Link to DiscoveringMontana.com Return to Governor's Homepage TEXT ONLY 
About the Governor Lt. Governor Goals & Objectives Boards and Councils News Releases Speeches Staff HOME 

Task Force

Final Report
1.3 MB file - may take several minutes to open
Appendix A
Appendix B
(all in PDF format)

Members

Minutes
Aug 14-15,'02
Jul 17-18,'02
May 23, 2002
Apr 18, 2002
Mar 25, 2002
Mar 4, 2002
Feb 6, 2002

Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Control Policy Task Force

Office of the Governor  -   Attorney General's Office

May 23, 2002
Miles City, MT

Meeting Summary

TASK FORCE MEMBERS PRESENT:  Jerry Archer, Mary Fay, Duane Grimes, Mary Haydal, Joey Jayne, Cathy Kendall, Marko Lucich, Roland Mena, Bill Muhs, Karen Olson-Beenken, Rick Robinson, Peg Shea, Bill Snell. Facilitated by Sandy Mack

AGENDA TOPICS

8:00 am - 4:30 pm

Start-up:

Welcome & Opening Prayer

Review Agenda & Meeting Summary Approval

Announcements

Desired Outcomes - Follow-up

Strategies - Discussion and Agreement on strategies for "Top Priority" Desired Outcomes

Public Comment

WELCOME & OPENING PRAYER

After the meeting was opened by Duane, Pat Stoltz, President of the Miles City Youth Coalition and owner of the Town and Country Club - our VERY GENEROUS and GRACIOUS host for the day - provided some welcoming comments. 

Nicole VanHoosen, Nicole Haydal and Sarah Anderson, 8th grade students from Miles City, opened the meeting with a moving prayer.

MEETING SUMMARY

Participants approved the April 18, 2002 meeting summary.  It will be posted on the Task Force Web Site.

http://www.discoveringmontana.com:/gov2/css/drugcontrol/default.asp

ANNOUNCEMENTS

1.  Marko provided a Bio on Robert M. Stutman who will be a featured speaker on September 11 at the Copper King in Butte for a Conference sponsored by the Youth Justice Council and the Probation and Correction's offices.  Information about Mr. Stutman includes…

Bob Stutman is "the most famous narc in America"(N. Y. Magazine) and according to Dan Rather is "a true American hero." After 25 years as a DEA Agent rising to the head of the N. Y. Office, Bob wrote his autobiography "Dead on Delivery" a best seller published by Warner Books, and is the drug consultant for CBS News and PBS. He is considered the "foremost expert on the drug issue" (Gov. Mario Cuomo).

Marko asked if representatives of the Task Force would be interested in meeting Mr. Stutman on Tuesday September 10. Marko tentatively made arrangements. He also suggested the group might benefit if Mr. Stutman provided a "critique" of the Task Force's product and recommendations.

There was interest in Task Force representatives meeting with Mr. Stutman on September 10. Marko and Sandy will discuss with Jean Branscum and Galen Hollenbaugh.  

2.  Cathy Kendall - OPI and MSU is sponsoring a conference on Nov. 14 and 15 at the Holiday Inn in Bozeman on Research Analysis of Prevention Programs.

DESIRED OUTCOMES

Prioritization of Prevention Desired Outcomes

Karen brought up for discussion that the Prevention Desired Outcomes received fewer total  "priority votes" then the desired outcomes of Judicial and Treatment at the meeting on April 18th. This raised a concern that the Task Force may not be placing proper emphasis on prevention.

Roland contributed that members may have tended to vote for very serious and critical short-term desired outcomes as priority items. He said these need to be balanced with the important long-term, very real, benefits of prevention.  Others concurred.  It was also noted that some of the "prevention desired outcomes" were moved to treatment at the meeting on the 18th.  Peg noted that if you looked at the top two priorities for each of the three areas, prevention received 19 votes where judicial and treatment received 18 each - which she noted was very balanced.  It was also discussed that in the final recommendations the "top priority" desired outcomes and strategies will be presented together - without the number of "votes" listed.  The group was comfortable that no further actions were needed.

Financial Burden Desired Outcome - set aside

At the last meeting agreement was not reached on one Desired Outcome which read… "The majority of the financial burden for these programs should be on substance offenders and users (alcohol, tobacco and other drugs)."  It was agreed that through the discussion of the draft strategies proposed by the Work Groups this desired outcome would be addressed.  As will be seen below, discussion occurred and additional information needs were identified for discussion at the next meeting. 

STRATEGIES

Task Force Members began discussing the "Top Priority" Desired Outcomes and Strategies.  These strategies were drafted by the Work Groups and sent to all members on May 15.  Discussions, additions, deletions and decisions follow in underlined bold.

5.0   TOP PRIORITY Desired Outcomes and Corresponding Strategy Recommendations

5.1     Reduce underage tobacco, alcohol, and drug consumption and concomitant problems  (Members noted that this relates to consent issue and minor in possession laws.) {11}

Minors in Possession (MIP)

  • Statewide comprehensive plan and standards

  • Uniform standards for all courts statewide working with MIPs.
  • Intervention and Evaluation uniformity

  • Develop uniform standards or a "curriculum" for the MIP program using the standards already established for DUI as an example.  Implementation Time Frame: short term, 1-2 year strategy {Note: it was decided that Sandy should work with Roland to draft time frames for each of the strategies for the June 15th Working Document draft}. Responsible Party: AMDD/DPPHS

The uniform standards will have a set curriculum for every child in the state- including what office the MIP goes through, who the minor is referred to for the rest of the process, what intervention options there are.  It was noted that minors arrested for MIP may or may not have a "certifiable" disorder requiring "treatment".  Therefore MIP is both a prevention and intervention program.

How will this be linked with Tribal Jurisdictions?  There needs to be Government to Government discussions regarding recommendations and any proposed legislation (NOT just MIP but all proposed legislation).   We should have parallel processes - working toward agreements and resolutions with each Tribal Government on recommendations and proposed legislation as well as state-wide.  The Task Force has a specific Desired Outcome for "Effective Inter-Jurisdictional Cooperation" (Section # 8.5 in 5/16 draft).  More specific strategies to effectively meet this outcome should be developed under that Desired Outcome and applied to all recommendations.    It was suggested that having tribal coordination linked or a requirement of funding could be an effective incentive.

  • Statewide training for Judges (City/County/State), Prosecuting Attorneys (City/County/State), Law Enforcement (City/County/State) and Juvenile Probation and Parole Officers (County/ State)

There are two kinds of training needs.  One-the training to explain any new standards (changes brought about by new legislation).  Currently the AG's office trains on any new legislation.  A second type of training is training to address and change the accepting "culture" of drug abuse in Montana.  Judges, and the other specialties listed above have "mandatory" training requirements. This strategy recommendation is to add a component to existing mandatory training that addresses and works towards changing our current cultural view of tobacco, alcohol and drug abuse in minors.

Providing a State-wide resource clearing house for information related to MIP's (one stop shopping for these specialists) is also a recommendation.   

  • Economic Impact of 10,000 MIP's annually is a significant drain on resources and whose costs are probably not being covered by current sanctions
  • Clarify current statute on MIP on what constitutes possession (i.e., it is it not necessary to see consumption to have possession, what is the "zone of control") The law is interpreted differently by different officers. The intension of this strategy is to make the MIP laws stronger by clarifying this area of confusion.  
  • MIP Legislation  
    • Keg Registration - Used to identify and penalize adults and youth who purchase beer kegs and allow underage youth to consume alcohol from them.  Requires kegs to be marked with unique, and preferably, non-removable identification.  Approximately 32 states have this legislation already.  There is some cost to distributors with this requirement but Karen, as a distributor, felt it was minimal and worth it.  There is currently a bill pending in Billings for keg registration.

{Note: Other states have passed "Contributing to Minor's Delinquency" statutes.  Duane will review these for potential use.}

  • Change terminology of Clarify MIP Statute language to make it very clear that an offense is a:
    • "Minor in Possession" for those under 18 years of age
    • "Under Aged Possession" for those older than18 & under 21 years
  • 1st MIP (17 years old and younger)
    • The standard "curriculum" should include Mandatory Parental/Guardian involvement in programming and sanctions if they don't show up.  Examples of sanctions include a longer suspension of the minor's license {Note: one Tribal Reservation does not require drivers license-so this would not be an effective sanction there}.   (note: there is precedence as Youth Court Act Law says parent must accompany juvenile)An example was given that after one judge made parental/guardian involvement mandatory participation jumped up to 90%.  The "curriculum" should also help parents/guardians examine and understand the importance of their involvement and influence.
    • MIP educational class paid for by offender that is interactive and flexible and that has measurable outcomes (ex. pre and post testing and/or pre and post client satisfaction). {Note: parents are already included in the MIP ed. classes and this should continue}
    • Mandatory 20 hours Community Service (meaningfulservice that "connects" the offender with the community/visible) and mandatory minimum fine of $100 and maximum fine of $150. $50 fine  In setting the minimum and maximum fine the Task Force considered the following: wanting to make fines reasonably consistent (now it can be $0 - ?); wanting to balance sending a strong message and not making the fines so high for the first offense that it discouraged people from reporting incidents.
    • Fine suspended or reduced with completion of sanctions
  • 2nd MIP
    • Mandatory Assessment & appropriate counseling/treatment (i.e. all involved need to follow the counseling/treatment recommendations - starting with the judicial side through the treatment side)  
    • Mandatory 40 hours Community Service and $100 minimum fine $200 maximum fine.
    • Fine suspended or reduced with completion of sanctions
  • 3rd MIP
    • Mandatory 80 hours Community service and mandatory $300 fine (this is the current fine).
    • Use privilege to drive and graduated driver license to motivate youth and family/parents to complete programming & treatment (For example:  Delay Full Drivers License or suspend Drivers License for three (3) months (1st MIP) to twelve (12) months (3rd MIP) or until successful completion of sanctionsNote: Bill M. will research the length of delay that other states are using for 1st-3rd MIP's and we will use his recommendation based on that research in the June 15th Working Document Draft.  He will get his info to Sandy by June 10th).  There is a clear connection between minor's driving and the abuse of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs - most use/abuse does not occur at home - they drive or are driven to the location(s) where the unlawful actions occur.  The existing "use exemption" clause would apply to this allowing exceptions for medical, employment or other unusual family needs.
  • Uniform reporting and data collection for all MIP's statewide. (Management Information System)
    • Designate AMDD/DPPHS as the responsible agency to establish standards, program management, data collections and rewrite the manual for MIP's
    • Statewide Tracking System- We want a reliable and centralized statewide tracking system so that we can measure any reduction in MIP's.  This system would track Convicted Offenders and those referred to the State Correctional System.   Implementation Time Frame:  Some short term (ex. citations) majority mid term - 3-5 year strategy.   This would need legislation.  Through this strategy we need to assure that the Courts share their information with the tracking system.  AMDD/DPPHS should look at the possibility of using existing CAPS system with screens just for MIP's.

The data in the tracking system needs to be accessible to all agencies with the proper authority and it needs to be very clear who has access and use of the data.  With this strategy we are referring to Judicial Data not Treatment data. 

{Note:  We need to discuss later (perhaps under Section # 5.7 in 5/16 draft) tracking and uniform data for DUI's}

  • Add 1 FTE to AMDD/DPPHS to do this work
  • Review all of the MIP and ACT data
  • Statewide Insurance reporting

Graduated Driver's License (GDL)

Revisit the 2001 legislation that was vetoed by the governor.  All members did not have sufficient information to know whether they support the 2001 legislation as written or not.  Nor did they have knowledge as to why the governor vetoed the legislation.  Cathy K. will send a copy of the 2001 legislation to all Task Force Members (or to Sandy for distribution) and also research why the bill was vetoed. The information will be sent by June 10.  After reviewing this information the group will decide if the Task Force will make a recommendation or not.

5.1.3       Tax Changes

{Note: this item - i.e. Tobacco tax changes -- was tabled and not discussed by the Task Force.  They requested that Robin M. get information on the tobacco tax to Sandy by June 10 for inclusion in the Working Document.  Mary F. gave follow-up to a question raised earlier - she found out that the tobacco settlement has no restrictions in how that money is spent.}

Tobacco

  • Use 50% of tobacco settlement monies for the prevention of tobacco use; education about tobacco use (Most of Us Campaign); treatment of tobacco addiction; health related issues.

{Note: this item - i.e. Alcohol tax changes - was discussed at some length.  Comments and discussion items are noted below.  Roland handed out information on: Beer tax collection projections; A summary of current and past alcohol tax distributions; and, information on a Liquor control state vs. open state (info from Steve M.). No consensus was reached on this issue and additional information needs were identified and assigned.

Alcohol Tax

  • Increase wine tax and especially the low cider (ex. hard lemonade) tax. Increase beer tax from $4.30 to $8.60 per barrel (from 1.3 to 2.6 cents per 12oz   -- 2.6 is the approximate mean for tax rates in the nation) generating $4,180,230  million additional funds annually to use for local social model detox, prevention programs, educational & awareness programs, treatment programs, and DUI Task Forces. (330-12 OZ cans of beer in a barrel = 2.6 cents per 12 oz can of beer=15.6 cents per six-pack.  Assumes 4% annual consumption increase {Note: Concern was expressed that 4% is way too high an estimate for consumption increase. It does not follow past trends and will not be agreed to by all Task Force Members}.  Estimate is for FY 2004.
  • Change distribution of present beer, liquor and wine taxes to 50% DPHHS-50% General Fund. 

(Present distribution is as follows:  Beer Taxes: 23% DPHHS & 76% General Fund; Wine Taxes:  31% DPHHS & 69 % General Fund; Liquor Taxes: 65% DPHHS & 34 % General Fund.)

Tax Rates- Alcohol taxes have not kept up with inflationThere has been a consistent decline in state revenue from alcohol tax's over the past years.  The tax has not been changed in approximately 27 years.  MT has one of the lowest tax's for alcohol in the nation. Adjusted for inflation, present beer tax would be over $11 per barrel.

When the alcohol tax was established in MT the current drug problem did not exist in the state.

MT has one of the highest tax's in the nation for "spirits".  There was no proposal to change these taxes.

Members discussed whether taxing alcohol was appropriate and ethical at all.  Some members stated that a "user's tax" or fee was appropriate and that those funds should be used for addiction treatment.  They shared statistics that were not fully captured in these notes such as of the 80% of the population that does drink alcohol XX% are in and out of treatment. XX% of the people that drink represents 85% of all consumption.  Some members felt that if there is a societal cost to consumption then it is appropriate to tax the consumption to help cover those costs. They said it is appropriate because it is already mandated in legislation-we already tax alcohol. Others said the existing tax was set in a different time and that we can't say that today it is appropriate just because it was decided to tax then.  Others were not sure if taxes collected for alcohol should be used for meth treatment while some said meth users are multiple drug users, including alcohol -- a pathway drug, and it is appropriate. 

Some members stated that a user's tax is not appropriate and they couldn't support a tax increase recommendation because it would be asking non-alcoholics or non-dependent consumers to fund something they aren't a part of.   It was offered that taxes generally are for the greater good.  As an example school taxes are charged to those who don't have children and those who don't have children in school.   It was said that when someone takes their first drink they don't know if they will become dependent or not.

Others were concerned about the negative financial impact to small businesses throughout Montana if alcohol taxes were increased.  They were also concerned about the accuracy of some of the projections since several errors were found in the data during the meeting.  They wanted clear defensible data and information.

Currently, the only other source of funds for state treatment, other than existing alcohol taxes, is a federal block grant of approximately $6.4 million.

It was suggested that there should be a clear link between funding needs for specific programs and any proposal to increase taxes - how would the money be used.

The question was raised whether the Task Force was being consistent by considering raising taxes, making them high, while during the discussion of fines we kept them relatively low.  It was also brought up that nationally the trend is to cover treatment costs with "use taxes". Concern was raised  that a use tax is really a blame tax.

Some members expressed excitement that this discussion between the task force members took place.  They said it was the first time in 28 years that this level of conversation has occurred.  

The group decided additional information would be gathered and dispersed to members before the next meeting and incorporated into the June Working Document Draft.  Assignments were:

Data on tax increases in other states and affects on reducing underage use

Bill M.

Who is consuming alcohol. What is the profile of those admitted to treatment and those admitted to detox services?

Peg will get info to Bill M.

What are other important issues and discussions that are occurring related to increased alcohol tax?

Roland

What negatives or cons have other states experienced after they've raised alcohol taxes?

Mary H. & Karen

What alternative ways could the alcohol industry become involved?

Mary H. & Karen

How are we currently using the tax $?  Is it being used effectively?

Roland

What alternative funding sources (other than taxes) exist?

Duane, Roland & Rick

5.2     State and local leadership support investment in scientifically defensible prevention practices because they understand and are convinced of prevention's value.  {10}

  • The ICC and the Prevention Resource Center, which is the working arm of the ICC, are very good programs and they need to be supported and funded.  They have established clear benchmarks and mechanisms for monitoring results.  They do a good job of coordinating the Native American Advisory Council and the DPHHS activities.  Currently the Prevention Resource Center is underfunded.  The name ICC is confusing.  We support changing the name to something more easily recognizable as associated with prevention efforts.
  • Sustain development and distribution of the Prevention Resource Center's "Hot News" email update and quarterly newsletter as education tools. This resource is a good tool for reaching legislators.  It also serves as a good archive and is often used as a reference for grant writing and educators.
  • Develop a unified data source to monitor the impact of prevention across the state The Interagency Coordinating Council should produce a "State of the Kids" executive summary annually based on existing data from sources already in place such as YRBS, PNA, Kids Count, Reservation Profiles and Indian Health Services information.  The executive summary will incorporate ing risk and protection factors and ICC benchmarks) and educate leaders regarding the impact of prevention efforts. {Note: The members want clear descriptions of the YRBS, PNA etc. in the Working Document.}
  • Distinguish ICC should facilitate discussions to define the line between prevention and intervention programs in Montana. and educate leaders regarding programs and results
  • Require prevention education for state and local leaders regarding prevention and required long-term investment and risk and protective factors
  • Raise awareness of the definition of prevention and what constitutes a scientifically defensible program
  • Conduct Support the continuation of the ongoing local longitudinal cost-saving studies of prevention
  • For State and local RFP's to provide a "menu" of scientifically defensible practices applicable to available funding
  • To provide adequate funds, from the general fund or otherwise, to fund prevention programs based on recommendations developed (and available) by CDC (for tobacco prevention), and other federal agencies.  Peg requested that the group consider recommending the passage of "Permissive County Levees".  If passed it would be up to the counties whether or not they used it (i.e. it is voluntary).  State permission is needed, however, for counties to be able to use this option.  Concern was raised that this would not be a state-wide strategy.  There would be pockets of use and the poorer counties would not use it.  Discussion also included potentially using a pilot program first to test it.  Duane agreed to explore this option more before a decision is made.  Duane, Roland and Rick will add this to their alternative funding review.

A treatment delivery system that is responsive to treatment demands, geographical issues and specific target populations. {10}

Target populations include reservation/urban Native Americans, correctional populations, women and youth.  This includes a system that is specific to drug types, is accessible, affordable and that considers family needs:

The question was asked -- why aren't men included in this outcome?  The response - men make up the vast majority of those in treatment-without special attention to women they could be left out.

Correctional Treatment

Increase beer tax by 2.5 cents per measure.  It is projected that this increase would generate approximately $4M per year within Montana (reference Pete's study). Look at Washington state law HB 2388-S2.

Additional revenue generated through the tax would be placed with AMDD/DPHHS.  The funds will support additional personnel at DPHHS and DOC to assure appropriate management.   Note:  See above discussion under Section 5.1.3 on Taxes} 

Establish treatment standards in conjunction with Coordinate with DOC on existing standards - or "levels of care". The standards, which are adopted from the American Society of Addictive Medicine (ASAM), are sequential, age-appropriate beginning with juvenile through adult populations, and should be mandatory statewide for any addiction program utilizing these state funds.  The intent with this recommendation is to have a uniform addiction treatment program whether it is provided through the correctional system or through a community system.  It would apply to all 28 state approved treatment facilities and follow-up care.  Within these standards innovative programs are still appropriate and encouraged. 

An example of innovative addictive treatment programs are Cultural treatments such as sweat houses in prison.  Because of the high representation of Native Americans in the correctional system it is important to assure that cultural treatment is well intertwined.    (Coordination needs to occur with the DMC).  The power of the American Society of Addictive Medicine standards is that they design and plan a treatment program around the INDIVIDUAL.

