Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/28/2013 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB24 | |
| HB19 | |
| HB56 | |
| HB21 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 28, 2013
1:35 p.m.
1:35:27 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alternate
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Guttenberg
Representative Bryce Edgmon
ALSO PRESENT
Richard Svobodny, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law; Darrel Breese, Staff,
Representative Bill Stoltze; James Waldo, Staff,
Representative Lindsey Holmes; Representative Peggy Wilson;
Michael Hanley, Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development Ron Fuhrer, President, NEA-Alaska; Bruce
Johnson, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Amy Erickson, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration; Cynna Gubatayao, Assistant
Borough Manager, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Ketchikan;
Nancy Hull, Alaska Motorcycle Adventure, Palmer; Matt
Fonder, Tax Division, Department of Revenue, Anchorage;
Lauren Burch, Superintendent, Southeast Island School
District, Thorne Bay
SUMMARY
HB 19 PERM. MOT. VEH. REGISTRATION/TRAILERS
HB 19 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 21 FOUR-DAY SCHOOL WEEK
HB 21 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CSHB 24 SELF DEFENSE
CSHB 24(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with three
previously published zero fiscal notes: FN1(ADM),
FN2(ADM), and FN4(DPS).
HB 56 PASSENGER VEHICLE RENTAL TAX
HB 56 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1(REV).
Co-Chair Stoltze related that there were some fiscal issues
with HB 19.
HOUSE BILL NO. 24
"An Act relating to self-defense in any place where a
person has a right to be."
1:37:27 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman stated that the change to the bill was
the addition of the language, "or in any other place where
the person has a right to be." He said that the language
would allow a person the rights granted by the Castle
Doctrine anywhere the person happened to be.
1:38:36 PM
Representative Gara had questions for the Department of
Law.
1:38:52 PM
RICHARD SVOBODNY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW expressed that he was available
to answer questions.
1:39:10 PM
Representative Gara noted that existing statute already
extended the right to self-defense anywhere a person felt
threatened, and was not limited to home protection.
Mr. Svobodny responded in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asserted that people who believed that
there was not an existing right to self-defense were
misinformed.
1:40:12 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze requested that Representative Gara ask his
questions in a less leading manner.
1:40:17 PM
Representative Gara inquired if an individual had the right
to self-defense in public.
Mr. Svobodny replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara believed that under current law a
person could not chase someone down, kill them, and argue
self-defense.
1:41:45 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that Mr. Svobodny should not
answer moral certitudes. He thought that Representative
Gara's questioning was an unfair attempt to affirm his
level of certitude. He instructed Mr. Svobodny to reply to
"yes" or "no" questions.
Representative Gara argued that he was simply asking
questions of the department.
Co-Chair Stoltze reminded Representative Gara that he was
asking questions "through the Chair."
1:42:15 PM
Mr. Svobodny believed that under current law, one had the
right to chase a person one felt threatened by.
Representative Gara asked if the right to self-defense
could be lost if a person had the ability to not shoot with
clear safety to themselves or others.
Mr. Svobodny replied that a jury would decide that question
after the fact. He did not believe that the person would be
charged in a self-defense situation, provided the person
doing the chasing believed that they were in danger of
death or serious physical injury.
1:43:51 PM
Representative Gara understood that under current law a
person would lose the right to claim self-defense if the
use of deadly force could have been avoided while safety
was maintained.
Mr. Svobodny discussed a similar Alaskan case where a
person who was fleeing turned towards a homeowner and
attempted to fire but the gun jammed. He furthered that as
the person was running away with the jammed gun, the
homeowner chased them a block and shot them; the homeowner
had the duty to retreat as the person was running away,
because he could have retreated safely.
1:45:36 PM
Representative Gara gathered that in that scenario the
homeowner did not have to chase the person and therefore
lost the right to claim self-defense.
Mr. Svobodny replied that you could not use deadly force
against a person when there was no imminent threat to you
or those around you; the amount of force must be reasonable
to the circumstances.
1:47:06 PM
Representative Gara queried how passage of the bill would
change current law.
Mr. Svobodny thought that there would be circumstances
where the district attorney's job would be made more
difficult by the question of whether deadly force should
have allowed been used. He said that attorneys made that
decision all of the time, but it became very clear if a
person had the ability to retreat in absolute safety but
chose not to.
