Joint Sunset Committee Meeting
Carvel State Office Building, 11th Floor
Judges Chambers Conference Room
Monday, May 9, 2005
Minutes
______
JSC and Staff: Senator Marshall, Chair; Senator Copeland; Senator Sokola; Rep. Hudson; Rep. Mulrooney; Rep. Valihura; Rep. Viola; Debbie Puzzo, JSC Analyst; Ted Segletes, Div. of Research attorney and Judi Abbott, secretary, Division of Research.
Absent: Rep. Oberle, Co-Chair; Senator Bonini and Senator Peterson
Public in attendance: John Flaherty, Common Cause of Delaware; Tom McGonigle; Kim Gomes, Wood Byrd; Larry Lewis, DOJ; Donald Farrell, APRI; Joanne Hasse, public member HRB; Phyllis Sheppard, Chair – DHRB; Peter Jennings, Board of Architects; Martha Dennison, Civic League New Castle; Kate House-Layton, Delaware State News; and Karen Hartley-Nagle, The Nagle Foundation.
AGENDA
I. Discussion: Recommendations
Criminal Justice Council
Delaware Health Resources Board
Division of Child Support Enforcement
II. Other Business
III. Next JSC meeting
IV. Adjournment
Sen. Marshall called the meeting to order at 1:10 pm.
Sen. Marshall stated that the purpose of this meeting is to review preliminary recommendations prepared by JSC staff as a result of fact finding through public hearings, public comments and review of the information provided by each entity under review.
Sen. Marshall stated that the next meeting of the JSC will be held on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 1:00 in the Senate Hearing Room, Legislative Hall. The Delaware Solid Waste Authority will make a brief presentation to the JSC regarding their path forward since last year. Following the presentation, the JSC members will have the opportunity to ask questions.
Sen. Marshall stated that JSC members will be receiving a report prepared by JSC staff regarding pending legislative and non-legislative issues.
Rep. Valihura moved to accept the minutes from the April 26, 2005, JSC Organizational Meeting. Motioned seconded by Rep. Hudson. There was a voice vote. Motion carried unanimously.
I. Discussion: Recommendations - Criminal Justice Council
At the Request of Sen. Marshall, Ms. Puzzo provided the following preliminary findings:
1. Redefine the statutory purpose
Discussion: There is no statutory purpose for the Criminal Justice Council. When the Council on the Administration of Justice merged with DE Criminal Justice Planning Commission to create the CJC, the statutory purpose language was omitted from the Code. Ms. Puzzo will get a copy of the CJC’s mission statement and work with the CJC to draft a statutory purpose.
2. Submit legislative packets to the General Assembly
Discussion: CJC should be proactive rather than reactive. CJC should act as a filter to consolidate, coordinate and distribute legislation from the related agencies. The CJC could provide commentary regarding each bill.
Rep. Valihura stated that the CJC is required by statute to provide the General Assembly with a legislative packet. They need to understand that this is a process that they need to put in place.
Sen. Marshall stated that the CJC has been involved in grant writing. He asked whether the grants/dollars are being appropriated statewide. Sen. Marshalll suggested that along with a legislative packet, the CJC also provide the General Assembly with a report on the distribution of funds to see if the funds are balanced statewide.
Rep. Hudson suggested that the CJC provide the General Assembly with quarterly reports.
Rep. Valihura stated that he wants the CJC to report back to the General Assembly by September 30 regarding their progress in achieving the JSC recommendations.
3. Add a representative from the Delaware Department of Technology (DTI) to CJC or have DTI act in some advisory capacity .
Discussion: DTI’s involvement with the CJC would be helpful in terms of long term technology planning.
Sen. Copeland stated that at some point all systems will need to be linked. It is always good to get technology information early rather than later.
Senator Sokola asked whether DTI is involved with DELJIS.
Ms. Puzzo was directed to contact the Governor’s office, Mr. Jarrett the Chief Information Officer at DTI and the Executive Director of DELJIS.
4. Provide term limits for the public members of the Council
Discussion: “Four at-large members who shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor.”
Mr. McGonigle stated that he is a public member of CJC. He was appointed by the Governor and believes that the public members are appointed to serve staggered terms.
Ms. Puzzo was directed to contact the Governor’s office regarding this issue.
5. Add the term “or his/her designee” after each appointment
Discussion: This is a practical recommendation that allows for the appointed person to designate a representative.
6. Reduce the number of meetings (8) a year - Currently 8 meetings required by statute –Discussion: The Exec. Director stated it is difficult to hold 8 meetings a year – the CJC does hold a 2 day annual retreat. There are hundreds of subcommittee meetings a year.
It was suggested that the number of meetings be changed to 4 times a year. Ms. Puzzo was directed to speak with the Executive Director of the CJC.
7. Develop Rules of Procedures for conducting subcommittee business
Discussion: The Executive Director stated that the CJC does not have a standard operating procedure for all subcommittees.
Rep. Hudson stated that she was concerned that there were no rules concerning quorums and conflicts of interest at the subcommittee level.
Ms. Puzzo was directed to work with the CJC to develop rules and procedures for subcommittees and inquire about the procedure for public notice of subcommittee meetings.
8. Create the position of Deputy Director -
Discussion: At the public hearing Daniel Cox, Deputy Secretary of Dept. of Safety and Homeland Security, who has a 25 year affiliation with the CJC, suggested that the position of Deputy Director be created to monitor and oversee the financial aspects of the CJC.
Sen. Copeland stated that the draft report reflects that there are two unfilled positions (Administrative Specialist III, PG9 and Administrative Specialist I, PG7 80% General Fund).
Sen. Sokola commented that perhaps the funding for these positions could be combined and the position could be reclassified to create a Deputy Director position.
Ms. Puzzo was directed to speak with the Executive Director of the JSC in regard to creating the Deputy Director position.
9. Additional Conclusions from the Draft Report
Grant Management.
· Reverted Sub-Grants (Report page 19). There is no Council oversight of reverted sub-grants that are $15,000 or less.
Rep. Valihura asked whether JSC wanted staff to be able to appropriate funds. He recommended that all money shall be distributed by recommendation of the CJC or a subcommittee thereof.
· Evaluations (Report pages 20 & 21). More frequent evaluations would be useful for determining the impact of the CJC funded programs on the criminal justice system. This especially holds true for programs receiving 3 to 4 years of grant funding. Evaluations could be feasible because 1) most federal block grants set aside a certain percentage of funds that are to be used for grant administration, including evaluations; 2) CJC staff, according to their job descriptions must have prior experience with program evaluations; and 3) data availability should not be a problem since the CJC by law has the authority to collect data from grant recipients.
Discussion: At the public hearing, the Executive Director stated they currently monitor all contracts quarterly and provide the U.S. DOJ with quarterly reports. He agrees with the above comment from the report that it would be nice to do impact evaluations but they are expensive. The CJC has been audited by the DOJ on a regular basis.
Discussion regarding need for evaluation to determine if money awarded led to results.
Sen. Marshall opened the meeting for public comment:
Public Comment: Joann Hasse, citizen, asked whether there is a requirement in the rules that all subcommittee members be notified of meeting dates.
Hearing no further questions or comments regarding the CJC, Sen. Marshall proceeded to discussion regarding the Delaware Health Resources Board.
Discussion: Recommendations - Delaware Health Resources Board (DHRB or the Board)
Rep. Valihura stated that it may be appropriate to address the issues regarding this Board in a broad manner, as JSC needs to determine whether to reform and continue the Board or repeal the Board.
Sen. Marshall feels the Board has performed in a positive manner. He has requested additional research regarding the Veteran’s Home application.
Rep. Valihura stated that there is no question the Board has done a good job – however he believes this Board is no longer needed to keep down the costs of health care. Can this function be performed by staff at Division of Public Health?
Rep. Valihura stated that the competitive/anti competitive faction of this Board troubles him. This is not in the best interest of consumers. Competition is generally good.
Rep. Valihura sees some negative consequences in continuing the Board, in that it may keep people from competing in this area. This is not a regulated industry – it is regulated by those who get a license. The Board can be used as a mechanism to keep competition out.
Sen. Marshall believes that in the healthcare arena there is a need for more accountability and scrutiny. There is also the benefit of allowing the market to drive competition - but if it is too open and free without regulation – the process can be allowed to become too large.
Phyllis Sheppard, Chair-DHRB, stated that during the last sunset review, the Board asked the JSC to remove the sunset provision, however, the Board was extended with a three year sunset date.
The following are preliminary findings made by JSC staff regarding the Delaware Health Resources Board:
1. Create enabling legislation regarding Charity Care
Discussion: This was a request made at the April 29th public hearing by Phyllis Sheppard, Board Chair.
Ms. Sheppard stated that currently the DHRB is the only organization that requires free standing facilities to provide charity care. The current percentage of care that is required is 2.75% of total revenue. Auditing firms submit reports annually to the DHRB.
Ms. Sheppard stated that if a facility does not reach 2.75% in the first year, they can try and catch up over the next three years. At the end of the three years – the percentage of charity care must average 2.75%.
Currently, the DHRB does not have a mechanism for enforcing the charity care policy.
Rep. Mulrooney asked what would happen if a facility did not meet the required percentage. Ms. Sheppard replied that the facility would have to pay and that money would go to the General Fund.
Ms. Sheppard stated that the Charity Care Task Force is considering lowering the percentage.
Rep. Valihura said that if the JSC decides to keep the DHRB, the DHRB needs to be given some leverage to enforce the charity care policy, otherwise, companies will “skim the cream” and take the good work and not give anything back to the community.
Rep. Valihura also suggested not putting a fixed number in the legislation in regard to the percentage. Ms. Sheppard stated that the JSC can contact the Charity Care Task Force in regard to a formula for establishing the number.
2. Replace the designation to appoint a representative from the DE Health Care Coalition to the Board with the appointment of a public member, since the Coalition is defunct.
Discussion: This was a request made at the April 29th public hearing by Phyllis Sheppard, Board Chair.
The JSC members agreed with this suggestion.
3. If reform the CPR program - consider the following modifications:
a. The JSC may want to include non-traditional long term care facilities in the scope of activities subject to CPR review.
Ms. Sheppard stated that the DHRB is neutral on this issue. An example of a non-traditional long-term care facility is a continual care community. She pointed out that continual care retirement communities affect long term care nursing homes.
b. Review the $5 million capital expenditure threshold triggering a CPR review. Some states have a much higher threshold. Based on an annual inflation index determined by the US Dept. of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2005 threshold would be $5.8 million – (DE Health Care Assoc & Draft report)
Rep. Valihura stated that there should be some basis for the $5 million figure.
Ms. Sheppard was asked to provide the JSC with the following information:
· How the $5 million figure was determined/rationale
· What is reviewable using the $5 million threshold
· What is not reviewable using the $5 threshold
c. Consider a procedural modification that would add a 180-day expiration date on the Notice of Intent. This change would make the provision consistent with other review procedures of the CPR process.
Ms. Sheppard stated that currently the notice does not expire, meaning that some projects have notices on file for years with no action, thus preventing others from engaging in a similar project.
d. Enforce the Board’s responsibility to coordinate health planning activities with the Health Care Commission, the DHSS, and other health care organizations so that both the Board’s statute expressly directing the Board to work with other agencies, and the JSC’s 1993 recommendation to create a comprehensive health planning process in Delaware, is achieved.
Ms. Sheppard stated that she needed further explanation regarding this issue. The DHRB does coordinate with the Delaware Health Care Commission and DHSS as well as other interested parties. Ms. Sheppard will provide a list of the “other interested parties”.
e. Request that the Division of Public Health create a CPR website with contact information, meeting minutes, agendas, the CPR application and CPR procedures.
The DHRB did have a website, but it was discontinued due to staffing issues. Ted Segletes suggested that the JSC could ask the Joint Sunset Committee to look at costs for funding a position.
f. Request that the Board revise the CPR application so that it directly addresses each of the statutory review criteria. (Criteria below)
§ 9306. Review considerations (Repeal effective June 30, 2005)
In conducting reviews under this chapter, the Board shall consider as appropriate at least the following: