Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/21/1995 02:08 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HHES - 03/21/95 HB 216 - ESTABLISHING ALASKA EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM Number 1645 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this is the first time this bill is being heard, therefore it is not the intent of the chair to move the bill today. Testimony will be taken. ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant for Representative Pete Kott, provided the sponsor statement on the representative's behalf. HB 216 establishes the Alaska Education Technology Program in the state of Alaska. This is not a new concept to the state legislature. In previous years there have been similar pieces of legislation introduced for this purpose. The major difference between this bill and previous legislation to that effect is that this bill seeks to eliminate most of the bureaucracy that was present and required through the review and qualifying process used in previous bills dealing with this topic. MR. MOURANT said education technology is very important to the students and the general public in Alaska. Every day in the Capitol Building and every day in the lives of the legislators they experience such technology. Mr. Mourant is certain that many members of the HESS Committee have Personal Computers (PCs) at home. They may spend time on the various computer networks that are available worldwide, and on the Internet as well. These systems can be used to share information and retrieve valuable knowledge. Number 1746 MR. MOURANT continued that HB 216 establishes the criteria for the education technology fund, and then, in Section 2, requires that performance of programs granted money under this program are part of the annual report card on education in the state of Alaska. MR. MOURANT said Section 3 defines the legislation and lays out the process, the criteria and the information that must be contained in the grant application package that is submitted to the DOE. This is a matching grant program. Besides public schools in Alaska, public libraries are also eligible for grants under this program. Number 1783 MR. MOURANT said the program will be funded through the earnings of an education technology fund. Representative Kott plans on introducing an appropriation for the bill to create an education technology fund. The earnings of that fund will be available as grant money on an ongoing basis. It will be an ongoing source of funding for schools and for public libraries to use in their pursuit of higher technology. MR. MOURANT has contacted the Department of Revenue (DOR), Treasury Division. This division manages the investment for such a fund. Based on the information from the Chief Investment Officer, it is reasonable to project that if the principal of the fund is $10 million, the anticipated earnings based on projections for the next five years would range between $750,000 and $900,000 per fiscal year for a $10 million endowment. Number 1843 MR. MOURANT said a fiscal note from the DOR was included in the bill packet. That is for $16,500 to manage the fund. That is the standard small fund management fee that the Treasury Division receives to manage a small fund that is part of the general fund in an investment portfolio. Also in the packet is a zero fiscal note from the Department of Administration which will be affected only because of access through various networks through their system. MR. MOURANT continued that there are two fiscal notes from the DOE in the bill packet. The first note is from Education Program Support, Basis Education and Instructional Improvement Unit to fund a position to review the grant applications received from around the state and to make certain all the elements of the grant application are present. HB 216 does spell out what the grant application must consist of. DOE will make sure all the required elements are present. MR. MOURANT said a fiscal note is also included from State Library Operations. It rightly anticipates that public libraries around the state will see an opportunity to upgrade their services to the general public through this program. Mr. Mourant has spoken several times with the DOE and his office will continue to work with the DOE on the fiscal notes and the role of the department. Number 1910 MR. MOURANT said Representative Kott, after looking at the fiscal note from State Library Operations, thought it made an excellent grant application for the program once it is adopted because it will serve a very useful and important role in the process. MR. MOURANT wanted to show HESS Committee members a document which indicated the matching fund requirements for communities. These are based on full-value average daily membership (ADM)-type calculations. In that regard, Anchorage and Juneau would be in a 30 percent match scenario. Number 1940 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there would be any entities that would have zero matching funds. MR. MOURANT said no. He said although the rates may vary, he calculated that Galena, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Kake and Nenana will all be at 5 percent. REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON said she supports this program, but she is a little skeptical because currently on the books is a Children's Trust Fund that is nothing without anything in the trust. She asked if another appropriation bill was going to be introduced that would request $10 million for the Education Technology Program. MR. MOURANT said that HB 216 is not an appropriations bill. There will be an appropriation introduced that is either a stand-alone bill or it will be introduced through another mechanism available for appropriation. Mr. Mourant said Representative Kott has not finalized his decision on the size of the appropriation. It will be as large as $20 million, but all calculations have been based on a $10 million figure. Number 2002 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON also asked how this will work for the department if the appropriation does not get through to put money into the endowment fund. If this bill was to pass, would the DOE get the money to set up a program that will not happen? MR. MOURANT answered that if the appropriations bill did not happen, he would see no reason for the department to conduct an unfunded program. He thought the legislature, as they deal with appropriations bills, would not fund the fiscal notes if they did not fund the fund. That would eliminate the problem for the department. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said HESS Committee members would study HB 216 until it sees the appropriation bill to have a better idea of the results. The HESS Committee would like to make sure it is not simply doing a paperwork exercise. Number 2042 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reiterated that she thinks this is a wonderful program, and she would love to see it set up. She would also love to see the Children's Trust Fund funded. However, when the legislature is seeking to cut education to the level it is, and the Governor has requested $18 million to improve Alaska's education system, it is difficult to support this kind of action at this time. CO-CHAIR BUNDE shared her concerns. He said he would love to be able to fund an education trust, period. Number 2070 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said on page 5, concerning the ADM, participating share, there is a big gap between the 30 percent and the 5 percent. Representative Rokeberg asked if that was intentionally done in order to assist bush areas. MR. MOURANT said that is not the concept in mind. Actually, little consideration was given to altering the percentage allocations based on ADMs that were in previous legislation. If the committee in its wisdom chose to change those percentage allocations, Mr. Mourant suspects the bill's sponsor would have no objections. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that those provisions be studied before the bill is returned before the committee. It seems like a large gap. Number 2110 VICKIE KELLY, Representative, Craig Schools, testified via teleconference that the parents and community in Craig have made a strong commitment to providing technology for Craig's children. Over the past five years, the school board has supported the addition of technology in the educational program at Craig schools. The role of technology in the lives of Alaska's children is an essential part of their development to be contributing members of society, both now and even more so in the future. MS. KELLY said all children from preschool through college are using technology to assist in their educational endeavors. Technology is playing a very vital role in providing educational opportunities in rural Alaska that would not otherwise be available. Through technology such as video conferencing and on- line communication the people of Craig are able to provide a link for their students to communicate and experience some of the diversity not only of Alaska but with the rest of the world. MS. KELLY continued that these are experiences and knowledge that are vital to the success of Alaska's children. She strongly supports HB 216 regarding technology and education in Alaska schools and urged the committee's support as well. Number 2159 CHICK BECKLEY, Director of Technology, Aleutians East Borough School District, testified via teleconference from Cold Bay. He supported HB 216. To him, this bill is more than just an educational issue. He sees the bill as something that benefits all Alaskan communities because the infrastructure that is developed through these tools will benefit every community. Most schools are used as community centers, and the schools are a logical focus for technology development. Therefore, when this sort of technological effort is coordinated, the entire state benefits, not just the educational community. MR. BECKLEY continued by saying that as early as 1981, technology was an entity in education. Alaska led the nation in the implementation of educational technology. Alaska seems to have dropped that ball in the last few years as the state has taken its eye off the vision. In this current atmosphere where it seems fashionable to see government as the enemy of the public, Mr. Beckley suggested there are projects and visions that cannot move forward without the support of government. This is one of those initiatives and efforts. Number 2227 MR. BECKLEY added the superintendent of Fairbanks North Star Borough has noted how different Alaska has been since the building of the Alaska Highway in 1942. This ended the isolation experienced by many rural areas and Alaska in general. Mr. Beckley suggested that the same challenge is being faced today in the realm of technology. Many states around the country are taking state initiatives to build these infrastructures. MR. BECKLEY said Alaska also needs to lead in this regard. Individual districts or regional efforts, while well-meaning and well-directed, oftentimes send conflicting messages to telecommunications providers. Efforts are duplicated, and resources are not as effectively used as they would be if efforts were coordinated in a bill of this sort. MR. BECKLEY said today, Alaska faces heavy challenges. Mr. Beckley welcomes looking toward the legislature and the Governor of Alaska and responding favorably to them. Mr. Beckley thanked HESS Committee members for the opportunity to speak. TAPE 95-24, SIDE B Number 024 TESS LANUM, Vice-President, North Star PTA, testified via teleconference that she is a parent concerned with the quality of education for children in Alaska. She voiced support for HB 216. The benefits of an educational technology program in Alaska would be tremendous. She has seen evidence of the benefits that technology can bring in her school at North Star. MS. LANUM said North Star is part of the reduced site class grant which has been received, and it has enabled her school to implement its own technology plan. The school has integrated technology as a learning tool, and she has already seen a significant impact on student learning. Ms. Lanum also extended an invitation to the committee to visit her school and see first-hand the benefits of technology in the classroom. Number 123 SKIP VIA, Teacher and Technology Specialist, Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, testified via teleconference. He thanked Representatives Kott and Brown for sponsoring this much needed legislation. He said the need for this bill has been very eloquently outlined in the findings and purpose of the bill. He asked HESS Committee members to pay attention to that section of the bill. MR. VIA thought the ability to access information resources on worldwide networks is one of the most powerful delineators between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in the information society. This bill speaks well for the need to develop equity in schools and to bring all schools up to a standard that will allow children and teachers to understand and utilize technology effectively as a part of everything in the learning process. Number 193 MR. VIA concluded by hoping HESS Committee members will consider at some point how this bill is to be funded. It sounds to Mr. Via like it is going to be funded through an endowment, and the endowment's earnings will be used to fund the program. Mr. Via suggested that a different premise be considered as a mechanism in which an amount is put in every year for five years. He suggested $10 million a year for five years be given to establish a fund that would pay directly to school districts to implement the programs that are outlined in this bill. MR. VIA fully supports this legislation and the principle behind it. Number 272 SUE HULL, representative of the Alaska PTA, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks that technology has been one of the top five priorities of her district for at least three years. Parents across the state are concerned about technology. Conversations that have taken place at conventions or conferences have indicated this. MS. HULL continued that from a parent's perspective, technology has become, in many ways, the new inequality in schools. There are schools in which students have access to the kind of training that will open doors for them in the future. Children in schools where that opportunity is not available actually may have the hardware and equipment, but do not have the access to the kind of training for teachers that would enable them to take advantage of it. MS. HULL said the Alaska PTA is very interested in proposals such as HB 216. Number 325 MS. HULL wanted to make two points. This is a crucial investment for the future. She reiterated previous testimony and said technology is the way to level the playing field geographically for Alaska and will enable Alaska to participate in the future. Technology is very important for students to prepare for the future. MS. HULL'S son is in the seventh grade. As they were waiting to testify, she and her son talked about the difference between students who come from schools where there is a technology program that enables students to get proficient in the skills for using the Internet, for example; and her son who came from a different school where computers were available but teachers are not trained well enough to use them. Now that her son is in the middle school, it may be awhile before he gets access to that kind of training. MS. HULL said that kind of training is not really available at her son's middle school and high school. This is a problem, and she discussed the need for some kind of summer camp or something. Even that is still only a program that would be available for a small portion of the population. Number 413 MS. HULL'S second point was that this inequality is something the state cannot turn its back on. Great care must be taken to administer the funds for this program. She cannot tell from reading the bill exactly who would be making the decisions to determine which grants will be funded. She cannot tell whether the department will make the decisions or the legislature. MS. HULL thought it is important to look at those determinations and to be sure decisions are removed to the greatest degree possible from political considerations. She also suggested prioritizing grants so they will be given to those most needy. MS. HULL said this sends a clear message that this is something that is important to Alaska in terms of preparing students to face the future. Number 470 CAROL MEARES, Legislative Chair, Fairbanks District Council PTA, said Alaska is in need of a comprehensive technology bill that will enhance technology training statewide and provide the equipment necessary to get the job done. The state needs to look at four areas of support in order for technology education to be successful in Alaska resulting in business employment opportunities. MS. MEARES said first, a statewide network infrastructure must be developed. Computers are no longer just for word processing and spreadsheets. They must be hooked up to other computers for two- way communication and information exchange. Second, adequate equipment in schools must be provided to connect to this infrastructure so Alaskan children can keep up with the ever- changing world. MS. MEARES said there are some very exciting exchanges going on in some of the Fairbanks Elementary Schools between students and other networks worldwide. Expanding opportunities need to be available to students statewide. Ms. Meares would like