been involved in Percent for Art projects through construction, teaching and as an artist. He emphasized that art is useful in education and represents our cultural heritage. 9 JOAN JACKSON, MEMBER, ALASKA STATE COUNCIL OF THE ARTS testified via the teleconference network from Cordova. Ms. Jackson created murals seen in the lobby of the State Capital. She stressed that art gives identity to buildings. She stressed that artists maintained the human scale and heritage. She observed that tourists enjoy viewing Alaskan culture through art. Co-Chair Hanley questioned if Ms. Jackson would support an amendment to only allow Alaskan artists to participate. Ms. Jackson and Mr. Anderson stated that they would support a limitation to allow only Alaskan artists to participate. WANDA CHIN, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference network. She spoke in opposition to HB 106. She asked that the legislation remain in Committee. She denied that there is an economic advantage to the legislation. She stressed that respect needs to be shown to the artistic interface. She observed that users decide which project is most appropriate. CHARLOTTE VAN ZANT KING, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference network. She testified in opposition to HB 106. She stated that she has participated in 10 Percent for Art Commissions since 1979. She did not think that the legislation would save the state money. She stressed that most projects are in schools, chosen by Alaskans and completed by Alaskans. She stated that approximately 900 Alaskan artists are on the Council's Percent for Art mailing list. She noted that the Percent for Art is calculated after architecture and design fees have been removed. She suggested that money not spent on art would be added to the contractor's fee. (Tape Change, HFC 95-34, Side 1) Ms. Van Zant King emphasized that projects provide a boost to the economy. She noted that children benefit from having artists in the schools during the installation of projects. VICTORIA LORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KETCHIKAN ARTS AND HUMANITIES COUNCIL testified via the teleconference network. She spoke in opposition to HB 106. She noted that residents of Ketchikan enjoy public art that are the result of the Percent for Art program. She gave examples of public art projects in Ketchikan. She listed artists that have participated in the program. She noted that the Ketchikan Arts and Humanities Council is assisting in the selection of works for the Ketchikan High School. The process is in its third year. She stressed that art connects buildings to the community. She emphasized that projects represent the 10 cultural heritage of the community. She noted that one artist spent a week installing art in the Ketchikan High School. While installing his commission the artist gave serveral presentations to science and art classes. She noted the enthusiasm of children for the artist's presentation and presence during the installation. Ms. Lord maintained that some public buildings have escaped the program through loop holes. She detailed buildings in Ketchikan that were not subject to the Percent for Art Program. She urged the Committee to vote against HB 106. PATRICIA WOLF, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference network. She testified in opposition to HB 106. She noted that the Municipality of Anchorage established a Percent for Art program which is administered at the Anchorage Museum. She gave examples of projects in Anchorage. She compared art in public buildings to museums without walls. She stressed the value of integrating art into people's daily lives. She suggested that the program can be improved with more effective administration. MOLLY JONES, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference network. She noted that she manages Anchorage's Percent for Art program. She observed that funding for public art is tied to construction activity. She noted that the majority of projects have been in schools. She gave examples of the variety of projects commissioned in schools. She observed that over 400 people have volunteered to serve on selection committees for the municipal program. She observed that Alaska was one of the first states in the nation to pass mandatory percent for art legislation. HB 106 was HELD in Committee for further discussion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. 11