1:48:00 PM
Representative Gara stated that if there was no difference
between the bill and current law then time was being
wasted. He referred to AS 11.81.335(b):
Sec. 11.81.335. Justification: Use of deadly force in
defense of self.
(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a
person who is justified in using non-deadly force in
self-defense under AS 11.81.330 may use deadly force
in self-defense upon another person when and to the
extent the person reasonably believes the use of
deadly force is necessary for self-defense against
(1) death;
(2) serious physical injury;
(3) kidnapping, except for what is described as
custodial interference in the first degree in
AS 11.41.320 ;
(4) sexual assault in the first degree;
(5) sexual assault in the second degree;
(6) sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree; or
(7) robbery in any degree.
(b) A person may not use deadly force under this
section if the person knows that, with complete
personal safety and with complete safety as to others
being defended, the person can avoid the necessity of
using deadly force by leaving the area of the
encounter, except there is no duty to leave the area
if the person is
(1) on premises
(A) that the person owns or leases;
(B) where the person resides, temporarily or
permanently; or
(C) as a guest or express or implied agent of the
owner, lessor, or resident;
(2) a peace officer acting within the scope and
authority of the officer's employment or a person
assisting a peace officer under AS 11.81.380;
(3) in a building where the person works in the
ordinary course of the person's employment; or
(4) protecting a child or a member of the person's
household.
Representative Gara reiterated his understanding that under
current law:
"……if a person was in a shopping mall, or someplace
they were legally allowed to be, if with complete
safety to yourself and others, you can go call the
cops, you have to go call the cops. It seems to me the
new bill says that exception "with complete safety to
yourself and others" does not apply if you are in this
new place. Are there circumstances where, if we pass
this bill, where with complete personal safety to
yourself and others you could have avoided conflict
and could have avoided a shooting, are there
circumstances under this bill where you will be
allowed to shoot somebody even though you could have
not done so with complete personal safety to yourself
and others."
Mr. Svobodny responded that the first thing that a
prosecutor would consider would not be whether a person
retreated, but whether the amount of force was appropriate
for the circumstance. He explained that the bill
represented a question of how one balanced the death of the
person versus one's ability to not run away. He reiterated
the real question came down to whether a person used
reasonable or excessive force to defend themselves.
1:51:16 PM
Representative Gara opined that the bill removed the burden
of proof that as person acted in self-defense. He
understood that currently if a person could avoid the
situation with complete safety then the person had to
retreat, HB 24 would give the person the right to confront
the other person without first calling the police.
Mr. Svobodny replied that under HB 24 there could be
instances where reasonable people would walk away, while
others would not and the situation could escalate to the
use of deadly force.
1:53:39 PM
Co-Chair Austerman asked if a person could chase someone
outside their home with a gun down and shoot them in self-
defense.
Mr. Svobodny responded that current law allowed someone to
follow an intruder out of their home and follow them down
the street, even if the police told them not to, and if the
intruder used deadly force against the person then the
person could use deadly force in self-defense.
1:55:06 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman observed that making judgment calls on
particular instances was the job of the jury in a
courtroom.
Mr. Svobodny replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Neuman noted that Alaska law currently stated
that a person had the duty to retreat. He argued that the
bill weighed the right to defend yourself over your duty to
retreat.
Mr. Svobodny agreed that that was what the bill would do.
He said that under current law the state had the obligation
to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He said
that currently, if a person did not retreat and the state
could prove that they could have retreated in absolute
safety then the court would not pass a self-defense
instruction to the jury.
1:59:33 PM
Representative Thompson asked if the mechanism used for
deadly force would be a factor in court.
Mr. Svobodny replied in the negative. He explained that the
instrumentality made no difference; it was the amount of
deadly force used that would be under consideration.
2:00:39 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze observed that there are many different
types of deadly force.
2:00:56 PM
Representative Holmes inquired about the zero fiscal note,
#3 (LAW). She wondered why it had been changed from
indeterminate note to zero.
Mr. Svobodny shared that when the note was first crafted he
had approved it under the assumption that the law of the
state was the majority rule in the country. He stated that
he had recently discovered that in most of the states in
the U.S., the majority rule was that there was no duty to
retreat. He relayed that the other reason the fiscal note
was changed from indeterminate to zero was because
prosecutors would still need to work the cases just as they
do now, and the responsibility would fall to the jury to
determine the outcome.
2:05:19 PM
Representative Holmes asked if the case was the same for
other states that did not have duty to retreat laws.
