02/11/2011 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): School Superintendent | |
| HB132 | |
| HB6 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 11, 2011
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Dick, Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sharon Cissna
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 132
"An Act providing for funding for school lunch and breakfast."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 6
"An Act authorizing the governor to remove or suspend a member
of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska for good
cause; and establishing a procedure for the removal or
suspension of a regent."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 132
SHORT TITLE: FUNDING FOR SCHOOL MEALS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MUNOZ
01/28/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/11 (H) EDC, FIN
02/11/11 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 6
SHORT TITLE: REMOVING A REGENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRUENBERG
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) EDC, JUD
02/11/11 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
STEWART McDONALD, Superintendent
Kodiak Island Borough School District
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a presentation on the Kodiak
Island Borough School District.
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 132, as prime sponsor.
MS. KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff
Representative Cathy Munoz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 132, on behalf of
Representative Munoz, prime sponsor.
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the fiscal note and responded to
questions, during the hearing on HB 132.
ADRIANNE SWARTZ, Supervisor
Food Services
Juneau Borough School District
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 132.
DEAN HAMBURG, Board Member
Alaska School Nutrition Association
Director, Lunch Programs
Kenai School District
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 132.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 132.
JOHN ALCANTRA, Director
Government Relations
National Education Association of Alaska (NEAA)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 132.
AMY LUJAN, Representative
Alaska Association of School Business Officials
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 132.
AMY ROUSE, Director
Nutrition Services
Member, Alaska School Nutrition Association
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 132.
CHRIS JOHNSON, Supervisor
Food Services
Mat-Su Borough School District
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 132.
JORDIS CLARK, School Nurse
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 132.
ANN PENNINGTON, Director
Child Nutrition
Alaska Gateway School District
Tok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 132.
LYNN WATKINS, Manager
Child Nutrition
Alaska Gateway School District
Tok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 132.
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 132.
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 6, as prime sponsor.
TED MADSEN, Staff
Representative Max Gruenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 6, on behalf of Representative
Gruenberg, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:13 AM
CHAIR ALAN DICK called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Present at the call to order were
Representatives Dick, Wilson, Seaton, Feige, Cissna, and
Kawasaki. Representative Pruitt arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): School Superintendent
PRESENTATION(S): School Superintendent
8:04:13 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the first order of business would be a
presentation by the Kodiak Island Borough School District
Superintendent.
8:04:48 AM
STEWART McDONALD, Superintendent, Kodiak Island Borough School
District, provided a presentation of the Kodiak Island Borough
School District beginning with the geographical layout and
demographics of the area. The features he described included:
an island population of approximately 14,000; 2,556 students; 14
schools - 4 town elementary, 1 town middle, 1 town high, and 7
K-12 in the villages; village schools may have ten students with
two teachers; in-district travel occurs via an annual or bi-
annual barge and float/bush plane; connection to all schools is
maintained via internet, video teleconference, and phone/fax
lines; 44 percent of the students receive free or reduced
lunches; 350+ students are from migrant fishing/logging
families; 500+ students are English language learners; 350+
students have special needs; 14 languages are represented in the
student body; 460 employees serve the district; and the
operating budget is $42 million dollars.
8:08:47 AM
MR. McDONALD explained the rise in the 3rd grade assessment
scores and presented a chart to indicate the progress in
proficiencies of reading, writing, and math. Intervention has
brought significant gains in student performance, since the year
2000, but a plateau has been reached. In the next four years
state standards require that 33.9 percent gains need to be
realized to stay in step with the state expectations, he said,
and this is going to present a challenge. Although the students
are achieving more than ever, something like a glass ceiling
will need to be broken. An analysis of the curriculum has been
completed, by the district, and a myriad of initiatives have
been implemented, in an attempt to attain the goal while keeping
students engaged, motivated and progressing.
8:14:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to the third grade assessment
slide to ask what the measurement of the Y axis represents.
MR. McDONALD responded that it indicates student proficiency; in
the year 2000, approximately 40 percent of the third grade
students were proficient in math.
8:14:59 AM
MR. McDONALD emphasized the difficulty teacher turnover presents
in meeting the established goals, and said that student
performance is as much about teacher and administrative
preparation as it is about implementing programs/initiatives.
8:16:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked where the majority of the
teachers originate; lower 48 states, or Alaska.
MR. McDONALD replied that a percentage represent local graduates
who have returned to the island; however, the majority do come
from the lower states, particularly the high school teachers.
8:18:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired whether it would be of help if
the University of Alaska (UA) made adjustments to the teacher
training program.
MR. McDONALD said absolutely. He reported that state trained
elementary school teachers are highly skilled at meeting the
needs of the child but not in teaching the specifics of
mathematics, for example. The university still follows a
training regime that teaches that it's acceptable if 60 percent
of the class doesn't excel in math; a standard which is no
longer sufficient. The Kodiak College has teacher preparation
programs for instruction of the elementary grades, and efforts
are being made, to create a working partnership with aligned
goals, to solve this issue.
8:19:54 AM
MR. McDONALD directed attention to page six, of the committee
handout, and the picture of people standing on a stage with a
seated kindergarten student. He said this image represents the
staff that it takes to instruct/support a student from
kindergarten through graduation. Large schools have an
inherently large staff, requiring less educational support,
while small schools have fewer staff and require an enormous
amount of educational support in order to attain appropriate
instruction in classes such as pre-calculus or advanced biology.
Resources are being pooled in an effort to provide classes, not
at the convenience of the district, but rather in accordance
with each students need. The problem is economy of scale and
the bulk of the budget must pay for staff salaries and benefits.
All of the operating costs represent dollars that can't be used
to put a teacher before a student, such as the steep rise in
heating fuel and retirement/health care costs. He said that,
unfortunately, there is no quick clean solution to meet the
educational target; it is an uphill climb with obstacles along
the way. The challenges of the district include: relevant,
rigorous high quality instruction; infrastructure cost
increases; career and technical education needs; unique island
challenges such as diversity needs and teacher housing; and
travel and access costs.
CHAIR DICK thanked the superintendent for an informative
presentation.
8:25:26 AM
HB 132-FUNDING FOR SCHOOL MEALS
CHAIR DICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 132, "An Act providing for funding for school
lunch and breakfast."
8:26:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HB 132, stating that school meals have been improved, during the
last twelve years, but many school districts struggle to provide
school meals, often using classroom money to offset the cost of
a meal program. She stated her belief that a nutritious
breakfast and lunch is a great equalizer for children, who are
unable to focus on learning if hunger is a factor. A small
level of state support will go a long way in maximizing the
federal resources that are received for this purpose.
8:28:07 AM
MS. KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Cathy Munoz, Alaska
State Legislature, provided the goals of the school meal bill,
which are: more kids being fed in each school, increased
participation in the lunch and breakfast programs, decreased
dropout rates, higher success rates, and healthier kids. She
reviewed hunger in Alaska, indicating that one out of eight
families struggle to put enough food on the table each year, and
43 percent of households utilizing food pantries have a child
under the age of 18. The feeding America analysis, completed by
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), found that
14.3 percent, or 26,534 children in Alaska, under 18 years of
age, are food insecure, meaning they don't have access at all
times to enough food for a healthy active life; this problem is
more severe in rural Alaska, where nearly one child in four
experiences food insecurity.
8:29:25 AM
MS. KLOSTER explained how the school lunch program works
paraphrasing from a slide which read: 1) Any child at a
participating school may purchase a meal through the National
School Lunch Program. 2) Children from families with incomes at
or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free
meals. 3) Incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the
poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals; students can
be charged no more than $.40 cents. 4) For the period July 1,
2010, through June 30, 2011, 130 percent of the poverty level is
$28,665 for a family of four; 185 percent is $40,793. She
reported that the school meal program funds are received
primarily from federal subsidies, $32.5 million, with $16.5
million from student payments, and about $9 million from
individual schools that contribute from their operating budgets.
The bill provides state support for the school meals program by
contributing $.35 cents for breakfast and $.15 cents for lunch.
The federal reimbursement allowed for a school lunch, at a
school on the road system, is about $4.41, and the cost to
provide the meal is $4.90, thus the state would contribute the
$.49 cents necessary to make it a free meal. Ms. Kloster
reported that the more participants Alaska has in the program,
the more federal reimbursement dollars will be received, thus
leveraging the possibility for additional funding. The school
lunch program currently feeds over 36,000 students at a
free/reduced rate, and the breakfast program has about 14,000
free/reduced rate participants. She explained that six school
districts, with a cumulative total of approximately 490
students, don't offer a breakfast or lunch program. Further, of
the schools serving lunch, 20 percent don't participate in the
breakfast program. Alaska is ranked in the bottom ten states,
for the lowest participation, in the federal school breakfast
program.
8:33:20 AM
MS. KLOSTER said the positive short term effects have been shown
to include better academic performance, better classroom
behavior, higher attendance rates, decreased tardiness, and
better overall health. The long term effects contribute to
lower dropout rates, higher graduation rates, lower obesity
rates, and decreased healthcare needs/costs. Additionally,
studies relating to the benefits of school meals show improved
school achievement. A review of 18 studies showed students who
ate breakfast consistently demonstrate improvement in verbal
fluency, arithmetic, attention, memory, creativity, physical
endurance, and general tests of academic achievement and
cognitive functioning. She asked rhetorically, "How well do you
function after skipping a meal."
8:35:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON queried whether there is a correlation
between food stamps recipients and eligibility for free/reduced
meals, and suggested that there could there be food at home but
children are not being fed appropriately.
MS. KLOSTER offered to provide information regarding the overlap
of qualifying families, and said that the possibility exists
that they are not fed at home; which could be due to a number of
reasons including an interest for social interactions.
8:36:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the lower obesity rates relate to
the quality of food available.
MS. KLOSTER answered that federal nutrition standards must be
followed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned whether the farm to school
program has had an impact in the state.
MS. KLOSTER said it has been discussed, and could be considered
further.
8:37:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE clarified that, currently, the state
provides no funding to offset the costs of the meal programs.
MS. KLOSTER confirmed no state dollars are being contributed.
8:38:58 AM
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director, School Finance and
Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), presented the fiscal note paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
This bill creates a new state program that provides
school districts supplemental state funding for the
existing federal National School Lunch and Breakfast
Programs (NSLP).
Currently, districts receive approximately $32 million
in federal subsidy for NSLP. In total the program
expenses are approximately $58 million, the difference
is in revenues from paid meals and funding that
districts transfer from their general operating funds.
The required federal match for the NSLP program is
$492,000 per year. That match is met by the $9
million school districts transfer from operating
funds.
This bill would not necessarily increase the number of
students participating, but would provide
approximately $2 million per year that school
districts could use directly in the breakfast and
lunch programs, or to offset the $9 million that is
transferred from their operating funds.
House Bill 132 provides state aid on a per meal basis
for each free and reduced lunch. The breakfast rate
is $.35 cents per meal, plus a prorated cost
differential based on one fourth of the cost
differentials set in laws at AS 14.17 for the
foundation funding program. The lunch rate is $.15
cents per meal plus the prorated cost factor.
In addition, beginning July 1, 2012, there is an
annual adjustment based on the Anchorage Consumer
Price Index (CPI).
8:41:18 AM
MS. NUDELMAN turned to page 1 of the fiscal note to read the
figures, provided in millions: fiscal year (FY) 12 $2.1; FY 13
$2.3; FY 14 $2.3; FY 15 $2.4; FY 16 $2.5; and FY 17 $2.6.
Directing attention to page 3, she detailed the calculations
used to arrive at the estimated grant figures for each school in
the state.
8:44:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that the intent is to capture
federal funds, and asked why the connection to the Anchorage
CPI.
MS. NUDELMAN deferred comment.
8:45:14 AM
ADRIANNE SWARTZ, Supervisor, Food Services, Juneau Borough
School District, stated support for HB 132, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
We are here today because we support House Bill 132
which would provide funding to supplement federal
dollars received for school meals served to students
who qualify for free or reduced price meals.
This important legislation would benefit many Alaskan
Students.
Studies have shown a direct relationship between good
nutrition and student success; making it our business
to ensure students receive the appropriate nutritional
requirements each school day.
This important legislation would provide funding that
would help Alaskan school districts 1) create new meal
programs, 2) expand current meal programs, and 3)
integrate more nutritional value into current menu
items.
The Juneau School District would utilize this funding
to 1) help expand our breakfast program, 2) offer more
whole grains/fruits/vegetables/local fare, and 3)
maintain reasonable meal prices.
The implementations possible due to this important
legislation would make meal service more appealing to
students which would result in increased
participation.
More Alaskan students would receive nutritious meals
on a regular basis.
Potential of increased student success in many areas.
The need for your support is great.
The benefit would be tremendous.
8:47:49 AM
DEAN HAMBURG, Board Member, Alaska School Nutrition Association,
Director, Lunch Programs, Kenai School District, stated support
for HB 132, noting that across Alaska 11 million school meals
are collectively provided each year, funded solely by the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA). School meals have been
a leader in promoting good eating habits; adhering to the USDA
guidelines. He said HB 132 will provide schools a major support
when combined with the per meal reimbursement received from the
federal government. It has been standard for food stamp
recipients to be eligible for the school meals. He provided an
anecdote from a fifth grader asking how many sleeps she might
have before she receives another school meal, to demonstrate the
importance of the program. It is time that Alaska partnership
with the USDA to keep children fed. The association embraces the
farm to school initiative and anticipates that Alaskan growers
will be a product supplier for the program.
8:53:31 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), stated support for HB 132, pointing out that the
research regarding conditions that affect student learning can
be summed up in three salient points, beginning with the need
for a warm, dry, and safe environment, free from distractions.
Secondly, hunger is a distraction, which effects a student's
attention span and ability to focus. The third point is that
the societal challenges are also a reality at the school level.
A rhetorical question prevails regarding how to address a better
learning environment, for children, given the existing societal
challenges. He reiterated statistics from a previous witness,
regarding the number of Alaskan households seeking food
assistance, which also have children under the age of 18; 43
percent, of the 74,000 in need. He reported that the Chicago
public school system, with 410,000 students, has chosen to
provide a breakfast/lunch program, and 80 percent are eligible
for free or reduced meals presenting a major challenge to the
community. A group of parents collected 1,100 signatures in
protest, arguing that it would take away from classroom
instruction time. The final decision was made based on the fact
that although 1,100, perhaps affluent, signatures were
presented, the school officials found if appropriate to consider
the 410,000 students. He suggested that this is happening
across the nation and that providing meals is viewed as a means
to enhance desired scholastic achievement.
8:57:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI commented that the $9 million operating
funds being used by districts comes from the BSA (Base Student
Allocation), which should probably go directly for instruction.
He said:
I'm a co-sponsor of the bill, but I wanted to make
sure that school boards [understand] that, when this
bill passes, that money actually goes to that intent,
for school lunches. So we don't see a commensurate
decrement in school operating budget monies that go to
school lunch programs in the future.
8:57:55 AM
JOHN ALCANTRA, Director, Government Relations, National
Education Association of Alaska (NEAA), stated support for HB
132, and cited the initiative that NEAA members recently passed.
He opined that it is visible to a parent how a meal supports a
child's ability to perform.
9:00:19 AM
AMY LUJAN, Representative, Alaska Association of School Business
Officials, testified in support of HB 132, and said the $9
million dollars that districts contribute from operational
funds, is a testament that educators recognize the importance of
feeding students. The proposed funding stream will solidify
state support, and ensure that the programs are able to go
forward.
9:02:27 AM
AMY ROUSE, Director, Nutrition Services, Fairbanks North Star
Borough School District, Member, Alaska School Nutrition
Association stated support for HB 132, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Currently 31 percent or 4,235 of our students qualify
to receive their meals at the free or reduced rates.
On average we serve 1,500 reimbursable breakfasts and
5,000 reimbursable lunches per day. These meals are
nutritionally well balanced, meet federal guidelines,
and provide our students with a wide variety of fresh
produce, low fat and whole grain entrees, and freshly
made bread items. In the month of January, we served
over 28,000 breakfasts and 101,000 lunches. Eighty
percent of the breakfasts and 58 percent of the
lunches were served to students who qualify to receive
meals at the free or reduced rates.
Our meal programs are extremely important to those who
live in a variety of households such as food poor,
military, migrant, those who are struggling to make
ends meet and to those who don't have a permanent home
like the 300+ homeless and children in transition. I
have worked in school nutrition for almost 20 years.
Many things have changed but the understanding that if
children are hungry, they cannot learn has not. Every
day, school nutrition professionals throughout our
great state see students who have not received a meal
since they left school the previous day. We take
great pride in ensuring that our students receive the
best we can afford to provide and to serve meals the
students want to eat.
For years, it was the expectation of many school
districts that the nutrition services department
generate enough revenue to cover expenses. Over the
years this has become increasingly difficult but we
have not compromised the nutritional integrity of our
meals as a result of rising costs. The amount of
funds available through federal reimbursement and from
the price of paid school meals does not cover the
food, non-food supplies, transportation costs, and
labor associated with producing school meals. We are
getting creative in our attempts to cut costs but it
has not and is not enough. Simply put, school
nutrition programs are running out of funds.
You can make a difference and have a direct impact on
state funding for school nutrition programs. I
believe I speak for many when I say, the funds
included in House Bill 132 would help us continue to
provide the meals that many have come to expect and
will continue to expect as we feed future generations
of Alaskans.
