How HB 628 came to be......
February 18, 2005
HEARING ON HB 628
Sponsor: REPRESENTATIVE PAUL CLARK, HD 13, Trout Creek
Opening Statement by Sponsor:
REP. CLARK opened the hearing on HB 628, and reported that Northwestern Montana is the home for many alternative adolescent residential schools, programs and outdoor wilderness programs. He was the founder of his program, Galena Ridge, which is one of the outdoor wilderness programs. He worked with at-risk kids. The bill was really a business bill and did not pertain to education. The bill would create a board, and the board would develop rules for registration of alternative adolescent programs. The board would look into the possibility of licensure, should the program go in that direction. He was not in a business that takes any money from the state. They are in a business where the state taxes them, where they have employees, and they are in a growing business.
Many of the kids in his program came from out of state. He did not work with kids that had been referred to him by the State of Montana or payed for by the State. The estimated annual revenues coming into Montana from the out-of-state programs had increased to about $40 million. They have programs serving between 800 and 1,000 students and most of them are from out of state and are voluntarily sent to the programs by their parents because their parents and the family system are in family crisis. He works with kids that are typically chemically dependent or at least have a long history of substance abuse. The kids may have had problems with the law or be on the verge of that kind of trouble. He would like to see a board established so that programs can proceed toward getting a better understanding of how they can work, some self-regulation (not to keep new programs from coming to Montana) and to make sure that the programs in Montana are of high quality. He would not have been before the committee if the programs were not being pursued for regulation by the Department of Public Health and Human Services(DPHHS). He felt they were functioning fine being unregulated. He did not feel all the programs in Montana could be bunched together in a basket under the umbrella of DPHHS. He was before the committee asking for the opportunity to regulate their programs themselves in a responsible and accountable way and a way that would NOT COST THE STATE MONEY. He wanted it done in a way that would maintain the programs' independence, and where the programs pay their own expenses and pay the Department of Labor and Industry for their expenses that are directed toward their process. He walked the committee through the bill.
EXHIBIT(edh40a06)
Proponents' Testimony:
SEN. JIM ELLIOT rose in support of the bill because the schools were in his district and he had attended the meeting to attest to the character and the integrity of the people who run the programs addressed in the bill. The most important thing that he had seen as an outsider was the way the kids came to the program and the way they left it. What he had seen in the programs was, to the largest extent possible, good. He informed the committee that they were seeing a group of people with a willingness to come together as a profession with many facets and to work together to achieve a framework of regulation that is appropriate for the many facets of the profession and suitable to the profession.
John Santa, Co-founder of Montana Academy of Co-educational Therapeutic Boarding School in Lost Prairie, Montana, rose in support of the bill. They have 80 students and 65 well-trained members on their staff. The students need environments that are nurturing, structured, and will contain them and allow them to grow up and mature enough to become productive adults. He believed the leaders of the programs could come together and create appropriate standards that are far superior to being dictated to from outside sources.
Christina Johnson rose in support of the bill and presented written testimony.
EXHIBIT(edh40a07)
{Tape: 2; Side: A; Approx. Time Counter: 0 - 25.7}
Matt Ihrig, enrolled in Spring Creek Lodge Academy, testified that the program had helped him earn his high school diploma, gain self confidence, morals, goals, and confidence and self-esteem.
Penny James, Trout Creek, testified that she and her husband own one of the programs being discussed. When she thought of being regulated by an outside entity, in an industry and profession such as theirs, it was difficult for her. She desired to be part of a board and be able to speak to the things that they already had been researching and working on.
Brandee Dellasilva was enrolled at Spring Creek for twelve months. She graduated the program eight months ago and since then she has earned scholarships for college and has traveled around the state talking to students about drugs. Spring Creek program had changed her life around.
Randy Lovel, Physician, had been to treatment in 1993. He introduced his daughter who was a graduate of Spring Creek.
{Tape: 2; Side: A; Approx. Time Counter: 25.7 - 30}
{Tape: 2; Side: B}
Renel Hanson, Monarch School, reported that she represented about 65 students and 40 staff members. She informed the committee that she and her colleagues were very passionate about what they do.
Elizabeth Kleg, Chrysalis resident, testified that before arriving at Chrysalis her life was unmanageable from the time she was twelve years old and coming to Chrysalis was a rebirth for her and her family.
Rachel Berlin-Allaire reported that she had lived at Chrysalis for two years. Before arriving there, she had been making very poor decisions and her parents decided to send her to Chrysalis. She had learned to love herself and in doing so had gained values and morals.