Mr. Svobodny said yes.
2:06:23 PM
Representative Munoz probed the reasoning behind the
changed fiscal note #3.
Mr. Svobodny responded that he did not believe that that
addition of the language, "or in any other place where the
person has a right to be", would add to the trial process
for self-defense cases. He did believe that the language
could be litigated, but that did not change his view of the
note. He said that self-defense cases were small in number
for the department and would have to be litigated
regardless.
2:08:52 PM
Representative Gara recalled that the stance of the
department in the past had been that Stand Your Ground
legislation could unwittingly legalize gang violence. He
asserted that this type of legislation could make it more
difficult to prosecute gang violence cases because both
gangs would claim self-defense.
2:10:46 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the current Stand Your Ground
legislation was HB 24.
2:12:05 PM
Representative Gara asked if the department maintained its
opinion on Stand Your Ground and gang violence.
Mr. Svobodny replied that removing the duty to retreat
could exasperate a gang violence situation. He believed
that determining the aggressor would be difficult and that
mutual aggressors would be unable to use self-defense as an
excuse. He thought that the legislation could complicate
prosecuting gang related situations because of the burden
of proof for the state to prove the negative beyond a
reasonable doubt.
2:14:36 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman stated that significant language changes
had been made while crafting the legislation due to
previous testimony from the department. He felt that the
department's concerns had been addressed. He said that the
department had given contradictory testimony concerning
arrest procedures self-defense cases.
Mr. Svobodny replied that arrest procedures were
subjective. He said that if the officer on the scene could
figure out what was going on, not everyone would be
arrested; however, if there were several people involved
and all with weapons, those who were armed would be
arrested. He opined that the hypotheticals were unlimited.
2:17:05 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman offered another hypothetical.
Mr. Svobodny reiterated that it was the responsibility of
the department to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
person did not act in self-defense. He said it would be
more difficult to convict someone who legitimately acted in
self-defense.
2:18:39 PM
Representative Costello discussed the four fiscal notes
attached to the bill.
2:20:56 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 24(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
2:21:16 PM
CSHB 24(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with four previously published zero
fiscal notes: FN1(ADM), FN2(ADM), FN3 (LAW), and FN4(DPS).
AT EASE
2:27:09 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to permanent motor vehicle
registration; relating to the registration fee for
noncommercial trailers and to the motor vehicle tax
for trailers; and providing for an effective date."
2:27:49 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze relayed some background on the
legislation.
2:30:41 PM
DARREL BREESE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, stated
that the CS for HB 19 had been changed in the
Transportation Committee to remove the final section of the
bill which set a maximum for how much the Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) could collect for a Motor Vehicle
Registration Tax. He said that Section 2 of the bill
allowed for the owners of non-commercial vehicles, over 8
years-old, to receive a permanent registration. He
explained that the basic registration fee for the vehicle
would be paid, plus a $25 permanent registration fee, which
would be honored for as long as the person owned the
vehicle. He relayed that the permanent registration was
non-transferable. He shared that Section 3 addressed
senior's ability to receive one-year of free registration,
which could be applied along with the $25 permanent
registration fee, towards permanent registration. He
furthered that Section 4 offered the $25 permanent
registration fee to owners of non-commercial trailers. He
continued that Section 5 remained under the recommendation
of legislative legal and addressed I/M testing in
municipalities. He continued that Section 6 addressed the
Motor Vehicle Registration Tax; it established a base rate
for municipalities and communities to use as a guideline
for determining a registration tax. Section 7 allowed
municipalities to set a motor vehicle registration tax rate
for permanently registered vehicles. He relayed that this
would allow municipalities raise or lower the rate for
permanently registered vehicles.
2:35:29 PM
AMY ERICKSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), related
that the DMV was responsible for the fiscal note and what
the changes in revenue would be for the state.
2:36:08 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired whether the DMV supported the
bill.
Ms. Erickson responded that the DMV was neutral on the
bill.
2:36:18 PM
Representative Wilson inquired the average duration of
vehicle ownership in the state.
Ms. Erickson replied that the average age of vehicles on
the road was 13 years.
Representative Wilson inquired if there was any way to know
how many times a specific vehicle changed ownership.
Ms. Erickson responded that the DMV did not keep those
records.
2:36:56 PM
Representative Thompson inquired how many senior exempt
vehicles were currently on the road in Alaska.
Ms. Erickson replied that she was unsure but would get back
to the committee with the requested information.
