[speaker: Testing 1,2 – test, test] Chairman: I would like to call the meeting to order. I would like to thank the [xx] and William Morris for being here today. We appreciate what you do for us. I’d like to recognize the pages who are here today: we have [??] Carleson from Blade County, [Sulkie??] Mills from Bunkin County, and Jason Brooks from [Garriss??] County. Welcome. We appreciate you being here. We hope you enjoy your experience this week as being a page. First item we are going to consider is House Bill 1110 to improve oversight of public guardianship. I will call on Representative Jones, the floor is yours. Rep. Jones: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, House Bill 1110 is a committee bill, it came out of the public guardianship subcommittee, and the legislative oversight committee for Health and Human Services. Briefly, it does four things to improve the oversight of public guardianship: it requires the Dept. of Health and Human Services, the vision of Aging and Adult Services, to work with administrative office of the courts to develop a plan for evaluating complaints concerning wards under the care of public funded guardians; 2. it requires the Division of Social Services to study conflicts of interest in child welfare cases as related to public guardianship; 3. it requires the Dept. of Aging and Adult Services to consult with named parties in the Bill, that would include the courts of court, local management, entities that had been approved as managed care organizations, the NC Bar Association section on Elder law, and other interest parties – so they would consult with these groups to create a model plan for transitioning a ward to an alternative guardianship arrangement when the guardian is no longer able or willing to serve, and, then it requires DHHS to submit a final report on each of these issues to the joint legislative oversight committee on Health and Human Services and Fiscal Research Division by October1, 2014. Mr. Chairman, I stand ready to answer any questions if I can, if committee members have them. Chairman: Thank you Rep. Jones. Is there any member of the committee that has any questions? Representative Bugbill? Rep. Bugbill: I would like to move for a [replacement??] report. Chairman: Yes ma’am. Are there any other comments by the committee? I will give the opportunity to anybody that wants to comment. Yes ma’am if you would come forward and recognize yourself please. Marie Short: Yes, hi, my name is Marie Short, and I live in Taylorsville, Alexander County, and this is my daughter, Catelie Short, and, one of my concerns in the Bill is Section 4, which states that the Dept. of Health and Human Services will continue to study whether the utilization or care coordination services would provide the oversight to safeguard against conflicts of interest when guardians serve as paid providers. My concern about the sentence - I am not concerned about the oversight, my concern about the sentence is that there is no care coordination services if the paid guardian is providing services through the Camp Program through DSS. Care Coordination Services are only a function of the LMMCO system, so I would like some acknowledgement that there are paid guardians outside the LMMCO system who are being – there are guardians being paid to perform services outside the LMMCO and they should get the same scrutiny and oversight as those of us of the LMMCO system. Thank you. Chairman: Okay, thank you for that comment. Speaker: Well, with regard to your specific question… Chairman: Was there a specific question that we can have answered? Did you have a specific question ma’am? Marie Hall: Well I am asking the committee if they would substitute that language so that it is not just directed towards the LMMCO care coordination services. Chairman: Thank you, I will call on Representative Jones to address that. Rep. Jones: I know this is short, and she has certainly been active in attending our meetings…
Speaker 1: The process and I am very sympathetic to her issues. I think what the Bill here attempts to say is that DHHS is continually study, as it says here, whether utilization of care coordination services would provide needed oversight to safeguard conflicts of interest when guardian service pays providers. I think this has been an ongoing issue. It simply says they will continue to study that. There is no desire here, on the part of our committee, to change that. So, I don’t really see that we want to change the Bill. Chairman: Representative Horn? Rep. Horn: I am just trying to understand the comment and the answer. I don’t do too well with all these letters and acronyms and stuff like that. I am certainly no expert in any of this kind of field. I just know that in Union County we have had a disaster, in this area. I want to see us pass a Bill that is going to address this kind of issue so that we don’t just study it to death, but we actually do something that is going to ensure that we don’t have another disaster like the pork chop, or the chicken, around the neck in Union County. My first blush on it, it certainly seems to be. Maybe if you just explain that a little better, I would be more comfortable. Chairman: Representative Stevens? Rep. Stevens: Thank you. As I read it, it says that we are going to try and study whether applying the same care coordination services to pay providers, serving as guardians, is going to be important. We do it with the agencies to determine their conflict of interest, but we have a guardian pay provider, we are trying to say, with this same program, looking at conflict of interest be important. Is that a correct statement? We are trying to do what she is asking us to do, and that is determining whether this same kind of program utilization will help us determine conflicts in private situations as well as those [xx]. Ms. Hall: Mr. Chairman? Chairman: Ms. Hall? Ms. Hall: I believe what Ms. Short is referring to is that under the 1915 DC Medicaid waiver, there is a differentiation, and there are certain services that may be voluntarily being providing by local management, [xx] managed care organizations. If they are providing care coordination services, they are doing it voluntarily, they are not doing it through the waiver that would regard the case management services. Many of the [??MCO’s??] are providing case management services as opposed to care coordination services. The care coordination is not currently a function that is being mandated within the MCO’s. So there is just a difference between case management and care coordination. With regard to the language in this particular Bill, it’s just setting up the opportunity for any continuing committee to continue to study oversight of any type of issues with regard to care coordination services and to make sure that there – it’s really more focused on the conflict of interest of guardians serving as paid providers. With regard to the Union County situation, Representative Horn, that’s a different situation. Chairman: Does that address your concern Representative? Ms. Hall: There may be folks here form the department that can get more in depth, or from the MCO’s that can address the care coordination case management issues, if the Chair so desires. Chairman: Would you like to hear from them, or are you satisfied with the explanation? Rep. Horn: I am not smart enough to be satisfied or unsatisfied. I am just trying to learn so that – my concerns always, in these kinds of issues, are who is checking on the checker? Again, I guess I go back to the Union County issue where we had the people making decisions and implementing the decisions, and no one ever cross checked them. So when we study something without necessarily a frequent report, or a recommendation – I see in Section 5 that there is a report by October 1st of this year. As best as I understand it, I think I am satisfied. Chairman: Any other questions or comments about the committee?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Butterfield, I think now's the time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that House Bill 1010 be given ??, 1110, I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Second the motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Seconded. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So heard. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say nay. That passes unanimously. Thank you ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Reives. Next item on the bill, on the calendar, is House Bill 1101, Mechanics Liens - Leased Public Property. Representative Speciale will present that. The floor is yours. This is a PCS. Do I hear a motion that we entertain the PCS during bill ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, members of committee. This is part of an interim study committee that we did prior to determine if there are other problems in mechanics liens that we needed to address, and this PCS makes a technical correction beyond what we had already agreed to. The PCS basically clarifies that the requirements of this bill require that all improvements constructed on lands owned by contracting body, even if the improvement will subsequently be sold to private parties and not used by the contracting body. A lot of this comes back to the Peatwall case that we discussed when we were here before, and that's where the Greensboro Housing Authority entered into a contract with a construction company and then the construction company went bust and bankrupt and the houses were able to be sold free and clear of liens even though the Housing Authority owned them and didn't release the land until they were sold. So what we're doing is saying basically the best way we came up with to resolve that issue was to say you can't use that kind of arrangement to get out from under a payment bond situation. Public entities, state entities, are required to post a payment bond to ensure payments are made. In the regular contracting world, we give you a lien on the property and on the work that you've done, so this is simply an effort to get it back. You can't use a lien, a lease interest to try to avoid that situation. So, with that said, I'll have you have any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any questions or comments by the committee? Hearing none, I'll ask is there anyone in the audience who has a question or comment? Seeing none, do I hear a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Unfavorable to the House Bill 1101, favorable to the committee substitute for House Bill 1101. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there a second to Representative Cleveland's motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Second. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Second by John Bell. Thank you. Any further discussion before we vote? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say nay. It's unanimous. We thank you. The next item on the agenda is House Bill 1102 Mechanics Liens - Clarify Lien Agent Notice. Representative Stevens is the sponsor. The floor is yours, ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And again, this came out of trying to clarify some of the lien law things that we had before, and basically all this does is say, when you designate a lien agent, it's only for a very limited purpose. That lien agent can't claim, can't do other things as agent for the owner, they're not expected to receive other notices. They only receive notices that somebody's working and somebody wants to get paid. OK. So apparently that became a problem. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Any questions or comments by the committee? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience that has a question or comment? Seeing none, do I hear a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Favorable report for House Bill 1102. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there a second to Representative Cleveland's motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Second. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Seconded by Representative Brown. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say nay. And it's unanimous. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is House Bill 1103 Verification/Jurisdiction in Juvenile Cases. Representative Stevens is the sponsor. The floor is yours, ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This came to us as a problem that went, up in the Supreme Court, and what happened is there was a technical glitch in a beginning situation where somebody didn't exactly verify or sign right. It was more of a technical error. It went all the way through hearing. The child was placed into a new home setting, it goes on to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court overturns everything saying that technical correction was a big deal. Because the legislature didn't say it wasn't a big deal, then it's a really big deal. So now we're going to say the position prior to the judiciaritory hearing the court would consider the following, whether that position has been properly verified and invokes jurisdiction. In other words, they'll make sure it's taken care of at the court level before it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court and we waste hours and years of hearings, and that's all it does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Any questions or comments by the committee? Hearing none, yes, sir, Representative Bell?
Speaker: …make a motion to [xx]. Chairman: Is there anyone in the audience who has a question or comment concerning this? Hearning none [ xx] this would be a great time Speaker 2: House Bill 1103 [xx] Chairman: Alright, is there a second who [xx] the motion? Speaker 3: Second. Chairman: Second is filed. Any further discussion before we vote? Hearing none. All in favor say aye. [congregation: aye] All opposed, no. Passes unanimous. We thank you. Next item on the agenda is House Bill 1104/study oversight/conflicts of interest/foster care. Representative [xx] . Speaker 4: Thank you. After a long session, we had a committee who started looking at foster care, dependency neglect, abuse, and conflicts of interest, which is clearly the stuff that Representative [xx] is interested in. What we found, after four meetings, is that it is much more in depth, and we need a pretty major overhaul. We are still working on that, and all this Bill proposes is that we continue that work in the short session as we prepare, basically, a major overhaul. One of the biggest difficulties in trying to modify the rules is that you’ve got federal regulations which send money in tax conditions, you’ve got the State overseeing, and you’ve got each of the counties administering, so it’s trying to make sure we don’t step on the toes, that we don’t lose the funding by eliminating something that is a federal requirement, that we don’t overstep our bounds, and working with County Commissioners Association on that. We have recognized and seen clearly that there is a big need to make changes there, and, of course we were working on it but we wanted some more [xx], four meetings was just not enough time to get that done. Chairman: Thank you. Any comments or questions for Representative? Speaker 5: Does this include group homes as well, or is that [xx]? Speaker 4: Well, it depends. If it is a group home that is specifically set up for foster care or dependency, then yes we’re looking at that. If it is an abused child in a group home, we would be looking at that. We are going to be looking at where children can be placed temporarily, and trying to look for more permanent placement more quickly. Those are some of our focuses. Chairman: Anymore comments or questions from the committee? Representative? Speaker6: [xx] Chairman: Is there any further discussion before we vote on the motion? Hearing none.. Speaker 7: Second. Chairman: Second. Any further discussion? Is there anybody in the audience who wanted to comment or for discussion? Seeing none. All in favor say aye. [congregation :aye All opposed, say no. Thank you very much that completes the agenda. Meeting adjourned.