HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE March 9, 2000 8:20 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative Joe Green Representative Bill Hudson Representative Scott Ogan MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Beth Kerttula Representative Harold Smalley Representative Jim Whitaker COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 292 "An Act adopting the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact; making criminal justice information available to interested persons and criminal history record information available to the public; making certain conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 324 "An Act requiring written consent by the person who is the subject of the information before releasing personal information contained in motor vehicle records, to comply with 18 U.S.C. 2721; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HB 324 OUT OF COMMITTEE SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 270 "An Act relating to sexual assault and sexual abuse and to payment for certain examinations in cases of alleged sexual assault or sexual abuse." - MOVED CSSSHB 270(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 317 "An Act relating to recruitment, selection, appointment, and promotion of state employees and the duties of the Department of Administration concerning those and other related functions; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 317(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 299 "An Act relating to rates charged in a Pioneers' Home." - HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 292 SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/21/00 1954 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/21/00 1954 (H) STA, JUD 1/21/00 1955 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 1/21/00 1955 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 1/21/00 1955 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS 2/22/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 2/22/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 2/29/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 2/29/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 3/02/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 3/02/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 3/07/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 3/07/00 (H) Heard & Held 3/07/00 (H) MINUTE(STA) 3/09/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 324 SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL INFO IN MOTOR VEH. RECORDS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/02/00 2060 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 2/02/00 2060 (H) STA, JUD, FIN 2/02/00 2060 (H) FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 2/02/00 2060 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 2/02/00 2060 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS 3/02/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 3/02/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 3/07/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 3/07/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 3/09/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: SSHB 270 SHORT TITLE: SEXUAL ASSAULT & SEXUAL ABUSE Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/10/00 1890 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/00 1/10/00 1890 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/10/00 1890 (H) STA, HES, FIN 1/21/00 1976 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA 2/16/00 2224 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SMALLEY 2/18/00 2236 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED 2/18/00 2237 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 2/18/00 2237 (H) STA, HES, FIN 2/18/00 2237 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS 3/07/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 3/07/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard BILL: HB 317 SHORT TITLE: STATE EMPLOYEE HIRE AND PROMOTION Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/24/00 1991 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/24/00 1991 (H) MLV, STA, FIN 1/24/00 1991 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM/ALL DEPTS) 1/24/00 1991 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 2/29/00 (H) MLV AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 120 2/29/00 (H) Moved CSHB 317(MLV) Out of Committee 2/29/00 (H) MINUTE(MLV) 3/03/00 2393 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) NT 5DP 3/03/00 2394 (H) DP: CROFT, PHILLIPS, JAMES, CISSNA, 3/03/00 2394 (H) MURKOWSKI 3/03/00 2394 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM/ALL DEPTS)1/24/00 3/03/00 2394 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS 3/07/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 3/07/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 3/09/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 299 SHORT TITLE: PIONEERS HOME RATES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/21/00 1961 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/21/00 1962 (H) STA, HES, FIN 1/21/00 1962 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS 3/07/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 3/07/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 3/09/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 WITNESS REGISTER MARY MARSHBURN, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Administration 3300B Fairbanks Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 324. REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 270. DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner Department of Public Safety PO Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 270. LAUREE HUGONIN, Director Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 130 Seward Street, Room 209 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided agency's position and answered questions regarding HB 270. TRISHA GENTLE, Executive Director Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault PO Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 270. DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager Department of Administration PO Box 110201 Juneau, Alaska 99801-0201 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 270. ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner Department of Administration PO Box 110200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered questions regarding HB 299. MAREL HAKALA Fairbanks, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 299. IRENE PAYTON Fairbanks, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 299. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-19, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:20 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives James, Green, Hudson, and Ogan. Representatives Smalley and Whitaker were excused and Representative Kerttula was ill. HB 292-DISCLOSURE OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS Number 0030 CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 292, "An Act adopting the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact; making criminal justice information available to interested persons and criminal history record information available to the public; making certain conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR JAMES commented that the committee had finished public hearing and discussion on HB 292 during the committee meeting of March 7, 2000. She asked the members if there was any more discussion on HB 292 before moving it out of committee. Number 0070 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he objected to moving HB 292 out of committee. He noted he had articulated his reasons in the meeting of March 7, 2000 and believes there are some potential constitutional problems regarding the possibility of violating people's right to privacy. He explained that the biggest problem he has with HB 292 is that a person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty but according to HB 292 if a person has