to see the distribution of funds stay out of the legislative arena, like has been said previously, and placed under the authority of the DOE. Ms. Meares does not think money should be appropriated the way it is done with the education capital projects where projects are funded according to names on a list. MS. MEARES said instead, the opportunity for grants must be made available for more schools. Some sort of grant program would distribute the money more equitably. Number 556 MS. MEARES spoke on her third point. She felt adequate staff training was needed for the technology education program. This is crucial to the success of this program. A school could have all the computers it could ever want, but if teachers do not know how to use the computers, they will not use them and neither will the students. Staff training will ensure that the equipment does not sit in the corner. MS. MEARES continued with her fourth point. She said significant resources are needed to make all these plans happen. She suggested a considerable sum of money be allocated over the next five years. She asked HESS Committee members to consider that the goal is to provide equal access statewide. MS. MEARES said Alaska has a unique opportunity. Considering the possibilities, technology hooked into a statewide network infrastructure could provide endless business and employment opportunities for the rural and urban populations. No longer will a person need to live close to a business to be employed by that business. Instead, there is a potential for a new Alaskan cottage industry. Number 600 MS. MEARES said the state needs to provide adequate computer access to students of all ages. Her experience has been that children have had excellent opportunities for technology education at the elementary level, but it diminishes at the secondary level. This is partially due to the lack of adequate equipment, and partially due to the inadequate equipment of the staff to the program mainly due to lack of training. MS. MEARES said she is not a "tekkie," (technological whiz) herself, but she can see the writing on the wall. To compete in the advancing world, children must be computer literate. The comprehensive technology education bill will help Alaska achieve this goal of computer literacy for all Alaskan students. Number 640 LARRY WIGET, Director of Government Relations, Anchorage School District, testified via teleconference that he is also the former supervisor of Instructional Technology. When he first came to the district, he was responsible for the Library Media program. The Anchorage School District (ASD) does support the establishment of the Alaska Education Technology program and urges the passage of HB 216. MR. WIGET said increased awareness by teachers, students and parents is creating a demand and a need in schools for access and training in the use of educational technology. Furthermore, students are growing up in an information age that is rapidly becoming the communications age. The Global Information Highway and the skills to communicate over it, as well as access to the rich store of information on it must be available to Alaskan students. This is being done in other states, but unfortunately, it is not being seen as necessary in such a vastly diverse and rural area such as Alaska. Number 708 MR. WIGET said the technology available to students in the ASD and probably other districts around the state as well is inadequate and outdated. The majority of ASD students are not being trained and do not have access to technology they will encounter when they enter the work force or higher education. MR. WIGET said the district budget cannot provide adequate funds to meet existing or future district instructional technology needs or eliminate the present inequity among schools in providing access to technology, information resources and communication. In fact, the entire district level instructional technology budget for the ASD's 47,609 students is only $13,000 next year. MR. WIGET said instructional technology is a priority of the district. The ASD had a technology committee which was in the process of developing a comprehensive district-wide technology plan. However, given the costs of technology and the constraints of the budget, the ASD, as well as other districts and libraries around the state, are unable to fund instructional technology. Number 760 MR. WIGET continued that proposed legislation will establish a technology endowment fund. It will not meet all technology needs, but it will raise the foundation for future monies to be set aside for technology needs statewide. It recognizes the importance of technology to the future of Alaska. It also recognizes the need for planning, and the need for local commitment to technology by requiring a matching grant. It is a starting point in meeting the instructional and communication technology needs for all Alaskans. He urged HESS Committee members to pass HB 216. Number 796 KAREN JORDAN, Technology Coordinator, Juneau School District, said she was representing the Alaska Society for Technology Education. This is a 500-plus member organization throughout the state consisting of educators, many of whom have testified today. These people are interested in seeing that Alaska is not left behind as technology is implemented across the country and throughout the world. MS. JORDAN said she is not going to reiterate why technology is important for children. Much testimony has already been given on that topic. It is important, and the state must figure out a way to implement it. MS. JORDAN had a few points she wanted to make. But first, however, she wanted to provide HESS Committee members with some background. The Juneau School District (JSD), a year and a half ago, did pass a bond initiative of almost $2 million to fund technology in Juneau's schools. This provided a system, it provided