Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Closed. Still ways and means. We are picking back up h nine thirty seven with one of the reporters of the bill, representative Donahue. We had a bunch we heard a walk through of the bill. We heard the fiscal impact of the bill. But people had a lot of questions that were sort of a little outside of our jurisdiction. And so I thought maybe you could answer some of them for us. Sure. Yeah. So maybe we can start with you, Mark. Yeah, sure.
[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: So I had a question to section four in regards, you know, it listed out all the definitions of unaccompanied youth, and then it goes on to talk about what they qualify I guess two things. Number one, a lot of those things that they qualify for are within an age group that's below 16. So is there an age bracket for this? And then I guess the second question is, to me, a lot of this, it talks about how that individual will be, could on their own, my understanding is seek out some of this, whether it's healthcare stuff or whatever. Guess, again, an age issue for me is pretty concerning.
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: Sure. This is specifically for 16 and 17 year olds. This is a model actually that I guess about 33 other states have. This particular one was pretty much lifted, then we made some amendments, but pretty much lifted from the Florida law that's in effect now. And it addresses kids who are on the street, who are homeless, and who The obstacle to them getting any kind of help is the fact that virtually everything in society, you have to have an adult consenting. And so without consent, they can't rent an apartment, they can't actually even be admitted for some youth programs, things like that, medical care, all of those different things, they can't access it all. And so by getting this certification from an adult in a I don't know what the term is, it's not a social worker, but somebody in that position who works with kids and knows the background, that person certifies. And then that simply becomes an alternative to an adult's consent. It doesn't do anything in terms of, well, you still have to pay rent. A landlord can still say, I'm not going to rent to you because I don't see evidence that you have enough income to pay this rent. But it substitutes for having the signature of an 18 year old or above for it.
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And for younger youth, my understanding is that they would be in foster care and then there would be an adult who would be able to sign for them?
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: If they were in foster care. There are younger kids. I think the feeling was some reticence about some states go younger, 14, even 13. We felt that 16 and 17 was the bulk of the kids in that position, and 15 and younger are more likely to some of these kids, they have their problems with the family. We used to, in the program I used to work for, they used to be called throwaways sometimes. But it's not the type of thing that our Department of Children and Families is going to open a case and put them in foster care. That's not an avenue open to them either. Younger kids are much more likely to get a foster care push. You.
[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Does anyone else have any questions for representative Gallagher? Yep.
[Rep. Carol Ode (Member)]: Question about how the SSI and other social security payments are now going to DCF. I love the changes that you've made, but I want to know why DCF seems very busy, all the things they're doing. And I want to know whether you considered having to go directly to
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: That's a really good question, and that's why I wish the person who's the expert on this part of the bill, where here, she's right now in judiciary because it's her part of the bill that's also got the legal parts. I think that I'm trying to think. I know I heard that there were reasons. I think that it's more in the scope of what they do because they are the, what's the term, representative payee. So if they're already in that position
[Rep. Carol Ode (Member)]: and they already have the relationship with I just wondered if they could just change that representative payee. I'm just concerned that like the way funds have been used to date, so I'm thinking, let's not have to go to that payee now.
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: Yeah, but the bill would make it clear what they had to do with the money.
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I got it. And I guess, from your testimony, I'm wondering, Representative Payne is not a social worker position, but there is some degree of deep interpersonal stuff that has to happen with someone who knows that person and knows what their And expenses are my understanding is there aren't staff at the treasurer's office who do that kind of work, but there are staff at DCF who regularly do that kind of work.
[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Okay. And
[Rep. Carol Ode (Member)]: then second question I have is about, you've listed, Bill's listed a number of updates that these youth will be able to access. And one of them is a car and then car insurance and renting an apartment. And I just wondered about other insurance products, whether you discussed that, like having renters insurance on their possessions, having life insurance. That I was really only thinking about, the renter insurance, but then I thought, well, for insurance purposes, did you discuss insurance generally?
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: We did not discuss it on a broader level. We really thought because there were a number of other states with these programs already, it made sense to start with what they found as as important for kids trying to make it on their own can always be expanded, but that seemed, like, the best way to start. Thanks.
[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: And I was wondering about the limitation, the asset test for reach up. Eliminating it altogether instead of Did you consider increasing the limit as an alternative to that?
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: We did. We discussed that. The biggest problem actually with the asset limit currently is the volume of staff work it takes to have to go out and count everything, add everything. And in fact, it doesn't happen that somebody has that kind of money in a bank account and is applying for reach up. There's still an asset test for what you're making. There's an income test. And what you get on Reach Up is not even sustainable for living. You're not going to given the income limit and what you get from it, you're not going to trade that off and not spend all that money in your bank account. It's not there.
[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: I guess I'm just confused over why there's a fiscal impact of eliminating that then. Yeah. It's all
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: I didn't I apologize. I didn't see the fiscal note. I would not think that there would be a a fiscal impact because what we've heard from the testimony and so forth is that this is not something where all of the hours and hours of staff work creates a savings by people not being eligible to enroll.
[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Any other questions? Yeah.
[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Maybe you can answer at this point. We understand the the situation. Was your committee are you satisfied that that is being handled so that we don't need to ask further questions about that? The the treasurer's office will handle these things as they should?
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: The SSI piece? I think we were confident. We heard from yeah.
[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: That's that's my question. Thank you. Past and answer. Thank you.
[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Just real quick, to representative Ode's concern about DCF and the representative payee, there's also a process, is that a yearly process by the courts looking at that?
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: Yes, there is.
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Any other questions, Representative Ode? Thank you. Thank you very much for popping up here. Really appreciate it.
[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Does anyone need anything else before we move to the question?
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: I'm sorry. No, I caught my toe there. Oh, there's a miscellaneous
[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: don't understand.
[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Think that's what it caught.
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: What is this?
[Rep. Carol Ode (Member)]: Departation from my head.
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: By section of miscellaneous.
[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Oh, not the big bill
[Rep. Carol Ode (Member)]: for that.
[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: So does anyone need anything else? Okay, so what do we do next then? A motion?
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Nope, need an actual motion.
[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Yeah. Yes. I move that we put this bill forward favorably, I guess it's as we receive isn't it, 1960?
[Rep. Carol Ode (Member)]: Representative Hitch, can you make a motion?
[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Oh, sure. I make a motion that we move forward on. Page
[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: 37. Oh
[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: gosh, so sorry. Who would
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: let me be in charge? Great, thank you. Reverend of Edward Page moves that we find six fifty seven favorable. Representative Masland seconds. Any discussion?
[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Seeing none, make the court the please call the roll. Representative Branagan is absent. I'll vote yes as Representative Burkhardt. Representative Higley? Yes. Representative Holcombe? Yes. Representative Kimbell?
[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Yes.
[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Masland? Yes. Representative Ode? Representative Page? Yes. Representative Lamoille? Yes. Canfield?
[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Yes.
[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: And Representative Kornheiser? Yes. We have quoted H657 favorable, ten-one. Thank you, everyone. Representative Waszazak is gonna report this. Cool. And next up,
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: we are hearing from representative Stone about an amendment to h nine seventeen.
[Rep. Kathryn Stone (Gov’t Operations & Military Affairs)]: For the record, representative Kathryn Stone, House of Government Operations and Military Affairs, we the well, all of the members who were present this morning for house government operations military affairs, that's everyone but representative Cooper of Randolph, offered this amendment and it's to strike out section forty and forty one, which were the two sections regarding the definition of Gold Star family member. The original language was to include Star to include people who had a service connected related death that would that would allow them to be defined as a Gold Star family member. But after the bill was voted out of our committee, conversations emerged from people who had differing opinions about that. I'm not here to debate that. We're not gonna debate it on the floor if this amendment passes, because it's a really delicate and sensitive issue that I think requires more time and intentional conversation, particularly with people who are Gold Star family members themselves to sort out how they feel we should proceed. So for that reason, that's all this is, just to strike the language because we're not gonna have that conversation today. Definitely not on the floor if this passes, that's my hope. The conversation will continue, but we just don't feel it's appropriate to have it today in a rushed manner on the floor.
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: Can you
[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: name those sections again?
[Rep. Kathryn Stone (Gov’t Operations & Military Affairs)]: It is sections forty and forty one. Forty and forty one, just anything related to this topic, we're just nipping it in the bud for today. We're not going to
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: talk about it. Representative.
[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Yes. So this section remains
[Rep. Kathryn Stone (Gov’t Operations & Military Affairs)]: as it's ripped out in its entirety. So we will not be mentioning gold star period. It's just going to be a bill that talks about parking, a bill that talks about spouses and a bill that talks about actually reflecting that we're electing an adjutant general, not an adjutant and inspector general, because that's a fake title that's antiquated and needs to be changed. That's what this bill will be.
[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Any more? Just to clarify, the thought is to have a thoughtful conversation and maybe address this in the center of the business. At different times, I
[Rep. Kathryn Stone (Gov’t Operations & Military Affairs)]: mean, just not here, not now, and it doesn't need to be even something I feel that I wanna talk about at this table right now, because it's not my discussion to have. Think impacted peoples should be having the conversation, not us on the house floor right now. So it'll be up to them. That's the hope is it'll be up to them as far as how they wanna proceed. Does it happen in the Senate? Does it happen this year? Does it happen next year? Does it happen never? It'll be up to them. I don't think it's our place.
[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Well, again,
[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Section 40 remains the same.
[Rep. Kathryn Stone (Gov’t Operations & Military Affairs)]: Is striking it out. Section forty and forty one would be No unified
[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: license plates at all?
[Rep. Kathryn Stone (Gov’t Operations & Military Affairs)]: No, forty and forty one would be gone. Period.
[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: The existing license plates remain as
[Rep. Kathryn Stone (Gov’t Operations & Military Affairs)]: Oh, yeah, sorry. For way the gold star
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: of the next Right.
[Rep. Kathryn Stone (Gov’t Operations & Military Affairs)]: But tweaking it, changing it, that conversation will be over for now.
[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Anyone else? Thank you for your time. Yeah, thanks. Let
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: us do a straw poll on that.
[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: All those in favor? All those opposed? Great. Send 01. And
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Bill reporter)]: do we have anything, that one?
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Great, see everyone tomorrow. That
[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: amendment, I don't have anything
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: to do with not really.
[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Because it's not a physical issue.
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So we'll see everyone tomorrow morning at nine. And please do pay attention to each other on the floor and your phones just in case something comes up at