HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE March 30, 2000 3:07 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Fred Dyson, Chairman Representative Jim Whitaker Representative Joe Green Representative Carl Morgan Representative Tom Brice Representative Allen Kemplen Representative John Coghill MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 373 "An Act relating to return of contributed capital, or payment of a dividend, to the state by the Alaska Student Loan Corporation; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HB 373 OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 256 "An Act relating to reports of suspected child abuse or neglect, and requiring that, as part of the investigation of the reports of suspected child abuse or neglect, all official interviews with children who are alleged to have been abused or neglected be recorded." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 303 "An Act relating to the method of payment of fees and adoption of regulations under AS 21; relating to orders under AS 21 regarding risk based capital instructions; relating to accounting standards for insurance companies; amending the definitions of 'creditable coverage' and 'late enrollees' in AS 21.54; relating to requirements for small employer insurers; relating to requirements for issuance of new voting securities by an insurance company; requiring health care insurance coverage for reconstructive surgery following mastectomy; requiring guaranteed renewability of and certification of coverage regarding certain individual health insurance policies; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HB 303 OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 301 "An Act relating to the education of exceptional children; and providing for an effective date." - BILL POSTPONED TO 4/04/00 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 373 SHORT TITLE: STUDENT LOAN CORP PAYMENTS TO STATE Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/16/00 2207 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 2/16/00 2207 (H) HES, FIN 2/16/00 2207 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 2/16/00 2207 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 3/02/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 3/02/00 (H) Heard & Held 3/02/00 (H) MINUTE(HES) 3/30/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 256 SHORT TITLE: RECORDING OF INTERVIEWS WITH CHILDREN Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/10/00 1886 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/99 1/10/00 1886 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/10/00 1886 (H) HES, JUD, FIN 1/10/00 1886 (H) REFERRED TO HES 2/29/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 2/29/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 3/21/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 3/21/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 3/30/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 303 SHORT TITLE: MISC. INSURANCE PROVISIONS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/21/00 1967 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/21/00 1967 (H) L&C, HES 1/21/00 1967 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 1/21/00 1967 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 3/20/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 3/20/00 (H) Heard & Held 3/20/00 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 3/22/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 3/22/00 (H) Moved Out of Committee 3/22/00 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 3/23/00 2664 (H) L&C RPT 1DP 5NR 3/23/00 2665 (H) DP: ROKEBERG; NR: MURKOWSKI, HARRIS, 3/23/00 2665 (H) CISSNA, BRICE, HALCRO 3/23/00 2665 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 1/21/00 3/30/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 WITNESS REGISTER DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education Department of Education & Early Development 3030 Vintage Boulevard Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 373. SHEILA KING, Finance Officer Division of Finance Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education Department of Education & Early Development 3030 Vintage Boulevard Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 373. MARCI SCHMIDT 2040 Wasilla Fishhook Road Wasilla, Alaska 99654 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 256, but noted her disappointment that it is only a pilot project and not statewide. CHRIS STOCKARD, Captain Division of Alaska State Troopers Department of Public Safety PO Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256. LAUREE HUGONIN, Director Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 130 Seward Street, Room 209 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256. ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General Legal Services Section-Juneau Criminal Division Department of Law PO Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256. JANNA STEWART, Administrator Central Office Family Services Division of Family and Youth Services Department of Health & Social Services PO Box 110630 Juneau, Alaska 99811 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256. SARAH SHORT 5535 North Star Anchorage, Alaska 99518 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 256. LAUREL MURRAY 5535 North Star Anchorage, Alaska 99518 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256. ADASSA AMIN PO Box 40855 Anchorage, Alaska 99514 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256. HARRY NIEHAUS Guardians for Family Rights PO Box 55455 North Pole, Alaska 99705 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256. PAUL NELSON (no address provided) Haines, Alaska 99827 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256. RUSS WEBB, Deputy Commissioner Department of Health & Social Services PO Box 110601 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question regarding HB 256. BOB LOHR, Director Division of Insurance Department of Community & Economic Development 3601 C Street, Suite 124 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 303. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-38, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Dyson, Morgan, Kemplen and Coghill. Representatives Whitaker, Green, Brice arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB 373 - STUDENT LOAN CORP PAYMENTS TO STATE Number 0031 CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the first order of business as House Bill No. 373, "An Act relating to return of contributed capital, or payment of a dividend, to the state by the Alaska Student Loan Corporation; and providing for an effective date." Number 0093 DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, Department of Education & Early Development, came forward to testify. She explained she had sent the committee members a letter dated March 6 which answered their previous questions and a memo dated March 20 which responded on the issue of garnishing Native corporation dividends for repaying student loans. The Attorney General's office believes that the Alaska Student Loan Corporation is unable to attach Native corporation dividends mainly because of the Doyon decision which prevented attachment of Native corporation dividends for child support. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Barrans to review her responses in her letter of March 6 for the committee. Number 0224 MS. BARRANS referred to Representative Kemplen's question [in the last hearing] about the use of current year net income to offset the revenues expected from prior loans. She had indicated that the corporation could not reduce expected income on the existing loans by prior year income because of the bond indenture covenants. She indicated in her letter that in the corporation's official statement that could not be done without violating those bonds. MS. BARRANS indicated that the next issue was the ability to use the funds that are being proposed to return to the state to further reduce future interest. Due to the way in which interest rates are calculated, recycling the small amount of capital proposed for payment to the state would not measurably affect that rate. It is a small amount of money in terms of the way the interest rate is calculated. The interest rate is set based on the cost of money on all outstanding bonds and the administrative cost of the program. It is based on the recent history of what is paid for the program which includes losses due to bankruptcy, death and disability. Those costs are loaded into the formula to determine the interest rates on new loans. The amount of money in HB 373 would not materially affect that rate. CHAIRMAN DYSON noted that the corporation's mission statement is to continue reducing the interest rates to ensure affordable education to residents. Number 0393 MS. BARRANS responded that the corporation expects to continue to reduce those rates. The rates have been reduced by .3 percent for 2000-2001, and the corporation would expect to continue to pass on future reductions of the cost of running the program and reduce rates for borrowers. MS. BARRANS pointed out in the balance of the response in her letter, she gave a little bit of the context that the board's discussion was in terms of why it wanted to do what HB 373 proposes to do. The corporation's fiscal standing has effectively been stabilized, and its credit standing has been upgraded from A to AA; interest rates have been reduced for the past two years; the fund equity deficient has continued to be reduced. The bill is the fourth step in the board's priorities to begin to return some of the contributed capital to the state who was the original financing source. Number 0484 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Ms. Barrans to review what the total payout and the time for payout would be on the fund equity deficit. Number 0501 MS. BARRANS referred to two charts that project the fund equity deficit for five years into the future. Projections beyond that have not been done. The first chart reflects the accumulated deficit of fund equity. It starts with FY 1995 and shows the balance of the original $306 million contributed of each fiscal year. The fund equity dropped until FY 1997, leveled off and now has started to grow back as net incomes are achieved on an annual basis. In FY 1999, there was an appreciable net income of $6.4 million. The projected net income expects to show that the accumulated net deficit will be cut in half by FY 2004 from what it was in FY 1997. The second graph illustrates what the project income is expected to be over the next several years. MS. BARRANS reminded the committee these are projected numbers. They are based on historical loss provisions that are recalculated on an annual basis. These projections are quite conservative. The corporation expects to experience better numbers than these, but based on past experience, the corporation has to take a conservative approach to estimating those numbers. Number 0712 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what the difference is between FY 1999 and FY 2000 and what is considered the purpose of the dramatic projected decrease between FY 1999 and FY 2001 and then a steady increase. Number 0743 SHEILA KING, Finance Officer, Division of Finance, Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, Department of Education & Early Development, came forward to reply. She explained the difference is in the interest income projections. The income projections used in this scenario are calculated by Smith Barney and use the latest cash flows. Smith Barney considers all the defaults to happen in the first three years of those projections so these numbers are much more conservative. In FY 1999 there was actually $33 million of interest income and in FY 2000, $30 million is being projected. More than that is expected, but the best estimate used for these projections were the Smith Barney cash flows. MS. BARRANS told Representative Brice that the $4.7 million is an estimate. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wondered why there is the big spike in FY 1999 and then the leveling off and if there is an attributable purpose to that. MS. BARRANS replied the interest that is charged on the loans is also being reduced. The interest earnings on those loans will go down. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked where the $600,000 that is referred to in the fiscal note is in the chart attached to Ms. Barrans letter dated March 6. MS. KING said the number used to calculate the impact on that income was the higher number, $2.2 million and not the $600,000. That money does not come out of net income; only the interest effect of sending that money out affects net income. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked how big of a dividend could be coming out of the student loan corporation into the general fund. MS. KING replied that these projections are conservative, but she doesn't have a number for what the dividend is going to be. The parameters set by the legislation were set to allow the corporation to work towards all of the goals. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Ms. Barrans if the board discussed this dividend payment to the general fund and if the board examined the tradeoff between giving the general fund a dividend and putting in a loan program that would provide additional incentives or make it easier for Alaskans to get an education. Number 1233 MS. BARRANS noted that there was discussion about that; however, the discussion really focused on the existing programs. She explained that there are two boards that she reports to: the corporation board, that has the fiduciary responsibility, and the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education board. Those boards share two members in common. The corporation board was the one who voted to recommend that HB 373 come forward. The commission has been advised of it but has not taken a position on this bill. The corporation set the priorities that she outlined in page 2 of her March 6 letter. The discussion centered around the priorities that were set; there was no material discussion about using the net income of the corporation for other types of programs. There was general discussion about what the legislature and the administration might want to do with that general fund money once it was returned to the state, but that is really where the conversation ended. At the last meeting, the Governor said he would like to use the returned contributed capital to fund the Alaska Scholars program. The board felt that was a policy call that it was not interested in becoming engaged in. MS. BARRANS further explained that the commission has a somewhat different role; it authorizes schools to operate in the state and it oversees the staff who manage the program. The commission has not taken an official position on HB 373. Number 1453 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move HB 373 with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 373 moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee. HB 256 - RECORDING OF INTERVIEWS WITH CHILDREN Number 1484 CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as House Bill No. 256, "An Act relating to reports of suspected child abuse or neglect, and requiring that, as part of the investigation of the reports of suspected child abuse or neglect, all official interviews with children who are alleged to have been abused or neglected be recorded." Number 1494 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, came forward to present HB 256. He told the committee that HB 256 is an effort between Representative Therriault and himself to get a videotaping bill to bring accountability and to reduce the number of interviews a child would face when taken into custody for suspected child abuse [or neglect]. He presented a committee substitute. Number 1584 CHAIRMAN DYSON made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 256, version LS1049\M, Luckhaupt, 3/30/00, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version M was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Section 1 is the purpose and intent; Section 2 is a pilot project; and Section 3 has a repealer date in it. The intent of the proposed CS for HB 256 is to establish a pilot project of videotaping interviews with children who are alleged to have been abused. He noted the change in the beginning date, October 1, 2000, that would be earlier since it is a localized project. The Department of Health & Social Services would be required to submit an interim report to the legislature in January 2002 [and a final report in] January 2003. It would be a demonstration project to evaluate the [efficacy] of requiring scheduled and planned interviews conducted with children who have been alleged to have been abused. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said HB 256 provides that the admissibility of an interview that wasn't videotaped would not be affected in civil or criminal proceedings. Furthermore, provisions are included in the legislation regarding equipment malfunctions as well as the child's health or psychological condition, which could preclude or hinder an interview. Representative Coghill noted his intention to provide a method of recording the statements of children in order to avoid multiple interviews. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that Version M includes a change on page 3, line 14, where the following section is added: (d) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, videotaping of an interview with a child is not required when the videotaping would be detrimental to the child's health or impossible due to the child's age or physical or psychological condition. A decision not to videotape under this subsection shall be documented in writing at the time the decision is made. Unless detrimental or impossible in itself, an interview with a child under this subsection shall be audiotaped. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted he is trying to achieve the highest degree of accountability and the least amount of intrusion for the children and families. He indicated that he wanted to have some of the intent language from the original HB 256 in the pilot project, which can be found in the outline of the intent on page 2; that language provides a framework for gauging what the pilot project should be. However, the intent is not the entire requirement. The requirement is the videotaping pilot project found in Version M, page 2, beginning on line 24. He noted his intention to have the interview not be permissive unless the exceptions prevail. He remarked that this is the best he could do in avoiding intrusive interviews such as those performed in cars where a video camera would not be available. He assumed that the child would be taken to a safe location for the interview and thus his intention is to, at that time, videotape [the interview]; he referred to that as a scheduled interview. He also noted that the pilot project shall continue for no less than 18 months. Representative Coghill expressed the desire to implement the highest degree of accountability through this system. Number 1965 MARCI SCHMIDT testified via teleconference from the Matanuska- Susitna (Mat-Su) Legislative Information Office (LIO). She believes this [videotaping] is something that needs to be done statewide. Furthermore, it should have been done when Representative James proposed something similar. She asked if there was any way to have videotaping around the state. CHAIRMAN DYSON indicated there are some practical problems with that such as obtaining the equipment, training the people, handling logistics and the expense. He explained that the details are trying to be worked [on by] taking one step at a time. MS. SCHMIDT asked if the tapes of the interviews can be viewed by the judge and the attorneys on both sides. CHAIRMAN DYSON said that others present were indicating that the answer is yes. Number 2046 MS. SCHMIDT expressed her support for HB 256, but noted her disappointment that it is only a pilot project and not statewide. CHAIRMAN DYSON noted his desire to eliminate multiple interviews and the impact on the child. He asked Ms. Schmidt if she had other concerns besides that. MS. SCHMIDT agreed that is a high priority. She indicated that the videotaping will be good for the department in that there will be no question as to whether the child was coached or some impropriety was done. CHAIRMAN DYSON indicated that several people have expressed concern about conflicting reports from children and children being coached or coerced. He asked Ms. Schmidt if she believed that the videotaping might help to preclude some of that. MS. SCHMIDT indicated that she believed so. She felt that videotaping is much better than audiotaping because an audiotape can easily be turned off and on; however, with a videotape, there is going to be some differential. If videotaping is stopped, it will be noticed when it is turned back on. Number 2135 CHRIS STOCKARD, Captain, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), came forward to testify. He mentioned that Version M has addressed some of the concerns of DPS. The Department of Public Safety, in general, believes that videotaping children's interviews is not a bad idea and in many cases around the state, the department does that. He stressed that the concept of doing team interviews, one interview satisfying the needs of several different agencies, is nothing new and noted his past experience in Fairbanks where people from different agencies would come together in one place. [Team interviews] has been the standard of law enforcement for the most part. Although it may not occur in every location or in every case, it is the protocol/standard around the state for DPS which he believes to be the case in other departments as well. CAPTAIN STOCKARD pointed out some structural problems in the CS. He understood Section 1 to apply to all interviews with children at all times, everywhere in the state. [Section 1] doesn't include any information about what a scheduled interview is and it doesn't have any of the exceptions regarding when videotaping might not happen or what alternatives there might be. He related his understanding that the exceptions apply only to the videotaping pilot project, but the general rule that [videotaping] must be done in every case literally applies to every case around the state. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Captain Stockard about the logistics involved if a trooper had to fly to a remote village in order to investigate an accusation of sexual abuse to a child. CAPTAIN STOCKARD indicated there are several issues in that circumstance. He said that it is not impractical for a trooper who thought there might be an interview with a child to pack a video recorder and take it along; there are several video cameras out in the field now. However, one of the difficulties with [a video camera versus a tape recorder] is that a tape recorder is a fairly easy thing to turn on, set down at the side where nobody really notices it. [A tape recorder] doesn't interfere with the process of conducting an interview. Whereas a video camera is typically much more intrusive. He commented that setting up the video camera may create a psychological barrier for some people [and prevent them] from being free and open; it is not like a private conversation. Recording with a video camera creates a very different dynamic than the one that occurs with a trooper carrying his tape recorder. CAPTAIN STOCKARD said that it is routine to record all victims' statements, suspects' statements and many witnesses' statements. He noted that sometimes the person is asked if he/she minds [being recorded] and the tape recorder is put out [in view of the person]. At other times, when someone may be intimidated by the tape recorder, the trooper turns the tape recorder on without saying anything about it. He reiterated that [a tape recorder] is much less intrusive in the process of carrying on communication between the interviewer and interviewee. Therefore, he sees some problems with that from the standpoint of an interviewer obtaining a good interview. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified that HB 256 is geared toward a pilot project in a particular locale and thus Chairman Dyson's particular scenario wouldn't apply here. Although it would be the intent of the legislature to figure out how to install it, at this point the focus would be in regard to how to do this in the particular locale. TAPE 00-38, SIDE B Number 2358 CAPTAIN STOCKARD said he understands that to be the intent. In his conversations with the Department of Law, it appears to him that the general rule applies everywhere and in some ways is more restrictive than the pilot project rule. Although that may not be how it was intended, it appears that way here. He referred to page 2, lines 28-31, "The Department of Health and Social Services shall coordinate the purchase of videotape equipment and distribute it ...". That language raises some questions in the mind of DPS: Does coordinate it mean maybe DHSS is going to order the equipment or specify it?; Is DHSS going to distribute it?; Is DHSS going to give it out?; Does this mean DHSS will send a bill to DPS? He isn't sure what [that language] means, and furthermore DPS has some minor concerns about how that actually would work. CAPTAIN STOCKARD referred to page 3, line 14, subsection (d), which lists some exceptions to videotaping. Perhaps, a trooper could make the argument for an exception to videotaping in a case in which a child would be so intimidated by the camera; however, the troopers are not experts in regard to what would be detrimental to a child's psychological health. He expressed concern that it is overly restrictive in that there may be circumstances in which it may be possible and feasible to [videotape the interview], but [videotaping the interview] may just not be practical or a good idea in terms of getting a good interview. In such a case, the department would still be required to try to [videotape the interview]. Therefore, DPS has some concerns there as well. CHAIRMAN DYSON posed a situation in which a trooper doesn't videotape [an interview] because it is "spooking" the child. He asked Captain Stockard if he is concerned that if such a case comes to court, the trooper would be criticized for not taping the interview. CAPTAIN STOCKARD agreed that may be an issue. Certainly subsection (f) on page 3, line 23, does take care of the purely evidentiary question, which was one of law enforcement's biggest concerns before. Captain Stockard stated that DPS wants to comply with the law; it wants to do what the law says to do. However, it makes DPS very uncomfortable to be in positions where the law says something "ought" to be done. Therefore, DPS prefers that the law be clearly drafted while providing the necessary flexibility to do it without having to sort of bend the rules. CAPTAIN STOCKARD referred to subsection (g) on page 3, line 26, which addresses the scheduled interview. [The scheduled interview] is a very difficult thing to define. He posed a situation in which a trooper agrees to come by and speak with a child at 2 p.m., after someone from a school calls and says this child may have a problem and the troopers ought to come out and talk to him/her. He indicated that would be kind of a scheduled interview; certainly people are going to argue it's scheduled since they knew an interview was going to happen. However, whether the trooper knew that this child was actually going to reveal anything is somewhat questionable. He reiterated that defining a scheduled interview is difficult. CHAIRMAN DYSON said he has noticed that some police cars around the country have video cameras that are apparently turned on when someone is pulled over. He assumes a part of that is self- defense in that the video recording makes it clear what the conduct of the public safety officer was in the case. He asked if those tapes are ever used in evidence. CAPTAIN STOCKARD specified that the primary purpose is the gathering of evidence and the side effect is protecting the officers. The cameras are especially useful in the DWI [driving while intoxicated] situation because people frequently make comments to the officer during the initial contact, jump out of the car, drop their stuff or clearly wobble and bounce around the highway before they have a chance to gather their wits about them. The tapes are frequently used in evidence, in evidence of assaults on police officers, and occasionally the tapes are used to diffuse public complaints about officer behavior. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if it is easy to detect if a videotape has been altered. CAPTAIN STOCKARD related his belief that with traditional videotapes, it is not all that difficult [to detect if the videotape has been altered]. There have been times when the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] and other forensic laboratories have looked at tapes for DPS and have been able to say this audiotape or this videotape has been cut and spliced or has been manipulated in some way. He remarked that he doesn't know what is going to happen when there is more digital recording mediums. He believes that there are some additional problems in determining what is an original recording and what has been rerecorded. Number 2107 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL related his understanding that the general citizenry believes that it is always the agency that is being protected and not the individual. There have been many cases in which the integrity of [DPS/the troopers] has been called into question because of accusations. Therefore, this could certainly be protection for that situation. However, DPS gets to say when it's done or not done and the particular people being interviewed, whether it's the child or even a family, doesn't get that say. He explained that he has been trying to give the people interviewed some say in what is brought forward. Accountability is a needed part in society. Representative Coghill recognized that flexibility in regard to when [videotaping] is not appropriate is necessary as is the need to for [DPS] to have some force to do it. Number 2035 LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), came forward to testify. She explained to the committee that her organization has been involved in the issue of videotaping for several years. When Representative James brought forward legislation, the Network expressed concern. The ANDVSA very much appreciates the position of having unified interviewing of children with the police officer, the DFYS [Division of Family and Youth Services] worker, the ICWA [Indian Child Welfare Act] worker and whoever needs to be there for the interview all at one time in order to reduce the trauma to the child. The Network's primary interest is to make it easier for the child to discuss these horrible situations and issues. MS. HUGONIN explained that the concern is with "each" interview being videotaped. For example, when a child is in a shelter and the shelter workers suspects there has been child abuse and makes contact with DFYS. Sometimes it is easier to have one DFYS worker come to the program to be with the child, maybe with an advocate, and have an initial conversation, not a taped formal interview. Depending on the child's age and/or the trauma, it is going to take more than one discussion for the child to be able to articulate what has happened to him/her. The interviewers need to be aware of and sensitive to that; one must not lose sight that they are dealing with children. MS. HUGONIN noted that ANDVSA was encouraged last time when the state's child abuse agreement between state departments was revised and expanded to include physical assault and neglect. Therefore, there are hopefully better practices between