equity, and compatibility. In the past, in the 1980s, one computer could be bought at a time with "hot dog sales" or some other type of fund raiser. This computer was then put into a classroom and it was a wonderful addition. Number 875 MS. JORDAN said now, computers are used to connect to an infrastructure, and to connect to a network system where people can communicate and compete worldwide. This is where community members can have access to this type of technology. Things are on a much larger scale. There is definitely a need for a coordinated effort throughout the state. MS. JORDAN said people do not like bureaucracy, but they do like coordination. In this particular effort, it is important that there is some type of coordination. This bill does address all of those considerations. It addresses the need for the DOE to set up grants and collect them and make sure everything is in place. The fiscal notes probably support some coordinated technical oversight. The bill does support some training efforts. Number 900 MS. JORDAN said the issue of equity is an important one. In Juneau, there is complete access to the internet throughout all schools. The JSD has purchased computer networks and has installed them. All the library systems have been automated, and computers and software is in the schools. MS. JORDAN said schools in Anchorage have not passed the bond initiative, and their schools reflect that. Many rural districts do not have that funding avenue. This is something as a state that we have to figure out how to do statewide. The North Slope Borough is the other district that has a district-wide network. Sixty-three percent of their budget is funded by the borough. They are exempt from the local cap laws. They too have received local funding, but again, other districts do not have access to that kind of money. Number 949 MS. JORDAN said there are many other efforts HESS Committee members have probably already heard about with the state government and health care and libraries. There are many avenues for creating a statewide information network. What is going to happen is that the schools will end up being islands. Connections will come right up to the door but there will be nothing in the school to connect to. The statewide telecommunications network will be created for all these other entities, but students will not have access to that. MS. JORDAN said coordination is necessary for a smart investment. If money is going to be placed into this program, it does make sense to have a statewide, consolidated, coordinated effort to cover it. This is an economic issue, and it is a community- building issue. MS. JORDAN realized that HESS Committee members were reticent to pass a bill that currently does not have any money in it. However, she would rather see the bill pass without an appropriation than nothing. Number 1011 MS. JORDAN explained there are other federal funds the state could get to put into the program in the future. There are also matching grants coming from the Department of Commerce and other areas such as private donations. There are lots of efforts nationwide that are focused on getting technology into the hands of kids in the communities. A fund and a mechanism needs to be set up for implementing the program. MS. JORDAN encouraged HESS Committee members to pass the bill to the next committee of referral to begin the process. The bill has a long road through committees, and in that process the bill can be modified. Number 1045 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY informed Ms. Jordan that she just spent the morning in Senate Finance, and they will not accept a bill that does not have a fiscal note. Number 1062 KATHI GILLESPIE, representing the Anchorage School Board, testified via teleconference. She said parents have been the funding mechanism for technology for the last years; most likely, they have been the most reliable source of funding for technology. The PTA has been largely responsible for putting computers in the schools. For a few years, money could be allotted from the operating budget of the ASD, and the PTA could also put some money into that budget. This was on a competitive grant basis. MS. GILLESPIE said therefore, some schools got some "seed money" to start their programs. However, by and large the computers that are in the schools are due to the parents raising the funds to make technology happen. Ms. Gillespie was not saying that was inappropriate, and she assured HESS Committee members that parents will continue to help in such a manner. Number 1105 MS. GILLESPIE continued by saying however, such a system is not equitable and it is very difficult to see the disparity between schools where parents have the capability to raise money to assist technology education and schools where this is not done. In some schools, many parents will not be able to raise money, and they are not conducting fund raisers in order to get computers in their schools. MS. GILLESPIE reiterated Ms. Jordan's remarks by saying some schools are, in fact, islands. The ASD has not been able to provide that kind of equitable exchange. The district and parents are just trying to put the basics into the schools in order for the children to learn how to do word processing. Then there are also schools that have absolutely nothing. MS. GILLESPIE is concerned, as a parent from south Anchorage, about the lack of continued technology education in the upper levels of schooling. There are elementary parents who are very concerned with putting computers into the schools, so there are a lot of elementary schools which have been able to put in some computers. That all ends in Junior and Senior High. Number 1155 MS. GILLESPIE said it is a shame to see the progress that elementary children have made drop by the wayside when they reach high school because parents have mostly gone back to work and they are not available to conduct fund raisers for technology. MS. GILLESPIE said parents are still willing to help, and she thinks taxpayers would be willing to put up matching money. However, parents need a fund they can count on from the state. She knows that money is tight, but it is not going to get any better. MS. GILLESPIE hopes funding can simply be started, perhaps as an endowment for technology. Then if there was a windfall, that money could be placed into the fund. Or if people wanted to make sure technology was in the schools and the libraries they could protect the fund a little bit and not have to compete with other items in the operating budget year after year. Number 1198 MS. GILLESPIE's feeling is that technology is very important for Alaska's children, but it is going to be a really tough sell when comparing it to plant size or other considerations when the state must downsize. She hopes the committee will pass this through, she thinks it is a good idea. Speaking as a parent who sold a lot of wrapping papers and candy bars during fund raisers, she certainly hopes she can count on the HESS Committee members. Number 1236 KAREN CRANE, Director of Libraries, Archives and Museums, DOE, testified that the department and DOE Commissioner Halloway support the intent of this bill to extend educational technology and training for school districts and public libraries. The commissioner is particularly supportive of the bill's recognition of the need to initiate the local planning process and to develop partnerships. MS. CRANE said the DOE has some comments that is hoped will strengthen the legislation. The bill requires a considerable planning effort on the part of school districts and public libraries. The grant submittal or the proposal must include a comprehensive plan, a description of the technology to be purchased, a proposed budget, a description of site preparation, security, technical and maintenance support. MS. CRANE said however, the bill does not outline how the proposals will be evaluated and by whom. It is apparent that some education and technical expertise will be needed to fairly review the grant requests. The same is true of the library submissions. Some library expertise is needed to determine which proposals offer the best long-term investment and plan for service. Number 1291 MS. CRANE said a similar bill introduced last session included the appointment of an educational technology committee to review and approve grant funding. Committee members were to have demonstrated expertise in education, libraries, telecommunications and technology. The DOE believes this mix of experience and expertise is really necessary in order to make the best long-term decisions for the state. MS. CRANE recalled that a number of the speakers referred to a coordinated effort. The DOE thinks a statewide coordinated effort would be better served with a committee or at least some designation of the department and the experience levels within the department making these decisions. The DOE would also suggest that the bill include a provision for pooling district or library funds in order to make bulk purchases of technology or to provide training. MS. CRANE said over the long term, the DOE has the potential to save money. Ms. Crane has some concern with the matching formula as it is applied to libraries. The department is certainly supportive of the matching requirement, however there is no relationship between school district budgets and public library budgets. MS. CRANE said for example, under the terms of this bill, Anchorage and Fairbanks public libraries, with budgets of $7 million and $2 million, respectively, would be required to match at 30 percent. The Pelican Public Library, which has a total annual operating budget of $21,000 would be required to provide a 40 percent match. Skagway Public Library would be required to match at the 50 percent level. For libraries, the DOE would prefer to see a different kind of match level, preferably based on their total operating budget. There are also a number of other ways this could be determined. Number 1371 MS. CRANE said the bill introduced last session also included a provision which allowed the commissioner to waive all or a portion of the required share for an REA or a publicly funded library. The commissioner certainly supports the matching requirement, but there may be some instances in which the REA or library is unable to provide the share. In such a case, some provision for a lower or a waived match should be made. MS. CRANE said the department certainly agrees with the need to assist schools and libraries in providing educational technology, and the DOE would like to work with the committee to make sure the goals of the bill are realized. MS. CRANE also wanted to point out that it was suggested that the State Library's fiscal note would make a good grant application. However, under the terms of the grant it says publicly funded libraries which meet the terms of AS 14.56.310 for grants are eligible under that statute. The State Library manages those grants. The State Library would not be eligible under AS 14.56.310. Number 1418 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said a number of important points have been brought out. One he shares is a concern for ragged textbooks and the lack of construction paper in the classrooms. It is hard to imagine that the state would have $10 million a year to go into a technology fund, as important as technology is. CO-CHAIR BUNDE was sure the sponsor of the bill would not mind him suggesting that the bill's sponsor would be very interested in the concerns that have been expressed as far as tweaking and strengthening the bill. Until there is an appropriations bill and the source of the funds is known, the bill will be held. Public testimony was closed.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|