Legislature(2003 - 2004)
01/15/2003 04:30 PM House BUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
TWENTY-SECOND
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT
January 15, 2003
4:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Randy Phillips (via teleconference)
Senator Lyman Hoffman (via teleconference)
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Representative John Harris
Representative Ken Lancaster (via teleconference)
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative John Davies, alternate (via teleconference)
Representative Bill Williams, alternate (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Gene Therriault, Chair
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Gary Wilken, alternate
Representative Eldon Mulder
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative-Elect Mike Hawker
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
SCHOOL DISTRICT COST STUDY
EXECUTIVE SESSION
AUDITS REPORTS
OTHER COMMITTEE BUSINESS
WITNESS REGISTER
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 121
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: As committee aide for the Joint Committee
on Legislative Budget and Audit, responded to questions
regarding the School District Cost Study.
JOE ROBINSON, American Institute for Research (AIR)
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of the
School District Cost Study.
DAVID TEAL, Legislative Fiscal Analyst
Legislative Finance Division
Alaska State Legislature
PO Box 113200
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions regarding the School
District Cost Study.
JAY CHAMBERS, American Institute for Research (AIR)
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the School District Cost Study.
ACTION NARRATIVE
[NOTE: This meeting, although held in 2003, is part of the
Twenty-Second Alaska State Legislature.]
TAPE 02-14, SIDE A
Number 0001
VICE CHAIR HUGH FATE (via teleconference) called the Joint
Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit meeting to order at
4:30 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Senators
Hoffman (via teleconference) and Phillips (via teleconference),
and Representatives Fate (via teleconference), Harris, Joule,
Lancaster (via teleconference), Williams (via teleconference),
and Davies (via teleconference).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Number 0139
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to approve the minutes of
August 22, 2002; October 3, 2002; November 13, 2002; and
December 19, 2002. There being no objection, those minutes were
approved.
SCHOOL DISTRICT COST STUDY
Number 0151
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to "accept the School
District Cost Study as a final product and make it available to
the public."
VICE CHAIR FATE noted that there were no objections to the
motion, adding, "We'll take that up at the present time - the
cost study." He asked whether all members have a copy of that
study.
SENATOR PHILLIPS relayed that he did not have a copy.
VICE CHAIR FATE remarked that the American Institute for
Research (AIR) "did not get these to us until this morning," and
that he has only had about an hour to study it since it arrived
at his location. He stated that he would like to go ahead and
discuss the report, adding:
We have the intention of moving this report out to the
public, but in conversation ..., before we called the
meeting to order, there was some concern about members
of the committee not being able to have the time to
study the final report before we finalize it and let
it [out] to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked whether the last motion included
only "Volume 1" or also "Volume 2," which members did not
currently have.
Number 0340
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking as the committee aide for the Joint
Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit, said, "That includes
the full report from the contractor." She suggested that Jay
Chambers and Joe Robinson could present the report to the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked whether members would be receiving
Volume 2 sometime soon.
MS. BRAKES said yes, the contractor will be providing bound
copies of the final report to each of the committee members.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked when members could expect to have
that final report.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said he has concerns, adding:
We can go ahead and have the ... presentation made by
the contractor on the study, but having not had the
time to review the document in detail, it's very
difficult for most members, especially for myself, in
asking intelligent questions of the presenters without
having the necessary time to review the documents.
And I stated this to you before the meeting had
started, that I think it would be derelict of us to
pass this on without having a full understanding of
just what this report actually does and having our
questions answered, because, having been in the
legislature for some 16 years, this is always a very
contentious issue - on the formula - and for us not to
do our homework, I think, would be irresponsible in
moving it out at this early time.
VICE CHAIR FATE indicated that that issue could be discussed in
more detail after the presentation from AIR.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked how much time is being allocated for the
presentation.
VICE CHAIR FATE mentioned that there is a summary sheet [in
members packets].
SENATOR PHILLIPS relayed that he had neither that summary sheet
nor anything else pertaining to the committee's agenda, other
than the aforementioned minutes from previous meetings.
VICE CHAIR FATE said he would be asking AIR to simply present
the summary sheet, a series of four graphs, the results of those
four graphs, an explanation of how those graphs were derived,
and what data was placed forward to develop those graphs. He
ventured that the presentation would probably not exceed 15
minutes.
SENATOR PHILLIPS reiterated that he did not have any materials
related to the forthcoming presentation.
VICE CHAIR FATE acknowledged this, and remarked that the
committee would simply be having "a barebones presentation to
give some of the basic results." He suggested that following
the presentation, the committee could then discuss whether to
have another meeting in which to fully approve [the report] in
order to "let this to the public."
Number 0716
JOE ROBINSON, American Institute for Research (AIR), offered to
start the presentation.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said that because there are a lot of
questions and Volume 2 is not yet available, he would like to
hear the presentation, but noted that it might be better for the
committee to rescind its action "in actually accepting the final
product until we see the final product."
VICE CHAIR FATE said, "We haven't accepted the final product,
yet, I don't believe."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS pointed out that "the motion certainly was
to accept it, and since we don't have it all, maybe it'd be
better ... to rescind our action and wait until we get the final
product before we accept it."
VICE CHAIR FATE said, "Well, ... let's hear it and then, if
somebody wants to make that motion, they're certainly privileged
to do so."
SENATOR HOFFMAN said, "It would seem to me that we would hear
the report and decide, at that point, whether or not to make a
motion; it seems as though we've got the cart before the horse,
and I would concur with Representative Harris."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS mentioned that he has a concern regarding
the payment schedule, and relayed that according to a
conversation he'd had with Chair Therriault, "there was some
difficulty - they were asking for more money or something" -
adding, "I think there was a set amount already determined for
how much the study was going to cost." He said his concern is
that if the committee approves it now, there may be some
assumption that "we're going to pay them." He remarked that he
would rather hold the payment off until the committee sees the
whole study.
Number 0911
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion "to rescind our action in
approving the cost study as a final product until we receive the
full report."
VICE CHAIR FATE called an at-ease from 4:43 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS withdrew his motion, and offered the
following explanation for withdrawing it:
I think we're going to ask, before the makers of this
presentation give their presentation, that the
technical committee ... explain to us why we should go
ahead, and that they're comfortable with the fact that
all the information is there; it's just [that] we
won't get it until tomorrow, but that it is all there.
Number 1126
DAVID TEAL, Legislative Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance
Division, Alaska State Legislature, indicated that the technical
committee did meet with the contractors in [mid-November]. He
continued:
We did review the first draft of their report. The
group pointed out a number of anomalies in the data
and asked them to do some things like split the report
into two portions. One, a more readable summary of
the report, and then to pull the technical stuff and
put it out in an appendix. A number of comments on
the report. [We] gave them until December 15 to do
that final draft. They did that, came up with few
more recent problems, which they reran and which
delayed the report until today .... But the group, I
believe, is satisfied that the contractor has met its
requirement.
... Our purpose in reviewing the report was not to
agree or disagree with their conclusions, but simply
to say, "You've met the requirements of the contract;
you produced a report, you did what you were supposed
to do, and we find that your product is acceptable" -
acceptable in that it did what we asked, but we're not
commenting at all on the results of the study. That,
I think, needs to go before [the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee] and
other committees. ... I think your first motion was
simply, "Is this report acceptable."
I understand that the full committee has not seen the
report, and ... I think you have a valid point, that
maybe you'd like to review it before you do approve
it. So I guess I would say this is more a group
reporting to the committee, that we believe the
contractor has met its obligations and should be paid.
It can't be paid until the report is accepted.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked Mr. Teal, "When you reviewed the
preliminary draft, were any of the schedules that were presented
to you changed, as a result of your input, from this draft that
is entitled 'Final' that we have before us?"
MR. TEAL said yes, they were.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked whether the committee could get those
schedules as they were originally presented. He said:
I think we, as members of the committee, should be
able to review those schedules, particularly the ...
main ones that are in regard to the percentages, such
as exhibit 2-3. I would like to see those copies and
what was changed to make those numbers change. I
think it would be incumbent upon all of the members to
review that information on all those schedules, and
why they were changed. Can we have that request
[fulfilled] ...?
Number 1505
MR. TEAL said:
I can't because the contractor would have to respond
to that. I don't even have a copy of this. That
report was sent out to us and was then collected, by
Heather, and then returned to the contractor. So, I
have no way of complying with that request ...; I
think you'd need to ask AIR to give you those
schedules, and I think that in this presentation, that
you're going to hear now, perhaps they could address
those issues then. What I can tell you about it is
that the group questioned the energy and some of the
other things, and AIR re-estimated those based on our
comments.
VICE CHAIR FATE confirmed that, adding, "The temperature days
seemed to have confused in a few areas, not all of the areas,
but they did a good job." He noted that one of the questions
which he raised pertained to the data used to come up with the
numbers; therefore, he remarked, "that's about the only thing:
whether that data is correct and justified." The numbers
themselves, he said, "are designed only to be facts, and come up
with costs to do what we will with them in the legislature."
"They did not make any decisions relative to those costs, only
some recommendations," he added.
SENATOR HOFFMAN pointed out, however, that "AIR is under
contract to this committee, and, as a member of ... this
committee, I would request that [that] information be provided
to me."
VICE CHAIR FATE remarked that Senator Hoffman's request is
proper. He asked the representatives from AIR to keep in mind
Senator Hoffman's request and get that information to him.
Number 1749
JAY CHAMBERS, American Institute for Research (AIR), said:
I can assure [you] that there were very fairly minor
changes ..., between the November presentation and the
January presentation, in the numbers for the vast
majority of districts. There were a few changes, but
there was also some discussions regarding improved
ways of taking into account energy cost differences,
and there were very, very minor changes - but I think
important changes - that we discovered as a result of
our discussions with the oversight committee back in
November in the personnel indices (indisc.), but they
were very, very small changes.
For all intents and purposes, the same basic
methodology has been used with just some improvements
in the data that we have. We asked the technical
working group - the school business officers - to
double check the numbers for us, and we've double
checked some of our own numbers and reran things. So
the ... major things that we have done ... since the
last report is that we have shortened the report into
what I think is a much more readable form, we have
aggregated into four categories the (indisc.) indices,
one sets the personnel, one set for energy, one for
... goods, and one for travel. But within each of
those there are a set of sub-indices, ... the details
of which are not reported in the summary report but
are reported in the more technical version of the
report.
MR. CHAMBERS continued:
We have also prepared a third version of the report,
which is contained in the summary report that ... we
sent electronically today, that is an executive
summary that's ... five or less pages long. The
tables ... that you see in the most recent report
reflect a ... slight change in the way we did the
energy cost index, ... one that I think ... perhaps
better reflects the energy cost differentials in the
state. ... We used a more continuous analysis of
heating-degree days and employed the analysis of our
prototypes, which we had developed for ... estimating
the costs, in a slightly more sophisticated way; I
think it better captures, or reflects, the differences
in energy costs across the state.
Number 2130
There are a couple of other issues with regard to data
that we wanted to check. The technical working group
members and the two members that were representing
that group included David Jones of Kodiak and Melanie
Davis (ph) of ... [Kenai]. They talked to the other
... six members of the eight-member committee to
double check all of the data that we had collected to
make sure that everything we had done was ... an
accurate reflection of the numbers for each of the
school districts in the state. I think the patterns
in the report speak for themselves; there's no reason
for me to go over those differences here, I think it
would take much too long. But we have produced
numbers for each of the 53 school districts.
I will say that there is a very high correlation
between the index that we have created and the current
Alaska index, although there are some differences.
And we would be happy to provide ... a set of tables
that show the differences between the numbers that
were presented in November and the numbers that we
have now, and a brief explanation of why those
differences exist. In fact, I have a table in front
of me right now with ... kind of [a] quick description
of those differences, but we would be glad to provide
you a brief paragraph describing what factors are
involved in each of the changes that have occurred
between November and now.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE remarked that AIR's presentation appears to
be merely an update to the technical committee, and as such, it
makes little sense to him because he is not a member of that
group and, therefore, does not have access to all of the
information that the technical committee has access to.
MR. CHAMBERS acknowledged that he thought he was speaking to the
technical committee - he did not realize that he was addressing
the whole committee. He said he would be glad to provide more
information.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE opined that if the entire committee is
expected to pass out the report, the committee should receive
more of a report than has thus far been given.
VICE CHAIR FATE mentioned that at the last meeting [of the
technical committee], it was decided that the findings would be
in Volume 1 in a summary format, and that the technical data -
the raw data - from which those findings were derived would be
in Volume 2. He remarked that some of the aforementioned
technical data is not included in the summary that he has,
adding that such data can be made available to any member who
wants it.
Number 2740
MR. CHAMBERS confirmed that Volume 1 contains a summary,
provides an overview of numbers, and includes a description of
the technical methodology used to conduct the study. He said he
anticipates that Volume 2 will be transmitted to Ms. Brakes that
evening for dissemination to members.
SENATOR PHILLIPS again reiterated that he has not yet received
any information pertaining to the study, not even the executive
summary, that other members have received, despite repeated
requests on his part. He remarked that before voting on this
issue, he expects to receive all the information that is
available.
SENATOR HOFFMAN remarked that a footnote on page 2 of [Volume 1
of the study] says, "Additional cost factors relating to
measures of pupil needs and costs of operating districts in
sparsely populated and remote areas of the region of the state
must be addressed to provide adequate additional services in
Alaska." However, in the middle of page 2, he pointed out, it
indicates that this study does not address the costs associated
with pupil needs nor other factors related to the concentration
of district operations; for example, it does not address the
difference in the levels of staff, disadvantaged backgrounds,
students who have an English-language, learning, mental, or
physical disability. He stated that these issues "are major
costs for districts that are providing education in rural
Alaska," adding that it seems as though a major cost area has
not been addressed by the study.
Number 3145
MR. CHAMBERS replied that Senator Hoffman's comments are
correct. He said:
We were not asked to address those issues. They are
important; they're important to every state in this
country, and in order to provide for a fully adequate
set of resources, one must address the issues of pupil
needs and the scale of operation. However, that
doesn't mean to say that you can't address subsets of
issues, which we do address in this study. Three
issues - three factors - affect, in general, the cost
of education in any state in this country: One of
them is pupil needs, one of them is scale of school
and district operations, and the third one is the
price that a district pays for comparable resources or
services. It is the third one that the RFP [request
for proposals] - the proposal - and every aspect of
this study have been focused on, that we were asked to
focus on. In fact, we were explicitly told not to
focus on the issues of pupil needs or the scale of
operations.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked why AIR was asked not to focus on those
other two aspects. He said that he did not think that the
committee made a motion to that effect.
MR. CHAMBERS relayed that those instructions were specifically
in the RFP. He suggested that that question would be best asked
of whoever wrote the RFP. He indicated that the technical
committee - oversight committee - has already addressed that
point. He stressed that AIR has addressed the issue that it was
instructed to focus on: specifically, the differences in prices
of comparable resources and services.
SENATOR HOFFMAN opined that excluding the other two factors
skews the study towards urban schools and puts "all the
educational services that are provided in rural Alaska to a
disadvantage."
MR. CHAMBERS remarked, however, that according to his
understanding, Alaska already addresses, in other portions of
the formula, the issues related to pupil needs and scale of
operations. Again, he said, AIR was asked to specifically focus
on pricing issues only, under the theory that the other issues
would already be addressed elsewhere. Whether they actually are
or not, he added, is not for him to judge.
SENATOR HOFFMAN opined that they are not because the costs
[discussed in the study] are directly related to culture and
language. He explained that in his district, there are many
students for whom English is a second language; thus, he added,
there are many costs directly related to that issue that are
being overlooked. He predicted that most [legislators] who
represent rural areas of Alaska will concur with him.
MR. ROBINSON relayed that the RFP says:
Adequacy of general funding for education, the sources
of that funding, quality of education, and adjustments
to school-size factors in AS 14.17.450 are not to be
addressed. The scope of the study is limited to
determining geographic cost differentials similar to
those in AS 14.17.460.
MR. ROBINSON opined that whoever wrote the RFP had already
determined that what needed to be updated were the cost
differentials; [that issue] has been addressed by the study. He
suggested that perhaps [the other issues] are addressed in other
parts of the funding formula.
Number 3672
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS opined that the legislature would have
plenty of opportunity during the committee process to review the
content the study. Rather than debate the contents of the study
at this time, he suggested, the question before the committee,
in accepting the report, is whether AIR met its contractual
obligation. He remarked that according to advice he has
received from the technical committee, AIR has met its
contractual obligations; therefore, he opined, the study,
regardless of its faults, should be accepted by the committee,
which can then, as a whole, debate all the issues.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said that he would agree with Representative
Harris if in fact all members of the current committee were
going to be present [during the upcoming legislative session];
however, since that is not the case, he remarked, "for us to
pass something on that we have not had the necessary time to
review and ask the presenters the necessary questions and get
the responses, I think is a little bit irresponsible by this
committee."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS noted that if the vote regarding whether
to accept the report is delayed another five days, there will be
a number of members who won't be able to vote on it anyway; the
issue will be before a different Joint Committee on Legislative
Budget and Audit.
SENATOR HOFFMAN pointed out that the committee was aware of that
fact all during the year in which it was working on the study,
and asked, "Why are we dealing with it in the 11th hour?"
Number 3972
VICE CHAIR FATE relayed that many of Senator Hoffman's points
have already been discussed by the technical/oversight
committee. He said:
One of the reasons, I understand, that ... the scope
of the study was limited [is] simply because it could
be quantified, and "needs" are taken care of in the
other parts of the formula funding and cannot be
quantified. And part of the problem is in making a
model that you can plug in the figures - after this
year, you can plug in different figures - and that
model will continue to be a true and effective model
for years to come. And "needs," not being
quantifiable, sometimes are not [amenable] to plugging
into that model. And so decided simply on the basis
of - as already stated, the statutes as applied - that
it would be a geographic study, and not based on
needs, so that we could quantify all these things.
So all these things have been discussed prior to this,
and ... nobody is trying to really pull a fast one or
anything else, it's just that we've got to get these
people who did the study according to the demands that
were placed upon them, if we've got to conclude that
they did the proper study or didn't do a proper study,
and that proper study was based upon what the RFP was
imposed upon them when they won the bid. So, with
that, I would like to move on ...
SENATOR HOFFMAN interjected:
You had stated earlier ... that you had raised
questions, as a member of the oversight committee, on
the energy relating to the days or the temperature,
and then the charts were changed. But you had that
luxury; I did not have that luxury. You had input as
a member of that committee, and I would like to have
that same opportunity to review ... this information
and have my concerns met, as yours were met, but
obviously that is not going to happen. And I think
that that is a fault of whoever's, but the study is
here, ... [and] I, as a member of this committee, am
not getting the input - my input - into the process as
you did as a member of the oversight committee.
VICE CHAIR FATE agreed that Senator Hoffman hadn't had the same
opportunities that he'd had.
Number 4316
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to "the issue of developing the
prototype schools in terms of energy consumption," noting that
such is intended to be a tool that works across the state to
estimate the ideal energy requirement for a district, asked how
it affects individual districts in which the buildings that are
in place are substantially substandard compared to the
prototype. In other words, he added, "do we have a situation
where districts may be spending a lot of energy because their
buildings are substandard and, so, if we were to adopt this
model, we would be sending them less money than they actually
require to heat their buildings?"
MR. CHAMBERS replied:
Well, we did do some analysis ... [and] we worked with
a group of engineers, and our main reason for doing it
this way was not to get into the issues of all of the
differences that may be a result of many, many factors
that would be extremely difficult to control. We were
trying to ... capture the broad variations in energy
costs ... around the state that related to the
climactic conditions and, to some degree, the
differences in the construction of buildings. There
was some analysis done of older and newer buildings.
MR. ROBINSON added:
We had done some preliminary analysis ... using data
from the Anchorage school district because that
provided us with the largest sample. And using that
... data, we had determined that there was no
significant difference based on the age of the
building, whether ... the majority of the building was
constructed before 1985 or post-1985, because that was
deemed by the energy engineering subcontractors to be
a defining point in construction of energy efficient
buildings. However, there was no significant
difference using the preliminary analysis of the
Anchorage data. ...
Another thing is, we were, with the study, also trying
to eliminate, as much as possible, the idea of choice
that the school districts had and whether ... they had
poured money into constructing or renovating buildings
to be more energy efficient, or if they had let that
go by the wayside, and instead of using money for
that, used it for other reasons and, therefore, have
less efficient buildings. When the engineers had done
the study, they do have kind of a caveat in the report
- in the technical report, at least - saying that you
should consider the age of the building and ... [Ends
mid-speech because of tape change.]
TAPE 02-14, SIDE B
Number 4653
MR. ROBINSON continued [mid-sentence]:
... to get a more complete picture, but the prototype
analysis does try to eliminate choice for [a] majority
of factors, and just base it on geographic differences
and climactic differences and levels of insulation
that that would correspond with an increase in the
number of heating-degree days per year. So, ... the
energy efficiency of the buildings is not considered
... for a couple of reasons: we were trying to
standardize things ... so that schools weren't
penalized for renovating buildings, and also we would
have an inordinate number of prototypes as well. So,
this was a way to basically limit it down to the
climate and geography as the cost differential.
MR. CHAMBERS explained that AIR was trying to capture the major
pieces, which are climactic differences, major differences in
insulation, differences in the prices of the fuels, and the
types of fuels that were used. And the prices of the fuels are
impacted to some degree by the cost of transportation, he
pointed out. He remarked: "Does this fully capture every
nuance or aspect of energy costs? No. Does it capture the bulk
of differences in energy costs that are likely to exist across
the state? I think it does." He relayed that a more complete
study would require substantially more investment than was made
available for this study, adding, "You could probably spend a
half million dollars on a study like that all by itself." He
said:
The major purpose, in our view, was to try to capture
the ... major factors that impact the variation in the
costs across the state, in order to provide some
compensation for the disadvantages that certain
districts might face related to climate,
transportation of goods, and access to different kinds
of fuel.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked whether any comparisons of projected
costs to actual costs were done.
MR. CHAMBERS said that such was not done on a statewide basis.
Number 4409
MR. ROBINSON added that AIR looked at the cost per square foot
of energy but did not compare [those costs] with projected
[estimates]. He mentioned that AIR did receive input from a
geographically diverse representation of people and facility
managers across the state.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS then referred to personnel costs, and asked
whether AIR, in gathering that information, used an "ideal
instructor" [to project costs]. He said that it is generally
known that in rural Alaska, there is "kind of a revolving door"
with regard to teachers; "you tend to get personnel that have
less experience teaching [and], hence, their salary scales are
lower," he added. Therefore, if one were to look at the
question of adequacy, one could say that teacher's salaries need
to be raised in those districts with "an inordinately low level
of experience represented," he opined. He asked whether AIR had
considered this issue.
MR. CHAMBERS said:
We did try to look and take into account differences
in turnover, which is a major issue that we know faces
the school districts - or the schools - in some of the
remote rural areas, and our approach was to answer the
following question: How much more or less does it
cost to recruit and employ comparable teachers in
different geographical locations in the state? And so
our analysis started by trying to ... develop a model
that ... provided a comprehensive picture of ... as
many of the factors as we could account for in the
data - the variations in wages of teachers and other
professionals and personnel employed by the school
district. But then we ran a simulation, and the
simulation controlled for experience, education
levels, and other demographic characteristics of
teachers, and asked that question: ... How much more
or less will it cost to get similar teachers? So we
took, in this instance, the average teacher ... [in]
Anchorage ... and said, "How much more or less does it
cost to recruit and employ ... the comparable teacher
to what Anchorage is recruiting, in these different
locations in the state?"
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES sought confirmation that "that comparable
teacher cost" is what was actually used in the final results
pertaining to cost factors.
MR. CHAMBERS said that is correct.
Number 3951
SENATOR HOFFMAN predicted that using Anchorage data as the basis
for the comparison would not provide a true indicator of costs
experienced in other areas of the state such as Bethel or
Atmautluak or Tuluksak.
MR. CHAMBERS explained that AIR controlled for the experience,
education, and demographics of the teachers. Those items were
held constant while AIR sought to determine what the wage would
have to be in other districts in order to recruit and employ
comparable teachers. He acknowledged that teachers have to be
compensated for working in remote, isolated locations that are
far away from urban areas, cultural amenities, or access to
shopping and medical facilities. He relayed that AIR's cost
index attempts to capture those factors, as opposed to just the
average salary.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what communities AIR traveled to in order
to get a feel for the state.
MR. CHAMBERS said that for this particular study, AIR did not
travel to any other communities. He noted, however, that 20
years ago, "when we did a similar study in Alaska, we traveled
to Kenai, Skagway, Juneau, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Barrow, Point
Hope, Point Lay, Kotzebue, Nome, Kenai Peninsula, and other
school districts." In response to another question, he
indicated that he had participated in that study 20 years ago,
and is now the project director and designer of the current
study. He added that for the conceptual design of the current
study, he enlisted the help of a technical working group made up
of eight school business officers. Mr. Chambers, in response to
another question, confirmed that a series of questionnaires went
out to all 53 school districts in Alaska, and then once
returned, that eight-member technical working group [reviewed]
those questionnaires and discussed the results with AIR's
project team.
Number 3457
VICE CHAIR FATE stated that there is a motion before the
committee "that the committee accept the School District Cost
Study as a final product and make it available to the public."
Number 3429
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected. He said, "I would object to
that on the basis that most of the committee members have not
had a chance to even read the executive summary."
SENATOR HOFFMAN concurred.
Number 3413
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to withdraw the motion to
"accept the School District Cost Study as a final product and
make it available to the public." There being no objection, the
motion was withdrawn.
[Members and staff then had a brief discussion regarding how
soon members could expect to receive the School District Cost
Study in its entirety, and that the study is to remain
confidential until the committee accepts it.]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Number 3048
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to move to executive session
for the purpose of discussing confidential audit reports under
AS 24.20.301. There being no objection, the committee went into
executive session at 5:40 p.m.
VICE CHAIR FATE brought the committee back to order at 6:00 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to move the committee back
into regular, open session. There being no objection, the
committee was brought back into regular session.
AUDITS REPORTS
Number 2853
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to release the final audit
reports to the public: Department of Community & Economic
Development, Regulatory Commission of Alaska; Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture; and University of
Alaska, Retirement Incentive Program.
VICE CHAIR FATE asked whether there were any objections.
Hearing none, he indicated that the aforementioned final audits
would be released to the public.
OTHER COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Number 2790
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to "authorize the chairman
to review the final legal billings of Volland & Taylor and make
that payment ... as you determine reasonable."
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether this is "the reapportionment
billing."
VICE CHAIR FATE said yes.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said he has no information regarding [this
issue].
Number 2743
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS withdrew his motion, suggesting that the
committee would take the issue up the next time the committee
meets, allowing Senator Phillips an opportunity to receive and
review the information pertaining to the Volland & Taylor
billing.
[Members again had a brief discussion regarding the distribution
and confidentiality of the School District Cost Study.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2406
VICE CHAIR FATE recessed the Joint Committee on Legislative
Budget and Audit meeting to a call of the chair at 6:10 p.m.
[The meeting was reconvened January 16, 2003.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|