2:37:44 PM
CYNNA GUBATAYAO, ASSISTANT BOROUGH MANAGER, KETCHIKAN
GATEWAY BOROUGH, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference), expressed
the borough's opposition to HB 19. She shared the motor
vehicle taxes in the borough were used to fund the Junk
Vehicle Program; borough residents could dispose of one
vehicle per year, with no disposal costs. She concluded
that the borough had a direct nexus between the tax and
solving the problems that older vehicles caused.
2:38:40 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze queried the population of the Ketchikan
Gateway Borough.
Ms. Gubatayao replied that it was approximately 13,000.
2:39:13 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public TESTIMONY
2:39:28 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that discussion of the fiscal notes
would take place at the next hearing.
2:40:45 PM
HB 19 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 56
"An Act excluding motorcycles and motor-driven cycles
from the passenger vehicle rental tax; and providing
for an effective date."
Representative Holmes related that the bill was an attempt
to help a fledgling industry in Alaska. She stated that in
2003, the legislature had passed a Vehicle Rental Tax that
put a 10 percent rental tax on passenger vehicles. She said
that soon after, the legislature realized that the
definition of a passenger vehicle also included RV's so
during the course of deliberations the bill was amended to
charge a lower rate for RV's because they were bigger and
more costly to rent. She stated that at the time there had
been no discussion of a motorcycle as a passenger vehicle.
She offered that the Tax Division had not recognized the
absence of a tax on motorcycles until recently. She relayed
that like RV's, motorcycles were more expensive to rent
than cars. She concluded that the bill would exempt
motorcycles from the definition of passenger vehicle, which
would eliminate the tax on the rental of motorcycles in
Alaska.
2:43:41 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired how municipalities treated
motorcycles for the purposes of rental taxes.
JAMES WALDO, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES,
responded that he did not have an answer to the question.
2:44:29 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if the sponsor had talked Tax
Division regarding the elimination of the $12,000 per-year
tax.
Representative Holmes replied that there had been
discussion regarding the proposed reduction of $12,000 per-
year. She said that there had been talks of lowering the
tax amount, but then the per-year amount would be so low
that it would cost more to collect the tax than could be
recovered.
Representative Thompson wondered how much it cost to
collect the $12,000 annually. He agreed that the economic
impact of motorcycle rentals could be significant for the
state.
2:46:16 PM
Representative Costello stated queried the cost of a
motorcycle rental in the state.
Mr. Waldo responded that motorcycle rentals ranged from
$100 to $250 per day.
2:47:23 PM
NANCY HULL, ALASKA MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE, PALMER (via
teleconference), testified in support of HB 56. She
supported the exclusion of motorcycles from the 10 percent
Vehicle Rental Tax because of the unintended consequences
of the tax. She stated that her customers were choosing to
rent fewer days or to not rent at all as a result of the
high tax. She relayed that in a 90 day season the rates
were high; customers paid an average of $200 per day
resulting in a $20 per day tax. She said that the tax hit
spouses and families traveling together particularly hard.
She relayed an example of a father and three sons that
incurred a tax of over $700 for a six-day ride. She opined
the lack of a tax cap. She listed the areas in Alaska that
were difficult to reach but by motorcycle, which meant that
tourists gained better access to all areas of the state,
while spending money doing it. She urged committee support
for the legislation.
2:51:33 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired how the municipalities dealt with
motorcycles.
Ms. Hull responded that the Municipality of Anchorage did
not consider motorcycles as passenger vehicles and
therefore had no motorcycle tax.
2:52:56 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the $12,000 of the tax
collected annually reflected less than a thousand days in
motorcycle rentals for the entire industry.
Ms. Hull replied that the season was limited to 90 days.
She added that most of the motorcycle rental establishments
were predominately small family businesses.
2:53:58 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired an estimate of how much her
business spent on bookkeeping and accounting to keep in
compliance with the tax.
Ms. Hull replied that she did all of the accounting for her
business and spent a lot of time explaining the tax to
customers. She added the tax to every invoice and then
forwarded the invoices to the Department of Revenue (DOR).
She said that DOR required businesses to report four times
per year, including the off-season when there were no
rentals.
2:55:56 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if there was an estimate of what
it cost to administer the tax.
MATT FONDER, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), replied that that he did not know. He
explained that the department had one person that worked
with all of the Vehicle Rental Taxes in the state which
made it difficult to break down how much time was spent on
motorcycles alone.
