Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/30/2009 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB204 | |
| HB58 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 204 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 58-EDUC LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM 8:44:10 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 58 "An Act relating to a student loan repayment program for specified occupations or fields in which a shortage of qualified employees exists." [Before the committee was CSHB 58, Version 26-LS0307\P, Mischel, 2/25/09.] 8:44:51 AM KACI SCHROEDER, Staff to Representative Bill Thomas, Alaska State Legislature, explained that since there had been several issues with selecting who would be eligible for the program, she spoke with several different departments. The aforementioned resulted in an amendment, labeled 26-LS0307\P.8, Mischel, 3/27/09, that should address the concerns. She noted that department representatives are present to relate the exact selection procedure they will use. She also noted that the committee packet should include other amendments for the committee's consideration. 8:46:34 AM MS. SCHROEDER explained that the amendment labeled 26- LS0307\P.8, Mischel, 3/27/09, will allow the commissioners of the Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD) and the Department of Administration (DOA) to jointly decide the needs of the state in regard to recruitment. The aforementioned is appropriate since commissioners of the departments are the decision-makers. Furthermore, having the commissioners make the decision provides fluidity to address the changing needs of the state. She noted that the first part of the amendment specifies that only state employees are being addressed. 8:47:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26-LS0307\P.8, Mischel, 3/27/09, which read: Page 3, line 29, following "hired": Insert "by the state" Page 4, line 2, following "employed": Insert "by the state" Page 4, line 8: Delete "in" Insert "by" Page 4, lines 9 - 11: Delete "by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development as having a shortage of qualified employees in the state" Insert "jointly by the commissioner of administration and the commissioner of labor and workforce development as having a shortage of qualified persons available to be employed by the state" The committee took an at-ease form 8:48 a.m. to 8:49 a.m. 8:49:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH reminded the committee that Amendment 1 is in response to questions surrounding who the qualified employees would be. The original legislation listed qualifications as the types of personnel, but it was confusing. He opined that using the discretion of the commissioners on an ongoing basis is probably the best way to make the determination as to who the qualified employees are. 8:50:57 AM CHAIR SEATON recalled that public testimony is still open, and therefore he requested that the motion to adopt Amendment 1 be withdrawn. He expressed the desire to allow the public to be aware of the amendments prior to taking public testimony. 8:51:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 1. 8:52:24 AM ANNETTE KREITZER, Commissioner, Department of Administration (DOA), explained that Amendment 1 narrows those who are covered under the legislation to only state employees. She informed the committee that DOA has the ability to review how people recruit for positions. She recalled when she was appointed as commissioner and uncovered a barrier to state employment in the form of 10 questions, referred to as desirable qualifications. Those 10 questions are no longer used. Furthermore, hiring managers have been asked to review minimum qualifications and determine whether they still fit the need. For instance, it's redundant to require a bachelor's degree of those who are certified in Microsoft to work on the state's computer systems. She related that DOA's part is to review how recruiting is occurring in order to ensure that the state isn't causing an artificial shortage. 8:56:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed her desire to ensure that behaviors are actually being changed with HB 58. She posed a scenario in which an Alaskan student receives an engineering degree from out-of-state and returns to the state. She then inquired as to how the funds would be used to change behavior. MS. KREITZER said that she will be conservative in terms of the positions that would qualify for the funds provided by HB 58. She acknowledged that there is a risk in providing funds to students who were going into a career in which the state has identified shortages. 8:58:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER posed a scenario in which a student attending school on a scholarship returns to the state with an education in a high needs field and no student debt. In such a situation, would that individual have an opportunity to participate in the program proposed in HB 58, she asked. MS. KREITZER remarked that there will always be gaps in regard to who is covered with programs such as these. Therefore, it's a policy call for the legislature. 8:58:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to what other steps are being taken to recruit for state positions. MS. KREITZER offered that other measures being pursued include: a geographic differential study, a salary study, an independent review of the Human Resources integration in DOA, an increase in salary for non-union employees per House Bill 412 [which was th passed in the 25 State Legislature], and recruitment representatives dispatched out of state. 9:01:24 AM MS. KREITZER, in response to Representative Munoz, clarified that it isn't about adding state employees. However, considering those who are retiring, it is important to recruit actively to maintain a healthy workforce. She expressed the hope that salary increases will make positions more attractive. "It really is about continuing the pipeline of talent that's necessary to achieve the things the state needs to do," she said. 9:02:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ opined that the top 10 positions in high need would likely expand and contract. Therefore, she asked if the intention is to maintain flexibility to meet the current demands. MS. KREITZER replied yes, and added that she anticipated that the department will continually review the situation. 9:04:06 AM CHAIR SEATON then turned the committee's attention to proposed Amendment 3, labeled 26-LS0307\P.4, Mischel, 3/16/09, which read: Page 5, line 8, following "program": Insert "and is subject to appropriation" Page 5, following line 21: Insert a new subsection to read: "(d) A repayment benefit approved under this section may not be construed as an entitlement and is subject to cancellation or modification by the commission at any time." 9:04:38 AM MS. SCHROEDER explained that Amendment 3 clarifies that the proposed program is not an entitlement and that the needs or the funding could change. 9:05:25 AM MS. KREITZER said that the language in Amendment 3 is satisfactory to ensure that people realize the proposed program isn't an entitlement. In regard to the cap, Ms. Kreitzer relayed that she is neutral on the cap. 9:06:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the legislation includes language that takes into consideration location specifics. MS. KREITZER answered that she didn't believe the legislation included anything specific about location. However, it's an issue throughout state government that the department reviews in order to determine whether there's an actual shortage of positions. She explained that the department would first review recruiting and whether that needs to be addressed. 9:07:27 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if the department supports the four-year repayment schedule in rural areas and six-year repayment schedule in urban areas, contained in HB 58. MS. KREITZER stated that she is neutral on the remainder of the legislation. 9:08:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pointed out that the benefits under this legislation are considered taxable income, although that wasn't the case at one time. Therefore, he inquired as to whether there is movement, nationally or otherwise, to urge the U.S. Treasury to return to the nontaxable status for benefits such as those proposed in HB 58. MS. KREITZER responded that she wasn't aware of such, but offered to ask around about such. 9:08:42 AM CHAIR SEATON then turned the committee's attention to proposed Amendment 2, labeled 26-LS0307\P.7, Mischel, 3/27/09, which read: Page 4, line 13: Delete "on annually over a period of not more than six years. The maximum annual repayment benefit under this section is" Insert "in an amount not to exceed $50,000, payable by dividing that amount into annual payments to be paid over a period of not more than six years, as follows:" Page 4, line 18: Delete "principal plus accrued interest" Insert "loan balance" Page 4, line 20: Delete "principal plus accrued interest" Insert "loan balance" Page 4, line 22: Delete "principal plus accrued interest" Insert "loan balance" Page 4, line 24: Delete "principal plus accrued interest" Insert "loan balance" Page 4, line 27: Delete "principal plus accrued interest" Insert "loan balance" Page 4, line 29: Delete "principal plus accrued interest" Insert "loan balance" Page 4, line 31: Delete "principal plus accrued interest" Insert "loan balance" Page 5, line 2: Delete "principal plus accrued interest" Insert "loan balance" Page 5, line 4: Delete "principal plus accrued interest" Insert "loan balance" Page 5, line 6: Delete "principal plus accrued interest" Insert "loan balance" 9:08:55 AM MS. SCHROEDER explained that Amendment 2 places a $50,000 cap on the benefit that each student may receive. The remainder of the amendment makes conforming changes to the repayment schedules in order to have a better handle on the cost of the program. Ms. Schroeder noted that although the legislature may want to remove the cap in the future, it seems appropriate given the state's current financial status. 9:09:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the intent of the original legislation was broader in scope, and thus addressed more than state employees. MS. SCHROEDER said that at this time the [sponsors] have chosen to stay with state employees because more information is available for state employees. She informed the committee that DLWD has said that in a few years it will have more information about the private sector, at which time it may be appropriate to include the private sector. 9:10:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON interjected that the private sector tends to pay more than the state, and therefore it most likely doesn't experience the same difficulties as the state. 9:10:40 AM HANNAH HARRISON, Intern, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State Legislature, related her understanding that Representative Thomas has said that the legislation originated after a state biologist informed him of the difficulty recruiting biologists. The state biologist related that in the past legislation had been introduced and he hoped a similar effort could be made. 9:11:12 AM CHAIR SEATON highlighted that the committee also has before it an amendment that would delete all the material on page 3, lines 27-28, which stipulates that an applicant must be a resident of the state when submitting an application. The aforementioned has consequences for returning students. Chair Seaton explained that the loans are all through the Alaska Student Loan Corporation, and therefore those who qualify for an Alaska student loan could have them repaid. The goal, he clarified, was to ensure that the program didn't allow for the repayment of a student loan that wasn't within the State of Alaska. 9:12:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested an explanation as to the source of revenue for this program. MS. SCHROEDER specified that the program's funding comes directly from the legislature, and therefore is subject to appropriation by the legislature. 9:13:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ surmised then that the language suggesting a dividend is merely suggestive. MS. SCHROEDER explained that since the corporation can pay the state a dividend, the legislation allows the option of the corporation placing the dividend in a fund. 9:14:11 AM DR. MARTIN LASTER, Coordinator, Education Leadership Program, University of Alaska Southeast, began by commending the committee for all the work it has done. He then expressed concern for teachers who have been working in the state for some time and have decided, with the support of their superintendents, to become principals. The position of principal is very important in terms of change and effectiveness as well as an area in which the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) has suggested that there are significant turnover problems. Furthermore, folks are being brought in [from out of state] to fill these positions, which results in the double challenge of fitting in and understanding Alaska's climate, demographics, cultural issues, and isolation issues. Dr. Laster pointed out that originally HB 58 spoke to Alaska qualified employees and actually listed education. He asked that the committee keep in mind that there aren't many places where teachers can go and know the additional support of the state, as suggested in HB 58. 9:18:45 AM DR. MARTIN, in response to Representative Wilson, explained that a teacher has a type "A" certificate. In order to supervise people, a type "B" certificate is required. The teachers work through a Master's degree of leadership and then their names are submitted to the state in order to certify that they are eligible for a type "B" certificate. In further response to Representative Wilson, Dr. Martin acknowledged that there are different ways to approach this certificate. Although distance education courses within the state can be taken, this particular program requires teachers to come to Juneau for the better part of the summer to build a cohort of new leaders. The teachers then utilize distance delivery and then return to Juneau for another summer. In response to Chair Seaton, Dr. Martin confirmed that the teachers normally take a student loan to pay for the program. 9:21:14 AM JACK WALSH, Superintendent, Bristol Bay School District, thanked the committee for the work it does. He suggested that supporting in-state students is critical in retaining teachers. He then noted his appreciation for Dr. Laster's testimony regarding teachers obtaining leadership degrees. He recalled his experience with the principal program which Dr. Laster referenced, and related that it took him several summers to complete the program. 9:24:11 AM CHAIR SEATON, upon determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony. 9:24:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26-LS0307\P.8, Mischel, 3/27/09. [Text provided previously.] CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion. 9:25:10 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if the language "employed by the state" that would be inserted by Amendment 1 means a state or political subdivision or strictly the State of Alaska. MS. SCHROEDER answered that it refers strictly to the State of Alaska. CHAIR SEATON removed his objection. 9:25:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER indicated her objection and inquired as to what would occur if the two commissioners disagree with regard to what is high need. MS. SCHROEDER pointed out that the term "jointly" is utilized and thus the two commissioners must agree. 9:26:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER removed her objection. 9:26:28 AM There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 9:26:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2, labeled 26-LS0307\P.7, Mischel, 3/27/09. [Text provided previously.] 9:26:55 AM CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion. Upon determining there was no discussion on Amendment 2, he withdrew his objection. 9:27:15 AM There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. 9:27:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 3, labeled 26-LS0307\P.4, Mischel, 3/16/09. [Text provided previously.] 9:27:46 AM CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion. 9:28:01 AM MS. SCHROEDER reminded the committee that Amendment 3 clarifies that the program is not an entitlement. 9:28:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH noted his appreciation that Amendment 3 provides that the program can be canceled. 9:28:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if the language "may not be construed as an entitlement" is fairly common language. It appears to be a subjective statement, he said. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ opined that the language suggests that the state is not required to fund the program and thus the benefit can't automatically be given. 