Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
03/05/2008 08:00 AM Senate SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SCR16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SCR 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SCR 16-EDUCATION FUNDING/COST FACTOR COMMISSION
8:02:46 AM
CHAIR STEVENS announced the consideration of SCR 16.
SENATOR OLSON moved to adopt CSSCR 16(SED), version K, for
discussion purposes. There being no objections it was so
ordered.
8:03:18 AM
TIM LAMKIN, staff to Senator Stevens, explained the proposed
committee substitute (CS) to SCR 16 that is the result of
concerns raised at the prior hearing. On page 1, line 11, the
dates of 1983-85 and 1999 were added to more accurately reflect
the historical analyses that took place. On page 1, line 16, the
timeline for starting this project was shifted to approximately
eight months into the future so it would start at the beginning
of session next year, January 20, 2009.
On page 2, line 1, "relative" was added to "cost differentials."
From lines 4-7, the composition of the commission was changed
from 10 legislators and 1 governor's appointee to 3 members from
the Senate, 3 from the House and 5 governor's appointees.
Language on line 12 referenced a person appointed to this
commission who was then no longer a legislator who could
continue to serve because of the shifting timeline. Language was
inserted on line 13 saying that a model "may" include
consideration of socio-economic and geographical components
rather than "shall" include them. He reminded the committee that
socio-economic geography is a field of study and it was
referenced in "Moore versus Alaska" in terms of at-risk
students. So, it seemed right to include it in the resolution,
at least as an option. Reference to "cultural" was deleted.
On page 2, line 16, "Legislative Budget and Audit Committee" was
changed to "the Division of Legislative Audit". On line 20, the
CS specified a "draft model" rather than preliminary reports and
draft legislation to include the district cost factors to be due
before April 21, 2010. On line 22, the 120-day public comment
period was scaled back to 60 days. That would make the final
report due before August 1, 2010.
Language on line 27 gave it teeth and says the legislation must
include a repeal of the existing cost factor index to be
effective at the end of the following legislation session.
Meanwhile, the proposed legislation would replace the index with
a new one. Finally, on page 3, line 1, the commission would be
terminated on July 31, the day it issues its final report.
SENATOR OLSON asked why use the date of April 21, 2010.
MR. LAMKIN replied that April 20 is the last day of the first
th
session of the 26 Legislature.
CHAIR STEVENS asked Mr. Lamkin to review the arguments about
establishing this when a legislature is on the way out rather
than when members of a new legislature are convening.
MR. LAMKIN replied Senator Davis was concerned about setting
this commission up now because some legislators might not be
serving next year and wouldn't necessarily have a vested
interest in developing a new model, which could jeopardize the
commission's perceived consensus-building.
CHAIR STEVENS asked him to comment on the reason behind the
change in the commission's makeup.
MR. LAMKIN replied that it was an attempt to bring some balance
to the politics that will no doubt arise in addressing this
project.
8:09:43 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), said all
the changes in the CS seemed reasonable and workable to him.
SENATOR OLSON asked if using "relative" cost differentials made
the model more workable, because it seems like that would add an
element of ambiguity.
MR. JEANS answered this wording is very reasonable because the
cost differentials are intended to measure the relative cost
differences between Anchorage and the individual school
districts.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
said she has two issues with the CS. One is the change in the
commission's membership to include five appointments by the
governor, and having the Division of Legislative Audit provide
the staff and possibly enter into contracts. She explained that
it is critical to auditors to be independent from those whom
they audit. Her involvement with legislative committees is no
problem because they don't audit the legislature; but she does
audit the executive branch. She said she can't be sure who the
governor would appoint, but if the governor appointed executive
branch agency staff it could raise some potential problems for
them in terms of maintaining that independence. If the division
is ever asked to audit the agency's compliance with this area,
she is not sure they would meet the independence standards of
their profession to do that.
MS. DAVIDSON said her agency, as well as Legislative Finance
report to Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LB&A). She
suggested that, when they see what they are really being asked
to do, if it does impair their independence with regard to
audits, perhaps they could work with Legislative Finance or
somewhere else to give the commission a broader pool of people
to pull from.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if her concern is if the five members
appointed by the governor may create difficulty for her in
auditing.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that it could. It depends on what the
involvement is with the decision process that happens within the
commission. Her suggestion was to expand the pool to the
Legislative Finance Division; but if the subject doesn't impair
her division's independence, Legislative Audit could be the
first people they go to.
CHAIR STEVENS asked Mr. Jeans how he would anticipate the
administration would appoint those five individuals.
8:15:27 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), responded
that he imagined some appointments would represent the School
Administrator's Association and definitely the school business
officials. He could possibly be appointed and that might be part
of Ms. Davidson's concern. Some independent CPAs would be
appointed, and he would recommend appointing someone from the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD) who is
good at statistical analysis.
CHAIR STEVENS commented that he didn't want the legislature
designating who could be appointed.
SENATOR WILKEN said he appreciates Ms. Davidson's concerns but
an audit looks backward and they are really just asking for her
department's expertise prospectively. They are not asking her
for an audit, but for her expertise.
MS. DAVIDSON agreed that Senator Wilken is right, but it isn't
their involvement with the commission that she is concerned
about, but the ramification afterwards of not auditing their own
work; not auditing activities they had taken part in. So
although their work with the commission does not present and
independence issue because they are not auditing; the question
is whether the next year they are doing the financial audit or
they get a request from the LB&A Committee. Without knowing who
would be appointed by the governor and whether they would be
members of the executive branch, she said she was just raising a
flag of caution.
8:19:23 AM
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Ms. Davidson for her caution.
MS. DAVIDSON added that, just to make sure the committee
understands the procurement process, any professional services
contract in excess of $25,000 must be approved by LB&A
Committee. Her division does not have independent procurement
authority.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if she was still more comfortable having the
Division of Legislative Audit instead of the LB&A Committee
doing that, or if she was suggesting the committee should be
doing it.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that her consideration of taking the Audit
Division specifically out and readdressing it to the LB&A
Committee was, if the people assigned to the commission
compromised her independence, LB&A could turn to the staff of
the Legislative Finance Division and ask for their assistance.
That would be a way to negotiate around the independence
problem.
SENATOR WILKEN thanked the committee for making this a better
bill.
CHAIR STEVENS said he thought all the concerns have been
addressed.
8:24:37 AM
SENATOR OLSON moved to report CSSCR 16(SED), version K, from
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes.
CHAIR STEVENS noted that version K didn't have a fiscal note,
but version M had one; so he asked Mr. Lamkin to explain the
difference.
MR. LAMKIN explained that they were working so hard to get a
clean CS that they didn't put as much time and effort into the
fiscal note. One of the current fiscal notes was based on
Version A and the other on Version M. He pointed out that the
dollar amount of the Version M fiscal note arguably could be
kept the same, but the analysis section would need to be
modified to reflect the new membership. He said that was a
fairly easy fix if they wanted to do it now, and they could call
it Version K.
Chair Stevens found no objection to doing that. There were no
further objections to moving CSSCR 16(SED) from committee and it
was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|