been arrested, detained, indicted, or has any other formal charge against him/her, including acquittal, this information will be made available for civil uses which includes collection agencies. Number 0271 CHAIR JAMES stated that she would put HB 292 off until the committee has a different quorum. HB 324 - PERSONAL INFO IN MOTOR VEH. RECORDS CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 324, "An Act requiring written consent by the person who is the subject of the information before releasing personal information contained in motor vehicle records, to comply with 18 U.S.C. 2721; and providing for an effective date." MARY MARSHBURN, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She said the purpose of HB 324 is to bring state law into compliance with recently passed federal legislation regarding confidentiality of vehicle records. She noted that HB 324 does apply only to vehicle records and does not apply to driver's license or driver information which is already private and confidential covered under a separate statute. She explained that the original federal law after which the Alaska statute was modeled allowed information from vehicle records to be disclosed for eleven permitted uses, ten of which uses were vehicle centered because they involved uses by law enforcement, the court system, government agencies in hearings, and uses like that. The eleventh use, she added, permitted the information to be disclosed for mass marketing for bulk surveys if the owner of the vehicle had not prohibited the release of that information. MS. MARSHBURN commented that the new federal law and HB 324 retains allowable uses by government agencies in various proceedings for law enforcement but the new federal law did change relating to mass marketing. She mentioned that under HB 324 information for the purpose of mass marketing cannot be disclosed unless the owner has given specific permission. She informed the committee that federal legislation mandates that Alaska be in compliance with the new law by June 1,2000 or suffer daily sanctions until the state is in compliance. Number 0500 CHAIR JAMES stated that for reasons of illustration, assume that someone is parked on her property and the only recourse that she has is to call the license plate number in to the police. However, she noted that where she lives, the few police available are very busy with more important calls and do not have time for nuisance calls. She inquired as to how she is supposed to address her rights in view of HB 324. MS. MARSHBURN replied that statutes apply if a vehicle is parked on personal property. She indicated that Chair James' first recourse is correct in calling the police and as Chair James suspected, HB 324 does not allow divulgence of vehicle information except to a government agency for law enforcement purposes. CHAIR JAMES explained that she owns a small motel and in the past when cars were left parked at her motel she could request vehicle [owner] information in order to contact the owner and get the vehicle removed but now under HB 324 she will not be able to make that inquiry. Number 0769 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that HB 324 sounds like it will eliminate junk mail. Number 0805 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated that HB 324 seems to be moving along positive lines. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move HB 324 out of committee with individual recommendations, attached zero fiscal note and unanimous consent. There being no objection, HB 324 moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. SSHB 270-SEXUAL ASSAULT & SEXUAL ABUSE Number 0873 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 270, "An Act relating to sexual assault and sexual abuse and to payment for certain examinations in cases of alleged sexual assault or sexual abuse." REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, said there is a proposed CS that makes minor changes and it should be adopted for discussion. Number 0903 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for SSHB 270, version 1-LS1108\M, Luckhaupt, 2/25/00, as a work draft. There being no objection, proposed CSHB 270 was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that the issue that brought the proposed CS to his attention is forensic examinations after a sexual assault. He recognized that sexual assault examinations are a delicate and troubling issue so it is all the more important that the committee consider it. He observed that someone who has been sexually assaulted has already been victimized once and the exam that is necessary to gather evidence about the crime is, in some ways, a second victimization. He reiterated that the forensic exam is unpleasant and uncomfortable. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he had heard of victims being asked to pay for the forensic exam with his/her health insurance. He noted that it is not standard police practice [to request payment for forensic exams] and the committee will hear testimony from police agencies to that effect. He explained that the request to pay is only for isolated incidents but it is particularly troubling because it seems to indicate third level victimization. He commented that if someone's house was burglarized and the police came to investigate the crime, dusted for fingerprints, and took pictures, the homeowner's insurance would not be billed. Therefore, he added, charging a sexual assault victim for a forensic exam does not seem ethical. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned that the proposed CS makes very small changes, for example, it defines the crime more specifically. He indicated that the reason there is both a sponsor substitute and a proposed CS to HB 270 is because it was difficult to write the legislation even though the sponsor knew what he wanted to accomplish. He informed the committee that in the first draft the sponsor had written "a law enforcement agency shall pay for the [forensic exam]" and that applied to both adult and juvenile sexual assault. He emphasized that the writing became complicated because there are various ways agencies pay for sexual exams and for children there is a compassionate model, Alaska Cares, that uses Medicaid money. Therefore, he acknowledged, when the sponsor tried the approach that told who would pay, some of these paying programs were precluded. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT remarked that juvenile victims were problematical because from whom did agencies ask permission to conduct a forensic exam. He reminded the committee that parents must give permission for a juvenile to be examined and parents sometimes are the prime suspect in juvenile sexual assault. He added that parents can stop a sexual exam. He observed that writing HB 270 just became so difficult in the juvenile area that the sponsor left out the juvenile section and concentrated on what the sponsor knew he could write correctly. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he is a member of the Standing Together Against Rape (STAR) Board and that is where he heard about some of these issues. He noted that there are many small things that people can do for victims of sexual assault, for example, providing clothes for a victim to use after the forensic exam. He explained that when a victim goes to the hospital the victim's clothes are seized as evidence. He commented that providing clothing for victims is a small step but necessary because otherwise the victim has to go home in a taxi dressed in a hospital gown or borrow someone else's clothes. He mentioned that he had tried to bring before the committee concrete examples of what victims go through and how they can be helped and the reason there are no direct witnesses is because it is difficult to talk about the issue. He indicated that the proposed CS asks all police agencies to conform to no charge for forensic exams. Number 1393 CHAIR JAMES remarked that after hearing what sexual assault victims must go through she is not sure she would report a sexual assault because it sounds so awful and then to have to pay for [the forensic exam is the outside of enough]. She added that she supports the proposed CS as a good move in the right direction. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the proposed CS only applies to adults. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered in the affirmative. He noted that sexual assault crimes are generally perpetrated against adults while statutory rape is in the section regarding juveniles. However, he added, a juvenile sexual assault can fall under the proposed CS guidelines so the proposed CS had to read both adult victims and crimes that are non-statutory rape. He reiterated that it had become very complicated to write a bill that applied to juveniles which did not result in more harm than good, therefore, the proposed CS only applies to adult victims. He said that one of the problems in writing a bill that applied to juveniles was the funding mechanism that is used in juvenile cases and the other problem was who gives permission for the juvenile to undergo a forensic exam. Number 1597 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he understands from Representative Croft that no one will be falling through the cracks if the proposed CS is adopted. DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, testified in support of HB 270. He noted that it has always been the position and practice of law enforcement to pay for the collection of forensic evidence in support of a criminal prosecution. Under no circumstances, he explained, has he ever thought it appropriate to bill a victim or even by extension bill the victim's insurance company. He commented that he does not think that a victim ought to even see a bill related to sexual assault whether it is on their insurance form or not. He emphasized that a police agency investigating a crime should pay because that is the cost of doing business in the collection of evidence no matter what the crime; he does not know of any police agency that has requested payment. The Department of Public Safety paid $48,659 in fiscal year (FY) 1999 for sexual assault exams in the state, and so far in FY 2000 the department has paid $22,880. He indicated that paying for exams had never been an issue in the department or in the Anchorage Police Department. He reiterated Representative Croft's comment that Alaska Cares handles juvenile sexual assault exams, and the department is pleased with the proposed CS because it leaves payment of juvenile exams with Alaska Cares. Number 1750 CHAIR JAMES asked if she understood correctly that Mr. Smith is saying that the department has never billed a victim for exams. MR. SMITH replied that the department might have been billed, but he has not found any police agency that has ever billed a victim. CHAIR JAMES said she understood then that some other entity billed victims and that the department did not think HB 270 was necessary for the department. MR. SMITH answered that he did not think HB 270 was necessary for the Department of Public Safety under the current administration, but he would feel more comfortable if there were a law that would make sure sexual exam billings were discontinued. Number 1789 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Smith if he believes that requiring payment for the exams under the proposed CS will be not create a fiscal note since the Department of Public Safety has been paying for the exams already. Number 1793 MR. SMITH replied that the proposed CS will not create a fiscal note and he thinks the proposed CS is a good bill. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he had heard Mr. Smith agree with the sponsor who had presented a very convincing discussion about why the proposed CS only deals with adults and that children would not fall through the cracks. He asked what if "Maud" claims to have been attacked, and the evidence does not trigger a police agency authorized forensic exam. Nevertheless, "Maud" is still convinced and she wants to prove sexual assault so she goes ahead and has forensic evidence taken. In that case, he asked, would the police agency still pay for the exam or would the individual pay. Further, he added, the exam showed that "Maud" was in fact sexually assaulted. MR. SMITH answered that the agency should pay in all situations where police are involved in the investigation. He noted that if someone had a sexual assault examination done and then contacted the police agency, it would be problematic in deciding who pays. Number 1873 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that his concern is not that a person would come in after getting a sexual exam but that a person comes to the police first and claims to have been violated. He asked if the person is automatically examined then or is a decision made whether an examination is warranted. MR. SMITH expected that if a person reports that he/she has been sexually assaulted, unless there is some reason to believe that he/she is making up a claim, the agency would agree to check to see if in fact a sexual assault occurred since that is the point of the examination. He believes that, as a police administrator, an examination needs to be done if there is an allegation. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that it sounds like the department is effectively paying for exams now, as Chair James had observed. Therefore, the proposed CS re-establishes that the department will do this. Number 1954 MR. SMITH replied that it is basically a policy decision and it is current departmental practice. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked that the proposed CS is a compassionate statement, the cost is nothing, and it speaks well to any woman who might be a victim. He said the proposed CS is good legislation. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN inquired as to how many sexual assaults happen in the state in a year and how does Alaska rank per capita. MR. SMITH answered that he believed that Anchorage received 300 reports a year and he guesses that the number statewide might be 600. Number 2058 LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), said that not everyone knows what is involved in a rape exam; it is not to be taken lightly. If a person goes into the hospital for a rape exam right after the event has happened, he/she still has the clothes on in which the rape took place. She noted that the clothes will be taken from the person and kept for evidence. She commented that the person stands in the middle of the examining room on a white piece of paper and the first thing he/she does is take off his/her clothes. The clothes are laid on the paper, and the person is brushed down because the person is the crime scene. The paper is folded up, set aside, and becomes the beginning of a stack of papers for evidence. Next someone takes a fingernail file and goes under each of the person's fingernails to find skin or hair identifying the perpetrator. Then the person's hair is combed to look for evidence and then the person is examined for bruises, scratch marks or cuts. A small comb is taken out of an envelope, and the nurse combs the person's pubic hair, again, looking for evidence. She observed that the person's body orifice is examined for semen, and swabs are taken to collect evidence. She stated that the person has to pluck his/her own pubic hairs in order to identify that person's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to see what is different from the perpetrator's DNA. A regular gynecological exam is also performed to ascertain if there are tears or injuries inside of the person. MS. HUGONIN said that the sexual exam can take anywhere from 40 minutes to three hours depending upon the person's ability to be able to endure someone's touch and examination after this terrible experience. Sometimes, she added, a person is not admitted right away to the examining room so the person could be in the waiting room for three hours. Hopefully a person has the company of a sexual assault intervention program advocate to wait with, but that is not always the case. The examination process can last from one hour to eight hours. It is hoped that when the person is able to leave [the hospital], the person is able to walk out and go home. MS. HUGONIN mentioned that in the best of circumstances the perpetrator is caught, evidence has been collected and used in the prosecution to a good end, and the perpetrator is jailed. She indicated that as the victim recovers from this heinous crime, at every point where the victim has to relive it, the victim does relive it because it is not something that can be forgotten. She emphasized that it is incomprehensible that the victim should have to relive the crime upon receiving a bill for the assault exam from his/her insurance company. Just as Mr. Smith had testified, billings have not come from police agencies but have come from hospitals. She hopes everything can be done to expedite the proposed CS because people must understand that it is not acceptable for the system to re-victimize someone who has gone through such a horrible experience. MS. HUGONIN reminded the committee that last year there were 325 reported sexual assaults in Anchorage and 600 statewide. She observed that in FY 99 her program saw 1000 victims of sexual assault. She stated that not everybody reports and not everybody gets exams done. Per capita, she added, Alaska ranks in the top five for sexual assaults which is 2.2 times over the national average in the FBI Uniform Crime Report. Number 2408 TRISHA GENTLE, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, testified in support of HB 270. She said that the council believes that the proposed CS needs to be on the record so that when those rare situations do arise, hospitals and police officers have clear direction not to charge sexual assault victims for the exam. She noted that in those cases when a victim wants an exam but the police do not think it is justified, the victim can get a medical exam. She explained that a forensic exam is a very specific process; in most parts of the state there are sexual assault response teams available to cooperate with police. She explained that sexual assault response teams are made up of trained nurses, examiners, and advocates who are able to meet with a victim. She acknowledged that there are times when a victim is not sure he/she wants to go through with a forensic exam, but he/she has health concerns so instead of going through a forensic exam he/she chooses to go to a doctor for a medical exam. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he understood that a medical exam choice on the part of a victim is a personal choice and would not be affected by the proposed CS. Number 2568 MS. GENTLE agreed with Representative Ogan's statement and added that the victim's exam would not be identified as a sexual assault exam. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented he is puzzled as to why hospitals are sending bills to victims when the exam has obviously been ordered by a local police department. Number 2591 MS. GENTLE answered that there have been changes in hospital protocol, and hospitals have chosen to separate some of the costs of sexual assault exams. Hospitals are adding sexually transmitted disease (STD) and blood tests to the cost of sexual assault exams, and the hospital makes a choice to bill the victim for those charges. Police departments are willing to pay for sexual assault exams, but it is an internal decision on the part of the hospital as to who pays the hospital bill. She indicated that there is an issue of insensitivity. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Ms. Gentle planned to notify the public, hospitals, and organizations that HB 270 has passed and become law. MS. GENTLE replied that her organization has many ways to implement public notice and does have a committee that has been working on sexual assault protocols. Number 2833 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to how many women refuse to go through the lengthy forensic process of proving sexual assault. MS. GENTLE answered that nationally about one in ten women choose to report a rape, and surveys of general population reveal that one in four women has been sexually abused in her lifetime. She emphasized how important the advocate's role is in helping women recover, and if a victim will call an advocate agency the victim will get support. She remarked that advocate agencies help a victim see what options are available and what the real picture is. She stated that the proposed CS helps make sexual assault as bearable as possible. She reiterated that a low percentage of women report a sexual assault, even fewer go to trial, and even fewer perpetrators are convicted. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if it were true that most sexual assault victims knew the perpetrator. Number 2960 MS. GENTLE replied in the affirmative but wanted to define what "known" means. There is a new term called "acquaintance rape," and that could mean a best friend's husband or real relationships where the man and woman know each other to an apartment building acquaintance. She noted that a distinct grooming behavior pattern is enacted to get into someone's confidence, although she acknowledged that intimate partner violence is one of the biggest crimes against women. TAPE 00-19, SIDE B Number 2967 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the proposed CS also applies to a male victim. MS. GENTLE replied absolutely. CHAIR JAMES noted that she had received information from an e- mail that listed ten things to protect against sexual assault. One of the protections was to be aware of what is happening around one, for example, not walking alone in a parking lot. Another protection is to keep the car and house locked, but the best protection was to be aware. MS. GENTLE mentioned that women's shelters are trying to help people understand the importance of awareness. She indicated that perpetrators are looking for vulnerable people. Number 2687 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move the proposed CS for HB 270, version 1-LS1108\M, Luckhaupt, 2/25/00, from committee with individual recommendations, the attached zero fiscal note, and ask for unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSSSHB 270(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. HB 317-STATE EMPLOYEE HIRE AND PROMOTION Number 2674 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 317, "An Act relating to recruitment, selection, appointment, and promotion of state employees and the duties of the Department of Administration concerning those and other related functions; and providing for an effective date." Number 2655 DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager, Division of Personnel, Department of Administration, presented the sponsor statement for HB 317. He said that HB 317 is a clean-up bill designed to refresh the Personnel Act with respect to the state's recruitment and selection process. He noted that for a long time the state has used a paper and labor intensive method for accepting and reviewing applications and preparing an eligible list for hiring managers in the state system. He explained that Workplace Alaska is an electronic system that allows job seekers to file a single electronic resume which is attached to vacancy announcements filed by hiring managers. He commented that the response time for both applicants and managers is virtually instantaneous. He mentioned that HB 317 changes references to "examination" and "registers" to "assessment" and "lists of qualified individuals." Number 2582 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that a bill was passed last year dealing with the point system. He asked if HB 317 was cleanup to conform with last year's bill. CHAIR JAMES replied that HB 317 is to streamline applications and review of applicants for state jobs. MR. STEWART agreed. He noted that Representative Ogan was referring to a bill that established a fixed point system for two categories of veterans. He explained that HB 317 changed the fixed point system to a percentage of total assessment. He commented that HB 317 maintains the same relationship but under the former examining system a veteran was awarded five or ten points to the total of the examination score. He mentioned that with the percentage system there is a variable assessment based on the vacancy and the criteria for that vacancy. Number 2501 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the new percentage system favors veterans. Number 2483 MR. STEWART replied that it was a "wash" for most of the veterans. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said that the state used to hire from registers. He asked if HB 317 conforms to the change to the electronic system; he presumes the employee unions were satisfied with that change. MR. STEWART answered in the affirmative. He noted that all of the collective bargaining units have referenced Workplace Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked when did the department do that. MR. STEWART replied that the last of the bargaining unit agreements were amended during the latest negotiations. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the bargaining unit agreements were amended during that last round of negotiations. Number 2396 MR. STEWART answered in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said then that HB 317 was the first change in the statutes to comport to the new system. MR. STEWART replied in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON inquired if HB 317 was necessary. MR. STEWART answered that it was necessary in that the references to "register" preclude the use of "hiring lists," and HB 317 allows the department to fully implement Workplace Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if there was any language in HB 317 that provides any governor with the power to expand the exempt and the partially exempt employees program without legislative approval. Number 2358 MR. STEWART replied that the exempt and partially exempt service is only defined in statute and requires legislative action to expand or change. Number 2353 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he had mentioned this because in reading through HB 317, he had seen some relationship to the exempt and partially exempt service. MR. STEWART answered that there is a reference in the statute to the use of eligible lists as part of partial exemption. He reiterated that an employee "can be" appointed to a partially exempt position without going through a register, but the statutory amendment changes that language so that an employee "does not have to be" appointed from a list of eligible candidates. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if exempt or partially exempt employees have rehire rights, or do they flow into the new system so that they are eligible to take a numerical position within that list in so far as the next opening is concerned. MR. STEWART replied that there is nothing in HB 317 that advantages that group. Number 2300 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he understood then that there is no change to exempt or partially exempt provisions. MR. STEWART answered in the affirmative. CHAIR JAMES asked where the amendment came from. MR. STEWART replied that the amendment came from the hearing with the House Special Committee on Military and Veteran's Affairs. CHAIR JAMES said she understood then that the amendment was just clean-up language of the amendment that was put in to Military and Veterans' Affairs legislation. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was anything in current statute that precludes the department from using this method [Workplace Alaska]. MR. STEWART answered that reference in statute to "registers" and "eligible lists" would limit the ability to enact regulations to fully operate Workplace Alaska because the department is not establishing master lists of Workplace Alaska. He said that the department is shifting from maintaining eligible lists to a vacancy-based recruitment system where the department only collects a list of applicants when a vacancy occurs and is going to be filled. Number 2181 MR. STEWART noted that use of the system [Workplace Alaska] allows people who are actually interested in the vacancy to apply and be considered by the hiring manager. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained that the state used to have provisions for people who qualified under minority hire. He asked if minority hire and underutilized was maintained in the new Workplace Alaska program. MS. STEWART replied in the affirmative and those candidates who are considered underutilized through specifics provided by the office of Equal Employment Opportunity are still marked as a requirement of consideration. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that some people were on 12 registers when the state maintained the register program and were blocking other people from getting jobs. Therefore, he stated that he believes HB 317 is the right way to go and it surprises him that it has taken this long to change the statutes to comply with the new procedure. Number 2079 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if HB 317 makes a major change in how people are hired as far as potential abuses on the part of administration are concerned. MR. STEWART answered that the fundamental change of HB 317 is that rather than being tied to a costly time and paper manual process, the state hiring process has now become electronic. He said that the competitive nature of hiring and the merit system are maintained. He noted that all of the hires in the classified system are still based on an applicant's measure against the minimum qualifications that are established through the classification system and the collective bargaining unit process. Number 1984 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said then that there is nothing to fear in HB 317 as far as nepotism or "who you know" system. MR. STEWART replied there was nothing to fear. CHAIR JAMES acknowledged that does not mean that there are not employees who are political appointees. Number 1933 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON offered Amendment 1, 1-GH2050\G.1, Cramer, 3/4/00, which read: Page 5, following line 12: Insert new bill sections to read: "*Sec. 5. AS 39.25.155(c) is amended to read: (c) Applicants shall be placed on [ELIGIBLE] lists for the vocational classification indicated in their applications [SUBMITTED TO THE DIVISION OF PERSONNEL IN THE ORDER OF THEIR RELATIVE RANKING] based on an assessment of their vocational [TECHNICAL] ability and [,] place of residence [AND WITHOUT WRITTEN EXAMINATION. APTITUDE OR OCCUPATIONAL TESTS MAY BE GIVEN IF A POSITION REQUIRES A SPECIFIC ABILITY]. *Sec. 6. AS 39.25.155(e) is amended to read: (e) The director of personnel shall embody a concept combined of vocational [TECHNICAL] ability, place of residence, local hire, and area unemployment in the personnel rules to accomplish the intent of this section." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 9, line 26: Delete "secs. 1-14" Insert "sec. 1-16" Page 9, line 27: Delete "Section 15" Insert "Section 17" Number 1915 CHAIR JAMES announced Amendment 1 is before the committee. She directed attention to line 12 and said that the repealer was repealed in the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs. She asked if there was any opposition to Amendment 1. Hearing no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1850 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move CSHB 317(MLV), version 1-GH2050\G, as amended out of committee with attached zero fiscal note, individual recommendations, and asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSHB 317(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. HB 299-PIONEERS HOME RATES Number 1808 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 299, "An Act relating to rates charged in a Pioneers' Home." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he introduced HB 299 because of rate increases at Pioneers' Homes. He noted that HB 299 will remove rate setting power from the administration and give that authority to the legislature. He explained he thinks this is necessary because many people had moved into a Pioneers' Home after having made a lifetime decision that entailed liquidating assets and moving out of their own homes. These people had expected to live out their days under a certain deal agreed upon with the Pioneers' Home, but that deal has changed dramatically. He mentioned that if rate setting is transferred to legislative overview, a consistent policy will emerge because legislators are held responsible for their public policy every two or four years. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated that Pioneers' Homes were set up originally to be homes for Alaskan pioneers, which is the reason for the name. He acknowledged that a number of court cases have ruled that people must be treated equally, therefore, the criteria for the original mission of Pioneers' Homes has dramatically changed to the extent that anyone can move in if that person is a resident of the state. He informed the committee that the court cases created a great demand for services [offered by the Pioneers' Homes], and there seems to be more people who suffer from different forms of dementia who are entering the homes. The focus and mission of Pioneers' Homes has changed from simply a residential facility into a long-term care facility. The change is appropriate; for this reason there needs to be discussion as to whether the Pioneers' Homes are going to remain residential. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN reminded the committee that the state should honor the agreement that was made with those people when they moved into Pioneers' Homes. He has seen their dignity taken away from them, even though many of them had never been on welfare and had provided for themselves their whole lives. As a result of the dramatic rise in rates, some people residing in the homes have literally had their dignity stripped from them. He stated that the legislature has passed legislation assuring Pioneers' Home residents that they will not be put out on the street if they become indigent, and he agrees with that legislation. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that he had heard comments from the Department of Law regarding different rates for Pioneers' Home residents even though that would not be treating them equally as current law requires. He suggested perhaps the committee should discuss whether the homes will continue to operate as residential facilities. He noted that residents who agreed upon a certain rate could be phased out by attrition because attrition may be legally acceptable; a shift in focus could then follow. He explained that a good example of attrition being legally acceptable is the longevity bonus program; although that also had been litigated on an equal protection basis, because it was going to be phased out it was legal to continue the program with those who already received a bonus. Number 1502 CHAIR JAMES commented that there is a $1.2 million fiscal note with HB 299. She asked if Representative Ogan would be willing to take that money out of the earnings reserve or the permanent fund. Number 1485 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN answered in the affirmative, as soon as the legislature constitutionally protects the existing dividend program. ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration, said that in 1995 the Pioneer Home Advisory Board adopted a policy of raising rates over a defined period of time to the full cost of care in the homes. Those rate increases started effective July 1, 1996, and the last one will be in place in July 1, 2002; over a seven-year period, the department moves from low rates to those that represent the full cost of care. She commented that the fiscal note for HB 299 includes the rate schedule. She mentioned that the administration had publicized rate schedule information so that everybody knew where the administration was headed. MS. ELGEE indicated that the reason the Pioneer Home Advisory Board felt it was important to raise rates is because in 1995 legislation had been introduced to privatize the homes, which were being reviewed primarily due to state budget problems. Also, she added, the state was heavily subsidizing a very few people in a long-term care environment. In addition, as the administration watched the senior population grow, it recognized that the state was never going to be able to meet the majority of the senior population's needs through the services that were offered in a Pioneers' Home. She informed the committee that the Alaska State Hospital & Nursing Home Association (ASHNHA) felt that there was a great unfair competitive advantage. She emphasized that ASHNHA felt that those people who had the good fortune to get into a pioneer home at highly subsidized rates were drawing from those folks who could benefit from skilled nursing care and would otherwise be taken care of in another long-term care facility. MS. ELGEE said that at the same time the rate policy was adopted, legislation was put in place that protected financial assets of [pioneer home] residents, thus removing the danger of impoverishing a spouse by pioneer home rates, retained certain monthly allowances, exempted the permanent fund from collection, placed a prohibition on reviewing financial resources for admission, and precluded putting a person on the street if unable to pay the rate. The department does not ask people about their financial resources until people get to the point where they feel they cannot continue to pay the rate. At that time the department performs an assessment of financial resources, determines an appropriate rate, and subsidizes the balance through the state. MS. ELGEE reminded the committee that HB 299 rolls rates back to the rates in effect July 1, 1999, but HB 299 does represent $1.2 million revenue loss from the administration's current environment. The administration anticipates that revenue loss would be increasing as rates increase until the pioneer home rate reaches full cost of care. She recognized that the administration is dependent upon the receipt of those revenues in its operating budget so the fiscal note shows the trade-off of the revenue collected from the Pioneers' Homes with general funds. Number 1201 CHAIR JAMES asked if the cost of maintaining a person in a Pioneers' Home is $10,000 per month. MS. ELGEE replied that the cost varies, depending on the level of care, and the rates are listed on the attachment to the fiscal note to HB 299. She said that the rates listed at the bottom labeled July 2002 represent the full cost of care. CHAIR JAMES asked where someone came up with $10,000. MS. ELGEE explained there is some confusion between what the Pioneers' Home charges and costs in other long-term care environments. She noted that there are nursing homes throughout the state that charge a variety of rates, and some are as high as $10,000 a month. CHAIR JAMES asked if the [fiscal note] included any capital expenditures. Number 1077 MS. ELGEE answered in the negative. She commented that if the administration were to add a depreciation component to the facility rates, they would definitely be higher than the rates listed on the fiscal note. She mentioned that depreciation itself is not going to take $6500 and drive it to $10,000. The $10,000 figure is a generalization based on averages found in the Alaska long-term care market. CHAIR JAMES said she understood that Ms. Elgee was talking about other nursing homes around the state. She asked if the state subsidizes other nursing homes in any way, and whether they are Medicaid-paid or totally private. MS. ELGEE replied that nursing homes are private for-profit and nonprofit organizations. She noted that residential makeup within a nursing home is running about 82 percent Medicaid clients. Therefore, she added, to the degree that the administration participates in the Medicaid program for long-term care, the administration gets a state match for federal dollars that are going to the nursing homes. She explained that financial protection put in place for Pioneers' Home residents