law enforcement and DFYS and any other state entity involved in these cases. Another step forward was HB 375 and the revision of the child abuse statutes. Part of that was making more of DFYS' incidents and cases available to the public for review such as the information DFYS is required to post on the Internet. There has also been more work with training DFYS workers; however, this is a fundamental area that needs more attention and time devoted to it. She commented on the importance of the first investigation being conducted by trained investigators. She informed the committee that DFYS has set up a training center and although she appreciated the fact that the legislature has devoted some funding to [DFYS' training center], but more funding is necessary. The Network is trying to help out with [funding] and thus it applied for and received a federal grant to provide training to DFYS and ICWA workers in the area of domestic violence and child abuse so they can be better prepared to appropriately question children and investigate. Number 1869 MS. HUGONIN also shared the concern that Section 1 will apply all the time, everywhere. Therefore, ANDVSA is much more comfortable with the idea of a pilot study in which she understood the importance of having a control group and thus not every child would go through the videotaping every time. There would be a group of children that would continue the normal practice so the two groups could be compared and contrasted regarding whether or not this would be an effective way to move forward. She referred to page 3, lines 6-10, which says that the final report "must include ... recommended draft legislation to put in place a permanent statewide videotaping program for videotaping interviews of children who are alleged to have been abused or neglected." That language sounds biased because after the pilot study, it may be proven that [a permanent statewide videotaping program] is not the best way to proceed in every instance and thus recommended legislation wouldn't be necessary. MS. HUGONIN said ANDVSA is also concerned about how the videotapes will be handled if allegations are not substantiated. She inquired as to the mechanism for taking care of those videotapes--are they always going to be at DFYS or are they going to be destroyed? She noted the issue of confidentiality for the children as well as the parents. She asked that those questions be considered. She then turned to the issue of repeated videotaping. With the current language, videotaping as part of the investigation [would mean that] each videotape would be evidence and would be discoverable. Therefore, there could be situations when a child doesn't say the exact same thing every time [he/she was videotaped], which could be used by a defense attorney to question which [account] is really [true]. Therefore, ANDVSA is concerned about how [the videotape] would be used as evidence in those kinds of situations. Number 1712 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he understood that the language "each interview" is a problem. He asked Ms. Hugonin if there was a way to define interviews without saying "each" and without inserting several paragraphs of exceptions. MS. HUGONIN answered that she has been trying to come up with a word but has not. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he is open to [suggestions]. Number 1668 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, came forward to testify. She expressed concern about the way the bill is drafted because it raises some questions that should be answered. She said that she doesn't understand how the permanent law and the temporary law interrelate in this bill. Alaska Statute 47.17.010, which is the permanent law and permanent intent language, provides that each interview with a child will be videotaped and there are no exceptions except in the temporary law, which will be repealed at a certain point. Therefore, all the protections in the exceptions won't apply to what happens on a permanent basis. She believes that is something that really needs to be made clear. From DFYS she understood that if each interview with a child is required [to be videotaped], it will be a terrible burden on the investigative process and will not be good for children in Alaska. MS. CARPENETI echoed earlier comments that the definition of scheduled interviews is problematic. The definition of scheduled interviews isn't clear and would probably require the videotaping of interviews that are partly spontaneous and partly not spontaneous. Therefore, the meaning of scheduled interview needs to be made clearer. Number 1565 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL affirmed that he also struggled with the definition of a scheduled interview. At one point he thought it would be better to describe what it is not rather than what it is, but that list is almost as long. He asked the Department of Law to help him with language; language that would describe the case in which an interview happens that is significant to the evidence of the key issue, although it may not be a spontaneous interview. MS. CARPENETI agreed to help work on the language. CHAIRMAN DYSON remarked that this [type of interview] would easily work if the videotaping took place at child advocacy centers which are set up for a team to assemble with equipment and trained people. He said that he personally knew that such a situation has worked in those types of places. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE inquired as to the impact this will have on prosecutors in making a determination whether to proceed with a case of abuse and neglect if there is mandated videotaping. Number 1417 MS. CARPENETI replied that is a tough question. Section 1 of the bill currently provides that each interview has to be videotaped and thus she would assume that a prosecutor, in preparing for trial, would have to have a videotape set up in the office when talking to the witness. She believes that it would be difficult to prepare a witness for trial, specifically trying to make him/her feel comfortable in really tough circumstances while a video camera is on. She indicated that it could hamper [the prosecutor]. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that he was basically trying to get to the point Ms. Carpeneti articulated that this potentially can cause some real problems and create a barrier in terms of making sure that an abused or neglected child is taken care of. MS. CARPENETI agreed, especially the way Section 1 is currently written as it refers to every interview, which would include interviews in preparation for trial and cross examination. She remarked that these situations are difficult for adults [and thus would be more so for] children. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed that this is a burden. He related his understanding that the social worker documents every conversation with the child and the court only receives that document, the document in regard to what that conversation was. He said he is trying to bring some light to the conversation that has the disinterested part, although he recognized that it may not be practical in every case. He asked if his understand is correct. MS. CARPENETI replied that she believes Representative Coghill's understanding is correct. However, she clarified that she was talking about a prosecutor preparing for trial. Number 1300 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the prosecutor is only presented with interviews that [the social worker] documented, wouldn't the prosecutor only have their part of the story. He asked how the court or prosecutor view that. MS. CARPENETI answered it would be viewed the same way as a police report or any other investigative report; it would be read and used. Ms. Carpeneti said she doesn't understand the juxtaposition. Although she understood Representative Coghill's point of view, as a prosecutor preparing for trial, she would view [the social worker's document] as any other investigative report. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he wasn't trying to leverage anything. He stated that he just wanted to know how Ms. Carpeneti viewed these reports because some people view them very narrowly and think of them as very biased. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Carpeneti if she can picture in a CINA [child in need of aid] 48-hour hearing, the judge sitting there watching a video as part of the evidence or will he/she go on the summaries of both parties. MS. CARPENETI answered she has never participated in a 48-hour hearing as it is a civil hearing and thus she deferred to a CINA lawyer. Number 1196 JANNA STEWART, Administrator, Central Office, Family Services, Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS), Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), came forward to testify. She pointed out that Jan Rutherdale is present if Chairman Dyson wants an answer regarding the use of a videotape in the CINA proceeding. MS. STEWART noted she had spent some years on the bench in Anchorage, and she would have never viewed a videotape in the context of doing a 48-hour hearing or subsequent hearing. She pointed out that for the most part, the critical evidence regarding the case most often does not come from the child; the stronger evidence frequently comes from other forms of documentary evidence, medical evidence, photographs and the like. The child's testimony is very rarely solely relied on to make a decision, certainly not at those earlier stages. In response to Chairman Dyson, Ms. Stewart specified that the aforementioned comments were drawn from her experience as a judge. However, as a representative of DFYS, she informed the committee that the department would appreciate the ability of videotaping. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Stewart if she could ever foresee the video being shown in court [in a CINA case]. MS. STEWART answered yes, although hardly ever at the 48-hour hearing. In further response to Chairman Dyson, Ms. Stewart replied in the context of a CINA case, it is conceivable that a video would be shown in a custody hearing. Furthermore, there may be many interviews that would end up being presented under the situation that this bill presents with having to videotape each subsequent interview. CHAIRMAN DYSON noted that part of his enthusiasm for videotaping has always been in regard to the criminal abuse cases, particularly sexual abuse, in order to prevent the child from having to go through multiple interviews. However, [videotaping] in a CINA hearing probably is not going to keep the child from more interviews. MS. STEWART indicated her belief that Chairman Dyson is accurate based on conversations she has had with Diana Weber from the children's advocacy center. Ms. Stewart noted that she can't speak for Ms. Weber. However, their extensive conversations about this bill [have revealed] Ms. Weber's concern that the videotape itself would very rarely reduce the need for subsequent interviews because of the different nature of different circumstances that each videotape would bring out. For example, there would be a therapeutic interview and an investigative interview and it doesn't always happen that everything gotten in an individual interview will satisfy all subsequent purposes. As has been pointed out, with children there are sequential interviews in which more and more disclosure occurs. The more uncomfortable the interview dynamic is, the harder it is to have productive interviews because children will balk at unfamiliar circumstances, video cameras, et cetera. Therefore, the concern is that possibly this will not reduce the number of interviews but rather, in certain circumstances, it may increase the number of interviews that would have to be done. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if there are there circumstances in which carefully crafted and well-done video interviews could prevent the child from having to testify against the perpetrator in court, especially a sexual abuse victim. MS. STEWART noted that there is a substantial body of law and research on that question in other states that have made the effort to do exactly that. Those are very carefully constructed laws that are subject to a great deal of controversy and have been the subject of supreme court cases. She clarified that she did not research this bill that narrowly because it is not yet attempting to get there. Number 0899 MS. STEWART continued saying the department [DHSS] is generally supportive of the concept of videotaping and audiotaping. As DHSS has reviewed this bill, there are a number of concerns about the breadth of the bill, the cost of implementation, the risks broad implementation will bring for the children and how the expense will not match the quality of what [the department] will get. She specified the following concerns: the number of times that the interview would have to happen; the number of interviews that are done of children around the state; the number of circumstances in which the interview itself is never really intended to obtain evidence that, in and of itself, is critical to the prosecution of the case in the CINA context. [The department] supports the idea of developing multi-disciplinary protocol and [DHSS] has made some suggestions about when a multi- disciplinary team would assess a situation in regard to whether a situation would be appropriate to videotape or audiotape and likely provide a high quality of evidence and not adversely impact the child and not require multiple interviews. However, it is very critical that there not be such breadth to refer to all interviews, all children, all the time. MS. STEWART informed the committee that previous testimony has pointed out the same problems [DHSS] is concerned about: the problems of the two parts of the bill. [The department] appreciates the exceptions in this video pilot as they are very helpful, but they don't appear to apply to the bill as a whole. Although DHSS would like to see videotaping done effectively, cost effectively and in a quality multi-disciplinary environment, DHSS cannot support the bill as it currently stands. Version M is one of the most expensive versions of this legislation yet because it not only requires the department to videotape whenever possible, the department also has to have a backup to videotaping, audiotaping. Therefore, an additional layer of expense is created in addition to the cost of the pilot project. She explained that although [this legislation] solves some problems, it causes more expense and doesn't necessarily get to the heart of the matter for [the department], which is to videotape when appropriate and in a manner that will increase child protection without inappropriately increasing costs. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Ms. Stewart when is it proper and appropriate to videotape an interview. MS. STEWART replied in the view of DHSS, videotaping would be appropriate based on statutory factors. For example, videotaping would be appropriate when proceeding with the possibility of a CINA action for cases of risk of substantial physical harm, sexual abuse, mental injury or neglect. However, there are certain statutory provisions in the CINA law which do not lend themselves to the information being effectively gathered from the child's interview. She cited the following statutory provisions that do not lend themselves to the evidence coming from the children: abandonment, parental incarceration, custodians who are unwilling or unable to provide care or need medical treatment. MS. STEWART said in addition to that, DHSS would like to propose that a multi-disciplinary team could develop effective non- statutorially based protocols that would be based on the facts and circumstances of the case. For example, the age of the child, the likelihood that the information obtained from the child would be unavailable through other witnesses or would not be available through other means such as