03/10/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB347 | |
| HB297 | |
| HB367 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 367 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 350 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 347 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 2010
8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Peggy Wilson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 347
"An Act allowing certain teachers, public employees, and private
sector employees to take leave without pay when their spouses
are on leave from deployment in a combat zone."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 297
"An Act establishing the governor's performance scholarship
program and relating to the program; establishing the governor's
performance scholarship fund and relating to the fund; relating
to student records; making conforming amendments; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 367
"An Act relating to tax credits for cash contributions by
taxpayers that are accepted for certain educational purposes and
facilities; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 350
"AN ACT RELATING TO THE LOCAL CONTRIBUTION TO PUBLIC SCHOOL
FUNDING; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 347
SHORT TITLE: LEAVE FOR MILITARY SPOUSES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) PETERSEN
02/15/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/15/10 (H) EDC, FIN
03/03/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/03/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/10/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 297
SHORT TITLE: POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) EDC, FIN
02/03/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/03/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/12/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/12/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/12/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/15/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/15/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/17/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/17/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/19/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/19/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/19/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/22/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/22/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/26/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/26/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/26/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/01/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/08/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/08/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/10/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 367
SHORT TITLE: TAX CREDITS FOR EDUCATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
SPONSOR(s): MUNOZ
02/23/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/10 (H) EDC, FIN
03/10/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PETE PETERSEN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reintroduced HB 347, as prime sponsor.
MR. PEDER TERLAND, Staff
Representative Pete Peterson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 347.
AL TAMAGNI, SR., Owner
Pension Services Int'l., Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 347.
RIC DAVIDGE, State President
Vietnam Veterans of America; Chairman,
Alaska Veterans Foundation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 347.
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 297.
STEPHANIE BUTLER, Director
Operations/Outreach
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 297.
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 297.
LARRY LEDOUX, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 297.
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff
Representative Cathy Munoz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 367 on behalf of
Representative Munoz, prime sponsor.
MARY RUTHERFORD, President
University of Alaska Foundation;
Chief Development Officer
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 367.
JAMES JOHNSEN, Senior Vice President of Administration
Doyon, Limited
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 367.
JOHANNA BALES, Deputy Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 367.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:09:20 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:09 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Buch,
Munoz, and Keller were present at the call to order.
Representative Gardner arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 347-LEAVE FOR MILITARY SPOUSES
8:09:29 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 347, "An Act allowing certain teachers, public
employees, and private sector employees to take leave without
pay when their spouses are on leave from deployment in a combat
zone."
8:10:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETE PETERSEN, Alaska State Legislature,
reintroduced HB 347 to the committee as the prime sponsor. He
summarized that the bill allows spouses of active military
personnel ten days of unpaid leave. Representative Petersen
noted an amendment to the bill limits its scope to businesses
with 20 employees or more, and schools with 20 employees or
more.
8:13:05 AM
MR. PEDER TERLAND, Staff to Representative Pete Peterson, Alaska
State Legislature, informed the committee that the sponsor
recently learned of a change in the Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) to include the spouse of regular military personnel,
which was the primary intent of the bill. However, HB 347 was
written specifically for Alaskan troops, and conforms to state
law. He acknowledged the receipt of a facsimile (FAX) contained
in the committee packet that refutes the need for the bill, and
reported its arrival was too late to review prior to this
scheduled hearing. Nevertheless, Mr. Terland pointed out that
differences between FMLA and HB 347 still exist; for example,
FMLA allows for up to five days of leave when a covered military
member is on leave from deployment, and HB 347 allows for ten
days of leave. Additionally, the bill applies to businesses
and, as amended, schools with 20 or more employees versus the
FMLA standard of 50 or more employees. Although not practical
given the situation of a small business, ideally, he opined, the
legislation would be "in the families' best interest" and allow
the spouse of a soldier leave from any size of establishment.
8:16:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN pointed out that bill does not prohibit
an employer with fewer than 20 employees from allowing leave,
but provides an exemption should such action cause a hardship.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER queried why the original act did not
include active duty military.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN expressed his belief that the provision
was originally passed at a time when a large number of National
Guard and Military Reserves were deployed for active military
duty.
8:18:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to the document provided in the committee
packet and titled, "U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour
Division Fact Sheet #28A: The Family and Medical Leave Act
Military Family Leave Entitlements," and paraphrased language
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Qualifying Exigency Leave: A covered employer must
grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12
workweeks of unpaid leave during the normal 12-month
period established by the employer for FMLA leave ...