{Note: Sandy is to work with Mary F. and Joey on language for this and the next bullet} 1st time substance abuse, non-violent, felony offenders (juvenile and adults) excluding 4th time DUI offenders, will be offered the alternative to attend monitored treatment in the community or be subject to regular sentence. The intention here is voluntary coercion - not treatment in lieu of restitution.  Offenders are required to pay $30 per month toward the cost of treatment.  With Mary and Joey describe what the current sentencing structure is.

{Note: Sandy is to work with Mary F. and Joey on language for this and the last bullet} 2nd and subsequent non-violent felony offenders (juvenile and adults) may reduce sentence of incarceration by first participating in treatment while incarcerated and, upon successful completion, may receive six months of the remainder of sentence (early out)  enrolled in an approved community treatment program under Corrections supervision. Offenders are required to pay $30 per month toward the cost of treatment.

Over time additional savings for Corrections realized as a result of lessening incarceration time would be rolled into Corrections treatment programs; additional general revenue would then be provided to community based treatment providers. The result should be additional treatment possibilities for the general population. This is a longer-term strategy.   {This last paragraph is ok}

5.3.2       Women

Encourage state legislation to remove sanctions related to public benefits (state TANF and medicade funds) for felony drug offenders. The sanctions were imposed during the "get tough on drugs" era.  Roland will research options, working with Linda Curry, for intermediate steps.  The group agreed to the general concept.

5.3.3       Youth

Encourage DPHHS to apply innovative approaches to rate structure to allow development of family based treatment intervention for families and children that are adequately fundedand supported.

5.3.4       Native American Populations

Any savings realized as a result of corrections treatment choices identified in #1 directly attributed to early release of Native American populations be designated for licensed Native American community based treatment programs. This is intended as an incentive.  Mary F. will research whether there is an existing mechanism to do this.

A comprehensive statewide plan for alcohol, tobacco, and other drug abuse prevention education.  {9}

The plan would include education for youth, parents, caregivers, allied service providers, the media, and the general public.   Implementation of the plan would result in informed attitudes and beliefs, and appropriate cultural norms toward the use and abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs.

Evaluate the Interagency Coordinating Council, identifying what elements "work" and what elements do not.{Note, evalutation of all state prevention programs is a strategy under Section 6.3 of 5/16 draft.}

Legislature to review, support and fund elements of the Interagency Coordinating Council and prevention resources that "work"

Governor to grant authority to the ICC to facilitate goal accomplishment (i.e., mandate to participate and develop comprehensive plan)

All prevention agencies adopt prevention guiding principles and adhere to them.  All funding grants and initiatives should hold these guiding principles as a base. to principles (principles already developed) Copies of the guiding principles were handed out.

  • Develop a unified data source to monitor the impact of prevention across the state The Interagency Coordinating Council should produce a "State of the Kids" executive summary annually based on existing data from sources already in place such as YRBS, PNA, Kids Count, Reservation Profiles and Indian Health Services information.  The executive summary will incorporate ing risk and protection factors and ICC benchmarks) and educate leaders regarding impact of prevention efforts. {Note: The members want clear definitions/descriptions of what the YRBS, PNA etc. are and what information they provide   in the Working Document.}

Creation of a Prevention Division or Department (possibly expand the ICC/PRC to accomplish this) Establish a Board of Prevention that includes and incorporates prevention departments and programs from throughout the state, including tobacco, alcohol and other drugs.  The Board of Prevention will model the Board of Crime Control.  The role of the Board will be to dole out grant $ and set the Goals and Objectives.  This would "elevate" prevention.  The Board would serve as a working Board for the ICC.

{Note: We did not finish reviewing the strategies for this desired outcome.  We will pick up here on July 18th.}

PARKING LOT

Task Force Members wanted to capture thoughts that did not fall within our agenda.  It was acknowledged that there may or may not be enough time in the next two remaining meetings for the Task Force to address these items.

We should look at where the fines from alcohol, tobacco and other drug offenses currently go.

TIME-LINE AND TASKS

There are several Action Items due by June 10 (See Table). A draft of the Working Document will be emailed to Task Force Members by June 15th.

Task Force Members should review the Working Document and get comments back to Sandy by July 1st.  Sandy will incorporate those comments as appropriate and email a new draft to Task Force Members by July 15th.  She will also post it on the web site.

The Task Force decided to make their last two meetings two-day meetings.

Sixth Meeting - (Bozeman)
Thursday, July 18  
8:00 am - 4:30 pm, and
Friday, July 19
8:00 - 3:00 pm
Holiday Inn, (5 Baxter Lane; 406-587-4561)

Seventh Meeting (Final) -- (Helena)
Wednesday, Aug 14
8:00 am - 4:30 pm, and
Thursday, Aug 15
8:00 - 3:00 pm
State Capitol, Room 152

ACTION ITEM REVIEW

Action(s)

Responsible Party

Due Date

Discuss Sept. 10th meeting with Robert Stutman with Jean Branscum and Galen Hollenbaugh. 

Marko & Sandy

None set

Draft time frames for each of the strategies for the June 15th Draft of the Working Document

Roland & Sandy

  June 15

Review "Contributing to Minor's Delinquency" statutes from other states for potential use.

  Duane

None set

Research how long other states are delaying or suspending driver's licenses for MIP offenses to "motivate" offenders and families to complete programs and treatment.

Get data on tax increases in other states and affects on reducing underage use. Get info to Sandy

  Bill M.

June 10

Who is consuming alcohol. What is the profile of those admitted to treatment and those admitted to detox services? Get info to Sandy

Peg will get info to Bill M.

Before June 10

Provide information on the tobacco tax.

Robin M. (Sandy will ask her)

June 10

What are other important issues and discussions that are occurring related to increased alcohol tax?

How are we currently using the tax $?  Is it being used effectively?

Research options for intermediate steps for women felons to still be able to receive TANF and medicade funding. Get info to Sandy.

Roland

June 10

What negatives or cons have other states experienced after they've raised alcohol taxes?

What alternative ways could the alcohol industry become involved? Get info to Sandy

Mary H. & Karen

June 10

What alternative funding sources (other than taxes) exist?  Include a look at "Permissive County Levees". Get info to Sandy

Duane, Roland & Rick

June 10

Send a copy of the 2001 Graduated Driver's License legislation to all Task Force Members (or to Sandy for distribution) and also research why the bill was vetoed.  

Cathy K. The information will be sent by June 10. 

June 10.

COMPLETED 

Work with Joey and Mary F. on language for strategy concerning 1st and 2nd non-violent felony sentencing and treatment option.

Sandy

June 10

Research if there is a mechanism to move $ saved from early release of Native Americans due to treatment to licensed Native American treatment programs.

Mary F.

June 10

COMPLETED

Email draft of Working Document to Task Force Members

Sandy

June 15

Review Working Document and get comments back to Sandy

All Task Force Members

July 1

Incorporate comments and email out new draft of Working Document to Task Force Members and post on web site.

Sandy

July 15

PUBLIC COMMENT (Public and Expert Input and Comments)

Fourteen people attended the Public Comment portion of the meeting.  Those who provided comments are noted in bold: Barb Albers, Sec. - Miles City Youth Coalition; Tom Albers, MC Youth Coalition; Sandra Anderson, MC Youth Coalition, VA ReDevelopment Project, L.P. & Teresa Anderson Foundation; Mr. Delaney, KKRY-KMTA; Ron Devlin, Representative; Joe Hegel, 16th Judicial Dist.; Captain Mike King, Miles City Police Dept.; Leif Ronning, D.O.C. Juvenile Parole; Coleen Magera, County Attorney; Cliff McKay, Dist. II Alcohol and Drug/EMCMHC-SADS; Sergeant Mark Reddick, Miles City Youth Coalition; S. Silver, MT PR/Parole; Patrick Stoltz, Miles City Youth Coalition; Walter Shore, Eastern Montana Substance Abuse Dep. Services.


DiscoveringMontana.com navigation footer
Governor  |  Lieutenant Governor  |  Goals & Objectives  |  Boards & Councils  |  News Releases  |  Speeches  |  Staff
Online Services | Privacy & Security Policy | Accessibility | Contact Us | Search