9:29:35 AM MS. SCHROEDER pointed out that CSHB 58, Version P, already includes language specifying that the program isn't an entitlement. However, upon the request of the department the language in Amendment 3 was proposed to ensure that absolutely no student would construe that they were locked into a payment. CHAIR SEATON recalled committee discussion on this matter at a prior hearing in which the desire was to ensure that the program targeted needed jobs and that the state wasn't committing repayment of loans for jobs that weren't of critical need. 9:31:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON expressed satisfaction with the response. 9:31:57 AM CHAIR SEATON removed his objection. There being no further objections, Amendment 3 was adopted. 9:32:12 AM The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:32 a.m. 9:32:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 4, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 3, Lines 27-28 DELETE ALL MATERIAL 9:33:23 AM CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion. 9:33:29 AM CHAIR SEATON, after reminding the committee of the purpose of Conceptual Amendment 4, removed his objection. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted. 9:35:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report CSHB 58, Version 26- LS0307\P, Mischel, 2/25/09, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 9:35:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected. She said that although she appreciates the intent of HB 58, it's a large amount of money to spend on a program that may or may not alter behavior. However, she listed a number of other means that would serve the same purpose in a more effective manner, such as updating the state's salary scales and possibly a retirement plan. Furthermore, she questioned how anyone could rely on and plan to use the proposed program if it's subject to cancelation and modification. She then suggested that a new engineering building for the University of Alaska should be constructed to host various engineering programs statewide. Representative Gardner opined that bigger bang for the buck would be achieved by providing need and merit scholarships for the state's students attending the state's university. In fact, those scholarships could be focused on the high needs fields. 9:36:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related her belief that people who couldn't pursue careers in high needs fields will do so due to the state helping to repay the loan. 9:37:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted her agreement with Representative Wilson's comments. 9:37:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said that although he wouldn't oppose HB 58 moving from committee, he associated himself with the statements of Representative Gardner. 9:38:24 AM CHAIR SEATON said that this legislation attempts to fill the vacancies throughout the state with people who took out Alaska student loans and fill critical positions. Although he noted his agreement that constructing a science building would be good for Alaskan students, it doesn't target the vacant jobs. 9:40:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH acknowledged that there are other incentives to fill jobs. However, he related his view that first there need to be students seeking careers in the professions in which the state faces a high need, which is what HB 58 seeks to encourage. Therefore, Representative Buch said he would support HB 58. 9:41:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related that although he won't stand in the way of passing the legislation from committee, it may be creating a hiring preference for those who have been helped by the proposed program. He expressed concern that it seems the committee isn't looking at the big picture. 9:42:30 AM CHAIR SEATON pointed out that other programs do address specific critical shortage areas, such as the Wyoming, Washington, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho (WWAMI) program. In fact, the committee heard legislation today that would repay student loans of WWAMI students [in an effort to fill an area of critical shortage]. The two pieces of legislation seek the same goal, but HB 58 has a quicker repayment time for those who serve in rural Alaska. 9:43:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON requested a recap of the residency requirements. MS. SCHROEDER recalled that the commission uses a definition of residency that's similar to that used in other programs. She noted that there had been concern with the requirement to be in Alaska for 60 days before applying for a job because some people won't return to Alaska unless they have a job. CHAIR SEATON clarified that this is repayment of only loans taken out under the Alaska Student Loan program. Therefore, the student would've had to qualify for the Alaska Student Loan program to obtain a loan and want to return to Alaska for a job. 9:44:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER maintained her objection. 9:44:37 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Munoz, Wilson, Edgmon, Keller, Buch, and Seaton voted in favor of reporting CSHB 58, Version 26-LS0307\P, Mischel, 2/25/09, as amended, out of committee. Representative Gardner voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 58(EDC) was reported out of the House Education Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 204 information.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/1/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 204 |
| AmendingCSHB58 verP3 28.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 material.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 fiscal note.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 amendment.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |
| HB58EduAmendPacket.pdf |
HEDC 3/30/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 58 |