Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/22/1993 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Number 563
REP. B. DAVIS asked whether, in light of the urgency, Chair
Bunde would be willing to delete the sections of HB 235 that
were not required to continue receiving federal special
education funds. She said some of the other elements could
be dealt with through other bills. She said some had
already been introduced, and some were in HB 85. She said
she saw no need to deal with the bill so fast.
CHAIR BUNDE said there was no assurance that HB 85, a very
complex bill, would pass anytime soon. He said he would not
want elements of HB 235 contingent on HB 85.
Number 567
REP. G. DAVIS said he was involved in TAG programs, and knew
that parents of such children were more involved than normal
with education. He said Rep. B. Davis's points were valid,
and that he would look forward to the input from the
governor's council, which would help address the concerns of
parents, students and the administration. He pointed out
that HB 235 addressed points other than just those necessary
to secure federal special education funding. He expressed
hope for an opportunity to address the other points later.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that, due to technical problems, Klawock
could not transmit testimony, but only listen in.
Number 588
REP. TOOHEY asked whether the loss of the federal funds
would be permanent if the state failed to make the necessary
changes in its special education laws by a certain deadline.
Number 600
MS. HOWE stated that conversations that day with a federal
official indicated that the date was July 1, 1993. "It is
conceivable that a person could go beyond that, but the
problem is that the federal money has a certain statute of
limitations, so if we go beyond the date, then the money is
gone. So, and that's the situation New York is finding
itself in right now. We've had a conditional essentially
for two years. Under our state plan we have a new one
that's due for FY95, and so we can't go beyond, you know, we
had promised them actually last July that we would have this
all signed and delivered for them."
TAPE 93-41, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE moved amending section 17, line 13, of HB 235,
adding so that it would read, "requires a school district to
provide special education, gifted, and related services
available ..." etc. He asked for objections.
Number 024
MS. HOWE suggested an alternative wording, amending line 10
by striking the words "of an exceptional child" and
inserting "a child with exceptionalities" or "an exceptional
child," both of which were commonly used terms that would
encompass both gifted and disabled children. She said the
term special education in Alaska was already construed to
mean both gifted and disabled students.
Number 030
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether she meant use the word
"exceptionalities" instead of the word "disabilities" on
line 11.
MS. HOWE answered yes.
Number 035
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether the term was politically correct.
Number 037
MS. HOWE answered yes, in Alaska.
Number 040
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the DOE would prefer such wording.
MS. HOWE said it would be clearer usage and more consistent
with the section.
Number 044
CHAIR BUNDE withdrew his earlier motion, and moved instead
an amendment to use the word "exceptionalities."
Number 046
AN UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE ON TELECONFERENCE (possibly Marc
Grober) asked if the chair would entertain additional public
testimony.
Number 050
CHAIR BUNDE said no, that public testimony had closed. He
then restated the motion and asked for discussion or
objections to it.
Number 061
REP. OLBERG asked Chair Bunde to repeat his motion.
CHAIR BUNDE repeated his motion.
REP. OLBERG objected to the motion.
CHAIR BUNDE invited him to speak to the motion.
REP. OLBERG declined.
CHAIR BUNDE called for a voice vote on the motion, and heard
no nays.
REP. OLBERG noted that a roll call vote was more usual.
CHAIR BUNDE agreed to a roll call vote, but none was taken.
Number 086
REP. B. DAVIS asked if the term "exceptionalities" were
defined in statute, and said the objection might change if
the term were defined.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Howe for a definition of the term
"exceptionalities."
Number 097
REP. OLBERG asked if the motion meant that the legislature
was mandating home instructional opportunities for any
exceptional child, whether disabled, gifted or whatever.
CHAIR BUNDE said he understood that was a proper reading; it
currently applied to all special education children, and the
motion would allow the inclusion of gifted children. He
said he understood Rep. Olberg's reservation.
Number 111
MS. HOWE read a definition of the term "exceptional
children" found on page 6, line 6, paragraph (3). She
suggested that the motion be amended to follow the wording
in that paragraph.
CHAIR BUNDE agreed that "exceptionalities" was an obtuse
word. He asked Rep. Olberg if the change clarified his
question.
REP. OLBERG stated, "It clarifies without satisfying,
whatever that means."
CHAIR BUNDE commented that it sounded like a new product.
Number 137
REP. OLBERG said the committee was creating a new
educational product that would stretch the education budget
yet again.
CHAIR BUNDE disagreed, saying that the provision already
existed in state statute. He said the DOE wanted to take
gifted education out of the special education program, an
effort that would be dealt with in the discussion of HB 85,
scheduled for the following week.
Number 145
REP. OLBERG asked whether the particular statute did or did
not address gifted children at that time.
CHAIR BUNDE said that gifted student programs were, at that
time, funded through special education programs.
Number 150
REP. OLBERG asked whether HB 235 was an effort to limit home
instruction to children with disabilities.
CHAIR BUNDE responded, "To exceptional children."
REP. OLBERG clarified, "No, I mean, no, it reads
`disabilities.'"
CHAIR BUNDE said, "As it was originally worded it would not
include gifted children. My understanding of the statute,
as it was being crafted, it was to include gifted children.
As you may have noticed, there's a good bit of concern about
separating gifted children out from special ed."
Number 159
REP. OLBERG stated, "I think we've gone full circle here, so
let me try one more time. If this did not exist, would
gifted children be entitled to home instruction?"
CHAIR BUNDE replied, "Yes."
REP. OLBERG said, "This then came along and eliminated the
gifted children and limited it to disabled children."
CHAIR BUNDE responded, "That's correct."
REP. OLBERG stated, "And we're going to go back to where we
started from, even though that might not have been a good
place to be."
Number 165
CHAIR BUNDE said, "Yes, we will discuss that issue in more
detail in HB 85."
REP. OLBERG stated, "Thank you."
Number 173
REP. VEZEY said the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
did not deal with gifted people, but with disabled people.
He said he was having difficulty reconciling a bill that
dealt with gifted students with the ADA. He said the
purpose of the statute, supposedly, was to remain in
compliance with federal law, which he said it might do, but
only after going through a lot of extraneous information.
CHAIR BUNDE said he had asked that the bill be written to
reflect current state policies, and later, when the
committee got to HB 85, it could then separate funding for
special education students and gifted students, which would
then establish a new state policy to supercede the current
state policy.
Number 191
REP. VEZEY commented that the motivation behind HB 235 was
the ADA.
CHAIR BUNDE disagreed, saying HB 235 dealt only with federal
funding of special education, not with the ADA.
Number 197
REP. VEZEY said he thought that the purpose behind HB 235
was to have the state remain in compliance with the ADA. He
said it was possible they were talking about two different
acts.
CHAIR BUNDE said that was correct; they were speaking of two
different acts.
REP. OLBERG said that the federal law with which the state
was attempting to remain in compliance with through HB 235
was the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. He
commented that, "We're trying to slice our interest groups
into ever smaller pieces."
Number 206
CHAIR BUNDE said he wanted to try again to achieve the
amendment to page 10, line 5, which would read: "If a
parent with an exceptional child enrolls the child ...";
striking the words "with" and "disabilities."
REP. TOOHEY contested the wording.
CHAIR BUNDE explained that she had forgotten an earlier
amendment.
REP. TOOHEY said she stood corrected.
REP. OLBERG objected to the motion.
CHAIR BUNDE invited him to speak to his objection.
REP. OLBERG declined.
CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote on the amendment to
amend line 10 to read, "If a parent of an exceptional child
enrolls the child ... " The amendment deleted the words
"with disabilities," he said. Those voting yea were Reps.
G. Davis, Vezey, B. Davis, Toohey and Bunde. Those voting
nay were Reps. Kott and Olberg. The MOTION PASSED 5-2.
Number 243
CHAIR BUNDE moved passage of HB 235 with individual
recommendations.
REP. B. DAVIS objected, saying she supported the changes
necessary for the DOE to come into compliance with federal
laws, but she believed the House Finance Committee would not
have the time to address the issues that should have been
addressed in the HESS Committee. She said it was not a
money issue. She opposed passage from the committee, saying
that the bill could have had at least one additional hearing
before the HESS Committee to address some elements of the
bill to make it even better and more acceptable to parents
as well as administrators.
Number 256
REP. KOTT objected, saying his reasons were similar to those
of Rep. B. Davis. He said much of the testimony represented
disagreement on several issues, and it would be prudent to
hold the bill over for a day or so to resolve some of the
conflicts.
CHAIR BUNDE called for a brief at-ease before the vote, at
4:09 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 4:11 p.m.
and repeated the motion to pass HB 235 from the HESS
Committee with individual recommendations. Those voting yea
were Reps. Vezey, Kott, Brice, Toohey, Bunde and G. Davis.
Those voting nay were Reps. Olberg and B. Davis. The MOTION
PASSED 6-2.
CHAIR BUNDE then brought HB 210 to the table.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|