Liz Gochnauer, Carroll College student, testified that she had graduated from the Chrysalis program about six months ago. At fifteen she had been expelled from high school and her parents sent her away. Her life is changed and she is earning A's in college. She never dreamed she could do that.
Time had run out for the proponents. They were asked to come to the podium and state their names.
Laurel Jones presented written testimony.
EXHIBIT(edh40a08)
Ramsey Riddell,Emily Lovell,Kenny Pannell,Jay Whitacre,Sara Bowles,Angele Anjaliplainfield,
Mickey Manning,Ali Turner,Laurie Worth,Darya Brutoco,Mary Alexine,Rick Reed,James Kraus,Carol Santa,Ron Mendenhall,Jacqueline Rutzke,Jerry Bottorff
Jean Windham presented written testimony from Pinehaven Christian School as they were not able to attend the hearing.
EXHIBIT(edh40a09)
Dana Tash,Mike Chism,Wade Boteler,Charlie Speicher,Amanda Locket,Teran Adams,Alex Banker,Sarah Musante,Heather Pruett,Norman Kahn,
Steffani White,Vickie Horton,Elizabeth Ebberhard,
Kaitlan Lennen,Hillary Carter-liggett,Rick Wedell
EXHIBIT(edh40a10)
{Tape: 2; Side: B; Approx. Time Counter: 0 - 13.2}
Opponents' Testimony:
Kimberly Gardner, Administrator of Alternative Youth Adventures, Boulder, rose in opposition to the bill. She presented written testimony and written opposition testimony from Gerald Robert Byrd; M. Angela Johnson, LCPC, NCC, EAPI; John J. Madsen, MSW; and Linda Fowler, MSW, LCSW.
EXHIBIT(edh40a11)
EXHIBIT(edh40a12)
EXHIBIT(edh40a13)
EXHIBIT(edh40a14)
EXHIBIT(edh40a15)
EXHIBIT(edh40a16)
John Clymer testified that he had worked with children for a number of years and his greatest concern was the protection of children. He recognized that the bill addressed a very difficult issue in the state. He believed there were 36 programs across the state that would be part of the bill. He informed the committee that sometimes the children receive the promised help, but others don't receive it and may even receive harsh treatment. He believed it was the responsibility of the State of Montana to regulate the facilities. The bill recognized that there is a concern but he didn't believe the bill would meet the needs of the programs. He pointed out the weaknesses in the bill. He was very worried about how the facilities handle the mental health issues when they are not Regulated. Another weakness he saw was no governmental involvement in the board that was to be created.
{Tape: 2; Side: B; Approx. Time Counter: 13.2 - 30}
{Tape: 3; Side: A}
SEN. TRUDY SCHMIDT, SD 11, Great Falls, testified that she had sponsored a bill in the Senate that addressed some of the same kinds of issues as the present house bill. She was sorry the committee would hear a bill of such magnitude so late in the session. She believed that the programs discussed in the house bill should be under the direction of DPHHS.
Mary Dalton, Department of Public Health and Human Services, Division of Quality Assurance, presented written testimony.
EXHIBIT(edh40a17)
Informational Testimony:
Bud Williams, Office of Public Instruction, presented his written testimony at the end of the hearing.
Lisa Addington, Health Care Chief of Department of Labor, offered information as to how SB 101 would be administered by DPHHS in comparison to the bill the committee was hearing which would be overseen by a board.
Questions from Committee Members and Responses:
REP. GALVIN-HALCRO explained to the committee why Education was hearing the bill instead of the Business and Labor Committee. That committee could not fit it into their schedule and it was felt that the Education Committee could make time to hear it.
REP. SALES informed the committee that he did not like regulation and wondered why the SPONSOR had brought the bill to the session.
REP. CLARK testified that they could see regulations coming and they wanted to be pro-active.
REP. WINDHAM asked SEN. ELLIOT if the issues in the two bills might be a subject for an interim study. The Senate bill was offered as an exhibit. SEN. ELLIOT was in favor of HB 628 although he knew the Senate bill was at the request of DPHHS.
EXHIBIT(edh40a18)
REP. KOOPMAN requested information from the SPONSOR. He pondered how the programs could succeed the proposed regulation without state government regulations. He didn't understand why the bill was proposed when the programs had functioned so well without any government regulations. He also wondered if there was anything stopping the groups to do what the bill proposed without any legislation. REP. CLARK testified that the programs desired to be self-policing and self-regulatory in nature. They brought the legislation because they knew there were individuals seeking legislation to regulate them under DPHHS.
REP. ANDERSEN asked the SPONSOR about Page 2, Section 3. She was curious about what the new board would do with all the requested information. REP. CLARK reported that the authors of the bill were looking to get a sense of standards to regulate the programs and use the information to present to the legislature. REP. ANDERSEN asked him if all of the schools or programs that he was aware of would be included in the gathering of the information requested in the bill. REP. CLARK informed her that not all of the programs he knew of would fit in the definition of the programs in the bill.
REP. GALVIN-HALCRO informed REP. CLARK that she did not see a definition in the bill for a wilderness program and wondered why it wasn't there. REP. CLARK assured her that the definitions in the bill included wilderness programs. REP. GALVIN-HALCRO asked the SPONSOR if any of the programs he knew of received Average Number Belonging (ANB) monies from OPI. REP. CLARK informed her that he did not know of a program that received state money.
REP. GALVIN-HALCRO asked the SPONSOR if he would keep records and report to the next session the information that had been discussed during the hearing. She asked that the information include any problems or accidents that occurred in the two years. REP. CLARK assured her that he could do that.
REP. BUTCHER explained to the SPONSOR that he believed on Page 1, Line 13, where it discussed the board make-up, the programs involved should make up a list of nominees for the board positions just as other groups under the direction of boards make recommendations to the governor for his selection. REP. CLARK informed him the programs would be comfortable with that procedure.
REP. WINDHAM also required information from the SPONSOR. She felt it was very important that the board discussed in the bill had legitimacy. She questioned the governor appointing two members from the general public. REP. CLARK was sure the appointments would be made appropriately.
Closing by Sponsor:
REP. CLARK asserted that the criticism from OPI and DPHHS did not apply to the programs he had seen in operation. He was firm in his belief that the programs could regulate themselves as they had been operating for a number of years. He took exception to the opposition testimony as he had information about the programs that were in conflict to what had been said.
EXECUTIVE ACTION ON HB 628
Motion: REP. WINDHAM moved that HB 628 DO PASS.
Motion/Vote: REP. WINDHAM moved that HB 628 BE AMENDED. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. REPS. LAKE and SONJU voted by proxy.
EXHIBIT(edh40a19)
Motion/Vote: REP. WINDHAM moved a CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE ON THE BILL. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. REPS. LAKE and SONJU voted by proxy.
Motion: REP. WINDHAM moved that HB 628 DO PASS AS AMENDED.
Discussion:
REP. BUTCHER spoke in favor of the bill as he felt the programs should be left alone but he realized they felt bureaucracy ascending down on them to engulf them into their nets of regulation. He was familiar with several programs that had not attended the hearing and had observed very closely their operations and he was very intrigued with them. He wished to allow the programs to remain independent and create their programs to meet the needs of troubled Children.
REP. SALES reported that he hoped the Senate bill would be defeated and HB 628 would pass out of both houses. He would be supporting the bill.
REP. ANDERSEN testified that she would support the bill and she reported that she was very impressed with the poise and maturity of the students she was able to visit with. She wished to thank the students for giving her the opportunity to spend time with them.
REP. WINDHAM reported that she felt the bill represented the understanding that the government is not going to go away. The programs are being pro-active and they do want to be responsible and accountable. She believed that peer review is a wonderful way of control. She commented that the programs are PRIVATE INDUSTRY at its best.
REP. GALVIN-HALCRO said she was not going to support the bill in committee because she was concerned about the "bad apples out there" that the committee had not heard about. She didn't see the bill addressing them. She planned to visit with the SPONSOR and do what she could to have her concerns met.
Vote: Motion that HB 628 DO PASS AS AMENDED carried 13-3 by roll call vote with REPS. GALVIN-HALCRO, REP. KOOPMAN, and REP. MCKENNEY voting no. REPS. LAKE, RASER, and SONJU voted by proxy.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:MjQI ... tana&hl=enMarch 10, 2005
HEARING ON HB 628
Opening Statement by Sponsor:
REP. PAUL CLARK, HD 13, Trout Creek, opened the hearing on HB 628, a bill requiring registration and board duties for certain alternative schools and programs. It would establish a self-funded board of private, alternative, adolescent, residential programs, and it is the first attempt by the State of Montana to regulate these schools. The schools did not want to be on the defensive regarding regulation, so therefore, they pro-actively came forth with HB 628. The programs would pay fees to pay for this oversight board. All programs would be registered through the board, and the board would report to the legislature on the need for any additional regulation. :skull:
{Tape: 2; Side: B; Approx. Time Counter: 0 - 2}
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:l8 ... tana&hl=en