Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/05/1998 01:45 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 5, 1998
1:45 P.M.
TAPE HFC 98 - 19, Side 1
TAPE HFC 98 - 19, Side 2
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:45 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Grussendorf
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Bunde; Senator Donley; Dean Guaneli, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of
Law; Diane Barrans, Executive Director, Postsecondary
Education Commission, Department of Education; Lynne Smith,
Staff, Representative Bunde; Wendy Redman, Vice President,
Statewide Programs, University of Alaska; Susan Tryk,
University of Washington.
SUMMARY
HB 193 "An Act relating to financial assistance for
students attending certain graduate education
programs; and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 193 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal
impact note by the Department of Education.
SJR 3 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska limiting the rights of prisoners
to those required under the Constitution of the
United States.
SJR 3 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to financial assistance for students
attending certain graduate education programs; and
providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE spoke in support of the
legislation. He observed that the WAMI Medical Education
Program is subsidized by the state of Alaska. He noted that
not all WAMI students return to Alaska. He emphasized that
the State invests approximately $150 thousand dollars in
each student. He contended that the State would not run out
of doctors without an entirely subsidized program.
Representative Bunde maintained that the legislation allows
Alaska to reap the just reward of its investment in WAMI
students. Students who practice in Alaska for five years
would not be impacted. He observed that the majority of
physicians live in the state where they did their residency.
Representative Bunde provided members with an amendment
(copy on file). The amendment would add intent language to
clarify that the first year is not included in the repayment
requirement. It would also add "or participating" on page
2, line 5. Representative Bunde noted that Alaskan
physicians have access to WAMI computer files. He asserted
that physicians should be require to pay for this access.
Representative Martin stated that the amendment should not
be in the form of intent language. He suggested that the
language be inserted into statute.
LYNNE SMITH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE clarified that
students already in the program would not be affected by the
legislation.
Representative Davies noted that the effective date should
be changed to 1998.
Representative Bunde did not think that additional
restrictions to assure participation by Alaskan students
were needed. He explained that the program already requires
students to be Alaskan residents. He stated that residency
requirements could be tightened. He acknowledged that 12 of
the 40 students that participated in the program, from 1989
to the current year, did not graduate from an Alaskan high
school.
WENDY REDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, STATEWIDE PROGRAMS, UNIVERSITY
of Alaska stated that the University does not support the
implementation of a surcharge. She maintained that a
surcharge would negatively affect low-income students. She
observed that 8 of the 12 students that graduated from out-
of-state high schools were attending prep schools, while
their parents lived in state.
Ms. Redman spoke in support of the WAMI program. She
asserted that the program is an integral part of the
University's Health Science program. She observed that the
University receives federal research funding as a result of
its participation in the WAMI program. She pointed out that
the associated residency program has brought over $5 million
dollars to Anchorage. She emphasized that there are more
applicants than the program can accommodate. She spoke
against the amendment. She observed that students have a
debt load of approximately $80 thousand dollars without the
additional $59 thousand dollar liability proposed by the
legislation. She observed that 49 percent of Alaskan
students return to the State. The national average is 40
percent. Seventy percent of all WAMI students, who come to
Alaska, through rotations and residencies, return to Alaska.
She clarified that students would be liable for an
additional repayment of $13 thousand dollars if the first
year was included in the repayment.
Co-Chair Hanley questioned if there is a shortage of doctors
in Anchorage. Ms. Redman noted that according to the
Washington Journal of Medicine, Anchorage has a 42.75
percent shortage of primary doctors. The statewide shortage
is 30.95 percent.
Ms. Redman noted that the state of Alaska pays to reserve 10
spots for Alaskan students at the University of Washington.
DIANE BARRANS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION clarified that the
program costs approximately $1.35 million dollars for the
second, third and fourth years.
Representative Bunde maintained that rural Alaskans would be
better served by placing some of the money into a nurse
practitioner program.
Ms. Barrans pointed out that the current population of
doctors in Alaska is aging. The average Alaskan physician
is over 40 years of age.
Representative Davies emphasized that other students are
subsidized by the state of Alaska.
Representative Davis noted that the program provides other
benefits to the State. He pointed out that there are
medivac provisions between WAMI states.
Co-Chair Therriault maintained that the state of Alaska
would continue to draw students to its residency program.
Representative Bunde asserted that the legislation is an
attempt to save the WAMI program. He reiterated that the
legislation will only impact students that do not return to
the State.
Co-Chair Hanley felt that the rural areas would benefit more
from a nursing program.
SUSAN TRYK, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON observed that the
University of Washington School of Medicine is partnering
with the University of Alaska, Anchorage to develop a
physician assistant program, which will be partly in Alaska
and partly in the state of Washington. She did not think
the program would require additional state funding.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT an amended effective date
of 1998. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2# (copy on file).
Amendment 2# would require repayment of the first year if
the student did not return to practice in the state of
Alaska for a minimum of five years.
Representative Bunde spoke in support of the amendment. He
observed that the amendment would require repayment of an
additional $13 thousand dollars if the student did not
return for a minimum of five years. He emphasized that
physicians earn high salaries. He maintained that the
amendment would aid the preservation of WAMI by encouraging
students to return to the State. Those that do not return
would have an additional liability of approximately $150
dollars a month.
Representative Mulder disclosed that he attended a WAMI
presentation in Seattle.
Representative Mulder spoke in favor of the legislation, but
against the amendment. He considered the first year's
exclusion from repayment as a scholarship. He observed that
the first year's funding goes to the state of Alaska.
Ms. Redman clarified that WAMI students carry approximately
$80 thousand dollars in debt at graduation, regardless of
the legislation. If the legislation were enacted they would
have an additional debt of $58 to $74 thousand dollars,
depending on the repayment requirements.
Representative Davies spoke against the amendment. He
observed that, if the legislation were enacted, students
would face a potential liability of $120 thousand dollars.
The amendment would add another $13 thousand dollars. He
feared that students would not want to take the risk.
Representative Martin spoke in support of the amendment. He
stressed that students can pay off their debt by working in
Alaska for five years. He expressed concerns that out-of-
state students come to Alaska to enter the WAMI program.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 - 19, Side 2)
Representative Martin stated that the amendment should
clarify in statute that the first year is included in
repayment.
Ms. Barrans stated that the change to page 2, line 5 would
clarify that a student who attended either the University of
Alaska or the University of Washington would incur a debt
obligation relative to that year. She felt that further
clarification of "contracting" was necessary. The intent
language was added to clarify that all 4 years would be
included.
Ms. Redman reiterated that of the 12 participating students,
who did not graduate in Alaska, 8 were Alaskan students
attending prep schools and 2 were military students. Only
two students that did not graduate within the state of
Alaska are not accounted for as Alaskan residents.
Representative Davies provided members with Amendment 3#
(copy on file). Amendment 3# would insert after "interest"
on page 2, line 5, "but does not include costs for the first
year of the program delivered at the University of Alaska,
Anchorage." He observed that the amendment could be
modified to state the opposite by deleting the "not" before
"does". He clarified that he did not support such an
amendment, but offered that it would clarify the intent of
Amendment 2#.
Co-Chair Hanley WITHDREW Amendment 2#.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3#. Co-Chair
Hanley MOVED to AMEND Amendment 3# to: insert after
"interest" on page 2, line 5, "and does include costs for
the first year of the program delivered at the University of
Alaska, Anchorage."
Representative Davies OBJECTED to the Amendment to Amendment
3#.
Ms. Redman clarified that the cost of running the medical
program at the University of Alaska is $800 thousand
dollars. In addition, the first year's out-of-state tuition
is returned to the University of Alaska, Anchorage.
Co-Chair Hanley summarized that the total cost of the WAMI
program is approximately $2.1 million dollars for 40
students. Co-Chair Therriault stated that it costs $48.2
thousand dollars a year per student.
Representative Bunde spoke in support of the amendment. He
maintained that the payback provision needs to be fairly
significant. He compared the salaries of an English teacher
and a physician. He asserted that the payback requirement
is not excessive.
Representative Davies emphasized that, although salaries for
some specialties are high, the family or rural
practitioner's salary is not high. He stressed that the
program focuses on the family practitioner.
Representative Davies and Davis disclosed that they also
attended WAMI presentations in Seattle.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Davis, Grussendorf, Kelly, Martin, Hanley,
Therriault
OPPOSED: Mulder, Davies
Representatives Foster, Kohring, and Moses were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-2).
There being NO OBJECTION, the motion to adopt Amendment 3#
as amended was passed.
Ms. Barrans discussed the fiscal noted by the Department of
Education. She estimated that students would be tracked for
23 years. She noted that there would be costs associated
with form development and administration.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that there would be an increase in
general funds of approximately $80 thousand dollars for each
student that did not return to practice in Alaska.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 193 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 193 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Education.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska limiting the rights of prisoners to those
required under the Constitution of the United States.
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY noted that SJR 3 limits the rights of
prisoners, convicted in the state of Alaska, to those
required under the Constitution of the United States. He
observed that the Alaskan Constitution grants rights and
liberties not granted to citizens of other states. He
maintained that Alaskan prisoners have utilized some of the
provisions of Alaska's Constitution to claim additional
rights not available under the federal Constitution. He
stated that this could cause significant problems with the
administration of correctional facilities. He identified
areas of concern:
1. Discipline and classification;
2. Access to rehabilitation programs;
3. Location of incarceration; and
4. Square footage requirement on cell size.
Senator Donley noted that the Cleary consent decree
prohibits dormitory type cells. He maintained that, without
a uniform standard for prison administration, it is
difficult to get the Court to clarify the specific
requirement. He emphasized that he did not know of any
other states where dormitory cells are prohibited.
Senator Donley provided members with a Letter of Intent
(copy on file). He stressed that the proposed Letter of
Intent was based on discussion during previous hearings.
Senator Donley observed that the victims' rights provision
of the Alaska State Constitution could be viewed as modified
by the prisoners' rights section.
Senator Donley referred to Brandon v. State, 938 P.2d 1029
(Alaska 1997). He observed that a prisoner who was sent to
the state of Arizona contended that his reformation was
endangered since he was not close to his family in Alaska.
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that it raised a
constitutional question under the Alaska State Constitution.
The lower court will examine the case. Senator Donley noted
that Chief Justice Rabinowitz, in a dissenting opinion,
wrote that the Court had never before extended the principal
of reformation to the issue of location. Chief Justice
Rabinowitz pointed out, that according to the Brandon
decision, prisoner visitation is a component of the
constitutional right to rehabilitation. Chief Justice
Rabinowitz suggested that, as a result of the decision, the
Department of Corrections would find it difficult to justify
most out-of-state incarcerations, incarcerations of rural
Alaskans in urban facilities and most incarcerations that
encompass significant geographical dislocation. He added
that there would be significant fiscal implication.
Senator Donley referred to Article I, Section 12 of the
Alaska State Constitution. He observed that discussion of
the principle of reformation held during the Constitutional
Convention indicated that an individual right would not be
created. Subsequent decisions in the late 1970's by the
Alaska Supreme Court concluded an individual right was
created.
Senator Donley explained that the intent of SJR 3 is to
clarify that the Article I, Section 12 does not create
individual rights for prisoners. Article I, Section 12 would
continue as a guiding principle.
Representative Mulder stressed the importance of the
legislation on the Department of Corrections' future
liabilities and responsibilities. He emphasized that there
are not enough inmate programs to assure reformation through
visitation. He stressed that inmate programs are expensive.
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW agreed that the Alaska State
Constitutional Convention viewed Article I, Section 12,
Principle of Reformation, to be a guideline. He observed
that a shift by the Court created a right to rehabilitation
in the 1970's. He stated that SJR 3 would clarified that
Article I, Section 12 is a guiding right, not an enforceable
right.
Mr. Guaneli emphasized that the Court has given the
Department broad deference in choosing when and what kinds
of programs to give prisoners. Despite the Court's decision
there has been little impact from litigation. He noted
concerns that the resolution would allow funding to be
withdrawn from prison programs. He emphasized that prisoner
programs are good management tools.
Mr. Guaneli referred to the Cleary decision. He did not
think that SJR 3 would create a very strong ground for being
relieved from the Cleary judgement. He observed that there
has never been a finding that the state of Alaska was in
violation of the State Constitution. The State has
maintained that it did not violate the Constitution. He
observed that the state of Alaska has been in contempt of
Court for noncompliance with the judgement. He suggested
that a pattern of compliance with the order would present a
better case for relief. He acknowledged that passage of SJR
3 would not hurt the State's case.
Representative Davies noted that state prisoners have
maintained that state statutes were violated. He observed
that reformation is a management tool.
Mr. Guaneli agreed that prisoner programs are good
management tools.
Co-Chair Therriault emphasized that the Department of
Corrections is precluded from withholding participation in
prisoner programs as a management tool.
Mr. Guaneli reiterated that the Court has given the
Department wide deference in deciding how programs are
managed. He noted that programs could be withheld during
administrative segregation due to prisoner behavior. He
added that some prisoners are segregated through no fault of
their own. The Department would have an obligation to
extend some programs to these prisoners. He maintained that
the Court does not impose specifics on the Department.
Representative Davies questioned the affect of prisoner
programs on recidivism rates. Mr. Guaneli could not comment
on the affect of prisoner programs on recidivism rates.
Senator Donley emphasized that SJR 3 does not preclude
rehabilitation programs. He emphasized that; while prisoner
programs are meritorious, how they are implemented should be
the policy decision of the Legislature and the Department of
Corrections. He maintained that SJR 3 is the best tool
available to revisit the Cleary decision.
Senator Donley clarified that the Letter of Intent was not
considered for adopted by previous committees. He emphasized
that the content of the ballot question is the most
important consideration. He stressed that the Letter of
Intent is a guideline for the ballot question.
Senator Donley questioned if the House Finance Committee
received the correct version of SJR 3 from the House
Judiciary Committee.
SJR 3 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
House Finance Committee 9 2/05/98
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|