9:05:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI observed that new USDA nutrition
standards are being implemented, and asked whether this will
affect meal costs.
MS. ROUSE said yes, and added that portion sizes are also being
revised.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI pointed out that the same issues
regarding federal meal compliance is being debated, at the
committee level, regarding incarceration facilities. He opined
that, given a choice, he would rather see the funds directed to
the schools.
9:07:54 AM
CHRIS JOHNSON, Supervisor, Food Services, Mat-Su Borough School
District, stated support for HB 132, expressing agreement with
the testimony that has been brought. He said that it's getting
difficult to provide meals, and the Mat-Su district has chosen
to provide a free breakfast to every student in each of the 34
schools that have a meal program; an average of 3,500 breakfasts
daily. The proposed USDA guidelines will increase expenses;
expectations are for the cost to rise an additional $.46 to
$.48. The farm to school program is being developed, but it is
in the early stages and the impact to schools has yet to be
determined.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether food quality is an issue.
MR. JOHNSON responded that it's always a challenge and
creativity is required. On-sight service is not cost effective
when there are less than 100 students being served, and
particular attention must be given to transported food to ensure
a quality, appealing product, when it arrives.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE queried whether existing regulations place
limits on a district's efforts to improve food quality.
MR. JOHNSON answered that regulations are not limiting; however,
the freshness factor enters into food being transported from a
central facility. He said cost is the biggest issue.
9:14:46 AM
JORDIS CLARK, School Nurse, offered that the large Anchorage
school, where she works, recently began a breakfast program,
serving 100 students, and the short term benefits are already
being realized. Additionally, she reported that a casual poll,
asking the students why breakfast was not consumed at home,
provided a variety of responses, which included being home alone
and waking late and hurrying out the door. School provides a
regimen that works, she opined, and explained how food works as
energy in the body, emphasizing nourishment of the brain.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether the legislature can provide
any further support, and opined that ideally breakfast should be
eaten at home.
MS. CLARK indicated that the school newsletter stresses the
importance for parents to provide meals to their students;
however, the reality is that it doesn't happen. Parent
education is an ongoing effort, she said.
9:20:43 AM
ANN PENNINGTON, Director, Child Nutrition, Alaska Gateway School
District, stated support for HB 132, pointing out that in rural
areas access is a primary factor. The Gateway School District,
has 366 students, 308 of which, or 85 percent, qualify for
free/reduced meals. Approximately 70 percent of the qualifying
students live in villages without stores. She said the one in
four Alaskans experiencing food insecurity can be found in the
Gateway district. For many students, the only meal they receive
for the day is provided at school. It would be extremely
helpful to have further meal supplements for the students, she
stressed.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether regulations prohibit the use
of subsistence resources.
MS. PENNINGTON responded that regulation does allow donations of
game meat and fish, but because non-commercial food must be
segregated, presenting storage issues. However, this problem
has never arisen, as no donations have occurred in the last 20
years. She said she would love to be confronted with that
problem.
9:26:47 AM
LYNN WATKINS, Manager, Child Nutrition Program, Alaska Gateway
School District, stated support for HB 132, and agreed with the
learning benefits that eating a nutritious meal provides, as
mentioned by previous witnesses. She said that as the "lunch
lady" the children often let her know they are hungry, and when
queried they will offer that they had a minimal dinner, perhaps
a bag of chips. The teachers encourage the students to eat a
school breakfast, as the results can be seen in the classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the end price for a gallon of
fresh milk, flown to a remote village, may not represent the
best use of a public dollar. He asked if there is a regulation
regarding milk, and whether powdered milk is used.
MS. WATKINS answered that, when possible, shelf safe milk is
used, but powdered milk is a commonly used commodity in remote
sites.
9:31:16 AM
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent, Anchorage School District, stated
support for HB 132, and said the district would be grateful to
receive further resources that could be used to increase the
number of students receiving free/reduced meals. Substantial
private help has been contributed from corporate entities, which
has enabled the district to provide a weekend food program.
These are sack meals that go home with the children, in some
areas, due to the rising poverty issue.
CHAIR DICK closed public testimony
The committee took an at-ease from 9:32 a.m. to 9:35 a.m.
9:35:14 AM
HB 6-REMOVING A REGENT
CHAIR DICK announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 6, "An Act authorizing the governor to remove or
suspend a member of the Board of Regents of the University of
Alaska for good cause; and establishing a procedure for the
removal or suspension of a regent."
9:35:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 6 paraphrasing from the sponsor statement which
read [original punctuation provided]:
This bill creates a statutory due process procedure
under which the governor may suspend or remove a
University of Alaska regent for good cause.
This bill is in response to a 2007 incident in which a
regent was federally indicted on multiple counts of
fraud. He refused to resign his position until
impeachment proceedings began. The boards of regents'
by-laws do not set forth a procedure to remove a
regent. The legislative legal counsel has concluded
that regents serve at the pleasure of the governor and
thus can be removed. An informal attorney general's
opinion states that the governor does not have the
authority to remove a regent without cause. That AG
opinion concluded that the governor does have the
authority to remove a regent so long as cause is
established and due process granted.
It should be noted that during the 25th legislature
letters were sent to the board of regents asking that
it, under the authority of 14.40.170(b)(1), adopt
procedures for the removal and/or suspension of a
regent, but it has not done so.
It is important to acknowledge that the constitution
does bear upon this bill due to the governor's powers
being enumerated in Article III of the Alaska
Constitution while the board of regents is established
in Article VII, section 6. The Alaska Supreme Court
has ruled that the UA is subject to a degree of
legislative control. For example, the legislature
can, without approval of the regents, dispose of UA
land. Additionally, the legislature has, through law,
provided the UA with a broad degree of autonomy;
however, this implies the UA is still subject to laws
enacted by the legislature. The legislature has been
given broad authority under the constitution, indeed
the only constitutional constraints on the power of
the legislature to make laws regarding other agencies
of the State of Alaska deal with the rules of court
and the repeal of initiatives. In effect this
legislation provides a check upon the powers of the
university.
This bill secures the state's interest and the
university's interest. This legislation will keep a
cloud from hovering over the UA in a future scenario
in which a regent must be removed or suspended for
cause.
9:38:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the procedure, presented
in the bill, is modeled on the worker's compensation appeals
board legislation, and other statutory framework in the state.
The procedure is designed to be above reproach, and handled
through the governor's office.
9:40:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to have committee substitute (CS)
HB 6, 27-LS0027\D, Mischel, 2/9/11, before the committee as the
working draft. There being no objection, Version D was before
the committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:40 a.m. to 9:42 a.m.
9:41:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stressed the need to have a process in
place to remove a regent.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to have the CS explained.
9:43:47 AM
TED MADSEN, Staff, Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the changes in version D, paraphrasing
from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
There are a number of changes between the "A" and "D"
versions, including minor grammatical and stylistic
changes, and substantive changes.
There was one major change to Section 1 of the bill.
Subsection (a) paragraph (3) of the "A" version (page
2 lines 2-7) was deleted and subsection (a) paragraph
(2) of the "D" version (page1 lines 12-13) was added.
The effect of this change is to show that the
legislature has legislative authority over the
University of Alaska.
There were a few changes to Section 2 of the bill.
Subsection (e) of the "A" version (page 3lines 7-10)
was deleted, as with the addition of new subsections
and language in the "D" version it was unnecessary.
Specifically, with designation that the proceedings in
this section fall under the guidelines of the
Administrative Procedures Act, the language in
subsection (e) was not needed.
The other major change to Section 2 of the "A" version
was a reordering of the subsections to better reflect
the flow of the proceedings.
9:46:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected that precedent can be cited
for the legislative authority over the University of Alaska.
Further, with respect to the removal of sec. E lines 7-10, the
language was redundant and new language established the
administrative adjudication procedures, modeled on the federal
adjudication act.
9:48:13 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the bill would be held for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:49 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB132 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| NSLP Fact Sheet.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| HB132 - federal school meal data.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| Studies Relating to the Benefits of School Meals.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| Support Letters HB132.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| AK Food Coalition Resolution for School Meals.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| US H.Res.210.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| City of Kenai Resolution for School Meals.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| Fast Facts for School Meals.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| HB 132 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| HB 132.Funding for School Meals.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| Informal AG opinion.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 6 |
| Leg. Legal Opinion.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 6 |
| Sectional Analysis for HB 6 D version.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 6 |
| Model Statutes.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 6 |
| Sectional Analysis for HB 6.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 6 |
| Sponsor Statement for HB 6.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 6 |
| Explanation of Changes between A and D versions.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 6 |
| HB 6 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 6 |
| House Bill 6 Version A.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 6 |
| House Bill 6 Version D.pdf |
HEDC 2/11/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 6 |