was modeled after financial protections that are in place for the Medicaid program. People looking for state assistance through Medicaid or through Pioneers' Homes are treated comparably. Number 0962 CHAIR JAMES asked if there is a waiting list for people to get into the Pioneers' Homes. MS. ELGEE answered that the administration continues to maintain waiting lists, and it depends on location and level of care. She mentioned that Pioneers' Homes have vacant beds for residential level care identified on the rate list as coordinated services, but people are not interested in that level of care. Without additional staffing the department is unable to upgrade vacant beds to a higher level of care. She indicated that the most prevalent need on the waiting list is for enhanced assisted living or for special Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) services. CHAIR JAMES mentioned that she has been a strong advocate for eight years of privatizing the homes but has not yet figured out how to make it work. Number 0868 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the state still has a provision that allows people who cannot afford the cost of being in the home to remain in the home while the state covers all the expenses. MS. ELGEE answered in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked how many Pioneers' Home residents fit into the category of those who cannot afford to pay. MS. ELGEE replied that there are 220 people on state assistance, and that number can vary based on the population. She observed that does not mean people are not paying anything; people pay what they can afford to pay. For example, if the monthly charge is $2000 and the person can pay $1500, the person pays $1500. The state picks up the difference. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked where the subsidy is listed in the budget. Number 0778 MS. ELGEE answered that a portion of the Pioneers' Home budget is general funds, and a portion is Pioneers' Home revenue, so state assistance is listed in general funds. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked how many people pay the balance of Pioneers' Home revenue. MS. ELGEE replied about 350 people. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that HB 299 rolls back Pioneers' Home rates to 1998 rates. CHAIR JAMES said she thought that the legislature had fixed the problem by previous legislation. She commented that she sympathizes with and personally knows many of the folks who are going through this problem, and she understands their frustration. She noted that many seniors in the state are having a hard time figuring how to stay in their homes, and at the same time there are not enough assisted-living homes. She mentioned that assisted-living homes are less expensive than Pioneers' Homes, and if more people could be moved into assisted-living homes, the state would probably save a lot of money. Currently, she added, $34.50 per day is paid for "general relief medical folks," but there is legislation before the legislature to raise that to $75 per day. Number 0570 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked the prime sponsor how HB 299 allows for raising Pioneers' Home rates. He said he assumes that under HB 299 the homes cannot raise rates by regulation but must come to the legislature and propose raising rates. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied in the affirmative. He said the fiscal note assumes that HB 299 will take effect. He added that he had introduced HB 299 as a point of discussion and is willing to modify the bill. He noted that the department might want to make a policy call to stop providing coordinated services and basic assisted living and to shift the focus to enhanced [assisted living] and Alzheimer[-related services]. He stated that he believed that people suffering Alzheimer's [disease] should pay for services if they can pay, but the discussion needs to be started about what is going to happen; this is why he introduced HB 299. He is willing to sit down with the department and hold a discussion to see if something can be worked out to protect people who have already moved in and do not have other options. Some people simply do not have other options, the deal in the pioneer home changed on them, and he does not think it is fair. Number 0361 CHAIR JAMES reminded Representative Ogan that those people are guaranteed by law that they cannot be removed for lack of ability to pay, and she does understand that they like to pay their own way. Whether they run out of money or not, they are allowed money for personal use, and they are guaranteed permanence in the pioneer home, so she believes they are protected by language in statute. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN observed that the law does not protect their dignity. He noted these people have been self-sufficient all their lives, have never been dependent on anyone, and had moved into a situation that is no longer what they thought it would be because the deal has changed. Number 0254 CHAIR JAMES commented that Representative Ogan would have to find those people specifically and "grandfather" them into the system because she does not think it can be done by blanket legislation. She acknowledged that she thinks people could be "grandfathered in" but is not sure if the rate could be rolled back to when they first moved into the home. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated he would like to have a discussion with the department about "grandfathering in" those people while, at the same time, ensuring that people who move to a Pioneers' Home in the future understand that rates are going to rise. He again questioned the fairness regarding those who moved in with one understanding, only to have the deal change, although he agreed that rates need to rise appropriately so that the homes pay for themselves. Perhaps, he added, people could be "grandfathered in" to the two lower levels of services [coordinated services and basic assisted living] with the understanding that the Pioneers' Homes are getting out of the business of providing those particular services. Number 0113 CHAIR JAMES noted that people who moved to Pioneers' Homes after the law was changed already know what the deal is. She commented that it is great to provide services but the legislature has to figure how to pay for them. She explained that the contract people sign when they move into a Pioneers' Home does not preclude rate hikes, so this issue should have been addressed in past legislation. TAPE 00-20, SIDE A Number 0009 MS. ELGEE verified that Pioneers' Home contracts do not preclude rate hikes. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he has talked with people living in the Anchorage Pioneer Home and the complaint they have is that when they moved into the home it was a pioneer home. Then, over several years, the focus has changed to a dementia home to the extent that 85 percent of the people living there do suffer some form of dementia, which is obviously going to run costs up. He noted that the residential people feel that their cost has gone up in support of dementia patients and people who cannot pay. He asked Ms. Elgee whether, if the homes did not have dementia inhabitants, the coordinated services and the original intended use of the homes would be anywhere near as costly as is listed on the rate sheet. Number 0194 MS. ELGEE replied that costs would be the same because what the department has done, in terms of allocating costs to these various levels of care, is to review base costs such as housekeeping and food service, and to adjust rates appropriately to correspond to the kind of staffing needed at various care levels. Therefore, when reviewing the lowest level, coordinated services, no direct-care staff is represented in that rate. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he is concerned that there might be an additional need for a dietitian or someone specifically trained that would be calculated in to the base cost, which might not be necessary if it were not for the presence of dementia patients in the Pioneers' Homes. Number 0321 MS. ELGEE answered that the need for dietitians and services like that just come with the care and feeding of hundreds of people; it has nothing to do with dementia. She noted that physical therapy services are not represented in coordinated service rates since pioneer residents are Medicare-eligible and Medicare covers the cost of physical therapy when it is brought into the home to meet individual needs. She explained that medications are separate costs from the Pioneers' Home rate; therefore, things specific to physical and/or mental needs of an individual are not represented in the rates beyond the staffing requirements. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if he understood correctly that in six years the Department of Administration has gone from a significant supplemented cost of $900 to $2135. He commented that Ms. Elgee is saying that back when [the cost] was $900, those costs should have been about $1600 because there is no way that [the cost] could jump that high in the last six years unless the department was trying to pick up a supplemental payment. He asked if that was the reason [the costs] had gone up so high. Number 0451 MS. ELGEE replied that the rates were calculated based on the operating budget in fiscal year (FY) 1997. The rate effective in July of 1996 was a FY '97 cost. She noted that the department had reviewed what its operating budget (various levels of care) was that year and divided it out until reaching 2002. She explained that in the intervening years the operating budget had increased $1.5 million but the department has not adjusted these rates; they are still the same rates that were projected. The department has observed a shift in makeup of Pioneers' Home clientele in that there are more people at the higher levels of care. She mentioned that they are picking up that differential in terms of what the department proposed as an increase to the operating budget. She indicated that the $2135 represented in July of 2002 for coordinated services is what it actually cost the department in July 1996. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that in 1996 it was actually costing the department $2135. Therefore, he stated, he understands that Ms. Elgee is saying the department is paying a $1200 supplement. MS. ELGEE answered in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that the state was supplementing all of these costs in the range of $1000 per person. Number 0615 MS. ELGEE replied that in some cases the supplement was much more than that when reviewing the higher levels of care. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he had understood that the higher levels of care are taken care of by the differential. MS. ELGEE answered that Representative Green was correct. She said that if the committee reviewed what the department was charging in 1996 for the highest level of care versus the full cost of the highest level care, the supplement is much more than a couple of thousand dollars. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed and noted that the supplement was about $5000. He commented that the difference [in rate] has doubled for comprehensive services in 1996 and tripled in 1999. He asked if all of the difference between then and 2002 is supplemented by the state. MS. ELGEE replied in the affirmative. Number 0679 CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Elgee if it was correct that the department had to be authorized to bump up [the rate] for Pioneers' Home residents. She explained that the plan had been to get residents paying up to full cost within seven years. She noted that even then residents were not paying anywhere near full cost; therefore, the state had been supplementing the cost of the homes. She indicated that the decision had been to move residents up to full cost. She emphasized that the year 2000 is here and asked if the department is still "bumping up" to arrive at the full cost. She acknowledged that rates listed on the Pioneers' Homes rate history sheet are the charges for services, not full cost. MS. ELGEE answered that the numbers represented on the line labeled July 2002 are what the department is experiencing as full cost of care today. CHAIR JAMES reiterated that the department is still a couple of years behind reaching full-cost level. Number 0783 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that if the legislature abides by these estimates, the 2002 estimated costs will be even higher just because of inflation. He said he is concerned about a large shift toward additional care. He asked whether Pioneers' Homes should be renamed because he agrees with Representative Ogan regarding those people who are not suffering [dementia]. He agreed that the people had anticipated one thing, but that one thing has significantly changed. He asked if there should now be something that recognizes a dementia problem in the state. He emphasized that the legislature and the department should accept the problem and not hide behind the name of Pioneers' Homes. He noted that for him, a pioneers' home is for people who have been in the state for 25 years, for example, and are still fairly healthy. But because the legislature and the department are changing the scope of what is going on in the Pioneers' Homes, maybe a name change is appropriate. Number 0881 MS. ELGEE replied that about three years ago the Pioneer Home Advisory Board had heard this recommendation that perhaps there should be a name change for all the reasons that Representative Green has cited. She said that the Pioneer Home Advisory Board had forwarded that recommendation to Governor Knowles, and the reaction was that people wrote from throughout the state who thought that a name change was a very, very bad idea. Subsequently, the board withdrew its recommendation. MAREL HAKALA testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said that HB 299 is the first time in his memory that anything has been done to ease the hardships of residents of Pioneers' Homes since this administration came into power. He commented that he, along with many others, supports HB 299 because it is a move in the right direction. He explained that he does have a problem with a two-tier system and does not approve of it. He mentioned that anybody who enters the homes now or in the future should be covered by the state law. He indicated that HB 299 should be amended to read that all admittance, in the past, now, and in the future should be treated equally. He informed the committee that in making the homes into health care facilities, they will become full health care facilities with no initial residents. He emphasized that he would like to see the homes return to their original concept, where there was only one door to enter. He remarked that the one door was entry as a resident, and as the resident failed in health, the resident received care but it is not that way today. Now there are three doors by which to enter, and a big door is the Alzheimer dementia group. He stated that he felt that all money income from the mental health trust fund should go to the Pioneers' Homes to take care of these people, and he is sure then the rates for remaining residents would be reduced accordingly. Number 1152 IRENE PAYTON said that, as one of the people fortunate enough to be receiving dividends and the longevity bonus, she is very grateful for what the State of Alaska provides. She noted that the whole concept of raising rates came about because Alaska does not have the same amount of money that it had when it built the Pioneers' Homes. She explained that it seems to her that those who are receiving benefits are going to have to start to pay their way a little bit since there is talk about cutting the budget. She commented she is not sure why HB 299 is even needed since the state is paying for those people who cannot pay. Number 1245 CHAIR JAMES announced that she would close the meeting and the committee would discuss HB 299 at a later time. [HB 299 was held over.] ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:12 a.m.