Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/10/2001 02:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 203
"An Act making an appropriation to the Legislative
Council for a study of school district cost factors;
and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, SPONSOR testified in support of
the legislation. She explained that the legislation sets
aside $350.0 thousand dollars for a class differential study
on school district cost factors. The state of Alaska has a
constitutional obligation to provide for a full education
for all students.
TAPE CHANGE, HFC 01 - 79, SIDE B
Representative Wilson observed that the economic status of
different areas of the state have changed since 1986. School
district cost factors were last changed in 1986. She
maintained that the current formula, while well intentioned,
has unintentional consequences. A design error, which
tracked expenses as opposed to actual costs of doing
business in each school district, has resulted in flawed
district cost factors. Failure to precisely measure
differential costs across the state has resulted in
inequitable funding.
Representative Wilson noted that many questions remain
unanswered such as: What is the cost of providing an
education in each school district as it relates to Anchorage
as a base? What are the exact costs of electronic
communications in Yakutat? What is the specific cost of fuel
in Dillingham? What are the property insurance rates in Tok?
What does it cost to get a school fire code inspector to
Angoon?
Representative Wilson maintained that HB 203 would provide
factual answers to these questions. HB 203 proposes an
independent study of school cost differentials. She stressed
the need to assess actual costs in each school district.
Vice-Chair Bunde expressed support for the study, but
questioned the difference between the costs of doing
business and the cost of providing education.
Representative Wilson noted that the cost of doing business
differs from school district to school district depending on
the access to services.
Vice-Chair Bunde suggested that section 1 be changed to the
"cost of providing an education in each school district" as
opposed to the "cost of doing business."
Representative Wilson suggested the addition of "it shall be
completed by contract" on page 2, line 5. She did not want
the study to be left to the Department of Education and
Early Development or a committee.
Representative John Davies suggested the substitution of
"operating a school" for "doing business" on lines 9 and 12.
Representative Wilson did not object to the recommendation.
Representative Davies MOVED to insert "operating a school"
and delete "doing business" on lines 9 and 12.
Representative Croft argued in support of the use of
"providing an education". He pointed out that it would be
possible to operate a school without doing a good job of
providing education. He added that it would be necessary to
operate a school in order to provide education.
Representative John Davies pointed out that operating a
school includes hiring faculty.
Vice-Chair Bunde summarized that the intent is to
distinguish between the cost of running a business and the
cost of education. Co-Chair Williams agreed that the
question is the actual cost of the school.
Representative Whitaker questioned if the intent is to
distinguish the cost of operating a school in terms of
maintenance and operation of a school facility or the cost
of providing an education. He emphasized that that intent is
to determine the cost of providing an education. He
suggested that "operating a school" may be too restrictive.
Representative Davies MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1 to insert
"providing an education" on line 9. "Operating a school"
would be retained on line 12 and insert "actual" at the end
of line 11. There being NO OBJECTION, the amendment to
Amendment 1 was adopted:
The study
(1) should be based on the cost of providing an
education in each school district;
(2) should consider the cost of living, including the
cost of food, housing, utilities, transportation,
medical expenses, property values, or other costs that
contribute to the actual cost of operating a school.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 as was adopted as
amended.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2: On page 2,
line 3 insert "shall" and delete "may"; and on page 1, line
5 delete "prepare or." He explained that the amendment would
take out the option of doing the study by any manner other
than a contract.
Representative Wilson questioned if the date should also be
changed to allow more time for the study to be completed.
Representative Hudson argued in support of retaining the
date and pointed out that the following year would be the
second year of the legislature.
Vice-Chair Bunde agreed with the intent of having the
Legislative Council contract for the study. He pointed out
that there may be some expense involved to assure that there
are appropriate guidelines for a contract.
Representative John Davies MOVED to AMEND Amendment 2:
delete "or" and insert "and" (to prepare and contract for
the preparation of a study). There being NO OBJECTION, the
amendment was adopted. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment
2 was adopted as amended.
Representative Whitaker questioned if the review would be
done on a periodic and regular basis. Representative Wilson
observed that SB 36 required a two-year review.
Representative Wilson referred to a study by the McDowell
Group, which was compiled in relationship to SB 36. The
study recommended that the current district cost factors be
maintained and that the department's effort be placed in
reexamining the methodology. She emphasized that the intent
of HB 203 is to make sure that the guidelines are different
and the actual cost to educate a child in each district is
ascertained, so that the differences can be reviewed. She
added that the Department of Education and Early Development
and the Education's Foundation Task Force recommended a
similar study.
Representative John Davies expressed concern with page 1
line 6. He MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3: delete "the
preparation of a study of the district cost factors used as
a component" and insert "preparation of a study recommending
district cost factors to be used as a component". The change
would clarify that the intent is not just a study of
existing factors, but that there should be recommendations
for how it should be fixed. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
PAT HICKEY, KENAI PENINSULA SCHOOL DISTRICT, KENAI testified
via teleconference. He noted that the Kenai Peninsula
Borough contains urban and rural areas. He encouraged the
contractors to take into full account the differences by
attendance areas and not just consider the district as a
whole. He noted that the cost of providing an education in
some small communities have already been compensated for by
economy of scale factors by size, but tend to be diffused by
a district wide application of an area cost factor.
DARROLL HARGRAVES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COUNCIL OF
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS testified via teleconference. He spoke
in support of the legislation. He pointed out that cost
differential studies have been done in a true attempt to
determine the cost of doing business in different
geographical areas of the state. The audits of school
districts were used in SB 36 in an attempt to assess what
school districts were actually spending. He pointed out that
a school district, which held tough on salaries though
negotiation would be disadvantaged. The cost differentials
were based on what "is" not on the "true" costs of doing
business. He recounted a gift from an oil company of
computers. He tried to ship the computers to one community
and found that they could only be shipped strapped into the
passenger seats at the full price of a passenger transport.
Another school district was able to pick up the computers at
no cost. He concluded that there are true costs of doing
business from one community to another. He emphasized that
the cost differentials must reflect true costs. He
maintained that cost differentials in SB 36 were in error.
EDDY JEANS, MANGER, SCHOOL FINANCE AND FACILITIES SECTION,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT spoke in
support of the legislation. The department would like to be
involved in the development of the RFP to assure that all
the cost factors are looked at and considered. The
department would also like to assure that a methodology
results in a tool that can be used on an ongoing basis to
update the cost differentials as required by statute. The
Department of Education and Early Development was not
involved in the last selection. The Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee contracted the last selection.
Representative Hudson noted that nothing would preclude
consultation with the Department of Education and Early
Development on the RFP. He did not think that (consultation
with the department) needed to be in the legislation but
expressed a desire that the contractor confer with the
department in determining what elements should be brought
forward in the contract.
Representative Croft observed that the Department of
Education and Early Development was not consulted last time
and pointed out that serious mistakes were made. He felt
that it should be in the intent language.
Representative Whitaker maintained that the intent is to
strike a balance and determine a basis for the equitability
of the formula. If the project becomes too vast and
"potentially politically involved" then it would be a
disservice. He added that it would also be a disservice if
the study does not provide for input that is meaningful. He
suggested that the intent should be carefully worded.
Representative Hudson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4: add a new
subsection: (6) Shall confer with the Department of
Education and Early Development in preparation of the RFP
for this study.
Representative Guess pointed out that a new subsection would
refer back to the study. She suggested that the language
would be in the wrong place.
Representative John Davies suggested an amendment to
Amendment 4, to add the language on page 1, line 5: insert
after "Council" "in consultation with the Department of
Education and Early Development".
Representative Hudson WITHDREW Amendment 4. Representative
Davies MOVED to ADOPT amended Amendment 4, by Representative
Hudson: insert after "Council" "in consultation with the
Department of Education and Early Development". There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Guess noted that five states have cost
differentials, each with different methodologies. There is
no agreement on the best way to determine an education price
index. New research shows that an expenditure-based model is
the worst way. She discouraged the use of an expenditure-
based model. She acknowledged the difficulty of producing an
unbiased model but emphasized the creation of a clear model.
She spoke in support of a cost differential that is
updateable with data outside of the department.
Representative Hudson MOVED to report CSHB (FIN) out of
Committee.
CSHB 203 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation.
#hb193
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to the primary election; and providing
for an effective date."
AVRUM GROSS, JUNEAU, stated that he was a member of a task
force appointed by the Lieutenant Governor to address the
fact that the state's primary election law ceased to exist,
after the last primary, due to a decision of the United
States Supreme Court (California Democratic Pary et al. v.
Jones, Secretary of State et. Al.. (530 U.S. 567, 2000). He
added that emergency regulations, which responded to the
decision, expired.
Mr. Gross explained that the Court ruled that, while states
with blanket primaries could continue, political parties had
the right to change the rules to limit participation. Alaska
has operated under blanket primary law. The task force was
established to deal with the fact that parties have to have
input into who would participate in the selection of their
candidates. He reviewed the makeup of the task force and
concluded that it was nonpartisan.
The Task Force's intent was to make the minimal change
necessary to existing law. Public testimony was taken from
all parties and the Department of Law. The recommendation of
the Task Force was that all voters be allowed to vote in a
party's primary unless the party notified the lieutenant
governor, by September 1, that the primary would be closed.
To the extent that party registration was an issue, the
registration would have to be established 30 days before the
election, which is the deadline for voter registration. He
indicated that the proposal received support from the major
parties. A blanket primary was chosen because it was
traditional in Alaska and it would allow the maximum number
of people to participate in the primary. The state would
stand for maximum participation subject to a party's right
to close. The original bill [based on the Task Force's
recommendations] was changed in the House State Affairs
Committee and the process reversed. Under the House State
Affairs version, all primaries would be closed (only
Republicans could vote in republican primaries and only
Democrats could vote in democratic primaries) unless their
party opened the primary.
The House Judiciary Committee further amended the
legislation to state that independents could also vote in a
party's primary.
Representative John Davies observed that the HJUD version
partially opened the primary and questioned if a political
party could chose to close their primary to independent
voters. Mr. Gross affirmed that they could close their
primary to independents. He summarized that the HJUD version
allows parties to close or open their primaries as they see
fit. The original bill opened primaries and required action
by a party to close them.
In response to a question by Representative Lancaster, Mr.
Gross clarified that once a change occurs it remains in
force until the party changes it. Changes must occur by
September of the proceeding year. This provision was also
contained in the original task force bill.
TAPE CHANGE, HFC 01 - 80, SIDE A
In response to a question by Representative Hudson, Mr.
Gross clarified that a [candidate] could not chose to allow
all voters if their party restricted the ballot.
Mr. Gross observed that the more a primary is narrowed the
"purer" the candidates become, but emphasized that "at the
same time the less chance they have to win a general
election because they don't have support from a large number
of people."
Representative Whitaker clarified that a party's ballot
would be open to nonpartisan and undeclared voters unless
the party closes it. Mr. Gross agreed and interjected that
it would not be open to any other registered party members.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that the Court decision requires
action by the Legislature.
Representative John Davies observed that Court's action was
in response to requests by the Republican and Democratic
parties in Alaska and other states. Mr. Gross observed that
an initiative in California began the [court's involvement
in] blanket primary law.
SARAH FELIX, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
provided information on the legislation. She explained that
a question arose during deliberations in the House Judiciary
Committee regarding "no party" petition candidates on
primary election ballots. Under current law, unaffiliated
candidates overlooked must appear on the primary ballot. The
House Judiciary Committee decided that they would not appear
on the primary election ballot. Unaffiliated candidates
would only appear on the general election ballot. She noted
that an amendment to AS 15,25,150, the filing deadline, is
needed. The filing deadline was left at June 1. If "no
party" candidates do not appear on the primary ballot the
deadline would not be June 1. The filing deadline should be
the date of the primary election. Legal opinions have
indicated that "no party" candidates could be held to a
earlier filing date.
Co-Chair Mulder stated his intention to entertain an
amendment to address the issue.
Ms. Felix explained that "no party" candidates are those
that do not belong to a recognized political party. Some may
belong to a political group, which is an organization of
people of a political affiliation that has not achieved the
status of a recognized political party and some may not be
representing any group. Alaska has six recognized political
parties. Discussion ensued regarding the qualifications of
recognized parties.
Co-Chair Mulder observed that under the amendment
certification would be required by the primary election date
in order to be eligible for the November election.
Representative John Davies MOVED to ADOPT a conceptual
amendment to move the date in AS 15.25.150 to be consistent
with the primary election date for filing for "no party"
candidates. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 193 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|