2:56:52 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED Public TESTMONY
2:57:38 PM
Representative Munoz MOVED to REPORT HB 56 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 56 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1(REV).
2:58:09 PM
AT EASE
3:00:47 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 21
"An Act relating to the length of a school week; and
providing for an effective date."
3:01:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, shared her sponsor statement:
HB21 would allow a pilot program for one rural school
district to implement a 4 day school week.
There is continued concern of poor student performance
in our schools. We should be actively seeking
alternative solutions that may improve district
results. There are over 22 states in the US that have
implemented a 4 day week in rural districts.
For most schools this has been a positive achievement
- increased morale for students and teachers, reduced
absenteeism and allowing teachers and students to have
more direct contact time which then leads to better
understanding of educational materials.
Provisions in HB 21 require the district to show that
the majority of the community, students and teachers
support the implementation of this program.
Additionally, the district will have to prove that the
students are receiving the equivalent of a 5 day
school week. They will also be required to file
quarterly reports to the Department of Education on
student and teacher performance and the effect of the
program. Specifically an annual report will be
required to be submitted to the legislative education
committee on the progress and performance ratings from
the school district. This report will be due no later
than January 15th and must include a comparison of the
performance ratings before and after implementation of
the 4 day week.
This bill is specific for a 3 year pilot program; at
the end of that time period, the State Board of
Education will evaluate the program and determine if
it is beneficial to the district.
Representative Wilson added that the bill would help
schools to continue to evolve and assist rural districts in
achieving academic excellence, while responding to the
changing needs of the 21st century. She said the bill would
help students work, if necessary, to help their families
and to travel for sports and other activities. She asserted
that the bill would allow time for people in rural
communities to travel for medical procedures and for
teachers to receive professional development without the
loss of student teacher contact hours. She shared that
there were 120 school districts in 22 states across the
nation that had implemented a four-day school week. She
cited Colorado where the change had resulted in savings on
fuel and pupil transportation. She asserted that one of the
biggest documented benefits of moving to a four-day week
was the drop in absenteeism in both students and teachers.
She reiterated that it would be a trial program; an
evolving program to gather data to assess its effectiveness
in Alaska.
3:05:30 PM
Representative Peggy Wilson pointed out to the committee
that the state Board of Education met on a quarterly basis
and would not be meet again in time to approve the program
for the coming school year. She said that the
recommendation had been to change the governing body back
to the commissioner's office; in this vein, it was also
suggested that the timeline for the commissioner to make
the decision be short so that the program could be put into
effect for the coming school year. She relayed that there
would be no comparative data the first year of the program
because tests were administered in the spring and the
result would not be returned by the end of the school year.
She suggested that reports to the legislature be given
after the second and third years of the program in order to
ensure accurate results. She mentioned that teacher
retirements could be jeopardized because they are based on
the number of days that a teacher worked. She understood
that teachers were required to work 180 days per-year,
which could be easily met by using an approved alternative
schedule that met the hours necessary and could replace the
day requirement.
3:08:46 PM
Representative Costello noted that often the state would do
a pilot program in order to determine the return on
investment. She noted the lack of a fiscal note attached to
the legislation and wondered why the bill was limited on
one rural school district, rather than allowing all
interested parties to participate.
Representative Peggy Wilson responded that she would be
open to including more than one school district.
Co-Chair Stoltze hoped that the commissioner from the
Department of Education and Early development would comment
on the program.
3:09:33 PM
MICHAEL HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, replied that under current statute the
commissioner could allow for a four day week. He was not
concerned about the pilot program.
3:10:34 PM
Representative Costello understood that the legislature
would receive information on the pilot program which would
help to determine the program's success.
Representative Peggy Wilson replied yes. She added that one
of the school districts that she represented had requested
the program in 2012, which the commissioner denied. She
said that the parents of those students and the school
board approached her to sponsor the legislation. She hoped
that positive data would pave the way for the program in
other schools.
3:12:29 PM
Representative Costello pointed to the report, "Four-Day
School Week Report in Montana Public Schools October 2011
(copy on file). She noted that Page 9 listed the some of
the states that had gone to a four-day school week. She
relayed that the results had shown improved attendance and
drop-out rates, but no marked improvement in student
achievement.
Representative Peggy Wilson hoped the state would see
academic improvement. She believed that the program
required proper planning and execution in order to be
successful.
3:13:41 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that time was running short.
3:14:00 PM
Representative Costello wondered if community support for
the program was limited to the school community, or if it
included the voting public.
Representative Peggy Wilson replied that the parents,
teachers, community, and the school board needed be
invested in the program.
3:14:47 PM
Representative Thompson wondered about the academic
possibilities of a six-day school week.
Representative Peggy Wilson replied that she had not
researched a six-day school week.
3:15:28 PM
Representative Gara wondered if language could be added
that allow one or more schools within the district to
implement the pilot respective of class levels.
Representative Peggy Wilson replied that the bill would
work better in rural areas because the rural areas children
came home to an adult in the house.
3:16:50 PM
Co-Chair Austerman understood that the commissioner already
retained the authority to implement the program.
Commissioner Hanley replied in the affirmative. He said
that the bill allowed for a 30 day window for the school
board to make the decision, rather than the commissioner.
3:17:46 PM
Co-Chair Austerman queried if Commissioner Hanley had
turned down any school district requests for a four day
week.
Commissioner Hanley responded yes. He relayed that the
district's proposal had not met all of the requirements.
3:18:52 PM
RON FUHRER, PRESIDENT, NEA-ALASKA, testified in support of
HB 21. He provided his background in the state education
system. He believed that the pilot program should be
implemented in order for the state to assess the probable
benefits.
3:21:04 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze acknowledged the prime sponsors of the
bill.
3:21:26 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze queried whether the shorter week could
result in over-time or other negotiable issues.
Mr. Fuhrer believed that it would be a local control issue
and that it would require a collaborative effort for all
parties involved. He thought that if people worked together
it would return positive results.
3:22:18 PM
LAUREN BURCH, SUPERINTENDENT, SOUTHEAST ISLAND SCHOOL
DISTRICT, THORNE BAY (via teleconference), testified in
support of HB 21. He shared that the local school advisory
councils that had been set up for the district's nine
different schools were set up to allow for public
involvement. He said that anyone who attended a meeting
could vote on the issues, including students.
3:23:55 PM
Representative Wilson inquired whether districts could
customize the school year schedule around what worked best
for the students in the community.
Mr. Burch thought so. He warned that altering days and
hours could result in some union pushback.
3:24:36 PM
Representative Wilson wondered if more weeks in the school
year, rather than longer school day hours, could help the
four-day school week concept.
3:24:47 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze expressed that the negotiations would be
at the local level but the funding would still be a state
issue.
3:25:24 PM
Representative Wilson believed that a school district could
add weeks to the school year in order to maintain the
shorter week.
3:25:55 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze suggested that the sponsors explore the
financial ramifications of contract involving a shift from
a four-day work week to a five-day work week for the law
enforcement union.
3:26:57 PM
BRUCE JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COUNCIL OF SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS, testified to the council's support of HB
21. He related that the council embraced the idea of school
choice. He stated that the council would follow the
evolution of the legislation closely.
3:27:53 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze probed any trepidation that the council
might have in implementing the program.
Mr. Johnson replied that problems would be handled at the
local level and within the parameters of current law.
3:28:11 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if Mr. Johnson, as a representative
of school administrators, could speak to any concerns
regarding negotiations or bargaining issues.
Mr. Johnson replied that all negotiations would have to be
in writing.
3:28:57 PM
Representative Wilson commented that the four-day school
week was still available whether the bill moved forward or
not.
Mr. Johnson replied that the council had been supportive of
the commissioner retaining the ability to establish a four-
day school week. He shared that the council had been
involved with the district that had made the failed
proposal to the commissioner.
3:29:30 PM
Representative Gara thought that it was important that the
bill would not limit the board of education's ability to
allow the program in more than one district.
3:30:29 PM
HB 21 was held and was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
3:30:40 PM
Co-Chair Austerman discussed housekeeping.
3:31:14 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:31 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 19 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Supporting DMV Registration Classes.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB19 AML Document.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB19 Support Motor Vehicle Registration Taxes Rates.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB21 Idaho Research.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 Montana 2011.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 SREB 4 Day.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 Univ Maine Research.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 UnivGA & Maine.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB 56 Backup - Statute AS 43.52.010 Vehicle Rental Taxes.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 56 |
| HB 56 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 56 |
| HB019NEWFNCS(TRA)-DOA-DMV-2-23-13.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Mat-Su Borough Resolution.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |