Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/28/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| State Board of Education Discussion | |
| Presentation: Alaska Policy Forum | |
| HB258 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 258 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 28, 2012
1:37 p.m.
1:37:56 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thomas called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Michael Hanley, Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development; Brodie Anderson, Staff, Representative
Reggie Joule; Roger Healy, Chief Engineer, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; Representative Alan
Austerman.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Esther Cox, Chair, Alaska State Board of Education and
Early Development; David Boyle, Research Associate, Alaska
Policy Forum; Emily Nauman, Attorney, Legislative Legal
Services; Saritha Anjilvel, Assistant Attorney General,
Transportation Section, Civil Division, Department of Law.
SUMMARY
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION
Board Chair, Esther Cox
PRESENTATION:
ALASKA POLICY FORUM
Research Associate, David Boyle
HB 258 NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS
CSHB 258(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note from Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, one new
fiscal impact note from Department of
Environmental Conservation, one new zero note
from Department of Natural Resources, one new
zero note from Department of Law, and previously
published fiscal notes: FN1 (DLWD), FN3 (DHSS).
^STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION
1:38:36 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the meeting agenda.
MICHAEL HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced Esther Cox, Chair of the
State Board of Education.
ESTHER COX, CHAIR, ALASKA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), thanked the
committee for its time.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Commissioner Hanley to provide a
narrative about Ms. Cox. Commissioner Hanley remarked that
Ms. Cox had been a leader in education. He read from a
handout on file:
Esther J. Cox was appointed to the State Board of
Education and Early Development in March 2003 by
Governor Frank Murkowski.
Ms. Cox was an Alaska educator for 33 years. She
taught English in Anchorage and Juneau, and was head
teacher for a special program for Alaska Native
students, assistant principal at Service and West High
Schools, principal at Romig Junior High School,
Anchorage School District Secondary Supervisor, and
principal at the King Career Center in Anchorage.
While Ms. Cox was principal, Romig was recognized by
the U.S. Department of Education as a "School of
Excellence."
She has served as president of the Alaska Association
of Secondary School Principals, president of the
Alaska School Activities Association, and president of
the National Association of Secondary School
Principals, a 32,000-member organization. In 1995, she
received the Milken Family Education Award.
Commissioner Hanley elaborated that Ms. Cox continued to
serve as board chair and beyond in a variety of functions.
He shared that it had been a pleasure to serve with Chair
Cox.
1:42:57 PM
Ms. Cox provided a presentation titled: "Alaska State Board
of Education and Early Development Annual Report to the
Legislature for 2011" (copy on file). She discussed the
structure of the board and would go on to highlight the
report in members' packets (she had presented the report to
the House and Senate Education Committees in February 2012
as a result of the implementation of SB 1, which had passed
the prior session).
Ms. Cox explained that the board was on staggered five-year
terms and members were appointed by the governor. No more
than four members could come from the governor's political
party and one member was required to come from each of the
state's three judicial districts. Additionally, it was
suggested that one member should be from rural Alaska
(there had been a rural Alaska representative while she had
been on the board). There was also one student and one
military representative. Board members included Jim
Merriner (Anchorage), Janel Keplinger (Kodiak), Phillip
Schneider (Anchorage), Geraldine Benshoof (North Pole),
Bunny Schaefer (Kotzebue), Patrick Shier (Juneau), Esther
Cox (Anchorage), U.S. Army Lt. Col. Grant Sullivan
(military advisor), and Tiarna Fischler (student advisor
from Manokotak). Ms. Cox detailed that the second student
advisor was selected in December (Madison Manning from
Newhalen) who would take Ms. Fischler's place when her term
was completed in June 2012.
Ms. Cox continued to address board details. She
communicated that the board selected the commissioner of
the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) on
approval of the governor. She discussed the importance of
the working relationship between the board, the
commissioner, and the governor. She added that the
commissioner worked at the pleasure of the board while the
board worked at the pleasure of the governor.
1:46:34 PM
Ms. Cox explained that the DEED commissioner took guidance
from the board and provided counsel to the board. She
briefly discussed the Alaska Performance Scholarship (APS)
and explained that the topic was high on the board's
priority list. She stressed that the scholarship provided a
great opportunity that some students may not have had
otherwise. She relayed that one of the board's primary
responsibilities was to pass regulations that helped the
legislature pass laws. The board had been busy establishing
GPA eligibility requirements, SAT/ACT and WorkKeys scores,
and qualifying courses. A phase-in schedule had been
implemented in the current year that allowed scholarship
opportunities to go to students who graduated in the past
year and for the next two years. A number of course titles
had been approved for the APS curriculum; the board would
continue to monitor all pieces of the APS.
Ms. Cox relayed that the board had adopted amendments to
WorkKeys assessments; two years earlier the board had
mandated that all eleventh graders take the WorkKeys
assessment. She explained that WorkKeys had created
thousands of job profiles that analyzed skill levels needed
for specific occupations. For example, if a student was
interested in becoming an engineer the job profile may
specify that a level 6 in math was necessary for success;
if a student only received a level 4, the assessment
provided guidance for the student's curriculum pathway.
Ms. Cox communicated that the board had determined that it
was up to the Individual Education Program (IEP) team for
students with cognitive disabilities to decide whether a
student should be required to take the WorkKeys assessment
(the board had amended its original mandate requiring every
eleventh grader to take the WorkKeys assessment). She
furthered that the board had issued a supplement for
WorkKeys assessment in September 2011 clarifying the
appropriate use of accommodations for students with
disabilities and students with limited English proficiency
(action was taken in January 2012).
1:50:30 PM
Ms. Cox discussed that the board had adopted the World-
Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) standards
for English language learners for pre-kindergarten (pre-K)
through Grade 12. The board had amended a couple of
regulations related to state assessments and adopted
revised participation guidelines for students with
disabilities. She believed the board was extremely
sensitive to accommodating student differences and varying
achievement levels. The board was able to respond to
suggestions from stakeholders, identify new resources, and
keep up to date on practices in accommodations. Work had
been done with teacher certification and quality; there was
a teacher quality subcommittee that was working on creating
a teacher evaluation document model, which would include
student achievement. The subcommittee would make a
recommendation to the board in the near future.
Ms. Cox reported that the board had adopted several
amendments to regulations pertaining to teacher
certification. She furthered that every teacher moving from
a three-year certificate to a professional five-year
certificate needed to be employed as a teacher for at least
two years. Additionally, the board had approved teacher
preparation programs for elementary school math at the
University of Alaska Southeast and for an endorsement at
Alaska Pacific University (APU), and added an endorsement
in the Career and Technical Education certificate program
at the University of Alaska Anchorage. The board was also
involved in teacher preparation programs and their review;
it had been instrumental in the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) accreditation
for APU.
Ms. Cox discussed that proper standards for students was
one of the state's constitutional responsibilities. She
elaborated that since February 2010 DEED, Alaska educators,
and industry representatives had engaged in a process to
replace the current content standards; the board knew that
the standards had been too low. Rigor was an important
factor for the APS curriculum and student standards. The
focus had been to ensure that students graduated from high
school, college and career ready. New standards would be
inclusive of kindergarten through grade 12 unlike the
current kindergarten through grade 10 standards; the
revision of grade level expectations would follow after
standards were adopted by the board. Alaska had not
implemented national Common Core standards that had been
adopted by many states; Alaska's standards were more
rigorous and development had been conducted by Alaskans for
Alaskan students. She emphasized that standards would allow
the state to utilize nationally developed curriculum and
assessments. Standards were currently being vetted
throughout the state; the board had allotted six months for
public testimony, which was scheduled to occur a couple of
weeks prior to the board's June 2012 meeting (DEED would
make recommendations to the board at the June meeting).
1:55:31 PM
Ms. Cox conveyed that the new Alaska standards were aligned
with college and work ready training expectations, included
rigorous content and application through higher order
skills, built upon strength and lessons of current
standards, were equal to or more rigorous than Common Core
standards, and related to real world applications. Work
would begin on the new standards and assessments
immediately following the June board meeting. She detailed
that the new assessments would not be used for students
until 2016.
Ms. Cox moved on to discuss the teacher mentorship program,
which she believed was very good. In 2004 the program was
initiated to increase teacher retention by helping new
teachers (particularly rural teachers) to become more
effective in their instructional practices within their
first two years in the classroom. Due to budget cuts,
currently there were 24 mentors working with 330 teachers
in 142 schools located in 34 school districts compared to
the prior year when there had been 28 mentors working with
401 teachers in 187 schools located in 43 school districts.
She stressed that the program was successful. From an
average rural teacher retention rate of 68 percent, the
mentored teachers had been retained at 84 percent in 2010
and 2011. Additionally, there were promising results to
start closing the achievement gap that was typical between
students of new versus veteran teachers. She relayed that
when Jim Hickerson had been superintendent of the Bering
Strait School District he had told her that 85 percent of
the district's new teachers came from outside Alaska; she
stressed that there were many cultural, geographical, and
environmental differences for out-of-state teachers. She
accentuated that mentors had helped new teachers in many
ways.
Ms. Cox moved on to discuss early learning. She read from
the report:
In 2009, the Legislature provided $2 million for a
pilot pre-kindergarten program that would include six
sites. The purpose was to allow varied school
districts to create preschool programs that
incorporate Alaska's Early Learning Guidelines in ways
tailored to their local communities.
Ms. Cox elaborated that the legislature had added two
additional sites to the pilot pre-kindergarten program.
1:59:02 PM
Ms. Cox referenced an extensive report that showed there
were still students performing below expectations. The
board had endorsed DEED's Family Engagement Plan, which
included action steps for parents, teachers, and community
members that would ultimately impact student achievement.
The plan in conjunction with the Early Literacy Plan
provided actions that parents, caregivers, preschool
teachers, and community members could do that would help
students arrive at school ready to learn. She emphasized
the importance of the issue. She pointed to various
beneficial programs including Best Beginnings, the
Imagination Library, and other.
Ms. Cox communicated that the board operated as the school
board for Mt. Edgecumbe High School (a state-operated
boarding school in Sitka for approximately 400 students).
She stated that 78 percent of the student population self-
identified as Alaska Native. The board had recently worked
on credit requirement changes with Superintendent Randy
Hawk and hoped to begin holding one of its board meetings
at the school once a year.
Ms. Cox shared that along with other educators, she had
attended Anchorage Mayor Sullivan's two-day education
summit. The summit had highlighted the importance of world-
class leadership (teachers and principals), community
engagement and commitment, greater expectations for student
success, and expanded choice opportunities for all
students.
Ms. Cox relayed that the board planned to meet with the
University of Alaska Board of Regents in June 2012
regarding teacher preparation, admissions, expectations,
credit transfer, and other. She mentioned teacher
evaluations tied to student achievement. She addressed
various items on the board's horizon including continuing
to monitor DEED work with intervention districts, dialogues
with boards and superintendents of intervention districts,
reports from districts that had exited intervention status
(how had it gone, what worked, what could have used
improvement, etc.), a board session on strategic planning,
continuation of the implementation of the state Career and
Technical Education Plan, additional work on state
standards and assessments, and monitor and/or amend
regulations for the APS.
2:02:45 PM
Co-Chair Thomas wondered why the Board of Education had not
taken the success experienced at Mt. Edgecumbe to other
districts in the state. He referenced high student success
at the high school. He thought that stellar work and
education strategies used at Mt. Edgecumbe needed to be
shared with the other school districts. He referenced
comments he had made during a committee meeting the prior
day related to school failure and success.
Ms. Cox agreed that Mt. Edgecumbe was very successful. She
explained that it was a residential school where students
led very structured lives. Students had study time and
chaperoned activities; it was a very controlled environment
compared to public schools. The school worked well for its
400 students. There were many adults working with the
students; if intervention was needed there was an adult
present all of the time and dormitories had 24-hour
supervision. She believed that the environment contributed
to the success of the school. She emphasized that the
educational and living environment was very different from
regular school districts and believed that it contributed
"mightily" to the school's success. She told a story about
a student in the Nenana boarding school who had said that
she did not like getting up in the morning or going to
school. She stated that sometimes more structured
environments helped students.
Commissioner Hanley pointed out that the Mt. Edgecumbe
graduation rate was 87.8 percent compared to the statewide
number of 68 percent. The school's dropout rate was 0.3
percent and the number of students deemed proficient on the
standards based assessments were 84 percent in reading, 83
percent in writing, and 75 percent in math. He believed
that sometimes the detrimental aspects of a child's life
were removed in a boarding school and that focusing on
positive aspects provided for greater success.
2:07:59 PM
Representative Wilson referenced Ms. Cox's testimony that
the board had chosen not to use the Common Core standards.
She noted that Anchorage had elected to use the Common Core
standards in order to have the ability to compare its
testing to the rest of the U.S. She wondered whether the
school board would take the topic up for discussion.
Ms. Cox responded that a lot of discussion was needed on
the issue. She thought that Anchorage may include some of
the more rigorous Alaska standards in with the Common Core
standards. The board was hoping that much of the curriculum
designed for the Common Core would be applicable to
Alaska's standards and some of the assessments.
Representative Wilson referred to intervention districts
and wondered when it was the responsibility of DEED or the
school board to step into a school district when grades
continued to fall. She wondered whether the board had
discussed the idea of sending someone into the districts to
provide more help than they currently had.
Ms. Cox replied that the board had discussed the issue. She
explained that there was a fine line to walk and that it
was dictated by No Child Left Behind; levels were
stipulated and she believed once a level 5 was reached that
intervention occurred. At the same time, the state had
always believed in local control; therefore, work would
have to be done with the local school board and district.
There were issues outside of classroom learning that were
difficult to get a handle on such as attendance, cultural
differences, and other. She stated that teacher retention
had been an issue in the past; she highlighted an example
of a principal in rural Alaska leaving without providing
notice. She reiterated that the board did discuss the issue
and that it worked closely with the DEED commissioner and
deputy commissioner. She added that the Northwest Arctic
School District had been taken off intervention and was
doing well.
2:12:36 PM
Representative Wilson understood that the issue was
difficult and agreed that local control was important. Over
the interim she hoped to examine when intervention should
take place if districts were failing their students. She
understood the struggle related to the issue. Ms. Cox
concurred that it was a struggle.
Representative Gara agreed with comments that Mt. Edgecumbe
was successful. He pointed to the governor's proposed
budget and observed that it included a DEED increase
reflecting increasing salaries and benefits. He wondered
whether Mt. Edgecumbe had been inflation-proofed for salary
and benefit increases. Commissioner Hanley answered in the
negative. The current budget included an increment for
heating system upgrades. The Department of Administration
had just completed teacher contracts for Mt. Edgecumbe.
Representative Gara asked whether the budget would reflect
teacher salary increases for Mt. Edgecumbe. Commissioner
Hanley responded in the negative. He clarified that the
funding allocated to Mt. Edgecumbe had not changed aside
for the increments included in the governor's proposed
budget.
Representative Gara asked for verification that the new
contracts had not been included. Commissioner Hanley
believed the answer was no, but would follow up on the
question.
Representative Costello asked Ms. Cox where would she go
and why if she had to go back to high school in Alaska. Ms.
Cox responded that she would go to Mt. Edgecumbe or South
Anchorage High School for two different reasons. She was
very interested in the residential program scenario offered
at Mt. Edgecumbe. Her interest in South Anchorage was a
result her past employment as the educational consultant
when the high school had been built; she noted that it
would be fun to be a student in the school to see how it
worked.
Representative Costello believed she would go to King
Career Center. She mentioned at-risk students and believed
the center offered hands-on learning with meaningful
connections that provided kids with skills that were
relevant to the real world. She observed that Ms. Cox had
been the principal at the center in the past. She wondered
how to replicate some of the center's best practices (that
engaged students and she believed were the way of the
future) in the school system.
Ms. Cox replied that the items listed were taken into
consideration at the beginning of the core technical plan
implementation. She elaborated that the King Career Center
was very successful because it provided students with
hands-on learning and a relevant education. She surmised
that part of the strategy could be easily transferred to
the academic classroom; it began to make sense to students
if they understood why they were being taught certain
things and how the material applied to the real world. The
beauty of the King Career Center was that it engaged
students in the education process. She pointed to the
construction academies throughout the state that allowed
students to do hands on activities and to learn job entry
skills in an extended day format; she believed it was
important for kids to have access to the programs. She
disputed the belief that kids could only learn between 7:30
a.m. and 2 p.m. There were challenges that faced students
currently that had not been an issue in the past such as
the responsibility of a child or working to take care of a
family. She opined that if schools were accessible during
non-traditional hours it would help bring students in.
2:19:58 PM
Ms. Cox continued that kids who may be at risk for dropping
out in a traditional school did not drop out in the career
center. She believed the structure could be replicated in
any type of school system.
Representative Joule referenced the discussion on boarding
schools and told a related family story. His family members
had historically attended boarding schools; he had attended
Copper Valley School and his wife had gone to St. Mary's;
their daughters had attended Mt. Edgecumbe in 2003 and
2004. He understood that districts were having
conversations about regional boarding schools and he
wondered whether the State Board of Education was
considering the possibility.
Ms. Cox responded that the board had not pursued the idea
of additional regional boarding schools. The board had
worked to support existing regional boarding schools. She
noted that Galena had recently increased its number of beds
to 25.
Representative Joule wondered whether school districts
talked to the board or DEED about the regional boarding
school concept. Commissioner Hanley replied that he had had
several conversations regarding regional boarding schools,
but there had been no specific propositions for the board
to consider. He was very supportive of the current boarding
school models. He believed the value came when the schools
were driven by a local vision and desire for a particular
model. He listed various successful models including the
Bethel Alternative Boarding School, the Magnet School of
the North, and other.
[Co-Chair Stoltze passed the gavel to Vice-chair
Fairclough.]
2:24:29 PM
Representative Gara discussed that Mt. Edgecumbe was state
funded. He wondered who paid for salary and benefit
increases if the state did not fund them. Commissioner
Hanley responded that the negotiation of a higher salary
for teachers did not necessarily mean there would be more
money going into the school. He would follow up on the
question with more detail.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether there was a special
program underway at South Anchorage High School. Ms. Cox
replied that she had been the educational consultant when
the school was under construction. The final analysis of a
school occurred when the school began; when the delivery of
an educational system began it needed to flow and work. She
noted that she had grandchildren who had attended the
school; therefore she had seen it from the perspective of a
spectator. She believed the school would be a fun thing to
see from the perspective as a student.
Representative Guttenberg asked about multi-grade
elementary school classrooms. He wondered about the board's
experience with the classrooms and whether they occurred in
districts throughout the state. Ms. Cox believed that the
multi-grade elementary classrooms probably did take place
throughout the state; however she did not have information
on the issue. She surmised that the issue would depend on
how a community viewed its school and how children were
grouped; multi-groupings were a reality in small rural
communities. She guessed that many people in her age
category had gone to one-room schoolhouses that had multi-
age groupings.
Representative Guttenberg understood that the multi-grade
classrooms were the only alternative in rural communities;
however, the purpose was different in urban settings. He
was interested to know how the structure fit in urban
schools and what was working. Commissioner Hanley replied
that the multi-grade grouping was done out of necessity in
some instances and by choice in others; the reason for
necessity related to the number of teachers matched with
students from different grade levels. In some instances the
choice was offered given that older students are great
models for younger students and cooperative learning is
beneficial.
2:29:09 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed that the committee had been
hearing from educators throughout the state during the
week; one teacher she had met with suggested that it would
be helpful for the State Board of Education to have a
current school teacher on the board. The teacher had
explained that a teacher would be familiar with the present
challenges facing teachers that may be different than those
even several years earlier.
Ms. Cox replied that the idea of having a current teacher
on the board had been addressed in the past; a teacher
could be appointed to the board. The board had decided
against the idea of including a teacher in order to avoid
opening up the idea for other professions that may want to
contribute as well. The board had concluded that it may
work better for a teacher to be appointed as a regular
member. She added that at one time there had been a teacher
on the board from Fairbanks.
Representative Guttenberg noted that the teacher from
Fairbanks was Suzie Stitham.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked the board to take up the
conversation again on the subject for consideration. Ms.
Cox shared that there was currently an elementary school
principal on the board from Kodiak. She also tutored in an
elementary school once a week. She assured the committee
that the board would take up the conversation related to
the idea of having a current teacher on the board.
Ms. Cox thanked the committee for the opportunity to
testify.
Co-Chair Stoltze was happy that the meeting would make more
Alaskans aware of the State Board of Education.
2:34:22 PM
AT EASE
2:34:36 PM
RECONVENED
^PRESENTATION: ALASKA POLICY FORUM
2:34:52 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze read a biography for Alaska Policy Forum
speaker David Boyle [due to technical difficulty this
portion of the meeting was not recorded].
DAVID BOYLE, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, ALASKA POLICY FORUM (via
teleconference), thanked the committee for the opportunity
to testify. He described the Alaska Policy Forum as the
only free market think tank in the state; it focused on
education, fiscal accountability, and transparency in
government. The entity was 2.5 years old, operated as a
501(c)(3) non-profit organization, and relied solely on
citizen contributions. He compared the organization to
multiple entities including the Heritage Foundation, and
the Cato, Hoover, and Brookings Institutions.
Representative Gara referred to language on the
organization's website that said the group focused on a
conservative perspective on education; principles were
listed and included the statement "free people are not
equal and equal people are not free." He asked how the
statement informed the organization's work.
Mr. Boyle replied that the statement reflected the group's
belief that everyone should have an equal opportunity, but
that people under communist or socialist systems were not
free.
Representative Gara referenced an article from a couple of
years earlier indicating that most of the organization's
money came from outside of Alaska and that its donors were
not revealed. He asked whether the information was
accurate. Mr. Boyle replied that the organization was
private and confidentiality was provided to its donors. He
shared that most of the organization's funding the prior
year had been provided by donors in Alaska.
Mr. Boyle pointed to page 2 of a presentation titled
"School Choice: Options that Work for Alaska" (copy on
file). Page 2 included a bar graph illustrating a U.S.
Department of Education breakdown of the cost per student
by state in 2011. He communicated that Alaska ranked near
the top of the list at approximately $15,300 per student;
its costs were exceeded by New Jersey, D.C., and New York.
He acknowledged that costs were high in some rural areas
due to energy, transportation, and infrastructure costs. He
stated that despite the state's high investment the desired
results had not been achieved.
Mr. Boyle moved to page 3 titled "Upper-Middle Income
Students 4th Grade Reading 2011 NAEP Test Scores." He
stated that the grade level had been chosen because
children were supposed to be able to read by the age of
four. He referenced a saying that "once you read by the age
of four, you read to learn." Co-Chair Stoltze clarified
that it was fourth grade and not age four. Mr. Boyle
affirmed.
Representative Doogan asked what NAEP stood for. Mr. Boyle
responded that the term stood for the National Assessment
of Educational Progress. He explained that figures were
derived from a random 10 percent sample of students tested
throughout the country every two years. He shared that the
sample could be used to compare Alaska's progress and
student achievement to other states.
Mr. Boyle pointed to page 4 titled "Low Income Students 4th
Grade Reading 2011 NAEP Test Scores" showing that Alaska's
low income 4th graders were second from the bottom of the
list. He stated that it was commonly said that Alaska had a
disproportionate number of low income students, which
brought down the NAEP scores. He turned to page 5 titled
"% of Low Income Students by State 2011" depicting that
Alaska was almost in the lowest quartile of the percentage
of low income students. He discussed that all data showed
that income, social class, ethnic group, and race had very
little to do with student achievement. He opined that all
students could excel if they were challenged with high
goals. He furthered that there were "shining" examples
demonstrating that more money did not solve the problem. He
communicated that in 2001 Dr. Ben Chavis had taken the
lowest performing middle school in Oakland, CA and had
turned it into the number one middle school in all of
California. He furthered that the success had occurred
despite a student population that was 98 percent low
income, 85 percent on free and reduced price lunches, and
45 percent spoke English as a second language. He added
that the success had been achieved on a budget that was 30
percent lower than that of a comparable Oakland school.
Mr. Boyle turned to page 6. He stressed that focus should
be on "the destination of the wagon and not be distracted
by the turning of the wheels on the wagon." He stated that
attention tended to be on the "input" side of the equation
including items such as base student allowance, physical
plant, transportation, and social services. He believed
focus should be on the "output" including items such as
increased student achievement, increased graduation rates,
student engagement and motivation, teacher engagement, and
classroom environment.
2:43:45 PM
Mr. Boyle addressed page 7 titled "Causes of Low Education
Performance." He believed the state had very low goal
setting. He stated that the high school exit exam was set
to the eighth grade level. He explained that the state had
used the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills in the late 1990s, but
the metric had been changed to the California Achievement
Test and changed again to the Standards Based Assessment
(SBA), which made it hard to compare students in Alaska to
those in other states. He stressed that the "cut scores"
for the SBA were very low in comparison to the NAEP. He
stated that "as long as goals are set low, students will
walk over them." He opined that goals should be set high to
encourage students to push themselves and to surprise
themselves with their abilities. He asserted that some
schools had lost their focus on education. He believed that
districts were distracted with providing social services
(many of which came with federal grants). He stated that
districts succumb to mission creep because they wanted to
provide more to make up for dysfunctional families;
districts devoted many resources and time to providing
social services when they should be concentrating on
education. He believed no studies showed that pre-
kindergarten had any lasting effects beyond the third
grade. He indicated that the cost of implementing some
proposals in the legislature cost more than estimates to
implement school choice.
Mr. Boyle opined that another contributor to low student
performance was rigid collective bargaining units used by
districts; during times of teacher reductions the last
hired were the first to be let go. He furthered that
teachers were not let go based on performance and their
success as educators. He emphasized that some of the
younger teachers may be the most motivated, have the best
ideas, and be outstanding performers; whereas, some of the
more senior teachers may be burned out, lack motivation,
and see little reason to perform because no penalty
existed. He stressed that the good teachers should be
rewarded for their efforts and the impact they have on
students. He communicated that successful examples of the
model existed and stated that "this is about the kids, not
the adults."
Mr. Boyle identified cost control as another cause of low
education performance (page 7). He believed that there was
little incentive to contain costs because the more
districts spent the more they received. He added that the
system worked the same for the federal government;
authorized funding needed to be spent by the fiscal year-
end or funds would be cut the following year. He furthered
that poor preforming schools were rewarded with additional
funding. He opined that the system should reward high
performance schools and that incentive should be provided
for all schools, districts, and teachers. He emphasized
that school choice rewarded the best performing schools. He
felt that the overarching cause of the current problems was
a result of a lack of competition; without competition a
monopoly had no need to improve. He compared the lack of
competition in schools to shoe stores selling only one type
of shoe; a shoe store carrying a selection of shoes would
incentivize the other stores to improve. He expounded that
competition improved products and services and provided a
better value for all consumers. He believed the same was
true for the education system.
Mr. Boyle addressed possible solutions to low education
performance. He stated that possible solutions included
education tax credits and distance learning (e.g. Khan
Academy, MIT, and Stanford University).
2:48:30 PM
Mr. Boyle discussed vouchers as a solution to low education
performance (page 7). He stated that all of the mentioned
solutions were used throughout the U.S. and had a
demonstrated record of success. He relayed that vouchers
had been used in Milwaukee since 1990 and had resulted in
increased student achievement and lower public school cost.
He stated that variable operating costs of a school should
decrease as students left. He pointed to the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship program as a success that allowed
students to use $7,500 (of the $15,000 annual per student
cost) to attend the school of their choice. He pointed out
that a randomized study showed that students with vouchers
in D.C. had a 12 percent gain in high school graduation
rates. He shared that Florida students had the option to
use vouchers as well.
Mr. Boyle turned to a graph on page 8 titled "Combined NAEP
Gains Math and Reading, 2003-2011 Alaska vs Voucher
Jurisdictions." The graph illustrated the impact of
vouchers on five states compared to Alaska. He stressed
that Florida ranked high with 54 raw points and Alaska was
at negative 3 raw points. He communicated that some school
boards had chosen school vouchers in order to avoid
bankruptcy (e.g. Douglas County Colorado School District).
Mr. Boyle moved to page 9 titled "The Future." He provided
a closing statement:
We cannot keep doing things the same way and expecting
different results. Other states have shown us what
works. We cannot afford to have Alaska children fall
through the cracks, blaming those external to the
educational system. These kids are too important to
keep throwing dollars at the same reoccurring problems
with no accountable results. We need to concentrate on
the output of the system. Will we be in the same place
next year or in three years? Are we going to try
something different? It has been repeated over and
over before this committee that all children learn
differently and yet Alaska has poured tremendous
resources into creating a one-size-fits-all system. We
can do better for Alaska and its children and we
should. In closing, we have some very dedicated
educators and teachers in Alaska, working hard every
day to help their students achieve their maximum
potential. We have students who do great. We also have
many students who are not challenged, are not
motivated, are bored, just give up, and can't see the
worth of going to school. Some kids just don't fit in
socially. School vouchers, we prefer to call them
education fund dividends, just like the Permanent Fund
Dividend, would empower parents, engage them in their
children's education, and ensure a better educational
fit for their child.
Mr. Boyle thanked the committee for the opportunity to
testify.
2:52:42 PM
Representative Doogan wondered what evidence existed
showing that the factors listed on page 7 led to low
education performance.
Mr. Boyle replied that the system [in Alaska] had low
goals; 80 percent of students passed the SBA, but Alaska
students scored a 25 on NAEP tests, which was significantly
below average. He stated that if the state had continued to
use the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills or the California
Achievement Test it would have been able to compare itself
to other states. He remarked that some Anchorage School
Board members had admitted the state had low goals at a
recent board meeting. He restated that the state's goals
and standards were too low. He believed the state's
educational system had mission creep because it was
concerned with providing meals to children. He acknowledged
that the issue was important, but believed that the
educational system should focus on educating children. He
felt that there were inflexible collective bargaining
units; for example, in Anchorage charter schools it was
necessary to hire school positions through the school
district's personnel pool. He pointed to the "last hired,
first fired" practice and noted that no business would
operate in that way; other businesses screen personnel and
provide annual evaluations (good performers would be kept
and poor performers would be let go). He emphasized that
businesses could not keep "dead wood on the rolls." He
opined that the practice of retaining poor performing
teachers was not fair to other teachers. He turned to cost
control and stated that more money was thrown at the
educational system on an annual basis. For example, local
spending in the Anchorage School District had increased by
240 percent between 1993 and 2011; Anchorage district per
student revenue had increased 54 percent. He stated that
during the same period inflation was 52 percent. He
concluded that the school district's operating budget had
doubled in the past 10 years (with a static ADM).
Representative Doogan repeated his question related to a
cause and effect relationship between low education
performance and listed solutions. He wondered whether the
position was philosophical or backed by studies. Mr. Boyle
believed that the data related to the Anchorage School
District provided evidence. He reiterated that the school
district's cost had doubled in the past 10 years, student
achievement had "done nothing" (based on SBA scores), and
the ADM remained static around 48,000 members. He stated
that the cost per student had skyrocketed up to nearly
$17,000. He expounded that there were many failing and
near-failing schools in the Anchorage district based on the
SBA, most of which were located in the lower income areas
of the city.
2:58:33 PM
Representative Doogan did not believe Mr. Boyle was
answering his questions. He communicated that the committee
had witnessed the Anchorage School District budget increase
by 100 percent in the past 10 years; he did not believe the
argument was persuasive.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the Alaska Policy Forum was
consistent on its message related to decreasing state
spending.
Representative Gara referred to Mr. Boyle's testimony that
no voluntary pre-kindergarten was successful. He asked
whether Mr. Boyle had read the Perry Preschool study that
followed students for approximately 40 years. The study had
shown that students who had attended preschool earned more
money, experienced higher high school and college
graduation rates, and committed less criminal activity
compared to peers who had not attended preschool.
Mr. Boyle asked whether the study had been done in the mid-
1960s.
Representative Gara responded that the study had started in
the mid-1960s and had followed the subjects for more than
30 years. Mr. Boyle replied that the only study he was
familiar with had used approximately 110 students in 1965
and 1966. He was not familiar with any other studies. He
added that a Head Start study released by the federal
government had indicated that there were no long-term
lasting effects of education past the third grade (the
current Head Start study had not been released at present).
Representative Gara disagreed, but did not want to debate
the issue. He referred to Mr. Boyle's testimony that
providing children with meals was mission creep. He
communicated that there was evidence that hungry children
did not perform as well as well-fed children. He wondered
why the providing of meals was mission creep.
Mr. Boyle believed that parents were responsible for
feeding their children. He discussed what he had eaten as a
child and believed he had done well in school. He opined
that the government was replacing the parent and family
when it stepped in and took parents' responsibility to feed
their children away. He stated that the goal was to involve
parents in their children's education. He supposed that the
group of students who needed the service was very small;
however, the program was expanding and 44 percent of the
students in Anchorage were on free and reduced price
lunches. He furthered that Alaska's poverty level was not
very high and that all it took to register a child for the
service was the completion of a form. He opined that
everybody would be on the free and reduced price lunch
program soon.
3:02:48 PM
Representative Gara relayed that he had been on the free
lunch program and it had helped him. He observed that
people did not all grow up in the same type of family. He
asked whether Mr. Boyle agreed that not providing food for
children who did not receive it at home (due to
irresponsible parents or parents without resources) was
irresponsible.
Mr. Boyle believed there were few parents who did not have
the resources to feed their children. He discussed that
there were other existing programs such as food stamps that
would allow parents to provide food for their kids. He
furthered that it did not take much to provide a bowl of
cereal or a peanut butter sandwich before school or a brown
bag lunch (he discussed his personal experience with brown
bag lunches growing up - his father had made lunch for six
kids every morning).
Representative Gara discussed that when Mr. Boyle had run
for school board in 2009 he had listed his top four
priorities (out of a list of 8 that had been provided by
the surveyor) as expanding vocational education, adding
teachers to reduce class sizes, offering new teachers a
defined benefit retirement plan, and making it easier for
teachers to obtain tenure. He observed that the measures
were all relatively costly. He wondered how the priorities
were compatible with Mr. Boyle's current belief that
schools were spending too much money and that teachers
should be easier to let go.
Mr. Boyle asked whether the survey had been conducted by
the Anchorage teachers' union.
Representative Gara responded that the survey had been
published on March 27, 2009 in the Anchorage Daily News
(ADN). He did not know the source of the survey.
Mr. Boyle responded that he had run for school board in
2008 and 2009. He remarked that he had become smarter and
had further educated himself.
Representative Doogan relayed that the ADN only published
surveys that it conducted.
3:06:47 PM
AT EASE
3:13:33 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 258
"An Act directing the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities to develop and implement standards
and operating procedures allowing for the use in the
construction and maintenance of transportation
projects and public facilities and in the construction
of projects by public and private entities of gravel
or aggregate materials that contain a limited amount
of naturally occurring asbestos, and authorizing use
on an interim basis of those materials for certain
transportation projects and public facilities;
relating to certain claims arising out of or in
connection with the use of gravel or aggregate
materials containing a limited amount of naturally
occurring asbestos; and providing for an effective
date."
3:13:48 PM
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE, had
previously discussed changes appearing in the committee
substitute (CS) for HB 258. He noted that new fiscal notes
had been disseminated to member packets. The sponsor had
worked closely with all involved departments including
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT),
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Department
of Law (DOL), Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DLWD), and other.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether members had all the
amendments pertaining to the legislation. He asked staff to
compile a packet of amendments to distribute to committee
members. He believed there were three amendments.
Mr. Anderson discussed that the collaborative work on the
bill had been a success. The fiscal notes had evolved and
reflected changes in the legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that representatives from multiple
departments and Nana Regional Corporation were available to
testify.
3:16:50 PM
Representative Gara relayed that his preference would be
that non-asbestos containing alternatives would be used if
available. He pointed to language on pages 6 and 7 that
specified the item would be considered, but it was not
mandatory that non-asbestos material was used. He believed
another part of the bill made the item mandatory and asked
for an explanation.
Mr. Anderson replied that the designation of use of gravel
versus naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) gravel was found
in the site-specific use plan (pages 7 through 9). He
explained that the section established stages of how to
approach the issue. He referred to the flow chart included
in members' packets (copy on file). He elaborated that the
use of non-NOA material was required when it was
economically reasonable.
Representative Gara noted that the new language took care
of one of his concerns. He believed the sponsor had worked
to address the concept of another of his concerns. He
elaborated that there were three villages where there was
known NOA that may need to be used due to the absence of
any other viable options. He believed there should be signs
posted to inform residents of potential airborne asbestos
containing materials in the area; Amendment 2 addressed the
issue. He wondered whether the posting of signs had been
addressed in the bill.
Mr. Anderson replied that Roger Healy from DOT was
available to discuss signage and notification. He furthered
that the bill included the requirements to provide ample
notification of the NOA zones.
3:20:57 PM
Representative Gara clarified that he wanted to make sure
that people were made aware of the NOA use so they could
notify the government if there were alternatives available.
He also wanted people to be informed of the work taking
place so they could choose to wear a mask or take other
precautions.
Mr. Anderson pointed to page 11, lines 17 through 23. The
bill had been expanded from the language "workplace safety"
to read "and air quality standards relating to the project
and to ensure the health and safety of communities affected
by construction projects that use gravel or other aggregate
material containing naturally occurring asbestos." The
language did not directly address the notification, but it
did expand the requirements to workplace and community
safety.
ROGER HEALY, CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, replied that public notification
took on several different forms from the department's
perspective. One issue was related to workplace safety and
workers during construction; another aspect related to the
public during and after construction and how materials were
contained. He believed the intent of Amendment 2 was to
ensure that some form of public and potentially future
worker notification existed. He recommended that details
should get ironed out in the regulation process. The
department was under obligation in workplace safety to do
Material Safety Data Sheets and other similar
notifications. He reiterated his recommendation to work out
the appropriate signage notification through regulation.
Representative Gara agreed and did not want to specify what
the sign should look like. He was also concerned about
residents in areas where the asbestos may be airborne due
to construction. He wondered whether there was anything in
the bill that required the department to provide the
notification that would be implemented by regulation. He
stressed that he wanted the issue addressed in the
legislation.
Mr. Healy responded that there was a requirement for
workplace notification. Additionally, there were many
requirements for notifications of hazards to public in a
construction zone. He detailed that hazards could include
naturally occurring asbestos, dust, machinery, etc. He
added that the overall notification of a construction zone
and its potential hazards was broad.
Mr. Anderson pointed to language included on page 7 (lines
2 through 4) related to NOA zone setup requirements that
read "the department shall notify potentially affected
persons that the area has been designated in an area where
immunity may be granted under AS 09.65.245(a)." The
requirement was applicable to the zone and surrounding
areas that may be impacted by airborne materials.
3:27:17 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed to page 6, line 17 that read
"for causing asbestos related injuries." She wondered why
the specific language had been used. She believed it could
imply to a litigant or a worker who contracted a disease
(that may be related to exposure) that the specific
exposure was the cause of the related illness. She wondered
whether the meaning of the language "was contributing to or
causing" or if it was acceptable to have a blanket
statement recognizing the connection that a contractor or
community had a liability if they chose to mine a certain
area. She queried why the specific language had been
chosen.
Mr. Anderson replied that the language had been changed in
a prior committee from a broader statement of asbestos
injury. There had been concern with previous language that
there was a chance that if there was an accident related to
faulty machinery that the company may be able to use the
asbestos related injury claim and therefore obtain immunity
from responsibility of the accident.
EMILY NAUMAN, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), added that the language was meant to link
back to injuries listed on page 4, line 4 including death,
injury, illness, disability, property damage, or any other
damages resulting from the use of gravel or other material
that contained NOA.
Vice-chair Fairclough surmised that the "contributing to"
was not an issue because the language on page 6 referred to
a list of specific items on page 4. Ms. Nauman responded in
the affirmative.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that the reference to
California's Air Resource Board Method 435 provided her
with some comfort that at least one state was working to
access aggregate material that contained naturally
occurring asbestos (page 6, line 6). She looked at the
interim standards for application of asbestos bulk testing
on page 14, which used the California standard. She
wondered whether the state would continue to rely on
California language or if the term "interim" implied that
the standard would change. She asked if it was appropriate
to include the California standard in state statute if a
change was possible.
3:32:30 PM
Mr. Anderson answered that while Alaska was developing its
regulations the California standard would be used. Once DOT
had written the regulations there would be a discussion to
determine which method of testing would be used going
forward. The idea was to avoid limiting the state to the
California standards and to allow for room to expand. He
explained that California had not placed its standard in
statute; therefore, it had flexibility and had been able to
change the standard from 5 percent down to 0.25 percent.
Vice-chair Fairclough explained that the California
reference would be embedded in state statute if it was
included on page 6 of the legislation. She elaborated that
the bill did discuss that DOT would develop standards, but
the legislation did not include a section that would repeal
the California standard once Alaska's own standards had
been established.
Mr. Healy replied that one of the points of identifying the
California method was because of the detection limit that
offered the analytical declination 0.25 percent and below.
The reference on page 6 provided the state with guidance
related to the detection limit and the level of asbestos.
Vice-chair Fairclough responded that she was fine with the
language and reiterated that it would be used throughout a
statute. She wondered why a maximum amount of naturally
occurring asbestos had not been included in the
legislation.
Mr. Anderson responded that the largest concern from DOL
and DOT was the idea that a number was arbitrarily selected
that could not be justified through data or other sources
of information. He furthered that it had been difficult to
establish an analytical threshold for the floor based off
of data that could be justified if it was ever taken to
court; the same was true for a maximum threshold, given
that a significant amount of data did not exist.
Representative Gara communicated that he wanted people near
construction zones to be aware of potential airborne
asbestos. He pointed to page 7, line 2 that read "the
department shall notify potentially affected persons" that
there may be airborne asbestos. He wanted to make certain
that notifications were decipherable. He believed his
Amendment 2 was too complicated and wondered whether it
would be feasible to insert the words "including through
signage" following "the department shall notify" on page 7,
line 2. He explained that the language would provide
departments with flexibility when designing and posting the
notice.
Representative Joule asked DOT whether it would post signs
with or without the insertion of the words "including
through signage."
Mr. Healy replied that he did not believe signs were posted
for items such as the exposure of diesel fuel during
construction. Under current statute DOT would not post
signs making the public aware if the department or other
was using naturally occurring asbestos in a component of a
construction project. He deferred to DEC for additional
detail. He believed the best way to notify the public was
project and site dependent in many ways. He added that much
of the bill and potential regulations had been patterned
off of the California method; it did not use signage of the
sort mentioned.
Representative Joule surmised that locals in the Ambler and
Upper Kobuk areas were aware of the issue and signage would
probably not be necessary for them; however, he wondered
how non-residents would know about the issue. He thought it
may not be an issue for locals because they would just be
happy to have jobs. He wondered whether the sign would be
beneficial for people coming in from outside the areas. He
asked how the change would impact the fiscal note and
wondered whether it would need to be brought back before
the committee.
Mr. Healy replied that there were two issues, (1) whether
signage should be posted presently because of the naturally
occurring asbestos that currently existed in the Ambler and
Upper Kobuk areas and (2) should signage be used during
construction and operation of projects. One issue related
to new projects and the other related to existing
conditions. The department would need to know whether it
was expected to post signs under one or both circumstances
in order to determine the fiscal note impact.
3:44:43 PM
Representative Doogan queried whether the signage impacted
the state's legal liability one way or the other.
SARITHA ANJILVEL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
TRANSPORTATION SECTION, CIVIL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
(via teleconference), addressed whether signage would
present any legal liability to the state. She responded
that under the bill's current form it presented immunity to
the state provided that regulations were followed;
regulations would include site-specific plans and notice of
potentially affected persons. The language was vague to
allow DOT to make notice requirements in its own
regulations. She reiterated that immunity would be
preserved if DOT followed its own regulations.
Co-Chair Stoltze concluded that it would pay off to post
signs. Ms. Anjilvel responded that if DOT regulations were
structured to require the posting of signs, the regulations
would need to be followed. The state had to follow its own
rules.
Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that DOT would be posting signs
with or without the additional directive language in the
legislation. Ms. Anjilvel agreed.
3:47:45 PM
Representative Gara relayed that he may offer Amendment 1
on the House floor, but would not offer it in committee
(copy on file). He discussed the serious nature of
asbestosis and mesothelioma. Asbestos became a problem when
it was airborne, not when it was undisturbed. He understood
the desire to limit the liability of those involved because
they were in a difficult situation. Amendment 1 would have
prohibited class actions and punitive damages; however, it
would provide people with compensatory damages to pay for
health care costs, lost wages, or other basic damages. He
hoped people would think about the concept and any
potential alternatives.
3:50:09 PM
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 2 (copy on file). He
MOVED to Amend Amendment 3 to read:
Page 6, line 19:
Insert "after at least 2 public hearings," after
"request."
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was AMENDED.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED to Amendment 3.
Representative Gara explained that he had originally
thought a public vote on the use of the asbestos was a good
idea; however, many people believed that was not the right
way to go. Under the current legislation a municipality
could opt in, but that did not necessarily mean the
municipality would work with the public (notices could be
unclear and difficult to understand). Amendment 3 would
require at least two public hearings on the issue. He
believed the communities in Representative Joule's district
had already gone through a public hearing process.
Representative Joule responded that all municipality
meetings and agendas were public. He thought municipalities
went through several public hearings on issues. He believed
the issue was already accomplished, but asked for an
opinion from DOT.
Mr. Healy responded that the current public meeting
requirement would apply to DOT and third-party projects. He
furthered that DOT would require two public meetings for
any project seeking plan approval for the use of naturally
occurring asbestos. The requirement placed the burden on
the department to complete the use in accordance with the
plan and to have two public meetings.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the intent of Amendment 3 and
whether the public meetings would be held by the locality
or a state agency.
Representative Gara assumed that the public hearings would
be held by the municipality or community.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the language could be
interpreted that DOT would be required to hold public
meetings.
Representative Joule agreed. He believed the goal of the
amendment was already in place.
Representative Gara, in response to a question by Co-Chair
Stoltze, WITHDREW Amendment 3. He believed the amendment
should be rewritten and offered on the House floor. He
noted that the public tended not to follow normal assembly
meetings unless an issue was highlighted beforehand.
Representative Joule did not know whether the requirement
would change anything in terms of public action. He
believed either the public would be interested in an issue
or not. He noted that the whole town of Ambler had shown up
to multiple meetings in support of the work. He would work
on the issue with Representative Gara.
3:55:56 PM
Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 4:
Page 7, line 2, after "notify" and Page 13, line 22
after "notify" insert ", including through signage,"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Joule had no objection.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his objection.
Representative Costello observed that the amendment related
to bill version L. Representative Gara clarified that the
Amendment related to bill version Y.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 4 was ADOPTED.
3:57:58 PM
AT EASE
3:59:43 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the fiscal notes (copy on
file). She highlighted zero fiscal notes from the
Departments of Law and Natural Resources. The third note
was from the Department of Environmental Conservation for
$27,800 in FY 13, $28,200 in FY 14, and $10,700 per year
for FY 15 through FY 18. The next note affected the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities in the
amount of $210,100 in FY 13, $190,600 in FY 14, $121,800 in
FY 15, $66,800 in FY 16, and $31,500 for FY 17 and FY 18
for full-time equivalent positions. The fifth fiscal note
impacted the Department of Health and Social Services for
$21,300 in FY 13, $20,100 in FY 14, and zero for FY 15
through FY 18. She noted that the DHSS note backup showed a
0.10 health program manager position that was not
referenced elsewhere on the note.
Mr. Anderson communicated that DHSS would need the health
program manager position while regulations were developed
in the first two years. He believed the increment was
included under "Personal Services" and not in the
"Positions" category.
Vice-chair Fairclough communicated that the remaining
fiscal note was a zero allocation for FY 13 through FY 18
for the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
Representative Joule concurred with the fiscal notes.
Representative Doogan believed that the legislation would
cost approximately $260,000 in the first year and would
decline in subsequent years.
Representative Joule responded in the affirmative.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSHB 258(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion. He
communicated that he wanted to help Representative Joule's
district, but he expressed concern that there was no safe
level of airborne asbestos established (California had
reduced the level to 0.25 percent) and that he did not have
a way of knowing the right level. He WITHDREW his
OBJECTION.
Vice-chair Fairclough clarified that the California 0.25
percent represented a floor level and not a ceiling.
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 258(FIN) was
REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation
and with one new fiscal impact note from Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, one new fiscal impact
note from Department of Environmental Conservation, one new
zero note from Department of Natural Resources, one new
zero note from Department of Law, and previously published
fiscal notes: FN1 (DLWD), FN3 (DHSS).
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the schedule for the following
day.
Representative Gara made an apology to Mr. Boyle. He
believed he should not have gone through Mr. Boyle's prior
school board record.
ADJOURNMENT
4:08:29 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFIN EDC Presentation 3.28.12PM.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HFIN School Choice presentation 3.28.12.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HFIN State BOE presentation Cox Bio 3.28.12.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB258 Amendment-4 Gara.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 258 |