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that HB 347 stipulates ten days of
leave; however, the October 2009, amendment to the FMLA allows
twelve work weeks of leave. He observed the federal legislation
grants a greater duration of leave.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN agreed, but noted the leave was
determined by a "qualifying exigency," the definition of which
was unknown to him.
CHAIR SEATON indicated that the definition was contained in the
same document, and included farther reaching situations than
previously discussed and connected with HB 347, such as: short
notice deployment; military events and related activities;
childcare and related activities; financial and legal
arrangements; counseling; rest and recuperation; certain post-
deployment activities.
8:21:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER turned to the Pension Services Int'l.,
Inc., FAX of 3/9/10, provided in the committee packet, and
paraphrased from the cover page, second paragraph, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
In reviewing the data, we find that virtually all of
the concerns raised in the bill had been address[ed]
in the Family and Medical Leave Act National Defense
Authorization Act for FY 2010, which was signed by
President Obama on October 28, 2009. Public Law 111-
84.
CHAIR SEATON, acknowledging that testimony on the bill had been
received too late for review by the committee or sponsor,
suggested holding the bill to provide that opportunity.
8:22:20 AM
MR. TERLAND maintained that the federal revision did not expand
the exigency leave from five days, nor did it alter the size of
the businesses exempted.
8:23:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that the federal legislation also
included the caveat that an employee qualifies only after having
worked at an establishment for one year.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN expressed his understanding that the
qualification requires minimum employment of 1,250 hours.
MR. TERLAND pointed out that HB 347 does not have that
requirement.
8:23:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed disbelief that an employer would
deny an employee leave; in fact, this bill may be unnecessary
government intervention. He asked if there are reported
instances where employers have denied leave.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he had no personal knowledge to
offer, only non-specific reports that leave had been denied. He
acknowledged that being short-staffed could cause a problem for
a small business, which was why the bill established the minimum
of 20 or more employees.
8:25:35 AM
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony.
8:26:04 AM
AL TAMAGNI, SR., Owner, Pension Services Int'l., Inc., informed
the committee he was speaking as an individual, although he is a
member of the National Federation of Independent Business-Alaska
(NFIB). Mr. Tamagni indicated that he had reviewed the recent
updates to the FMLA of 1993. He opined that the statistical
data used to draft HB 347 was null and void, due to the recent
changes to the federal act signed by President Obama on October
28, 2009, and effective as recently as February, 2010.
8:27:31 AM
MR. TAMAGNI directed attention to the FAX communication, page 1
of 4, Fact Sheet #28, and the heading "Employer Coverage," and
read [original punctuation provided]:
The FMLA applies to all public agencies, including
state, local and federal employers, local education
agencies (schools), and private-sector employers who
employed 50 or more employees in 20 or more workweeks
in the current or preceding calendar year ...
MR. TAMAGNI reported that spouses are routinely granted leave,
due to outstanding employer efforts to voluntarily support
military families. Unless there is compelling, verifiable
evidence that HB 347 should be enacted, he opined that
additional state legislation is unnecessary. Furthermore, Mr.
Tamagni pointed out that employers exempt from FMLA because they
employ less than 50 employees, may not have to comply with the
more restrictive state law. He suggested legislators "move on
to more important things."
8:29:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether Mr. Tamagni notified the
bill's sponsor of his findings.
MR. TAMAGNI said he was not employed by the sponsor, although he
was in recent contact with Representative Tuck.
8:30:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER observed the differences in the proposed
legislation and FMLA regarding the number of days of leave and
the exception for certain employers. She agreed that a large
measure of Alaska businesses generously support military members
and military families, and remarked, "But, if you're already in
compliance, then why would there be an objection to just having
it in law, for those few businesses ... critically important to
the family who might be denied leave ...?
MR. TAMAGNI related that an informal poll of over 100 of his
clients indicated there was no problem associated with this
subject matter. He asked, "Why do you want to regulate
something that apparently there's no evidence to support it's a
problem?"
8:32:40 AM
RIC DAVIDGE, State President, Vietnam Veterans of America;
Chairman, Alaska Veterans Foundation, cited the primary
differences between the proposed state legislation and federal
law. As a combat veteran, he opined that when a soldier has
been in combat for twelve to eighteen months, it takes more than
five days of leave to make a difference. He said his
organization supports the two amendments to the bill.
8:33:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony, and announced HB 347 was
held.
8:34:32 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:34 a.m. to 8:37 a.m.
HB 297-POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
8:37:02AM
CHAIR SEATON drew attention to the document from the Department
of Education and Early Development (EED) provided in the
committee packet titled, "Responses to Rep. Seaton's Questions
on GPS from 3/7/10, Submitted by EED on 3/9/10." Regarding
question 1, he referred to page 9, line 27, of the bill and read
paragraph (4): "meets other minimum qualifications to apply or
continue to be eligible for a governor's performance
scholarship." He asked the department for a full explanation of
the term, "continue to be eligible."
8:38:30 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
EED, said the term "or continue to be eligible," refers to a
student who has received a scholarship, is enrolled in a
postsecondary program, and is required to maintain a minimum
grade point average (GPA) to continue eligibility. The
department intends for the Postsecondary Education Commission to
adopt regulations in alignment with other financial aid programs
for continuing eligibility.
CHAIR SEATON stated his belief that the paragraph was unclear,
and suggested that rewording, and perhaps additional language,
could provide clarity.
MR. JEANS advised that including a minimum GPA in the language
would be restrictive; currently, when a student receives an
award, the continuing eligibility requirements are explained.
8:40:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether GPA continuing eligibility
standards vary between institutions, even though the award would
be a governor's performance scholarship (GPS).
MR. JEANS replied yes.
8:41:50 AM
STEPHANIE BUTLER, Director, Operations/Outreach, Postsecondary
Education Commission, EED, explained how on-going eligibility
for any financial aid program includes verification from the
institution that the student remains enrolled with satisfactory
progress. Satisfactory progress is a definition which varies
based on the program and the institution. For example, at a
vocational education school, satisfactory progress may require a
student to complete a certain number of hours each period, but a
collegiate institution may have different requirements.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the language for this aspect of the
bill was sufficient.
MS. BUTLER assured the committee that "continue to be eligible"
was the preferred language, as it would encompass verifying that
the student is enrolled, has not received other aid in excess of
the cost of attendance, "and things beyond satisfactory academic
progress."
8:43:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON observed that the committee needs to understand the
parameters for this language. He asked whether a student with
an "A" GPA, who receives a GPS scholarship, is required to
maintain that GPA, at a postsecondary level, in order to
continue his/her award eligibility.
MS. BUTLER replied no. She explained that the verification
required is that the student continues to meet the institution's
standards for enrollment in the program of choice.
CHAIR SEATON maintained his concern for clarity of the language
"continue to be eligible" and said:
[It] does not relate back to the performance standards
that they qualified under, whether they were an A, B,
or the C+ grade point [average], and those have any
relationship to the postsecondary.... This is
maintaining eligibility to continue in the program in
which they're enrolled.
MR. JEANS assured the committee that the eligibility GPA is not
tied to the level of academic scholarship that a student is
awarded, but is a continuation eligibility criterion once the
student is enrolled in the postsecondary institution.
8:45:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered Amendment 2, which read:
Page 9 line 26
After "include" add "two additional years if"
Line 26
Delete "time while"
8:46:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:46:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that the amendment addressed the question
regarding military service, and the concern that a qualified
student might divert his or her award in perpetuity.
8:47:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested an opinion from EED.
MR. JEANS said the department had no objection to the amendment.
8:47:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired whether similar deferment
opportunities arise elsewhere in the language of the bill.
MR. JEANS replied no.
CHAIR SEATON stipulated that the amendment would be offered
conceptually so that Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, could revise all applicable sections
to reflect the language appropriately.
8:48:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ removed her objection.
8:48:43 AM
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was
adopted.
8:48:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 3, which read:
Page 5 line 16 thru Page 7 line 6
Delete all of Sec 4
8:49:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:49:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that this amendment deleted Sec. 4 from
the bill, in response to a letter from the Postsecondary
Education Commission indicating that the administration of this
program is not its responsibility. He asked for comment from
EED.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 3, which read:
Page 5 line 16 thru Page 7 line 27 [6]
Delete all of Sec 4
[Although not formally stated, Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 3 was treated as adopted.]
MR. JEANS, responding to the chairman's request for a comment on
Conceptual Amendment 3, deferred to Ms. Butler.
8:50:53 AM
MS. BUTLER restated the concern that this responsibility and
authority belongs in the statutes governing the commission's
activities, and not the corporation's activities. Furthermore,
because the corporation would not have financial responsibility
for funding the program, the language in Sec. 4 was not
appropriate.
8:51:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the statutory reference contained in
Sec. 4 would need to be redirected to the commission.
MS. BUTLER stated her belief that the necessary reference to the
commission statute is already included in 14.42.030(e)
amendments.
8:51:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ withdrew her objection.
8:51:51 AM
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 3, as
amended, was adopted.
8:52:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 4, which read:
Page 9 line 23
After "six years" add ",providing the student
maintains Alaska residency,"
8:52:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:52:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that this amendment addressed concerns
regarding residency in the state.