medical records, physical examinations, photographs or other kinds of documentary evidence. Furthermore, DHSS would like to be able to consider the likelihood that a child is going to be unavailable for subsequent interviews. Perhaps, due to the child's present condition, he/she is likely to be sent out of state to a specialized treatment facility. The department would also like to be able to assess whether or not it believes, under all the facts and circumstances of a case, that it is likely that it'll be able to reduce the need for subsequent interviews. She noted that the department would also like to be able to assess whether or not the child is going to offer nonverbal communication such as gestures, movements or sexualized acting out that would be appropriate to capture on a videotape. Furthermore, the department would like to be able to videotape in circumstances where the child's present emotional, physical or communicated state is such that it would be evidence and visible on a videotape. The department would also like to consider whether the information being received from the interview of the child would be the basis for multiple legal actions--not only a CINA action but also criminal prosecution and potentially administrative and licensing actions. The department would also like to be able to consider whether specialized interview equipment, techniques or services such as language, sign or relay interpreters would be appropriate. It is the position of the department that these kinds of criteria are not subjective. Ms. Stewart stated that there are standards by which protocols could be developed that would enable the department and other members of the multi-disciplinary team to make an effective and intelligent decision regarding when videotaping and audiotaping is appropriate and thereby avoid hundreds of interviews in which the videotaping or audiotaping would simply not be useful for any member of the team. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL specified that he is looking to define that critical time in HB 256. Representative Coghill remarked that Ms. Stewart is [approaching this] from the department's need, while he is [approaching this] from the family's need for accountability from the department. Therefore, he clarified that he is attempting to obtain not only the department's needs but the need for accountability for the family's sake. Number 0452 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if, in terms of the quality of the evidence that social workers are trying to gather, there is a differentiation between the type of evidence, the level of evidence and the quality of evidence when a civil CINA case is being pursued versus an actual criminal case. MS. STEWART answered, "My general answer to that question would be no that we don't ... try less hard if there's not to be a criminal action." REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted his assumption that the evidentiary standards for a criminal case would be higher than for a civil case. MS. STEWART stated that the standard of proof in a criminal matter is proof beyond reasonable doubt while the standard of proof in a civil matter is a preponderance, and there are levels. Although there is a lesser standard of proof [for civil matters], that doesn't necessarily mean that there is going to be a fundamental difference in the quality of the evidence gathered. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, "But on the other hand, the evidence you have presented might be able to get you to the preponderance of evidence, but it would probably not withstand the cross examination of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So, in other words, what I see DFYS doing is when they go in and take custody of a child - that is a civil procedure - ... there may or may not be criminal charges against the parents, and that determining factor, I hope, is that they just cannot build beyond a reasonable doubt standard because of lack of evidence." MS. STEWART replied that is essentially correct, although it may not be a lack of evidence situation. She explained that the factors simply may not be there to find parents criminally liable; it may be a question that the evidence simply does not exist. She pointed out that it is very common for a case to be prosecuted as a CINA case and not as a criminal case. Number 0165 SARAH SHORT testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She expressed her support for HB 256 but noted her disappointment that it is a pilot project because she believes it needs to be statewide. She agreed with some of the concerns of the state and the police. Every person who is involved in a CINA hearing or the 48-hour hearing has some input that is very valuable to this bill. In regard to unsubstantiated [charges], those videotapes should be given to the parents to be used as defense in future allegations. She said that time and time again unsubstantiated reports of harm surface because the state is more aware of these people and maybe the state should be more aware of these people. However, it is very hard on a family to keep fighting unsubstantiated allegations. Regarding whether videotapes should be viewed in court, Ms. Short doesn't see any reason to keep videotapes out of court because children deserve to have a voice, and they deserve to be heard. She indicated that judges who don't want to or don't have the time to watch these tapes are not getting the whole picture. She stated, "The parents ... are seeing, from their point of view, their words are getting twisted around, that they know their child from one point of view, and the state sees it from the other." Ms. Short commented that videotapes would help the children, the parents and the foster parents as well as the caseworker. TAPE 00-39, SIDE A Number 0001 MS. SHORT said as a survivor of childhood molestation, she informed the committee that she is very aware of the emotions that a child would feel being videotaped. Being videotaped as a child is very intimidating, but coercive interviewing is far worse. Furthermore, the damage [coercive interviewing] does to the family and the community as well as the cost far exceeds a full-fledged videotaping bill. Therefore, Ms. Short likes the original bill and supports the sponsor statement. Number 0073 LAUREL MURRAY testified via teleconference from Anchorage. Ms. Murray related her personal experience with this subject matter in which her son, Steven Murray, was killed in the state's care this past July. After many reports of harm, Steven ran away from the foster home in April and filed his own complaint with the police. The police took his statement of being hit with a belt and took photos of six welts on his buttocks; that was physical evidence of abuse. Ms. Murray charged that it would have not been so easy for the state to coerce her son to recant the allegations of abuse against Melissa Falgoust if the interview had been videotaped. If her son had not been coerced [by DFYS], he might not have been returned to that home and would probably still be alive. Ms. Murray also charged, "If DFYS was not in fear of exposure for their negligence, they'd spend the money not only to protect children like Steven, but also to protect good case workers and the state from abuse of discretion and wrongful death lawsuits." Ms. Murray related her belief that a videotaped interview would have helped save her son and would also help wrongfully accused foster parents and parents protect the children they love. She said that she believes videotaping statewide is needed. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Murray what evidence she had that DFYS coerced Steven into changing or recanting his testimony. MS. MURRAY answered, "Part of it is in a police report that the officer filed where it was betraying Melissa Falgoust and DFYS; where they had gone to the police and told them that this was his way of trying to get home with his mother." Number 0256 ADASSA AMIN testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She said, "I don't think that there should be any dollar figure put on the investigative skills or lack thereof when it comes to implementing ... what is being applied by an officer or social worker or other law enforcement agent while trying to investigate or interview for prospective abuse and/or victimization of children." She noted her agreement with Laurel Murray's testimony. Number 0334 HARRY NIEHAUS, Guardians of Family Rights, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He echoed Captain Stockard's concern regarding what is "spontaneous." Mr. Niehaus also expressed concern about "intake" techniques; the intent is to ensure professional techniques. He believes that videotaping will reveal a lot of inappropriate techniques and create a more professional agency, and therefore increase accountability. He also believes videotaping would reduce some travesties to justice. Furthermore, ethics need to be upheld and could be reviewed via a videotape. [Videotaping] is a great reviewing tool, and he is 100 percent for it. Mr. Niehaus stated that he would like to see [this videotaping program be implemented statewide]. Number 0454 PAUL NELSON testified via teleconference from Haines. Mr. Nelson read the following testimony: I request the legislature to enact legislation for the videotaping of all interviews of allegations of child abuse and neglect. The taping of interviews will prevent false allegations of abuse and neglect from destroying families. I would also like to see felony penalties for the failure to videotape and also felony penalties for erasure or alteration of those tapes. MR. NELSON related his personal experience in which he was accused of child abuse in the 1980s. In his case, the child was interviewed by the local police on videotape, but after about 20 minutes the videotape was turned off. The videotaping resumed when the child did what the interviewers wanted her to do. Mr. Nelson believes that video was part of the reason the charges were dismissed against him when he refused to plea bargain. MR. NELSON noted that the state troopers already have videotaping equipment. He disagreed completely with DFYS about conducting interviews before taping because the first interview can and will result in indictments and arrests. He said if there are no grounds, the first interview should give all parties a view of that. He also disagreed completely with the person who said this is difficult to do because the people who are accused could face unclassified felonies and life in prison. People who are falsely accused need to be protected. Mr. Nelson suggested eliminating some of the people at DFYS if there is a need for money. If this can only be a pilot project, he requested that all municipalities be asked to voluntarily participate. In conclusion, Mr. Nelson stated that he would like to see the enactment of the original AS 47.17.028, which [requires] that all interviews be videotaped. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that more work needs to be done on HB 256. He noted that the intent language was not meant to go beyond the pilot project and thus he'll have to return to the drafter to [make that clear]. He said that he is open to suggestions regarding the language, "each interview," as well as how to get to that critical interview. Furthermore, he noted his understanding [of the concerns surrounding] scheduled interviews. Representative Coghill stated, "But I refuse to think that this needs to be a department tool; it needs to be a citizen's tool. So, I'm still ... want to go in that direction." In conclusion, Representative Coghill said that this matter could be worked on in a subcommittee or he could continue to work on it in his office; he deferred to the chair's wisdom. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Russ Webb if he knew what the present schedule is for getting the child advocacy center going in Fairbanks. He understands there is some federal money to continue the work. Number 0770 RUSS WEBB, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health & Social Services, came forward saying he didn't have the answer to that question. CHAIRMAN DYSON remarked that he saw [child advocacy centers] as one way to pull together multi-disciplinary teams, videoing and the like. Chairman Dyson then closed the hearing on HB 256. [HB 256 was held over.] HB 303 - MISC. INSURANCE PROVISIONS Number 799 CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as House Bill No. 303, "An Act relating to the method of payment of fees and adoption of regulations under AS 21; relating to orders under AS 21 regarding risk based capital instructions; relating to accounting standards for insurance companies; amending the definitions of 'creditable coverage' and 'late enrollees' in AS 21.54; relating to requirements for small employer insurers; relating to requirements for issuance of new voting securities by an insurance company; requiring health care insurance coverage for reconstructive surgery following mastectomy; requiring guaranteed renewability of and certification of coverage regarding certain individual health insurance policies; and providing for an effective date." Number 0815 BOB LOHR, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of Community & Economic Development, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He told the committee that Representative Rokeberg, Chairman, House Labor and Commerce Committee did a search of representatives of each insurance related organization in the state that might have concerns about the bill and responded to questions, and there was no adverse testimony in House Labor and Commerce Committee concerning this bill. MR. LOHR explained what HB 303 does. It allows the Director of the Division of Insurance to require electronic payment of fees. That is not controversial at this stage and would put deposits into the general fund. It updates and moves obsolete language from the statutes related to the accounting procedures. When insurance companies file their annual financial statements with the division, there specific procedures that they follow. This bill would conform the statutes to national model regulations developed by the National Association of Insurance Commission. These are regulations that most multi-national companies are comfortable with and aware of and expect to go into force January 1, 2001. The division has already adopted regulations for that. However, there are a few accounting provisions in state law that are not consistent with those rules, and this bill will conform them to the national model rules. MR. LOHR explained the third major area involves HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996]. Most state law changes that were required for conforming to HIPAA were made in 1997 by the legislature. However, several provisions have been identified that were not caught at the time. One has led to the federal Health Care Financing Administration writing to the Governor and asking what the intention of the state was with respect to that provision, because if it were not enforced by the state, then there would be the risk of preemption by this federal agency. At this point, the division is enforcing those provisions in policy language under current state authority. However, there is a specific change there that would be required. There are additional specific requirements there, but there are no mandates beyond those required by federal law contained in these changes. Number 0998 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to page 8, line 24, and asked Mr. Lohr explain "or other state high-risk pool." MR. LOHR answered that there are two state high-risk pools. One is the Comprehensive Health Insurance Association (CHIA), and the other is the Small Employer Health Insurance Association. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move HB 303 out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 303 moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.