Legislature(2005 - 2006)
04/04/2005 02:55 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB229 | |
| HB132 | |
| HB41 | |
| HB16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 4, 2005
2:55 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 2:55:53 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
none
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman; Representative Woodie Salmon;
Representative Bob Lynn; Representative John Coghill; Ben
Mulligan, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze; Marie Darlin,
Alaska Association of Retired People (AARP), Juneau; Sam
Trivette, Alaska Association of Retired People (AARP),
Juneau; Paul La Bolle, Staff, Representative Richard Foster;
Nancy Manly, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn; Anne Carpeneti,
Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau,
Criminal Division, Department of Law; Randy Ruaro,
Legislative Review Section, Department of Law; Rynnieva
Moss, Staff, Representative John Coghill; Eddy Jeans,
Director, Education Support Services, Department of
Education and Early Development; Alyce Houston,
Corporational Supervisor, Department of Commerce, Community
& Economic Development
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
John Skidmore, Assistant Attorney General, Department of
Law, Anchorage; Michelle Logan, Anchorage Police
Department, Property Crimes Unit, Detective, Anchorage; Jay
Foley, Executive Director, National Identity Theft Center;
Jim Smith, Galena School District, Galena; Ralph Lindquist,
Nenana School District; Linda Wilson, Deputy Director,
Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration,
Anchorage; Tip Steele, Anchorage School Board, Anchorage;
Ken Eggleston, Superintendent of Schools, Nenana School
District
SUMMARY
HB 16 An Act relating to funding for school districts
operating secondary school boarding programs and
to funding for school districts from which
boarding students come; and providing for an
effective date.
HB 16 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 41 An Act relating to minimum periods of imprisonment
for the crime of assault in the fourth degree
committed against an employee of an elementary,
junior high, or secondary school who was engaged
in the performance of school duties at the time of
the assault.
CS HB 41 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with a new zero note by
the Department of Public Safety, zero note #1 by
the Department of Administration, zero note #2 by
the Department of Corrections, and zero note #4 by
Department of Law.
HB 119 An Act extending the termination date of the
Alaska regional economic assistance program; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 119 was POSTPONED.
HB 131 An Act increasing the criminal classification of
theft of an access device and of obtaining an
access device or identification documents by
fraudulent means; increasing the criminal
classification for certain cases of fraudulent use
of an access device; and providing for an
effective date.
HB 131 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero note #1 by the
Department of Corrections, zero note #2 by the
Department of Law, zero note #3 by the Department
of Public Safety and indeterminate note #4 by the
Department of Administration.
HB 132 An Act relating to sentencing for certain crimes
committed against the elderly; and providing for
an effective date.
CS HB 132 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a new note by
the Alaska Court System, a new fiscal note by the
Department of Administration, zero note #1 by the
Department of Law, zero note #2 by the Department
of Public Safety and indeterminate note #3 by the
Department of Corrections.
HB 229 An Act relating to the reinstatement of Native
corporations; and providing for an effective date.
HB 229 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero note #1 by the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development.
2:56:09 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 229
An Act relating to the reinstatement of Native
corporations; and providing for an effective date.
PAUL LA BOLLE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD FOSTER,
explained that the legislation had been introduced at the
request of regional Native corporations in their district.
Corporations have been involuntarily dissolved by the
commissioner under AS 10.06.633 and failed to apply for
reinstatement during the grace period established in
statute. The legislation provides a one-time window during
which the Native village corporations, who have been
dissolved, can apply for reinstatement.
Mr. La Bolle continued, the legislation is needed because
the corporations were established under the Alaska Native
Land Claims Settlement and legally own village corporation
assets. A new corporation could be created but it would not
have the same legal standing as the original corporations
nor could they legally own the assets. The bill would allow
the corporation's board of directors to legally change the
corporation's name if another corporation had taken the
previous name.
Mr. La Bolle pointed out that the proposed legislation
applies to Caswell Native Association, Savoonga Native
Corporation, Arviq Incorporated and Oscarville Native
Corporation.
Representative Kelly asked what would the consequences be if
the legislation did not pass. Mr. La Bolle explained that
the corporation would be dissolved, the assets would go to
paying off debt and any remaining assets would be split
between the shareholders.
Representative Kelly asked if they would be forced to
reapply. Mr. La Bolle explained that it would not be the
same corporation. They could have the same name but would
not hold the lands or any other assets granted under the
Native Lands Settlement Act. The lands would be divided
between shareholders when the corporation was dissolved.
Representative Kelly asked why they would make a choice to
not reapply. Mr. La Bolle replied that the choice was not
made but had been overlooked.
Representative Kelly asked the number of corporations the
legislation would apply to. Mr. La Bolle replied that it
would relate to all Native village corporations,
specifically the four previously mentioned.
Co-Chair Chenault inquired how many times the bill had been
heard. Representative Foster explained that this was about
the fifth time it had been introduced for various
corporations over the years. The corporations forget to
file their returns.
3:00:46 PM
Representative Kelly inquired if there was opposition to the
legislation. Mr. La Bolle replied that all the corporations
support it.
3:01:34 PM
Representative Weyhrauch asked to make a conceptual
amendment. Co-Chair Meyer requested that he "hold" that
idea until public testimony had been taken.
Co-Chair Chenault inquired if the requests had been made
from large landholders.
ALYCE HOUSTON, CORPORATIONAL SUPERVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, said she did not
know the size of the land holdings as that information is
not reported to her section. Co-Chair Chenault commented
that information must be available.
Representative Holm questioned if there was a penalty for
not filing in a timely manner. Ms. Houston said there was.
The corporations have been involuntarily dissolved for not
filing the reports and paying their fees. Often times,
because of the biannual pay period, the address that was
provided do not always get to the ones that need to file the
reports. She noted that they are allowed to reinstate
within a two-year period and the two-year period that has
passed.
Mr. La Bolle pointed out that there is a $37.50 dollar fee
for each year that the corporation has not filed. With the
proposed extension, it would be a $70 dollar late fee
penalty. Ms. Houston corrected that the fees had been
doubled and that the corporation would be paying $275
dollars to reinstate.
3:04:48 PM
Representative Holm was troubled by the notion that there
are requirements for other corporations in the State. He
questioned if the legislation would be good policy. Mr. La
Bolle replied that it is good policy because the results of
not passing the legislation would be worse.
Representative Holm inquired why there are different
policies for different corporate laws. Ms. Houston replied
that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) had contacted her
and there seems to be serious implications if they do not
keep their original lands from the Alaska Native Lands
Settlement Act. Those corporations need to keep their
original date of incorporation or there are serious
complications; whereas, any other entity could reincorporate
and have a new beginning date. There is a different
implication for those land holdings.
3:06:46 PM
Representative Holm understood the severity of the
situation, however, he thought there should be a policy that
the corporations fulfill their legal obligations.
Co-Chair Chenault mentioned the lands issue and was curious
if the corporations would loose their lands & assets. He
asked where the lands would go. Ms. Huston did not know if
that had ever happened.
3:08:26 PM
Representative Joule responded that there are two levels
being discussed. The village corporations have surface
ownership and the regional corporations that encompass the
village have sub-surface rights. He admitted the issue was
complicated.
Vice-Chair Stoltze agreed that the legislation needs to
pass. He noted that he did not want to find out what the
consequences would be if it did not pass.
Representative Weyhrauch recommended that the corporations
be warned and then fined.
3:10:34 PM
Representative Foster responded that there are at least 230
villages throughout Alaska and that some are basically
uninhabited. He understood how mail delivery could be
"balled up". He stressed that these are not professional
office people. Representative Foster did not know the
easiest way to address the concern.
Representative Hawker interjected that he was a co-sponsor
of the bill. He pointed out that by the time the last bill
got to the floor a couple years ago, it passed unanimously.
He surmised that passage of the legislation is "just the
right thing to do".
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 229 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HB 229 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with zero note #1 by the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development.
HOUSE BILL NO. 131
An Act increasing the criminal classification of theft
of an access device and of obtaining an access device
or identification documents by fraudulent means;
increasing the criminal classification for certain
cases of fraudulent use of an access device; and
providing for an effective date.
HOUSE BILL NO. 132
An Act relating to sentencing for certain crimes
committed against the elderly; and providing for an
effective date.
Co-Chair Meyer stated that HB 131 and HB 132 would be
addressed together, noting that they are "nearly" companion
bills.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, SPONSOR, indicated that he has
had been a long-standing interest in concerns and issues
for seniors. The Administration approached him to carry
some senior citizen protection legislation. He deferred to
Mr. Ruaro and Mr. Milligan for the details of the bills.
3:15:04 PM
RANDY RUARO, LEGISLATIVE REVIEW SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
offered to answer questions of the Committee.
BEN MULLIGAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, provided
an overview of the legislation.
He stated that identity theft is on the increase in Alaska
and our country as a whole. The Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) reported that identity theft was up 33% in 2003. The
State of Alaska ranks second in the number of complaints per
100,000 people. That type of theft averages about $500
dollars; however, it does not take into consideration the
countless hours a victim may spend tracking down and
stopping the imposter, as well as time and legal costs to
repair credit ratings and fight collection efforts. The
proposed changes would bring the penalties for such crimes
closer in line with federal criminal law that provide for as
much as 15 years in prison for similar circumstances.
The provisions of HB 131:
· Increase the penalty from a class A misdemeanor to a
class C felony for:
1. Theft of an access device, such as a credit
card or bank account number.
2. The crime of fraudulent use of an access device
if the value of the property or services
obtained is $50 or more.
3. The crime of obtaining an access device or
identification document by fraudulent means.
Mr. Mulligan continued that the population of older citizens
in Alaska is growing rapidly, as are the crimes that affect
them. The physical, emotional, and financial impact of
crimes against the person and theft and related crimes on
the elderly can be devastating. HB 132 would increase the
penalty one level for certain crimes against a person and
for theft and related crimes, if the perpetrator acted with
reckless disregard that the victim was an older citizen.
The provisions of HB 132:
· Increase the penalties for crimes against the
elderly one level. For example, assault in the
fourth degree, a class A misdemeanor, would be a
class C felony if the assault was committed to a
person 65 years of age or older.
3:17:19 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, testified
in support for both HB 131 and HB 132. He spoke in length
about the problems associated with identify theft and how
that related to the vulnerable senior population. He urged
passage of the legislation and offered to answer questions.
3:19:45 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze indicated his appreciation for Mr.
Skidmore's work done on the bills.
3:20:15 PM
MICHELLE LOGAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE
POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE, PROPERTY CRIMES UNIT,
ANCHORAGE, testified in support for HB 131 and HB 132. She
noted an increase in identify theft in the past three years
throughout the State. She claimed that mostly what is
happening is the misuse of credit cards; the proposed bills
would address that theft type. The bill will allow law
enforcement to better combat the ever-increasing theft.
She pointed out that forgery is now taken seriously,
punished at a C felony; whereas, in the past, those crimes
were classified as misdemeanors.
Ms. Logan spoke to current cases and how the legislation
would affect the crime results if the victim was over 65
years of age. She stressed how much more vulnerable that
population group is. There are circumstances where
swindlers look and talk like worthy people. It takes
"intent" on the criminal's part when they are dealing with
the elderly.
3:29:56 PM
JAY FOLEY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL IDENTITY THEFT RESOURCE CENTER, noted
support for the proposed legislation. There was a
completed study in 2003, which charted 600 hours as the
amount of time that it could take to reclaim a persons
identify. Many victims claim that the imposter gets away.
HB 131 increases that crime to a felony, which Mr. Foley
thought would be an "excellent step". He added that HB 132
is also a good bill.
Mr. Foley noted that senior citizens are good targets as
they do not use their credit cards as much. Additionally,
sometimes faced with memory lapse and disorientation. He
believed that some seniors are afraid to admit that they
are victims of fraud and identify theft for fear of loosing
their ability to live alone and the stigma that is
associated with that. He urged passage of the legislation.
3:33:31 PM
MARIE DARLIN, ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PEOPLE (AARP),
JUNEAU, spoke in support of the legislation. She noted that
AARP is an organization that supports consumer issues. She
urged that the Committee move the bills.
3:34:57 PM
Co-Chair Meyer agreed that these are good and timely bills.
Vice-Chair Stoltze thanked Ms. Darlin for her help on the
legislation.
3:35:27 PM
SAM TRIVETTE, ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PEOPLE (AARP),
testified in support of the legislation. He stressed that
the impact upon victims is huge. Often times, when dealing
with identity theft, the person is dealing with someone in
another state. Changing the status of the crime to a felony
makes it much more real. He echoed concerns with the
devastation and the amount of time that it takes to deal
with these crimes. He did not think that there would be a
dramatic fiscal impact with passage of the legislation.
3:37:51 PM
Representative Kelly suggested that the best benefit could
be public education. Mr. Trivette noted that AARP had
sponsored statewide seminars addressing these concerns. He
agreed that more public education would be helpful.
3:38:51 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked about the additional costs moving the
crime status from a misdemeanor to a felony. He questioned
the Public Defender's fiscal note and inquired if the
requested two-thirds attorney fee would be made up in the
requested costs.
LINDA WILSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, ANCHORAGE, commented on the fiscal note
request of $129 thousand dollars for HB 132 plus two thirds
position for an attorney. The contract attorney would be an
employee of the State but would not be full time.
Representative Hawker referenced HB 131, referencing the
indeterminate fiscal note. Ms. Wilson acknowledged that the
Committee could decide what is best; however, the Agency
does not submit an indeterminate note "lightly". She stated
that the Public Defenders office believe there would be a
fiscal impact. When the offense is raised to a felony, the
theft of a credit card, or access device, which could
include a single check, raise to a felony, the use of a
credit to $50 dollars. The change would lower it from $500
dollars to $50 dollars. She believed that there would be a
noticeable increase in charges brought forward. Ms. Wilson
thought that there would be a lot of younger people charged
with using fake identification (ID). There are no specific
numbers in the amount of theft cases that can break it down.
3:42:59 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to report HB 131 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and with the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 131 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with zero note #1 by the Department of
Corrections, zero note #2 by the Department of Law, zero
note #3 by the Department of Public Safety and indeterminate
note #4 by the Department of Administration.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to report CS HB 132 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 132 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal note by the
Alaska Court System, a new fiscal note by the Department of
Administration, zero note #1 by the Department of Law, zero
note #2 by the Department of Public Safety and indeterminate
note #3 by the Department of Corrections.
AT EASE: 3:44:37 PM
RECONVENE: 3:46:45 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 41
An Act relating to minimum periods of imprisonment for
the crime of assault in the fourth degree committed
against an employee of an elementary, junior high, or
secondary school who was engaged in the performance of
school duties at the time of the assault.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT work draft #24-LS0307\F,
Luckhaupt, 3/22/05, as the version of the bill before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, SPONSOR, pointed out that State
Statute provides for specific terms of imprisonment for
crimes committed against certain public employees, such as
peace officers, firefighters, etc., in the performance of
their official duties. He thought that school employees who
work with children deserve the same level of respect and
protection under the law.
HB 41 would revise sentencing guidelines so that an
individual convicted as an adult of assault on a school
employee while on school grounds, on a school bus, at a
school-sponsored event, or in the administrative office of a
school district, would receive a mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment, which would be similar to that imposed upon an
individual who assaults a peace officer, fire fighter,
correctional employee, emergency medical technician,
paramedic, ambulance attendance or other emergency responder
engaged in the performance of official duties at the time of
the offense.
Representative Lynn summarized that schools must be safe for
teachers and other school employees, as well as for the
children. The bill provides a step toward that safety and
sends a message to anyone who might consider assaulting a
school employee. He urged support for HB 41.
3:50:28 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
offered to answer questions of the Committee. She advised
that the Administration does supports the bill.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked how the legislation compared to
previous legislation on crimes against teachers. Ms.
Carpeneti responded that HB 88 applied to felony offenses.
That bill had a waiver for juveniles, who were 16 or 17
years old with very serious weapon offenses. HB 41
addresses sentencing for misdemeanors. HB 88 and HB 41
together do not conflict with one another.
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if volunteer parents had been
addressed in the legislation. Representative Lynn replied
that the bill includes bus drivers but not volunteer
parents.
3:52:43 PM
Co-Chair Meyer worried that calling them "contract
employees" would create legal ramifications associated with
retirement. Ms. Carpeneti advised that the committee
substitute does not call them contract employees but rather
contract bus drivers.
3:53:18 PM
Co-Chair Meyer reiterated his concern that the bill's
language treated contracting employees as if they were State
employees.
3:53:32 PM
Representative Kelly asked about the existing language for
peace officers and school district employees.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that peace officers and other people
would be protected under D(1), which would provide a
th
mandatory minimum return for 4 degree assaults that cause
physical injury or put a person in fear. That language
provides a mandatory minimum of 60-days. Both involve
physical injury to the victim. Paragraph (D) provides for a
mandatory minimum of 30-days if the victim is placed in
fear. The new provision for school employees and others
covered under those provisions, adopts a mandatory provision
of 60-days. There is no mandatory minimum for school
employees who are put in fear.
3:55:22 PM
Representative Hawker discussed that there are two
categories of employees addressed. He mentioned
similarities involving hate crime legislation. He commented
that the legislation would be singling out two categories of
employees who deserve special consideration and asked why
other employees such as court system workers, do not receive
special consideration.
Representative Lynn recommended that could be the subject of
another bill at a different time. He indicated he wanted to
limit this legislation to only school employees. He added
that an assault against any teacher would be the equivalent
of an assault against a parent and that the legislation is
not an assault between two private parties but rather an
individual and the government.
Representative Hawker reiterated concern regarding why all
public employees will not deserving public protection.
Representative Lynn thought that teachers are in a
particularly vulnerable position.
3:57:51 PM
Representative Hawker inquired if the legislation should be
extended to other situations involving youth offenders such
as Covenant House employees. Representative Lynn responded
that a school is a government institution; whereas, the
other is a private entity.
Co-Chair Meyer clarified that HB 41 resulted from problems
that occurred at some schools. Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired
if the bill would apply to private schools. Ms. Carpeneti
opined that it does.
Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired about the current penalties for
assault on school employees. Ms. Carpeneti related that
many of these offenders have served serious sentences.
4:01:35 PM
TIP STEELE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE SCHOOL
BOARD, ANCHORAGE, related that the Anchorage School District
does support HB 41. He said that the bill refers to adults
and not students assaulting teachers. He related an example
of a teacher being attacked in front of the students. In
the example, the courts were supportive. He hoped that
implementation of the legislation could keep schools safer.
4:05:01 PM
Co-Chair Meyer closed public testimony.
Representative Kelly referred to Representative Hawker's
previous statements about hate crimes. He expressed doubts
about the bill.
Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed out that a person could not
legally carry a concealed weapon into a bar. He asked
Representative Lynn about testimony from other school
districts. Representative Hawker termed it "putting
sideboards up to protect our employees". Vice-Chair Stoltze
mentioned that there have been a number of high profile
cases lately. Representative Lynn added that it makes no
difference if it is an urban or rural school. A problem
exists and it has become a national concern.
4:09:58 PM
Representative Weyhrauch MOVED to adopt Amendment 1. (Copy
on File). Vice-Chair Stoltze objected for discussion
purposes.
Representative Weyhrauch explained that the bill does not
allow for any mitigating factors. The amendment allows a
court to determine if any of the factors in the statues
apply. For example, if duress was involved, it should be
considered. Additionally, he believed that there would be
an indeterminate fiscal note rather than a zero.
Co-Chair Meyer speculated that the occurrences would not
happen often, which is why the note is zero. He asked if
there were examples of someone hitting a teacher.
Representative Weyhrauch gave an example of a person who
throws someone into another person that hits a teacher. He
emphasized that mitigating factors must be considered in
order to be consistent.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if he would suggest mitigating
sentences for Peace Officers also. Representative Weyhrauch
replied that it could apply. Co-Chair Meyer acknowledged
that the amendment could provide more flexibility for the
judge.
4:15:48 PM
Representative Holm voiced concern regarding why the
Committee was discussing assault 4 rather than assault 3.
He asked where that line rests.
Representative Lynn commented that his intent was to remove
the flexibility from the judicial system and make it
mandatory. He added that he would be satisfied with what
the Committee decides.
Ms. Carpeneti explained the difference between assault in
thrdth
the 4 degree and in the 3 degree. She noted that the 4
degree is a Class A misdemeanor. Any assault higher than
that is a felony. The bill provides a legislative
conclusion that it is important to have a safe environment
in schools, more so than in bars and restaurants and that
teachers need to be protected. The bill applies to assault
th
in 4 degree, where there is physical harm.
4:20:06 PM
Representative Weyhrauch responded that could create an
"interesting hierarchy". He stated that he is in favor of
the bill, but stressed that there are situations in which
the court should be able to mitigate. He noted that he was
not opposed to a 60-day minimum sentence but that the judge
needs mitigating ability.
4:22:28 PM
Co-Chair Meyer suggested that the amendment would not take
away from the intent of the bill. Vice-Chair Stoltze
WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTIONS,
Amendment #1 was adopted.
4:23:33 PM
Representative Foster referenced on the sentence regarding
assault on a school employee. He noted that in Nome, a
Peace Officer killed a member of the community without good
reason. He worried about situations in which the bill could
be harmful to the non-guilty person.
Ms. Carpeneti requested to help draft the amendment. She
noted that whenever there are sentencing issues, it is
important to be clear whose burden of proof it will be.
Representative Weyhrauch understood that the intent of proof
would be on the defendant.
4:26:41 PM
Co-Chair Meyer acknowledged the concerns voiced by
Representative Foster.
Representative Hawker thought that everyone would be in
support of the bill; however, warned about creating a
"privileged class" within communities. Co-Chair Meyer
agreed.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 41 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 41 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a new zero note by the Department
of Public Safety, zero note #1 by the Department of
Administration, zero note #2 by the Department of
Corrections, and zero note #4 by Department of Law.
4:28:44 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 16
An Act relating to funding for school districts
operating secondary school boarding programs and to
funding for school districts from which boarding
student's come; and providing for an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, stated that HB 16
would put into statute the Department of Education & Early
Development current practices. The legislation does not
create new programs; it only supports existing programs that
are successful. The change is a student would not have to
pass the current standard for qualification. The standard
is that the student would be able to have high school
available while leaving their school district. The bill
provides students a choice regarding whether they go to a
larger boarding school that has more offerings than what is
available at their local schools.
Representative Coghill pointed out that the legislation, by
statute, reimburses to full school year, secondary boarding
schools for the costs incurred by the district operating the
program. At this time, there are three boarding schools,
which would qualify for reimbursement for a per-pupil
stipend plus one round trip between the student's community
of residence and the school during the school year. The
legislation limits the program to boarding schools already
operating since January 1, 2004, and those schools would
participate in a five-year pilot project that the Department
of Education & Early Development could evaluate for the
Legislature. He added that the hold harmless section of the
bill allows the student's district of residence to count a
student for the Average Daily Membership (ADM) count even
though the student is attending a secondary boarding school.
It avoids the possibility of paying twice, the base student
allocation for the same student.
4:34:10 PM
Representative Hawker commented on the fiscal impact of the
legislation and questioned how those funds could be offset.
Representative Coghill acknowledged that he had been
concerned about that. He noted that he was committed to
balancing the budget, while finding legitimate ways to fund
government. He indicated that he did not know a place from
which to transfer the funds, reiterating that the need for
boarding schools is great.
Representative Hawker suggested that a participatory
investment from people living in the Rural Education
Attendance Areas (REAA). Representative Coghill responded
that was a capital approach and that he would not want to
attach the bill to that. He added that HB 16 is a
structural process, looking at how boarding schools do in
Alaska.
Representative Coghill acknowledged the need for downward
pressure on State government growth.
4:37:06 PM
Representative Hawker interjected that he was referring to
Senator Bundy's REAA head-tax. Representative Coghill
misunderstood.
4:37:18 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze referenced Section 2 and was confused
about community pressure. He worried about a school losing
their standing. He thought that the legislation might be
restricting options. Representative Coghill stated that
there are reasons why in some communities, the schools
should no longer exist. He did not want to see that a
student leaves because they could not get what they needed.
He struggled with that, but understood that there would be
no effect on schools with between 10 & 20 students, as the
funding level would remain the same between that level.
Only when there are less than 10 students, is there a
potential question. He wanted to find a way to hold the
school district harmless if that were the case.
Vice-Chair Stoltze worried about pressure in small schools
on the child that needed or wanted to board out. He
referenced the Nenana Boarding School commenting on what a
successful system that is.
4:40:55 PM
Representative Weyhrauch inquired who goes to a boarding
school. Representative Coghill pointed out that many
students go to a boarding school. In many cases, the
parents pay into the school fund. The stipend does not
cover the entire costs of the boarding costs. In Nenana,
they divide the cost between the school and the parent. The
stipend would cover between ½ and a 1/3 of the costs.
There could be some savings. The students come from a wide
range of communities in the State including Anchorage. The
reasons that they are there range from social problems,
parents wanting to raise the level of education or specific
voc-tech options. The Nenanna students seem to be in a good
college prep situation. He reiterated that there is a wide
range of issues.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN testified in support of HB 16.
He claimed that regional learning center concepts were
important to future education statewide. It provides a safe
haven for many students. The graduation rate from the
boarding schools is tremendous and many of these students
have gone to college. In the boarding school system and
regional learning centers, the student learns in a college
type atmosphere and end up doing well in college.
Representative Neuman pointed out that there are many
schools that have marginal attendance. The proposed
legislation offers a way to bring some of those students
into the regional learning centers, thus making the
statewide system better. He added that the hold harmless
clause does protect some of the smaller statewide schools.
Many students would love to get into those schools and that
most of the students are from rural Alaska.
4:47:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOODIE SALMON testified in support of the
bill. He noted that he was a result of a boarding school
education program. He commented that boarding schools
provide a wonderful choice for village students. He
acknowledged the sacrifices that parents make in order for
their children to leave the villages and attend boarding
schools. He noted opportunities that offer vocational
advantages.
Representative Salmon indicated that this is not a Native
problem but rather a State problem and that Alaska needs to
be proactive in educating our children.
4:51:42 PM
RALPH LINDQUIST, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), NENANA
SCHOOL DISTRICT, testified in support of the legislation.
He noted that Nenana district offers a product, which is
very popular with the kids. He gave examples of children in
the program that have succeeded and pointed out that no kids
opted to leave the school for Christmas break this year.
The bill would provide funding for five years. He addressed
college prep preparation and begged for support for these
kids and the programs.
JIM SMITH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), GALENA SCHOOL
DISTRICT, GALENA, spoke in support of the legislation. He
stressed the success of their program. He offered to answer
questions of the Committee.
KEN EGGLESTON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, NENANA, spoke in support of the
legislation. He recounted successes at the Nenana and
Galena boarding schools. He observed that the Nenana and
Galena boarding schools assist each other and emphasized
their need to offer vocational and other popular programs to
these students. Mr. Eggleston pointed out that the Nenana
School District is working with the Rasmussen Foundation.
He assured the Committee that the programs are attempting to
find ways to fund that does not encumber more money from the
State. He urged passage of the legislation.
HB 16 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:01 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|