8:53:02 AM
MR. JEANS indicated that this may preclude a qualified student,
who gives up his/her residency to pursue an undergraduate degree
out-of-state, and then returns to Alaska, from taking advantage
of a scholarship to obtain a graduate degree.
CHAIR SEATON surmised a student could maintain his/her residency
when attending school Outside. He asked whether the commission
held a position on student residency.
MS. BUTLER said no.
8:54:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was
adopted.
8:54:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 5, modified to read:
Page 17 line 10
Delete ",or five-point scale for advanced placement
classes,"
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:55:48 AM
MR. JEANS said EED supported Amendment 5. The intent of the
department is to adopt regulations that require all districts to
use a conversion matrix to a four-point scale.
8:56:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER voiced concern that passage of this
amendment may discourage students from taking advanced placement
(AP) courses, which are considered college level, and require a
higher work load. If students are worried that their GPA may
suffer, thus jeopardizing receipt of a GPS, a student may decide
not to take an AP class.
MR. JEANS explained that the department does not hold that
concern, because a school district may continue to use a five-
point credit scale for students' transcripts; however, for the
purpose of calculating eligibility under the GPS program, a
uniform scale would be used.
8:57:12 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested further clarification on how eligibility
would be handled by school districts and the department.
MR. JEANS said the department would require districts to
determine eligibility levels utilizing a four-point grading
scale, and that information would be transmitted to the
commission.
8:58:24 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether a student's AP class, attended in a
district using a five-point scale, could be converted for the
department's purposes.
MR. JEANS replied that an "A," using a five-point scale, would
be reported [as an "A"] on a four-point scale for purposes of
the GPS. On the student's transcript, it would be reflected as
a five-point award.
8:59:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the postsecondary commission held a
position on the amendment.
MS. BUTLER answered no.
8:59:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected to the amendment, and restated
her reason. She then emphasized that the bill "is not about
giving kids money for college ... it's about trying to engage
students in making choices for the highest rigor, and I think
that this amendment reduces that.... For me, it's about rigor
and it's about excellence in education."
9:00:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH indicated his support for the amendment, and
stated that he did not believe it would prove discouraging to
students, particularly for students who aspire to attend college
outside of Alaska.
9:01:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked the department for an opinion on
Representative Gardner's concern.
MR. JEANS said the concern is understood, however, the bill
requires a GPA of at least 3.5 for a student to qualify for the
highest GPS tier. Therefore, a student is not required to
attain all "A"s, in order to qualify for the highest tier. He
acknowledged it is possible for a student's GPA to fall if
he/she chose to take all AP classes.
9:02:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether successful completion of an
AP course and exam allows a student to be eligible for six units
at a qualifying university. If so, this is an effective
incentive for taking AP courses.
CHAIR SEATON agreed that there are additional benefits for
taking AP courses, including possible college credit.
9:04:16 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Munoz, Keller,
Buch, and Seaton voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 5.
Representative Gardner voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 5 was adopted by a vote of 4-1.
9:05:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON indicated that the committee questions compiled and
posed to the commissioner's office, along with the responses,
would be forwarded with the bill for clarification.
9:06:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER then called attention to page 9, lines
16-21, and asked whether this provision allows a student, who
has never attended high school in Alaska, to be eligible for a
GPS award. She surmised this circumstance would apply primarily
to children of an active duty military family.
MR. JEANS clarified that the intent of this language is to allow
eligibility for students who have begun their high school career
in Alaska, and are on track for a GPS award, and then the family
is redeployed out-of-state. These students would be allowed the
opportunity to complete the program.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested an amendment to stipulate that
a student must complete at least two years of high school, in
Alaska, in order to qualify.
MR. JEANS replied that the department's intent was to address
the issue through the State Board of Education & Early
Development regulatory process, and gave no opinion on the
proposed amendment.
9:07:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered Conceptual Amendment 6 to insert
language stipulating that a student would be required to hold
two years of high school credit from Alaska at page 9, lines 16-
21, subparagraph (B).
9:08:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified Conceptual Amendment 6 which read:
Page 9, line 20
Following "who"
Insert "has completed at least two years of high
school in Alaska"
9:08:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion, and agreed
that the intent of the language in the subparagraph was unclear.
A student may never attend school in Alaska, yet retain the
possibility of receiving an award. He directed attention to the
document in the committee packet titled, "Responses to Rep.
Seaton's GPS Questions from 3/7/10, Submitted by EED 3/9/10,"
page 2, and paraphrased the department's reply, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 9, line 18. "for purposes of this subparagraph,
allowable circumstances include a circumstance in
which a high school student who is an Alaska resident
left the state because of the military service of the
student's custodial parent who is an Alaska resident."
9:10:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether there are legal concerns
caused by the amendment.
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, stated
that because of the structure of the bill, eligibility criteria
exist in various sections. The amendment would only address the
extension of time for the scholarship usage, and the committee's
concern is for initial eligibility, which is provided for on
page 9, lines 8-21. In that provision there is already a
requirement of Alaska residence in graduation from high school,
in this state. Ms. Mischel opined amending the extension of
time provision would be inconsistent, and may have the opposite
effect of what the committee is attempting to accomplish, which
is to allow an extension of time after only attending high
school in Alaska. All applicants would be required to meet the
eligibility criteria whether they are military or not.
CHAIR SEATON warned that the language appears to provide an
exception for children with resident status, due to military
circumstances, who may be absent from the state for eight years.
MS. MISCHEL agreed that the interpretation of the exemption
could be read to allow eligibility for a high school student not
attending high school in Alaska.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether language adding the qualification of
two years of high school attendance in Alaska may lead to a
legal challenge.
MS. MISCHEL said adding a two year requirement would be safer
than leaving it open-ended, from an equal protection standpoint.
9:15:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pondered whether it is a bad thing to
entice the "cream of the crop" to come to Alaska for
postsecondary education. He surmised that departmental
regulation would ensure that the criteria for a student entering
the state would be determined equal to that of the
qualifications of an in-state applicant.
MR. JEANS explained that when a student transfers into the
state, districts evaluate his/her transcript, and that process
would not be changed. He opined Amendment 6 requires a student,
who leaves the state, to have completed two years of high school
in Alaska, in order to qualify for the scholarship program.
However, a student who is new to the state, can transfer in
their senior year, meet residency and other requirements, and
qualify for a GPS award. The section does not prohibit a
student from moving into the state and taking advantage of the
scholarship program.
9:17:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that the department will establish
regulations for qualification, but the committee must determine
the policy on which the regulations are based.
MR. JEANS concurred.
9:17:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH questioned whether the amendment establishes
a policy of discrimination.
CHAIR SEATON interjected that the committee is providing an
exemption policy for military transfers, so they may be allowed
to satisfy the high school graduation requirement elsewhere than
in Alaska. The exemption would stipulate that at least two of
their high school years must be at an Alaskan school, in
addition to other qualifying criteria.
9:19:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 6.
9:19:24 AM
There being no further objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
9:20:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER directed attention to the document in the
committee packet titled, "Responses to Rep. Gardner's GPS
Questions, from 3/9/10, Submitted by EED 3/9/10, page 1, item
number three, and paraphrased the question which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 10: Eligibility for academic scholarship: I
believe we discussed the possibility of a student who
graduates in May while lacking one or more of the GPS
required classes and wants to [meet] the
qualifications by taking summer classes. Is this
possible under the language of Sec. 14.43.820?
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled that this had been previously
discussed and the commissioner said it would be possible.
However, she pointed out that the student would already have
graduated, without meeting the requirements.
MR. JEANS opined AS 14.43.830 allows for an alternative pathway
and a "make-up procedure," when approved by the department.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether that holds true "even if
the deficit was not caused by circumstances beyond the student's
control."
9:23:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON indicated his understanding that courses would need
to be completed prior to graduation; if not, the timeframe to
apply for a GPS would remain open-ended. He related the intent
of the legislation was to encourage students "to make their
educational plans."
MR. JEANS corrected his previous statement, and concluded that
if a student had the opportunity, and did not meet the
requirements, then he/she could not apply for a GPS.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked:
So, somebody who's met the requirements for
graduation, but not met the requirements for the
scholarship, could simply not apply to graduate, until
they met the scholarship requirements?
MR. JEANS pointed out that high school graduation requirements
are different than the requirements to qualify for the GPS; in
fact, a student can fail the high school qualifying exam and
receive a certificate of attendance. Thus, a student cannot
"opt-out" of graduation if the requirements have been met.
CHAIR SEATON requested the commissioner's comments on this
subject.
9:26:31 AM
LARRY LEDOUX, Commissioner, EED, explained the current
graduation eligibility and requirements. An application to
graduate is only necessary for a student to graduate early, and
is basically an informal meeting with a counselor to ascertain
whether the student has sufficient credits. Commissioner LeDoux
reported how some students meet requirements prior to the final
semester of their senior year, leave to attend college, and
return to participate in graduation ceremonies with their class.
9:28:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 12, lines 16-19, and
noted language which read, "require very high academic
achievement," "require high academic achievement," and "require
moderate academic achievement." He pointed out that the tiers
of the scholarship awards are identified elsewhere in the bill
by different language, and asked the department for
clarification.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said the department would review the cited
language to eliminate any confusion.
CHAIR SEATON referred to the document in the committee packet
titled, "Responses to Rep. Seaton's Questions on GPS from
3/7/10, submitted by EED on 3/9/10, page 4, item 9. He
paraphrased EED's response, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
The comments "very high", "high" and "moderate" are
editorial references to the merit academic tiers for
initial GPS eligibility.
CHAIR SEATON then directed attention to page 10, lines 20-27, to
indicate where the tier levels are identified, and requested a
legal opinion about the inclusion of both citations. He
suggested a new concept was being introduced by the reference on
page 12.
9:31:44 AM
MS. MISCHEL said the tiers serve two purposes, which causes
confusion. There was a need to provide a means for distinction
for the awards because page 12, paragraph (1) contains set
percentages based upon the tiers, which correlate not only to
the grades but also to the test scores. Although more
consistency in the language would be helpful, page 12 does
require a distinction in the award section that correlates to
the minimum test score and the minimum grade criterion found on
pages 10-11.
9:32:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH suggested removing "achievement" and
inserting "recognition." Changing these terms might clarify a
student's activity versus the department's observations.
9:33:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 10, line 20, where the
three tiers are established as follows: A average tier; B
average tier; C plus average tier. He pointed out that on page
12, line 16, the highest tier is identified by "very high
academic achievement," which could be presumed to be an A
average tier. However, without the same name it is neither
consistent, nor clearly defined, in the bill. The A, B, and C
average tiers have been defined, but not the three achievement
terms.
MR. JEANS opined that the language is appropriate. He directed
attention to page 8, line [5], where the purpose of the program
is established, and read: "[The merit-based] academic
scholarship consists of three levels of award[s]." Turning to
page 10, he said the eligibility criteria for the academic
scholarship is described and includes the GPA, standardized test
scores, and curriculum. Three criteria must be met in order to
be considered for a level of award. Following that, the section
on page 12 details each award. Mr. Jeans advised that the bill:
(1) describes the tiers; (2) describes how to qualify within the
tiers; (3) describes the award level for each tier.
9:36:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON agreed that the progression was established;
however, the wording of the levels of awards should be
consistent. Legality of the language is not a question, he
said, only clarity of language.
MR. JEANS cautioned using A, B, C [plus] for award levels as
those represent the GPA for eligibility criteria. An A GPA
might rank students for the highest tier, but if their
assessment score is low, it would alter that ranking; moreover,
there are three eligibility criteria to be considered.
CHAIR SEATON maintained his concern, and said that it is being
called an A average tier.
MS. MISCHEL offered to clarify the language.
9:38:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON turned to page 12, line [28], and read [original
punctuation provided]:
A part-time student who receives a merit-based
academic scholarship and is enrolled on at least a
half-time basis is eligible for an award on a pro rata
basis.
CHAIR SEATON referred to the document in the committee packet
titled, "Responses to Rep. Seaton's Questions on GPS from
3/7/10, Submitted by EED on 3/9/10, page 4, number 10, bullets
4-5, and read [original punctuation provided]:
Subject to the half-time cap noted below, students
will be awarded scholarship funds based on their cost
of attendance for between 6 and 11 credits.
The maximum merit award a half-time student can
qualify for will be 50% of the maximum applicable to
their tier.
CHAIR SEATON surmised that pro rata is not based on the credit
hours a student is taking thus, a half-time student could
qualify for one-half of a tier. The use of the term pro rata
may cause a dispute, unless the intent is to provide a pro rata
amount based on percentages.
9:39:55 AM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX offered to clarify the language, because it
is not the intent of the department to provide payment based on
credits.
9:40:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 7, which read:
Page 12, line 29
Delete: "on a pro rata basis"
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ objected for the purpose of discussion, and
asked whether this applies to a student's attendance at the
secondary or postsecondary level.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that if a student attends less than half-
time at a postsecondary institution, he/she would not qualify to
receive an award, and if a student garners 6-11 credits he/she
qualifies for 50 percent of the tier award.
9:41:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ removed her objection.
9:41:59 AM
[Although not formally stated, Conceptual Amendment 7 was
adopted.]
9:42:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 15, lines 3-4, and read,
"the deficit was caused by rare and unusual circumstances
outside the control of the student." He recalled that different
scenarios have been discussed regarding this language, including
accommodations for special needs students, and requested further
comments from the department.
9:43:08 AM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX assured the committee individualized
educational programs (IEPs) requiring specific testing
accommodations would be honored by testing organizations such as
American College Testing (ACT) and Scholastic Aptitude Test
(SAT). However, the language on page 15, line 4, of the bill
does not refer to special education students or students with
IEPs, but to students affected by a rare or unusual circumstance
outside the control of the student, such as a disaster, and thus
allows the department discretion. Further, he opined that one
strength of the bill is that the department is able to recognize
individual circumstances.
9:44:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested clarification for how home
school students would fit into the process.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said that home school students are fully
participatory in this program and are expected to meet the same
requirements as other students. Parents are expected to present
an evaluation system to the department, and show that the
student's work history proves evidence of achievement in a
rigorous curriculum.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether private school graduates are
evaluated for eligibility by a public school administrator.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX underscored that private school students
would also be fully eligible, and must meet the same
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER surmised that graduation from a public
school was not required.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX concurred.
[HB 297 was held over.]
9:46:48 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:46 a.m. to 9:48 a.m.
HB 367-TAX CREDITS FOR EDUCATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
9:49:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 367, "An Act relating to tax credits for cash
contributions by taxpayers that are accepted for certain
educational purposes and facilities; and providing for an
effective date."
9:49:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, speaking as the prime sponsor of HB 367,
said the bill allows tax credits for educational contributions
to postsecondary institutions and vocational education schools
and universities. Current law allows a tax credit of $150,000,
and the bill would expand the tax credit to beyond that, as a
way to encourage further investment in Alaska's postsecondary
institutions. She then moved the Committee Substitute (CS) for
HB 367, 26-LS1538\R, Bullock, 3/9/10, as the working document.
9:50:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:50:24 AM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff to Representative Cathy Munoz, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 367, paraphrasing from the
sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Under current law, tax payers that make cash
contributions to an Alaskan educational or vocational
institution receive a maximum tax credit allowable in
any given year of $150,000.
House Bill 367 would increase the higher education tax
credits to 50 percent for the first $100,000
contribution, 100 percent for contributions over
$100,000 and up to $300,000, and 50 percent on
contributions that exceed $300,000. A cap was placed
in the amount of $25,000,000.
The current limitation has a constraining effect on
corporate donations and investments in educational and
vocational institutions. In 2008, only 11 donors
contributed enough to the University of Alaska to
maximize the current tax credit.
Many major employers in Alaska understand the
importance of educating Alaskans to create a skilled
workforce. These businesses want to hire Alaskans
from vocational schools, colleges, and universities.
By expanding the educational tax credit companies can
help Alaska's universities expand their existing
research and development capacities, and help to
maximize the potential for economic development.
By facilitating greater cooperation between Alaska's
business and education sectors, and encouraging
greater financial support, HB 367 will leverage
important workforce and economic development goals.
With Alaskans working together we can strengthen our
workforce, increase collaboration between school and
local business, diversify funding sources for Alaska's
higher education institutions, enhance student
activities and facilities, and develop research
programs that contribute to the economic development
of Alaska.
9:51:52 AM
MS. KLOSTER then explained provisions in the CS would require
the director of insurance to submit an annual report informing
the legislature of the success of the program. Furthermore, the
CS will be redrafted to fully reflect the intent of the sponsor
to keep the first $100,000 contribution at a 50 percent tax
credit, the second $100,000 contribution at an 100 percent tax
credit, and, for contributions from $200,000 and above,
contributors would receive a 50 percent tax credit. The cap
amount would remain at $25,000,000.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the 50 percent tax credit on the
first $100,000, and the 100 percent tax credit on the second
$100,000, is now existing law.
MS. KLOSTER said correct.
9:53:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection, and, there being no further
objection, announced that CSHB 367, Version R, was before the
committee.
9:53:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved Conceptual Amendment 1, which read:
The amount of the credit is
(1) 50 percent of contributions of not more than
$100,000; and
(2) 100 percent of contributions of the next $100,000
of contributions; and
(3) 50 percent of the amount of contributions that
exceed $200,000.
9:54:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:54:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection, and, there being no further
objection, announced Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:54:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony.
9:55:23 AM
MARY RUTHERFORD, President, University of Alaska Foundation;
Chief Development Officer, University of Alaska, spoke in
support of HB 367, and said that the university is always
excited to see new opportunities and incentives that foster
close relationships. Tax credits have been an effective tool,
and the expansion will garner increased support for the
university system from groups that support programs such as the
Summer Bridge and K-12 Outreach programs.
9:57:00 AM
JAMES JOHNSEN, Senior Vice President of Administration, Doyon,
Limited, testified in favor HB 367, and stated that the bill
would increase business support for higher technical education
in Alaska. He described Doyon, Limited, as follows: owned by
17,500 Alaska Native shareholders; owns 12,500,000 acres of
land; operates subsidiary companies in oil field and gas field
services, government contracts, and land and resource
development; is proud to rank number one of the top 10
privately-owned Alaska companies, in the percentage of employees
who are Alaskan. Doyon, Limited, is a for profit company, which
makes money for its shareholders primarily by developing two
resources: natural resource development and human resource
development. In fact, in 2009, Doyon explored for natural gas
in the Nenana Basin at a cost of about $15 million. The state
recognized the importance of this exploration by granting a 50
percent incentive tax credit. He conjectured that if Doyon had
invested an equal amount in internships, scholarships, research
programs, facilities, endowed shares, and workforce development
programs, the company would have only received a one percent tax
credit in the amount of $150,000. The proposed legislation
would balance the state's support for private sector investments
in human resources, with what is available for investing in
natural resources. Mr. Johnsen stressed that by enacting the
bill, the legislature would effectively encourage businesses to
invest in postsecondary education-vocational/technical programs
to university programs-in order to open up another revenue
source for higher education, and strengthen the relationship
between colleges and the businesses that employ the graduates of
these programs. Furthermore, the bill encourages a long-term
collaboration in support of economic development in Alaska. He
concluded by informing the committee that Doyon is one of twelve
regional Native corporations in Alaska, and the effort being put
into this bill is a high priority amongst the corporations.
10:00:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON observed that the bill includes
vocational/technical training, as well as facilities to provide
a variety of postsecondary training, courses provided by a state
operated vocational school, and facilities for non-profit public
or private accredited institutions. Further, he said the bill
is an expansion of the amount of tax credit that would be used
to help leverage additional private funds. Chair Seaton
requested comments from the Department of Revenue (DOR).
10:02:38 AM
JOHANNA BALES, Deputy Director, Tax Division, DOR, said that the
department does not object to the intent of the bill. She
directed attention to the attached fiscal note, and said it is
difficult to know the exact amount of giving that increasing the
tax credit might promote. The department reviewed 2008
corporate income tax filers and estimated that if each of the
corporations took advantage of the opportunity provided by HB
367, to the fullest extent, the state would suffer a drop of
$200 million in corporate income tax. Ms. Bales said a complete
analysis has not been completed, and pointed out other taxes
that could be affected such as mining license taxes, fisheries
business taxes, fisheries resource landing taxes, oil and gas
production taxes, property taxes, and insurance taxes. She
concluded that the revenue impacts may potentially be far
reaching, depending on how many taxpayers take advantage of the
program.
CHAIR SEATON surmised that the projections were based on a
contribution cap of $25 million, or in the case of a corporation
with a tax liability of $400,000, basing the projection on its
tax liability.
MS. BALES said that is correct.
10:05:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked for the state's contribution in tax credits
under current law.
MS. BALES reported the number and approximate amount of
education tax credits claimed under the most recent filings were
as follows: 16 corporate taxpayers for $1 million in tax
credits; 3 insurance premium taxpayers for $450,000 in tax
credits; 1 fishery resource landing taxpayer for $150,000 in tax
credits; 3 business taxpayers for $450,000 in tax credits. The
credits totaled $2.1 million, and she added that there were none
from the tax categories of oil and gas, or production tax and
property tax. This can be explained because the categories of
oil and gas taxes, production taxes, property taxes, and
corporate income taxpayers can only take a total of $150,000,
regardless of the tax type the credit is claimed against. Ms.
Bales confirmed that this disincentive would not be changed by
the proposed legislation.
10:06:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony and said that HB 367 would
be held over.
10:07:02 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:07 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 367 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/26/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |
| HB 367 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |
| HB 367 powerpoint.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |
| HB 367 Letter.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |
| HB 367 Background.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |
| HB367-REV-TAX-03-09-10 Education Tax Credits.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| current program flow chart.docx |
HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| HB350 program flow chart.docx |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| CS HB 297 GPS Work-Draft.pdf |
HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| GPS Responses to Rep. Seaton 3.7.10.doc |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| GPS Responses to Rep. Gardner 3.9.10.doc |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| MeyerThomasSeaton 030910.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB350-EED-ESS-2-18-10.pdf |
HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| FY02-11LocalEffortAssessed&educationWithMills-2Pager_10-22-09.xlsx |
HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| HB 347 sponsor statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| HB 347 backup.pdf |
HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| HB 347 sectional.pdf |
HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| Conceptual amendment to CS HB 367 Version R.docx |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |
| HB 367 Work-Draft version R.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |