Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/27/2015 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB107 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 107-BD OF REGENTS REGIONAL RESIDENCY QUALIF.
8:05:06 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 107, "An Act relating to the composition of the
Board of Regents of the University of Alaska."
8:05:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute for HB 107, Version 29-LS0465\P as the working
document.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected. [Withdrawn]
8:06:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS, Alaska State Legislature, explained
the sectional analysis for Version P, before the committee, and
said that within Section 1, the University of Alaska shall be
governed by a Board of Regents consisting of 9 regents as
opposed to the current 11 regents. She then referred to Section
2, item 8, and said there would be two at large members that are
Alaskan residents as opposed to the current 4. She pointed out
that the rationale was that an 11 member board was more
cumbersome and expensive. [Section 3 refers to Regents
Qualifications and Board Membership.] Representative Gattis
noted that Section 4 refers to the transition of moving to a 9
member board.
8:07:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested an expansion on the
rational for downsizing the number of regents from 11 to 9.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS responded that it is less wieldy and less
expensive. She advised the issue of regents moving locations
and losing their seat was changed in the CS to allow for
continued service.
8:10:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER inquired whether the satellite campuses
are poorly represented in comparison to the main campuses with
regard to resources and questioned whether this is an attempt to
level the playing field and hear other voices throughout the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS replied it is not her intention to
disparage the regents, but this is time for a "huge" change and
this is the perfect time to review regionalizing.
8:11:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ pointed to the data table contained in
the committee packet and she acknowledged that since 1917
Matanuska-Susitna has been chronically underrepresented, and she
was "glad to see this bill."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the letter dated March 26,
2015 from Regent Jyotsna Heckman contained within the committee
packet, and noted concern expressed for a 9 member board
populating the 4 working committees, audit facilities, academic,
student affairs, and planning and development. He asked whether
9 regents would require the entire board to serve as a committee
of the whole on every issue.
8:13:28 AM
JYOTSNA HECKMAN, Chair, Board of Regents, University of Alaska
explained than an 11 member board is not unwieldy when
considering the 4 important committees. She noted that 9
members to populate those committees and actively engaged would
be difficult. Many regents, she pointed out, are working
professionals leading large organizations and occasionally they
are unable to participate in a committee or board meeting.
Therefore, she explained, there could be a quorum issue
affecting the work of the Board of Regents in taking any action.
She expressed concern regarding HB 107 and CSHB 107 in that they
are problematic as they impact functionality and the board's
ability to conduct business. The lack of representation in the
Matanuska-Susitna on the Board of Regents should not be the
focus, but rather the issue is the Board's ability to work with
a quorum present and conduct business with a reduction of seated
members, she remarked. Two less members to perform the work is
a substantial concern and, she pointed out, there is diversity
on the board, such as geographic, age, background, professional
expertise, ethnic background, and gender. Additionally, the
regents are appointed by the governor and the nationwide best
practices approach calls for 11-12 member boards. She
reiterated that 11 members on the board is not unwieldly and 9
members on the board is problematic.
8:18:55 AM
CHAIR KELLER questioned whether there is anything in statute or
the Alaska State Constitution that prevents the board from
including people on committees not on the Board of Regents.
REGENT HECKMAN did not have the answer.
CHAIR KELLER advised that while he quickly reviewed the board's
bylaws he noticed that the chair will assign "individual regents
to external boards and commissions." He noted there is a
presumption that there is engagement of the Board of Regents
outside just the Board of Regents. For example, currently the
board is searching for a new president and, he remarked, it
could be helpful to have input from individuals providing
expertise. He suggested the possibility of adjusting the bylaws
to allow that a subcommittee of the Board of Regents could
include individuals not on the Board of Regents.
REGENT HECKMAN stated that the presidential search committee has
regent members as well as members from government groups and the
community. Currently, she explained, 2 regents serve on the
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, and 2 regents
serve on the university's foundation board. Additionally, she
further explained, 2 regents have been appointed to serve on a
joint board with the Department of Education and Early
Development and the Board of Regents as a joint venture started
last year. She opined that outside of the presidential search,
the Board of Regents does not have external ad hoc committees.
CHAIR KELLER deduced that when there are 9 regents as opposed to
11, a regent would have more influence as it increases the input
and authority of each regent. With regard to the length of term
for the existing regents, he asked whether that is defined in
statute.
REGENT HECKMAN opined it is defined in statute.
8:23:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Regent Heckman to speak to
how requisite it is that the members of the audit facilities,
academic, student affairs, and planning and development
committees be populated by the Board the Regents or whether they
have specialized knowledge the Board of Regents would have
unique access to.
CHAIR KELLER asked whether Representative Kreiss-Tomkins was
asking what Regent Heckman sees as the advantage of having the
committee members as regents versus people from outside.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS clarified his question as to
whether there is specialize knowledge the Board of Regents would
have unique access to that is required for the members of those
committees to function well.
REGENT HECKMAN responded that no specialized knowledge is
required of the Board of Regents to serve on committees. For
example, she explained, within the academic and student affairs
committee, Regent Powers has a vast interest in academics,
student services, and student success. Although, she said,
Regent Powers runs a hospital and is not a university affiliate,
and wanted to be engaged in that committee as that aspect of
operations was appealing to him and he has been the chair of
that committee for the last two years. She explained that when
reviewing the Board of Regents to see the vast experience each
brings to the table from their own particular fields and noted
she was a banker for 26 years and has experience in audits,
facilities, and planning and development. The regents'
knowledge is brought to the table with good outside perspectives
so they make good decisions for the university. She said it is
not necessary for a CPA to sit on the audit committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ commented that an accountant may not be
necessary to sit on the audit committee but it helps.
8:27:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, with regard to a single governor
replacing the entire Board of Regents except the student regent,
he said the bill reads that a governor could give a priority but
it isn't required; therefore, the legislature would be
authorizing a single governor to appoint an entirely new Board
of Regents except the student regent and asked whether that
would be problematic.
REGENT HECKMAN replied it would create an entirely new structure
and reorganization would occur. An entirely new Board of
Regents would mean that the currently sitting regents would no
longer exist, she stated, and was not sure how her opinion would
have a bearing on any of this as it would be up to the new group
to organize themselves and conduct business.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified his question as to whether it
takes time for new regents to come up to speed and learn the
job, which might be an impediment if all regents were replaced
at one time. He questioned whether that could be problematic as
far as a new board getting started and running an efficient
operation for the university.
REGENT HECKMAN agreed that efficiency could be lost. She noted
that when she was first appointed, the eight year terms appeared
to be a long appointment, but having now served four terms, she
said, she understands the steep learning curve as it does take
time to become knowledgeable and effective. Certainly, she
pointed out, a learning curve exists among new members as the
system is large and complex and the 4 newly appointed regents
will be brought to speed as quickly as possible. She offered
praise for the experience being brought by the new appointees.
8:33:41 AM
CHAIR KELLER commented that the knowledge and understanding of
each regent is critically important and the "huge"
responsibility placed on the volunteer Board of Regents is
massive. He presumed that if the governor appoints, the
governor can also dismiss at will and asked whether there is any
prohibition of the governor dismissing any regent and further
asked whether there is anything in the Alaska State Constitution
or statute regarding that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the committee packet
and the March 21, 2015 Legal Services memo which states as
follows:
The extent of the governor's authority is also
uncertain, however, is a matter of some debate. An
opinion from the state attorney general concludes that
the governor does not have the power to remove a
regent without cause.
8:35:33 AM
REGENT HECKMAN referred to an earlier comment regarding cost
containment as a possible benefit to reduce the number of
regents to 9 members, and said this is a non-compensated
position for regents. She pointed out in her March 26, 2015
letter that she advised the cost savings for 2 fewer people is
less than $10,000.
CHAIR KELLER stated that in this budget crisis every cost is of
concern and the loss of $10,000 may not appear significant but
it is in the perspective of the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS advised the research showed for FY14 for
the Board of Regents was approximately $294,626, with a division
of 11 regents, the total is $20,000 per regent and when removing
2 regents, it saves $54,000. She argued that the average size
of a proper business board is 9.2, and 9 is not uncommon. She
discussed the transition from 11 members to 9 members of CSHB
107, on page 2, lines 20-22, which read:
TRANSITION. (a) ... In appointing regents under this
section, the governor may give preference to regents
who are serving on the effective date of secs. 1 - 3
of this Act.
REPRESENTATIVE GATIS continued that in looking for the skill
already acquired, the governor can accommodate that. Lastly,
she commented, it is important that the legislature considers
making "true" changes in how it does business as this is a
different time.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he appreciates the cost breakdown
except the major cost is staffing costs and in the event there
are 9 regents rather than 11, he questioned whether the
president would be fired or a staffer to the Board of Regents.
He noted that travel includes meeting costs and regents
traveling to graduations for the universities and it doesn't
mean there would be less travel costs than if there are 11
regents. He maintained that taking the total cost and dividing
it by the number of regents does not necessarily represent the
savings expressed.
8:42:27 AM
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Associate Vice President of State Relations,
University of Alaska, responded that many of the costs on the
Board of Regents are fixed costs and will be identical whether
there are 9 or 11 members. He noted the only savings would be
travel and per diem that 2 less regents would save each year.
Mr. Christensen offered the committee a fiscal note of $9,600,
which is a de minimus amount when discussing a billion dollars a
year. He pointed out this is an unpaid citizens board and they
do not receive a stipend. He noted he has worked for state
government for 32 years and has seen many boards and agencies
with this being his fourth year with the university, and
personally believes it is the most complex operation the state
has in terms of its size and variety of sources of revenue and
the wide variety of functions it carries out. The amount of
work the citizen unpaid board members have to do and are
expected to know is tremendous. He opined that reducing the
members of the board to 9 saves virtually no money, but does
require the volunteer regents to spend even more time and to
work harder to make up the amount of work the other 2 board
members will not be able to share. He responded to the comment
regarding research showing a typical corporate board is
approximately 9.2 members and argued that actually a typical
university board is 11-12 members which is considered best
practices nationally.
8:44:40 AM
CHAIR KELLER asked whether the current presidential search
committee, including people other than the Board of Regents, is
unique.
MR. CHRISTENSEN deferred to Regent Heckman, but responded that
the board brings in experts when necessary such as the
legislature to testify in its committees, but the actual work,
knowledge over time, and voting, must be done by board members.
He explained that a committee system has been created, much like
the legislature, to help divide the work and that work will have
to be divided among fewer regents, which makes their lives
harder.
8:46:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked how many subcommittees there are
right now.
MR. CHRISTENSEN opined there are 4.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked the subject matter of the
subcommittees.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that he does not have the complete list
but opined the subcommittees are: audit, student affairs, and
academic. He deferred to Regent Heckman.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ referred to earlier testimony in which
the savings by eliminating 2 positions is travel and per diem
and questioned whether the total for each of them $9,600, or a
combined total of $19,200.
MR. CHRISTENSEN clarified that the total for both positions is
be $9,600, and offered a fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND questioned the suggestion of inviting
additional members to be members of the committee ex-officio or
otherwise. She opined that would require per diem and travel
expenses to those people being asked to assist the board and
stated she could not see any savings in asking the board to
expand their committees with non-regents.
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify
8:48:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER responded to Representative Vazquez that
he located within the audit that the committee compositions
include: audit, academics, student affairs, facilities and
planning and development, and said he could foresee a merger of
facilities and planning and development. He noted that the
current regents are doing a great job and commented that if the
state is paying the Limited Entry Commission members $140,000 a
year, the legislature should consider compensation for the Board
of Regents as there is an inequity and the regents are probably
working hard than other "outfits." He said he sees a conflict
of interest when regents comment on their own committee's
policies and opined that it is more appropriate that the
people's representatives make policy calls whether or not it is
a 9 or 11 member board, and whether there is regional
representation. Although, he remarked it is appropriate for
regents to comment on administrative issues, function,
operations of the Board of Regents, and the university. As far
as policy setting on what that regency looks like, he opined,
the legislature uses its better wisdom with what is happening,
legislation being enacted, budgeting, and parity amongst
Alaska's universities. He referred to the budgeting
subcommittee actions taken in February when quite a large
decrement was proposed for the university, and opined that CSHB
107 is in response to the comment that came back to the
legislature that a possible result of the budget cut was closing
campuses. He described that as an indication there is a problem
with centralization of the university and not enough
regionalism, and not enough support amongst the different
regions of the state. He pointed out that legislators have
difficulties representing areas that are not part of the main
campus outside of Anchorage or Fairbanks in receiving attention
to programs and resources to the other campuses. A suggestion
to improve the board could be ensuring that a regent has a
background in finances and, he noted, without campus expansion
occurring the facilities committee will not be as busy. He
maintained bringing regional expertise to the table and although
the bill is not perfect he supports it as this is the
conversation necessary for all of the university systems to be
at the table weighing in, preventing duplication, offering an
opportunity for better programs, and to have people with
expertise. He reiterated that when budgeting, it is beneficial
to have someone with a financial background and to consider a
CPA-type person on a panel thereby allowing an in-depth analysis
to the budget and advising the other members.
8:54:30 AM
CHAIR KELLER clarified that his comments regarding the
subcommittees on the Board of Regents is that the Board of
Regents controls itself and structures itself. He said there is
nothing in statute that directs that, or does not direct that,
as it is the Board of Regents' call and he was not suggesting
that the legislature ought to be telling them to have
subcommittees that don't include regents. The issue is that the
options are there and it is their option, not the legislatures,
he expressed.
8:55:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered that he does not see an
overwhelming logic for the reduction of regents from the
information he has reviewed. He agrees with Representative
Seaton and Mr. Christensen in that it appears most of costs
listed on the sheet provided by Representative Gattis's office
seem to be fixed. The cost savings is $9,600 and if the state
is scrounging around for $9,600, it should be done within the
Finance Subcommittee process. He related he is not certain that
is the overwhelming motivation of the reduction to the Board of
Regents as there are far more efficient and effective ways to
capture far more than $9,600. He referred to Regent Heckman's
letter and pointed out that he knows nothing about the internal
function of the Board of Regents, and the prescriptive comment
that the Board of Regents should potentially merge committees -
he does not feel the legislature is in an adequate position to
make those suggestions. He expressed concern regarding the
possible suggestion that non-[regent] members serve on
committees for the regents, which would be like Regent Heckman
walking in and serving on the House Education committee. He
said that with regard to whether the board should be reduced, he
performed a Fortune 500 search that indicates an average of 10.9
members serve on a board. There is no evidence that reducing
the number will provide any relief and, he offered a cautionary
approach to the legislation.
8:59:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered support in adding a member from
the Matanuska-Susitna; however, reduction of the seats makes no
sense. In essence, she pointed out, the legislature is asking a
group of 11 volunteers, in an extremely complex organization, to
make major changes in its governance at a time of severe budget
cuts and crisis. She remarked this is not the time to change
the number of members of the governing body of Alaska's
universities. She described the cost savings as minuscule and
was certain the regents often have telephonic meeting
participation. [Technical difficulties] the size of the Board
of Regents by 2 people will reduce the diversity and will reduce
the representation of the rest of our "far flung" state, which
also has every right to expect to be represented. She said she
was certain the Board of Regents has significant staff support
and anyone serving on an audit committee knows that the board
members do not perform the audits themselves as they hire a
professional CPA firms to perform a single audit or the annual
audit of the organization. Requiring a regent to be of a
particular business background does not make sense to her from
her own experience with good staff assistance and hiring
contractors, she expressed. She reiterated that she completely
supports a Matanuska-Susitna member, and to leave the number of
regents alone for the time being.
9:04:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated he is troubled by this bill in that
the University of Alaska, which is one of the most important
institutions of the state, is being told by the legislature to
reorganize at a time in which the state is needing some vast
changes. Currently, he noted, the regents have an eight year
term of office with a rolling number so it goes beyond one
governor and, yet, this bill establishes that one governor will
appoint every regent. Another problem, he pointed out, is that
the sponsor included a particular consideration so that seats
open up from only a small portion of the state. For example, he
said, a seat opens up from the Kenai Peninsula so the state
needs someone from the Kenai Peninsula that is willing, has
time, and the expertise to serve on a board which requires a
vast amount of time on a voluntary basis. With this legislation
there is a smaller board and having financial expertise,
academic expertise, or facilities expertise ...
9:05:48 AM
CHAIR KELLER interjected "that is not part of the bill."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON argued that it is part of the bill as the
bill reads that the legislature will regionally select these
people and as it has said in the past that it wants a Board of
Regents with diversity and expertise, but there is no
requirement for expertise. He said, "But if you lose the
expertise of a certain issue, let's say financial, the banker
that is there and brings some financial expertise. The only
seat that opens up is one regional seat and you are going to
have to have not only someone from that region that has the
volunteer time and everything else, but to have the well-rounded
board ... well-rounded regents, you are going to have somebody
who is going to do this very difficult job on a voluntary basis
and a lot of time that fills in that expertise cause you don't
have the entire state coming forward." He said a problem
discovered within the materials the committee received is that
there is not a list of people, who over time, have applied to be
on the Board of Regents. Therefore, he stated, the legislature
does know from the materials whether there have been members
specifically from the Matanuska-Susitna who have put their name
forward to be on the Board of Regents. The legislature may
require the governor to search the Matanuska-Susitna area for
someone, but the committee doesn't know whether people have come
forward on a consistent basis to volunteer their name from each
one of the regions the committee is now saying a Board of Regent
must come from. He opined that reorganizing the regents in this
manner is changing much of the dynamics of how the University
Board of Regents would function, and where their expertise would
come from. He said, " You know, we are elected representing
districts and we support our districts and we come here to do
that. And, as well as to consider the statewide implications.
And I think putting these into regions so that you are elected
to represent your region, basically, because you have a regional
seat is going to give a whole different perspective to the
University of Alaska and advancing the university in our state.
So, I'm not going to support that bill."
9:09:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO commented that the need for a quorum can
be easier to gather with fewer members on the board. He said
the history of where the regents originally were seated is not
helpful given the fact that Fairbanks was the only, or main
campus, for much of the recorded time. Within the documents
concern is expressed regarding promoting regionalism or
geographic constituencies but, he opined, six different seats
designated must come from different regions pushes back against
regionalism. In the event there are 9 or 11 members, obviously
one dominate sector of that board from one particular community
promotes regionalism. He said, "I can't see anyone being able
to overcome someone from the Municipality of Anchorage dealing
with people from 4 other municipalities or 5 other
municipalities having a regionalism advantage. I actually think
that really creates more of a broad base of spread. It may not
be popular with people from my area, but that's the way I see
it. I think that is kind of an important feature here." Times
change, Alaska has changed, and the demographics have changed
dramatically so it may be difficult to swallow but, he said, he
can see this change being appropriate in ascertaining that there
is representation for all over. He opined that representation
is a good idea, and he does not believe $9,600 is insignificant
in these times. He said he is supportive of this bill.
9:14:13 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:14 a.m. to 9:21 a.m.
9:21:20 AM
CHAIR KELLER expressed surprise that the Board of Regents and
the University of Alaska is resistant to moving from 11 to 9
members. The Board of Regents works for the governor and it
make policy decisions for the University of Alaska and he opined
that a decision by 9 is easier than a decision by 11. He asked
the committee to leave the members at 9 and suggested allowing
the bill to move through for further discussion in succeeding
committees, or to perhaps bring the question to argument on the
House floor. He said he is appealing to the Board of Regents to
reconsider and noted that the comparison of the House Education
Standing Committee and the Board of Regents is "utterly
ridiculous." The legislative committee does not deal with
administrative workings, or hire its president, and there is an
administrative element on the Board of Regents that is very
different than this committee. Keep in mind, he expressed, that
this is all in the context of a budget that has gone from 2006-
present from $750 million to approximately $900 million. He
said, "We're saying ... and our nexus with the Board of Regents,
you know ... yeah, we get to confirm ... we are 7 of 60 here
that get to confirm the Board of Regents, but our nexus is
purely ... a portion of the university budget that we have
responsibility and accountability to the people we represents.
So, our nexus with the Board of Regents is that we have begged
them to talk to us ... you know ... about the policies and ...
this one thing on the finances ... and when you look at the
finance ... the way the finances have increased, I think it is
completely appropriate that we are interested in a bit of a ...
causing a re-evaluation and a restructuring, if that is
possible." Chair Keller advised he is open to a committee
member making a motion to amend back to 11, and will oppose and
ask for a vote, but his preference is that the committee will
leave it in there at 9, and move it out with the understanding
that discussion will continue. He said, "I confess that that
was my idea, and it was my idea based on the fact that I've been
on both size boards and I know what size I'd rather be on
because it is very difficult for the staff to get a consensus,
for example, from a group of people that have very diverse
responsibilities, and interests, and distractions in their
lives, and it just makes a more efficient system. He reiterated
that the Board of Regents works for the governor, people of
Alaska, and the entire university system and governance-wise, it
is smarter to have 9 members as opposed to 11 members.
9:25:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ put forth that she wholeheartedly
supports adding a seat for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough as it
add geographic diversification, but changing the number from 11
to 9 members is troublesome. She pointed out that there was no
evidence presented that quorums have been difficult to meet, and
given these critical deficit times and the size of the budget,
and opined that the regents have more work to do at this crucial
time. She related that she was swayed by this morning's
testimony and maintained that 11 members could only be helpful.
She expressed concern regarding giving one governor the power to
appoint all of the Board of Regents.
[Technical difficulties 9:28:20 - 9:28:25 a.m.]
9:28:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND advised she performed a search of Boards
of Regent of other states and in New York state, where
Representative Vazquez and Representative Drummond both attended
Cornell University, which is not only an ivy league private
college but is the land grant college of the New York State
university system. She described it as unique in that New York
has a many unique campuses and colleges that are part of its
statewide college system. The New York Board of Regents has 17
members and granted they have 17 million people, but by that
rationale Alaska should have one member of the Board of Regents.
CHAIR KELLER interjected that Representative Vazquez would like
to move an amendment on that topic and the committee will debate
the issue.
9:29:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ proposed Conceptual Amendment 1 to CSHB
107, Version\P, such that the composition of the Board of
Regents would increase from 9 to 11.
CHAIR KELLER clarified that Representative Seaton was not in
objection to the previous adoption of Version P as the working
draft.
CHAIR KELLER objected to Conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the working draft
accounts for the seating of 9 members, and expressed concern for
supporting language regarding the committee reapportioning how
the other 2 members are chosen.
CHAIR KELLER said that conceptually they go back to the 2
members at large, as in the previous version, and there would be
4 members at large as opposed to regional.
9:31:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER offered a secondary amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 1, such that the additional 2 members would
fill into the public member category for a total of 4 public
members.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ clarified that [Amendment 1 to]
Conceptual Amendment 1 would result in the following language
change.
Page 2, Line 4:
Following: (8)
Delete: two
Insert: four
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER related his understanding that the
committee adopted Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 1.
CHAIR KELLER, upon determining there were no further comments on
[Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 1, treated Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 1 as adopted].
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND requested assurance that the remainder
of the proposed CS sections that apply to the transitioning from
11 members to 9. She asked that as this is a conceptual
amendment, does that mean that should the amendment pass that
those other sections of the CS will be rewritten.
CHAIR KELLER replied yes.
9:32:32 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Vazquez,
Colver, Drummond, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of Amendment
1, as amended. Representatives Keller and Talerico voted
against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended, was
adopted by a vote of 5-2.
9:33:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the transition language may
require clarity for how a member in a regional seat may complete
their term following a change of residency. He said, "We still
have it that the governor will appointed everybody but that if a
person ... um ... moves, they get to complete their 8 year term
even though they no longer represent the Mat-Su if they move to
Anchorage, they'll still be considered the Mat-Su representative
even though they've moved to Fairbanks, or the Kenai Peninsula,
or ... I'm unsure how that works, if they're going to now ...
now going to be completing their term ... and yet it's a long
term and yet they were selected as a Mat-Su representative who
now lives in Anchorage. And I just want to get some discussion
on ... what that ..."
CHAIR KELLER interrupted and asked Representative Seaton to
restate his question because the transition section, as far as
people moving, has not changed because the committee went from 9
members to 11 members. He asked whether this is a new question
or is Representative Seaton bringing up the question that was
not addressed sufficiently in the first bite.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that he didn't think it was
addressed sufficiently on the first bite and adopting the CS
from the previous version that had someone terminate when they
changed residency. He referred to page 2, lines 10-11, which
read:
... who ceases to meet the residency requirement for
the position may complete the regent's term of office.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON continued that someone from the Matanuska-
Susitna who is [appointed] would still represent the Matanuska-
Susitna even though they live in Kenai. He said, "I'm trying to
figure out how all this all works cause that would be a seat for
the Mat-Su even though they had moved, and that the next
available regent wouldn't be another person who represented the
Mat-Su but would be for that ... that office ... of which ever
one came up whether this is Fairbanks Northstar Borough would
come up, or ..." He expressed that he doesn't understand the
language as written and determined the bill requires more work
as it is not clear how it all will function.
9:36:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS responded that the portion of the bill
Representative Seaton referred to is part of the bill that has
not been amended and assumed the language will remain. She
advised that residency is 2 years in the regent's area, for
example, in the event a regent is 2 years in the Matanuska-
Susitna and moves to Homer, that regent remains in the
Matanuska-Susitna seat for the next six years in Homer. In the
event a regent must be chosen from the Homer area, they may
because the initial regent remains in the Matanuska-Susitna
seat.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated he was simply asking for
clarification due to the difference in the original HB 107 that
read if there were changes the regent would terminate and a new
regent from that area comes in. Whereas, the CSHB 107 reads
that when a regent is appointed in the Matanuska-Susitna area
they can move at any time and do not have to remain the area for
2 years and the full term would be served wherever the regent
resides and still fulfill the Matanuska-Susitna seat.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS commented that during the prior committee
hearing members brought that issue to the table, which is why
the language was changed.
9:38:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report CSHB 107, Version P, as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected stating that the committee is
attempting to address a perceived problem, but he described is
an unsubstantiated problem. He opined that the committee is
creating many additional changes and problems for the Board of
Regents through looking at a perceived problem.
9:39:59 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins,
Talerico, Vazquez, Colver, Drummond, and Keller voted in favor
of CSHB 107, 29-LS0465\P, Glover, 3/21/15, as amended.
Representative Seaton voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 107
(EDC) was reported out of the House Education Standing Committee
by a vote of 6-1.
9:40:54 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB107.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/27/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HEDC 3/27/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Sectional Analysis of Work Draft Version P.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Fiscal Note UA-SYSBRA-3-12-15.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Explanation of Changes Work Draft Version P.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 CS Word Draft Version P Legal Memo.PDF |
HEDC 3/27/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Opposing Document.docx |
HEDC 3/27/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Opposing Hughes.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Press and Public Input.PDF |
HEDC 3/27/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Support Dr. Paramo.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Sectional Analysis of Version N.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Oppose Document Brd of Regents.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| CSHB107 Workdraft P.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |